COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the re-use of public sector information
Date: 2018-04-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: access to information, copyright, data collection, dissemination of information, domestic market, information, information service, public sector, right to reuse information

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.4.2018  SWD(2018) 145 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the re-use of public sector information {COM(2018) 234 final}  - {SWD(2018) 129 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 4 

3.  METHOD ............................................................................................................................................. 7 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 11 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 13 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 42 

ANNEX  1 – EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................................................................... 44 

ANNEX  2 – GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................... 46 

ANNEX 3 – LIST OF LITERATURE USED .............................................................................................. 48 

2 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose of the evaluation 

This  report  provides  the  results  of  the  evaluation  under  the  Regulatory  Fitness  and 
Performance  Programme  (REFIT)1  of  the  Directive  on  the  re-use  of  public  sector 
information (PSI Directive).2 

In line with the "Better Regulation" guidelines3, the evaluation assesses the effectiveness, 
efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added-value  of  the  PSI  Directive,  and  aims  to 
identify opportunities  to reduce  regulatory  costs and to  simplify the existing legislation 
without negatively affecting the achievement of the underlying policy goals. 

In the May 2017 Mid-Term Review of the Digital Single Market Strategy (COM(2017) 
228  final)4,  the  Commission  announced  that  it  would,  "in  spring  2018,  based  on  an 
evaluation  of  existing  legislation  and  subject  to  an  Impact  Assessment,  prepare  an 
initiative  on  accessibility  and  re-use  of  public  and  publicly  funded  data  and  further 
explore the issue of privately held data which are of public interest". 

With  the  review  of  the  PSI  Directive5,  the  Commission  can  fulfil  the  periodic  review 
obligation  contained  in  Article  13.1  of  the  Directive,  which  stipulates  that  "the 
Commission shall carry out a review of the application of this Directive before 18 July 
2018 and shall communicate the results of that review, together with any proposals for 
amendments to this Directive, to the European Parliament and the Council", and at the 
same time contribute to fulfilling the goals of the Digital Single Market Strategy in the 
field of the data economy.  

Pursuant to this commitment, this REFIT evaluation has been carried out back-to-back to 
the  Impact  Assessment6  on  policy  options  for  the  future  of  the  PSI  Directive.  The 
conclusions of this evaluation have – where relevant – fed into that Impact Assessment. 

1 The Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) is the Commission's programme for 

ensuring that EU legislation remains fit for purpose and delivers the results intended by EU law makers. 

2 Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use 
of public sector information, as amended by Directive 2013/37/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 26 June 2013. 

3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en. 

4 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2017:228:FIN. 

5 COM(2018) 234. 

6 SWD(2018) 127. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                            
Scope of the evaluation 

The evaluation covers the overall functioning of the Directive, but has a special focus on 
the  changes  introduced  in  2013.  Although  the  overall  functioning  of  the  Directive  was 
already  evaluated  once  in  2009,  it  is  believed  that  the  evaluation  of  the  2013  changes 
cannot  be  performed  in  isolation  and  must  be  linked  to  the  overall  assessment  of  the 
effects of the Directive. National transposition measures are not part of the scope of this 
evaluation. 

This  evaluation  includes all EU Member States and covers the period starting from the 
transposition deadline of the Directive (July 2015) to January 2018. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Situation prior to the intervention 

Public  bodies  produce,  collect  and  hold  a  wealth  of  information  and  content,  ranging 
from  statistical,  economic  or  environmental  data  to  archival  material,  collections  of 
books  or  works  of  art.7  Prior  to  the  1990s  this  information  was  difficult  to  access  and 
usually solely available in paper formats. However, the digital revolution that started in 
the 1990s put the spotlight on the potential of public sector information (PSI). PSI (and 
data in general) soon started to be seen as important raw material that, if made available 
for  re-use,  could  become  a  valuable  economic  asset  and  an  important  resource  for 
economic  growth  and  competitiveness.  The  focus  on  PSI  resulted  in  a  number  of 
initiatives at the national, European and international level. However, with this renewed 
interest in PSI, public sector bodies started trading with it, which soon led to distortions 
of competition in the internal market. 

At the European level, the first step to address these issues was the development of a set 
of  guidelines  to  promote  access  to  information,  transparency,  and  a  level  playing  field 
already in 19898, but it took another 10 years before the debate on open public data was 
properly launched. In 1998, the Commission published a Green Paper9, which played a 
major role in raising the debate across Europe on the opportunities created by the re-use 
of  PSI  in  digital  format  that  went  beyond  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  originally 

7 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 2003/98/EC 
on  re-use  of  public  sector  information,  COM/2011/0877  final  -  2011/0430  (COD),  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52011PC0877. 

8 European Commission, “Guidelines for improving the synergy between the public and private sectors in 
the information market”, 1989, ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/econtent/ docs/1989 public sector guidelines en.pdf.  

9  European  Commission,  “Public  sector  information:  A  key  resource  for  Europe.  Brussels:  European 
Commission”, 1998 Report COM(98) 585 final, http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/docs/policy/ docs/COM(98)585/. 

4 

 
                                                            
collected.  The  Green  Paper  was  followed  in  2003  by  the  Public  Sector  Information 
(PSI) Directive (2003/98/EC).10 

The Directive aimed to facilitate the re-use of PSI throughout the Union by harmonising 
the  basic  conditions  for  making  PSI  available  to  re-users,  to  foster  the  development  of 
Community-wide  products  and  services  based  on  PSI,  and  to  avoid  distortions  of 
competition. The Directive is based on Article 114 of the EU Treaty and builds on key 
pillars of the internal market: transparency and fair competition. 

The Directive succeeded in harmonising the basic legal framework for re-using PSI in the 
internal market in order to facilitate the re-use of PSI across the EU, where the Member 
States  used  to  apply  markedly  different  rules  and  practices,  and  in  order  to  eliminate 
certain  anti-competitive  practices  by  public  sector  bodies.  Nevertheless,  despite  this 
achievement,  implementation  of  the  Directive  and  progress  in  PSI  re-use  across  the 
Member States was uneven and much of the potential of PSI remained untapped as many 
resources were locked in, difficult to find or made available on prohibitive terms, thereby 
preventing  development  of  the  national  and  EU  PSI  re-use  markets.  This  potential  had 
further  grown  because  of  technological  advances:  the  so-called  web  2.0  showed  the 
potential opportunities related to mixing different data sets, and visualising them through 
so-called mash-ups. This was further reinforced by the sudden development of the mobile 
app market, kick-started by the launch of the iPhone ecosystem in 2007.  

Therefore,  ten  years  after  it  came  into  force,  Directive  2003/98/EC  was  amended  by 
Directive 2013/37/EU in July 2013, with the aim to encourage Member States to make as 
much  material  held  by  public  sector  bodies  available  for  re-use  as  possible.  This 
intervention  was  part  of  a  range  of  initiatives  implemented  in  the  framework  of  the 
Digital  Agenda  for  Europe11  and  the  Europe  202012  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and 
inclusive growth. 

The 2013 revision addressed a series of problems, which were still present as barriers to 
re-use of public data across all the EU Member States:  

insufficient clarity and transparency; 
locked resources; 

 
 
  excessive charging and lack of a level playing field; 
 
inconsistent approach across the Member States; 

10  Directive  2013/37/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  June  2013  amending 
Directive  2003/98/EC  on  the  re-use  of  public  sector  information,  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32013L0037.  

11 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A Digital Agenda for Europe/* COM/2010/0245 
final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52010DC0245.  

12 EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM/2010/2020 final, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=celex:52010DC2020.  

5 

 
                                                            
 

insufficient enforcement of re-use provisions. 

To  address  the  above  concerns,  the  general  objective  of  this  intervention  was  to 
contribute  to  economic  growth  and  job  creation  by  improving  the  conditions  for  the 
exploitation  of  PSI  and  facilitating  the  further  development  of  the  internal  PSI  re-use 
market. Moreover, facilitating the re-use of PSI further was supposed to have a positive 
effect on the transparency, efficiency and accountability of governments and contribute 
to citizen empowerment. 

This general objective was in line with the original objectives of the 2003 intervention, 
which were to: 

1)  prevent distortions of competition on the EU market; 
2)  stimulate the digital content market for PSI-based products and services; 
3)  stimulate cross-border exploitation of PSI. 

Furthermore, for each of the specific objectives presented above, a number of operational 
objectives or ‘measures’ were identified, as illustrated in the graph below: 

On a more granular level, the 2013 intervention aimed to achieve the above objectives by 
addressing the following areas of concern: 

1)  Limited scope of application of the PSI Directive: the 2013 changes extended the 

scope of application to the cultural sector; 

2)  High  charges  for  the  re-use  of  PSI:  in  the  2013  version  of  the  Directive  the 
principle  of  charging  the  marginal  cost  was  laid  down  (although  there  are  a 
number of exceptions); 

6 

 
 
 
 
3)  Limited  re-use  linked  to  formats  in  which  PSI  is  made  available:  the  2013 
changes  included  a  recommendation  that  public  sector  bodies  should,  as  far  as 
possible, make PSI available in open and machine-readable formats. 

The core indicator of progress towards meeting the identified objectives was the correct 
transposition  and  application  of  the  PSI  Directive.  Progress  in  the  re-use  of  PSI  and 
related  policies  across  the  EU  was  supposed  to  be  measured  in  accordance  with  the 
following indicators:13 

  number of data portals and of available datasets; 
  quality of the datasets evaluated according to a set of criteria including machine 

 

readability and the possibility of having user feedback; 
level  of  re-use  (number  of  downloads  of  data,  number  of  downloads  of 
applications, turnover of companies); 

  cross-border use of data; 
  number  of  exceptions  from  the  general  rule  on  pricing,  and  their  economic 

impact; 

  degree of standardisation of licensing conditions, use of open licenses; 
 

level of activity of redress and enforcement mechanisms, including the degree of 
independence of regulatory bodies and effectiveness of their decisions; 

  number and character of complaints and other reports from citizens and business 

to the Commission. 

In addition to the Directive, several support measures were put in place: 

  Guidelines on recommended standard licences, datasets and charging for the re-use 

of documents adopted in 2014 (2014/C 240/01) ;14 

  creation of an open data portal for EU documents and a European data portal 

infrastructure federating existing open data portals, including support services; 

  funding of research and innovation projects.15 

3.  METHOD 

The evaluation took place between March 2017 and January 2018 and drew from the 
following main data sources: 

13 One of the key tools for monitoring these indicators are the annual Open Data Maturity reports available 
on the European Data Portal (see also point 3 below), 
https://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/dashboard#2017.  

14 European Commission, Guidelines on recommended standard licenses, datasets and charging for the re-
use of documents, 2014: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-notice-guidelines-
recommended-standard-licences-datasets-and-charging-re-use.  

15 https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation_en and 
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020.  

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
  Study to support the review of the PSI Directive 

The  review  process  was  supported  by  a  study,  conducted  by  a  consortium16,  on  the 
functioning of the PSI Directive.17 The aim of the study was to assist the Commission 
in  evaluating  the  existing  legal  and policy  framework  applicable  to  data  access  and 
re-use (assessing the role which the PSI Directive has played in promoting PSI re-use 
across  Europe),  and  checking  whether  it  could  be  improved  to  address  some  of  the 
weaknesses identified and/or new issues which have emerged since the last revision 
of  the  Directive  (in  particular  by  assessing  the  expected  impacts  of  a  number  of 
policy options/combinations thereof). 

The  study  relied  on  a  combination  of  sources  and  methods,  including  strategic 
interviews18,  desk  research,  interviews  with  stakeholders  at  the  EU  and  national 
levels19,  workshops  with  public  sector  practitioners  and  academics,  as  well  as  with 
PSI re-users and data economy players, three online surveys with public authorities, 
including public cultural institutions, education and research bodies, as well as the re-
user  community,  and  analysis  of  the  public  online  consultation  launched  by  the 
Commission.  The  original  data  collection  focused  on  a  representative  sample  of  10 
EU  Member  States:  Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Netherlands, 
Poland, Slovenia, and Sweden. 

  Open Data Maturity in Europe - 2017 Report20 

Every  year,  Open  Data  maturity  across  Europe  is  measured  for  the  Commission 
through  a  series  of  indicators.21  The  factors  taken  into  account  for  measuring  Open 
Data maturity are aligned with the provisions of the PSI Directive and the practical 
measures necessary to make data better findable and usable (see the indicators listed 
under  section  2).  The  measurements  cover  the  level  of  development  of  national 

16 Deloitte, Open Evidence, Wik Consult, Time Lex, Spark, Lisbon Council think tank for the 21st century. 

17  Impact  Assessment  Support  Study,  Deloitte,  SMART  2017/0061:  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-

market/news-redirect/623420  

18 European Parliament, DG JUST, DG CNECT, DG GROW, DG COMP, Publication Office, DG ENER, 
DG MOVE, DG RTD, JRC, EDPS, EuDECo, Europeana, Kennisland, European University Association. 

19 Interviews were conducted with the following types of stakeholders:  

•  ministries  and  public  bodies  in  charge  of  public  sector  data  regulation  and  monitoring  of 

implementation; 

•  public bodies falling into the scope of the directive; 
•  museums, libraries and archives; 
•  public undertakings in utility domains; 
•  universities and research centres;  
•  re-users associations. 

20 https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_landscaping_insight_report_n3_2017.pdf  

21 https://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/dashboard#tab-overview. 

8 

 
                                                            
policies  promoting  Open  Data,  an  assessment  of  the  features  made  available  on 
national  data  portals  as  well  as  the  expected  impact  of  Open  Data.  This  work  is 
carried  out  by  a  consortium  contracted  by  the  Commission  and  responsible  for  the 
European Data Portal measures.22 

  Input from Member States  

The Commission has analysed the latest available Member States reports as part of its 
monitoring  of  the  PSI  Directive  pursuant  to  Article  13(2)  of  the  Directive.23 
Additional input from Member States was received at a meeting of the Member State 
Expert Group on PSI on 15 November 2017. 

