Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the EU : final report.
Date: 2018-06-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: EU Member State, aid to undertakings, economic policy, financing method, housing, legislation, organisation of work, public administration, transport market

Study to monitor the business 
and regulatory environment 
affecting the collaborative 
economy in the EU 

Final Report  

Written by Lucas Porsch, Lison Rabuel, Ricardas Juskevicius (VVA), Kristina Karanikolova (TNO), 
Mika Naumanen (VTT, Statistics Finland) 
March 2018 

DG GROW 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
Directorate E — Modernisation of the Single Market 
Directorate E.3 Digitalisation of the Single Market  

E-mail:  grow-e3@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Directorate-General for Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

Framework Contract ENTR/172/PP/2012/FC – lot1 

2018   

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the 
business and regulatory 
environment affecting the 
collaborative economy  
in the EU 

Final Report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 

ISBN: 978-92-79-85320-3 
doi: 10.2873/972344  

© European Union, 2018 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

ABSTRCT ..................................................................................................................... 9 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 10 

1 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 16 

1.1  Objective of the study and this deliverable ..................................................... 16 
Scope of the study ...................................................................................... 17 
1.2 
Structure of the report ................................................................................. 20 
1.3 

2 

MAIN  FEATURES  OF  THE  BUSINESS  ENVIRONMENT  AFFECTING  THE  
COLLABORATIVE ECONOMY AT EU LEVEL ................................................................ 21 

2.1 

2.2 

Identification  of  the  aspects  of  the  business  environment  that  are  most 
relevant for platform business models ............................................................ 21 
Vertical themes ........................................................................................... 23 
Transport ...................................................................................... 24 
2.2.1 
Accommodation ............................................................................. 34 
2.2.2 
Finance ......................................................................................... 41 
2.2.3 
2.3  Horizontal themes ....................................................................................... 47 
Public administration....................................................................... 47 
Business support ............................................................................ 52 
Alignment ...................................................................................... 56 

2.3.1 
2.3.2 
2.3.3 

3 

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 58 

3.2 

3.1  Data collection ............................................................................................ 58 
Design .......................................................................................... 58 
3.1.1 
Process ......................................................................................... 61 
3.1.2 
Results .......................................................................................... 62 
3.1.3 
3.1.4 
Replication .................................................................................... 66 
Indicator design and calculation .................................................................... 67 
Question formulating and coding ...................................................... 68 
3.2.1 
Index design and calculation ............................................................ 69 
3.2.2 
Performance on theme level ............................................................ 70 
3.2.3 
Visualisation of results .................................................................... 70 
3.2.4 
Replication .................................................................................... 71 
3.2.5 

4 

INDICATOR RESULTS ............................................................................................ 72 

4.3 

4.2 

4.1  Overall results ............................................................................................ 72 
Overall results per theme ................................................................ 73 
4.1.1 
Transport ................................................................................................... 74 
Description of general results ........................................................... 74 
4.2.1 
Description of results per indicator ................................................... 75 
4.2.2 
4.2.3 
Qualitative assessment ................................................................... 75 
Accommodation .......................................................................................... 81 
Description of general results ........................................................... 81 
4.3.1 
Description of results per indicator ................................................... 81 
4.3.2 
4.3.3 
Qualitative assessment ................................................................... 82 
Finance ...................................................................................................... 87 
Description of general results ........................................................... 87 
4.4.1 
Description of results per indicator ................................................... 87 
4.4.2 
4.4.3 
Qualitative assessment ................................................................... 88 
Public administration ................................................................................... 93 
Description of general results ........................................................... 93 
4.5.1 
Description of results per indicator ................................................... 94 
4.5.2 

4.5 

4.4 

5 

 
4.6 

4.7 

Qualitative assessment ................................................................... 94 
4.5.3 
Business support ....................................................................................... 100 
Description of general results ......................................................... 100 
4.6.1 
4.6.2 
Description of results per indicator ................................................. 101 
Qualitative assessment ................................................................. 102 
4.6.3 
Alignment................................................................................................. 106 
Description of general results ......................................................... 106 
4.7.1 
Description of results per indicator ................................................. 107 
4.7.2 
Qualitative assessment ................................................................. 107 
4.7.3 

5 

RECOMMENDATIONS  ON 
ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................... 109 

IMPROVEMENTS  OF  THE  BUSINESS 

FUTURE 

ANNEXES .................................................................................................................. 116 

Annex  1: 

List 

of 

indicators  measuring 

the  business 

environment 

 ............................................................................................................... 116 
Annex 2: List of EU-level literature ....................................................................... 122 
Annex 3: List of EU-level interviews ...................................................................... 131 
Annex 4: Ranking of indicators by EU-level  ................................................................  
stakeholders ............................................................................................. 132 
Annex 5: Indicator calculation methods ................................................................. 135 
Straight average of underlying indicators ..................................................... 135 
Assigning weights to different answer options based on the Rasch method ....... 136 
Representation of results ............................................................................ 136 
Annex 6: Country fiches ...................................................................................... 137 

Figures 

Figure 1: Overview of Member States results per theme ..................................................... 12 

Figure 2: Themes, business environment features, indicators and data collection  .....................  

questions............................................................................................................... 22 

Figure 3 : Member State ratings on the Collaborative Economy Index ................................... 72 

Figure 4 : The three highest ranking Member States on the Collaborative Economy ...................   

Index .................................................................................................................... 73 

Figure 5 : Overview of indicator results per theme ............................................................. 74 

Figure 6 : Member State results for the transport theme ..................................................... 74 

Figure 7 : Indicator results for the transport theme ............................................................ 75 

Figure 8 : Member State results for the accommodation theme ........................................... 81 

Figure 9 : Indicator results for the accommodation theme ................................................... 81 

Figure 10 : Member State results for the finance theme ...................................................... 87 

Figure 11 : Indicator results for the finance theme ............................................................. 87 

Figure 12 : Member State results for the public administration theme .................................. 93 

Figure 13 : Indicator results for the public administration theme .......................................... 94 

Figure 14 : Member State results for the business support theme ...................................... 101 

Figure 15 : Indicator results for the business support theme ............................................. 101 

Figure 16 : Member State results for the alignment theme ................................................ 107 
Figure 17 : Indicator results for the alignment theme ....................................................... 107 

6 

 
 
 
Tables 
Table 1: Features, indicators, questions and their assessment for the transport theme ........... 33 

Table 2: Features, indicators, questions and their assessment for the  .....................................  

accommodation theme ............................................................................................ 40 

Table 3: Features, indicators, questions and their assessment for the finance theme .............. 46 

Table 4: Features, indicators, questions and their assessment for the public administration theme

 ............................................................................................................................ 51 

Table 5: Features, indicators, questions and their assessment for the business support  ............  

theme ................................................................................................................... 55 

Table 6: Features, indicators, questions and their assessment for the alignment theme .......... 57 

Table 7: Data collection fiche columns .............................................................................. 60 

Table 8 : Total number of interviews by country ................................................................ 63 

Table 9 : Total completion rate per Member State and per question, for 14 Member States (from 

Austria to Hungary, in alphabetical order) .................................................................. 64 

Table 10: Total completion rate per Member State and per question, for 14 Member States  ......  

(from Ireland to the United Kingdom, in alphabetical order) ......................................... 65 

Table 11: Data collection limitations and remedial actions ................................................... 67 

7 

 
 
 
 
8 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Abstract 

This  study  assesses  the  business  environment  affecting  the  collaborative  economy 
across six themes (accommodation, transport, finance, public administration, business 
support and alignment) in the 28 EU Member States. 

The  study  has  established  indicators  to  measure  the  main  features  affecting  the 
development of the collaborative economy. It has developed a “Collaborative Economy 
Index” to benchmark the business environment. Based on the Index results, the study 
puts forward suggestions for the further development of the collaborative economy in 
the EU. 

The study concludes that there is no single approach for creating a favourable regulatory 
environment for the collaborative economy, as most regulations affect both conventional 
and collaborative economy actors. Clear definitions for collaborative economy services 
along  with  a  distinction  between  peer  and  professional  activities  (e.g.  through 
thresholds)  facilitate  collaborative  economy  activities.  Market  access  requirements 
proportionate  to  smaller  and  less  frequent  economic  transactions,  and  enforcement 
measures  tailored  to  collaborative  providers,  are  additional  encouraging  factors.  The 
provision of guidance on taxation and employment rules and support services targeted 
to  the  collaborative  economy,  although  beneficial,  are  not  commonly  available.  The 
alignment of regulatory frameworks within (and across) Member States is also important 
and it occurs more frequently in the transport than in the accommodation theme. 

9 

 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

Executive summary 

Objective and scope of the study 

The  purpose  of  this  study  is  to  assess  the  business  environment  of  the  collaborative 
economy in the 28 EU Member States. The business environment refers to all regulations 
affecting collaborative enterprises as well as other actions by Member States to facilitate 
the development of the collaborative economy. 

The study comprises three Tasks:  

  Task  1  identifies  the  main  business  environment  features  affecting  the 
development of the collaborative economy in the Member States and establishes 
a set of indicators to measure them.  

  Task  2  calculates  the  indicators  and  develops  a  composite  indicator  (the 
“Collaborative Economy Index”) to benchmark the business environment in each 
Member State.  

  Task  3  assesses  the  business  environment  in  each  Member  State  and  puts 
forward suggestions for the further development of the collaborative economy in 
the EU.  

The  study  assesses  collaborative  economy  transactions  in  three  vertical  “themes”, 
corresponding to the three collaborative economy sectors of accommodation, transport 
and  finance.  It  additionally  considers  three  horizontal  themes:  public  administration, 
business support and alignment.  

Main features of the business environment 

The study has identified the most important Business environment features affecting 
the collaborative economy in each theme. One or more Indicators have been assigned 
to each of the features to measure the performance of Member States.  

On  the  basis  of  the  economic  significance,  growth  potential  and  impact  of  the 
collaborative economy, a number of collaborative economy business models have been 
selected to be examined within the transport, accommodation and finance themes. 

1.  Transport 

The transport theme includes three business models: ride sharing, car sharing and ride 
hailing.   

Within the Regulatory clarity feature, the presence of Bespoke legislation has been 
acknowledged as a crucial element affecting the development of collaborative transport.  

Within the Market access requirements feature, the study has identified the following 
indicators:  Business-model  specific  market  access  requirements,  such  as  the 
obligation for peer provider to obtain licences,  and the ease  of  obtaining them; Peer 
and professional provider distinction, i.e. the presence of a regulatory distinction 
with  different  requirements  for  peer  and  professional  activity;  Price  restrictions; 
Dispatch  centre  affiliation;  General  market  access  requirements,  i.e.  general 
licensing requirements for providers.  

2.  Accommodation  

The accommodation theme includes two business models: short-term rentals and home 
swapping.  

10 

 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

As  in  the  transport  theme,  the  presence  of  Bespoke  legislation  has  been 
acknowledged  as  one  of  the  most  important  elements  affecting  the  development  of 
collaborative accommodation. 

Within the Market access requirements feature, the study has identified the following 
indicators:  Registrations,  authorisations, notifications;  Restrictions on type of 
goods or services provision, like the type of residence (primary or secondary), size 
of property or number of assets permitted to be rented out; Peer and professional 
provider distinction. 

Inspections is the only indicator used to assess the Enforcement measures feature.  

3.  Finance  

The finance theme includes two business models: equity funding and debt funding.  

As  in  the  other  vertical  themes,  Bespoke  legislation  is  the  indicator  measuring  the 
Regulatory clarity feature.  

Within the Market access requirements feature, the study has identified the following 
indicators:  Registrations  and  authorisations;  Peer  and  professional  provider 
distinction; Prospectus requirement; Information requirements.  

Inspections is the only indicator used to assess the Enforcement measures feature.  

4.  Public administration 

Within the Guidance feature, the following indicators have been chosen: the issuance 
of Guidance on setting up collaborative platforms, Guidance to peer providers, 
Guidance  on  employment  and  tax  rules,  and  the  Cooperation  between  public 
authorities and platforms. The indicator Policy making, which refers to the extent 
to which public authorities are proactive in overseeing and promoting the collaborative 
economy, is the only indicator within the Oversight feature.  

5.  Business support  

The Support services feature covers two indicators: Financial support (such as grant 
schemes,  or  other  public  funding  programmes)  and  Non-financial  support  services 
(such as training, or business advice).  

Within  the  Facilitation  of  collaborative  services  feature,  the  following  indicators 
have been identified: Promotion of P2P services within public administration, for 
instance  through  public  procurement  or  by  encouraging  public  servants  to  use 
collaborative  economy  services;  Accreditation  schemes;  Specific  tax  treatment, 
such  as  tax  allowances  or  specific  tax  rules  for  collaborative  economy  activities  (in 
addition to the provision of guidance on taxation).  

6.  Alignment 

The Degree of regulatory alignment, which refers to the extent to which regulations 
are  harmonised  across  a  Member  State,  is  the  only  feature  linked  to  the  alignment 
theme.  Two  indicators  are  linked  to  this  feature:  one  for  Transport  and  one  for 
Accommodation.  

Methodology 

In order to populate the indicators, the study has completed a data collection exercise 
in the 28 EU Member States.  

11 

Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

EU-level literature review and desk research have permitted the elaboration of research 
questions  linked  to  each  indicator  for  data  collection  purposes.  Country  researchers 
answered  to  the  questions  using  desk  research  and  interviews  with  national 
policy/academic  experts  and  collaborative  platforms.  In  addition,  a  survey  was 
distributed to peer providers to obtain practical examples and/or validate the existing 
findings.  

A  score  between  0  and  1  has  been  attributed  to  each  answer  with  higher  scores 
indicating better performance. The Collaborative Economy Index uses a simple average 
of all the questions to ensure transparency in the calculations and equal representation 
of all issues addressed by the questions. The final score per Member States is multiplied 
by 100 and rounded to facilitate the visualisation of the results.  

The Collaborative Economy Index results are depicted in accordance with the traffic light 
system used in the Single Market Scoreboard. Colours have been assigned based on the 
following rules: 

Score > 75% of 
maximum score 

25% < Score < 
75% of maximum 
score 

Score < 25% of 
maximum score 

Indicator results 

The  three  highest  ranked  Member  States  on  the  Collaborative  Economy  Index  are 
Lithuania, France and the United Kingdom. Overall, there is no Member State providing 
a favourable business environment in all themes.  

Figure 1: Overview of Member States results per theme 

1.  Transport  

The indicator results in the transport theme point to open regulatory frameworks with 
low  entry  barriers  for  collaborative  economy  operators,  especially  in  car  sharing  and 
ride  sharing.  Member  States  that  score  highest  in  the  transport  theme  are  the  ones 
where: 

  Clear  definitions  of  collaborative  economy  activities  are  adopted  in  legislation 
(e.g.  France  and  Lithuania  with  regulations  defining  car  sharing  and  ride 
sharing); and/or 

  There  are  thresholds  distinguishing  peer  from  professional  activity  (e.g.  in 
France, the tax administration suggests using the standard tax rate); and/or 
  Market  access  requirements  for  all  collaborative  economy  operators  are  low, 
notably: car sharing and ride sharing are allowed without licences; quantitative 
and  qualitative  requirements  for  licences  are  low;  there  are  no  restrictions  in 
fares (e.g. in Austria, Estonia, France, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands and the 
United Kingdom); and/or 

  There  are  similar  requirements  for  VTC  and  taxi  operators  but  the  legislation 
regarding  the  traditional  taxi  industry  is  not  restrictive  (e.g.  Czech  Republic, 
Poland, Slovakia).  

12 

 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

These results are not the consequence of a specific regulatory focus on the needs and 
requirements  of  the  collaborative  economy.  Nevertheless,  regulatory  risks  arise  from 
the absence of regulations specific to the sector. In most Member States, the study has 
found several examples of withdrawal of collaborative platforms due to the lack of clarity 
in the legislation and high market access requirements. 

2.  Accommodation 

Member  States  score  high  on  the  accommodation  theme,  which  indicates  a  general 
openness  towards  collaborative  economy  activities.  The  Member  States  that  perform 
best are the ones where there are few restrictions for providers to enter the market, i.e. 
no need for authorisations from public authorities, landlords and/or building associations 
(e.g. in Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Romania, Poland, Slovakia 
and United Kingdom). 

Clarity  as  to  what  distinguishes  peers  from  professionals,  together  with  lower 
requirements for peers than for professionals (e.g. in Austria, Greece, Finland, Latvia 
and Sweden), is also a factor of good performance.  

The  presence  of  fewer  restrictions  on  the  type  of  services  provided  (e.g.  primary  or 
secondary residence, size of property/number of assets) and more lenient regulations 
on inspections affect less the scores of Member States. 

3.  Finance  

The  finance  theme  shows  greater  diversity  among  Member  States  than  the  transport 
and accommodation themes.  

Member States scoring high in the finance theme are the ones where there is a bespoke 
legislation  allowing  collaborative  finance,  as  it  provides  clarity  to  investors  and 
consumers regarding their rights and obligations. This is the case in 11 Member States, 
(Austria,  Belgium,  Greece,  Spain,  Finland,  France,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Netherlands, 
Portugal, United Kingdom).  

The establishment of fewer requirements for collaborative platforms and providers than 
with banks and investment firms (i.e. less information, lower financial commitment, no 
prospectus  requirement)  is  another  factor  associated  with  good  performance  (e.g.  in 
Belgium, Finland, France, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain).  

4.  Public administration  

Member  states  score  comparatively low  in the  public  administration  theme  and  there 
are significant variations in the scores.  

High scores on the public administration theme can be attributed to: 

  Guidance  for  collaborative  economy  platforms  and  providers,  especially  in  the 
field of taxation (e.g. the taxation “fiches” distributed to peer providers in France) 
or  employment  rules  (the  recent  study  on  modern  work  practices  released  by 
the United Kingdom government); and/or 

  Public bodies dealing with collaborative economy topics (e.g. in Italy); and/or 
  Partnerships  between  public  authorities  and  collaborative  platforms  (e.g. 

 

between Airbnb and cities for tourist tax collection); and/or 
Initiatives  to  scrutinise  the  impact  of  the  collaborative  economy  (e.g.  in  the 
United Kingdom, or in Spain).  

13 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

Overall,  these  initiatives  are  rather  uneven,  and  the  growing  interest  from  public 
authorities in the collaborative economy has not yet led to an abundance of guidance 
organisations and documentation supporting platforms or peer providers in the Member 
States.  

5.  Business support  

Member States achieve relatively low scores in the business support theme. This can be 
attributed  to  the  lack  of  specific  public  instruments  dedicated  to  the  collaborative 
economy and, sometimes, failure to address the specificities of these business models. 
Indeed,  if  Member  States  provide  some  support  to  collaborative  economy  initiatives, 
this  support  has  in  most  cases  a  broader  scope  and  forms  part  of  start-up  and 
entrepreneurship policies.  

The  combination  of  targeted  financial  and  non-financial  support,  as  well  as  tax 
allowances  for  collaborative  economy  activities,  explain  the  leading  position  of  the 
United Kingdom. In France, good scores are justified by measures such as permitting 
VTC  operators  to  respond  to  calls  for  services  the  use  of  crowdfunding  by  public 
authorities and the presence of a quality label for car sharing activities.  

6.  Alignment 

Member  States  score  rather  high  on  the  alignment  theme.  This  means  that,  in  most 
cases,  the  same  rules  on  authorisation  apply  throughout  a  Member  State  for  both 
transport and accommodation services.  

Such alignment is more common in the transport than in the accommodation theme. In 
the  accommodation  theme,  it  is  frequently  reported  that  stricter  rules  apply  in  cities 
which are major tourist destinations (i.e. Vienna, London, Barcelona), or in larger cities 
(i.e. in France, there are specific rules for cities of more than 200,000 inhabitants). The 
level of alignment is also influenced by the government structures of the Member State 
(e.g.  in  Belgium,  Spain  and  Italy  regional  authorities  are  responsible  for  regulating 
tourism and accommodation). 

Recommendations  

The  results  of  the  Collaborative  Economy  Index  have  permitted  the  formulation  of 
suggestions  and  recommendations  to  further  the  development  of  the  collaborative 
economy  in  the  EU.  It  is  worth  noting  that  there  are  different  ways  to  create  an 
encouraging  regulatory  system  for  the  collaborative  economy:  while  some  Member 
states  score  high  due  to  their  tailored  regulation  for  the  collaborative  economy  (e.g. 
Lithuania in transport, or Greece in accommodation), the high scores of other Member 
States rely more on low entry barriers for peer providers (e.g. Czech Republic, Estonia 
or  Slovakia  in  transport)  or  the  provision  of  tailored  guidance  and  support  for 
collaborative economy activities (e.g. France, or the United Kingdom). 

1.  Regulatory clarity 

a.  Definition of collaborative economy services  

Collaborative economy activities and services should be explicitly allowed, and 
their  scope  should  be  clearly  defined.  Member  States  integrating  definitions  of 
collaborative  economy  services  in  their  legislative  framework  score  higher  as,  for 
instance, Estonia, Denmark, France and Lithuania in the transport theme, and Greece 
in  the  accommodation  theme.  The  explicit  permission  of  P2P  services  helps  to  avoid 
uncertainty over applicable rights and obligations for collaborative economy actors. 

14 

 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

b.  Distinction between peer and professional activities  

Peer and professional activities should be clearly differentiated (e.g. through 
the use of thresholds) and regulations of the traditional economy that apply to 
collaborative platforms and providers should be explicitly specified. An effective 
method for establishing this distinction is the definition of clear thresholds above which 
an activity is deemed as professional. It is, therefore, recommended to establish explicit, 
if  possible  quantitative,  thresholds  for  greater  clarity.  The  establishment  of  fiscal 
thresholds, as in Belgium and the United Kingdom, can also be beneficial since it is likely 
to encourage small providers to engage in the collaborative economy.  

2.  Market access requirements  

Market  access  requirements  for  collaborative  economy  providers  should  be 
proportionate  to  the  size  and  risks  generated  by  the  collaborative  economy 
activity  in  order  not  to  unduly  restrict  its  development.    Market  access 
requirements can be lowered when collaborative economy transactions are smaller, in 
terms of economic size and less frequent than in the traditional sector. Also, because of 
the  specificities  of  the  collaborative  economy  business  models,  some  regulations 
applying to the traditional economy can be adapted, such as those aimed at guarantying 
fair  prices,  quality  of  the  service,  personal  safety  or  fight  against  information 
asymmetry.  

3.  Enforcement measures  

Enforcement  measures  and  monitoring  of  collaborative  economy  providers 
should use methods better suited to collaborative economy operators in order 
to ensure consumer protection and avoid unnecessary burdens. As the nature of 
the  service  provision  and  the  information  collected  by  collaborative  platforms  allow 
different methods of enforcement, it is recommended that enforcement measures are 
clearly targeted to collaborative economy operators using the available information and 
do not just replicate enforcement measures of traditional businesses. In this sense, the 
design  of  enforcement  measures  requires  a  clear  demarcation  line  between  the 
collaborative and traditional economy, and between peer and professional activity.  

4.  Guidance and oversight  

Public authorities should provide targeted guidance, especially on taxation and 
national  employment  rules,  to  collaborative  platforms  and  providers.    The 
presence  of  a  dedicated  body  to  oversee  collaborative  economy  activities  can  help 
provide such guidance in centralising the knowledge over the collaborative economy and 
improving  the  quality  of  the  guidance  provided.  Moreover,  it  is  important  that  public 
authorities  understand  and  measure  the  collaborative  economy,  for  instance  in 
incorporating collaborative economy figures in national statistics.  

5.  Support services and facilitation of the collaborative economy 

Business  support  services  should  take  account  of  the  special  needs  of 
collaborative economy businesses. Publicly funded grant schemes for collaborative 
economy  initiatives  and  training  workshops  can  be  very  useful.  Knowledge  about 
collaborative economy business models needs to be improved at local and regional level, 
for instance, by being disseminated through local chamber of commerce.  

6.  Alignment  

Regulatory frameworks should  be  aligned  within a Member State to  improve 
peer  provider  understanding  of  regulations  and  to  avoid  disproportionate 
compliance  costs.  Additionally,  the  alignment  of  legislation  across  the  EU  Member 
States has been identified as helpful for the internationalisation of platforms and could 
be further developed.   

15 

 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

1  Introduction 

This Chapter presents the objectives  of this study, its scope and the  main definitions 
adopted, as well as the purpose and the structure of the present report. 

1.1  Objective of the study and this deliverable 

The overall objective of this study is to assess the business environment surrounding 
the collaborative economy in three sectors (accommodation, transport and finance) in 
all  EU  Member  States.  In  this  study,  business  environment  refers  to  all  regulations 
closely  affecting  collaborative  enterprises  and  actions  undertaken  by  Member  State 
authorities to facilitate the development of the collaborative economy. 

The overall objective is accompanied by five specific objectives, namely, to: 

(i)  Identify  the  aspects  of  the  business  environment  at  Member  State  and  sector 
level which are the most important for facilitating or hindering the development 
of the collaborative economy; 

(ii) Describe  in  a  comparative  overview  how  those  aspects  of  the  business 

environment, regulatory or other, are handled in each Member State;  

(iii) Develop a set of indicators to measure key features of the business environment 

affecting the collaborative economy in each Member State; 

(iv) Develop a composite indicator (the “Collaborative Economy Index”) that will be 
used to benchmark the business environment in individual Member States; 
(v) Suggest changes to the business environment that would promote further growth 

in the collaborative economy.     

The purpose of this Final Report (Deliverable 3) is to provide an overall picture of 
the business environment affecting the collaborative economy at Member State and EU 
level,  and  to  compare  the  business  environment  across  Member  States.  It  also  puts 
forward suggestions on how the business environment can be enhanced to encourage 
the further development of the collaborative economy.  

This Final Report draws on the work undertaken through the three Tasks of this study, 
i.e.: 

  The  identification  and  description  of  the  main  business  environment  features 
affecting  the  development  of  the  collaborative  economy  and  the  design  of  an 
associated set of indicators (Task 1 – Deliverable 1);  

  The  description  and  calculation  of  the  indicators  to  measure  the  business 
environment  at  Member  State  level  and  the  subsequent  development  of  the 
Collaborative Economy Index (Task 2 – Deliverable 2); 

  The  assessment  of  the  business  environment  in  each  Member  State  and 

proposals for further development (Task 3 – Final Report). 

In  line  with  the  methodology  of  this  study,  this  Final  Report  (Deliverable  3)  seeks  to 
contribute  to  a  better  understanding  of  the  business  environment  affecting  the 
collaborative  economy  in  the  EU.  This  Final  Report  includes  28  Country  Fiches  that 
describe the regulatory environment in each Member State (see Annex 6).  

Furthermore,  this  Final  Report  considers  the  feasibility  and  points  out  the 
methodological strengths and weaknesses of repeating such an exercise in the future.  

Based on the Collaborative Economy Index results, this study puts forward a number of 
recommendations on changes in the business environment that would promote further 
growth in the collaborative economy in the EU.  

16 

 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

1.2  Scope of the study 

The  scope  of  this  study  concerns  collaborative  economy  transactions  in  the 
accommodation,  transport  and  finance  sectors  in  all  28  EU  Member  States,  assessed 
according to three vertical and three horizontal themes.  

The business environment scope is defined by the regulations regarding collaborative 
platforms  and  peer-to-peer  (P2P)  transactions  by  Member  State  authorities.  The 
features  identified  seek  to  measure  the  influence  public  authorities  have  on  P2P 
transactions.  Market  or  platform-specific  influence  on  P2P  transactions  is  beyond  the 
scope of this study. The business environment does not include either legal actions or 
court cases, which are referred to as anecdotal examples in the study but do not form, 
as yet, part of the national regulatory frameworks. 

P2P transactions, as used in this study, refer to transactions concluded between non-
professionals.  In  connection  with  the  finance  sector,  this  study  examines  both  P2B 
(peer-to-business) and P2P transactions, the former meaning transactions where peer 
providers invest in companies and the latter transaction between peers.   

The  distinction  between  a  peer  and  a  professional  provider  can  be  done  according  to 
different criteria which vary significantly across Member States (see Textbox 1).  

Textbox 1: Peer and professional service providers in the EU-28 

How  do  EU  Member  States  differentiate  between  peer  and  professional  service 
providers? 

As noted by the European Commission (2016)1, the distinction between peers and 
professional  service  providers  is  decisive  in  determining  which  regulatory 
obligations apply to collaborative economy activities.  

Member  States  approach  these  issues  very  differently.  The  majority  set 
thresholds  above  which  service  providers  are  exposed  to  additional  legal 
obligations  covering  authorisation,  taxation,  social  security  contributions,  safety 
regulations, etc. Such thresholds can be, for instance:2 
  The amount of revenue gained from the activity; 
  The number of days of activity; 
  The frequency of the activity. 

Thresholds  may  vary  by  sector.  For  instance,  in  the  accommodation  sector, 
thresholds  can  consist  in  the  type  of  assets  rented  out  (primary  vs.  secondary 
residence, e.g. in France) or the type of service provided (serving breakfast, e.g. 
in Greece).  In the finance sector, a common threshold is the maximum amount 
invested  via  platforms  (e.g.  in  Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Greece, 
Portugal).  

Another way to distinguish between a peer and a professional provider is related 
to  the  provider’s  entry  on  the  market  (e.g.  the  need  to  obtain  a  professional 
authorisation or licence). For instance, in the majority of the EU Member States, 
hire cars with drivers must obtain a professional licence to operate.  

1   European Commission (2016). Commission staff working document accompanying the document - A 

European agenda for the collaborative economy. COM(2016) 356 final.  

2   The data collection exercise undertaken in Task 1 has assessed certain thresholds in Member States (see 

Chapter 4). At EU level, a European Commission (2017) study on consumer issues in P2P markets 
provides a cross-analysis of the various thresholds, as of March 2016, in EU Member States (see Task 5 
report of the aforementioned study). 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

Professional services can be just defined as services provided for remuneration 
or profit, compared to P2P services that seek to cover the costs incurred by the 
service provider. This is the case in the transport sector in Belgium, Czech Republic, 
Ireland, Luxembourg, France, Romania, and Spain.  

In  the  2016  Communication  on  “A  European  Agenda  for  the  collaborative 
economy”, the European Commission defines peers as “private individuals offering 
services on an occasional basis” and professionals as “service providers acting in 
their professional capacity”.3 

This study does not provide a comprehensive assessment of when peers are considered 
as  acting  in  their  private  or  professional  capacity.  Instead,  it  aims  at  determining 
whether  and  how  regulations  make  this  differentiation  in  the  Member  States.  The 
definition  of  “peer”  versus  “professional”  providers  adopted  in  this  study  is  therefore 
kept  broad,  encompassing  all  possible  national  definitions,  which  vary  depending  on 
national or local contexts and regulations.4  

In  some  instances,  this  study  also  assesses  regulations  applying  to  the  traditional 
sectors  of  the  economy,  where  service  providers  are  usually  categorised  as 
“professionals”.  For  instance,  in  the  transport  theme  (see  Section  2.2.1),  the  study 
scrutinises the legislation for VTC (Voiture de tourisme avec chauffeur or hire cars with 
drivers)5 and taxi drivers.  

This is done for two reasons. First, the purpose of the Index is to describe the regulatory 
framework that affects the development of the collaborative economy. The regulations 
of conventional services, when in competition with the collaborative economy, affect the 
development  of  the  latter,  either  directly  (if  they  apply  to  collaborative  economy 
providers) or indirectly (if only their conventional competitors are covered).  

Second, in some Member States, it is not clear whether and which regulations apply due 
to  the  lack  of  legislation  defining  collaborative  economy  services.  Thus,  both 
conventional and collaborative service providers follow the regulations framed for the 
conventional sector.  For instance,  in Croatia,  Uber services are  considered as  renting 
out  a  car  with  a  driver,  which  exempts  drivers  from  abiding  to  regulations  for 
professional drivers. Conversely, in most Member States, Uber services follow the same 
regulations as professional drivers.  

For these reasons, mixed online platforms where both professional and non-professional 
service  providers  operate,  are  within  the  scope  of  this  study.  This  includes  platforms 
that start off with an exclusive P2P focus, but whose peer base professionalises as the 
platform grows. Examples of such platforms include, for instance, Airbnb or Uber.6  

3   European Commission (2016). A European Agenda for the collaborative economy. COM(2016) 356 final. 

Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:0356:FIN  

4   The data collection results provide with a more comprehensive overview of these definitions per sector, 

and how they vary between Member States (see Chapter 4). 

5   Depending on the country, VTC services can be provided by peers and/or professionals. See section 

2.2.1. 

6   Different types of services are available under the Uber brand. Depending on the type of service and 

country, the Uber transport service is provided either by professional drivers with a licence, or by private 
individuals. UberPop is the P2P service of Uber, where drivers without professional licence offer rides in 
their own car, whereas other Uber services (UberX, UberPool, UberXL) require drivers to obtain a 
professional licence. It should be noted however that the distinction between the Uber brands is not 
always straightforward, as in some countries, non-licenced drivers are allowed to drive for other Uber 

18 

 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

The scope of collaborative economy adopted in this study is closely aligned with the 
European  Commission’s  2016  Communication  on  a  European  Agenda  for  the 
Collaborative economy7 (see Textbox 2 below).   

Textbox 2: Collaborative economy definition 

What is the collaborative economy? 
The term “collaborative economy” refers to business models where activities are 
facilitated  by  collaborative  platforms  that  create  an  open  marketplace  for  the 
temporary  usage  of  goods  or  services  often  provided  by  private  individuals. 
The collaborative economy involves three categories of actors:  

(i) 

(ii) 
(iii) 

service providers who share assets, resources, time and/or skills – these 
can  be  private  individuals  offering  services  on  an  occasional  basis 
(“peers”)  or  service  providers  acting  in  their  professional  capacity 
(“professional service providers”);  
users of these shared goods or services; 
intermediaries  that  connect  –  via  an  online  platform  –  providers  with 
users  and  that  facilitate  transactions  between  them  (“collaborative 
platforms”).  

Collaborative  economy  transactions  generally  do  not  involve  a  change  of 
ownership and can be carried out for profit or not-for-profit (and may involve 
some transfer of ownership of intellectual property). 

Source: A European Agenda for the collaborative economy, COM(2016) 356 final. 

The sectoral scope of this study concerns three collaborative economy areas, namely 
accommodation, transport and finance. The definitions of the sectors, in line with this 
study’s inception report, are as follows: 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

The  transport  sector  comprises  ride  sharing,  car  sharing  and  ride  hailing 
models.  Transport  platforms  connect  riders  with  short  or  long-distance  travel 
options. Examples of platforms include BlaBlaCar (ride sharing), SnappCar (car 
sharing) and Uber (ride hailing). 
The accommodation sector is composed of short-term rental (e.g. Airbnb or 
Wimdu) and short-term swapping platforms (e.g. LoveHomeSwap, HomeAway). 
Providers can grant access to a portion of their primary residence (e.g. a sofa, a 
spare  room),  their  whole  primary  residence,  or  a  secondary  residence  (e.g.  a 
holiday home). 
The  finance  sector  is  defined  as  individuals  and  businesses  who  invest,  lend 
and borrow directly between each other, such as P2P lending (e.g. Prosper, Zopa) 
or equity investment (e.g. Conda.eu, Anaxago, Wiseed or SeedMatch.de). 

The study categorises business environment features according to six “vertical” and 
“horizontal”  themes.  The  three  vertical  themes  are  dedicated  to  each  of  the  three 
sectors (transport, accommodation, finance). The three horizontal themes cover cross-
cutting features affecting all three sectors and are defined as follows: 

services than UberPop. Source: European Commission (2017). Exploratory study of consumer issues in 
online peer-to-peer platform markets. Annex 4.7. Uber case study. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?&item_id=77704   

7   European Commission (2016). A European Agenda for the collaborative economy. COM(2016) 356 final. 

Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:0356:FIN  

19 

 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

iv. 

v. 

Public  administration  relates  to  the  capacity  and  efficiency  of  the  public 
administration at national and regional level to support the development of the 
collaborative  economy.  It  includes  the  simplification  of  procedures  and  an 
enhanced dialogue through various communication channels, including through 
online contact points or specific structures. 
Business support involves public support for collaborative economy start-ups. 
Such  support  can  be  of  financial  nature,  as  well  as  technical  and/or  business 
advice. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the government funds a competition 
between collaborative economy businesses rewarding trust and innovation.8  

vi.  Alignment includes regulations on alignment of regional policies (at local and 
regional  level)  with  national  policies.  For  instance,  the  revision  of  the  Finnish 
Transport  Code  aims  at  bringing  transport  market  regulations  together  under 
one single act.9  

1.3  Structure of the report 

This Final Report is the combined result of Tasks 1, 2 and 3. The EU-level desk research 
and  data  collection  carried  out  in  Task  1  fed  into  the  indicator  methodology  and 
calculation developed in Task 2. This report draws upon the results of the indicators for 
each Member State to present the business environment at EU and Member State level, 
compare  it  across  Member  States,  and  provide  recommendations  for  further 
development. This main report is structured as follows: 

  Chapter 2 presents the main features of the business environment affecting the 

development of the collaborative economy; 

  Chapter 3 outlines the methodology for designing and calculating the indicators, 

as well as for collecting the data feeding these indicators;  

  Chapter 4 presents the results of the data collection and describes the business 
environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 28 Member States; 
  Chapter  5  draws  on  the  findings  of  the  previous  Chapters  and  puts  forward 
recommendations  for  the  future  development  of  the  collaborative  economy  in 
the EU.  

The main report is accompanied by six annexes. 

8   Innovate UK.(2016) Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/funding-competition-
digital-innovation-in-the-sharing-economy/funding-competition-digital-innovation-in-the-sharing-
economy    

9   Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications (2016). “Transport Code enables better transport 

services and flexible business operations”. Press release. Available at: 
http://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/artikkeli/-/asset_publisher/liikennekaari-mahdollistaa-paremmat-
liikennepalvelut-ja-helpottaa-yritysten-toimintaa   

20 

 
 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

2  Main  features  of  the  business  environment  affecting  the 

collaborative economy at EU level 

This Chapter provides an overview of the main business environment features that affect 
the  development  of  the  collaborative  economy  in  the  28  EU  Member  States.  This 
overview was the basis for the development of the indicators presented in Chapter 4.  

2.1  Identification  of  the  aspects  of  the  business  environment  that  are  most 

relevant for platform business models 

The  business  environment  includes  all  external  factors  that  affect  businesses  in  a 
certain  market.  Such  factors  include,  among  others,  regulation,  market  conditions, 
social  and  cultural  trends,  technology,  existing  human  capital,  etc.  In  this  study,  the 
business environment includes all regulations closely affecting collaborative enterprises, 
as  well  as  other  actions  by  Member  States  to  facilitate  the  development  of  the 
collaborative economy.  

Together, the features of the business environment push the development of an industry 
in  certain,  sometimes  divergent,  directions.  The  nature  and  impact  of  the  business 
environment  differs  depending  on  the  industry  and,  within  it,  the  specific  business 
models.  

In  general,  what  distinguishes  collaborative  economy  businesses  from  traditional 
business models is the way they provide services. As put by Demary and Engels (2016), 
traditional service providers follow a “pipe-like” business model, employing staff within 
an  enterprise  to  supply  a  product  or  service  directly  to  a  segment  of  the  market.  By 
contrast,  the  collaborative  economy  is  characterised  by  the  use  of  P2P  online 
platforms  to  match  providers  with  consumers.  Development  is  based  on  indirect 
network effects (users benefit from an increasing number of users on the other side 
of the platform) and economies of scale, which allow platforms to realise substantial 
efficiency gains.10  

Trust is a  crucial element that facilitates the  matching between  supply and demand. 
One characteristic of collaborative platforms is therefore the use of trust-building tools, 
which includes reviews and ratings, verification of identity mechanisms, etc.11  

Within the different collaborative economy sectors, the impact of the legislation can vary 
significantly.  For  instance,  in  the  collaborative  transport  industry,  there  are  fewer 
regulations  on  ride  sharing  and  car  sharing  than  VTC  services  in  the Member  States. 
The  degree  of  openness  varies  greatly  across  countries,  with  some  markets  fully 
liberalised with very few restrictions, and others with significant market barriers for new 
entrants and a regulatory division aimed at protecting the taxi industry.12

10   Demary V., Engels B. (2016). Collaborative Business Models and Efficiency. Potential Efficiency Gains in 

the European Union, p. 5. 

11   See European Commission (2017). Exploratory study on consumer issues in peer-to-peer markets. 

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=77704  

12   Grimaldi Studio Legale (2016). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 

ridesharing in the EU. Final report, p. 22. 

21 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

On  the  basis  of  the  economic  significance,  growth  potential,  and  impact  of  the 
collaborative  economy,  a  number  of  collaborative  economy  business  models  to  be 
scrutinised has been selected within the transport, accommodation and finance themes 
(see Sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.3). 

As  mentioned  in  Section  1.2,  the  business  environment  features  that  affect  the 
development of the collaborative economy have been structured into six themes: three 
of  them  vertical  (transport,  accommodation,  finance)  and  three  of  them  horizontal 
(public administration, business support and alignment). 

The progression from the themes to the indicators has been done as follows: 

  For each theme, the most important Business environment features affecting 
each theme have been identified by desk  research and validated by interviews 
with EU-level experts who have ranked the features in terms of importance.  
  For  each  of  the  identified  business  environment  features,  one  or  several 
Indicators were set to measure the performance of Member States under this 
feature.  

  Finally,  for  each  indicator,  one  or  several  data  collection  questions  were 
developed  to  make  the  measurement  of  that  indicator  operational  and 
transparent.  These  data  collection  questions  allowed  country  researchers  to 
gather data on the indicators.   

Figure  2,  below,  illustrates  the  relationships  between  themes,  business  environment 
features, indicators and data collection questions.  

Figure  2:  Themes,  business  environment  features,  indicators  and  data 
collection questions 

The  division  between  vertical  and  horizontal  themes  is  justified  as  some  business 
environment features  may not have the same impact in every collaborative  economy 
sector affected, while other features are relevant for all sectors. For instance, licensing 

22 

 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

requirements cover different aspects in transport (e.g. professional qualifications, type 
of vehicle, accommodation (e.g. whether the rental is a primary or secondary residence) 
or finance (e.g. professional experience of platform owners).  

This  Chapter  describes  the  features  and  indicators  for  each  theme,  including  an 
explanation  of  their  importance  for  the  business  and  regulatory  environment.  It  also 
presents  the  questions  that  have  been  defined  for  each  indicator  and  points  out  how 
results should be interpreted. 

2.2  Vertical themes 

The  first  three  themes  describe  business  environment  features  that  are  specifically 
relevant  for  the  three  sectors  covered  in  the  study:  transport,  accommodation  and 
finance. For each theme, three general features have been identified as being pertinent. 
The  main  common 
features  are  Regulatory  clarity  and  Market  access 
requirements. An additional feature of relevance to the accommodation and finance 
themes is Enforcement. 

Regulatory  clarity  refers  to  the  extent  to  which  the  national,  regional  or  local 
legislative framework explicitly indicates what type of transactions can take place within 
its legal constraints. This feature was ranked by experts interviewed for this study as 
among the most important factors affecting platform development (see Annex  4). Its 
importance lies in the fact that it is often unclear what type of legislation applies to the 
collaborative economy. As a result, collaborative platforms are often bound by the same 
regulations that apply to their conventional market peers.  

Different approaches are taken by each Member State, or even by each local or regional 
authority, in deciding what transactions can take place. Smorto (2015) highlights that 
local or regional authorities can either use the rules applicable to traditional sectors to 
regulate  collaborative  sectors  or  deem  them  unfit  and  create  new  ones.13  The  2016 
Communication on a European Agenda for the Collaborative economy points out that, 
frequently,  national  legislation  does  not  take  into  account  the  specificities  of 
collaborative business models, which creates regulatory uncertainty for platforms and 
providers.14 

Market access requirements are conditions imposed by the regulatory environment 
on  providers  or  collaborative  platforms  to  operate  in  the  market.  The  European 
Commission  (2016)  identifies  this  feature  as  one  of  the  key  questions  raised  by  the 
introduction of collaborative economy services in local markets. Smorto (2015) observes 
that  in  order  to  promote  innovation,  and  due  to  some  self-governing  mechanisms 
adopted  by  P2P  platforms15,  local  authorities  tend  to  impose  lighter  regulatory 
constraints  on  collaborative  economy  than  on  traditional  operators.  However,  as  the 
author as well as the European Commission (2016) point out, some authorities keep the 
same  standards  for  collaborative  and  traditional  economic  operators  for  reasons  of 
consumer protection, prevention of/protection from market failures and a level-playing 
field demanded by traditional sectors. Germany and Spain are cases where authorities 

13   Smorto, G. (2015). “The sharing economy as a means to urban communing.” Conference paper, 1st 
IASC Thematic Conference on Urban Commons, November 6-7th, 2015, Bologna, Italy. Available at: 
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Sharing_Economy_as_a_Means_To_Urban_Commoning   

14   European Commission (2016). A European agenda for the collaborative economy, COM(2016) 356 final. 
15   Self-regulatory approaches involve collaborative economy platforms as well as non-governmental 

stakeholders. Cohen, M., Sundararajan, A. (2015). “Self-Regulation and Innovation in the Peer-to-Peer 
Sharing Economy”. The University of Chicago Law Review Dialogue, 82, pp. 116-133. Available at: 
http://adapt.it/adapt-indice-a-z/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Sundararajan_Cohen_Dialogue.pdf   

23 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

are adopting such approaches.16 Conversely, Finck and Ranchordas (2016)17 point out 
several  instances  of  protests  from  traditional  economic  operators,  particularly  in 
transport and accommodation, against the unfair competition brought by collaborative 
models (e.g. hotels in Berlin and Barcelona protest against short-term rental platforms, 
taxi drivers in Paris or London against Uber).  

Enforcement refers to the measures which national and local authorities take to ensure 
that  local  market  rules  are  duly  followed  by  collaborative  economy  operators.  As 
mentioned  above,  some  authorities  adopt  innovative  approaches,  and  therefore  are 
more lenient towards collaborative platforms, while others adopt a stricter approach, in 
line with that taken for conventional economic operators.  The latter can considerably 
restrict  collaborative  economy  activity.  For  instance,  in  Berlin,  the  number  of  Airbnb 
listings  has  dropped  by  40  percent  in  the  month  after  the  new  law  was  introduced, 
imposing fines of up to EUR 100 000 for illegal short-term rentals.18  

However, Frenken and Schor (2016) highlight that market access requirements, such 
as caps  on  earnings or  time allowed for  collaborative economy services,  cannot work 
without  proper  enforcement  procedures.19  As  the  following  Sections  describe, 
enforcement  approaches  differ  substantially  between  EU  Member  States,  resulting  in 
different levels/degrees of restrictive business environments for collaborative platforms 
to operate in. 

2.2.1  Transport 

The  transport  theme,  in  this  study,  is  defined  as  the  P2P  transactions  involving  the 
shared  use  of  cars.  Other  transport  modes  (bikes)  are  not  included,  and  neither  are 
transport-related facilities that can be shared (e.g. parking spaces) as these are not a 
significant  part  of  the  collaborative  economy.  In  collaborative  transport,  peers  share 
access to a car either at the same time, or in sequence. The car might have a driver, 
this being the peer provider, or no driver.  

2.2.1.1  Business models 

The transport theme includes three business models – ride sharing, car sharing and ride 
hailing  (see  Textbox  3).  Most  regulatory  attention  is  concentrated  on  these  business 
models,  while  market-wise  they  comprise  the  majority  of  collaborative  transport 
platforms. Apart from being the most popular collaborative transport business models 
in Europe, very few other P2P business models exist alongside them, mostly involving 
other  modes  of  transport  (e.g.  bikes,  camper  vans  or  boats),  assets  (e.g.  parking 
spaces) or services other than passenger transport (e.g. food or furniture transport). 

16   Interviews with Lucia Hernandez (30/05/2017), Vera Demary (01/06/2017) and Rosa Guirado 

(21/06/2017). 

17   Finck, M., Ranchordas, S. (2016). “Sharing and the city”. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 49. 

Available at: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/wp-content/uploads/sites/78/8.-Ranchordas-
Finck_Paginated.pdf   

18   O’Sullivan, F. (2016) “Berlin is banning most vacation apartment rentals”. City Lab. Available at: 
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/04/airbnb-rentals-berlin-vacation-apartment-law/480381/ 

19   Frenken, K., Schor, J. (2016). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. ISU Working Paper 16.04. 

Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) Working Papers. Utrecht University. Available at: 
http://www.geo.uu.nl/isu/pdf/isu1604.pdf 

24 

 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

Textbox 3: Definitions of P2P transport business models 

Definitions of P2P transport business models 
Ride sharing involves cost-sharing transactions, where individuals can carpool to 
a certain destination or part of the journey, after finding one another on an online 
platform.  In  this  model,  the  final  destination is  set  by  the  owner  of  the  car.  For 
peers,  transactions  are  usually  not-for-profit,  although  some  platforms  allow 
providers to make a profit. Popular P2P ride sharing platforms include BlaBlaCar, 
Karzoo, EasyCarClub, GoCarShare, Haxi, Autostop or Covivo. 

Car sharing involves for-profit transactions, where individuals in a private capacity 
can rent each other’s cars by subscribing to an online platform service connecting 
the peers. Popular P2P car sharing platforms include SnappCar, AutoLevi, OuiCar, 
Caramigo, SmileCar or MyWheels. 

Ride  hailing  involves  for-profit  transactions,  where  individuals  acting  in  their 
personal  or  professional  capacity  offer  to  drive  consumers  to  their  destination. 
Popular  ride  hailing  platforms  include  Uber,  Taxify,  or  Heetch.  Although  in  most 
Member  States  only  professional  drivers  with  licence  are  allowed  to  operate, 
private individuals are allowed to operate through some ride hailing platforms (e.g. 
UberPop,  Heetch)  in  some  Member  States  (Estonia,  Lithuania,  Croatia,  Czech 
Republic, Poland).  

The three business models were selected because of their economic significance, as well 
as due to their regulatory specificities. 

In general, the collaborative economy transport sector has a significant economic size. 
The European Commission (2017)20 finds that collaborative transport is the third largest 
sector in terms of volume of transactions and peer base after accommodation and odd 
jobs. The transport sector, taken as ride sharing and ride hailing, accounts for EUR 1 
billion in peer expenditure and EUR 794 million in peer revenue every year. Moreover, 
9.28%  of  all  EU  collaborative  economy  users  are  collaborative  transport  consumers, 
while 8.31% are providers. A PwC study (2015)21 finds that transactions in the transport 
sector  are  worth  EUR  5.1  billion,  which  ranks  it  third  after  the  accommodation  and 
finance sectors.  The same  study  outlines that  the transport sector brings the highest 
revenue to collaborative platforms (EUR 1.65 billion). However, it should be noted that 
these estimates are not entirely comparable as this study includes platforms which do 
not fall under the collaborative economy definition (e.g. B2C platforms like DriveNow or 
Car4you) while the European Commission study (2017) does not.  

In addition to their significant economic size, the three business models selected in the 
transport theme are believed to have a high growth potential.  

The  Boston  Consulting  Group  (2016)  estimates  that  car  sharing  will  grow  from  5.9 
million  users  and  88 000  cars  worldwide  in  2015  to  35  million  users  (+493%)  and 
228 000 cars (+159%) in 2021.22 The study predicts that 14 million users will be active 
in Europe in 2021. Moreover, Roland Berger (2014) predicts that the global value of the 

20   The study assessed the collaborative economy, or “P2P market” as composed of (re)sale of goods, 
accommodation, transport, rental of goods and odd jobs. Source: European Commission (2017). 
Exploratory study of consumer issues in online peer-to-peer platform markets. 

21   PwC (2016). “Assessing the size and presence of the collaborative economy in Europe”. Assessment 

prepared for DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/16952/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native  

22   Boston Consulting Group (2016). “What’s ahead for the car sharing?” BCG. Available at: 

https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/automotive-whats-ahead-car-sharing-new-mobility-
its-impact-vehicle-sales/?chapter=7  

25 

 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

car sharing sector will reach between EUR 3.7 and EUR 5.6 billion by 2020, with a yearly 
projected market growth of 30% between 2013 and 2020.23 

At city-level, Frost and Sullivan (2014) estimate that car sharing membership in London 
will increase nearly six-fold from 137 000 to 800 000 between 2013 and 2020.24 And 
while  the  Boston  Consulting  Group  (2016)  expects  that  car  sharing  will  only  be 
economically viable in cities with over 500 000 inhabitants, data from Germany shows 
that the service is popular even in cities with less than 50 000 inhabitants.25  

Ride sharing, is estimated to be the largest collaborative transport business model in 
terms  of  expenditure  and  revenue.26  The  number  of  ride  sharing  platform  users  is 
expected to amount to 60.4 million by 2021, while user penetration in the ride sharing 
sector is expected to reach 10.8% in 2021.27 In 2017, revenue in the ride sharing market 
segment  stands  at  USD  5 949  million  (EUR  5 302  million28)  in  Europe.  The  sector  is 
expected to show an annual growth rate (CAGR 2017-2021) of 15.8%,  resulting in a 
market volume of USD 10 714 million (EUR 9 550 million29) in 2021.  

Finally, ride hailing, a sector covered in Europe mainly by Uber, saw a 500% increase 
in  the  number  of  rides  hailed  in  Europe  between  2015  and  2017.  According  to  the 
Statista Market Sharing Forecast, Uber is the main ride hailing platform in most of the 
countries in which it operates.30 Nevertheless, there are several European competitors, 
such as Taxify or Heetch, along with international competitors like Lyft, Easy, Didi and 
others. Ride hailing business models are often considered part of the global taxi market, 
worth USD 108 billion (EUR 97 billion), of which ride hailing accounts for  one third in 
terms of revenue, or USD 36 billion (EUR 32 billion31).  

P2P transport services could substitute the use of private vehicle: a study commissioned 
by  Uber  finds  that  the total  number  of  active  cars  in  Stockholm  could  be  reduced  by 
18 000 (5% of the total) if P2P transport services were launched.32 

There is an important resistance against ride hailing from the traditional industry and 
regulators.  Notably,  some  or  all  of  Uber’s  services  have  been  banned  or  curtailed  in 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, 

23   Berger, R.  (2014). “SHARED MOBILITY: How new businesses are rewriting the rules of the private 

transportation game.” Think Act. Available at: 
https://www.rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/roland_berger_tab_shared_mobility_1.pdf   

24   Frost and Sullivan (2014). Car-sharing in London – Vision 2020, London. 
25   Bundesverband CarSharing (2012). ”CarSharing ist auch in kleineren Städten und Gemeinden erfolgreich 

möglich”. BCS. Available at: 
https://carsharing.de/themen/carsharing-im-landlichen-raum/carsharing-ist-auch-kleineren-stadten-
gemeinden-erfolgreich  

26   The European Commission study on consumer issues in P2P platform markets finds that the transport 

sector, taken as ride sharing and ride hailing, account for EUR 1 billion in peer expenditure and EUR 794 
million in peer revenue every year. The study finds that ride-sharing accounts for 90% of both 
expenditure and revenues, while ride hailing only accounts for 10%. Source: European Commission 
(2017). Exploratory study of consumer issues in online peer-to-peer platform markets. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?&item_id=77704 

27   Statista Market Sharing Forecast (2017), “Ride sharing 2017”, Available at: 
https://www.statista.com/outlook/368/100/ride-sharing/worldwide#   

28   Converted at the European Central Bank exchange rate EUR 1 = USD 1.1219 on June 1st, 2017. 
29   Converted at the European Central Bank exchange rate EUR 1 = USD 1.1219 on June 1st, 2017. 
30   Statista Market Sharing Forecast (2017). “eTravel: Mobility Services”. Available at: 

https://www.statista.com/download/outlook/whiterpaper/Mobility_Services_Outlook_0117.pdf   

31   Goldman Sachs data. 
32   Stefansdotter, A., Danielsson, C., Nielsen, C., Sunesen, E. (2015), “Economic benefits of peer-to-peer 

transport services“, Copenhagen Economics Stockholm. Available at: 
https://www.copenhageneconomics.com/dyn/resources/Publication/publicationPDF/0/320/1441009386/
economics-benefits-of-peer-to-peer-transport-services.pdf    

26 

                                                 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.33,34,35 One of the main contentious points 
was its P2P service UberPop where non-professionals could drive without fulfilling the 
requirements for professional taxi or VTC drivers. Uber and Heetch have been subject 
to various court cases, among which in Spain (which filed the original case that led to a 
ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU)36, France37, the United Kingdom38, or Croatia.39 

Despite  such  resistance,  platform  ride  hailing  is  expanding.  In  March  2017,  Uber 
announced  that  it  would  increase  its  headquarters  staff  in  Amsterdam  from  400  to 
1 000.  

Finally, looking at ride sharing and ride hailing business models, Roland Berger (2014) 
estimates  revenues  to  reach  between  EUR  3.5  and  5.2  billion  by  2020,  at  a  yearly 
projected market growth rate of 35% per year between 2013 and 2020.40 

Car sharing, ride sharing, and ride hailing are innovative business models that do not 
fit traditional, well-regulated economic activities. Therefore, national-level regulation for 
these collaborative economy activities can promote or inhibit their growth. Interviews 
with platforms such as BlaBlaCar and Uber, as well as several studies (see above) on 
the P2P transport theme indicate that regulatory uncertainty is among the most pressing 

33   Rhodes, A. (2017). “Uber: which countries have banned the controversial taxi apps.” The Independent. 

Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/uber-ban-countries-where-world-
taxi-app-europe-taxi-us-states-china-asia-legal-a7707436.html  

34   European Commission (2017). Exploratory study of consumer issues in online peer-to-peer platform 

markets. Annex 4.7. Uber case study. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-
detail.cfm?&item_id=77704   

35   4Liberty.eu (2017). The regulatory framework of the collaborative economy in Central and Eastern 

Europe. Available at: http://4liberty.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-Regulatory-Framework-of-the-
Collaborative-Economy-in-Central-and-Eastern-Europe.pdf 

36   In December 2017, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that Uber was providing transport services and 
therefore should abide by local transportation rules. The original case was filed by the Spanish taxi 
association Elite Taxi. Source: Scott, M. (2017). “Uber is a transportation company, Europe’s highest 
court rules”. Politico. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/uber-ecj-ruling/  

37   In March 2017, the platform Heetch was condemned for “illegal transport of passengers.” Source: Alix, 
C. (2017). « Heetch : forte condamnation pour la start-up des noctambules. » Libération. Available  at: 
http://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2017/03/02/heetch-forte-condamnation-pour-la-start-up-des-
noctambules_1552889  

38   In October 2016, British tribunal ruled that Uber drivers should be classified as workers with minimum 

wage rights. Source: Osborne,. H. (2016). “Uber loses right to classify UK drivers as self-employed”. The 
Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-
employed-status  

39   The Croatian Chamber of Trades and Crafts (HOK) has filed a lawsuit against Uber, alleging that Uber 

provides taxi services without adequate licences or other regulatory requirements. The court decision is 
expected to depend on the decision of the Court of Justice of the EU. Source: 4Liberty.eu (2017). The 
regulatory framework of the collaborative economy in Central and Eastern Europe. Available at: 
http://4liberty.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-Regulatory-Framework-of-the-Collaborative-
Economy-in-Central-and-Eastern-Europe.pdf  

40   Berger, R.  (2014). “SHARED MOBILITY: How new businesses are rewriting the rules of the private 

transportation game.” Think Act. Available at: 
https://www.rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/roland_berger_tab_shared_mobility_1.pdf   

27 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

business 
environment 
platforms.41,42,43,44,45,46,47  

feature 

for 

the 

development 

of 

collaborative 

Although  this  study  does  not  include  two  other  major  business  models  of  the 
collaborative  transport  theme  –  bike  sharing  and  parking  space  sharing  –  they  offer 
some relevant comparisons. Roland Berger (2014) estimates that car sharing and ride 
sharing (which includes ride hailing in the Berger study) will develop between 1.2 and 
1.75  times  faster  than  bike  sharing  or  parking  space  sharing  by  2020,  although  the 
revenue forecast for bike sharing is very similar to car/ride sharing models.48 

2.2.1.2  Main features and their indicators 

A European Commission study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 
ridesharing in the EU (2016)49 as well as interview input from BlaBlaCar and Uber have 
highlighted  the  following  major  business  environment  features  affecting  collaborative 
transport business models: Regulatory clarity and Market access requirements. 

Regulatory  clarity  in  the  context  of  collaborative  transport  refers  to  how  clear  and 
how specific national/local rules are about the ways in  which platforms and providers 
can operate in the sector by engaging in or facilitating P2P transactions. Of the three 
actors  involved  in  P2P  transactions  –  namely  providers,  consumers  and  intermediary 
platforms – regulation overwhelmingly affects providers and platforms.  