  Stakeholder consultations 

Broad stakeholder consultations were organised24, covering the following actions:25 

1.  Inception Impact Assessment  

An  Inception  Impact  Assessment  was  published  on  the  dedicated  Better 
Regulation  webpage26  and  it  was  available  for  feedback  for  4  weeks  (18 
September 2017 - 16 October 2017). Seven stakeholders sent replies. 

2.  Public online consultation 

A  public  online  consultation  was  published  on  the  dedicated  Consultations 
webpage27 and it was available for feedback for 12 weeks (19 September 2017 - 
16 December 2017). All interested parties, including governments, public sector 
content holders and users, commercial and non-commercial re-users, experts and 
academics as well as citizens were invited to contribute. The online questionnaire 
covered  both  the  evaluation  of  the  current  Directive  implementation  and  the 
problems,  objectives  and  possible  options  for  the  future.  Respondents  also  had 

22 The European Data Portal is developed by the European Commission with the support of a consortium 
led by Capgemini, including INTRASOFT International, Fraunhofer Fokus, con terra, Sogeti, the Open 
Data Institute, Time.Lex and the University of Southampton. 

23 Art. 13.2 of the PSI Directive stipulates that "Member States shall submit a report every 3 years to the 
Commission on the availability of public sector information for re-use and the conditions under which it is 
made available and the redress practices." 

24 These consultations are separate and do not include the stakeholder interviews carried out by the external 
contractor for the above-mentioned study to support the review of the PSI Directive. 

25 A summary of all stakeholder consultation activities can be found in Annex 2 to the Impact Assessment 
on policy options for the future of the PSI Directive. 

26 http://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-4540429_en. 

27 https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-review-directive-re-use-public-sector- 
information-psi-directive_en. 

9 

 
                                                            
the  opportunity  to  upload  a  document,  such  as  a  position  paper.  With  several 
targeted actions, the Commission made stakeholders aware of the public online 
consultation and called on them to participate. Feedback was received from 273 
stakeholders.  A  total  of  63  contributions  received  until  the  end  of  the 
consultation process, end of January 2018, were taken into account.  

3.  Targeted stakeholder events 

As  part  of  the  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  process,  the  following 
stakeholder  events  were  organised  to  address  particular  issues  and/or  target 
specific stakeholders: 

  26 June 2017: workshop on access for public bodies to privately-held data of 

public interest; 

  14 December 2017: workshop on open research data; 
  18 January 2018: workshop with PSI holders and re-users; 
  19 January 2018: public hearing (open to all) on the review of the Directive 
on the re-use of public sector information, with 98 attendees and 19 speakers; 
  23  January  2018:  high-level  roundtable  on  opening  up  data  in  the  transport 

and utilities sectors. 

4.  Ad hoc meetings 

Several ad hoc meetings have taken place with stakeholders' representatives, such 
as E3PO28, the Union internationale des Transports Publics, the German Verband 
Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen and Compass Gruppe, and the French Union des 
Transports Publics and Institut de la Gestion Déléguée. 

  Literature review 

Literature review, including several studies on the impact of open data on economic 
growth and innovation, impacts on society, the impact of lowering charges on re-use, 
and others.29 

Limitations – robustness of findings 

The data collection and analysis carried out has a number of intrinsic limitations, whose 
impact was mitigated to a maximum possible extent: 

  Numerous  sources  that  cover  the  data  economy  in  general,  the  value  of  open  data, 
issues  related  to  PSI,  and  other  similar  topics  have  been  identified  and  taken  into 
account.  There  are  differences  between  the  studies  in  terms  of  their  objectives  and 

28  E3PO  consists  of  national,  European  and  international  federations,  representing  sectoral  and  pluri-
sectoral private companies that are active in the operation of Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI) 
under  contract  concluded  with  public  authorities  following  a  competitive  bid  in  the  following  sectors: 
motorways, water and sanitation, waste management, energy efficiency, public transport, catering. 

29 See Annex 3. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
scope, their specific approaches towards quantitative and qualitative data, as well as 
the  types  of  specific  estimates  they  contain.  An  important  difference  between  the 
studies  is  their  focus.  Whereas  some  concern  the  data  economy  in  general,  others 
concern open data or PSI itself. 

  The study to support the review of the PSI Directive30 used a representative sample 
of 10 EU Member States, selected on the basis of geographic balance and the score 
in Open Data Maturity index.31 This naturally limits accordingly the findings on an 
EU-wide level for all 28 Member States. 

  The  evaluation  takes  into  account  the  inherent limitations  of  the  findings  of  public 
consultations.  Firstly,  as  in  all  surveys,  the  answers  received  reflect  the  views  of  a 
sample  of  relevant  stakeholders  and  not  those  of  the  entire  population  who  have  a 
stake in this domain. Secondly, stakeholders' views convey an individual rather than 
a holistic perspective. 

Based on the elements above, this evaluation has been carried out on the basis of the best 
available data. 

Pursuant  to  the  Commission  Better  Regulation  Framework,  the  Directive  has  been 
subject to an overall assessment, as well as to a more specific evaluation process against 
the following five criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added-
value. The evaluation questions for each criterion can be found in Annex 1. 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

Following  the  last  revision,  the  implementation  of  the  PSI  Directive  by  the  Member 
States  is  monitored  by  the  European  Commission  on  the  basis  of  Article  2  of  the 
amending Directive.32 It provides that "by 18 July 2015, Member States shall adopt and 
publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this 
Directive. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof" and "shall apply those 
measures from 18 July 2015." 

At that time, full transposition was notified to the Commission by 11 Member States. For 
this reason, the Commission started in September 2015 formal infringement proceedings 
against 17 Member States that had not yet notified the relevant national implementation 
measures. The last Member State notified transposition on 15 September 2017. 

The  table  below  contains  an  overview  of  the  way  in  which  the  Member  States  have 
transposed the 2013 revised Directive. 

30  Impact  Assessment  Support  Study,  Deloitte,  SMART  2017/0061:  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-

market/news-redirect/623420   

31 https://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/dashboard. 

32  Directive  2013/37/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  June  2013  amending 
Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information. 

11 

 
                                                            
Current state of the transposition of the PSI Directive33 

Type of action taken 

Member States 

Adoption of specific measures 
providing for re-use of public 
sector information 

Combination of new measures 
specifically dealing with re-use and 
existing legislation 

Adaptation of the legislative 
framework for access to documents 
to include re-use of public sector 
information 

13 Member States: 

  Belgium 
  Cyprus 
  Germany 
  Greece 
  Spain 
  Hungary 

3 Member States: 

  Austria 
  Denmark 
12 Member States: 

  Bulgaria 
  Czech Republic 
  Estonia 
  Finland 
  France 
  Croatia 

Ireland 
Italy 

 
 
  Luxembourg 
  Malta 
  Romania 
  Sweden 
  United Kingdom 

  Slovenia 

  Latvia 
  Lithuania 
  Netherlands 
  Poland 
  Portugal 
  Slovakia 

The  latest  Member  State  reports  confirm  that  PSI  is  generally  made  available  through 
national  data  portals.  They  mostly  harvest  metadata  and  datasets  from  institutional  and 
local portals, but in a few cases data are uploaded directly on the national portal as the 
exclusive  point  of  access.  The  national  data  portals  contain  asset  lists  of  metadata  and 
most countries have defined their categories of data based on the G8 Open Data Charter 
priority  domains.34  Most  countries  have  guidelines  for  the  publication  of  open  data 
attached  to  their  national  data  portal,  together  with  templates  for  the  datasets  and 
metadata. 

As regards the redress practices, Member States reports reveal that two different models 
are  being  used.  The  first  relies  on  a  designated,  independent  appellate  body  to  handle 
requests  for  redress  and  can  be  found  in  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Ireland  and  the  UK.  The 
second,  most  common  redress  model  relies  on  the  administrative  law  of  a  particular 
Member State. As the internal structures of each Member State differ to varying degrees, 
so do the appeal avenues. 

At  the  EU  level,  over  the  last  5  years,  PSI  related  issues  have  been  the  subject  of  9 
complaints to the Commission. 

Finally, it is important to point out that some Member States are moving faster on PSI re-
use and are exploring new areas, while others limit themselves to the implementation of 

33 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/implementation-public-sector-information-directive-
member-states. 

34 https://opendatacharter.net/resource/g8-open-data-charter/. 

12 

 
 
                                                            
the  Directive.  For  example,  with  the  Loi  Pour  une  République  numérique35  France  has 
started addressing the issue of data generated as a result of activities carried out by public 
and  private  entities  carrying  out  public  tasks  in  the  transport  and  utilities  sectors. 
Finland36 has enacted legislation which aims to enable the data economy to benefit from 
new  sources  of  data.  These  efforts,  while  in  line  with  the  overall  objectives  of  the  PSI 
Directive,  are  not  coordinated  and  risk  undermining  the  level  playing  field  for 
commercial re-users, as well as the development of cross-border applications in the EU. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

Overall  the  available  evidence  indicates  that  the  PSI  Directive  works  well  and 
successfully  contributes  to  the  achievement  of  its  main  policy  objectives,  which  are  to 
stimulate  the  digital  content  market  for  PSI-based  products  and  services,  to  stimulate 
cross-border  exploitation  of  PSI  and  to  prevent  distortions  of  competition  on  the  EU 
market. 

Since the adoption of the last version of the Directive in 2013, the Digital Single Market 
and the European economy in general have seen fast development in terms of data. For 
instance,  the  value  of  the  European  data  economy  has  grown  from  285  billion  EUR  in 
2015, representing over 1.94% of the EU GDP, to 300 billion EUR in 2016. Moreover, 
the  number  of  data  companies  increased  from  around  129,000  in  2013  to  134,000  in 
2016.37  PSI  re-use  is  particularly  relevant  for  the  creation  of  SMEs.  For  example,  the 
project ODINE38 funded by the EU under the H2020 programme, an incubator for start-
ups  using  open  data,  found  a  positive  correlation  between  the  maturity  of  the  national 
open  data  policy  and  the  number  of  ODINE  successful  applicants  from  that  specific 
country.  This  exemplifies  how  a  rich  open  data  environment  provides  favourable 
conditions  for  innovators  in  this  field.  One  third  of  ODINE39  members  state  that  they 
would not exist without open data. This suggests that most of these businesses are likely 
to have started solely with the intention to exploit the value of open data or have since 

35 Loi Pour une République numérique (Loi Lemaire), 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichLoiPubliee.do?idDocument=JORFDOLE000031589829&type=gener
al&legislature=14.  

36 Act on Transport Services, https://www.lvm.fi/documents/20181/937315/Factsheet+57-
2017+Act+on+Transport+Services.pdf/bd002762-a6a0-4867-bb49-5c1b86069380. 

37 European Data Market Study, SMART 2013/0063, Final Report, IDC, Open Evidence, 2017, 
https://a2528ba5-a-c3c32646-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/open-
evidence.com/download/repository/SMART20130063_Final%20Report_030417_2.pdf?attachauth=ANoY
7cpcDWFe5A8Sjp5mUlWmg4zXgvNf3W4MP144z3qNH26vy7kegeGO2yfvlHUu4QdijKdQoZzs25EN-
1vIjdOyJgOiLzd72yZMh2tEX1QOUgWCUupJ3rburRjtWEQljXUnyLw5NoSU04bzNxjeWo4rsVL4kiVIP
dfHrD_OnaMVs1zxZJkKZna29Pyfbj1MYXDsuRax_aRdTkECmMWB0kx43yCBM6CakPzkCz0sFHG75
tE93VpnML_ed053nmYP1fS_nfY8IA2l&attredirects=0. 

38 https://opendataincubator.eu/files/2017/07/ODINE_Final-report_2.0.pdf.  

39 D6.3 Business models, lessons learned and success stories, ODINE, p. 40, 
https://opendataincubator.eu/files/2016/01/D6.3-Final.pdf.  

13 

 
                                                            
founding  become  so  reliant  on  open  data  that  they  would  no  longer  be  able  to  exist 
without  it.  Another  third  said  they  would  struggle  to  exist  without  open  data  which 
indicates a significant reliance on this resource. 

Open Data for a biking start-up 

Bike  Citizens40,  an  Austrian  start-up,  was  established  in  2011  with  the  aim  of  sharing 
valuable  knowledge  about  cycling  in  urban  areas.  Having  started  with  a  simple  bike 
navigation  app  and  a  smartphone  mount,  the  company  nowadays  focuses  on  cycling 
promotion, app technology and data analysis for cities. Its key service, the Bike Citizens 
app,  uses  free  geodata  from  OpenStreetMap,  which  is  populated  with  Open  Data  from 
national  mapping  agencies  and  other  public  sector  bodies  (e.g.  Direction  Générale  des 
Impôts  in  France,  Surveying  and  Mapping  Authority  in  Slovenia  etc.),  in  order  to 
generate  different  kinds  of  maps,  including  world  maps.  The  Open  Data  sets  allow  to 
identify high-traffic streets and mobility patterns of everyday cyclists that are represented 
in  heat  maps.  Using  Open  Data,  the  app  offers  the  best  route  in  300  cities  all  over 
Europe. The company employs 25 people and has further expansion plans for Europe and 
the US. 

The better availability of PSI across  the European Union is  reflected in the  Open Data 
Maturity Index 2017.41 This index shows that nowadays the majority of the EU Member 
States  qualify  as  open  data  fast  trackers  or  even  trend-setters,  which  was  not  the  case 
back in 2015, as the two figures below show. 

40 https://www.bikecitizens.net/.  

41 Open Data Maturity in Europe, Open Data for a European Data Economy, European Data Portal, 2017, 
https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_landscaping_insight_report_n3_2017.pdf.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Open Data Maturity of EU Member States in 2015 (Open Data Maturity Index)

Open Data Maturity of EU Member States in 2017 (Open Data Maturity Index) 

The  assessment  of  the  level  of  Open  Data  Maturity  for  each  European  country  is 
measured  by  two  main  categories.  Open  Data  Readiness  examines  existing  policy, 
licensing  norms,  the  impact  of  Open  Data,  the  usage  of  these  data  and  the  level  of 
coordination  at  a  national  level.  Portal  Maturity  focuses  on  the  characteristics  of  each 
Member State’s national data portal(s), such as their usability, the reusability of the data 
and the spread across domains. 

15 

 
 
 
 
Within  each  of  these  rubrics,  a  range  of  Key  Performance  Indicators  (KPIs)  are 
assessed.42  The  following  illustration  shows  that  the  past  three  years  have  seen 
improvements across all measures. 

Source: European Commission on the basis of the European Data Portal Dashboard43. 

In 2015, the average EU-score for Open Data Readiness was a paltry 47%. In just two 
years  this  has  risen  sharply  to  72%.  As  regards  the  Portal  Maturity  dimension,  the 
numbers have risen from an average of 32% in 2015 to 76% in 2017.44 

This general trend over the last few years clearly indicates that overall, in the broader EU 
Open Data policy, the PSI Directive has proven its usefulness by contributing to making 
more and more PSI available for re-use.45 

EFFECTIVENESS 

Based  on  available  evidence,  it  appears  that  the  Directive  has  been  largely  effective  in 
meeting the objectives specified in Section 2, although there are areas that require further 
work.  The  analysis  below  is  based  on  the  comparison  between  the  objectives  and  the 
extent to which they have been achieved after the implementation of the provisions. 

Preventing distortions of competition on the EU market 

The PSI Directive has been very effective in ensuring that competition is not distorted, 
although there is still ground for improvement as regards specific issues.  

42  The  full  list  of  KPIs  is  available  on  p.107-109  of  the  2017  report  on  Open  Data  Maturity  in  Europe, 
available on www.europeandataportal.eu/.  

43 https://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/dashboard#2017. 

44 Open Data Maturity in Europe 2017, Open Data for a European Data Economy, European Data Portal, 
2017, https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_landscaping_insight_report_n3_2017.pdf. 

45 Another indication of this trend is the growing availability of Open Data on the European Data Portal, 
which currently gives access to over 800,000 datasets covering a wide range of sectors. 

16 

 
 
                                                            
In  terms  of  overall  functioning  of  the  PSI  market,  stakeholders  agree  on  the  positive 
effect the PSI Directive has had in harmonising practices and providing stability for data 
providers  and  re-users.46  It  has  helped  to  lay  down  a  level  playing  field  for  all 
stakeholders and clarified rules and approaches for both data providers and re-users.47 An 
example of such a positive impact can be identified with respect to the use of “exclusive 
agreements” for re-use. 

The positive impact of the Directive in this respect is twofold: on the one hand, exclusive 
agreements  were  disincentivised  through  the  establishment  of  a  number  of  strict 
conditions for their validity and, on the other hand, rules were clarified for all public and 
private  partners  recurring  to  exclusive  agreements.  The  result  has  been  a  significant 
decrease  in  the  number  of  exclusive  agreements  for  the  re-use  of  data.48  One  Member 
State  took  the  Directive  as  an  occasion  to  go  further  and  banned  exclusive  agreements 
entirely. Indeed, in this country any exclusive agreement is automatically void.49  

If  the  rules  on  exclusive  agreements  helped  in  reaching  the  objective  of  ensuring  fair, 
proportionate and non-discriminatory conditions for PSI re-use, some challenges related 
to these practices still remain. The results of the online public consultation indicate that 
many  respondents  are  not  sure  about  the  current  situation.  Only  38%  (73  of  193 
respondents)  agree  that  exclusive  agreements  between  public  sector  bodies  and  third 
parties are used only exceptionally and are strictly limited to the cases mentioned in the 
Directive (e.g. necessary for the provision of the public service). This shows that despite 
significant progress, some further actions may be needed to curb the practice of exclusive 
agreements.  

Also, rather than formal exclusivity agreements, some stakeholders have raised the issue 
of PSI data lock-in as regards certain datasets.50 Cases of PSI data lock-in might happen 
in  a  number  of  different  situations51,  but  what  they  all  have  in  common  is  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  formal  willingness  on  the  side  of  the  public  authority  to  establish  a  formal 
exclusivity agreement between parties.  

46 Strategic interviews. 

47 Ibid. 

48 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

49 Minutes of the Member States PSI working group, 10 November 2017, unpublished document. 

50 Stakeholder dialogues. 

51  For  example  when  the  costs  for  certain  datasets  create  a  market  barrier  for  certain  players  (e.g.  in 
Belgium only two re-users have full access to business registers data as these cost more than EUR 75,000 
per year). 

17 

 
 
 
                                                            
Stimulating the digital content market for PSI-based products and services 

The  PSI  Directive  has  significantly  contributed  to  maximizing  the  benefits  of  the  PSI 
market in Europe, both in terms of the development of new services and the creation of 
new jobs, and there is ample evidence to substantiate this claim. 

In the replies to the online public consultation 81% respondents (157 of 194) agree that 
more  data  held  by  public  sector  bodies,  including  cultural  heritage  institutions,  has 
become available for re-use, and as many as 73% (140 of 193 respondents) agree that PSI 
is increasingly becoming a source of innovative services and products. More than half of 
the  respondents  (54%)  also  agree  that  PSI  has  become  more  affordable,  including  for 
start-ups and SMEs.  

On  a  more  granular  level,  the  effectiveness  of  the  PSI  Directive  with  respect  to  the 
objective  mentioned  above  should  be  measured  both  in  terms  of  impact  on  the  supply 
side (availability of more PSI for the data market) and demand side (number of services 
and products developed as a consequence of the availability of data).  

Regarding the supply side there has been a constant process of monitoring the open data 
maturity  and  readiness  of  the  EU  Member  States  coming  from  different  initiatives:  the 
European  Data  Portal52,  the  Open  Knowledge  Foundation53,  and  the  Global  Open  Data 
Index54  etc.  The  data  collected  as  part  of  this  research  suggest  that  the  availability  of 
public  sector  data  in  Europe  has  increasingly  improved  over  time  together  with  the 
quality of the open data initiatives.  

Next to the improved Open Data Maturity in the EU28, the number of datasets available 
on  the  local,  regional,  national  and  European  portals  have  been  constantly  increasing 
over  time.  For  instance,  the  statistics  for  both  the  European  Data  Portal  (giving  direct 
access  to  datasets  from  all  the  Member  States  at  different  levels  of  government)  and 
Europeana  (giving  access  to  information  from  cultural  institutions)  showed  a  steady 
increase in  the  supply  of  PSI.55  Similarly,  statistics  from  open  data  portals  at  the local, 
regional and national level confirm this trend. 

Therefore,  as  all  this  evidence  points  out,  on  the  supply  side  of  PSI  there  has  been  a 
constant  improvement  over time  in  terms  of  the  number  of  datasets  available and open 
data  maturity  of  European  countries.  Although  it  cannot  be  taken  for  granted  that  this 
trend  is  the  sole  result  of  the  PSI  Directive,  these  data  suggest  that  the  Directive  has 

52 https://www.europeandataportal.eu/.  

53 https://okfn.org/.  

54 https://index.okfn.org/.  

55  Europeana  Usage  Statistics  2017  –  Q2,  https://pro.europeana.eu/page/usage-statistics-2017-q2  and 
evolution of availability of datasets of EDP, https://www.europeandataportal.eu/data/en/statistics/evolution.  

18 

 
                                                            
definitely  contributed  to  improving  the  supply  market  side  of  PSI  in  Europe  and  to 
making Europe one of the most advanced open data economies in the world.  

Measuring the demand side and especially the number of products and services created as 
a result of this availability of data is more difficult. Nevertheless, in the below graph, the 
estimated direct, indirect, and total PSI economic value are provided.56 The graph depicts 
the  development  of  the  direct,  indirect,  and  total  economic  value  of  PSI  in  the  28  EU 
Member  States  between  2010  and  2017.  In  2010,  the  total  economic  value  of  PSI  is 
expected  to  have  been  around  140  billion  EUR.  It  is  considered  that  this  value  has 
increased in linear fashion to roughly 220 billion EUR in 2017. This is an increase of 80 
billion EUR, i.e. 57% compared to 2010.57 

56 Direct economic value is the value generated by developing goods and services based on PSI. Indirect 
economic  value  refers  to  the  value  of  goods  and  services  that  make  use  of  those  PSI-based  goods  or 
services. 

57 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

19 

 
 
                                                            
Direct, indirect and total economic value of PSI (EU28, 2010-2017)  

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

 250 €  

 200 €  

 150 €  

 100 €  

 50 €  

 -   €  

Direct Economic Value

Indirect Economic Value

Total Economic Value

Source: Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, 2018. 

As regards the number of jobs created thanks to PSI re-use, the total number of persons 
employed in the EU28 has increased slowly but steadily during the last years according 
to Eurostat. The number of persons employed in areas of knowledge-intensive activities58  
has developed similarly. Thus, it can be inferred that the number of citizens employed in 
jobs relating to PSI has increased similarly from 2010 to 2017, albeit at a slightly higher 
growth  rate.  It  is  estimated  that  around  20,000  persons  are  employed  in  jobs  directly 
relating to PSI today.59 The number of persons indirectly employed depending on PSI is, 
however, approximately 3.5 times higher. 

Bulgarian start-up using Open Data to provide services for cargo companies  

Transmetrics60 solution provides cargo companies with an accurate demand forecast and 
network optimisation based on Big Data and predictive analytics. This limits the empty 
space within cargo vehicles. Transmetrics uses various types of Open Data from public 
sector  bodies  for  their  analyses,  e.g.  infrastructural  data,  traffic  information,  road 

58  According  to  Eurostat,  an  activity  is  classified  as  knowledge  intensive  if  employed  tertiary  educated 
persons 
that  activity.  See: 
the 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Knowledge_Intensive_Activity_(KIA).   

total  employment 

than  33  %  of 

represent  more 

in 

59 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

60 http://transmetrics.eu/.   

20 

 
 
                                                            
 
conditions, customs declarations. Since 2013 Transmetrics has grown from 4 co-founders 
to a team of 19 highly skilled part- and full-time employees, received many international 
awards, including Forbes Business Awards, and signed the contract with its first official 
customer in 2015. Currently, the team is working with several other world-known cargo 
companies. 

Stimulating cross-border exploitation of PSI 

The  PSI  Directive  has  also  played  a  part  in  facilitating  cross  border  re-use  of  data, 
although progress in this area could still be improved. This is shown very clearly in the 
replies to the online public consultation, in which only 34 % (66 of 192 respondents) feel 
that PSI circulates freely across the EU and that cross-border applications based on such 
information are easy to implement. 

However,  data  on  the  percentage  of  traffic  to  any  given  national  open  data  portal  that 
comes from outside the specific Member States, available on the European Data Portal, is 
more  positive.  Some  Member  States,  in  particular  the  smaller  ones  such  as  Estonia, 
Ireland  and  Luxembourg  are  doing  well.  Medium  sized  countries  such  as  Austria  and 
Belgium  are  also  performing  strongly.  According  to  the  available  figures,  only  some 
larger Member States seem to lag behind in this respect, e.g. Germany, Italy or the UK.61  

Another interesting aspect that can be analysed in this context is the general reusability of 
data  within  and  across  borders.  As  measured  by  a  recent  report62,  it  seems  to  be 
constantly improving. The improvements in the reusability scores are driven by increased 
adoption of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and the improving availability of 
machine-readable  datasets.  According  to  other  international  sources63,  while  98%  of 
businesses  seem  to  use  primarily  data  deriving  from  national  sources,  about  48%  of 
businesses  also  use  data  from  international  sources.  At  the  same  time,  the  use  of 
information  obtained  from  international  sources  has  risen  over  the  past  years.  In  some 
cases,  the use  of international sources is  due to the lack of availability of national  data 
that, nonetheless, is available through international organisations. It is to be noted that the 
European  Commission  seems  to  be  the  principal  international  community  source  for 
many of the companies across Europe when it comes to open data. 

2013 changes to the PSI Directive 

Following  the  2013  extension  of  the  scope  of  the  PSI  Directive  to  cultural  data,  what 
emerged in terms of effectiveness of the Directive in this specific field is that it is early 

61 Data drawn from individual country reports compiled annually by the European Data Portal. 

62 Open Data Maturity in Europe, 2017, available at https://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/highlights/open-
data-maturity-europe-2017. 

63 Estudios de Caracterización del Sector Infomediario, 2014, Red.es, available at 
http://datos.gob.es/es/documentacion/estudios-de-caracterizacion-del-sector-infomediario-2014. 

21 

 
 
                                                            
for a full-fledged assessment of the impact of this change in the Directive. Some Member 
States are still fine-tuning the national rules (e.g. rules on charging) and there is limited 
awareness of this topic on the ground,  both  in  cultural  institutions  and among re-users.  
Also,  the  Directive  entered  into  force  in  a  context  in  which  other  initiatives  on 
digitalisation  and  promotion  of  re-use  of  cultural  data  were  already  established. 
Distinguishing  the  effects  of  these  different  instruments  and  weighting  their  relative 
impact is therefore difficult. Finally, despite a clearer legal framework in terms of re-use 
of cultural data, a number of barriers remain for the implementation of the PSI Directive, 
especially  in  the  domains  of  intellectual  property  rights,  heterogeneity  of  licence 
conditions,  variable  quality  of  meta-data  and  charging.64  Nevertheless,  there  are  signs 
indicating  the  impact  of  this  change.  For  example,  a  survey  of  cultural  institutions  in 
Poland  found  that  in  the  year  after  the  transposition  of  the  Directive  there  were  616 
requests of re-use to these institutions, although the majority were addressed to only one 
institution, the national museum in Warsaw.65  

The change in the provisions concerning charging for PSI re-use was a key modification 
brought into the Directive in 2013. Article 6 of the revised PSI Directive establishes the 
principle that “when charges are made for the re-use of documents, these shall be limited 
to the marginal costs incurred for their reproduction, provision and dissemination”66. As 
mentioned in the literature “marginal costing is an important principle, as in the case of 
digital material it would normally mean no charges apply”.67  

The changes to charging provisions were driven by the objective of lowering barriers for 
re-users of data (and especially start-ups, SMEs and citizens who might be more sensitive 
to  costs)  and  increasing  the  exploitation  of  PSI  overall.  There  is  some  evidence  on  the 
extent  to  which  the  changes  in  the  charging  practices  have  been  effective  and  have 
achieved the abovementioned objectives, although it is limited since the transposition of 
the Directive is recent. 