Regulatory  clarity  in  the  collaborative  transport  sector  was  perceived  by  five  EU 
stakeholders50 as perhaps the most important factor affecting the development of the 
sector.  In  addition,  Roland  Berger  (2014)  finds  that  shared  mobility  needs  a  secure 
political and legal framework and considers that existing rules and regulations need to 
be liberalised, albeit not at the expense of citizens' safety and (data) protection.51 

Within this feature, the presence of Bespoke legislation regulating the sector has been 
acknowledged as the most important element affecting the development of collaborative 

41   Finck, M., Ranchordas, S. (2016). “Sharing and the city”. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 49. 

Available at: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/wp-content/uploads/sites/78/8.-Ranchordas-
Finck_Paginated.pdf   

42   Codagnone, C. and Martens, B. (2016). “Scoping the Sharing Economy: Origins, Definitions, Impact and 
Regulatory Issues”. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Digital Economy Working Paper 
2016/01. JRC100369. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2783662   

43   Goudin, P. (2016). The Cost of Non-Europe in the Sharing Economy: Economic, Social and Legal 

Challenges and Opportunities. PE 558.777.  

44   European Parliament (2015). Tourism and the sharing economy: challenges and opportunities for the 

EU. IP/B/TRAN/FWC/2010-006/Lot5/C1/SC3, PE 563.411.  

45   Smorto, G. (2015). “The sharing economy as a means to urban communing.” Conference paper, 1st 
IASC Thematic Conference on Urban Commons, November 6-7th, 2015, Bologna, Italy. Available at: 
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Sharing_Economy_as_a_Means_To_Urban_Commoning  

46   PwC (2016). “Assessing the size and presence of the collaborative economy in Europe”. Assessment 

prepared for DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/16952/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native  
47   Cologne Institute for Economic Research (2016). Collaborative Business Models and Efficiency. Potential 

Efficiency Gains in the European Union.  Impulse Paper No. 07. 

48    Berger, R.  (2014). “SHARED MOBILITY: How new businesses are rewriting the rules of the private 

transportation game.” Think Act. Available at: 
https://www.rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/roland_berger_tab_shared_mobility_1.pdf   

49    See Grimaldi Studio Legale (2016). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 

ridesharing in the EU. Final report. 

50   Interviews with Koen Frenken (13/06/2017), Vera Demary (01/06/2017), BlaBlacar (06/06/2017), Rosa 

Guirado (21/06/2017) and Martijn Arets (13/06/2017). 

51   Berger, R.  (2014). “SHARED MOBILITY: How new businesses are rewriting the rules of the private 

transportation game.” Think Act. Available at: 
https://www.rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/roland_berger_tab_shared_mobility_1.pdf   

28 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

transport.  Bespoke  legislation  refers  to  the  existence  of  regulatory  acts  which  permit 
collaborative  platforms  or  peer  providers  to  operate,  as  well  as  describe  what  the 
regulatory  authority  means  by  P2P  transactions  in  the  collaborative  transport  sector. 
Bespoke  legislation  is  particularly  important  for  collaborative  economy  actors  to 
understand which business models are allowed, or not allowed, to operate in different 
Member States. For instance, the P2P service of Uber (i.e. UberPop) has been banned 
in  several  Member  States.52  Similarly,  the  ride  sharing  platform  BlaBlaCar  has 
encountered  judicial  issues  in  Spain.53  In  most  Member  States,  there  is  no  bespoke 
legislation governing P2P transport and consequently P2P services tend to operate in a 
“grey zone”. Ride hailing business models are often regulated by a distinct set of laws 
or covered by the taxi legislation.54 In certain Member States (see Section 4.2.3), some 
P2P ride hailing platforms operate even if the law restricts or forbids the provision of 
P2P ride hailing services.  

Market access requirements govern the entry conditions on the transport market for 
collaborative  transport  platforms  and  peer  providers.  Such  requirements  strongly 
depend  upon  the  type  of  business  model  employed.  Several  authors,  including  Finck 
and Ranchordas (2016)55, Smorto (2015)56, Martin (2016)57 and Chase (2016)58 point 
out a distinction between “pure” sharing and more commercially-oriented sharing that 
generates profit. The authors suggest that regulation should consider this aspect when 
imposing market access requirements.  

Market  access  requirements  were  perceived  by  experts  interviewed  for  this  study  as 
crucial for ensuring fair competition and reliable services. BlaBlaCar, for instance, was 
sued in Spain by bus transportation companies59, and later fined by Spanish authorities 
for not adhering to market access requirements applicable to the traditional transport 
operators.60 Moreover, there are reports that peer providers were fined EUR 4 000 for 
using the platform in Spain.61 Similarly, an UberPop driver was fined EUR 600 by the 
municipality of Prague for providing an illegal transportation service.62 BlaBlaCar stated 
in  an  interview  that  regulation  should  clearly  specify  under  what  conditions  peer 

52    Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the 

Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. Please see section 2.2.1.1 above.  

53   El Pais (17 October 2017). “BlaBlaCar afronta en Madrid su primera sanción en Europa.” Available at: 

https://elpais.com/ccaa/2016/10/17/madrid/1476701871_454042.html?rel=mas 

54    Grimaldi Studio Legale (2016). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 

ridesharing in the EU. Final report, p. 52. 

55   Finck, M., Ranchordas, S. (2016). “Sharing and the city”. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 49. 

Available at: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/wp-content/uploads/sites/78/8.-Ranchordas-
Finck_Paginated.pdf   

56   Smorto, G. (2015). “The sharing economy as a means to urban communing.” Conference paper, 1st 
IASC Thematic Conference on Urban Commons, November 6-7th, 2015, Bologna, Italy. Available at: 
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Sharing_Economy_as_a_Means_To_Urban_Commoning  

57   Martin, C. J. (2016). “The Sharing Economy: A Pathway to Sustainability or a Nightmare Form of 

Neoliberal Capitalism”. Ecological Economics (121), pp. 149-159. Available at: 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915004711  

58   Chase, R. (2016). Peers Inc: How People and Platforms Are Inventing the Collaborative Economy and 

Reinventing Capitalism.  

59   Novoa, J. (2015). ”Bus companies to sue Blablacar in Spain, want regulators to ban the car sharing 
company (Updated)”. NovoBrief. Available at:  https://novobrief.com/blablacar-spain-regulation/   
60    El Pais (17 October 2017). “BlaBlaCar afronta en Madrid su primera sanción en Europa.” Available at: 

https://elpais.com/ccaa/2016/10/17/madrid/1476701871_454042.html?rel=mas 

61   Martinez, J. (2016). ”Primera sanción de la Comunidad de Madrid a BlaBlacar: seis claves del varapalo”. 
El Español. Available at: http://www.elespanol.com/economia/empresas/20161017/163734321_0.html   
62   The Czech court ruled that the driver operating through Uber had not violated the law and cancelled the 
fine. Source: Česká tisková kancelář – ČTK, 2016. První spor s řidičem Uberu pražský magistrát prohrál. 
Pokutu pro řidiče soud zrušil. Prague, Czech Republic. Retrieved from: 4Liberty.eu (2017). The 
regulatory framework of the collaborative economy in Central and Eastern Europe. Available at: 
http://4liberty.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-Regulatory-Framework-of-the-Collaborative-
Economy-in-Central-and-Eastern-Europe.pdf 

29 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

providers can operate.63 Other interviewees also blamed the lack of clear market access 
rules for making it difficult for platforms and providers to operate.64 

Within  the  market  access  requirement  feature,  the  following  indicators  have  been 
identified as important: 

  Business-model specific market access requirements. Conditions such as 
the need for taxi and VTC drivers to obtain a licence to operate, or the number 
of  vehicles  allowed  to  operate.  In  some  countries  (see  previous  European 
Commission studies and indicator results in Section 4.2) there are quantitative 
restrictions  in  the  number  of  licences  issued,  representing  direct  barriers  to 
entering  the  market.65  Qualitative  requirements,  such  as  exams  or  proof  of 
financial ability, have been identified as indirect barriers.66  

  Peer  and  professional  provider  distinction.  As  the  European  Commission 
(2016) points out, clear distinctions between peer and professional activity are 
essential to encourage engagement of peer providers.67 Distinctions can be made 
on  the  basis  of  quantitative  thresholds  (e.g.  income,  number  of  rides,  or 
distance), although this is less common in the Member States. As Section 4.2.3 
shows,  distinctions  are  usually  made  according  to  the  financial  nature  of  the 
activity (cost sharing vs. for profit). Such distinctions are important for market 
access because they determine whether occasional collaborative economy users 
must bear the same level of regulatory burden as professional drivers.  

  Price restrictions. Although most Member States impose price restrictions only 
on taxis, some also do so for VTCs. As the European Commission study (2016) 
outlines,  fare  regulations  are  justified  as  they  provide  more  certainty  to 
passengers  about  the  cost  that  they  will  incur.68  However,  by  restricting  free 
competition, price regulations may deter peer providers from providing transport 
services through collaborative platforms.  

  Dispatch  centre  affiliation.  Some  countries  condition  the  provision  of  ride 
hailing services with dispatch centre affiliation. Affiliation is more or less flexible 
depending  on  the  Member  States  but  may  require  affiliated  drivers  to  respect 
certain  standards  and  to  participate  in  training.69  According  to  one  platform 
interviewed, these requirements place an additional burden on providers, directly 
restrict their entry and operation in the market, and prevent them from changing 
from one platform to another.70  

  General licensing requirements. For instance, providers might be required to 
carry  additional  insurance71  or  to  pass  professional  exams  or  certification.72 
These requirements  make it more difficult for  peer providers  to operate – and 
often imply that the only providers allowed in the market are professionals. 

63   Interview with BlaBlaCar (06/06/2017). 
64   Interview with Martijn Arets (13/06/2017). 
65   Grimaldi Studio Legale (2016). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 

ridesharing in the EU. Final report, p. 30. 

66    Grimaldi Studio Legale (2016). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 

ridesharing in the EU. Final report, p. 30. 

67   European Commission (2016). A European Agenda for the collaborative economy. COM(2016) 356 final, 

p. 5. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:0356:FIN 
68   Grimaldi Studio Legale (2016). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 

ridesharing in the EU. Final report, p. 9. 

69   Grimaldi Studio Legale (2016). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 

ridesharing in the EU. Final report, p. 49. 

70   Interview with Uber (19/07/2017). 
71   Transport for London (2016). “TfL sets out plans to modernise and enhance London’s private hire 

industry”. Press release. Available at: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2016/january/tfl-
sets-out-plans-to-modernise-and-enhance-london-s-private-hire-indust   

72   Grimaldi Studio Legale (2016). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 

ridesharing in the EU. Final report, p. 30. 

30 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

2.2.1.3  Questions linked to each indicator and their scoring 

The  following  questions  were  developed  to  measure  the  selected  indicators  for  the 
business environment features in the transport theme.  

As  explained  in  the  Methodology  Chapter,  scores  ranging  from  0  to  1  have  been 
attributed to answers to the questions – with possible answers being Yes/No/Partially. 
A  score  of  1  indicates  a  more  favourable  business  environment  for  the  collaborative 
economy (see Chapter 3). 

Bespoke  legislation.  The  following  questions  have  been  assigned  to  measure  this 
indicator: 

1.  Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national law? 
2.  Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private 

hire transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration? 

A score of 1 has been allocated if there are definitions of P2P car sharing and/or P2P 
ride sharing in national law, as it confers clarity to platforms and providers as regards 
the types  of P2P transactions allowed.  A score  of 0.5 has been allocated if there is a 
definition for either car sharing or ride sharing.  

A  score  of  1  has  been  allocated  if  the  legislation  allows  non-professional  drivers  to 
provide VTC services via platforms for remuneration, as it directly eliminates regulatory 
barriers to enter the market. A score of 0.5 has been assigned if the legislation formally 
does  not  allow  non-professional  drivers  to  provide  VTC  services  via  platform  for 
remuneration, but the data collection exercise reports that this is done in practice (see 
Section 4.2.3).  

Business-model  specific  market  access  requirements.  The  following  questions 
have been assigned to measure this indicator: 

3.  Is  P2P 

car 

sharing  permitted  without  obtaining  a  professional 

licence/authorisation?  

A  score  of  1  has  been  allocated  if  the  answer  is  “Yes”,  as  the  absence  of 
licence/authorisation requirement directly facilitates market access for peer providers.  

4.  Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional licence if 
remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating 
the vehicle?  

A  score  of  1  has  been  allocated  if  the  answer  is  “Yes”,  as  the  absence  of 
licence/authorisation  requirement  directly  facilitates  access  to  market  for  peer 
providers. Furthermore, the exemption of licensing requirements based on the not-for-
profit nature of the activity suggests a clear distinction between peer and professionals.  

5.  Is the number of taxi licences restricted?  
6.  Is the number of VTC licences restricted?  

A score of 1 has been allocated if the number of licences is not quantitively restricted, 
as it indicates the ease of access to the transport market. 

Peer  and  professional  provider  distinction.  The  following  questions  have  been 
assigned to measure this indicator: 

31 

 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

7.  Are  peer  providers,  who  offer  ride  sharing  services  on  an  occasional  basis, 
exempt  from  authorisation  or  professional  licences  requirements  applicable  to 
taxi or VTC services?  

A score of 1 has been allocated if the answer is “Yes”, as it removes additional regulatory 
burden  for  peer  providers  entering  the  market.  Furthermore,  the  exemption  from 
licensing requirements based on certain criteria (cost sharing or for-profit nature of the 
activity, quantitative threshold such as the frequency of the activity) suggests a clear 
distinction between peer and professionals. 

8.  Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?  

A  score  of  1  has  been  allocated  if  the  answer  is  “Yes”,  as  it  brings  clarity  to  peer 
providers regarding their rights and responsibilities. Moreover, it often implies a lesser 
regulatory  burden  for  peer  providers  and  therefore  directly  encourages  their  entry  in 
the market. A score of 0.5 has been allocated when there is no quantitative threshold 
(e.g. number of rides performed, distance in kilometres) but the distinction is based on 
the cost sharing/for-profit nature of the activity.  

Price  restrictions.  The  following  questions  have  been  assigned  to  measure  this 
indicator: 

9.  Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?  
10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?  

A  score  of  1  has  been  allocated  if  the  fares  are  not  restricted,  as  it  allows  free 
competition among providers. 

Dispatch centre affiliation. The following questions have been assigned to measure 
this indicator: 

11. Are  taxis  explicitly  required  to  be  affiliated  to  a  dispatch  centre  to  provide 

transportation services?  

12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?  

A score of 1 has been allocated if the answer is “No”, as affiliation to dispatch centres 
may entail additional requirements for transport providers and may restrict their ability 
to change platforms.  

General  licensing  requirements.  The  following  question  has  been  assigned  to 
measure this indicator: 

13. Is  there  a  requirement  for  providers  to  obtain  a  licence/authorisation  that 
involves more than holding a driving licence and not having a criminal conviction?  

A score of 1 has been  given if the answer is “No”, as it indicates  a lesser burden for 
providers  to  enter  the  market.  Moreover,  the  absence  of  a  licence  requirement  may 
imply that both peer and professional providers are allowed to operate.  

The following table outlines the main features, the indicators representing the features, 
the  questions  measuring  the  indicators,  and  the  assessment  of  the  questions  in  the 
transport theme.

32 

 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Table 1: Features, indicators, questions and their assessment for the transport theme 

Feature  

Indicator 

CODE 

Questions 

Measurement 

TRANSPORT 
Regulatory clarity  Bespoke legislation 

Market access 
requirements 

Business model-
specific market access 
requirements 

Peer and professional 
provid 
er distinction 

T1 

1. 

Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or 
ride sharing in national law? 

2.  Does the applicable legislation allow non-

professional drivers to provide private hire 
transport (VTC) services via platforms for 
remuneration? 
Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining 
a professional licence/authorisation? 
Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an 
authorisation or professional licence if 
remuneration for the activity corresponds only 
to the running costs of operating the vehicle? 
Is the number of taxi licences restricted? 
Is the number of VTC licences restricted? 

T2 

3. 

4. 

5. 
6. 

No = 0 (no definition); Partially = 0.5 (definition for 
car sharing or ride sharing); Yes = 1 (definitions for 
both car sharing and ride sharing) 
No = 0 (the legislation does not allow it); Partially = 
0.5 (the legislation does not allow it, but it is done 
in practice); Yes = 1 (the legislation allows it) 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

T3 

7.  Are peer providers offering ride sharing 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

services on an occasional basis exempt from 
authorisation or professional licences 
applicable to taxi or VTC services? 
Is there a threshold to distinguish between 
peer and professional activity? 

8. 

No = 0 (no threshold); Partially = 0.5 (cost sharing 
or for profit nature of the activity); Yes = 1 
(quantitative threshold) 
No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

Price restrictions 

T4 

9.  Are the fares for taxis unrestricted? 
10.  Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted? 

Dispatch centre 
affiliation 

T5 

11.  Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

General market access 
requirements 

T6 

a dispatch centre to provide transportation 
services? 

12.  Are VTC service providers explicitly required 

to be affiliated to a dispatch centre? 

13.  Is there a requirement for providers to get a 
professional licence/authorisation that 
involves more than holding a driving licence 
and not to have a criminal conviction? 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

2.2.2  Accommodation 

The accommodation theme, in this study, is considered as the activities involving the 
for-profit P2P short-term rental of rooms or entire residential properties by means of an 
online  platform  facilitating  the  transaction.  It  also  includes  home  swapping  activities, 
which implies an indirect monetary gain.  

2.2.2.1  Business models 

The accommodation theme includes two business models – short-term rental and home 
swapping activities (see Textbox 4). 

Textbox 4: Definitions of P2P accommodation business models 

Definitions of P2P accommodation business models 
Short-term rental models include transactions where personal providers rent out 
their  spare  rooms  or  entire  properties  to  other  people  looking  for  short-term 
accommodation.  These  transactions  are  based  on  a  monetary  exchange  for  the 
rental and usually for profit. They include the rental of rooms or entire properties 
between  peers  for  a  short  period  of  time.  Platforms  match  peers  according  to 
supply  and  demand,  i.e.  platforms  list  a  range  of  available  rooms  or  properties 
which peer consumers can choose from, and a list of people who are looking for 
such  accommodation.  Examples  of  popular  short-term  rental  platforms  include 
Airbnb, Wimdu, 9Flats or HomeAway. 

Home swapping involves cost-sharing transactions where peers can swap their 
properties,  thereby  sharing  costs  as  they  do  not  pay  for  accommodation.  The 
transaction is non-fee based as the exchange is “in kind” (a house swap). Platforms 
match peers according to the supply, i.e. the list of properties offered by peers for 
a short-term swap, which other peers can choose from. The exchange of property 
can  happen  concomitantly,  or  at  different  time  intervals.  Examples  include 
Trampolinn, GuestToGuest and HomeExchange. 

The  two  business  models  were  selected  because  of  their  economic  significance  and 
growth potential.  

The collaborative accommodation sector is the largest collaborative economy market in 
Europe, in terms of both the volume of transactions and its peer base. The European 
Commission (2017)73 finds that this sector generates EUR 6.6 billion in peer expenditure 
and EUR 4.1 billion in peer revenues each year. The same study indicates that the sector 
accounts for 8.23% of all collaborative economy consumers in the EU, and for 5.39% of 
all peer providers. Another study, conducted by ING (2016) based on a sample of 15 000 
EU respondents, found that holiday accommodation was by far the most shared, desired 
or  borrowed  good  in  P2P  markets.74  Finally,  PwC  (2016)  estimates  that  the 
accommodation  sector  accounts  for  more  transaction  value  than  the  transport, 
collaborative finance and on-demand services combined, with a total of EUR 15.1 billion. 

73   European Commission (2017). Exploratory study of consumer issues in online peer-to-peer platform 

markets. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?&item_id=77704 
74   ING (2016). “Airbnb heeft flink opwaarts effect op Amsterdamse huizenprijzen”. Available at: 

https://www.ing.nl/nieuws/nieuws_en_persberichten/2016/04/airbnb_heeft_flink_opwaarts_effect_op_a
msterdamse_huizenprijzen.html 

34 

 
 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

In  terms  of  platform  revenues,  although  it  is  second  to  the  transport  sector,  it  is 
estimated to bring in EUR 1.15 billion each year.75 

It  is  important  to  note  that,  while  the  short-term  rental  sector  is  being  increasingly 
regulated by national and local policy makers, there are no regulations specific to short-
term swapping activities. Nevertheless, interviews with experts report a high potential 
for growth for the latter in comparison to the short-term rental market, which makes it 
likely to be subject to further regulation in the future.76  

2.2.2.2  Main features and their indicators 

Input from an ongoing European Commission study on the collaborative accommodation 
sector77  points  out  the  following  major  business  environment  features  affecting 
collaborative  accommodation  business  models:  Regulatory  clarity,  Market  access 
requirements, and Enforcement.  

Regulatory  clarity  in  the  context  of  this  theme  includes  the  extent  to  which 
national/local rules are specific about what type of P2P transactions can take place, and 
how they can be intermediated.  

Within this feature, the presence of Bespoke legislation regulating the sector has been 
identified  as  the  most  important  feature  affecting  the  development  of  collaborative 
accommodation.  Bespoke  legislation,  as  in  the  case  of  the  transport  theme,  is 
considered  to  have  a  major  impact  on  the  development  of  the  collaborative 
accommodation  sector,  according  to  several  interviewees.78  This  indicator  affects  the 
emergence of collaborative platforms and, perhaps more importantly, the willingness of 
peer  providers  to  rent  out  their  homes.  The  lack  of  a  clear  definition  or  a  regulatory 
framework for P2P transactions, notably, creates uncertainty for peers. For instance, in 
May 2016 Berlin authorities started imposing fines of up to EUR 100 000 on providers 
without a permit. The Independent (2016) reports that, due to this, the city recorded a 
40% drop in the number of Airbnb listings  in the month following the introduction of 
this legislation.79 

Market  access  requirements  in  the  P2P  accommodation  theme  exist  at  national, 
regional,  or  local  (municipal)  level,  and  can  be  applicable  to  providers  (peers  and 
professionals) and collaborative platforms. The literature in this field generally calls for 
market  access  requirements  for  P2P  short-term  rental  transactions,  because  of  their 
impact on the traditional accommodation sector, on long-term rents or on the cost of 

75   PwC (2016). “Assessing the size and presence of the collaborative economy in Europe”. Assessment 

prepared for DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/16952/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native 

76   Interviews with HomeExchange (07/04/2017) and GuestToGuest (18/04/2017) in the frame of a 

European Commission study on the assessment of the regulatory aspects affecting the collaborative 
economy in the tourism accommodation sector in the 28 Member States (not published yet).  

77   VVA, Spark Legal Network (ongoing). Study on the assessment of the regulatory aspects affecting the 

collaborative economy in the tourism accommodation sector.   

78   Interviews with Martijn Arets (13/06/2017), Lucia Hernandez (30/05/2017), Vera Demary (01/06/2017), 

and Koen Frenken (13/06/2017) 

79   Payton, M. (2016). “Berlin stops AirBnB renting apartments to tourists to protect affordable housing”. 

The Independent. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/airbnb-rentals-berlin-
germany-tourist-ban-fines-restricting-to-protect-affordable-housing-a7008891.html  

35 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

living.80,81,82,83,84,85  However,  market  access  conditions  can  have  an  adverse  effect  on 
the development of the collaborative economy in this theme. For instance, in Slovenia, 
it is almost impossible for peer providers to comply with the requirements set by the 
law  and  consequently  only  a  few  platforms  are  available.86  Within  this  feature,  the 
following indicators are important:  

  Registration,  authorisations,  notifications87 

for  peer  providers  or 
collaborative platforms (including landlord approval) govern the market entry of 
collaborative  economy  operators.  Such  requirements  can  limit  the  number  of 
market participants directly (by imposing conditions that providers or users are 
not able or ready to meet) and indirectly (by adding administrative burden that 
makes users or buyers not enter the market).  

The  following  types  of  registration  and  authorisation  requirements  can  have  a 
significant impact on the development of the collaborative economy: 

a)  Public authority authorisation, registration or notification: the need to get 
an authorisation from, register with, or notify a public authority prior to 
undertaking collaborative economy activities. From an economic point of 
view,  depending  on  the  burden  of  the  registration  process  and  the 
the  conditions,  prior  authorisation  or  registration 
strictness  of 
requirements  can  reduce  the  number  of  platforms  or  peer  providers 
significantly. Because notification procedures do not require authorities’ 

80   Samaan, R. (2015). “AirBnB, rising rent, and the housing crisis in Los Angeles”. Available at: 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2015/05/01166-96023.pdf  

81   Schmücker, D. (2016) “Assessing the impact of “shared accommodation” for city tourism”. 14th Global 

Forum on Tourism Statistics, Venice, Italy, 23-25 November 2016. Available at: 
http://tsf2016venice.enit.it/images/articles/Papers_Forum/6.2_Assessing%20the%20impact%20of%20s
hared%20accommodation%20for%20city%20tourism.pdf  

82   ING (2016). “Airbnb heeft flink opwaarts effect op Amsterdamse huizenprijzen”. Available at: 

https://www.ing.nl/nieuws/nieuws_en_persberichten/2016/04/airbnb_heeft_flink_opwaarts_effect_op_a
msterdamse_huizenprijzen.html   

83   Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., Byers, J. (2016). “The rise of the sharing economy: estimating the impact of 

AirBnB on the hotel industry”. Available at: http://people.bu.edu/zg/publications/airbnb.pdf   

84   Kagermeier, A., Koller, J., Stors, N. (2016). “Airbnb als Share Economy-Herausforderung für Berlin und 

die Reaktionen der Hotelbranche“. Available at: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281844630_Airbnb_als_Share_Economy-
Herausforderung_fur_Berlin_und_die_Reaktionen_der_Hotelbranche   

85   Rafferty, J. (2010). “To Address Its Housing Shortage, Paris Cracks Down on Pied-à-Terre Rentals”. New 

York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/business/global/07rent.html  
86   4Liberty.eu (2017). The regulatory framework of the collaborative economy in Central and Eastern 

Europe. Available at: http://4liberty.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-Regulatory-Framework-of-the-
Collaborative-Economy-in-Central-and-Eastern-Europe.pdf 

87   Registration, authorisation and notification can be defined as follows (see the ongoing study by VVA and 
Spark Legal Network on the assessment of the regulatory aspects affecting the collaborative economy in 
the tourism accommodation sector): 
Registration: Procedure under which a provider or a platform needs to declare its activity to public 
authorities, in order to appear on a register. It usually involves submitting an administrative form, 
possibly along some supporting documents. The activity can start immediately after confirmation of 
entry onto register, and does not depend on the authority’s prior approval.   
Authorisation: Procedure under which a provider or a platform is required to take steps in order to 
obtain from a competent authority a decision concerning the entitlement to carry out an activity. It 
usually involves submitting an administrative form, possibly along some supporting documents. The 
activity can start only after the authority’s review and prior approval of the documents. This can take the 
form of licences, approvals, concessions, authorisation forms. 
Notification: Procedure under which a provider or a platform is required to declare its activity to public 
authorities. It usually involves submitting an administrative form, possibly along with supporting 
documents. The activity can start immediately after confirmation of receipt of notification, and does not 
depend on the authority’s prior approval. 

36 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

approval  before  starting  the  activity,  they  are  acknowledged  to  be  less 
burdensome than prior authorisations and registrations.88  

b)  Landlord approval for subletting: whether the approval of the landlord is 
needed for temporary subletting. Regulations that only allow subletting 
with  an  approval  of  the  landlord  can  be  a  serious  obstacle  for  the 
development  of  the  collaborative  economy  especially  as  cities  tend  to 
have a higher proportion of tenant households and younger households 
which are very often tenants, and therefore in both cases more inclined 
to become a peer provider of accommodation.  

  Restrictions on the type of goods or service provided have a large influence 
on  the  spread  of  P2P  accommodation  transactions.  After  reviewing  national 
regimes  governing  such  restrictions,  the  following  have  emerged  as  the  most 
relevant: 

a)  Renting out primary or secondary residences. This type of regulation can 
have a significant impact on peer providers and the development of the 
collaborative  economy  as  mobile  households  (students  or  other  young 
people)  are  an  important  potential  market  for  peer  providers  and  very 
often  change  their  living  circumstances  quickly  (due,  for  example,  to 
break-up in personal relationships or temporary work situations). 

b)  Renting out beds/rooms or parts of a residential property, obligations to 
be present in the building while renting out or other conditions. Any such 
condition has the potential to limit the number of peer providers.  

  Peer and professional provider distinction was also flagged as important by 
EU-level  stakeholders.  This  distinction  refers  to  the  existence  of  different 
standards  between  P2P  and  B2C  (Business-to-Consumer)  transactions  in  the 
short-term rental market. As in the transport sector, it often takes the form of 
thresholds (e.g. level of income, regularity of the activity, number of properties 
rented).89  In  some  Member  States,  there  is  no  explicit  threshold  but  the 
legislation  still  sets  different  requirements  for  peers  and  professionals  (see 
Section 4.3.3).  

Exemptions  for  peer  providers  from  regulations  concerning  professionals  could  be  an 
important driver for the development of the collaborative economy, as any regulatory 
burden  is  on  average  more  burdensome  for  peer  providers  who  have  less  time  to 
understand and comply with the regulations and less revenues to compensate for the 
regulatory costs than their professional counterparts. All of the experts interviewed were 
of the opinion that this issue is particularly relevant. 

Enforcement measures play an important role in the development of the P2P short-
term rental and house-swap markets. In this sector, enforcement measures often take 

88   VVA, Spark Legal Network (ongoing). Study on the assessment of the regulatory aspects affecting the 

collaborative economy in the tourism accommodation sector.   

89   VVA, Spark Legal Network (ongoing). Study on the assessment of the regulatory aspects affecting the 

collaborative economy in the tourism accommodation sector.   

37 

 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

the form of inspections (e.g. in Paris90 or Barcelona91) and fines (in German cities like 
Berlin, peer providers without a permit could be fined up to EUR 100 00092).  

The  extent  to  which  fines  can  be  considered  as  encouraging  or  hindering  the 
development  of  the  collaborative  economy  is  debatable.  On  the  one  hand,  it  brings 
further clarity to the applicable legislation, which is assumed to be beneficial to platforms 
and providers. It also deters economic operators from commercial activity, and in this 
sense  further  encourages  peer  providers  to  engage  in  the  collaborative  economy.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  can  hinder  peer  providers’  activity if  the  distinction  between  peers 
and professionals is not clearly drawn. Therefore, the enforcement measure feature only 
covers Inspections, and does not take fines into account.  

2.2.2.3  Questions linked to each indicator and their scoring  

This  Section  presents  the  questions  used  to  measure  the  indicators  and  the  way  the 
questions are scored. 

Bespoke  legislation.  The  following  questions  have  been  assigned  to  measure  this 
indicator: 

1.  Is  there  a  specific  regulation  for  accommodation  services  in  the  collaborative 

economy?  

2.  Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?  

A score of 1 has been allocated if the answer is “Yes”, as it confers clarity to platforms 
and peer providers and facilitates the collaborative economy activity. 

Registration,  authorisations,  notifications.  The  following  questions  have  been 
assigned to measure this indicator: 

3.  Are  peer  providers  required  to  register  with,  obtain  an  authorisation  from,  or 

notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?  

A  score  of  1  has  been  allocated  if  the  answer  is  “No”  for  all  three  procedures,  as  it 
facilitates market entry for peer providers. A score of 0.5 has been allocated where only 
a notification procedure is needed, as notification procedures are acknowledged to be 
less  burdensome  than  prior  authorisations  and  registrations  (see  Section  2.2.2.2 
above).  

4.  Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-

letting their property?  

5.  Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association93 

or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?  

In  each  case,  a  score  of  1  has  been  allocated  if  the  answer  is  “No”,  as  it  facilitates 
market entry for peer providers.  

90   Gee, O. (2016). “Paris in new crackdown on illegal Airbnb flats”. The Local. Available at:  

https://www.thelocal.fr/20160113/paris-cracks-down-on-illegal-airbnb-flats   

91   Burgen, S. (2017). “Barcelona cracks down on Airbnb rentals with illegal apartment squads”. The 
Guardian. Available at : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/02/airbnb-faces-
crackdown-on-illegal-apartment-rentals-in-barcelona 

92   Payton, M. (2016). “Berlin stops AirBnB renting apartments to tourists to protect affordable housing”. 

The Independent. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/airbnb-rentals-berlin-
germany-tourist-ban-fines-restricting-to-protect-affordable-housing-a7008891.html  

93   Here referred to as association gathering the residents of a same building.   

38 

 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

6.  Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?  
7.  Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?  
8.  Is  there  a  restriction  on  the  size  of  the  property  or  the  number  of  assets 

permitted to be rented out?  

9.  Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property? 
10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?  

In each case, a score of 1 has been allocated if the answer is “Yes”, as it indicates that 
peer providers have more freedom to offer their assets on the market. 

Peer  and  professional  provider  distinction.  The  following  questions  have  been 
assigned to measure this indicator: 

11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations 

(e.g. health and safety requirements)?  

A score of 1 has been allocated if individuals offering services on an occasional basis are 
exempt from certain regulations, as it indicates that peer providers should comply with 
fewer regulations than hotels and similar establishments (e.g. bed and breakfasts). 

12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?  

A score of 1 has been allocated if there is a threshold distinguishing between peer and 
professional  activity,  as  it  brings  clarity  to  peer  providers  as  regards  their  rights  and 
responsibilities and facilitates market entry. A score of 0.5 has been allocated if there is 
no  explicit  threshold  but,  nevertheless,  the  legislation  sets  different  requirements  for 
peers and professionals (see Section 4.3.3). 

Inspections. The following question has been assigned to this indicator: 

13. Are  peer  providers  subject  to  inspections  from  public  authorities  to  ensure 

compliance with the law?  

A score of 1 has been given if the answer is “No” as it facilitates peer providers’ entry 
to market and operations. That the answer “No” has been given when inspections were 
not mentioned in the law,  nor by the interviewees.  It should be noted, as mentioned 
above, that this indicator only assesses the factors encouraging the activity of platforms 
and peer providers but does not measure consumer protection concerns.  

The following table outlines the main features, the indicators representing the features, 
the  questions  measuring  the  indicators,  and  the  assessment  of  the  questions  in  the 
accommodation theme.

39 

 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Table 2: Features, indicators, questions and their assessment for the accommodation theme 

Feature 

Indicator 

CODE 

Questions 

Measurement 

ACCOMMODATION 
Regulatory clarity  

Bespoke legislation 

A1 

1. 

2. 

Is  there  a  specific  regulation  for  accommodation 
services in the collaborative economy? 
Is  there  a  clear  definition  of  the  type  of  P2P 
transactions allowed? 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

Market access 
requirements 

Registrations, 
authorisations, 
notifications 

A2 

3.  Are  peer  providers  required  to  register  with,  obtain 
an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority 
prior to letting their property? 

No = 1 (no requirement); Partially (notification) = 
0.5; Yes (registration or authorisation) = 0 

Restrictions on type 
of good or service 
provision 

Peer and professional 
provider distinction 

A4 

4.  Are peer providers required to obtain approval from 
their landlord prior to sub-letting their property? 
5.  Are peer providers required to obtain approval from 
their  building  association  or  other  residents  in  their 
building prior to sub-letting their property? 

A3 

6.  Are  peer  providers  permitted  to  let  their  primary 

residence? 

7.  Are  peer  providers  permitted  to  let  their  secondary 

8. 

residence? 
Is there a restriction in the size of the property or the 
number of assets permitted to be rented out? 

9.  Are peer providers prevented from renting out their 

whole property? 

10.  Are  peer  providers  obliged  to  be  present  in  the 

property they are renting out? 

11.  Are  individuals  offering  services  on  an  occassional 
basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety 
requirements)? 

12.  Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and 

professional activity? 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 0 (no threshold); Partially = 0.5 (no explicit 
threshold but different requirements for peers and 
professionals); Yes = 1 (threshold) 

Enforcement 
measures 

Inspections 

A5 

13.  Are peer providers subject to inspections from public 
authorities to ensure compliance with the law? 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

2.2.3  Finance 

The finance theme, in this study, is considered as the P2P transactions in which people 
give  each  other  loans  or  invest  in  each  other’s  projects  (either  demand-driven  like 
crowdfunding or supply-driven like having a list of projects to invest in). Peers act in 
their private capacity, and their actions are governed by the platform. In P2P finance, 
peers can also invest in businesses, therefore a P2B relationship is possible. 

2.2.3.1  Business models 

The finance theme includes two business models – equity funding and debt funding 
(see Textbox 5).  

Textbox 5: Definitions of P2P finance business models 

Definitions of P2P finance business models 
Equity funding allows individuals to invest in a business in return for shares in the 
company. It is therefore characterized by a peer to business relationship (P2B). This 
type of funding is traditionally used to launch start-ups or to provide funds for a new 
business  venture  by  an  established  company.  Money  is  provided  in  return  for  the 
ownership of a small part of the business. Examples include Crowdfunder, Conda or 
Fundable. 

Debt  funding  allows  individuals  to  borrow  and  lend  money  without  the  use  of  an 
official financial institution as an intermediary. The money is lent through an online 
platform.  The  advantages  of  this  type  of  funding  is  that  lenders  can  earn  higher 
returns  compared  to  savings  and  investment  products  offered  by  banks,  while 
borrowers  can  borrow  money  at  lower  interest  rates.  Examples  of  platforms 
facilitating  P2P  transaction  include  Kiva,  Prosper  and  Zopa.  LendingClub  is  a  good 
example of a crowdfunding debt lending platform. 

The collaborative finance sector has been developing rapidly in Europe. The European 
Commission estimates that EUR 4.2 billion were raised through crowdfunding platforms 
in  2015,  of  which  EUR  4.1  billion  entailed  a  financial  return.  PwC  (2016)  estimates 
transactions in the collaborative finance sector to be worth EUR 5.2 billion, which ranks 
it  second  after  the  accommodation  sector.94  According  to  the  same  study,  the 
collaborative finance sector brings EUR 250 million revenue to platforms. The sector is 
expanding, with an increase of 23.3% in the number of collaborative platforms between 
2013 and 2014. The European Commission staff working document (2016) also notes a 
potential  for  internationalisation  of  the  sector,  with  more  platforms  operating  across 
borders, which is confirmed by a Crowdfunding Hub report (2016)95. 

This  study  does  not  include  reward-based  funding  platforms  that  link  donations  to 
rewards,  although  this  model 
is  the  most  widespread  (i.e.  Kickstarter  or 
KissKissBankBank). This choice has been made to follow the scope of the Commission’s 
previous work on the sector that only included business models that entailed a financial 
return.96 A European Commission staff working document (2016) shows that equity and 
debt  funding  represent  the  highest  amount  of  money  raised  through  collaborative 
finance, respectively EUR 422 million and EUR 3.3 billion, as against to less than EUR 

94   PwC (2016). “Assessing the size and presence of the collaborative economy in Europe”. Assessment 

prepared for DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/16952/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native  
95   Crowdfunding Hub (2016). “Current state of crowdfunding in Europe”. An overview of the crowdfunding 

industry in more than 25 Member States: trends, volumes & regulations. Available at: 
https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Entrepreneurship_Centre/Docs/OxEPR2/current-state-
crowdfunding-europe-2016.pdf  

96   European Commission Staff Working Document (2016). Crowdfunding in the EU Capital Markets Union. 

SWD(2016) 154 final.  

41 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

100  million  for  reward-based  crowdfunding.  Moreover,  interviews  with  collaborative 
finance  experts  have  suggested  that  the  regulatory  framework  for  reward-based 
crowdfunding  was  much  less  developed  than  the  other  two  and  did  not  impose 
significant constraints on collaborative economy platforms and providers.97 

2.2.3.2  Main features and their indicators 

Interview input from a European Crowdfunding Network stakeholder98, as well as from 
reports  by  CrowdfundingHub  (2016)99  and  the  European  Commission  (2016)100  has 
highlighted  the  following  major  business  environment  features  of  relevance  to  both 
collaborative 
finance  business  models:  Regulatory  clarity,  Market  access 
requirements and Enforcement. 

Regulatory  clarity  is  essential  for  the  development  of  both  P2P  lending  and  equity 
investment.  While  there  are  sufficient  national  regulations  for  some  business  models 
(e.g. equity investment), there is much less regulation regarding other business models 
(e.g.  reward-based  crowdfunding).101  According  to  the  CrowdfundingHub  (2016),  in 
some  Member  States  P2P  consumer  lending  is  fully  unregulated,  raising  issues 
concerning consumer protection and irresponsible borrowing102.  

Within this feature, the presence of Bespoke legislation is an important indicator for 
promoting  the  growth  of  the  crowdfunding  sector  as  well  as  for  protecting  investors. 
Bespoke legislation measures the extent to which national/local rules are specific about 
the type of P2P transactions that can take place, and how they can be intermediated. 
Such  legislation  is  very  important  for  reassuring  market  players  and  therefore 
contributes to the development of the sector.  

The presence of bespoke legislation is perceived as positive in this study as it confers 
clarity  to  platforms  and  peer  providers  and  facilitates  activity  in  the  collaborative 
economy. However, as emphasised by the European Commission (2016), it is important 
that bespoke legislation does not tailor regulatory frameworks to the characteristics of 
local  markets  and  does  not  result  in  differences  on  how  the  rules  are  designed  and 
implemented  across  Member  States.103  This  can  have  adverse  effects,  especially 
hindering  the  provision  of  cross-border  services,  as  it  has  been  emphasised  by  an 
interview with the European Crowdfunding Network.104 This study does not measure the 
harmonisation  of  legislation  across  Member  States,  and  therefore  does  not  take  this 
element into account in the assessment of results.  

Market access requirements such as  registrations and authorisations, personal  vs. 
professional provider distinction, the presence of a prospectus, investment limits, and 
information  requirements  have  been  identified  as  relevant.  Within  this  feature,  the 
following indicators are important: 

97   Interview with the European Crowdfunding Network (25/05/2017).  
98   Interview with the European Crowdfunding Network (25/05/2017). 
99   Crowdfunding Hub (2016). “Current state of crowdfunding in Europe”. An overview of the crowdfunding 

industry in more than 25 Member States: trends, volumes & regulations. Available at: 
https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Entrepreneurship_Centre/Docs/OxEPR2/current-state-
crowdfunding-europe-2016.pdf  

100  European Commission (2016). Crowdfunding in the EU Capital Markets Union. Commission Staff Working 

Document. SWD(2016) 154 final.  

101  Interview with the European Crowdfunding Network (25/05/2017). 
102  Crowdfunding Hub (2016). “Current state of crowdfunding in Europe”. An overview of the crowdfunding 

industry in more than 25 Member States: trends, volumes & regulations. Available at: 
https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Entrepreneurship_Centre/Docs/OxEPR2/current-state-
crowdfunding-europe-2016.pdf  

103  In particular, it is important that bespoke regimes do not conflict with passporting rights. Source: 

European Commission (2016). Crowdfunding in the EU Capital Markets Union. Commission Staff Working 
Document SWD(2016) 154 final.  

104  Interview with the European Crowdfunding Network (25/05/2017). 

42 

 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

  Registrations  and  authorisations.  The  need  for  registering  or  getting  an 
authorisation from public authorities governs the entry of collaborative economy 
operators. Obtaining licences requires time and may also incur costs, which could 
deter platforms from entering the market. Lower values for time and costs are 
therefore perceived as positive. 

  Peer  and  professional  provider  distinction.  It  defines  the  extent  to  which 
occasional collaborative economy platforms/providers must bear the same level 
of regulatory burden as professional ones. In this case, it indicates easier access 
to market for collaborative economy platforms than financial institutions. A clear 
distinction is therefore perceived as positive. 

  Prospectus  requirement.  Prospectus  is  a  legal  document  companies  are 
required to publish when they issue securities to attract investments. It contains 
information on the company issuing the securities and the securities themselves, 
as well as the general terms of the offer. This additional administrative burden, 
though  positive  to  the  extent  to  which  it  enhances  transparency  over  the 
transaction  and  thus  minimises  transaction  risks,  could  deter  platforms  from 
being active, and is therefore perceived as negative. 

  Information  requirements.  Platforms  are  obliged  to  provide  specific 
information  about  the  service  they  provide.  Although  it  indicates  further 
consumer protection requirements, it is also burdensome for peer providers, and 
is therefore perceived as negative. 

As in the accommodation theme, Enforcement measures are also taken into account. 

Within  this  feature,  Inspections  are  an  important  indicator.  As  stated  by  a  finance 
platform,  inspections  are  important  since  a  major  problem  in  the  equity  investment 
industry is the fact that many platforms do not do proper due diligence on the projects 
they  advertise  for  funding105.  Other  platforms,  as  evidenced  by  Frenken  and  Schor 
(2016), may resort to novel approaches such as alternative currencies or block-chain 
technology,  and  thus  become  less  transparent.  Inspections  hinder  peer  providers’ 
market entry and operations and are therefore perceived as negative. 

2.2.3.3  Questions linked to each indicator and their scoring  

This  Section  presents  the  questions  used  to  measure  the  indicators  and  the  way  the 
questions are scored. 

Bespoke  legislation.  The  following  questions  have  been  assigned  to  measure  this 
indicator: 

1.  Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?  
2.  Is P2P equity investment prohibited?  
3.  Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending? 
4.  Is P2P lending prohibited? 

A  score  of  1  has  been  allocated  if  there  is  a  bespoke  regime  regulating  P2P  equity 
investment  or  P2P  lending,  as  it  confers  clarity  to  platforms  and  peer  providers  and 
facilitates  the  collaborative  economy  activity.  A  score  of  1  has  been  allocated  if  P2P 
equity investment and P2P lending are not prohibited, as such a prohibition restricts the 
collaborative economy activity. 

Registrations  and  authorisations.  The  following  questions  have  been  assigned  to 
measure this indicator: 

105  Interview with Conda (12/07/2017). 

43 

 
 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

5.  Please indicate the maximum period (number of calendar days) within which an 
authority  needs  to  decide  on  issuing  a  licence  for  P2P  equity  investment 
platforms.  

6.  Please indicate the maximum period (number of calendar days) within which an 

authority needs to decide on issuing a licence for P2P lending platforms. 

A  score  corresponding  to  the  number  of  days  that  an  authority  needs  to  decide  on 
issuing licences for P2P finance activities has been allocated in cases where the relevant 
legislation or authority specifies this information. When no information is available, the 
value has been set to 365 days (i.e. one year).  

7.  What are the direct costs  of obtaining all necessary authorisations/licences for 

P2P equity investment platforms? 

8.  What are the direct costs  of obtaining all necessary authorisations/licences for 

P2P lending platforms? 

Lower  values  are  positive,  as  they  indicate  a  lower  administrative  burden  for  peer 
providers. The following scores have been assigned when: 

  There is a licence and the fee for this licence is known: EUR 0-5 500; 
  There is no licence, and there is bespoke legislation specifying this: EUR 0; 
  There  is  no  licence,  but  this  is  not  specified  in  any  bespoke  legislation: 

EUR 5 500; 

  The information is not available: N/A. 

A score corresponding to the  cost  of a licence  has been allocated in cases where the 
relevant  legislation  or  authority  specifies  this  information.  When  no  information  is 
available, the value has been set at EUR 5 500. This value has been chosen as it is the 
maximum value reported across all countries (in this case, the Netherlands).  

For questions 5-8, scores have been normalised from 0 to 1 with 0 corresponding to the 
maximum achievable value (in this case 365 days or EUR 5 500) and 1 corresponding 
to the minimum value (in this case 0 days or EUR 0) (see also Section 3). 

Personal and professional provider distinction. The following questions have been 
assigned to measure this indicator: 

9.  Are  P2P  equity  investment  platforms  exempt  from  any  of  the  requirements 

applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/licence?  

10. Are  P2P  lending  platforms  exempt  from  any  of  the  requirements  applicable  to 

banks for obtaining an authorisation/licence?  

11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?  

A score of 1 has been allocated to questions 9 and 10 if collaborative finance platforms 
are exempt from any of the requirements applicable to traditional financial institutions, 
as it indicates easier market access for platforms.  

A  score  of  1  has  been  allocated  to  question  11  if  there  is  a  threshold,  as  this  brings 
clarity to peer providers as regards their rights and responsibilities and facilitates their 
entry in the market. 

Prospectus requirements. The following question has been assigned to measure this 
indicator: 

12. Is  there  an  amount  over  which  peer  providers  are  required  to  publish  a 

prospectus?  

44 

 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

A  score  of  1  has  been  given  if  the  answer  is  “No”,  as  it  indicates  less  burden  for 
providers. 

Information requirements. The following question has been assigned to measure this 
indicator: 

13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before 

engaging in collaborative finance?  

A score of 1 is allocated if the answer is “No”, as it indicates less burden for providers. 
It should be noted that this indicator only assesses the factors encouraging the activity 
of platforms and peer providers but does not measure consumer protection concerns. 

Inspections. The following question has been assigned to measure this indicator: 

14. Are  there  enforcement  measures  taken  by  public  authorities  to  ensure 

compliance with regulations? (Please specify.) 

A score of 1 has been allocated if the answer is “No” as it indicates that there is less 
regulatory  pressure  on  P2P  providers.  (Note:  This  indicator  does  not  measure  the 
benefits of regulatory compliance for the broader society). 

The following table outlines the main features, the indicators representing the features, 
the  questions  measuring  the  indicators,  and  the  assessment  of  the  questions  in  the 
finance theme.  

45 

Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Table 3: Features, indicators, questions and their assessment for the finance theme 

Feature 

Indicator 

CODE 

Questions 

Measurement 

FINANCE 
Regulatory clarity  Bespoke legislation 

F1 

1. 

2. 
3. 

Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity 
investment? 
Is P2P equity investment prohibited? 
Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending? 

Market access 
requirements 

Registrations and 
authorisations 

Is P2P lending prohibited? 

4. 
5.  Please indicate the maximum period (number of 

F2 

calendar days) within which an authority needs to 
decide on issuing a licence for P2P equity 
investment platforms. 

6.  Please indicate the maximum period (number of 

No = 0; Partially =0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

calendar days) within which an authority needs to 
decide on issuing a licence for P2P lending 
platforms. 

Values are normalised from 0 to 1 (0 = 
maximum achievable value; 1 minimum value of 
0).  

Peer and 
professional 
provider distinction 

F3 

7.  What are the direct costs of obtaining all necessary 

authorisations/licences for P2P equity investment 
platforms? 

8.  What are the direct costs of obtaining all necessary 

authorisations/licences for P2P lending platforms? 
9.  Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from 
any of the requirements applicable to investment 
firms for obtaining an authorisation/licence? 
10.  Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the 
requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an 
authorisation/licence? 

11.  Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer 

and professional activity? 

Prospectus 
requirement 
Information 
requirements 

F4 

12.  Is there an amount over which peer providers are 

required to publish a prospectus? 

F5 

13.  Are peer providers required to provide information 

to public authorities before engaging in 
collaborative finance? 

No = 0; Partially =0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 1; Partially =0.5; Yes = 0 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

Enforcement 
measures 

Inspections 

F6 

14.  Are there enforcement measures taken by public 

authorities to ensure compliance with regulations?   No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

2.3  Horizontal themes 

2.3.1  Public administration 

Public  administration  refers  to  the  measures  taken  by  public  authorities  at  national, 
regional and local level to support the development of the collaborative economy from 
an administrative point of view. This horizontal theme aims to reduce the administrative 
burden imposed on peer providers and collaborative platforms in accessing the market. 

2.3.1.1  Main features and their indicators 

The  research  undertaken  for  this  report  identified  two  important  features  that  would 
alleviate  administrative  burden  for  collaborative  economy  stakeholders,  namely 
Guidance  and  Oversight.  These  comprise  the  provision  of  guiding  documents 
regarding  applicable  legislation,  user/platform  rights  and  obligations,  and  P2P 
transactions  as  a  whole.  In  addition,  they  can  help  measure  the  extent  to  which  a 
national/regional/local authority is actively engaged in supporting or better regulating 
one  or  several  collaborative  economy  sectors.  This  can  be  done,  for  instance,  via 
platform-authority cooperation agreements, notably on tax collection. Other initiatives 
can involve the establishment of certain (inter)departmental units or bodies responsible 
for  the  active  promotion  of  the  collaborative  economy,  as  explained  further  in  this 
Section. 

Guidance  refers to any public document or  publication on official websites issued by 
public  authorities  with  respect  to  the  collaborative  economy.  Guidance  can  target 
platforms through information on taxation, licences, insurance, or applicable legislation 
to help them set up. It can also target peer providers, and tackle applicable legislation, 
rights and obligations, or give tips and information about participation to platforms. In 
this respect, the presence of a publicly supported body dealing with queries from peers 
on the use of P2P services is an additional way to provide guidance to peer providers.  

Guidance has been underlined by EU stakeholders as an important factor to foster the 
development  of  the  collaborative  economy.  Uncertainty  is  a  deterrent  to  the 
collaborative  economy  activity  and,  in  this  regard,  the  provision  of  clear  and  reliable 
information  is  beneficial.  This  feature  is  divided  into  indicators  between  guidance  to 
platforms  and  guidance  to  peer  providers,  and  includes  broader  guidance  on  the 
applicability of national employment rules to collaborative economy services: 

  Guidance on setting up collaborative platforms has been considered by five 
EU stakeholders106 as affecting the development of the collaborative economy. 
One interviewee notably mentioned that public authorities, especially at national 
level, have a key role in guiding platforms through finding sustainable business 
models in the long-term.107 It has therefore been selected as an indicator. 

  Guidance  to  peer  providers  has  also  been  emphasised  as  an  important 
element for all EU stakeholders to take into account, and it has therefore been 
selected as an indicator. It improves clarity and transparency of information as 
regards  rules  and  procedures.  Guidance  has  a  direct  effect  on  peer  providers’ 
willingness to engage in the collaborative economy, since the lack of information 
has  been  identified  as  an  important  deterrent  for  peer  providers.  Guidance  is 
therefore perceived as positive.   

106  Interviews with the European Crowdfunding Network (25/05/2017), BlaBlaCar (06/06/2017), Martijn 

Arets (13/06/2017), Vera Demary (01/06/2017) and Rosa Guidaro (21/06/2017).  

107  Interview with Martijn Arets (13/06/2017).  

47 

 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

  Cooperation  between  public  authorities  and  platforms 

involves 
partnerships between public authorities and collaborative platforms to facilitate 
the compliance of platforms with the law, e.g. for tax collection purposes. This 
element has been emphasised by the Commission staff working document of the 
European agenda for the collaborative economy108, and desk research has found 
several examples of this practice. Such an example is the collaboration between 
the  accommodation  platform  Airbnb  and  public  authorities,  for  the  former  to 
collect tourist tax on behalf of the latter. The purpose of this cooperation is to 
lower the administrative burden and to secure tax income. 

implications, 

  The provision of Guidance on employment and tax rules has been identified 
as an important element bringing further  clarity to platforms and providers as 
regards their collaborative activity. Depending on national legislation, providers 
can be classified as operating in their private capacity, as self-employed or as 
sole  traders,  with  differing  market  access 
including  tax 
treatment109.  In  some  cases,  peer  providers  have  taken  legal  action  to  be 
recognised as employees (e.g. against Instacart110, Uber111). As the Commission 
staff working document of the European agenda for the collaborative economy 
(2016)112 points out, there is no single approach on how to define consistently 
employment  status  across  Member  States  in  the  collaborative  economy.  This 
diversity of regimes at national level and across borders can bring confusion to 
platforms  and  providers  about  their  rights  and  obligations,  which  deters  their 
collaborative  activity,  as  one  EU  expert  in  transport  emphasised.113  Also,  as 
highlighted  by  De  Groen  and  Maselli  (2016),  the  collaborative  economy  has 
significant  impacts  on  labour  markets,  notably  in  terms  of  remuneration  and 
working conditions.114 The paper highlights that information about remuneration, 
working conditions, and tax requirements for peer providers’ participation, are 
crucial  policy  issues  to  be  tackled  by  governments.  In  addition,  three 
interviewees highlighted that one barrier for platforms and providers is the lack 
of understanding of what is legal and what is not.115 

Oversight  refers  to  the  role  of  public  authorities  guiding  and  overseeing  the 
development  of  the  collaborative  economy.  This  is  done  through  initiatives  aimed  at 
understanding  the  impact  of  the  collaborative  economy  and  scrutinising  its 
development.  

  The indicator of Policy making refers to the extent to which public authorities 
are  proactive  in  overseeing  and  promoting  the  collaborative  economy  in  a 
sustainable way. One expert interviewed for this study highlighted that a good 
indicator  on  a  Member  State’s  openness  towards  this  sector  is  their  efforts  to 

108  European Commission (2016). Commission staff working document accompanying the document - A 

European agenda for the collaborative economy. COM(2016) 356 final.  

109  UK Government (2015). “Working for yourself”. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-

yourself/what-counts-as-self-employed 

110  Steinmetz, K. (2015). “Lawsuit claims Instacart ‘personal shoppers’ should be classified as employees”. 
Fortune. Available at: http://fortune.com/2015/03/18/lawsuit-claims-instacart-personal-shoppers-
should-be-classified-as-employees/  

111  Shontell, A.(2015). “California Labor Commission rules an Uber driver is an employee, which could 

clobber the $50 billion company”. Business Insider UK. Available at: 
http://uk.businessinsider.com/california-labor-commission-rules-uber-drivers-are-employees-2015-
6?r=US  

112  European Commission (2016). Commission staff working document accompanying the document - A 

European agenda for the collaborative economy. COM(2016) 356 final.   

113  Interview with BlaBlaCar (06/06/2017). 
114  De Groen P., Maselli I.(2016). “The Impact of the Collaborative Economy on the Labour Market”. CEPS 

Special Report No. 138. Available at: 
https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/SR138CollaborativeEconomy_0.pdf  

115  Interviews with BlaBlaCar (06/06/2017), Vera Demary (01/06/2017) and Koen Frenken (13/06/2017). 

48 

 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

regulate  or  understand  it,116  for  instance  by  setting  up  collaborative  economy 
working  groups  in  government  ministries117,  or  by  attempting  to  produce 
statistics on the collaborative economy.118 

2.3.1.2  Questions linked to each indicator and their scoring  

This  section  presents  the  questions  used  to  measure  the  indicators  and  the  way  the 
questions are scored. 

Guidance on setting up a collaborative platform. The following question has been 
assigned to measure this indicator: 

1.  Has the government (or any other public authority) issued guidance on setting up a 

collaborative platform with respect to: 

a.  Taxation; 
b.  Necessary licences; 
c.  Insurance requirements; 
d.  Applicable legislation; 
e.  Other (please specify)? 

A score of 1 has been allocated if there is guidance with respect to any of the issues 
listed above licence, as it shows the willingness of regulators to clarify the position of 
platforms and ease the regulatory burden.  

Guidance to peer providers. The following questions have been assigned to measure 
this indicator: 

2.  Has the government (or any other public authority) issued a public document or a 

publication on an official website with respect to: 

a.  Legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms; 
b.  Rights and obligations of P2P providers; 
c.  Tips for participating on P2P platforms; 
d.  General information or campaigns on what P2P services are; 
e.  Other (please specify)? 

A  score  of  1  has  been  allocated  if  there  is  a  public  document  or  a  publication  on  an 
official public website clarifying any of the topics mentioned (what P2P economy is, what 
P2P providers’ rights and obligations are, or any other information clarifying the status 
of peer providers).  

3.  Is there a publicly supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory 

aspects of use/offering of P2P services?  

116  Interview with Koen Frenken (13/06/2017).  
117  In Catalonia, the Interdepartmental Commission on the collaborative economy brings together civil 
servants from different ministries to consider the impact of the collaborative economy and issue 
proposals for its development. Source: Generalitat de Cataluyna (2017). “Participa en la economía 
colaborativa”. Available at: http://web.gencat.cat/es/actualitat/detall/Participa-Gencat-leconomia-
collaborativa   

118  The UK’s Office for National Statistics’ initiative to assess the feasibility of measuring the sharing 

economy in the UK. The study attempts to estimate the value of the collaborative economy, and its 
impact on the labour market. The final goal is to provide policy makers with reliable data to improve 
future regulation of the collaborative economy market. Source: Office for National Statistics (2016). “The 
feasibility of measuring the sharing economy: progress update.” Available at: 
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/articles/thefeasibilityofmeasur
ingthesharingeconomy/progressupdate     

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

A score of 1 has been allocated if there is such a body as this enhances access to support 
for P2P providers. 

Cooperation between public authorities and platforms. The following question has 
been assigned to measure this indicator: 

4.  Has the government (or any other public authority) entered into a partnership with 

any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?  

A score of 1 has been allocated if the answer is “Yes” as this indicates that the public 
authority is open to P2P providers and is collaborating with them, inter alia, as part of 
an effort to reduce their compliance burden. 

Guidance on employment and tax rules. The following questions have been assigned 
to measure this indicator:  

5.  Has  the  government  (or  any  other  public  authority)  provided  guidance  on  the 

applicability of national tax rules to services provided on P2P platforms?  

6.  Has  the  government  (or  any  other  public  authority)  provided  guidance  on  the 
applicability of national employment rules to services provided on P2P platforms? 

A score of 1 has been allocated when the answer is “Yes” as it indicates a willingness to 
alleviate peer provider and platform burden. 

Policy  making.  The  following  two  questions  have  been  assigned  to  measure  this 
indicator: 

7.  Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?  
8.  Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the 
development  and  impact  of  the  collaborative  economy  (e.g.  government 
commission, stakeholder consultation, study)?  

A  score  of  1  has  been  given  if  such  bodies  exist  or  initiatives  taken,  as  it  shows  a 
willingness from the public authorities to monitor the development of the collaborative 
market. 