So far it appears that although a limited number of public sector bodies might have been 
concerned by the new charging provision, this change had the potential to benefit a high 
number of re-users, and in particular start-ups and SMEs.68 In the studies where specific 

64 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

65 Re-use of public sector information act – one year after coming into effect, 2017. Report by the Fundacja 
ePánstwo 
https://centrumcyfrowe.pl/wp-
and 
content/uploads/2017/09/e-1.pdf. 

Available 

Cyfrowe. 

Centrum 

the 

at 

66 Article 7, Directive 2013/37/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 June 2013 amending 
Directive 
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:175:0001:0008:EN:PDF.  

information, 

2003/98/EC 

public 

re-use 

sector 

see: 

the 

on 

of 

67 The new PSI Directive – as good as it seems?, 19 April 2013, Ton Zijlstra and Katleen Janssen, Open 
Knowledge 
International  Blog,  https://blog.okfn.org/2013/04/19/the-new-psi-directive-as-good-as-it-
seems/.  

68 Such as the start-ups analysed in the ODINE project 
https://opendataincubator.eu/files/2017/07/ODINE_Final-report_2.0.pdf. 

22 

 
                                                            
types of data were analysed (e.g. meteorological, geographic and hydrographical data), it 
emerged that there is high price elasticity in these domains, that is to say that re-users are 
very sensitive and reactive to price.69 

Concerning  the  data  format  provisions,  the  PSI  Directive  introduced  in  2013  a  more 
explicit  definition  of  "electronic  means"  by  adding  and  defining  the  terms  "machine-
readable  format",  "open  format",  "formal  open  standard"  and  "metadata".  Thus, 
paragraph  1  of  Article  5  recommends  now  that  "public  sector  bodies  shall  make  their 
documents  available  in  any  pre-existing  format  or  language,  and,  where  possible  and 
appropriate,  in  open  and  machine-readable  format  together  with  their  metadata.  Both 
the  format  and  the  metadata  should,  in  so  far  as  possible,  comply  with  formal  open 
standards." 

As regards effectiveness of this change, there have been some marked improvements in 
machine-readability of datasets. In 2015, only 3 Member States provided more than 90% 
machine readable datasets to the European Data Portal. By 2017, this figure has risen to 
include  18  Member  States.  Currently  66%  of  datasets  are  being  published  in  machine 
readable  formats,  but  still  a  relatively  high  level  of  data  publishing  is  made  in  formats 
that  do  not  support  machine  readability  and  continue  to  be  published  in  proprietary 
formats (e.g. .txt, .pdf, .xls).70 

With the growing importance of dynamic data, the insufficient use of APIs is regularly 
recognized as one of the main barriers for data re-use. This was for instance emphasized 
in  the  Commission's  2017  public  consultation  on  "Building  a  European  data  economy 
initiative"  where  the  summary  report  noted  that  68%  of  respondents  clearly  support  an 
increased use of APIs.71 This problem was not dealt with explicitly by the 2013 changes 
to the directive, although it was addressed in the guidelines. 

Some  open  data  professionals72  also  warn  that  there  is  still  a  lot  to  be  done  for  non-
dynamic  datasets,  in  particular  key  datasets,  where  the  lack  of  machine-readability  is 
blocking or greatly limiting the re-use of data. An additional area of improvement would 
be to provide high value datasets published  with common more harmonised data models 
in the same level of granularity or scale in each Member State. 

69  See  case  studies  on  the  Norwegian  METNO  case  (meteorological  data)  and  case  study  on  the  Dutch 
KNMI  case  (meteorological  data),    Study  on  the  Pricing  of  Public  Sector  Information  –  POPSI  Study, 
October 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/pricing-public-sector-
information-study-popsis-models-supply-and-charging-public-sector. 

Deloitte, 

2011, 

70 Open Data Maturity in Europe 2017, Open Data for a European Data Economy, European Data Portal, 
2017, https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_landscaping_insight_report_n3_2017.pdf. 

71 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/summary-report-public-consultation-building-
european-data-economy. 

72 Interview with OpenDataSoft, 13 December 2017. 

23 

 
                                                            
The assessment of the findings available suggests that the PSI Directive has been overall 
effective  in  achieving  its  objectives.  The  analysed  evidence  indicates  that  the  Directive 
has ensured fairer competition in the Digital Single Market, enabled the creation of new 
jobs and services and, to a lesser extent, enhanced an effective cross-border use of PSI by 
businesses. Data also suggests that the Directive has not yet reached its full potential and 
that a few (and sometimes new) challenges exist, such as PSI data lock-in. 
Moreover,  although  only  a  limited  period  of  time  has  passed  since  the  implementation 
deadline,  early  signs  clearly  indicate  that  the  2013  changes  have  been  effective, 
particularly as regards charging and data formats. 

EFFICIENCY 

The  analysis  of  the  findings  on  the  efficiency  of  the  Directive  points  to  the  conclusion 
that there is a positive balance between the costs and its benefits, and therefore it can be 
seen as efficient. 

The overall benefits brought by the PSI Directive fall into two categories: economic and 
societal. 

As for the economic benefits, as mentioned earlier, the European economy has seen fast 
development  in  terms  of  data  since  the  adoption  of  the  last  version  of  the  Directive  in 
2013: the value of the European data economy has grown from 285 billion EUR in 2015, 
representing  over  1.94%  of  the  EU  GDP,  to  300  billion  EUR  in  2016.  Moreover,  the 
number of data companies increased from around 129,000 in 2013 to 134,000 in 2016.73 

The  economic  benefits  also  materialise  in  terms  of  a  growing  Open  Data  market  size, 
indicating  the  total  sales  volume  based  on  Open  Data.  Existing  recent  macroeconomic 
studies all provide ambitious forecasts74 about the value of Open Data, estimating large 
gains as a result of Open Data.75 Zooming in from an overall view of the European Open 

73 European Data Market Study, SMART 2013/0063, Final Report, IDC, Open Evidence, 2017, 
https://a2528ba5-a-c3c32646-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/open-
evidence.com/download/repository/SMART20130063_Final%20Report_030417_2.pdf?attachauth=ANoY
7cpcDWFe5A8Sjp5mUlWmg4zXgvNf3W4MP144z3qNH26vy7kegeGO2yfvlHUu4QdijKdQoZzs25EN-
1vIjdOyJgOiLzd72yZMh2tEX1QOUgWCUupJ3rburRjtWEQljXUnyLw5NoSU04bzNxjeWo4rsVL4kiVIP
dfHrD_OnaMVs1zxZJkKZna29Pyfbj1MYXDsuRax_aRdTkECmMWB0kx43yCBM6CakPzkCz0sFHG75
tE93VpnML_ed053nmYP1fS_nfY8IA2l&attredirects=0. 

74 Over the past ten years, different studies have raised different expectations as regards the potential value 
of  Open  Data.  Generally  speaking,  the  majority  of  studies  performed  previously  are  ex-ante  estimations. 
These  are  mostly  established  on  the  basis  of  surveys  or  research  and  provide  a  wide  range  of  different 
calculations. Limited comprehensive and detailed ex-post evaluations of the materialised costs and benefits 
of Open Data are available, and where available, they do not include macro-economic figures but are rather 
based on an individual organisation. 

75 European Data Portal: Analytical Report 9: The Economic Benefits of Open Data, December 2017. 

24 

 
 
                                                            
Data economy into subsets of the Open Data economy, clear benefits are also found in 
terms of market size and added value.76  

On a national level, studies have been recently undertaken to demonstrate the impact of 
Open Data. In Denmark for instance, research into the impact of opening up address data 
showed  that  both  the  direct  and  indirect  benefits  added  up  to  a  total  gain  of  EUR  63 
million  in  the  2005-2009  period.77  The  most  recent  study  conducted  in  Denmark 
undertaken in this regard estimates the socio-economic value of the open geodata at 3.5 
billion DKK (460 million EUR) in 2016.78 In the Netherlands, the impact of opening up 
the basis registry topography was estimated at 11.5-14.5 million EUR in 2013 and 13.6 
million  EUR  in  2015.79  In  Spain,  the  overall  financial  turnover  of  the  'info-mediary 
sector' (composed of companies that create value added services thanks to the parallel re-
use  of  both  public  and  private  sector  data)  based  on  2016  data  was  estimated  to  range 
between  1.55  billion  to  1.75  billion  EUR,  whereas  the  turnover  derived  directly  from 
info-mediary activity would be somewhere between 600 and 750 million EUR.80 A recent 
Finnish  study  showed  that  the  revenue  of  ICT  companies  utilising  Open  Data  grew  in 
2012–2014  on  average  by  over  17%  more  than  the  revenue  of  companies  in  the  same 
sector that did not utilise data in their innovations.81 

Opening up more PSI has also brought numerous societal benefits for the EU. Whether it 
is  in  the  area  of  public  transport,  energy  consumption  or  healthcare,  citizens  can  now 
access  a  range  of  applications  based  on  PSI  that  can  make  their  daily  lives  easier. 
Numerous use cases in Member States show concrete examples in many fields.82 

76 European Data Portal: Analytical Report 9: The Economic Benefits of Open Data, December 2017. 

77  DECA  [Danish  Enterprise  and  Construction  Authority]  (2010).  The  value  of  Danish  address  data, 
http://www.adresseinfo.dk/Portals/2/Benefit/Value_Assessment_Danish_Address_Data_UK_2010-07-
07b.pdf. 

78 DECA (2017). The impact of open geographical data – follow-up study, 
http://sdfe.dk/media/2917052/20170317-the-impact-of-the-open-geographical-data-management-summary-
version-13-pwc-qrvkvdr.pdf. 

79 Bregt, A., L. Grus & D. Eertink (2014). Wat zijn de effecten van een open basisregistratie topografie na 
twee jaar? Wageningen,Wageningen University: 49; Grus, L., A. Bregt & D. Eertink (2015). De effecten 
van open data BRT na 3 jaar, Wageningen University & het Kadaster: 7. 

80http://www.ontsi.red.es/ontsi/sites/ontsi/files/Characterization%20of%20the%20Spanish%20Infomediary
%20Sector.%20Executive%20Summary.%20Ed.2016.pdf. 

81  Finnish  Prime  Minister's  Office  (2017),  Avoimen  datan  hyödyntäminen  ja  vaikuttavuus.  Available  at 
https://www.etla.fi/wpcontent/uploads/VNK_2017_40.pdf. 

82 https://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/using-data/use-cases.  

25 

 
                                                            
A French website for doctors, pharmacists and patients 

Medicatio83 is a website that seeks to publish data on all available drugs in France, and in 
doing  so  it  aims  to  improve  medical  information  and  dialogue  among  doctors, 
pharmacists  and  patients,  as  well  as  addressing  the  growing  problem  linked  to 
overconsumption  of  drugs.  It  captures  Open  Data  from  multiple  French  ministries  and 
agencies, and it has already won several prizes. 

Besides  the  benefits,  the  PSI  Directive  has  also  brought  a  number  of  costs  to 
stakeholders.  As  the  obligations  imposed  by  the  Directive  only  apply  to  public  sector 
bodies at the Member States level, these stakeholders can be considered as those bearing 
the vast majority of costs related to the Directive. Other stakeholders, such as businesses 
and  re-users  do  not  bear  particular  costs  in  this  respect.  One  could  identify  different 
categories of regulatory costs related to the implementation of the PSI Directive: 

  Direct  costs  (compliance  and  administrative  costs):  Compliance  costs 
encompass  investments  and  expenses  needed  to  comply  with  substantive 
obligations contained in the Directive (this also includes technical costs needed to 
make the data technically reusable, such cleaning up of datasets, maintenance of 
portals,  API  costs,  software  costs  etc.).  Administrative  costs  are  the  costs  borne 
by  public  sector  bodies  as  a  result  of  administrative  activities  performed  to 
comply  with  the  obligations  (e.g.  time  and  resources  spent  in  figuring  out 
licensing and license related costs, personnel training, communication activities, 
developing guidelines etc.). 

  Enforcement  costs.  These  costs  are  associated  with  activities  linked  to  the 
implementation of the Directive, such as information and monitoring, complaint 
handling and adjudication.  

The  figure  below  visualises  the  costs  of  opening  up  PSI  for  all  affected  public  sector 
bodies in  comparison  with  the  overall  government  revenue  and  expenditure.84  It  can  be 
seen that the estimated overall costs to open up PSI are only a minor fraction of the total 
government  revenue  and  expenditure.  Although  an  increasing  number  of  public 
authorities open up their data, it is believed that the total costs of opening up PSI (i.e. not 
the  average  costs  per  institution)  have  decreased  as  a  result  of  the  introduction  of  the 
2013 revisions of the Directive, e.g. due to efficiency gains at the individual institutional 
level.85 

83 https://medicat.io/.  

84 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

85 Ibid. 

26 

 
 
                                                            
Costs of opening up PSI for all affected public sector bodies 
compared to total government revenue and expenditure (EU28, 2010-2017) 

 7.000 €  

 6.000 €  

 5.000 €  

 4.000 €  

l
l

a
r
o
f

I
S
P
n
e
p
o
o
t

s
t
s
o
c

l

a
t
o
T

 10,2 €  

 10,0 €  

 9,8 €  

 9,6 €  

 9,4 €  

 9,2 €  

 9,0 €  

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

B
n

i

l

s
r
e
d
o
h
e
k
a
t
s

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E
&
e
u
n
e
v
e
R
t
n
e
m
n
r
e
v
o
G

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

B
n

i

Government expenditure

Government revenue

Total costs for all public stakeholders affected

Source: Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, 2018. 