The following table outlines the main features, the indicators representing the features, 
the  questions  measuring  the  indicators,  and  the  assessment  of  the  questions  in  the 
public administration theme.  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

Table 4: Features, indicators, questions and their assessment for the public administration theme 

Feature 

Indicator 

CODE 

Questions 

Measurement 

PUBLIC 
ADMINISTRATION 
Guidance on setting up 
P2P platforms  

Guidance on setting 
up P2P platforms 

Guidance to peer 
providers 

Guidance to peer 
providers 

Cooperation between 
public authorities and 
platforms 
Guidance on 
employment and tax 
rules 

Cooperation between 
public authorities and 
platforms 
Guidance on 
employment and tax 
rules 

PA1  1.  Has the government (or any other public authority) issued 

guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: 
a.  Taxation 
b.  Necessary licences 
c. 
d.  Applicable legislation 
e.  Other (please specify) 

Insurance requirements 

PA2  2.  Has the government (or any other public authority) issued a 

public document or a publication on an official website with 
respect to: 
a.  Legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms 
b.  Rights and obligations of P2P providers 
c.  Tips for participating on P2P platforms 
d.  General information or campaigns on what P2P services are 
e.  Other (please specify) 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 
(guidance has been issued with 
respect to at least one topic) 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 
(guidance has been issued with 
respect to at least one topic) 

3.  Is there a publicly supported body dealing with queries from 

peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services? 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

PA3  4.  Has the government (or any other public authority) entered 

into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax 
collection purposes)? 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

PA4  5.  Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of 

national employment rules to services provided on P2P 
platforms? 

6.  Has the government (or any other public authority) provided 
guidance on the applicability of national tax rules to services 
provided on P2P platforms? 

Policy making  

Policy making 

PA5  7.  Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation 

related to P2P services? 

8.  Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public 

authorities to examine the development and impact of the 
collaborative economy (e.g. government commission, 
stakeholder consultation, study)? 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

2.3.2  Business support 

Business  support  measures  are  public  support  services  aimed  at  increasing 
stakeholders’  interest  in  the  collaborative  economy,  and  at  incentivising  them  to 
participate. Public authorities can reduce administrative burdens (as seen in the public 
administration  theme)  but  also  facilitate  access  to  market  by  supporting  the 
development of  platforms through  financial or non-financial support,  or by promoting 
collaborative practices among peers through infrastructure, activities and accreditation 
schemes. 

2.3.2.1  Main features and their indicators 

The  business  support  measures  identified  in  this  report  through  desk  research  and 
expert  interviews  can  be  divided  into  the  provision  of  (financial  and  non-financial) 
Support services, and the Facilitation of collaborative services. 

Support  services  refers  to  measures  public  authorities  take  to  help  collaborative 
platforms and entrepreneurs to set up and grow. Support services can be financial (e.g. 
grant  schemes  or  other  use  of  public  funds)  or  educational/advisory  (e.g.  training 
activities,  technical  and  business  advice).  Most  experts  interviewed  for  this  study 
emphasise  the  relevance  of  such  measures  for  encouraging  the  development  of  the 
collaborative  economy,  and  highlight  they  are  not  sufficiently  widespread  in  Member 
States.119  

Within this feature, the following indicators are important: 

  Financial  support.  Public  authorities  can  support  collaborative  economy 
businesses through grant schemes, as well as other public funding programmes. 
Such  initiatives  are  often  implemented  at  national  level.  They  can  target 
collaborative economy actors specifically or a broader target group (i.e. SMEs, 
start-ups,  innovative  businesses).  In  the  latter  case,  it  is  important  to  assess 
whether  collaborative  economy  actors  are  eligible  to  receive  funding  and  the 
conditions under which they can apply.120  

  Non-financial  support.  Public  authorities  can  also  provide  material  help  to 
collaborative economy platforms or providers, e.g. training activities, technical 
or business advice. Such support can be provided at national or local level (e.g. 
by  municipalities  or  chambers  of  commerce).  EU  stakeholders  consider  this 
measure  secondary  compared  to  financial  services  for  encouraging  the 
collaborative  economy,  nevertheless  three  stakeholders121  believe  it  has  a 
significant effect fostering collaborative economy activities.  

Facilitation  of  collaborative  services  refers  to  the  indirect  measures  public 
authorities take to encourage the development of the collaborative economy within the 
public  administration  or  among  citizens.  Initiatives  range  from  the  promotion  of 
collaborative  economy  services  within  public  administration  (i.e.  through  public 
procurement or by encouraging the use of collaborative platforms in the public sector) 
to the setting up of accreditation schemes for collaborative platforms or to specific tax 
measures  for  peer  providers.  The  experts  interviewed  have  estimated  that  such 

119  Interviews with Rosa Guidaro (21/06/2017), European Crowdfunding Network (25/05/2017), Lucia 

Hernandez (30/05/2017) and Martijn Arets (13/06/2017).  

120  Interview with Martijn Arets (13/06/2017). 
121  Interviews with Lucia Hernandez (09/06/2017), European Crowdfunding Network (21/05/2017) and 

Martijn Arets (13/06/017). 

52 

 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
EU – Final report 

measures  were  a  good  indicator  of  public  authorities’  openness  towards  collaborative 
economy business models.122  

Within this feature, the following indicators are important: 

  Promotion  of  P2P  services  within  public  administration.  Public 
administration can back collaborative platforms through public procurement. For 
its 
instance,  the  United  Kingdom  government  recommended  updating 
procurement  framework  to  include  collaborative  platforms  as  alternatives  for 
traditional transport and accommodation services.123 Public authorities can also 
get  involved  in  running  a  platform  or  encouraging  the  use  of  collaborative 
platforms by public servants. For instance, in France and the United Kingdom, 
public authorities can use crowdfunding platforms to finance public projects. In 
these cases, collaborative platforms complement the public service offer. Such 
involvement  has  an  immediate  positive  effect  on  the  development  of  the 
collaborative  economy  as  it  directly  supports  the  activities  of  platforms  and 
encourages citizens to engage in these new kinds of business models.  

  Accreditation schemes. Public or publicly-supported recognition of the quality 
of  collaborative  economy  services.  Accreditation  schemes  can  include,  for 
instance,  quality  labels.  As  acknowledged  by  the  literature124,  125,  126  and  the 
European  Commission  (2017)127,  trust  is  crucial  in  the  development  of  the 
collaborative economy. According to the experts interviewed, public authorities 
can  play  a  role  facilitating  this  trust  and  spreading  good  practices  among  the 
industry.128  

  Specific tax treatment. Refers to tax allowances or specific tax rules exempting 
providers from fiscal contributions up to a certain amount of revenues obtained 
from their economic activity. The European Commission’s Communication on a 
European agenda for the collaborative economy (2016) acknowledges that issues 
can  emerge  in  relation  to  tax  compliance  and  tax  enforcement.  De  Groen  and 
Maselli (2016) and the literature review on taxation, entrepreneurship and the 
collaborative  economy  by  Dondena  &  IHS  (2017)  identify  specific  tax  rules 
(through the use of a threshold) as a policy option that can help alleviate the tax 
compliance burden for small providers who engage in the collaborative economy. 
Other effective policy options are the clarification of  the rules, the cooperation 
between  authorities  and  platforms,  or  the  provision  of  guidance  by  public 
authorities to platforms and providers, which also ensure effective taxation (see 
also Section 2.3.1).129,130  

122  Interviews with Rosa Guidaro (21/06/2017), European Crowdfunding Network (25/05/2017) and Vera 

Demary (01/06/2017).  

123  UK Government (2015).  “Independent review of the sharing economy. Government Response”. 

Available at: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414111/bis-15-172-
government-response-to-the-independent-review-of-the-sharing-economy.pdf 

124  Brescia, R. (2016). Regulating the Sharing Economy: New and Old Insights into an Oversight Regime for 

the Peer-to-Peer Economy. Nebraska Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 1, p. 87 (2016). Available at: 
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2728900 

125  Slee, T. (2013). Some obvious things about internet reputation systems. Available at: 

http://tomslee.net/2013/09/some-obviousthings-about-internet-reputation-systems.htm 

126  Lobel, O. (2016). The Law of the Platform. Univ. of San Diego, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, 

Mar. 2016, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract = 2742380. 

127  European Commission (2017). Exploratory study of consumer issues in online peer-to-peer platform 

markets. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=77704 

128  Interviews with Rosa Guidaro (21/06/2017) and European Crowdfunding Network (25/05/2017). 
129  De Groen P., Maselli I. (2016). “The Impact of the Collaborative Economy on the Labour Market”. CEPS 

Special Report No. 138, p. 23. 

130  Dondena, IHS. (2017). Literature review on taxation, entrepreneurship and collaborative economy. 
Available at: http://www.case-research.eu/en/literature-review-on-taxation-entrepreneurship-and-
collaborative-economy 

53 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

2.3.2.2  Questions linked to each indicator and their scoring  

This  Section  presents  the  questions  used  to  measure  the  indicators  and  the  way  the 
questions are scored. 

Financial support. The following questions have been assigned to this indicator:  

1.  Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?  
2.  Are  there  other  kinds  of  direct  or  indirect  public  financial  support  to  which 

collaborative platforms can apply?  

A  score  of  1  has  been  allocated  if  the  answer  is  “Yes”  as  it  indicates  that  national 
government is supportive of collaborative platforms. 

Non-financial support. The following question has been assigned to this indicator:  

3.  Does  the  government  (or  any  other  public  authority)  provide  support  services 
(e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy 
platforms or peer providers?  

A score of 1 has been assigned if a public authority provides any non-financial support 
services.  

Promotion  of  P2P  services  within  public  administration.  The  following  question 
has been assigned to this indicator:  

4.  Are  public  servants  allowed  to  use  collaborative  services  in  a  professional 

capacity?  

A score of 1 has been allocated if public servants can use collaborative economy services 
as part of their professional activities. 

Accreditation schemes. The following question has been assigned to this indicator:  

5.  Does  the  government  (or  any  other  public  authority)  provide  an  accreditation 
scheme  for  the  promotion  of  the  collaborative  platforms  or  actively  support 
industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?  

A score of 1 has been allocated if an accreditation scheme for collaborative platforms is 
provided. 

Specific tax treatment. The following question has been assigned to this indicator:  

6.  Has the government (or any other public authority) introduced any tax allowance 
or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)  

A score of 1 has been allocated if the answer is “Yes” as this indicates that collaborative 
providers can make use of specific tax rules. 

The following table outlines the main features, the indicators representing the features, 
the  questions  measuring  the  indicators,  and  the  assessment  of  the  questions  in  the 
business support theme. 

54 

 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

Table 5: Features, indicators, questions and their assessment for the business support theme 

Feature 
BUSINESS SUPPORT 
Support services 

Indicator 

CODE 

Questions 

Measurement 

Financial support 

BS1 

1.  Are there dedicated, publicly-
funded grant schemes for 
collaborative platforms? 

2.  Are there other kinds of direct or 
indirect public financial support to 
which collaborative platforms can 
apply? 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

Non-financial support 

BS2 

3.  Does the government (or any 

other public authority) provide 
support services (e.g. training 
activities, technical and business 
advice) for collaborative economy 
platforms or peer providers? 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

Facilitation  of  collaborative 
services 

Promotion of P2P services 
within public 
administration 

BS3 

4.  Are public servants allowed to use 

collaborative services in a 
professional capacity? 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

Accreditation schemes 

BS4 

5.  Does the government (or any 

other public authority) provide an 
accreditation scheme for the 
promotion of the collaborative 
platforms or actively support 
industry initiatives for self-
regulatory standards (e.g. quality 
label)? 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

Specific tax treatment 

BS5 

6.  Has the government or any other 

public authority introduced any 
tax allowance or specific tax rules 
for peers in the collaborative 
economy? (please specify) 

No = 0; Partially =0.5; Yes = 1 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

2.3.3  Alignment 

Alignment  refers  to  the  extent  to  which  regulation  affecting  collaborative  economy 
providers and platforms is harmonised across a Member State.  

2.3.3.1  Main features and its indicators 

The  Degree  of  regulatory  alignment  is  the  only  feature  linked  to  the  alignment 
theme. Such a feature is particularly relevant for platforms operating in more than one 
Member  State.  For  instance,  the  car  sharing  platform  BlaBlaCar  highlighted  the 
difficulties and the considerable market research costs it must cover in order to expand 
to  a  new  market.131  Lack  of  alignment  can  also  affect  peer  providers,  as  they  must 
comply with different sets of rules depending on where they provide their service. 

Regulatory  alignment  at  Member  State  level  is  not  a  given.  In  the  transport  and 
accommodation  themes  especially,  regulatory  powers  can  be  devolved  to  local  or 
regional authorities, as explained below. This is less so the case in collaborative finance, 
as evidenced by an expert interviewed for this study.132 

Within this feature, the following indicators are important: 

  Degree of regulatory alignment – Transport. Refers to the extent to which 
transport regulations are harmonised at national level. A European Commission 
study  on  collaborative  transport  (2016)  emphasises  that  the  transport  market 
can be highly fragmented within a Member State, notably because authorisations 
(e.g.  taxi  and/or  VTC  licences)  are  only  valid  for  the  territory  of  the  issuing 
authorities.133 

  Degree of regulatory alignment – Accommodation. Refers to the extent to 
which accommodation regulations are harmonised at national level. Within the 
accommodation theme, the devolution of housing and tourism matters to local 
authorities increases policy fragmentation at national level.134  

131  Interview with BlaBlaCar (06/06/2017). 
132  Interview with European Crowdfunding Network (25/05/2017). 
133   Grimaldi Studio Legale (2016). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 

ridesharing in the EU. Final report, p. 8. 

134  VVA, Spark Legal Network (ongoing). Study on the assessment of the regulatory aspects affecting the 

collaborative economy in the tourism accommodation sector.   

56 

 
 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

2.3.3.2  Questions linked to each feature and their scoring  

This  Section  presents  the  questions  used  to  measure  the  indicators  and  the  way  the 
questions are scored. 

Degree  of  regulatory  alignment  –  Transport.  The  following  question  has  been 
assigned to measure this indicator: 

1.  Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere 

within a Member State? 

A score of 1 has been allocated if the answer is “Yes”, as it indicates that the regulatory 
environment in the transport theme is aligned within a Member State.  

Degree of regulatory alignment – Accommodation. The following questions have 
been assigned to measure this indicator: 

2.  Do  some  regions  or  cities  apply  specific  regulations  for  P2P  accommodation 

service providers?  

3.  Do  some  regions  or  cities  apply  the  national  regulations  on  accommodation 

service providers differently resulting in different regulatory burdens? 

A score of 1 has been allocated if the answer is “No”, as it indicates that the regulatory 
environment in the accommodation theme is aligned within a Member State, and that 
regulatory burden associated with policy fragmentation is avoided.  

The following table outlines the main features, the indicators representing the features, 
the  questions  measuring  the  indicators,  and  the  assessment  of  the  questions  in  the 
alignment theme. 

Table 6: Features, indicators, questions and their assessment for the alignment 
theme 

Feature 

Indicator 

CODE 

Data collection question 

Assessment of 
results 

ALIGNMENT 
Degree of 
regulatory 
alignment 

Degree of 
regulatory 
alignment - 
Transport 

Degree of 
regulatory 
alignment - 
Accommodation 

AL1 

1.  Do the same rules on 

authorisation apply for peer 
transport services everywhere 
within a Member State? 

No = 0; Partially 
=0.5; Yes = 1 

AL2 

2.  Do some regions or cities 

apply specific regulations for 
peer to peer accommodation 
service providers?  

3.  Do some regions or cities 

apply the national regulations 
on accommodation service 
providers differently resulting 
in different regulatory 
burden? 

No = 1; Partially 
=0.5; Yes = 0 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

3  Methodology 

This Chapter outlines the methodology for designing and calculating the indicators, as 
well as for collecting the data to feed these indicators.  

3.1  Data collection 

3.1.1  Design 

The research questions for the data collection have been elaborated in parallel with the 
identification  of  the  key  features  of  the  business  and  regulatory  environment.  Each 
question  has  been  linked  to  a  particular  feature  to  facilitate  the  development  of 
indicators  in  a  streamlined  process.  Data  collection  efforts  served  to  validate  and 
complement the initial list of indicators submitted in the inception report and revised in 
Deliverable 1. 

Different inputs have been used in elaborating the data collection research questions: 

  EU-level literature review and interviews with EU-level experts and collaborative 

platforms; 

  Suggestions from the European Commission, arising from inputs from different 

expert Directorates General. 

The final list of data collection research questions has been compiled in a “data collection 
fiche” in Excel format (see Table 7: Data collection fiche columns). Twenty-eight data 
collection fiches have been distributed to the country researchers to fill in. They were 
divided into eight different sheets, as follows:  

  A “Scope” sheet aimed at providing essential information to country researchers. 
It  comprised  definitions  of  the  collaborative  economy,  the  six  vertical  and 
horizontal themes within the scope of the study, important concepts, and a brief 
explanation of what was expected from each country researcher. 

  Six  “Questions”  sheets  corresponding  to  each  vertical  and  horizontal  theme, 

outlining the list of questions with blank cells to fill in.  

  An  “Interview”  sheet  where  country  researchers  indicated  the  status  of  their 

interviews with experts and collaborative platforms.135 

Within  the  “Questions”  sheets,  country  researchers  could  see  the  different  questions, 
the corresponding feature, indicator and business model, and a brief description of the 
main terms used. Country researchers had to fill in: 

  Short answer: pre-defined answers with No/Partially/Mostly/Yes;136 
  Reasoning and references: explain the reasoning behind the short answer with 

input from laws, reports and interviews;  

  Sources: the exact source(s) used, referenced following the Harvard Referencing 

Guide.137  

In addition, country researchers had to conduct: 

  Three  interviews  with  policy/academic  experts,  mostly  to  validate  the  findings 
already obtained or to complement them with information on the context in which 
relevant laws and regulations were created or operate in. 

135  Peer-provider input was gathered in survey format.  
136  Answers have then been converted to No/Partially/Yes (see Chapter 3). 
137  https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/administration-and-support-

services/library/public/harvard.pd f 

58 

 
 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

  Three interviews with platform representatives (one per vertical theme). These 
interviews help obtain examples relating to the regulations/restrictions described 
and could also serve to validate some of the findings. 

  Surveys with three peer providers (ideally one per vertical theme). Peers would 

also provide examples or validate some of the existing findings.  

Finally, the interview input column indicated which interview question linked to which 
research question.

59 

 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Table 7: Data collection fiche columns 

60 

Main questionSub-featureFeatureBusiness modelDescriptionLevelShort answerReasoning and referencesSources1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing in Bespoke legislationRegulatory clarityCar sharingFind out whether the NationalYesArticle L.1231-14 of the Transport Code defines carsharing as "the Article L.1231-14 of the Transport Code.E-TRAN-1 / PP-TRAN-1 / PL-TRAN-12. Is there a definition of P2P ride sharing in Bespoke legislationRegulatory clarityRide sharingFind out whether the NationalYesLaw 2015/992 introduces a definition of ridesharing LOI n° 2015-992 du 17 août 2015 relative à E-TRAN-2 / PP-TRAN-2 / PL-TRAN-2ParisNoTo be allowed to operate, ride hailing operators must be registered in the VTC registry. This involves providing a copy of the extract of the registration of the company (KBIS extract or SIREN directory). Therefore, there cannot be non-professional drivers providing VTCs services. This is regulated at national level.Service public.fr, Exploitant ou conducteur de voiture avec chauffeur (VTC). Available at: https://www.service-public.fr/professionnels-entreprises/vosdroits/F31027E-TRAN-3LyonNoTo be allowed to operate, ride hailing operators must be registered in the VTC registry. This involves providing a copy of the extract of the registration of the company (KBIS extract or SIREN directory). Therefore, there cannot be non-professional drivers providing VTCs services. This is regulated at national level.Service public.fr, Exploitant ou conducteur de voiture avec chauffeur (VTC). Available at: https://www.service-public.fr/professionnels-entreprises/vosdroits/F31027LilleNoTo be allowed to operate, ride hailing operators must be registered in the VTC registry. This involves providing a copy of the extract of the registration of the company (KBIS extract or SIREN directory). Therefore, there cannot be non-professional drivers providing VTCs services. This is regulated at national level.Service public.fr, Exploitant ou conducteur de voiture avec chauffeur (VTC). Available at: https://www.service-public.fr/professionnels-entreprises/vosdroits/F31027ParisYesThere is no need for any professional license/authorisation. This is regulated at national level.Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Autopartage en France. Available at: https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/autopartage-en-france#e4E-TRAN-4 / PP-TRAN-3 LyonYesThere is no need for any professional license/authorisation. This is regulated at national level.Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Autopartage en France. Available at: https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/autopartage-en-france#e4LilleYesThere is no need for any professional license/authorisation. This is regulated at national level.Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Autopartage en France. Available at: https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/autopartage-en-france#e4ParisNoThere is no need for any professional license/authorisation. This is regulated at national level.Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Autopartage en France. Available at: https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/autopartage-en-france#e4E-TRAN-4-a / PP-TRAN-3-aLyonNoThere is no need for any professional license/authorisation. This is regulated at national level.Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Autopartage en France. Available at: https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/autopartage-en-france#e4LilleNoThere is no need for any professional license/authorisation. This is regulated at national level.Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Autopartage en France. Available at: https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/autopartage-en-france#e4ParisYesDecision 11-21.908 of the French Court of Cassation has declared ridesharing as a legal provided that the service is free or on a cost-sharing basis. There is no need for any authorisation or professional license.Cour de Cassation, civile, Chambre commerciale, 12 March 2013, Decision 11-21.908. Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000027184572&fastReqId=46526540&fastPos=7E-TRAN-5 / PP-TRAN-4LyonYesDecision 11-21.908 of the French Court of Cassation has declared ridesharing as a legal provided that the service is free or on a cost-sharing basis. There is no need for any authorisation or professional license.Cour de Cassation, civile, Chambre commerciale, 12 March 2013, Decision 11-21.908. Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000027184572&fastReqId=46526540&fastPos=7LilleYesDecision 11-21.908 of the French Court of Cassation has declared ridesharing as a legal provided that the service is free or on a cost-sharing basis. There is no need for any authorisation or professional license.Cour de Cassation, civile, Chambre commerciale, 12 March 2013, Decision 11-21.908. Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000027184572&fastReqId=46526540&fastPos=73. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for Bespoke legislationRegulatory clarityRide hailingDo laws allow drivers who are not businesses to provide 5. Is the requirement for a professional car sharing license dependent on the level of income/profit from the activity?Model-specific market access requirementsMarket access requirementsCar sharingIf you do need a license/authorisation, does it depend on your 4. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsMarket access requirementsCar sharingCan people carry out P2P sharing without any 6. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds Model-specific market access requirementsMarket access requirementsRide sharingThis asks if you need a license only when you make a profit Interview input sources 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

A  research  guide  has  been  elaborated  to  provide  further  guidance  to  the  country 
researchers.  Country  researchers  have  also  relied  on  various  documents  provided  by 
the European Commission and the core team to facilitate their work, as well as various 
lists of experts and collaborative platforms to be interviewed.  

Interviews  with  experts,  collaborative  platforms  and  peer  providers  have  been 
scheduled and conducted as follows: 

  The  country  researchers  have  sent  interview  requests  using  a  template  email, 
drafted by the core team explaining the project together with an accreditation 
letter provided by the European Commission. When needed, reminder emails and 
phone calls have been used to schedule missing interviews.  

  The country researchers have sent the questionnaire to the interviewees to allow 
them to prepare their answers beforehand. The core team had prepared different 
questionnaires for experts, collaborative platforms and peer providers, and the 
different themes. As the questionnaires followed strictly the research questions 
which have been presented in Chapter 2, they are not provided in the annexes 
to this report. 

  After each interview, the country researchers drafted minutes and integrated the 

answers into the data collection fiche.  

Additional peer providers’ input has been obtained through an online survey elaborated 
on  SurveyGizmo.  The  goal  was  to  maximise  the  chances  of  reaching  individual 
stakeholders  who  might  be  less  aware  of  the  European  Commission’s  work,  and  less 
available to respond to a formal interview. The survey was designed by the core team 
in  a  simple language  and  disseminated  using social  network  groups.  Responses  were 
anonymous.  

In  terms  of  geographical  scope,  country  researchers  had  to  cover  the  regulatory 
environment  at  national  and  city-level,  with  the  capital  taken  as  most  representative 
city. In some Member States, researchers had to cover additional cities, as follows: 

Italy: Rome, Milan and Florence 

  France: Paris, Lyon and Lille 
  Germany: Berlin, Hamburg and Munich 
 
  Netherlands: Amsterdam and Rotterdam 
  Romania: Bucharest and Cluj 
  UK: London, Manchester and Liverpool. 

In Belgium, data collection has covered the regions of Flanders and Wallonia, as well as 
the city of Brussels.  

3.1.2  Process 

The country researchers have been selected for their expertise in the topic and language 
skills. External experts have been contracted for the Member States that could not be 
covered  by  the  consortium.  Before  starting  data  collection,  the  core  team  conducted 
separate preparatory Skype chats with country researchers (internal and external).  

Data collection ran for six and a half weeks between 19 July and 1 September 2017. 

The core team advised country researchers to respect the following procedure: 

61 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

team,  describing  Member  State 

  Go through the documentation provided by the European Commission and the 
transport, 

core 
accommodation, and finance themes138; 
In parallel, contact relevant stakeholders to request interviews. The aim was to 
conduct  interviews  after  having  reviewed  the  relevant  legislation,  so  that  the 
interviews  could  focus  on  gathering  missing  information  and  clarifying 
ambiguities.  

regulations 

the 

in 

 

Interim results were obtained from country researchers after three weeks to monitor 
progress.  Clarification  emails  have  been  sent  at  several  stages  of  data  collection  to 
ensure a good understanding of the work to be done and consistency between country 
researchers. Interim results were sent to the core team members responsible for Task 2 
to allow them to make an early start and to point out potential issues to address in the 
remaining period of data collection.   

Final results were submitted by the country researchers on 1 September 2017. The 
core  team  subsequently  compiled  and  reviewed  all  results.  Quality  assurance  was 
undertaken to ensure that all cells had been filled in, the methodology was aligned, the 
references  were  correctly  presented,  and  the  reasoning  made  sense.  When  needed, 
country researchers were asked to update their data collection fiche. 

Final  results  have  been  sent  to  the  Member  States’  authorities  for  a  final  check  on 
January 2018. This has allowed to complement results and correct potential errors. The 
core  team  has  provided  justifications  for  the  cases  where  the  Member  States’ 
suggestions were not followed.  

3.1.3  Results 

In  the  data  collection  phase,  129  interviews  were  carried  out:  65  with  academic  and 
policy experts; 54 with representatives of platforms; and, 10 with peer providers.  

Of the 54 platforms involved in the study, 30 operate in the finance theme, 20 in the 
transport theme and four in the accommodation theme. 

The  small  number  of  responses  in  the  accommodation  theme  was  due  to  its  lower 
number of available respondents (platforms) and to the timing of the data collection. 
The  summer  season  is  a  peak  period  for  these  platforms,  which  made  them  less 
available for an interview.  

The table below summarises the number of interviews by country. 

138  Accommodation documents were provided at a later stage due to the necessity to obtain agreement 
from the European Commission. Country researchers were advised to focus on other sectors in the 
meantime, and to start scheduling interviews.  

62 

 
 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

Table 8 : Total number of interviews by country 

Country 
AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
Grand Total 

No 
2 
3 
6 
7 
5 
6 
6 
5 
3 
7 

  Country 

FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 

No 
5 
8 
4 
2 
3 
7 
2 
4 
4 

  Country 

MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

No 
4 
1 
11 
1 
3 
8 
4 
6 
2 

129 

Data collection was carried out mainly in August, as a result of which many stakeholders 
were not available or reachable due to the holiday period. 

Overall the data collection succeeded to provide answers to each question (with a few 
exceptions  mentioned  below).  Table  9  and  Table  10  present  the  completion  rates  for 
each of the Member States for each of the questions. Here,  indicates that the question 
was answered and “NA” that no information was available.  

When the indicator value is an average of  several  questions, it is required that more 
than half of the data points are present for the value to be calculated. Therefore, when 
NA was the answer in more than half of the questions within an indicator, the indicator 
is also marked as NA.  

The calculation of the overall scores and theme scores does not take into account  the 
NA answers. This is due to the fact that the lack of information cannot be considered as 
positive or negative, and therefore is not assessed by the Index.  

The majority of the six themes reached a 100% completion rate. Notable outliers are 
the  accommodation  and  finance  themes  for  Belgium,  with  69%  and  71%  fill  rates 
respectively, and the finance theme for Croatia, with a fill rate of 82%. In the case of 
Belgium,  the  accommodation  questions  for  which  answers  are  missing  could  not  be 
verified  through  desk  research  and  interviews.  While  specific  regulations  for 
accommodation services in the collaborative economy exist in the regions of Flanders 
and the city of Brussels, they do not clearly cover the questions in order to verify them 
and provide definitive answers. Consequently, NA was chosen as the most appropriate 
response. This strategy was applied to all questions that could not be clearly verified. 
Doing  so  prevented  introduction  of  biased  valuation  both  in  a  positive  and  negative 
direction. 

The case of the finance theme for Croatia illustrates another general reason for missing 
values – the lack of regulation for P2P economy and the uncertainty over the applicability 
of traditional regulation. Croatia currently does not have a bespoke legislation regulating 
P2P finance. However, operators could be subject to requirements applicable to more 
traditional finance providers. As this could not be clarified through desk research and 
expert interviews, NA values were chosen as the most appropriate responses. 