At the same time as governments open up their data, they can cut costs in other parts of 
government  activity  through  the  use  of  PSI.  The  use  of  PSI  is  expected  to  have 
contributed to a saving of around 20 billion EUR in 2017 alone.86 

In  addition  to  cost  savings,  public  administrations  are  also  believed  to  have  benefited  
from  increased  revenue  /  taxation  of  PSI-based  goods  and  services.  The  additional 
government revenue from PSI today is around 6 billion EUR per year (i.e. approx. 0.1% 
of total government revenue).87 

In the following figure, the annual economic benefits of opening PSI are compared with 
the  overall  annual  costs  of  opening  PSI.88  The  economic  benefits  of  opening  PSI  are 
around 240 billion EUR today, whereas the costs associated with opening PSI are around 
9  billion  EUR.  It  is  believed  that  the  2013  revision  of  the  Directive  has  triggered  a 
decrease in  overall costs of  making PSI available. It can  be  concluded that the benefit-
cost  ratio  is  roughly  26:1  today,  meaning  that  the  benefits  of  PSI  today  are  26  times 
greater than its costs. Considering only the direct economic value of PSI, the benefit-cost 
ratio is approximately 5:1 today. 

86 Ibid. 

87 Ibid. 

88 Ibid. 

27 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Costs and benefits of opening up PSI for different types of public sector bodies (EU28, 2010-2030) 

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

 300 €  

 250 €  

 200 €  

 150 €  

 100 €  

 10,1 €  

 9,8 €  

 9,6 €  

 9,3 €  

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

Economic benefits of opening PSI

Costs to open PSI

Source: Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, 2018. 

Respondents  to  the  online  public  consultation  also  confirm  that  that  the  cost-benefit 
analysis  of  the  PSI  Directive  is  overall  fairly  positive  and  that  the  latter  is  therefore 
considered efficient. Indeed, 66% (128 of 193 respondents) agree that the costs borne by 
the  public  sector  bodies  in  implementing  the  Directive  (e.g.  adapting  IT  infrastructure, 
lower income  from charges) are offset by socioeconomic benefits of re-using data (e.g. 
creation  of  new  digital  applications  and  products,  increased  transparency).  As  many  as 
72%  (138  of  193  respondents)  agree  that  compliance  with  the  Directive  requires  better 
data  management  processes  of  public  institutions  which  leads  to  cost  savings  and 
increased  operational  efficiency.  This  finding  has  also  been  confirmed  by  the  Danish 
administration  in  regards  to  its  Basic  Data  Programme.  It  is  expected  that  once  the 
initiative has  been  completely phased in,  savings for the public sector in  Denmark will 
have  reached  about  250  million  DKK  (33  million  EUR)  per  year  as  a  result  of  lower 
administration costs.89 

However,  as  regards  the  redress  mechanisms,  as  many  as  44%  of  respondents  to  the 
online  public  consultation  agree  that  in  case  a  request  for  re-use  is  rejected  and  an 
applicant  decides  to  appeal  against  the  decision  of  a  public  sector  body,  the  redress 
procedure at the national level is slow and inefficient, and it can be very costly. It should 
be  noted  that  the  2011  Commission  proposal  for  revising  the  Directive  addressed  this 
issue,  but  that  the  relevant  provision  was  significantly  watered  down  in  the 
interinstitutional process. 

89 Basic Data Programme, https://www.digst.dk/~/media/Files/English/Fact_sheet_BasicData_pdf.pdf. 

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
2013 changes to the PSI Directive 

The evidence indicates that the changes in the rules concerning charging and data format 
have  been  efficient.  There  is  consensus  among  stakeholders  (both  from  re-users  and 
public sector bodies) that charging at marginal costs90 or below is efficient when looking 
at  the  balance  between  the  overall  benefits  for  the  society  and  the  related  costs.  The 
machinery  behind  a  charging  system  (e.g.  accounting,  marketing)  is  costly  and  a  large 
part  of the income  of public sector bodies charging beyond marginal  costs comes from 
other public sector bodies.  

When  trying  to  look  more  closely  at  efficiency  gains  from  the  2013  data  format 
provisions, it is  difficult to  provide an  average breakdown of costs as both  the existing 
data  infrastructures  already  in  place,  and  the  technical  choices  will  have  an  important 
impact  on  the  final  figure.91  The  issue  of  interoperability  is  becoming  more  and  more 
relevant to address, in particular as more high value datasets are made available online. 
This has been evidenced in several recent communications such as those from the Open 
Data Institute92 and Open Knowledge International93, which consider it to be one of the 
main issues to tackle in order to progress towards a higher impact from open data. In this 
context it is interesting to recall again the Danish Basic Data Programme, which aims to 
establish a system of shared key registers through the implementation of the "once only" 
principle  that  comes  with  interoperability  standards  and  APIs  for  data  exchange.  It  has 
been estimated that the total impact of the Danish Basic Data Programme, if applied to 
all  Member  States,  would  amount  to  more  than  5  billion  EUR  (net  revenues  for  both 
public and private sectors), once fully deployed. The very high estimated impact for the 
whole  EU  is  also  due  to  the  fact  that  those  key  registers  are  made  freely  accessible  to 
users  (open  data)  in  high  quality  and  with  the  right  data  formats  and  means  of 
distribution (those required by the users). 

As regards the extension of the scope of the Directive to cultural data, it is too early to 
draw  conclusions  on  the  efficiency  of  the  measure,  given  the  low  awareness  among 
cultural  institutions  and  re-users  of  the  rights  and  obligations  under  the  Directive.  The 
costs of making data reusable constitute, however, only a small percentage of the overall 
costs borne by cultural institutions when they decide to make data available by initiating 

90 Art. 6(2) of Directive 2003/98/EC, as amended by Directive 2013/37/EU, stipulates that "where charges 
are made for the re-use of documents, those charges shall be limited to the marginal costs incurred for 
their reproduction, provision and dissemination".  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02003L0098-20130717 

91  Open  Data  Institute,  Estimating  the  cost  of  a  government  open  data  initiative,  10  September  2014, 
https://theodi.org/blog/estimating-the-cost-of-a-government-open-data-initiative. 

92 Open Data Institute, Exploring Open Data Quality, 26 October 2016,  https://theodi.org/blog/exploring-
open-data-quality. 

93 Open Data Quality, the Next Shift in Open Data, 31 May 2017, https://blog.okfn.org/2017/05/31/open-
data-quality-the-next-shift-in-open-data/. 

29 

 
 
                                                            
digitisation  of  their  collections,  as  confirmed  by  data  collected  in  Poland  in  the 
framework  of  digitalisation  of  cultural  heritage.94  Indeed,  the  costs  for  digitisation  of 
cultural heritage are widely considered to be very high.95 

Administrative burden 

There are no indications that the PSI Directive creates a disproportionate administrative 
burden on public  authorities. 57%  of respondents in  the public online consultation find 
that the provisions of the PSI Directive are easy to understand and implement by public 
sector  bodies  and  re-users  alike.  However,  some  stakeholders  have  indicated  that 
understanding the interplay between the PSI Directive and other related legal instruments 
(e.g.  the  Database  Directive)  requires  a  high  level  of  expertise,  and  in  this  context 
clarification of this interplay would help in reducing the administrative burden. 

Apart from the issue mentioned above, the burden mainly concerns public sector bodies 
and  consists  of  the  costs  of  coordination,  service  implementation  relating  to  processing 
requests  to  make  data  available  for  re-use  and  compliance  with  transparency 
requirements.  Despite  these  requirements,  the  burden  does  not  appear  to  be  excessive. 
For  example,  according  to  a  Dutch  study  commissioned  by  the  Association  of  Dutch 
municipalities  (VNG)96,  the  implementation  costs  of  the  2015  national  law  transposing 
the PSI Directive (Wet hergebruik overheidsinformatie – Who) do not exceed 2000 EUR 
per municipality per year. On a more global level, there are also monitoring and reporting 
obligations under the Directive, but they do not appear to be excessive either. According 
to  feedback  from  Member  States,  the  elaboration  of  the  most  complete  report  required 
around  100  man/days,  with  shorter  and  more  streamlined  reports  requiring  much  less 
time and effort. Another issue raised in the exchanges with Member States is the need to 
be able to deal efficiently with recurrent unjustified requests from the same requester. 

More  generally,  it  has  also  been  pointed  out  that  the  overall  thrust  of  the  Directive  is 
favorable  towards  reducing  administrative  burden,  because  it  encourages  public  sector 
bodies to proactively make as much PSI available online for re-use as possible, ideally in 
an  automated  way.  Following  this  principle  means  that  public  sector  bodies  would  be 
faced with fewer requests and fewer complaints, and the administrative burden and costs 
related  to  this  would  progressively  decrease  as  more  and  more  PSI  for  re-use  becomes 
available  online.  The  example  of  the  Danish  Basic  Data  Programme  mentioned  above 
indicates  the  financial  benefits  of  this  pro-active  approach,  which  has  the  additional 
advantage of lowering the cost for re-users in dealing with the administration. 

94 Impact Assessment Support Study, Deloitte, SMART 2017/0061. 

95 Ibid. 

96 https://vng.nl/onderwerpenindex/dienstverlening-en-informatiebeleid/dienstverlening-aan-inwoners-en-
ondernemers/nieuws/aantal-who-verzoeken-is-beperkt-kosten-ook.  

30 

 
                                                            
Finally, the Commission's guidelines of 201497 have helped Member States with practical 
guidance  that  can  further  help  public  sector  bodies  in  reducing  their  administrative 
burden by optimising the conditions for the re-use of PSI.98 The purpose of the guidelines 
is to provide non-binding guidance on the best practices concerning the use of available 
open standard licences, the elements to include in custom-made licences, datasets to be 
published as priority, the ways to make them more readily re-usable, the application of 
the  marginal  cost  rule  and  the  cost  elements  that  can  be  taken  into  account  for  cost-
recovery  charging.  A  number  of  stakeholders  have  indicated  that  the  guidelines  have 
helped  them  save  time  and  effort  that  would  otherwise  have  been  required  to  address 
these issues on their own.99 

The  analysis  of  the  findings  on  the  efficiency  of  the  Directive  points  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  is  an  overall  positive  balance  between  the  costs  and  the  (quantitative  and 
qualitative)  benefits  of  this  legislation.  For  the  efficiency  of  the  2013  extension  to  the 
cultural institutions, it is too early to draw conclusions.  

RELEVANCE 

Based on the evidence available, the PSI Directive is still very relevant today because it 
responds  to  a  large  extent  to  stakeholders’  needs,  still  fulfills  its  policy  objectives,  and 
addresses the right issues to facilitate re-use.  

Through  its  provisions  on  charging,  non-discrimination,  licences,  requests  for  re-use, 
transparency and technical issues, it addresses the key requirements for successful PSI re-
use, in particular that the information is: 

  known to the re-user; 
  attainable for the re-user; 
  can be used for the intended purpose of the re-user.100 

In  terms  of  more  specific  requirements,  it  has  long  been  acknowledged101  that  PSI  re-
users need:  

97 European Commission, Guidelines on recommended standard licenses, datasets and charging for the re-
use of documents, 2014: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-notice-guidelines-
recommended-standard-licences-datasets-and-charging-re-use. 

98 Stakeholder dialogues. 

99 Ibid. 

100  See  for  example  Bastiaan  Van  Loenen,  Michel  Groete,  “INSPIRE  empowers  re-use  of  Public  Sector 
Information”, 2014, http://ijsdir.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php/ijsdir/article/view/353. 

101 Stakeholder dialogues. 

31 

 
                                                            
  clear, transparent and harmonised rules for access and re-use across all Member 
States  to  avoid  uncertainty  linked  to  different  approaches  and  regimes  at  the 
national level; 
  quality metadata;102 
 
 

the availability of more datasets;  
lowering of charging for re-use of data to stimulate development of new products 
and services; and 

  data to be provided in a standard, machine readable and re-usable format.  

The  majority  of  stakeholders  interviewed  agreed  that  the  PSI  Directive  responded  to 
these needs (although sometimes not to the full extent – e.g. research data are currently 
not included in the scope of the Directive) and that the legislative measure is still relevant 
today.103  

The  Directive  is  also  seen  as  relevant  for  achieving  policy  goals  beyond  its  key 
objectives,  in  particular  the  openness  of  government.  Although  sometimes  confusion 
arises  between  traditional  freedom  of  information  legislation  and  the  re-use  of  public 
sector data104, stakeholders agree that the Directive is relevant and helpful in pushing for 
more transparent and open governments.105 

The  above  findings  are  largely  confirmed  by  data  from  the  online  public  consultation. 
87% of respondents agree that the PSI Directive is still relevant by ensuring the supply of 
PSI  into  the  EU  single  market  for  PSI,  with  82%  convinced  that  it  ensures  sufficient 
usability (e.g. machine-readability) of data. Furthermore, 87% respondents agree that the 
Directive  ensures  fair  market  access  (non-discrimination)  for  all  re-users  and  85% 
believe that it ensures transparency and accountability of public sector bodies. 

Thus,  at  this  stage,  the  appraisal  of  the  relevance  of  the  PSI  Directive  seems  very 
positive.  At  the  same  time,  the  interaction  with  stakeholders  also  suggests  that  there 
might be a number of challenges for the future, which could affect the relevance of the 
PSI Directive. These emerging and future stakeholders’ needs concern in particular: 

 

the scope of the Directive, which does not include a number of valuable datasets, 
such as for instance research data and data held by public undertakings in utility 
domains  (energy,  transport,  waste  etc.).  Some  Member  States  are  legislating  in 
these areas in view of making more data of public interest available, while others 
are not, which risks creating an uneven playing field across the EU. 

102 'Good practice in data and service sharing', http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/documents/good-practice-data-
and-service-sharing.  

103 Strategic interviews. 

104 Katleen Janssen, “The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: An overview of recent 
developments”, Government Information Quarterly, Volume 28, Issue 4, October 2011, pp 446-456. 

105 Strategic interviews.  

32 

 
 
                                                            
 

the lack of a clear direction concerning dynamic data and APIs. The 2013 rules 
concerning machine-readable and reusable format already facilitate the re-use of 
data,  but  these  provisions  are  not  sufficient  anymore  in  a  world  in  which  data 
have  become  much  more  frequently  re-used  in  real  time.  To  extract  value  from 
such PSI it is imperative that public sector bodies make it available in automated 
ways, ideally via APIs. 

2013 changes to the PSI Directive 

At the time of its adoption, the new PSI Directive provisions related to cultural data were 
relevant  to  the  context  and  the  needs  of  the  main  stakeholders.  Four  years  later,  the 
Directive  remains  relevant  because,  according  to  the  stakeholders  interviewed,  the 
conditions  that  made  the  Directive  relevant  in  2013  have  not  radically  changed  in  the 
meantime.106  In  particular,  cultural  institutions  still  need  an  EU-wide  framework  for 
enabling  re-use  of  their  data  (as  this  has  not  been  fully  put  in  place  yet)  and  re-users’ 
demand for data and transparency is still stable if not increasing in certain domains.107 

As for changes concerning charging, Member States confirmed that charging at zero or 
marginal costs is the new norm for the vast majority of public sector bodies. However, all 
Member  States  still  use  the  exceptions  to  the  marginal  costs  regime,  even  beyond  the 
cultural sector that was brought into the Directive in 2013 under the more generous 2003 
charging  rules,  which  allow  public  sector  bodies  to  charge  above  the  marginal  cost. 
Although it is generally acknowledged that lowering the costs for re-use of datasets can 
overall benefit the economy and society, public sector bodies charging beyond marginal 
costs  of  dissemination  point  out  that  they  need  the  income  to  reinvest  in  the  quality  of 
their datasets: Open Data leads to higher tax income and to benefits throughout the public 
sector and the economy, but if the public sector bodies producing the data do not get the 
appropriate funding for maintaining the datasets, the overall quality and usability of the 
data will be at risk. 

The evidence suggests that since its adoption, the PSI Directive has retained its relevance 
to stakeholders’ needs. However, emerging trends such as the increase in dynamic data 
coming  from  sensors  and  IoT  devices,  and  Member  States  actions  in  making  data  of 
public  interest  better  available  in  new  areas  not  covered  by  the  Directive  (e.g.  public 
undertakings in transport and utility domains) might have an impact on its relevance for 
the future.  

106 Ibid. 

107 Open Data Barometer, Global Report, Fourth Edition, 2017, 
http://opendatabarometer.org/doc/4thEdition/ODB-4thEdition-GlobalReport.pdf.  

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
COHERENCE 

By  and  large,  there  is  agreement  among  stakeholders  that  the  Directive  is  largely 
coherent with the related legislation, although in the case of some instruments it would 
benefit from a degree of clarification.  

INSPIRE Directive108 

The INSPIRE Directive establishes a legal and technical interoperability framework  for 
the sharing (access and use) of spatial data109  held by public authorities for the purpose 
of  environmental  policies  and  policies  and  activities  having  an  impact  on  the 
environment. Spatial data are amongst the most valuable datasets110 for both public re-use 
(to establish the environmental impact of policy measures, to adopt emergency plans in 
case of natural disaster) and for private re-use (for geo-localisation services for instance, 
for mobility and energy apps etc.) .111 This is one of the reasons why spatial information 
is covered by both the PSI Directive and the INSPIRE Directive. While the latter focuses 
technically on data access services, interoperability models and mandatory data-sharing 
between administrations, the former regulates the re-use of spatial datasets, including the 
conditions for re-use by third parties. 

Consulted stakeholders suggested that the interplay between the two Directives has been 
working relatively well in the past few years. They also mentioned during the interviews 
that the PSI Directive has had a positive influence on the lowering of charges for re-use 
of spatial data.112 

From  this  perspective,  the  complementarity  and  coherence  of  the  two  Directives  have 
played  out  well.  However,  for  the  future  and  due  to  the  2013  modifications  of  the  PSI 
Directive, a few risks in terms of coherence could be identified, in particular as regards 
re-use  conditions  (e.g.  charging  and  licencing).  Some  stakeholders  argued  that  more 
guidance  is  needed  to  understand  what  is  allowed  for  spatial  data  and  services.  It  was 
noted  that,  in  some  cases,  agencies  managing  spatial  data  are  “borderline”  in  terms  of 

108 Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an 
Infrastructure 
(INSPIRE),  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32007L0002. 

the  European  Community 

for  Spatial 

Information 

in 

109 Article 3 of the INSPIRE Directive: ‘spatial data’ means any data with a direct or indirect reference to a 
specific location or geographical area. 

110  According  to  the  Commission's  Guidelines  on  recommended  standard  licences,  datasets  and  charging 
for the re-use of documents, section 3.1, geospatial data, environmental data and Earth observation data can 
be  said  to  be  in  highest  demand  from  re-users  across  the  EU  and  could  thus  be  given  priority  for  being 
made available for re-use. 

111 Katleen Janssen, “INSPIRE and re-use of PSI. A model for the sharing and trading of geographic data”, 
2004, https://www.law.kuleuven.be/citip/en/docs/publications/508inspire-and-psi2f90.pdf. 

112 Strategic interviews. 

34 

 
                                                            
compliance with the PSI Directive.113 Moreover, it was mentioned that issues related to 
interoperability  of  metadata  could  arise  if  the  two  communities  (PSI  and  INSPIRE)  do 
not coordinate sufficiently with each other: indeed, the INSPIRE metadata standard is a 
thematic extension114  of CKAN115 used by the PSI community.  

Besides these limited issues, which would benefit from some clarification, the coherence 
between  the  INSPIRE  and  the  PSI  Directives  is  confirmed  in  the  results  of  the  online 
consultation. Only 11% of respondents do not think that the PSI and INSPIRE Directives 
are well aligned. Almost a half of respondents (44%) believe that there are no problems 
in this area, while 45% do not have an opinion.  

EU data protection legislation 

Information  produced  by  the  public  sector  often  does  not  contain  personal  data  (maps, 
meteorological information etc.). However, there are numerous cases in which PSI may 
contain personal data. Therefore the protection of personal data is an important aspect of 
handling PSI: data protection legislation shall be respected in such cases. 

This means that PSI law must be applied in full compliance with data protection law and 
that it does not create any exceptions to it  – this is explicitly recognised by the current 
PSI Directive. Indeed, according to Article 1(4) “This Directive leaves intact and in no 
way  affects  the  level  of  protection  of  individuals  with  regard  to  the  processing  of 
personal data under the provisions of Union and national law, and in particular does not 
alter  the  obligations  and  rights  set  out  in  Directive  95/46/EC”.  This  is  reinforced  in 
recital (11) of Directive 2013/37/EU, stating that it “should be implemented and applied 
in  full  compliance  with  the  principles  relating  to  the  protection  of  personal  data  in 
accordance with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
24  October  1995  on  the  protection  of  individuals  with  regard  to  the  processing  of 
personal data and on the free movement of such data”. 

In 2013 the Article 29 Working Party has provided an opinion on the application of data 
protection law in the context of PSI.116 The objective of this opinion was to help ensure a 
common understanding of the applicable legal framework, and offer consistent guidance 
and  best  practice  examples  on  how  to  implement  the  PSI  Directive  (as  amended)  with 
regard to the processing of personal data. 

113 Ibid. 

114 http://www.publicamundi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/D2.1.pdf.  

115 CKAN is not a standard, but a software platform, which is widely used for data catalogues in Europe. 
CKAN it is able to support different metadata standards, including the ones used in INSPIRE. 

116 Opinion 06/2013 on open data and public sector information (PSI) re-use (WP207), adopted on 5 June 
2013; see http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-
recommendation/files/2013/wp207_en.pdf. 

35 

 
                                                            
The  current  Directive  95/46/EC  will  be  repealed  and  replaced  by  the  General  Data 
Protection Regulation (GDPR)117 on 25 May 2018. This new data protection framework 
has been built on the existing legislation.  

The  recital  154  of  the  GDPR  states  that  “Directive  2003/98/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council leaves intact and in no way affects the level of protection 
of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data under the provisions of 
Union and Member State law, and in particular does not alter the obligations and rights 
set  out  in  this  Regulation.”  Moreover,  Article  86  of  the  GDPR  contains  a  specific 
provision on processing and public access to official documents.  

During the engagement with stakeholders some targeted challenges were raised by public 
sector bodies, for example about the use of appropriate techniques for pseudonomisation 
or anomysation in order to reconcile the provisions on the re-use of PSI with the right to 
the protection of personal data. This issue is, however, not specific for the PSI area. 

However, the stakeholders did not recognise during the public consultation any general 
issues related to the application of the PSI Directive and the legislation on the protection 
of  personal  data.  Only  27%  of  respondents  do  not  agree  that  the  PSI  Directive  is  well 
aligned  with  the  current  and  future  rules  on  the  protection  of  personal  data.  The 
remainder are convinced that there are no issues in this area or do not have an opinion. 

The relationship between data protection law and PSI re-use – in the sense that both the 
public sector  body and the re-user must comply with  data protection law in  full  - is  an 
established part of Union law. 

Database Directive 

The  Database  Directive  adopted  in  1996118  provides  for  two  types  of  database  rights: 
copyright  protection  (Chapter  II)  and  the  sui  generis  database  right  (Chapter  III).  This 
new exclusive sui generis right is granted to database producers, for a period of 15 years, 
to protect their investment of time, money and effort, irrespective of whether the database 
is in itself innovative (“non-original” databases)”.119 Public sector bodies can hold such 

117 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of 
such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679. 

118  Directive  96/9/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  March  1996  on  the  legal 
protection of databases, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31996L0009.  

119 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/prot-databases/index_en.htm.   

36 

 
                                                            
rights if they have invested “time, money and effort” in establishing a database and they 
want this investment to be protected.120  

In practice, since the sui generis right, as all exclusive rights in the area of IPR, gives the 
right holder the capacity to authorise or refuse uses of its protected content, public bodies 
have  sometimes  argued  that  database  protected  content  was  not  subject  to  the  re-use 
obligations set out in the PSI Directive. In the absence of a clear provision regulating the 
relationship between the two instruments, this has created a situation where, in practice, 
public  bodies  may  invoke  (in  some  cases  they  have  done  so)  the  sui  generis  right  to 
escape the application of the rules of the PSI Directive. This excludes the case where a 
database  which  is  used  by  a  public  sector  body  in  the  course  of  its  tasks  was  in  fact 
created by a third party. 

There  may  seem  to  be  a  contradiction  between  the  aims  of  the  instruments:  the  PSI 
Directive  aims  at  making  as  much  public  information  available  for  re-use  as  possible 
(with the smallest number of exceptions possible), while the Database Directive “sought 
to create a legal framework that would establish the ground rules for the protection of a 
wide  variety  of  databases  in  the  information  age”121  (also  public  datasets).  Some 
stakeholders  underlined  how  the  different  objectives  do  not  seem  to  be  fully 
compatible.122  

The  PSI  Directive  contains  recitals123  that  aim  to  provide  clarity  on  the  relationship 
between  IPRs  and  the  obligations  under  the  PSI  Directive.  However,  in  practice  legal 
certainty has not been achieved, at least as regards the interplay between the obligations 
under the PSI Directive and the sui generis database right held by public bodies.  

Case  law  suggests  that  such  uncertain  reading  of  recitals  might  be  at  play  in  practice. 
Also, in a French court case a judge decided that local authorities were allowed to deny 
the re-use of genealogy data to a website based on its sui generis right. This judgement 
was overturned by the Conseil d'Etat124 deciding that the sui generis right cannot prevent 
the re-use of data under the rules of the PSI directive. Also, in a 2012 judgment of the 
Court  of  Justice  of  the European  Union,  the  Austrian  state  asserted  sui  generis  right  in 

120  Combined  Evaluation  Roadmap/Inception  Impact  Assessment,  Review  on  the  Directive  on  Re-use  of 
Public  Sector 
http://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
regulation/initiative/112354/attachment/090166e5b523f50f_en.  

Information,  European  Commission, 

2017, 

121 DG Internal Market and Services working paper, First evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal 
protection of databases, 12 December 2005, 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/databases/evaluation_report_en.pdf.    

122 Strategic interviews.  

123 See original PSI Directive: 2003/98/EC Recitals 22, 24.  

124 Conseil d'État, case N° 389806 of 8 February 2017: 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriAdmin.do?oldAction=rechJuriAdmin&idTexte=CETATEXT0000
34017890&fastReqId=803371859&fastPos=1.  

37 

 
                                                            
the official companies register in an attempt to deny its re-use by private company. While 
this  last  case  was  not  specifically  about  PSI  but  competition  law125,  the  case  also 
highlights the uncertainty surrounding the applicability of the sui generis database right 
in cases of public data re-use. 

Moreover,  various  instances  were  reported  by  practitioners  where  access  and  re-use  of 
public information  such as population census data or official map and traffic data were 
prevented  by  authorities  exercising their  sui  generis right.126  As  a result,  even  if  courts 
resolve the conflict of the directives to the advatange of the public information re-users, 
the transaction cost of litigation is a relevant factor to take into account.  

The  misalignment  is  to  some  extent  confirmed  by  the  results  of  the  online  public 
consultation, in which 34% of respondents agreed that the PSI and Database Directives 
are well aligned, while 30% disagreed and 46% did not express any particular view. This 
trend is confirmed by the public consultation on the Database Directive127 where 29.8% 
of  the  respondent  stakeholders  agree  that  the  Database  Directive  and  the  PSI  Directive 
are  not  coherent  legislation,  while  31.5%  agree  that  they  are  and  38.5%  of  the 
respondents did not express an opinion.  