In general, however, as the tables below show, the  extent of the  problem of missing 
values  was  limited.  The  completion  rate  in  general  is  very  high  and  allows  for 
methodologically sound analysis. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Table  9 :  Total  completion  rate  per  Member  State  and  per  question,  for  14 
Member States (from Austria to Hungary, in alphabetical order) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

100% 

92% 

69% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
             
             
    NA 
        
             
             
             
 NA            
 NA            
 NA            
 NA            
             
             
             
AT 

HU 

HR 

BG 

DK 

DE 

BE 

CY 

CZ 

FR 

EE 

ES 

EL 

FI 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
AT 

HU 

HR 

BG 

DK 

DE 

BE 

CY 

FR 

CZ 

EE 

ES 

EL 

FI 

100% 

82% 

88% 

88% 

71% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
             
             
             
            NA  
           

             
    NA
             
   NA          
   NA          
 NA            
             
             
 NA            
AT 

       NA  

HU 

HR 

BG 

DK 

DE 

BE 

CY 

CZ 

FR 

EE 

ES 

EL 



FI 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
             
             
             
             
             
             

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

per 
question 
per MS 

100% 
100% 
96% 
100% 
93% 
100% 
96% 
96% 
96% 
93% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
96% 
96% 
96% 
93% 
100% 
96% 
96% 
96% 
100% 
100% 
96% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
96% 
100% 
100% 

ACC 
Q1 
Q2 
Q3 
Q4 
Q5 
Q6 
Q7 
Q8 
Q9 
Q10 
Q11 
Q12 
Q13 

TRAN 
Q1 
Q2 
Q3 
Q4 
Q5 
Q6 
Q7 
Q8 
Q9 
Q10 
Q11 
Q12 
Q13 

FIN 
Q1 
Q2 
Q3 
Q4 
Q5 
Q6 
Q7 
Q8 
Q9 
Q10 
Q11 
Q12 
Q13 
Q14 

PA 
Q1 
Q2 
Q3 
Q4 
Q5 
Q6 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

per 
question 
per MS 

96% 
96% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

Q7 
Q8 

BUS 
Q1 
Q2 
Q3 
Q4 
Q5 
Q6 

ALIG 
Q1 
Q2 
Q3 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

             
             
AT 

HU 

HR 

BG 

DK 

DE 

BE 

CY 

CZ 

FR 

EE 

ES 

EL 

FI 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
             
             
             
             
             
             
AT 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

HU 

HR 

BG 

DK 

DE 

BE 

CY 

CZ 

FR 

EE 

ES 

EL 

FI 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
             
             
             

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Table  10:  Total  completion  rate  per  Member  State  and  per  question,  for  14 
Member States (from Ireland to the United Kingdom, in alphabetical order) 

per 
question 
per MS 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

ACC 

100% 

85% 

100% 

92% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Q1 

Q2 

Q3 

Q4 

Q5 

Q6 

Q7 

Q8 

Q9 

Q10 

Q11 

Q12 

Q13 


TRAN 

Q1 

Q2 

Q3 

Q4 

Q5 

Q6 

Q7 

Q8 

Q9 

Q10 

Q11 

Q12 

Q13 

100% 

100% 

96% 

100% 

93% 

100% 

96% 

96% 

96% 

93% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

             

             

             

             

 NA  NA          
             

             

             

             
 NA            
             

             

             
IE 

MT 

RO 

UK 

LU 

NL 

PT 

LV 

SK 

SE 

PL 

LT 

IT 

SI 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 



FIN 

Q1 

Q2 

Q3 

Q4 

Q5 

Q6 

Q7 

Q8 

Q9 

Q10 

Q11 

Q12 

Q13 

Q14 


PA 

Q1 

Q2 

Q3 

Q4 

Q5 

Q6 

Q7 

Q8 



BUS 

Q1 

Q2 

Q3 

Q4 

Q5 

Q6 



ALIG 

Q1 

Q2 

Q3 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

100% 

94% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

88% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

94% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

96% 

96% 

96% 

93% 

             

             

             

             

             

           NA  
             

100% 

             

96% 

96% 

96% 

100% 

100% 

96% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

96% 

100% 

100% 

96% 

96% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

             

             

             

             

             

             
IE 

MT 

RO 

UK 

LU 

NL 

PT 

LV 

SK 

SE 

PL 

LT 

IT 

SI 

100% 

100% 

100% 

63% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

             

             

             
   NA          
             

             
   NA          
   NA          
IE 

MT 

RO 

UK 

LU 

NL 

PT 

LV 

SK 

SE 

PL 

LT 

IT 

SI 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

             

             

             

             

             

             
IE 

MT 

RO 

UK 

LU 

NL 

PT 

LV 

SK 

SE 

PL 

LT 

IT 

SI 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

             

             

             

3.1.4  Replication 

The data collection process has been designed to be repeated every year. However, the 
regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy is constantly evolving, and 
additional  steps  will  be  needed  to  ensure  continuity  in  the  accuracy  and  reliability  of 
results. 

To update the information collected on an annual basis the following working steps will 
be needed:  

  Revision and update of contact lists for experts and collaborative platforms; 
  Regulatory  desk  research  to  account  for  potential  changes  in  national 

 

regulations;  
Interviews to confirm results. The number of interviews could be reduced to one 
expert,  while  keeping  the  number  of  interviews  with  platforms/input  of  peer 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

providers  to  one  per  theme  (to  account  for  potential  sector  differences)  and 
reduce it further if the experts point out that no major changes occurred in some 
sectors.  

In  this  study,  a  total  of  96  days  was  budgeted  for  data  collection  for  all  28  Member 
States.  This  was  broadly  sufficient  for  the  country  researchers.  By  reducing  desk 
research  time  and  the  number  of  interviews  (justified  by  the  fact  that  future  data 
collection  will  only  need  to  complement/correct  previous  findings),  the  time  budget 
could be reduced to an estimated 50-65 working days. 

It is also worth noting that some of the challenges of the first data collection process 
could  be  avoided  in  a  future  data  collection  exercise.  These  challenges  and  the 
corresponding  remedial  actions  taken  in  the  first  data  collection  exercise  are 
summarised in the table below. 

Table 11: Data collection limitations and remedial actions  

Limitations 
Data  collection  had  to  be  conducted 
during holiday period, limiting responses 
to interviews.  

Difficult to phrase research questions that 
could  capture  the  diversity  of  the  28 
different regulatory frameworks affecting 
the  collaborative  economy  at  Member 
State level.  

Difficult to respond to research questions 
with  Yes/No  when  national  regulations 
can  be  ambiguous/not  specific  to  the 
collaborative  economy,  and  therefore 
open to interpretations.  

Remedial actions  

  The  core 

team 
to 

insisted  on 
the 
necessity 
immediately  contact 
stakeholders  in  mid-July,  to  allow 
them  to  answer  before/after  their 
holidays; 

  Some  interviews  were  conducted  in 
the  first  week  of  September  and 
integrated at a later stage. 

(from 

  Research questions are the result of a 
the 
process 
two-month 
submission  of  the  revised  inception 
report  to  the  start  of  data  collection) 
involving the coreteam, the European 
Commission,  EU-level  experts  and 
collaborative  platforms,  to  ensure 
their accuracy and relevance.  

  The 

“reasoning  and 

references” 
column  of  the  data  collection  allowed 
country 
outline 
potential national specificities.  

researchers 

to 

  The 

“reasoning  and 

references” 
allowed country researchers to justify 
their answers. 

  The core team has checked answers at 
the  interim  and  final  phases  of  the 
data  collection  to  make  sure  that  the 
answers  provided  are  supported  by 
the reasoning and references. 

3.2  Indicator design and calculation 

Based on the Terms of Reference, a composite indicator  (the “Collaborative Economy 
Index”) has been developed to capture an accurate picture of the collaborative economy 
regulatory framework. This section describes the elements of the Index and how it has 
been calculated based on the collected data. 

67 

 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

3.2.1  Question formulating and coding 

Chapter  2  has  identified  the  most  relevant  features  for  assessing  the  business 
environment  of  the  collaborative  economy.  Each  of  these  features  and  respective 
indicators  have  been  assigned  data  collection  questions,  following  three  criteria: 
ensuring unambiguous responses and unambiguous interpretation, and addressing one 
issue per question.  

As  explained  in  the  above  Section,  data  have  been  collected  on  a  four-level  scale  of 
No/Partially/Mostly/Yes for each of the questions. Following the data collection, it was 
agreed with the European Commission that the results should be expressed, based on 
the justifications provided for each question, on a scale of No/Partially/Yes. Depending 
on  the  question,  the  answers  have  been  assigned  a  score  of  “0/0.5/1”  with  a  higher 
score indicating better performance.  

When  no  information  is  available,  the  score  NA  has  been  assigned,  as  the  lack  of 
information cannot be scored either positively or negatively.  

For a limited number of questions in the finance theme (questions 5, 6, 7, 8) the data 
collected have been normalised to range from 0 to 1, still with higher scores indicating 
better  performance  (in  this  case,  less  time/cost  burden  for  peer  providers).  The 
following formula has been used:  

𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠 − 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦 𝑋
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠 − 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠

As  a  second  step,  based  on  the  data  points  calculated  with  the  formula  above,  the 
following formula has been used: 

𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑝 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑣𝑒 − 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑝 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑣𝑒
𝑀𝑎𝑥 − 𝑚𝑖𝑛  𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑝 1

As the value points in step 1 have already been normalised with minimum score equal 
to 0 and maximum score equal to 1, the second step does not change the scoring. 

For example, in question 5 of the finance theme, the data collection results indicate that 
in  Austria,  the  relevant  authority  has  90  days  to  decide  on  issuing  a  licence  for  P2P 
equity investment, whereas in Finland there is no time limit set by law and, therefore, 
the value has been set to 365 days (see Section 2.2.3.3). Once all the values in question 
5 are normalised, the scores allocated for Austria are 0.75 and for Finland 0.00. In line 
with  the  method  used  for  the  other  indicators,  the  higher  score  of  Austria  indicates 
better performance, i.e. collaborative economy operators in Austria need less time to 
obtain the required authorisations than in Finland. 

In  Member  States  with  larger  population,  data  from  more  than  one  city  have  been 
collected for some of the questions (see Section 3.1.3). For these questions, the average 
score of the data collected per question has been calculated. This has ensured that all 
questions have been valued in the range between 0 and 1. For example, if in Country 
X, two out  of the three cities studied have answered “Yes=1”  and  one city answered 
“No=0”, the score of the Member State for this question is 0.67 (2/3). If two out of the 
three cities have answered “Yes=1” and one answered “Partially=0.5”, the score of the 
Member State for this question is 0.83 (2.5/3).  

Finally, it is worth noting that after the data collection was concluded, some questions 
were excluded from the final results.  

68 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

In the transport theme, the following question was excluded: 

5.  Is the requirement for a professional car sharing licence dependent on the level 

of income/profit from the activity? 

The  decision  was  made  to  group  this  question  with  question  4:  “Is  P2P  car  sharing 
permitted  without  obtaining  a  professional  licence/authorisation?”  Data  collection 
results  showed  that  in  the  Member  States  where  a  car  sharing  licence  is  required139, 
licensing requirements were never dependent on the level of income/profit.  

In the finance theme, the following question was excluded:  

9.  What  are  the  indirect  costs  to  obtain  all  necessary  licences  for  P2P  equity 

investment platforms? 

The  decision  to  exclude  these  questions  was  made  for  the  following  reasons:  the 
measurement of indirect costs turned out to be very difficult; very few respondents were 
able to provide an answer; and in very few cases where answers were given, their values 
differed significantly between them, mostly because the concept of indirect costs had 
elements which varied between respondents. Consequently, due to very few and varied 
responses,  the  decision  was  made  to  exclude  the  questions  since  their  results  were 
neither representative nor reliable. 

15. Is  there  a  cap  in  the  amount  peer  providers  can  receive  from  collaborative 

platforms?  

The  decision  to  exclude  this  question,  and  consequently  the  indicator  on  investment 
limits, was made because in almost all Member States there was no cap in the amount 
received by peers. In retrospect, the question should have enquired in a clear manner 
about a cap for the amount the peer providers can provide to collaborative platforms. 

3.2.2  Index design and calculation  

Based  on the results and the discussions with the European Commission, it has been 
decided that the overall Collaborative Economy Index should be directly based on the 
underlying  questions.  Furthermore,  after  careful  consideration  of  the  three  different 
calculation  methods  of  the  Collaborative  Economy  Index  (simple  average,  average  of 
the themes, and using the Rasch method – see Annex 5), it has been decided that the 
Index  will  use  a  simple  average  of  all  the  underlying  questions.  This  approach 
indicates that all questions have equal weight in the Index, irrespective of the indicator 
and theme. 

This approach has been selected as the most appropriate calculation method based on 
two main arguments:  

  There  is  no  universal  agreement  which  questions  represent  aspects  with  the 

highest effect on the development of the collaborative economy;  

  Each of the questions represents an aspect which is by itself relevant (because 
it addresses a different sector, business model or another aspect of the issue) 
and should thus be monitored. 

139  Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia. 

69 

 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Furthermore,  assigning  equal  weight  to  all  questions  in  the  overall  Index  has  the 
advantage  of  transparency  and  equal  representation  of  all  issues  addressed  by  the 
questions.  

The calculation therefore respects the following rules: 

  The overall result for one indicator is the average of all questions of the indicator; 
  The overall result for one theme is the average of all questions in the theme;  
  The overall result of the country is the average of all questions.  

The Collaborative Economy Index is calculated in two steps: 

1.  The  calculation  of  the  score  per  Member  State  per  question  with  1  being  the 

maximum score.  

2.  The calculation of the simple average of all questions per Member State.  

For clear representation, the score is then multiplied by 100 and rounded. 

3.2.3  Performance on theme level  

The business environment of the collaborative economy has been studied along three 
vertical and three horizontal themes. The selected method of calculation of the simple 
average  of  all  questions,  while  providing  a  very  good  overview  of  the  overall 
performance of Member States, does not distinguish between these six themes. 

To  provide  an  indication  of  the  Member  States’  performance  per  theme  and  a  less 
aggregated overview, it has been decided that the simple average of all questions per 
theme should also be calculated to provide a theme score. This allows a quick and easy 
overview  of  where  a  Member  State  is  performing  relatively  well,  and  which  are  the 
themes for which the performance can be improved. 

As with the overall Index, the first step is to calculate the results per question, followed 
by an average of all questions in that theme. The end result is multiplied by 100 and 
rounded to make visualisation of the results easier. 

It should be noted that the overall Index results do not represent the theme scores but 
only the average score of all questions. This means that the sum of all theme scores 
does  not  equal  the  overall  Collaborative  Economy  Index.  Nonetheless,  this  approach 
ensures  that  the  overall  Index  score  provides  an  effortless  way  to  compare  the 
performance  by  Member  State,  while  the  scores  per  theme  provide  insights  into  the 
sectoral performance and horizontal themes. 

3.2.4  Visualisation of results 

To picture the results of the Collaborative Economy Index in accordance with the traffic 
light system used in the Single Market Scoreboard, the scores per Member State have 
been assigned colours, based on the following rule: 

Score > 75% of 
maximum score 

25% < Score < 
75% of maximum 
score 

Score < 25% of 
maximum score 

A  missing  indicator  value  (NA)  is  marked  with  a  grey  colour  in  the  indicator  result 
presentation.  

70 

 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

The boundaries of these groups can be adjusted in the future. Country Fiches provide 
comparisons with the highest EU score in the proposed form of a radar (spider) chart 
(see Annex 6). 

3.2.5  Replication 

The  indicator  design  and  method  of  calculation  are  appropriate  for  subsequent 
replication of the Collaborative Economy Index. Most of the indicator questions target 
official legislation and policies in the Member States. This  ensures that the  indicators 
are stable. 

The indicator list could be extended with additional questions. As the national legislation 
of the Member States advances and integrates the collaborative economy model, new 
features might become relevant. By asking the experts in the different Member States 
whether  key  features  are  neglected,  the  data  collection  could  also  gain  important 
insights into the need to change the structure of the indicator set. 

The  visualisation  of  the  results  can  also  be  improved  in  future  versions  of  the 
Collaborative Economy Index, for instance, by including an arrow indicating the change 
in performance, as in the Single Market Scoreboard.  

71 

 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

4  Indicator results 

This Chapter assesses the business environment affecting the collaborative economy in 
the 28 EU Member States based on the Collaborative Economy Index results. 

4.1  Overall results  

The  composite  indicator  ratings  for  the  Member  States  are  depicted  in  Figure  3.  The 
ratings are based on an average of all underlying indicators. There is no single factor 
that explains the extent to which a Member State’s business environment is favourable 
towards the collaborative economy. The overview shows that none of the Member States 
or regions have managed to provide favourable business environments in all measured 
themes and indicators, and that all Member States have some themes with high scores 
and some with lower ones.  

Figure 3 : Member State ratings on the Collaborative Economy Index  

The  three  highest  ranking  Member  States  on  the  Collaborative  Economy  Index  are 
Lithuania,  France  and  the  United  Kingdom.  These  three  Member  States’  good  overall 
scores can be attributed to different strong themes, as can be seen  in Figure  4. This 
suggests that there is  no single way to create a favourable business environment for 
the collaborative economy, as will be evidenced by this Chapter.  

72 

891011121314151617181920212223242526272865526245605643565259504851575453433144323752524044654032 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

Figure  4 :  The  three  highest  ranking  Member  States  on  the  Collaborative 
Economy Index 

The  highest-ranking  Member  State,  Lithuania,  scores  relatively  low  on  the  public 
administration  and  business  support  themes,  but  comes  top  on  accommodation, 
transport, and alignment. For the two runners-up, France and the United Kingdom, the 
case is exactly the opposite: they perform well in the public administration and business 
support themes but are not particularly strong on accommodation and alignment.  

4.1.1  Overall results per theme 

Although  the  overall  Index  is  calculated  based  on  the  average  of  all  questions,  an 
overview of results by theme has also been computed. Results per theme represent the 
average of the questions pertaining to each theme. It should be noted that the overall 
Index,  themes’  and  the  indicators’  scores  are  calculated  on  a  different  number  of 
underlying questions. Therefore, overall scores are not just the average of the theme 
scores.  

73 

Score LithuaniaRankScore EU-leaderDistance from the bestTotal score65165EU leaderLithuaniaAccommodation#73377Transport#77177Finance#69689Administration#501188Business support#1723100Alignment#1001100AccommodationTransportFinanceAdministrationBusinesssupportAlignmentAustriaEU leaderAccommodationTransportFinanceAdministrationBusinesssupportAlignmentEU leaderAustria123456Sarja1Sarja3AccommodationTransportFinanceAdministrationBusinesssupportAlignmentEU leaderLithuaniaScore FranceRankScore EU-leaderDistance from the bestTotal score65265EU leaderFranceAccommodation#551677Transport#58777Finance#77389Administration#75388Business support#752100Alignment#3321100AccommodationTransportFinanceAdministrationBusinesssupportAlignmentAustriaEU leaderAccommodationTransportFinanceAdministrationBusinesssupportAlignmentEU leaderAustria123456Sarja1Sarja3AccommodationTransportFinanceAdministrationBusinesssupportAlignmentEU leaderFranceScore United KingdomRankScore EU-leaderDistance from the bestTotal score62365EU leaderUnited KingdomAccommodation581377Transport501177Finance58989Administration81288Business support1001100Alignment3321100AccommodationTransportFinanceAdministrationBusinesssupportAlignmentAustriaEU leaderAccommodationTransportFinanceAdministrationBusinesssupportAlignmentEU leaderAustria123456Series1Series3AccommodationTransportFinanceAdministrationBusiness supportAlignmentEU leaderUnited Kingdom 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Figure 5 : Overview of indicator results per theme 

The  sections  below  provide  a  more  detailed  description  of  the  results,  by  theme  and 
indicator.  

4.2  Transport 

4.2.1  Description of general results 

The indicator results for the transport theme, by Member State, are depicted in Figure 
6: 

Figure 6 : Member State results for the transport theme 

Ten Member States receive a “green” rating with Estonia and Lithuania being by far the 
leading countries 

74 

ATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLVLUMTNLPLPTROSESISKUKTotal53593132574852565256606532375251654340445043524445405462THEMEATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLVLUMTNLPLPTROSESISKUKTransport58532719625942773836385835465044773850235858463542506250Accommodation62285862653354627742775550506254737345464069387358466558Finance5576292150574830628972772011364269272946627824234353658Administration4488131975447563135750756255675502525385031561350385681Business support42580252542253342583375174242581733335833253317171733100Alignment333350675050100100833310033838310033100678310033100331001005010033891011121314151617181920212223242526272858505042387738364653585944626258582735354638425023775019 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

4.2.2  Description of results per indicator 

The transport theme consists of six indicators,  which are presented in  Figure  7. Most 
Member States score high on the Dispatch centre affiliation indicator. On the other 
hand, most Member States score low on the indicators Bespoke legislation, General 
requirements and Peer and professional provider distinction. For the remaining 
two indicators, Model-specific market access requirements and Price restrictions, 
the results are mixed.  

Figure 7 : Indicator results for the transport theme 

Lithuania  is  the  only  Member  State  that  achieves  the  highest  score  in  Bespoke 
legislation, followed by high “green” scores  for Estonia and “yellow” ones for France 
and Romania. A number of Member States either score very low or do not get any points 
at all (“red” scores). 

Seven Member States – Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands 
and  Poland  –  receive  the  highest  points  in  the  Model-specific  market  access 
requirements  indicator.  The  majority  of  the  other  Member  States  achieve  relatively 
high and middle-level scores. Only three Member States achieve very low scores. 

The overall ratings for Peer and professional provider distinction indicator are low. 
Only the Czech Republic, Estonia and Portugal score high. Other Member States achieve 
low to mid-level ratings or fail to score any points at all. 

The  Price  restrictions  indicator  exhibits  very  high  scores  in  four  Member  States  – 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden and Slovakia. The majority of the other Member States 
achieve mid-level scores.  

Most Member States perform very well on the Dispatch centre affiliation indicator. 
Only one Member State (Denmark) failed to score any points.  

By  contrast,  most  Member  States  do  not  score  any  points  on  the  General 
requirements indicator. Only Italy receives a high “green” rating. 

4.2.3  Qualitative assessment  

On  the  whole,  Member  States  perform  well  across  the  transport  theme.  The  results 
indicate generally open regulatory frameworks, with low entry barriers for collaborative 
economy  operators,  especially  for  car  sharing  and  ride  sharing  business  models.  The 
Member States that score highest in the transport theme are the ones where: 

  Clear  definitions  of  collaborative  economy  activities  are  adopted  in  legislation 

(e.g. France, Lithuania); and/or 

  Market access requirements for all collaborative economy operators are low, i.e. 
car sharing and ride sharing are allowed without licences, and quantitative and 
qualitative requirements for ride hailing licences are low (e.g. Austria, Estonia, 
France, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands); and/or  

75 

TransportATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLVLUMTNLPLPTROSESISKUKTotal score58532719625942773836385835465044773850235858463542506250Bespoke legislation00002502575000502500010000002505000250Model-specific market access requirements100753813759210010050505075501007550100505025100100632563757583Peer and professional provider distinction25250075502575002525002500025025075250502525Price restrictions50500025502550505025500505050100501005050500501002510050Dispatch centre affiliation1001001001001001000100100831001001005010010010010010050100100100505010010083General requirements0330050000000000067000000000000 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

  The legislation does not differentiate between ride hailing and taxi operators, and 
the  legislation  affecting  the  traditional  taxi  industry  is  less  restrictive,  i.e.  no 
quantitative limit in the number of licences, no price limit or no requirement to 
be affiliated to a dispatch centre (e.g. Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia).  

These generally positive results are not the consequence of a specific regulatory focus 
on the needs and requirements of the collaborative economy. However, in most Member 
States,  there  are  some  regulatory  risks  due  to  the  lack  of  regulation  specific  to  the 
sector. 

It  is  indeed  rare  that  national  regulations  include  definitions  of  collaborative 
economy activities in the transport theme or allow them explicitly. In France140 and 
Lithuania141 only, the Transport Codes contain definitions for both car sharing and ride 
sharing.  In  Denmark,  the  new  version  of  the  Taxi  Act142  which  was  passed  in  2017 
defines  ride  sharing  (as  a  non-profit  activity)  as  opposed  to  taxi  services  (which 
generate profit). Similarly, in Estonia, P2P ride sharing is defined by negation of “taxi 
services” (where the route is planned for personal purposes and the aim of the ride is 
not to earn an income).143   

In most Member States, legislation prevents peers from providing VTC services 
via platforms, unless they are subject to at least similar requirements as professional 
taxi drivers. This has notably led to the ban of the P2P version of Uber, UberPop, in a 
number of countries (see section 2.2.1).144 Exceptions are Estonia145 and Lithuania146, 
where the legislation specifies that transport services can be  provided  by all types  of 
operators.  The  Public  Transport  Act  of  Estonia  does  not  differentiate  between 
“professional”  and  “non-professional”  services,  and  everyone  who  complies  with  the 
requirements  set  by  the  law  can  provide  transport  services  via  a  platform  for 
remuneration. The Lithuanian Road Transport Code states that natural persons and legal 
entities can organise the carriage of passengers, and that passengers can be carried not 
only by taxi but also by ordinary cars.  

140  See Article L.1231-14 and Article L. 3132-1 of the French Transport Code. Article L.1231-14 of the 

Transport Code defines carsharing as "the pooling of a land-based motorised transport vehicle or a fleet 
of land-based motorised transport vehicles for the benefit of subscribed users or users authorised by the 
vehicles' manager organisation or person. Each subscriber or authorised user can access to a vehicle 
without driver for the route of his choice and for a limited time." Article L. 3132-1 defines ridesharing as 
"the jointly use of a motor vehicle with a driver and one or more passengers, as part of a journey that 
the driver performs on its own account, for no consideration except cost-sharing." 

141  Road Transport Code of the Republic of Lithuania (Articles 7 & 18).  
142  Danish Taxi Act (Regeringen) 2017, section 1.  
143  Act amending the Public Transport Act, the Road Traffic Act and the State Fees Act, 188 SE, 2017. ‘Taxi 
services’ means the carriage of passengers by road to the destination requested by the customer or the 
picking up of the passenger at the requested place as well as waiting for the passenger at a taxi stop or 
at the place agreed with the passenger. The carriage of passengers using an automobile is not deemed 
as taxi service where the carrier does it on a route planned for personal purposes and where the aim of 
carriage is not the earning of income. 

144  Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden. Source: European 
Commission (2017). Exploratory study of consumer issues in online peer-to-peer platform markets. Task 
4 – Uber – Case study report. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-
detail.cfm?&item_id=77704  

145  Act amending the Public Transport Act, the Road Traffic Act and the State Fees Act, 188 SE, 2017. 
146  Road Transport Code of the Republic of Lithuania (Articles 7 & 18).  

76 

 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

In other countries (e.g. Croatia147, Czech Republic148, Poland149, Romania150) ride hailing 
platforms such as UberPop or Heetch consider themselves as ride sharing providers due 
to the lack of appropriate legislation, and therefore their drivers do not comply with the 
same requirements as professional providers. In Slovakia, the law sets a three-month 
trial period during which Uber drivers are exempted from the requirements applicable 
to taxi drivers.151 This allows collaborative ride hailing services to operate more freely, 
but also creates uncertainties regarding whether the activity is allowed or not and the 
status of peer providers.  

The  presence  of  a  regulatory  framework  defining  and  authorising  P2P 
transactions (measured by the Bespoke legislation indicator) is crucial, as it allows 
collaborative  economy  platforms  and  providers  to  understand  which  business  models 
are permitted, and which requirements need to be  met to carry out their activities in 
compliance  with  the  law.  Recent  examples  of  the  detrimental  effects  of  regulatory 
changes for platforms is the withdrawal of UberPop from Helsinki in August 2017. The 
platform  stated  that  it  would  continue  operations  only  after  a  new  Transport  Law152 
enters into force in July 2018, providing “a better environment” for the service – notably 
by lowering requirements for transport providers and explicitly allowing the provision of 
P2P transport services.153  

A  clear  distinction  between  peer  and  professional  activity  is  another  factor  of 
good  performance.  The  distinction  can  help  tailor  the  regulations  to  the  needs  and 
requirements of collaborative economy actors, i.e. a more occasional activity, involving 
less  or  no  profit.  Without  such  a  distinction,  the  burden  of  regulatory  requirements 
applicable  to  professional  operators  can  be  an  important  hindrance  to  entry  into  the 
collaborative transport market (see section 2.2.1).  

Very few Member States have a clear distinction between peer and professional provider 
in the legislation and there are significant differences in the way the distinction is made. 
Except  for  France,  none  of  the  other  Member  States  have  quantitative  thresholds  to 
distinguish peer from professional activity. In France, the tax administration suggests 
using  the  standard  tax  rate,  which  is  between  EUR  0.2  and  EUR  0.6  per  kilometre, 
depending on the  annual car mileage during the year.154 In Finland, the possibility  of 

147  Uber’s position is that their business partners in Croatia offer the services as defined in Article 60 of the 

Road Transportation Act as renting out a car together with a driver, which renders Taxi Services 
regulations not applicable to them. They are therefore exempted to meet with the requirements 
applicable to taxi services. Source: 4liberty.eu. The Regulatory Framework of the Collaborative economy 
in Central and Eastern Europe. Available at: http://4liberty.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-
Regulatory-Framework-of-the-Collaborative-Economy-in-Central-and-Eastern-Europe.pdf 

148  In Czech Republic, carpooling is a cost sharing activity regulated by the Civil Code. UberPop defines itself 

as a carpooling provider is therefore not subject to the requirements that apply to the taxi industry 
defined in the Public Transportation Act No. 111/1994. Other Uber services with higher prices and quality 
of service (i.e. UberBlack) must do so.  

149  In Poland, UberPop or Heetch are considered as "ride sharing" and therefore allowed without any licence. 
For VTC services of more than 9 persons, the existing regulation - Pursuant to Article 5b sec. 1 of the 
Road Transport Act, passenger transport by taxi requires obtaining a relevant licence. 

150  Uber and Taxify operate as there is no legislative framework that allows or forbids non-professional 
drivers to provide private transport services via platforms for remuneration (share of costs only). 
However, through Law 129/2015 it is forbidden to transport people with a car without a valid taxi 
authorisation. According to an interviewee, the lack of legislative framework has led to a “grey situation” 
where the current legislation is interpreted in different ways. 

151  Sloboda, M. (2016).  “Uber in Bratislava”. Available at: https://inclusivegrowth.be/downloads/calls/call-

28-ceps/b-10-matus-sloboda-paper.pdf  

152  Law on Transport Services 320/2017. 
153  Uber Blogi, (7 June 2017), UberPOP jää vuodeksi tauolle Suomessa – jatkamme toimintaa jälleen kesällä 

2018. Available at: https://www.uber.com/fi/blog/uberpop-tauolle/, accessed 04/12/2017/.  

154  Impots.gouv.fr, IR - Base d'imposition - Revenu global - II. Non-imposition des revenus percus dans le 

cadre d'une activité de "co-consommation". Available at: http://bofip.impots.gouv.fr/bofip/1322-

77 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

excluding providers earning less than EUR 10 000 a year from the licence requirement 
in the new Transport Law was considered. However, this clause was eventually rejected, 
due to concerns that it would encourage unreported employment.155 

Fifteen  Member  States  (i.e.  Austria,  Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia, 
Finland,  France,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia, 
Slovenia, United Kingdom) have qualitative thresholds, such as the for-profit/non-for-
profit  nature  of  the  activity,  distinguishing  between  peers  and  professionals.  This 
distinction  usually  differentiates  between  ride  sharing  (considered  as  of  cost  sharing 
basis) and other for-profit transport activities. For instance, in Estonia, ride sharing is 
defined by negation of taxi services, as activities “where the aim of carriage is not the 
earning of income”.156  

Since the Estonian legislation differentiates between peer and professional activity and 
does  not  require  licences  for  P2P  ride  sharing  services,  Estonia  scores  highest  in  the 
Peer and professional provider distinction indicator. 