At the same time and despite these occurrences, the intention has always been for the PSI 
Directive  to  take  precedence  over  the  sui  generis  right  contained  in  the  Database 
Directive.  Therefore,  it  appears  that  clarification  of  the  interplay  between  the  two 
instruments,  clarifying  that  the  sui  generis  right  should  not  stand  in  the  way  of  the 
obligations of the PSI Directive, would be welcome.128 

National access regimes 

The obligations of the PSI Directive build on the national access regimes, which can limit 
access  to  certain  documents  on  the  grounds  on  national  security,  commercial 
confidentiality  etc.  These  access  regimes  are  often  not  completely  aligned.  This  has  an 

125 Compass-Datenbank GmbH v Austria  (C-138/11, EU:2012) The case predates the last modification of 
the PSI Directive (2013/37/EU). 

126  In  the  absence  of  case  law  it  is  not  clear  whether  the  legal  basis  for  re-use  of  public  information  is 
related  to  the  PSI  directive  or  not.  Information  gathered  from  a  stakeholder  in  the  course  of  the  public 
consultation  on  the  evaluation  of  the  Database  Directive  in  2017.  Source:  Free  Knowledge  Advocacy 
Group EU, Wikimedia. 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-database-directive-application-and-impact-

127 
0_en 

128  The  French  Loi  pour une  République  numérique  (Loi  Lemaire)  has  solved  this interplay  between  the 
PSI and the Database Directives clearly stating that "Without prejudice to intellectual property rights held 
by third parties, the sui generis rights of public sector bodies as defined in Article 2, under Article 7§1 and 
§5 of the Database Directive, cannot hinder the re-use of the contents of the databases made available by 
these public sector bodies in application of the rules of the PSI Directive". This French law may be taken 
as an example. 

38 

 
                                                            
impact  on  the  availability  of  the  information  for  re-use,  since  information  that  is  not 
generally accessible in a Member State is not covered by the Directive. 

Nevertheless, the replies to the public consultation indicate that overall the PSI Directive 
is coherent with these regimes. Almost 72% of respondents agree with this statement or 
do  not  hold  a  specific  view,  while  only  28%  believe  that  there  is  lack  of  coherence 
between the PSI Directive and national access regimes that would be problematic. 

Other legal instruments 

When discussing the PSI Directive and the main barriers for the re-use rule, stakeholders 
often mention the question of the barriers raised by the exception concerning third party 
copyright. However, in terms of legal clarity there is no particular inconsistency between 
PSI and copyright rules as the relation between the two regimes is transparent. Still, for 
the implementation of the Directive copyright raises a number of challenges, in particular 
due to different rules in Member States (for example in terms of the rights of individual 
public sector employees) and the burden of copyright clearance. 

Another issue raised in the consultation process concerns the Directive on the protection 
of  undisclosed  know-how  and  business  information  against  their  unlawful  acquisition, 
use  and  disclosure  (Trade  Secrets  Directive).129  If  interpreted  in  an  extensive  manner, 
some PSI could fall in the category of trade secrets and would therefore benefit from an 
exemption  to  the  PSI  Directive.  Indeed,  Article  1  of  the  PSI  Directive  specifically 
excludes from its scope documents which are not subject to the national access regimes 
because  they  have  “commercial  confidentiality  (e.g.  business,  professional  or  company 
secrets)”.130  The  trade  Secrets  Directive  was  adopted  in  2016  and  has  not  been 
transposed  yet  in  all  Member  States,  but  some  stakeholders  question  the  clarity  of  its 
relation  with  the  PSI  Directive  and  argue  that  guidance  from  the  Commission  in  this 
respect is needed.131 

2013 changes to the PSI Directive 

As regards the extension of the scope to cultural data, there is a high level of coherence 
of  the  PSI  Directive  with  the  international  framework  of  reference.  Indeed,  the  PSI 
Directive provisions pursue objectives which are totally in line with those of UNESCO. 
In fact, they go even further in promoting accessibility and re-use of cultural information. 

129  Directive  (EU)  2016/943  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  8  June  2016  on  the 
protection  of  undisclosed  know-how  and  business  information  (trade  secrets)  against  their  unlawful 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
use 
acquisition, 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016L0943.  

disclosure, 

and 

130  Article  1,  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  amending  European  Parliament  and 
information,  2013,  http://eur-
Council  Directive  2003/98/EC  on 
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013L0037.  

the  Re-Use  of  public  sector 

131  Strategic  interview  and  minutes  of  the  participatory  workshop  on  Open  Research  Data  within  the 
context of the Public Sector and Information Re-use Directive. 

39 

 
                                                            
Some challenges were identified with regard to the copyright framework and in particular 
the Directive on orphan works.132 Some stakeholders see the latter as too complicated and 
not necessarily consistent with the objectives of the PSI Directive in the area of cultural 
data.133  Indeed,  the  Directive  on  orphan  works  provides  that  “diligent  search”  is 
performed to clear the information/data on a specific orphan work134 for re-use. However, 
this  diligent  search  is  interpreted  differently  in  different  Member  States  and  this  might 
result in uneven opening up and re-using of similar cultural data. 

As  regards  the  coherence  of  the  2013  changes  concerning  the  charging  provisions,  the 
above  mentioned  issue  on  the  relation  with  the  INSPIRE  Directive  is  relevant. 
Theoretically,  these  two  regimes  are  perfectly  complementary,  as  they  have  different 
purposes.  Nevertheless,  the  question  of  the  coherence  between  the  INSPIRE  Directive 
and the charging provisions of the PSI Directive has been raised by some stakeholders, so 
it might benefit from some clarification or formal alignment. 

The PSI Directive is overall coherent with other relevant EU legislation. Nevertheless a 
technical  clarification  confirming  the  relation  with  in  particular  the  Database  Directive 
and the INSPIRE Directive may be useful. In relation with data protection legislation the 
interaction  is  already  very  clear,  in  that  the  rules  on  re-use  must  be  applied  in  full 
compliance with data protection legislation. 

EU ADDED VALUE 

The  PSI  Directive  is  based  on  Article  114  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union (TFUE)135 and therefore strongly rooted in a Single Market logic. Based 
on  the  feedback  received  by  stakeholders,  the  EU  added  value  of  the  Directive  is 
unquestioned. The stakeholders tend to agree that national initiatives in the field of PSI 
would have not been sufficient to address possible market distortions and market failures 
and to offer a level-playing field to all businesses. 136 The instrument has helped to reduce 
the significant differences that existed between Member States.  

132  Directive  2012/28/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  October  2012  on  certain 
permitted 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32012L0028.  

orphan 

works, 

uses 

of 

133  Study  to  support  the  review  of  Directive  2003/98/EC  on  the  re-use  of  public  sector  information, 
SMART 2017/0061. 

134 An orphan work is a work for which none of the right holders is identified or, even if one or more of 
them is identified, none is located despite a diligent search having been carried out and recorded in 
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Directive on orphan works. 

135  Consolidated  version  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  –  Part  Three:  Union 
Policies and Internal Actions, TITLE VII: Common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of 
laws - Chapter 3: Approximation of laws - Article 114 (ex Article 95 TEC), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12008E114.  

136 Strategic interviews. 

40 

 
 
                                                            
Replies to the online consultation support this claim. 87% of respondents agree that the 
PSI Directive has played a role in encouraging the national authorities to open up more 
public  sector  data,  while  almost  63%  believe  that  it  has  facilitated  access  to  PSI  from 
countries other than the one where the person concerned lives. Similarly, almost 64% of 
the replies indicate that the PSI Directive has been conducive to the creation of an EU-
wide market for products and services based on PSI, with less than 20% disagreeing.  

2013 changes to the PSI Directive 

Stakeholders137 agreed on the high EU added value of the modifications brought in 2013 
to  the  provisions  on  charging.  National  initiatives  alone  would  not  have  been  able  to 
provide  a  level-playing  field  for  all  European  re-users  and  public  sector  bodies  with 
respect to the price of data. 

In  the  area  of  cultural  data,  stakeholders  indicated  that  the  Directive,  together  with 
practical  measures  such  as  the  creation  of  Europeana138,  has  laid  a  basis  for  the 
development  of  cross-border  and  EU  wide  services.  However,  it  has  also  been  argued 
that,  as  the  Directive  built  on  an  already  existing  trend  towards  cultural  heritage 
digitalisation and improvements in terms of data accessibility, its added value remained 
more limited than originally wished, especially considering that the biggest obstacles in 
terms  of  copyright  regimes  and  financing  of  digitalisation  are  to  be  addressed  at  the 
national  level  mainly  or  in  the  framework  of  other  EU  initiatives  (e.g.  digitisation  of 
cultural  heritage  or  reform  of  the  copyright  ramework).  Therefore,  based  on  the  data 
available  at  this  stage,  one  could  argue  that  the  potential  EU  added  value  of  the  PSI 
Directive  in  terms  of  extension  of  the  scope  to  cultural  data  has  not  been  entirely 
translated  on  the  ground  due  to  a  number  of  obstacles  which  could  not  be  entirely  and 
directly addressed by the Directive.139 

Although some stakeholders expressed doubts regarding the capacity to streamline open 
data  standards  through  a  top-down  approach,  others  underlined  that  the  direction  given 
by the EU in the Directive, and its concretisation in the 2014 guidelines on data formats, 
have brought some EU added value. 

Analysis  and  stakeholder  views  confirm  that  policy  intervention  at  the  Member  States 
level could not have achieved the same results to the same  extent as the PSI Directive. 
The overall EU added value of the instrument is unquestioned, although it is stronger for 
specific aspects of PSI re-use (charging) than for others (cultural data and formats). 

137 Strategic interviews. 

138  Europeana  is  a  digital  cultural  heritage  platform  for  Europe,  providing  access  to  over  50  million 
digitised items (books, music, artworks and more). The Europeana Foundation was tasked by the European 
Commission to develop this platform. More information: https://www.europeana.eu/portal/en. 

139 Strategic interviews. 

41 

 
                                                            
6.  CONCLUSIONS 

Evaluation  of  the  PSI  Directive,  including  the  changes  introduced  in  2013,  has  shown 
that  it  continues  to  be  an  effective,  efficient  and  relevant  instrument  that  successfully 
contributes to the achievement of its main policy objectives, which are to stimulate the 
digital  content  market  for  PSI-based  products  and  services,  to  stimulate  cross-border 
exploitation of PSI and to prevent distortions of competition on the EU market. 

it  only 

It has also been demonstrated that the PSI Directive does not impose a disproportionate 
burden  on  the  stakeholders  concerned.  While  it  affects  two  groups  of  stakeholders:  re-
users (mostly from the  private sector,  including SMEs,  micro enterprises  and start-ups) 
and  public  sector  bodies, 
imposes  obligations  (and  possible  resulting 
administrative  burden)  on  the  latter.  It  should  also  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that 
several obligations that the PSI Directive imposes on public sector bodies, notably those 
related to  the practical arrangements of  making  data available, should be considered as 
part  of  an  overall  effort  towards  digitising  administration140  rather  than  specific  PSI 
Directive-related costs. Re-users, on the other hand, have benefited from the substantial 
simplification  of  the  procedures  for  obtaining  PSI  access,  which  helps  them  save  time 
and resources. 

However,  the  evaluation  has  also  revealed  that  there  are  a  number  of  areas  that  would 
need  to  be  addressed  in  order  to  fully  exploit  the  potential  of  PSI  for  the  European 
economy and society.  

First, recent technological progress has allowed public sector bodies to generate a wealth 
of dynamic datasets. Nevertheless, as shown in the evaluation, the provision of real-time 
access to such data via adequate technical means, such as APIs, and in conformity with 
recognised  interoperable  standards,  is  still  an  issue  which  limits  the  usefulness  of  such 
data for innovative and high-demand services. 

Second,  while  the  Directive  has  definitely  contributed  to  an  increased  supply  of  public 
sector data in the internal market, there are still vast amounts of high-value public data 
that remain shielded from its scope, such as research data or data from entities executing 
public sector tasks. Some Member States are moving faster and taking action to address 
this issue, but others are not. 

Third,  the  evaluation  has  shown  that  although  the  competition  dimension  of  the  PSI 
Directive works, there are some concerns as regards the continued existence of exclusive 
arrangements. These may take new forms, such as PSI data lock-in, leading to situations 
in  which  the  re-use  of  data  by  one  economic  operator  takes  away  the  incentive  for 
commercial re-use of the same dataset by other companies. 

Fourth,  the  Directive  would  benefit  from  some  additional  clarification  as  regards 
charging provisions. The evaluation has revealed that exceptions enabling public bodies 
to charge above the default upper limit of marginal cost of dissemination are less relevant 
than before. 

140 

Policy 

the 
market/en/news/ministerial-declaration-egovernment-tallinn-declaration. 

Tallinn  Declaration, 

action 

of 

4 

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-

42 

 
                                                            
Finally,  it  has  been  observed  that  while  the  PSI  Directive  is  coherent  with  the  current 
legislation  on  related  topics,  its  interaction  with  certain  legal  instruments  could  be 
clarified.  This  concerns  the  relation  between  the  PSI  Directive  and  the  Database 
Directive  and  the  relation  between  the  PSI  and  INSPIRE  Directives,  in  particular  as 
regards charging mechanisms. 

Addressing the above challenges will ensure that the Directive will remain an effective, 
efficient and relevant policy measure with an even greater potential to generate EU added 
value for the European taxpayer. 

43 

 
 
 
ANNEX  1 – EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

Effectiveness 

  Has the Directive ensured that competition in the internal market is not distorted? 

  Has the Directive enabled the creation of jobs related to the digital economy and 

concerning digital contents? 

  Have  more  data  held  by  public  sector  bodies,  including  cultural  heritage 

institutions, become available for re-use? 

  Has PSI increasingly become a source of innovative services and products? 

 

Is PSI circulating freely across the EU and are cross-border applications based on 
such information easy to implement? 

  Has PSI has become more affordable, including for start-ups and SMEs? 

  Are  exclusive  agreements  between  public  sector  bodies  and  third  parties  used 
only  exceptionally  and  are  they  strictly  limited  to  the  cases  mentioned  in  the 
Directive (e.g. necessary for the provision of the public service)? 

Efficiency 

  What  ratio  exists  between  the  benefits  achieved  and  the  costs  borne  by  the 

stakeholders concerned? 