The absence of market access requirements for providers of P2P transport services 
(measured  by  the  Model-specific  market  access  requirements  indicator)  is  an 
additional element facilitating collaborative economy activities. In the transport theme, 
market  access  requirements  mainly  consist  of  the  need  for  providers  to  obtain 
professional licences or authorisations to operate. Most Member States score well 
on  this  indicator  as  they  do  not  require  any  professional  authorisation  or  licence  for 
either car sharing or ride sharing.  

In the ride hailing sector, although most Member States require providers to obtain a 
specific VTC licence to operate, there are no quantitative restrictions in the number 
of licences issued. This facilitates the entry of peer providers into the market because 
licences are less scarce, and there is less uncertainty for providers  over the  fact that 
they  will  obtain  a  licence.  The  exceptions  are  Greece,  Spain  (Madrid,  Barcelona, 
Valencia), Finland157, Italy and Portugal. 

Another factor linked to market access is whether the process for obtaining professional 
authorisations/licences  involves  limited  financial  and  administrative  burdens,  as 
measured by the General requirements indicator. In most Member States, applying 
for  VTC  licences  requires  drivers  to  provide  various  documents  (e.g.    professional 
certificate,  proof  of  financial  ability,  proof  of  insurance,  etc.)  and  this  constitutes  a 
qualitative  restriction  to  market  entry  (see  section  2.2.1).  In  the  Belgian  region  of 
Flanders  and  the  Italian  cities  of  Milan  and  Genova,  VTC  drivers  are  not  required  to 
provide more than a driving licence and a proof of a clean criminal record to obtain a 
professional  licence,  which  limits  the  administrative  costs  of  the  application.  Thus, 
Belgium and Italy score higher on this indicator.  

Another factor facilitating the development of the collaborative economy is the absence 
of  fare  limits  for  VTCs  (as  measured  by  the  Price  restrictions  indicator).  Only  in 

PGP.html?identifiant=BOI-IR-BASE-10-10-10-10-20160830#1322-PGP_Non-
imposition_des_sommes_e_11  

155  Interview with the representative of the Ministry of Transport and Communications on 18/07/2017; 
Gustaffson, M., (7 June 2017), Liikenteen jakamistalous halkoo hallituksen rivejä. Turun Sanomat. 
Available at: 
http://www.ts.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2682139/Liikenteen+jakamistalous+halkoo+hallituksen+riveja, 
accessed 04/12/2017. 

156  Act amending the Public Transport Act, the Road Traffic Act and the State Fees Act, 188 SE, 2017. 

Available at: https://www.riigikogu.ee/tegevus/eelnoud/eelnou/17074c56-bf09-477f-befb-
a6e4ea86461f/%C3%9Chistranspordiseaduse%20muutmise%20seadus  

157  This will change under the new Transport Law.  

78 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Sweden, there are no price restrictions either for 
taxis  or  for  VTCs.  In  20  other  Member  States  (i.e.  Austria,  Belgium,  Czech  Republic, 
Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, 
Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Spain,  the  United  Kingdom)  taxi 
drivers  are  subject  to  higher  regulatory  constraints  on  their  prices  than  VTC  drivers, 
who  can  set  their  prices  more  or  less  freely.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that 
collaborative transport platforms (e.g. Uber, BlaBlaCar) usually set maximum fares.158 
However, in practice, drivers cannot choose their tariffs, even if the national law does 
not prevent them from doing so. 

Finally,  it  is  rare  that  Member  States  require  VTCs  to  be  affiliated  with  a  dispatch 
centre  (see  Dispatch  centre  affiliation  indicator  results).  This  is  the  case  only  in 
Denmark, Hungary, Malta, and London. In London for instance, the new 2016 legislation 
requires that the customer should always be able to speak to someone other than the 
driver, which by default implies that the driver must be registered with a dispatch centre 
or operate through a platform intermediary.159 

Low  barriers  to  entry  and  operation  in  the  collaborative  transport  market  can  be  the 
consequence of clear regulations, such as in Estonia, France or Lithuania. However, it 
can  also  be  due  to  the  absence  of,  or  lack  of  clarity  in  applicable  legislation.  As 
mentioned above, in Croatia, Czech Republic, Romania  and Poland, some  ride hailing 
services  (e.g.  the  P2P  branch  of  Uber  UberPop,  or  Heetch)  are  considered  as  ride 
sharing, and therefore subject to lower requirements than professional taxis and VTCs. 
In these cases, the “grey zones” allow the provision of P2P transport services but may 
be  damaging  for  providers,  who  may  not  be  aware  of  all  legal  requirements.  For 
instance,  in  the  Czech  Republic,  the  Municipality  of  Prague  fined  a  driver  operating 
through UberPop EUR 600 for providing an illegal transportation service.160  

In some Member States, relatively easy access to the collaborative economy transport 
market  can  also  be  the  consequence  of  low  general  requirements  in  the  professional 
taxi sector. For instance, in Slovakia, both taxis and VTCs are not subject to quantitative 
requirements for licences, fare regulations, and are not obliged to be affiliated with a 
dispatch centre. 

At the time of this research, two Member States had legislative proposals on ride sharing 
in progress. In Romania, a legislative proposal on the topic was submitted to the Senate 
in 2016.161 In Sweden, ride sharing has been addressed by a recent special enquiry set 
up by the government.162 The report concludes that some types of ride sharing should 
not be considered a taxi service and, thus, not be regulated by the Swedish Taxi Act. 
These  recommendations  have  yet  to  become  law  but,  according  to  the  experts 
interviewed, it is likely that this will happen soon. The Portuguese Ministry of Transport 

158  European Commission (2017). Exploratory study of consumer issues in online peer-to-peer platform 

markets. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?&item_id=77704  

159  TfL, Changes to private hire regulation, (2016) accessed via https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-

hire/new-private-hire-regulations# on-this-page-1 on the 17th August 2017 

160  The Czech court ruled that the driver operating through Uber had not violated the law and cancelled the 
fine. Source: Česká tisková kancelář – ČTK, 2016. První spor s řidičem Uberu pražský magistrát prohrál. 
Pokutu pro řidiče soud zrušil. Prague, Czech Republic. Retrieved from: 4Liberty.eu (2017). The 
regulatory framework of the collaborative economy in Central and Eastern Europe. Available at: 
http://4liberty.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-Regulatory-Framework-of-the-Collaborative-
Economy-in-Central-and-Eastern-Europe.pdf  

161  Business Review (2016). “Romanian Parliament could legalise ride sharing amid transport players’ 

opposition.” Available at: http://www.business-review.eu/news/romanian-parliament-could-legalise-ride 
sharing-amid-transport-players-opposition-120765  

162  Statens Offentliga Utradningar (2016). "Taxi och samåkning – i dag, i morgon och i övermorgon". SOU 
2016:86. Accessed 28-08-2017. http://www.sou.gov.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SOU-2016_86-
WEBB.pdf  

79 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

and  the  Brussels  Capital  Region  are  currently  preparing  new  legal  frameworks  for 
collaborative transport, but have not submitted any proposals yet.163,164  

In  conclusion,  most  Member  States  have  no  specific  regulation  for  the 
collaborative economy in transport. Nevertheless, the average scores are relatively 
high due to low barriers to entry for collaborative economy operators, or in the transport 
market in general. The absence of legislation can allow peer providers to operate without 
hurdles, but it can also lead to regulatory risks and uncertainty (e.g. in Czech Republic).  

High scores in the transport theme are due to: 

  The  development  of  specific  legislation  regulating  collaborative  transport 
activities (e.g. in Lithuania and France there are regulations defining car sharing 
and ride sharing); and/or 

  The definition of clear thresholds distinguishing peer  from professional activity 
(e.g.  in  France  the  tax  administration  suggests  using  the  standard  tax  rate); 
and/or 

  Low barriers to entry for collaborative economy operators, notably: 

  The permission for peers to perform VTC services (e.g. in Estonia and 

Lithuania all types of individuals can operate VTC services via collaborative 
platforms and there is no need to register as a business); 

  No need for licences to perform car sharing or ride sharing activities (e.g. in 

almost all Member States); 

  No restrictions in the number of VTC licences nor in VTC fares (e.g. in 

Austria, Estonia, France, Germany, Lithuania and the Netherlands);  
  No requirement for VTCs to be affiliated with a dispatch centre (e.g. in 

Estonia, Lithuania and France); and/or 

  Low  regulatory burdens in the professional transport  sector in general (e.g. in 
Slovakia taxis are not subject to fare restrictions nor required to be affiliated with 
a dispatch centre). 

On the other hand, the absence of, or lack of clarity in applicable legislation and high 
market access requirements have been found to be damaging for collaborative transport 
platforms and providers. 

163  According to the Portuguese Ministry of Transport.  
164  Grimaldi Studio Legale (2016). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 

ridesharing in the EU. Final report, p. 65. 

80 

 
 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

4.3  Accommodation 

4.3.1  Description of general results 

The indicator results for the accommodation theme, by Member State, are depicted in 
Figure 8: 

Figure 8 : Member State results for the accommodation theme 

Fifteen  Member  States  receive  a  “green”  rating.  The  Member  States  with  the  most 
favourable  business  environment  in  the  accommodation  theme  are  Finland,  Greece, 
Latvia, Lithuania and Romania. 

4.3.2  Description of results per indicator 

The accommodation theme consists of five indicators, which are presented in Figure 9. 
Most  Member  States  score  high  on  the  Restrictions  on  type  of  good  or  service 
provision indicator, but low on the Bespoke legislation indicator. For the other three 
indicators,  Registrations,  authorisations,  notifications,  Peer  and  professional 
provider distinction and Inspections, the results are mixed. 

Figure 9 : Indicator results for the accommodation theme 

81 

891011121314151617181920212223242526272855625858776273423828403354656562695873505077544646734562AccommodationATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLVLUMTNLPLPTROSESISKUKTotal score62285862653354627742775550506254737345464069387358466558Bespoke legislation500000000100002500000000250000000Registrations, authorisations, notifications33175067833367676708321333367338367100333367338333010083Restrictions on type of good or service provision60NA100100100576010010077100100808010010010010067100351008010090100100100Peer and professional provider distinction100172505025750508375507525050507525075500501000250Inspections100050100005010000100001001005010010000501000100010000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Only Greece receives the highest score on the Bespoke legislation indicator covering 
collaborative economy accommodation services. 

Two Member States – Luxemburg and Slovakia – get top marks on the Registrations, 
authorisations,  notifications  indicator.  Most  of  the  other  Member  States  receive 
“yellow” ratings. 

In contrast, most Member States receive very high scores on the Restrictions on type 
of  good  or  service  provision  indicator,  with  only  five  Member  States  obtaining 
“yellow” ratings. It should be noted that the score for Belgium could not be calculated 
due to a lack of information.  

Results for the Peer and professional provider distinction indicator are mixed. While 
eight Member States score high on this indicator, thirteen score very low. 

Member States are almost evenly split on the Inspections indicator, with 11 achieving 
high scores and 13 scoring very low. 

4.3.3  Qualitative assessment  

Generally,  the  Member  States  score  relatively  high  on  the  accommodation  theme, 
indicating a general openness towards  collaborative economy activities in this sector. 
The Member States that perform best are the ones where: 

  There  are  few  restrictions  for  providers  to  enter  the  market  (i.e.  no  need  for 
authorisations 
landlord  and/or  building 
associations,  such  as  in  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Lithuania, 
Romania, Poland, Slovakia, the United Kingdom; and/or 

from  public  authorities, 

their 

  There is clarity about what distinguishes peers from professionals, together with 
lower  requirements  for  peers  than  for  professionals  (i.e.  in  Austria,  Greece, 
Finland, Latvia and Sweden). 

Most  Member  States  have  no  specific  legislation  regulating  collaborative  economy 
accommodation services. Greece is the only Member State where the legislation gives 
a  definition  of  the  types  of  P2P  transactions  allowed  in  collaborative  economy 
accommodation services. Law 4472/2017165 defines a short-term rental as a “property 
lease which is concluded via digital platform for a lease term of less than a  year” and 
sets a range of conditions to be met for peer providers to conduct their activities. In the 
remaining  the  Member  States,  collaborative  economy  services  are  regulated  by  the 
legislation applying to broader hospitality services, and there is no clear distinction made 
between collaborative and traditional accommodation activities.  

It is also relatively rare that Member State regulations set a threshold to distinguish 
between peer and professional activities in the accommodation theme. The eight 
Member States that do use them have different types of thresholds, such as: 

  Type of asset (e.g. primary or secondary residence, like in France); 
  Type of service provided (e.g. providing breakfast, like in Greece); 
  Number of rooms or beds (e.g. in Flanders, Croatia); 
  Duration/frequency of the activity (e.g. in Madrid/Barcelona, the Netherlands); 
  Level of income derived from the activity (e.g. in France).  

165  Article 84 of Law 4472/2017 which modifies and replaces the Article 111 "Arrangements for short-term 

rental of real estate in the context of the collaborative economy" of Law 4446/2016. 

82 

 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

For instance, in the Belgian region of Flanders166 the threshold is set at two rooms or 
eight tourists, while in Croatia it is 10 rooms/20 beds.167 In Italy168 or the Spanish city 
of Valencia169, the number of properties rented out is the threshold. In  other Spanish 
cities, it is the duration of the rental (e.g. in Madrid170) or a combination of duration of 
the rental and number of times within a year (e.g. in Barcelona).171 In France, providers 
are considered as professionals if they receive more than a certain level of income from 
their activity.172 In addition, authorisations and registration schemes only apply to peers 
renting out their secondary residences.173 In Sweden174 and in Greece175, the law sets a 
series of thresholds including the type of asset, type of service provided, level of income 
received and/or duration of the rental.  

The  presence  of  thresholds  gives  clarity  to  peer  providers  about  the  legality  of  their 
activity  and  usually  exempts  peers  from  some  requirements  applicable  to 
professional  providers  (e.g.  registration  or  authorisation  requirements,  health  and 
safety  regulations).  This  is  the  case  in  the  Belgian  region  of  Flanders,  where  peer 
providers  only  need  to  notify  the  Flemish  government  prior  to  starting  their  activity 
while  professionals  need  an  authorisation176;  or  in  Austria,  where  peer  providers  are 
exempt  from  providing  a  certificate  of  competence  to  public  authorities  and  from 
complying  with  health  and  safety  requirements.177  Similar  exemptions  apply  in 

166  Law 8/5/2014 on Touristic Lodging (“betreffende het touristische logies”).  
167  Croatian Hospitality Activities Act (Zakon o ugostiteljskoj djelatnosti), NN 85/15, 121/16. 
168  There is a distinction between a lessor acting in his/her private capacity who carries out an occasional 

activity (short-term letting) renting out one room/apartment and a lessor acting in his/her professional 
capacity renting out more than one apartment. Contracts that last less than 30 days now abide by a new 
tax regime (introduced on 24 April 2017 and effective from 1st June 2017). Sources: Presidential Decree 
131/1986 and Law 580/1993. 

169  The regulation sets the threshold depending on the number of houses that are rented, setting it in five 
houses. See: DECRETO 92/2009, de 3 de julio, del Consell, por el que aprueba el reglamento regulador 
de las viviendas turísticas denominadas apartamentos, villas, chalés, bungalows y similares, y de las 
empresas gestoras, personas jurídicas o físicas, dedicadas a la cesión de su uso y disfrute, en el ámbito 
territorial de la Comunitat Valenciana. 

170  Three months. Source: Regional Decree 79/2014. 
171  Two or more rental periods within the year (along with a threshold of 31 days per year). Source: 

Regional Decree 159/2012. 

172  The status of "professional furnished-renter" applies when a person is registered in the French 

Commercial Register as a "professional renter", and when the annual receipts for this activity exceed 
EUR 23 000, or the total amount of other income from the tax household. Note that France also uses 
another type of threshold linked to the type of accommodation provided - peer provider becomes a 
"hotel operator" if he offers more than five rooms, provide accommodation and serve breakfast to more 
than 15 people. See the French Tourism Code, art. D. 324-13. 

173  Loi n°2016-1321 du 7 octobre pour une République numérique. 
174  In Sweden, providers of short-term rentals are considered as professionals if: a) they rent one or more 

furnished homes; b) their renting period as a maximum of four month for each tenant; c) they advertise 
for rental at a daily or weekly rate and services such as cleaning, change of bed linen etc.; d) the 
accommodation has been rented more than 16 weeks per year. Source: Skatteverket.se. "Hyra ut 
tillgångar som bostad, båt med mera". Available at: 
https://www.skatteverket.se/privat/skatter/arbeteochinkomst/inkomster/delningsekonomi/hyrauttillgang
arsombostadbatmedmera.4.24321e0c1165ddd612080002033.html#Olikauthyrningssituationer . 
175  In Greece, short-term rentals are allowed under the following conditions:  a) property administrators 
(owners, lessors, sub-lessors or other  administrators) cannot lease more than two properties; b) 
properties cannot be leased for more than 90 days (60 on islands of fewer than 10 000 inhabitants), 
unless the leasor’s income from all properties leased is less than EUR 12 000 per year; c) Properties 
must be furnished and rented out without the provision of any service except for bed linen; d) the 
leasehold is exempt from VAT; e) Property administrators are taxed exactly as the owners who rent their 
houses to inhabitants by the month (i.e. 15% tax for property income up to EUR 12 000 a year, 35% tax 
for income more than EUR 12 001-35 000 a year and 45% for property income more than EUR 35 001 a 
year). Source: Law 4472/2017.  

176  Decree of 10/7/2008 on tourist accommodation, Art. 3, §3. 
177  Austrian Law on Trade and Commerce (Gewerbeordnung, GewO), § 94; § 5, para 2. 

83 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Denmark178,  Finland179,  France180,  Latvia181,  Netherlands182,  Sweden183  and  to  some 
extent  in  the  Spanish  cities  of  Barcelona,  Madrid  and  Valencia.184  This  explains  these 
Member  States’  good  scores  in  the  Peer  and  professional  provider  distinction 
indicator. 

Legislation regarding Registrations, authorisations and notifications varies widely 
among Member States, regions and cities, and this explains the uneven scores on this 
indicator across Member States. The Member States scoring higher on this indicator (i.e. 
Czech  Republic,  Finland,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Romania,  Slovakia  and  the  United 
Kingdom)  do  not  require  peer  providers  to  register,  notify  or  obtain  an  authorisation 
from public authorities, their landlord or their building association.  

It is more common peer providers to be required to register, obtain an authorisation or 
notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property. Peer providers must register 
in an official registry in Bulgaria, Greece, Madrid and Barcelona, Hungary, Italy, Portugal 
and  Slovenia.  Authorisation  schemes  are  in  place  in  Austria,  Belgium  (in  the  three 
regions  of  Brussels,  Flanders  and  Wallonia),  Croatia  and  Malta,  where  peer  providers 
need to obtain a licence prior to starting their activity. In France, peer providers must 
notify  the  relevant  city  administration  when  the  short-term  rental  is  a  secondary 
residence,  and  they  must  obtain  an  authorisation  in  cities  of  more  than  200 000 
inhabitants.185 In Lithuania186 and Valencia187 only a notification procedure is necessary. 
In the Netherlands, requirements depend on the type of rental: for bed and breakfast 
the district council must be notified, for holiday lettings no authorisation is necessary, 
but some rules have to be taken into account, and for short stay  lettings a licence is 
required.188 

The  multiplication  of  market  access  requirements  for  peer  providers  can  harm  the 
provision  of  collaborative  services  in  the  accommodation  sector.  In  Slovenia  for 
instance,  peer  providers  must  comply  with  a  series  of  requirements,  including  the 
following: they are required to register as a business and subscribe for VAT; they must 
obtain the approval of 75% of the other owners of the building; the apartment needs to 
be  categorised  according  to  a  certain  number  of  stars;  and  the  host  needs  to  issue 

178  The law only specifies that landlords must keep their property in good order (Rental act 2016, § 19). 
179  Act on Accommodation and Restaurant Operations 28.4.2006/308. 
180  Authorisations and registration schemes only apply to peers renting out their secondary residences. 
181  There are registration requirements for peers. Source: Law On Residential Tenancy. Available at: 

https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=56863 and the Civil Law. Available at: https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=90221  

182  In Amsterdam but not in Rotterdam. 
183  Health and safety regulations.  
184  In Madrid, providers of short-term leases are exempt from certain health and safety regulations, but the 
regional Decree 79/2014 has introduced authorisation and registration requirements to ensure a level-
playing field with other tourist accommodation providers. Similarly, in Barcelona, the regional Decree 
159/2012 imposes authorisation and registration requirements and the 2017 Special Plan on Tourist 
Accommodation of the city of Barcelona has introduced a cap in the number of authorisations granted.  

185  Digital Republic Act, 2016/1321.  
186  The Law on Tourism of the Republic of Lithuania (Lietuvos Respublikos turizmo įstatymas), Official 

Gazette 19-03-1998, No. VIII-667, identification code 0981010ISTAVIII-667, https://e-
seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.52605/EOmEAXQxmf  

187  Regional Decree 92/200. 
188  Available at: 

https://www.amsterdam.nl/publish/pages/593837/notitie_toeristische_verhuur_van_woningen.pdf (p. 
11) 

84 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

invoices to the guests.189 In the German cities of Berlin190, Hamburg191 and Munich192, 
there is a general ban on using living space for purposes other than living in it, which 
includes  what  can  be  defined  as  “short-term  rentals”.  In  Berlin,  for  instance,  the  law 
mentions that repeated renting out of the property for periods of time measured in days 
and weeks is not allowed. There are exceptions to this rule but interviews with experts 
in Germany have found that peer providers are rarely granted with an exemption. As a 
result  of  these  obstacles,  Germany  and  Slovenia  score  low  in  the  Registrations, 
authorisations  and  notifications  indicator  and,  generally,  in  the  accommodation 
theme.193  

In  most  Member  States,  peer  providers  are  required  to  obtain  approval  from  their 
landlord prior to letting their property. Exceptions are: 

 

 
 

In Greece, the Civil Code explicitly states that “the lessee has the right, unless 
otherwise  agreed,  to  give  to  another  [person]  the  use  of  the  lease  and,  in 
particular, to sublet it”194; 
In Luxembourg, approval of the landlord is only recommended195;  
In  Slovakia,  tenants  are  entitled  to  sublet  a  leased  property,  unless  the  lease 
agreement stipulates otherwise.196 

It is less common that peer providers are required to seek the same  approval from 
their  building  association  to  sublet.  This  is  the  case  only  in  Brussels,  France, 
Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain (Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia) and Sweden. 

Most  Member  States  score  high  on  the  indicator  Restrictions  on  type  of  good  or 
service provided (see Section 4.3.2). This is the result of most Member States allowing 
peer providers to let their primary and secondary residences in their entirety, without 
any restriction as to the proportion that can be rented out. Furthermore, in almost all 
Member States (except for the Netherlands for certain types of accommodation197), peer 
providers are not required to be present in the property they are renting out.  

189  See the various requirements in: 4Liberty.eu (2017). The regulatory framework of the collaborative 

economy in Central and Eastern Europe. Available at: http://4liberty.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/09/The-Regulatory-Framework-of-the-Collaborative-Economy-in-Central-and-
Eastern-Europe.pdf  

190  Gesetz über das Verbot der Zweckentfremdung von Wohnraum (ZwVbG), 29.11.2013, published in GVBI 

2013, 626: 
http://gesetze.berlin.de/jportal/?quelle=jlink&query=WoZwEntfrG+BE&psml=bsbeprod.psml&max=true
&aiz=true#jlr-WoZwEntfrGBEV1P2  

191  Gesetz über den Schutz und die Erhaltung von Wohnraum (HmbWoSchG), 21.05.2013, published in 

HmbGVBI 1982, S.47:   
http://www.landesrecht-
hamburg.de/jportal/portal/page/bshaprod.psml?showdoccase=1&st=lr&doc.id=jlr-
WoPflGHArahmen&doc.part=X&doc.origin=bs  

192  Gesetz über das Verbot der Zweckentfremdung von Wohnraum, 10.12.2007, (GVBl. S. 864) 
BayRS 2330-11-I: http://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/BayZwEWG2008  

193  In Slovenia, the Accommodation Facilities Register has been launched in December 2017 and allows 

hosts to send relevant information to only one agency, the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Public 
Legal Records and Related Services (AJPES) rather than to multiple authorities. See: 4Liberty.eu (2017). 
The regulatory framework of the collaborative economy in Central and Eastern Europe. Available at: 
http://4liberty.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-Regulatory-Framework-of-the-Collaborative-
Economy-in-Central-and-Eastern-Europe.pdf  

194  Article 593 of the Civil Code. 
195  Article 1717 of the Civil Code, applies that the tenant has the right to sublet, and even to transfer his 

lease/rent to another, if this option has not been prohibited. 

196  Article 666 of the Civil Code.  
197  In Amsterdam, this requirement applies for Bed & Breakfasts. Source: 

https://www.amsterdam.nl/veelgevraagd/?productid=%7BC8EA978C-5861-4C8D-906E-
C805F4D80CD8%7D. In Rotterdam, rented rooms should not cover more than 30% of the gross floor 
area (all spaces in your house together) and the peer provider should be living in the other 70%. 

85 

 
                                                 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Finally, there are no Inspections in 11 Member States (i.e. in Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, 
Finland,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Poland,  Romania,  and  Slovenia).  In 
Bulgaria and Denmark, inspections may occur depending on the type of asset or in the 
case of dispute has been notified to public authorities. In the Netherlands, this depends 
on  the  cities  (with  inspections  used  in  Amsterdam  but  not  in  Rotterdam).  Therefore, 
most Member States score high on this indicator.  

New  legislation  or  greater  collaboration  between  platforms  and  public  authorities  is 
expected in Spain and Greece in the near future. In Catalonia, the Draft Decree on room 
rentals  will  further  regulate  short-term  rentals  by  setting  conditions  for  the  rental  of 
rooms.198  In  Greece,  the  Tax  Administration  (IAPR)  has  begun  discussions  with  the 
major accommodation platforms operating in the country for cooperation and exchange 
of data to better monitor P2P activity.199  

In general, despite the general absence of a bespoke regime regulating the collaborative 
economy  in  the  Member  States  (with  the  exception  of  Greece),  many  features  are 
favourable for the further development of collaborative short-term rental activities. In 
addition  to  the  presence  of  a  bespoke  regime  for  Greece,  good  performance  in  the 
accommodation theme can be attributed to: 

  The absence of requirements for peer providers to notify, register or obtain an 
authorisation from public authorities prior to starting their activity (i.e. in most 
Member States); 

  The absence of restrictions in the type of asset provided (i.e. in most Member 
States, peer providers can let their primary and secondary residence, rooms or 
entire property, and are not obliged to be present while renting); 

  The  absence  of  requirements  for  peer  providers  to  notify  either  landlords  or 
building  associations  prior  to  subletting  their  property  (i.e.  Czech  Republic, 
Finland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom);  

  The  establishment  of  clear  thresholds  to  distinguish  peer  from  professional 
activity (i.e. in Austria, Croatia, France,  Greece, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, 
Sweden).  

  The exemption for peers of some requirements applicable to professionals (i.e. 
in Austria, Flanders, Denmark, Finland, France, Latvia, Netherlands,  Spain and 
Sweden  peer  providers  are  exempt  from  complying  with  health  and  safety 
regulations applicable to the hotel sector).  

Conversely,  high  market  access  requirements  and  the  absence  of  a  clear  distinction 
between  peer  and  professional  providers  may  be  an  obstacle  for  the  further 
development  of  the  collaborative  economy  in  the  accommodation  sector.  Restrictions 
on the type of assets to be provided (e.g. primary or secondary residence), the size of 
the  property  the  number  of  assets  provided,  or  regulations  on  inspections  are  less 
widespread, therefore have a lesser effect on Member States’ scores. 

Source: https://www.rotterdam.nl/werken-leren/bed-en-breakfast/Factsheet-Bed-breakfast-april-
2017.pdf  

198  Owners live in the apartment before and during the rental period; Rentals cannot last more than 31 days 
and rooms can only be available for a maximum period of four months a year (non-consecutive); They 
rent out a maximum of two rooms per apartment; Municipalities determine in which city areas this 
activity can take place; Owners are responsible for collecting a tourism tax (EUR 0.65 in Barcelona and 
EUR 0.45 in the rest of Catalonia). There is no public official version of the draft decree for the moment, 
but the text can be found at: http://fevitur.com/images/20150730_Projecte_de_decret.pdf . 

199  Interview response from the Head of the Independent Department for the Coordination of Reforms and 

Communications. 

86 

 
 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

4.4  Finance 

4.4.1  Description of general results 

The indicator results for the finance theme, by Member State, are depicted in Figure 10: 

Figure 10 : Member State results for the finance theme 

Six Member States receive a “green” rating - Spain, Portugal, France, Finland, Belgium 
and Lithuania.  

4.4.2  Description of results per indicator 

The  finance  theme  consists  of  six  indicators,  which  are  presented  in  Figure  11.  Most 
Member  States  score  high  on  the  Bespoke  legislation  indicator.  For  the  other 
indicators  (Registrations  and  authorisations,  Peer  and  professional  provider 
and 
distinction,  Prospectus 
Inspections) the results are mixed. 

requirements 

requirement, 

Information 

Figure 11 : Indicator results for the finance theme 

Bespoke legislation indicates whether there is a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity 
investment or lending and whether the investment and lending are prohibited.  Eleven 

87 

891011121314151617181920212223242526277736583472302789827662574250365572942201162483546692921FinanceATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLVLUMTNLPLPTROSESISKUKTotal score5576292150574830628972772011364269272946627824234353658Bespoke legislation1001005025505050501001001001005005075100505050100010050505050100Registrations and authorisations4265007699825442885171NA0046921975504109203074051Peer and professional provider distinction671000033505003310010083017333367006767010075003367Prospectus requirement00000000010001000000010000100010000000Information requirements01001001001005000100100100500010005000NA0100010010001000Inspections0010010000001000000100100000000001005001000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Member States score very high on this indicator. Only three Member States get a very 
low rating. 

The Registrations and authorisations indicator measures the time required to obtain 
all necessary licences for setting up P2P equity investment and P2P lending platforms, 
and the direct costs of obtaining all necessary licences for setting up these platforms. 
The Member State with the highest score is Germany, followed by Portugal, Lithuania, 
Spain, Denmark, Czech Republic and Luxembourg. Greece has no rating due to the lack 
of information relating to this indicator. 

In  four  Member  States  –  Belgium,  Finland,  Portugal  and  Spain  –  there  is  a  clear 
distinction between peer and professional finance providers. This results in the highest 
ratings on the indicator  Peer  and professional provider  distinction for these four 
countries, followed by France and Romania. 

There are five Member States with no Prospectus requirement - France, Latvia, the 
Netherlands,  Portugal  and  Spain,  which  consequently  achieve  top  scores.  All  other 
Member States do not score any points on this indicator.  