  Are  the  costs  borne  by  the  public  sector  bodies  in  implementing  the  Directive 
(e.g.  adapting  IT 
income  from  charges)  offset  by 
socioeconomic benefits of re-using data (e.g. creation of new digital applications 
and products, increased transparency)? 

infrastructure,  lower 

  Does compliance with the Directive require better data management processes of 
public  institutions?  Does  this  lead  to  cost  savings  and  increased  operational 
efficiency? 

 

In case a request for re-use is rejected and an applicant decides to appeal to the 
decision  of  public  sector  body,  is  the  redress  procedure  swift,  efficient  and 
without excessive costs? 

Relevance 

  To what extent is the overall Directive still relevant in 2017, 14 years after its first 
adoption  and  based  on  any  possible  evolution  of  stakeholders’  needs  in  the 
meantime? 

 

 

Is the PSI Directive still relevant by ensuring the supply of PSI into the EU single 
market for PSI? 

Is  the  PSI Directive  still  relevant  by  ensuring  sufficient  usability  (e.g. machine-
readability) of data? 

44 

 
 

 

Is  the  PSI  Directive  still  relevant  by  ensuring  fair  market  access  (non-
discrimination) of all re-users? 

Is the PSI Directive still relevant by ensuring transparency and accountability of 
public sector bodies? 

Coherence 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is  the  PSI  Directive  well  aligned  with  and  complementary  to  EU  legislation  on 
the protection of personal data? 

Is the PSI Directive well aligned with and complementary to the rules based on 
the INSPIRE Directive? 

Is the PSI Directive well aligned with and complementary to the rules based on 
the PAEI Directive? 

Is the PSI Directive well aligned with and complementary to the rules based on 
the Database Directive? 

Is the PSI Directive well aligned with and complementary to the rules based on 
national  access  regimes  (rules  which  limit  access  to  certain  documents  on  the 
grounds of national security, commercial confidentiality, etc.)? 

Is  the  PSI  Directive  well  aligned  with  and  complementary  to  the  EU  copyright 
rules? 

EU added value 

  Has  the  PSI  Directive  played  a  role  in  encouraging  the  national  authorities  to 

open up more public sector data? 

  Has the PSI Directive facilitated access to PSI from countries other than the one 

where the person concerned lives? 

 

Is the PSI Directive conducive to the creation of an EU-wide market for products 
and services based on PSI? 

45 

 
 
 
ANNEX  2 – GLOSSARY 

AI -  Artificial Intelligence, intelligence displayed by machines, applied when a machine 
mimics  cognitive  functions  that  humans  associate  with  other  human  minds,  such  as 
learning and problem solving. 

API (Application  Programming Interface) - a  set of technical protocols  by means of 
which one piece of software asks another programme to perform  a service. The service 
could be granting access to data or performing a specified function. 

Database Directive - Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, which harmonizes the treatment 
of databases under copyright law and introduces the sui generis right for the creators of 
databases which do not qualify for copyright. 

PSI data lock-in - arrangements where public sector bodies grant access to their datasets 
free  of  charge  to  one  economic  operator,  for  example  in  exchange  for  in-kind 
compensation,  leading  to  a  situation  in  which  the  re-use  of such  data  by  this  economic 
operator  would  take  away  the  incentive  for  commercial  re-use  of  the  same  dataset  by 
other companies. 

document  -  any  content  whatever  its  medium  (written  on  paper  or  stored  in  electronic 
form  or  as  a  sound,  visual  or  audio-visual  recording),  or  any  part  of  such  content; 
synonymous with data. 

dynamic  data  -  data  from  sensors  (e.g.  bus  arrival  times,  meteorological  data),  whose 
economic value depends on its real-time availability. 

European Data Portal - a portal that harvests the metadata of PSI available on public 
data portals across European countries. Information regarding the provision of data and 
the benefits of re-using data is also included. 

formal open standard - a standard which has been laid down in written form, detailing 
specifications for the requirements on how to ensure software interoperability. 

high-value  datasets  -  datasets  which  are  particularly  valuable  assets  for  the  economy 
and  society  at  large.  Access  to  and  the  re-use  of  such  datasets  can  speed  up  the 
emergence  of  value-added  information  products  and  services,  and  also  encourage 
participatory  democracy.    G8  members  have  identified  14  high-value  areas  –  from 
education to transport, and from health to crime and justice – which should help unlock 
the  economic  potential  of  open  data,  support  innovation  and  provide  greater 
accountability. 

INSPIRE  Directive  -  Directive  2007/2/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  14  March  2007  establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  the 
European Community , which aims to create a European Union spatial data infrastructure 
for the purposes of EU environmental policies and policies or activities which may have 
an impact on the environment. 

46 

 
IoT  -  Internet  of  Things,  network  of  physical  devices,  vehicles,  home  appliances  and 
other items embedded with connectivity software which enables these objects to connect 
and exchange data.[ 

machine-readable  format  -  a  file  format  structured  so  that  software  applications  can 
easily  identify,  recognize  and  extract  specific  data,  including  individual  statements  of 
fact, and their internal structure. 

marginal cost method - a principle applying to all charging for public sector data re-use 
in  the  EU,  with  some  exceptions:  public  sector  bodies  may  charge  no  more  than  the 
marginal cost of reproducing, providing and disseminating the documents. 

open data - data that is freely available to everyone to access and re-use as they wish, 
without restrictions from copyright, patents or other mechanisms of control. 

open format - a file format that is platform-independent and made available to the public 
without any restriction that impedes the re-use of documents. 

public  undertaking  -  any  undertaking  over  which  the  contracting  authorities  may 
exercise  directly  or  indirectly  a  dominant  influence  by  virtue  of  their  ownership  of  it, 
their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it. 

public sector body - a state, regional or local authority, a body governed by public law 
or an association formed by one or several such authorities or one or several such bodies 
governed by public law. 

re-use - the use by persons or legal entities of documents held by public sector bodies, 
for  commercial  or  non-commercial  purposes  other  than  the  initial  purpose  within  the 
public task for which the documents were produced. 

sui generis database right - a sui generis database right is a property right, comparable 
to  but  distinct  from  copyright,  that exists  to  recognise  the  investment  that  is  made  into 
compiling a database, even when this does not involve the creative aspect that is reflected 
by copyright.  It is sometimes  invoked by public sector  bodies to justify their refusal to 
give access to their data. 

47 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3 – LIST OF LITERATURE USED 

(1)  Merijn  Backx,  Gebouwgegevens  redden  levens.  Toegankelijkheidseisen  van 
gebouwgegevens  in  het  kader  van  de  openbare  orde  en  veiligheid  (scriptie 
Technische Universiteit Delft), 2003. BDO 199. 

(2)  Bregt,  A.,  L.  Grus  &  D.  Eertink  (2014).  Wat  zijn  de  effecten  van  een  open 

basisregistratie topografie na twee jaar?,Wageningen University: p. 49. 

(3)  DECA, Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority, (2010). The value of Danish 
data, 

address 
http://www.adresseinfo.dk/Portals/2/Benefit/Value_Assessment_Danish_Address_
Data_UK_2010-07-07b.pdf 

(4)  DECA, Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority, (2017). The impact of open 
geographical  data  – follow-up  study,  http://sdfe.dk/media/2917052/20170317-the-
impact-of-the-open-geographical-data-management-summary-version-13-pwc-
qrvkvdr.pdf 

(5)  Deloitte/Tech24.  (2011,  October).  POPSIS  Pricing  Of  Public  Sector  Information 
Study.  Retrieved  from  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/pricing-
public-sector-information-study-popsis-models-supply-and-charging-public-sector 

(6)  European  Commission.  (2014).  Study  on  eGovernment  and  the  reduction  of 
Report, 
SMART 

administrative 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news/final-report-study-egovernment-
and-reduction-administrative-burden-smart-20120061   

2012/0061, 

burden, 

Final 

(7)  European  Commission.  (2017,  February  01).  European  Data  Market.  SMART 
from  https://a2528ba5-a-c3c32646-s-

2013/0063.  Final  Report.  Retrieved 
sites.googlegroups.com/a/open-
evidence.com/download/repository/SMART20130063_Final%20Report_030417_2
.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqfQr79x6OowAjJUkJgS-
qZyc3dkemSFqn5LG_gZHt8nIJmQVPrRyUo5b4K17K5tCRBUFNSUo-
xow8cw4_X5AhY_gOFF7LdqSlYvCG_HxdAVeHeEJYSA63vJLDnDTgdn7MZN
kp8l6y6eGcUY-uNVcb1J9k1cFYoV-
zbNauRXFw7fxoq8kKze10uSqUNhwUf6cpI6xxD6_xwdLqpvcMEvwhoCmDcL5
F8NTz1UZmR2o4l2sV5kl6VfMzWyOMcvL90EtxlXCsG&attredirects=0  

(8)  European Commission: Study to support the review of Directive 2003/98/EC on the 
re-use of public sector information, SMART 2017/0061, Deloitte, January 2018 

(9)  European  Data  Portal:  Open  Data  Maturity  in  Europe  2017  –  Open  Data  for  a 
Economy, 

European 
Data 
https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_landscaping_insight_rep
ort_n3_2017.pdf 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(10)  European Data Portal: Analytical Report 9: The Economic Benefits of Open Data, 
December 
from 
https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/analytical_report_n9_econom
ic_benefits_of_open_data.pdf 

Retrieved 

2017. 

(11)  Finnish  Prime  Minister's  Office  (2017),  Avoimen  datan  yödyntäminen 
vaikuttavuus, https://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/VNK_2017_40.pdf 

ja 

(12)  Grus, L., A. Bregt & D. Eertink (2015). De effecten van open data BRT na 3 jaar, 

Wageningen University & het Kadaster: 7. 

(13)  Houghton  J.,  Costs  and  benefits  of  Data  Provision,  Report  to  the  Australia 
National Data Service, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, 
September 2011, http://www.ands.org.au/working-with-data/articulating-the-value-
of-open-data/costs-and-benefits-of-data-provision 

(14)  Harrison,  T.,  &  Sayogo,  D  “Transparency,  participation  and  accountability 
practices  in  open  government:  A  comparative  study”.  Government  Information 
Quarterly, 2014, 31, pp. 513–525. 

(15)  Katleen Janssen, Inspire and the PSI Directive: Public Tasks vs Commercial 

Activities?, Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and ICT (ICRI), K.U.Leuven, 
Belgium, 2005. 
https://www.law.kuleuven.be/citip/en/docs/publications/719inspire2f90.pdf 

(16)  Katleen Janssen, “The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: An 
overview of recent developments”, Government Information Quarterly, Volume 28, 
Issue 4, October 2011, pp. 446-456. 

(17)  Katleen Janssen & Ton Zijlstra, The new PSI Directive – as good as it seems?, 19 
Blog, 

April 
https://blog.okfn.org/2013/04/19/the-new-psi-directive-as-good-as-it-seems/ 

International 

Knowledge 

2013, 

Open 

, 

(18)  Heli Koski, « Does Marginal Cost Pricing of Public Sector Information Spur Firms 
the  Finnish  Economy,  2011, 
Institute  of 

Growth ? »,  The  Research 
https://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dp1260.pdf 

(19)  National  Observatory  of  Telecommunications  and  the  Information  Society 
(ONTSI),  Public  Corporate  Entity  Red.es,  2016,  Characterization  of  the  Spanish 
Infomediary 
Summary, 
http://www.ontsi.red.es/ontsi/sites/ontsi/files/Characterization%20of%20the%20Sp
anish%20Infomediary%20Sector.%20Executive%20Summary.%20Ed.2016.pdf 

Executive 

Sector. 

(20)  Open  Data  Institute,  Estimating  the cost  of  a  government  open  data  initiative,  10 
https://theodi.org/blog/estimating-the-cost-of-a-government-

2014, 
September 
open-data-initiative 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(21)  Open  Data  Institute:  Permission  Granted,  the  Economic  Value  of  Data  Assets 
under alternative delivery regimes, A Lateral Economics Report for the Open Data 
Institute, 2016, https://theodi.org/research-economic-value-open-paid-data 

(22)  Open  Data  Institute,  Exploring  Open  Data  Quality,  26  October  2016, 

https://theodi.org/blog/exploring-open-data-quality 

(23)  Open  Knowledge  International  Blog,  Open  Data  Quality,  the  Next  Shift  in  Open 
Data,  31  May  2017,  https://blog.okfn.org/2017/05/31/open-data-quality-the-next-
shift-in-open-data/ 

(24)  Ruijer  ,  Grimmelikhuijsen,  Meijer,  Open  data  for  democracy:  Developing  a 
theoretical  framework  for  open  data  use,  Government  Information  Quarterly, 
Volume 34, Issue 1, January 2017. 

(25)  Shakespeare,  Stephan.  (2013,  May).  Shakespeare  review:  An  Independent  Review 
from 

of 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/198
752/13-744-shakespeare-review-of-public-sector-information.pdf 

Information. 

Retrieved 

Public 

Sector 

(26)  Bastiaan Van Loenen, Michel Groete, “INSPIRE empowers re-use of Public Sector 

Information”, 2014. http://ijsdir.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php/ijsdir/article/view/353 

(27)  The  World  Bank.  Scott,  Andrew.  (2014,  June  25).  Open  Data  for  Economic 
from 

Growth. 
http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Open-Data-for-
Economic-Growth.pdf 

Retrieved 

(28)  The  World Wide  Web  Foundation. (2017,  May).  Open Data Barometer  – Fourth 
http://opendatabarometer.org/doc/4thEdition/ODB-

edition.  Retrieved 
from 
4thEdition-GlobalReport.pdf 

(29)  Frederika  Welle  Donker,  Different  PSI  Access  Policies  and  their  impact  in  "The 
socio-economic effects of public sector information on Digital Networks: towards a 
Better  Understanding  of  Different  Access  and  Re-use  Policies:  Workshop 
Summary",  2009,  https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12687/the-socioeconomic-effects-
of-public-sector-information-on-digital-networks 

50