Information requirements indicates whether peer providers are required to provide 
information  to  public  authorities  before  engaging  in  collaborative  finance.  Twelve 
Member States require no such information, scoring high on this indicator. Most of the 
other Member States do not score any points. The rating for Malta is not available due 
to the lack of information relating to this indicator. 

Inspections indicates whether peer providers can be subject to inspections by public 
authorities to ensure compliance with regulations. Seven Member States receive very 
high ratings, while most of the others do not score any points. The rating for Belgium is 
not available due to the lack of relevant information. This indicator only assesses the 
factors  encouraging  the  activity  of  platforms  and  peer  providers  and  does  not  cover 
consumer protection concerns. 

4.4.3  Qualitative assessment  

The finance theme shows more variety between Member States than the transport and 
accommodation  themes.  This  is  due  to  significant  differences  in  the  regulatory 
frameworks, with some Member States allowing and encouraging collaborative finance 
activities,  while  others  do  not  account  for  these  new  business  models  yet,  causing 
regulatory uncertainties hindering their development.  

The traditional finance  sector is heavily regulated  in view  of the  potential investment 
risks,  and  this  is  even  more  the  case  following  the  financial  crisis.  Therefore,  it  is 
important  that  legislation  sets  out  clear  requirements  for  collaborative  economy 
business  models,  taking  account  for  their  specificity  while  protecting  consumers  and 
providers. 

Member States scoring high in the finance theme are the ones where there is bespoke 
legislation allowing collaborative finance, along with fewer requirements for platforms 
and  providers,  and  greater  clarity  regarding  the  applicable  regulatory  regime  (i.e. 
Belgium, Finland, France, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain). The combination of these features 
encourages collaborative economy activities.  

As noted in Section 2.2.3.3, the presence of bespoke legislation is perceived as positive 
in this study, as it has been found to foster the growth of the sector by providing clarity 
to investors and consumers regarding their rights and obligations. It also facilitates the 
entry  and  the  conduct  of  P2P  finance  activities  by  differentiating  the  requirements 

88 

Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

applicable to collaborative platforms and providers from those geared to the traditional 
banking  sector.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  bespoke  legislation  may  result  in 
regulatory differences across Member States. The lack of harmonisation of collaborative 
finance  regulations  can  also  have  hindering  effects,  which  are  not  assessed  by  the 
present study.  

In  comparison  to  the  transport  and  accommodation  themes,  specific  legislation 
regulating  collaborative  finance  are  more  common  among  Member  States.  There  are 
specific  laws  regulating  P2P  equity  and  P2P  lending  activities  in  11  Member  States  – 
Austria200,  Belgium201,  Greece202,  Spain203,  Finland204,  France205,  Italy206,  Lithuania207, 
Netherlands208, Portugal209 and the United Kingdom210 – which therefore score higher in 
the Bespoke legislation indicator. 

Apart from Germany for certain types of business, all Member States require platforms 
to  register  or  to  obtain  authorisations  prior  to  starting  their  activities.  Besides 
Germany,  where  no  authorisation  is  required  for  brokering  loan  activities,  Member 
States that score higher on the  Registrations and authorisations indicator are the 
ones where the length of time for obtaining these authorisations is the shortest and the 
associated costs are the lowest by comparison with other Member States. These Member 
States are Denmark211, Spain212, Lithuania213 and Portugal214, where it takes platforms 
between 30 and 90 days to obtain a licence, and where the licence is free of charge.  

In general, collaborative platforms are subject to fewer requirements for obtaining 
a  licence  than  banks  and  investment  firms.  This  is  the  case  in  Austria,  Belgium, 
Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Ireland,  Italy215,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Portugal, 
Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Usually, platforms are required to provide less 
information  and  documentation  than  traditional  financial  operators.  In  France,  for 
instance, collaborative platforms are not required to adhere to professional associations 
regulating and controlling their activities, unlike banks and investment firms. They also 
face  lower  initial  financial  commitment  requirements.216  In  Austria,  requirements 
depend on the nature of the activity: if platforms act as an investment broker (i.e. most 

200  The Alternative Financing Act (Alternativfinanzierungsgesetz, AltFG)  
201  Law of 18 December 2016 - Wet tot regeling van de erkenning en de afbakening van crowdfunding en 
houdende diverse bepalingen inzake financiën - Loi organisant la reconnaissance et l'encadrement du 
crowdfunding et portant des dispositions diverses en matière de finances. 

202  Part B of Law 4416/2016. 
203  Law 5/2015. 
204  Crowdfunding Act 734/2016. 
205  Decree 2014-1053 on crowdfunding. 
206  Law of 17 December 2012. 
207  Lithuanian Crowdfunding Law of 11 November 2015. 
208  Change in Financial Markets Decision (Financial Markets Change Decision 2016). 
209  Law no. 102/2015. 
210  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2014 

and The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Appointed Representatives) (Amendment) Regulations 
2014 and The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2014. 

211  90 days for obtaining a licence. There is no cost for obtaining a licence, but the platform must pay a 
yearly fee to the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority. Source: Finanstilsynet (FSA). Available at: 
https://www.finanstilsynet.dk/da/Ansoeg-og-Indberet/Soeg-om-tilladelse-mv/Ansoeg/Ansoegning-
Tilladelse-Betalingsinstitut.  

212  90 days for obtaining a licence, and the licence is free of charge. Source: Law 5/2015 and Interview with 

LoanBook Capital, 31/08/2017. 

213  30 days for obtaining a licence. No information about direct costs was retrieved. Sources: Interview with 

Startup Lithuania, 14/08/2017. Interview with a financial law expert, 07/08/2017.  

214  30 days for obtaining a licence. No information about direct costs was retrieved. Source: Lei no. 

102/2015 Regulamento da CMVM n.º 1/2016 Financiamento Colaborativo de capital ou por empréstimo. 

215  Although desk research and interviews found that requirements were high for P2P lending platforms. 
216  Interview with the platform Babyloan (23/08/2017). 

89 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

equity lending platforms), they need the same licences as investment firms; platforms 
which do not act as investment brokers are exempt from some banking regulations.217 

Several  Member  States  use  thresholds  to  distinguish  peers  from  professionals 
(i.e. Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Finland, France, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain). 
Spanish legislation distinguishes between “qualified” and “unqualified” lenders/investors 
on the basis of their annual income and sets different investment limits for each type of 
provider.218  In  Malta,  there  is  a  difference  between  “professional  investor  funds”  and 
“retail investor funds”, based on minimum investment and net assets.219 In Finland, a 
private individuals can be considered professional on their own request to the platform, 
provided they meet requirements in terms of size of the transaction, investment asset, 
and professional experience in the finance sector.220 In Austria221, Belgium222, France223, 
Germany224, Greece225 and Portugal226, the threshold consists of an investment limit for 

217  Austrian Banking Act (BWG), Payment Services Act (ZaDiG), Alternative Investment Fund Act (AIFMG), 
Securities Supervision Act (WAG), E-Money Act, Insurance Supervision Act (VAG) and partly the Capital 
Market Act (KMG).  

218  Qualified lenders/investors have a total income of more than EUR 50 000 per year or a financial asset of 
more than EUR 100 000, and can invest more than EUR 3 000 in the same project or more than EUR 
10 000 in the same platform per year; unqualified lenders/investors to those with less than EUR 50 000 
of income per year can invest less than EUR 3 000 per project. Source: Crowdfunding Hub, 2016. 
Current State of Crowdfunding in Europe, p. 55. 

219  Professional investor funds (PIFs) are subject to a lighter and more flexible regime that retail funds 

(investment firms). PIFs fulfil the following criteria:  
a) invests a minimum of EUR 100 000 or its currency equivalent in the PIF;  
b) declares in writing to the fund manager and the PIF that it is aware of and accepts the risks 
associated with the proposed investment;  
c) satisfies at least one of the following: i) is a body corporate which has net assets in excess of EUR 
750 000 or which is part of a group which has net assets in excess of EUR 750 000; ii) is an 
unincorporated body of persons or association which has net assets in excess of EUR 750 000 or the 
currency equivalent; iii) is a trust where the net value of the trust's assets is in excess of EUR 750 000 
or the currency equivalent; iv) is an individual whose net worth or joint net worth with that of the 
person's spouse, exceeds EUR 750 000 or the currency equivalent; or v) is a senior employee or director 
of a service provider to the PIF. Source: http://www.mamotcv.com/resources/news/the-maltese-
professional-investor-fund-regime  

220  A private individual can be considered professional on their own request, if the investment firm considers 
that the customer is able to make independent investment decisions and understands the risks involved, 
and meets at least two of the following requirements: 
a) The customer has carried out significant transactions in the market in question on average ten times 
in a quarter over the last four quarters;   
b) The value of the investment asset of the customer exceeds EUR 500 000;  
c) The client is or has been working in the financial sector for at least a year, in a position requiring 
knowledge of planned transactions and services. 
Source: The Investment Services Act 14.12.2012/747. 

221  The limit is EUR 5 000 per individual investor per year. This limit does not apply to: (i) legal persons, (ii) 
professional investors. Exceptionally, individual investors can invest more than EUR 5 000, but Nomore 
than either the double of their monthly net income or 10% of their financial assets. Available at: 
Commission Staff Working Document: Crowdfunding in the EU Capital Markets Union, p. 40. 

222  There is a maximum investable amount of EUR 5 000 per project and the maximum amount retrieved 

from the platform cannot exceed EUR 300 000. 

223  Peer providers in P2P lending platforms cannot lend more than EUR 1,000 for a loan with interest or EUR 
4 000 for a loan without interests. There is no threshold for equity platforms. Source: Crowdfunding 
Hub, 2016. Current state of crowdfunding in Europe, p. 33. 

224  The total investment amount for each investor is limited to a maximum of EUR 10 000 within a time 

period of 12 months. Source: Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), written answer provided 
(08/09/2017). 

225  The amount of money that a retail investor may invest in a single issuer (single issuer limit) “shall not 

exceed EUR 5 000 and in any case the 10% of the average income declared in the tax returns of the last 
three years”. Source: Art. 23 and 24 of Law 4416/2028. 

226  Regulation of CMVM no. 1/2016 Collaborative financing through equity investment or lending states a 

maximum amount of EUR 3 000 per transaction or EUR 10 000 per year. 

90 

                                                 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

peer providers. In some Member States (i.e. Romania227, Italy228), there is a distinction 
based  on  the  peer/professional  nature  of  the  lending  activity  but  no  quantitative 
threshold.  The  Member  States  combining  the  presence  of  threshold  with  lesser 
requirements for P2P equity and lending platforms than for banks and investment firms 
thus score higher on the Peer and professional provider distinction indicator (i.e. 
Belgium, Spain, Finland, France, Portugal, Romania).  

In  most  Member  States,  peer  providers  are  subject  to  lower  regulatory  burden  on 
collaborative  platforms  than  with  traditional  financial  entities.  First,  Prospectus 
requirements are absent or lower in comparison to the requirements for investment 
firms.  There  are  no  prospectus  requirements  in  Latvia229  and  Portugal230.  In  Spain231 
and France232, there are different prospectus requirements for platforms than for banks 
and investment firms. For instance, in France, only P2P equity investment platforms can 
require peer providers to present a prospectus, and the content is less extensive than 
for investment firms (only 20-30 pages presenting the company, major investments and 
major risks).  

Second, peer providers are often not required to submit the same amount of information 
to  public  authorities,  implying  a  smaller  administrative  burden.  This  is  the  case  in 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Poland, Romania, 
Slovakia,  Spain  and  Sweden.  Thus,  these  countries  score  higher  in  the  Information 
requirements indicator. In Belgium, peer providers are required to submit information 
to  collaborative  platforms  about  their  knowledge  and  experience  in  terms  of 
investment.233 In France, information requirements are more extensive for P2P equity 
investment than for P2P lending, as P2P equity platforms have a status of investment 
consulting company, which requires them to have a more extensive knowledge of their 
clients.234 In Lithuania, the level of information depends on the size of the transaction.235 

227  The difference between the peer and professional lending lies in the legislation which applies for them. 

Professional lending is regulated in Romania by the Romanian National Bank (BNR) and lending between 
peers (non-professional) fall under the rules of the Civil code and is not subject to financial and banking 
regulations. 

228  In Italy, the law makes a distinction between “natural” and “legal” persons and sets different legal 

obligations for each category.  

229  Prospectus requirement for public offer regarding transferable securities are the following. Exemptions of 

Prospectus requirements  
(a) offering of transferable securities does not exceed EUR 100 000 within a time period of 12 months,  
(b) only qualified investors are addressed, or less than 150 non-qualified investors per member state are 
addressed,  
(c) the offering is made in respect of transferable securities with the nominal value at least EUR 
100 000. 

230  Act no. 102/2015 neither the National Council of Financial Supervisors' Decree no. 1/2016 do not state 

an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus. 

231  The maximum size of a prospectus is EUR 2 million per year and platform, and EUR 5 million, in case of 

qualified investors. Source: Crowdfunding Hub, 2016. Current State of Crowdfunding in Europe, p. 55. 

232  Crowdfunding Hub, 2016. Current state of crowdfunding in Europe, p. 33. Interview with Babyloan 

(23/08/2017). 

233  Law of 20 December 2016, Art. 21. 
234  ACPR, AMF, 2014. S'informer sur le nouveau cadre applicable au financement participatif. Available at: 

https://acpr.banque-
france.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/acp/Communication/Communiques%20de%20presse/20140930-
Sinformer_sur_le_nouveau_cadre_applicable_au_financement_participatif.pdf. Interview with Babyloan, 
23/08/2017. 

235  No requirements related to raising funds apply to a financing transaction which is intended to raise an 
amount less than EUR 100 000 in 12 months. However, the project owner wishing to enter into one or 
more financing transactions for the total amount ranging from EUR 100 000 up to EUR 5 million  in 
12 months, must draft a document specifying the information about the project owner and the proposed 
project, and submit it to the platform operator. Finally, the project owner wishing to enter into one or 
more financing transactions for the total amount of EUR 5 million or more in 12 months can do so only 
by issuing securities in the manner established by the Law on Securities, i.e. by preparing a prospectus, 
and after obtaining an approval of the supervisory authority. Source: Lithuanian Crowdfunding Law. 
Available at: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/60391540ab3c11e6a6f98c1425a5ffa8  

91 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

In the remaining Member States, the requirements are the same as in the traditional 
banking industry, i.e. the Market in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID)236 sets out 
information  requirements  and  risk  warnings  for  collaborative  platforms,  and  the 
Prospectus  Regulation237  requires  companies  to  publish  a  prospectus  when  securities 
are issued above EUR 1 million. 

Regarding  the  absence  of  requirements  for  collaborative  platforms  and  providers,  a 
distinction should be made between Member States where such absence is due to a lack 
of  regulation  in  this  field  (e.g.  in  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Ireland,  Poland, 
Romania, Sweden, or Slovakia), and those Member States where  it is due to existing 
regulation imposing lighter burdens on collaborative economy operators (e.g.. Austria, 
Belgium, Greece, Spain, Finland, Lithuania, Portugal the United Kingdom).  

However, there is a risk that the above cases could hinder the growth of the collaborative 
economy sector in the long term. Even if the absence of legislation allows collaborative 
economy  actors  to  operate  without  significant  burdens  for  the  time  being,  this  also 
creates uncertainty preventing platforms from developing a long-term growth strategy. 
Moreover,  the  absence  of  regulation  can  discourage  peer  provider  engagement  in 
collaborative finance because of fear of potential risks.. 

For  the  remaining  Member  States,  where  collaborative  platforms  and  peer  providers 
must comply with the same set of regulations as the traditional finance sector, the risk 
is  that  high  costs  of  compliance  with  professional  regulations  discourages  their 
participation in the collaborative economy finance market. Germany is the only Member 
State  where  this  does  not  apply,  as  the  existing  legislation  sets  relatively  low 
requirements  for  comparable  operations  in  the  conventional  banking  sector.  Notably, 
institutions brokering loans do not require a licence238 and investors are exempt from 
providing information to public authorities if the investment does not exceed a certain 
amount (EUR 100 000).239 This results in Germany scoring higher in the finance theme, 
despite there being no specific legislation for P2P finance.240  

In general, Member States score lower regarding  Inspections as most of them have 
inspection  requirements  for  platforms,  except  for  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Ireland, Romania, and Slovakia.  

Legislative  initiatives  are  under  way  in  Malta,  Romania  and  Latvia.  In  Malta,  the 
government  is  working  on  guidelines  interpreting  the  current  legislation  regarding 
crowdfunding  platforms.241  Since  2012,  a  legislative  proposal  aims  at  regulating 
crowdfunding activities in Romania, but it has not been finalised yet.242 In Latvia, there 
were plans to introduce a draft law by the end of 2017.243 

236  Directive 2004/39/EC. Please note that MiFID II applies as of January 2018.  
237  Regulation (EU) 2017/1129. 
238  §34c of the German Industrial Code (Gewerbeordnung). 
239  Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), written answer provided (08/09/2017). 
240  The Small Retail Investor's Protection Act (Kleinanlegerschutzgesetz) is considered to be the first law 
that gives equity-based crowdfunding a legal framework. The Retail Investors' Protection Act is the 
extension of the scope of the German Investment Products Act (Vermögensanlagengesetz "VermAnIG") 
affects crowdfunding and its regulation (see §2a of the law that includes a paragraph entitled 
"Befreiungen für Schwarmfinanzierung", i.e. exemptions for crowdfunding). Furthermore, and pursuant 
to §32 (1) of the German Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz "KWG") anyone wishing to conduct banking 
business or to provide organised business undertaking needs written authorisation from the BaFin.  

241  Interview with the collaborative finance platform Zaar (31/08/2017). 
242  Interview with the collaborative finance platform CrestemIdei (10/08/2017). 
243  Available at: https://m.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=279842  

92 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

To  sum  up,  the  Member  States  scoring  highest  in  the  finance  theme  are  the  ones 
providing regulatory clarity by defining specifically the regulations that are applicable to 
the collaborative economy (i.e. Belgium, Finland, France, Lithuania, Spain, Portugal). 

Additional high-performance factors are: 

  Absence  of  delays  and  low  costs  for  platforms  in  obtaining  the  necessary 
authorisations (i.e. in Lithuania and Portugal, authorisations are free of charge 
and it takes on average 30 days for the financial authority to issue them); and/or 
  Exemption from requirements applicable to the traditional financial sector (e.g. 
in  France,  collaborative  platforms  are  not  required  to  be  part  of  professional 
associations;  in  Lithuania,  peer  providers  do  not  have  to  provide  the  same 
amount  of  information  to  public  authorities  depending  on  the  size  of  the 
transaction); and/or 

  Less burdensome prospectus requirements (e.g. in France, only 20-30 pages) or 

total exemption (e.g. in Portugal).  

To the  contrary, the combination of a lack of  regulatory clarity and a high regulatory 
burden  can  be  regarded  as  an  important  obstacle  to  the  development  of  the 
collaborative economy. This explains significant discrepancies between Member States 
in the finance theme.  

4.5  Public administration 

4.5.1  Description of general results 

The indicator results for the public administration theme, by Member State, are depicted 
in Figure 12: 

Figure 12 : Member State results for the public administration theme  

93 

891011121314151617181920212223242526277556815050632557568850447575564431131362513753838502519 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Six Member States receive a green rating: Belgium, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, 
Denmark, France and Italy.  

4.5.2  Description of results per indicator 

The public administration theme includes indicators related to guidance and information 
provided  by  public  administrations,  as  well  as  the  official  collaboration  between  the 
administration  and  collaborative  economy  platforms  operating  in  the  Member  States. 
Overall, the results are mixed, as presented in Figure 13. 

Figure 13 : Indicator results for the public administration theme  

The indicator Guidance on setting up peer-to-peer platforms records whether there 
is  any  guidance  issued  by  an  official  authority  on  issues  associated  with  setting  up  a 
collaborative platform. Ten Member States get top marks, but most Member States do 
not score any points. 

Guidance  to  peer  providers  measures  whether  there  is  guidance  from  a  public 
authority targeting peer providers, a publicly supported body dealing with queries from 
peers  on  the  regulatory  aspects  of  use/offering  of  P2P  services  or  whether  a  public 
authority has entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform. Denmark and 
Italy receive the highest rating, followed by France, Spain, Czech Republic, Portugal and 
the United Kingdom. 

Three  Member  States  –  Belgium,  Czech  Republic  and  the  United  Kingdom  –  get  the 
maximum points on the Guidance on employment and tax rules indicator. The rest 
of the Member States are almost equally divided between middle scores and no points 
at all. 

On  the  policy  making  indicator,  nine  Member  States  receive  a  “green  rating”.  This 
means that there is a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P 
services,  and/or  there  have  been  initiatives  from  public  authorities  to  examine  the 
development and impact of the collaborative economy. 

4.5.3  Qualitative assessment  

Overall,  Member  states  score  comparatively lower  in  the  public  administration  theme 
than  in  other  themes.  Furthermore,  there  are  significant  variations  between  Member 
States. Member States with high scores in the public administration theme correspond 
mostly to the ones where there is specific collaborative economy legislation. This may 
be  taken  as  an  indication  that  public  authorities  are  interested  in  this  new  type  of 
economic activity and business model (i.e. Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Italy, and 
the United Kingdom).  

It  is  rare  for  public  authorities  to  publish  specific  guidance  for  platforms  and  peer 
providers to inform them about collaborative economy activities. Information tends to 
be spread across different websites, topics and sectors. A notable exception is the city 
of  Vienna,  which  has  made  available  a  website  containing  information  concerning 
collaborative  economy  activities  and  a  number  of  tips  for  participating  in  P2P 

94 

AdministrationATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLVLUMTNLPLPTROSESISKUKTotal score4488131975447563135750756255675502525385031561350385681Guidance on setting up P2P platforms501000001001001000NA010000100100100000000010000100Guidance to peer providers5083008350100673383508317333310017505050675083033336783Guidance on employment and tax rules2510025010005050007550050752550000500500505050100Policy making50752575755050500755075005075752525755050505050507550 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

platforms.244 The provision of this information to peer providers is the result of the city 
council’s observation that peers may not be sufficiently aware of the legal framework 
applicable 
the  Danish  website 
Deleoekonomien.dk  provides  information  for  platforms  and  users,  with  information 
coming from different Danish Ministries.246  

the  collaborative  economy.245  Similarly, 

to 

In  eleven  Member  States:  Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Estonia,  France,  Germany, 
Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Sweden and the United Kingdom, the public authorities have 
published  Guidance  for  collaborative  platforms.  Such  documents  –  like  those 
published by the city of Vienna247, the Swedish government248 and the Belgian Federal 
Ministry of Economy249  – advise on how to set up a collaborative platform and include 
explanations of the licensing and insurance requirements. In France250, Germany251 and 
Lithuania252  the  guidance  only  covers  the  finance  theme  and  is  provided  by  financial 
authorities. The experts and platforms interviewed in France and Germany mentioned 
that information is spread between several sources and may be difficult to find.253  

When available, guidance mostly targets peer providers and covers a specific sector of 
the  collaborative  economy.  For  instance,  the  Austrian254  and  Danish  governments255, 
the German Financial Supervisory Authority256 and the Irish Central Bank257 have issued 
guidance  on  crowdfunding.  Similarly,  the  Danish  Ministry  of  Employment  and 

244  Available at: https://www.wien.gv.at/wirtschaft/standort/share-economy.html 
245  Interview with Stadt Wien representative on 22/08/2017 
246  Available at: https://deleoekonomien.dk/  
247  Stadt Wien, "Wir machen in wien die share zur fair economy", 

https://www.wien.gv.at/wirtschaft/standort/pdf/share-economy-in-wien.pdf  

248  1. Lagen om elektronisk handel och andra informationssamhällets tjänster, 2005:562 available from: 
http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-2002562-om-
elektronisk-handel-och-andra_sfs-2002-562 [23-08-17]  
2. Regeringskansliet (2005). "Lagen om elektronisk handel och andra informationssamhällets tjänster, 
2005:562". Accessed 23-08-17. http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-
forfattningssamling/lag-2002562-om-elektronisk-handel-och-andra_sfs-2002-562  

249  Avvailable at: https://finances.belgium.be/fr/asbl/economie-collaborative/demande-d-agrement-d-une-

plateforme-electronique#q1  

250  The financial markets authority (AMF) and the prudential authority (ACPR) have published guides for 
platforms and peer providers. For platforms, these guides provide information on authorisation, 
insurance requirements and applicable legislation, but do not cover taxation. For instance, see: ACPR, 
AMF, 2014. S'informer sur le nouveau cadre applicable au financement participatif. Available at: 
https://acpr.banque-
france.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/acp/Communication/Communiques%20de%20presse/20140930-
Sinformer_sur_le_nouveau_cadre_applicable_au_financement_participatif.pdf  

251  BaFin, Crowdinvesting Guidance Note:  

https://www.bafin.de/EN/Aufsicht/FinTech/Crowdfunding/Crowdinvesting/crowdinvesting_node_en.html  
252  Not publicly available. According to an interviewee, the guidance was provided during conferences in the 

run-up to the adoption of the Law on Crowdfunding.  

253  In Germany, interview with a researcher from the Cologne Institute for Economic Research 

(23/08/2017). In France, interviews with Gwenneg, 18/08/2017 - Wedogood, 18/08/2017 - Babyloan, 
23/08/2017 - Kisskissbankbank, 24/08/2017. In France, the information is notably spread across the 
different websites of AMF for equity platforms, ACPR for lending platforms, ORIAS for authorisation 
requirements 

254  Public document explaining the The Alternative Financing Act and crowdinvesting platforms. 
255  Guidance on crowdfunding (Finanstilsynet), on taxes in relation to crowdfunding (Told og Skat). 
256  Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (2014), "Crowdfunding: Supervisory requirements and investor 

responsibility": 
https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Fachartikel/2014/fa_bj_1406_crowdfunding_
en.html?nn=8249098  

257  Central Bank Ireland, available at: https://www.centralbank.ie/consumer-hub/consumer-

notices/consumer-notice-on-crowdfunding-including-peer-to-peer-lending  

95 

                                                 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Economy258  and the government of Luxembourg259 have published guidance for peer 
providers in the accommodation sector. In France, this information is available through 
a general public service website for the transport260 and accommodation261 sectors, and, 
as mentioned above, through the financial authorities for the finance sector.262 Guidance 
usually covers the legislation applicable to peer providers or their rights and obligations, 
gives tips for participating on P2P platforms, or provides general information on what 
constitutes P2P service  

With the exception of Italy, there is no dedicated public body dealing with queries from 
peers on the regulatory aspects of P2P services. These services can be spread across 
ministries  and  national/regional/local  agencies  regulating  different  aspects  of  the 
collaborative  economy  (for  instance,  national  financial  authorities  provide  advice  to 
crowdfunding platforms and users). In Italy, the platform Collaboriamo!263, funded by 
the  Municipality  of  Milan,  operates  an  information  point.  The  Observatory  on  Sharing 
mobility264, which is funded and promoted by the Italian Ministry for Environment and 
the Sustainable Development Foundation, also offers a contact point.  

The  Member States that have published some  guidance on one  of these topics  for at 
least one sector of the collaborative economy (i.e. Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, 
Italy, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom) and where there is a public body dealing 
with  queries  from  peers  (i.e.  Italy)  score  higher  in  the  Guidance  to  peer  provider 
indicator. 

In  some  Member  States,  public  authorities  have  entered  into  partnership  with 
collaborative platforms. This is usually for tax purposes, as is the case with Airbnb and 
the  tax  authorities  regarding  tourist  tax  in  19  French  cities,  Amsterdam,  Lisbon  and 
Spain). In Estonia, the Tax and Customs Board is working on establishing a partnership 
with the ride hailing platforms Uber and Taxify for income tax collection purposes.265  

Apart  from  these  tax  partnerships,  there  is  some  collaboration  between  public 
authorities and platforms in the transport theme, especially at local level. In Flanders, 
the  government  entered 
transport  platforms 
into  a  partnership  with 
(Autodelen.net,  Taxistop,  The  New  Drive  and  The  Shift)  through  an  initiative  called 
“Green Deal Shared Mobility”266, promoting green mobility. The Prague city government 
will allow, beginning in 2018, car sharing services to access blue zone parking spaces.267 

local 

258  Ministry of Employment and the Economy (2016), "Opas - Ohjeita kotimajoitusta tarjoavalle". Available 

at: 
https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/74945/3_2016_ohjeita_kotimajoitusta_tarjoa
vall%20e_25042016_WEB.pdf?sequence=1  

259  http://www.guichet.public.lu/citoyens/fr/actualites/2016/12/15-airbnb/index.html  
260  Service public.fr, Exploitant ou conducteur de voiture avec chauffeur (VTC). Available at: 

https://www.service-public.fr/professionnels-entreprises/vosdroits/F31027  

261  Service public.fr, Location de vacances en meublé de tourisme : déclaration et classement. Available at: 

https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2043  

262  ACPR, AMF, 2014. S'informer sur le nouveau cadre applicable au financement participatif. Available at: 

https://acpr.banque-
france.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/acp/Communication/Communiques%20de%20presse/20140930-
Sinformer_sur_le_nouveau_cadre_applicable_au_financement_participatif.pdf  

263  Available at: http://www.collaboriamo.org/  
264  Available at: http://osservatoriosharingmobility.it/  
265  Republic of Estonia Tax and Customs Board, “Helm: Estonian Tax and Customs Board to introduce 

several solutions to simplify procedures in the coming years.” Available at: 
https://www.emta.ee/eng/helm-estonian-tax-and-customs-board-introduce-several-solutions-simplify-
procedures-coming-years  

266  Available at:www.gedeeldemobiliteit.be.  
267  Interview with Liberalni Institut (22/08/2017). 

96 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

The  same  kind  of  partnership  already  exists  in  the  Spanish  cities  of  Madrid  and 
Barcelona.  

In  the  accommodation  theme,  an  example  of  partnership  is  the  one  between  the 
Municipality of Milan and the platform Airbnb to  allow family members of hospitalised 
patients to stay in Airbnb accommodation with costs covered by the Municipality.268 In 
the finance theme, another notable example is the United Kingdom where the British 
Business Bank and the Department for International Development both have co-funded 
partnerships with different platforms, such as Zopa and Funding Circle, to raise money 
for projects.269 

Public  authorities  provide  information  on  taxation  in  Belgium,  Czech  Republic, 
Denmark,  Estonia,  France,  Finland,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom. This information takes the form of documentation or 
FAQs, such as in Belgium270, Denmark271, Finland272, Hungary273, Ireland274, Sweden275 
and  the  United  Kingdom276  or  government  positions,  such  as  in  Czech  Republic  and 
Poland277. Guidance can also be provided on a case by case basis, such as in Lithuania, 
where the State Tax Inspectorate of Lithuania deals with questions pertaining to national 
tax rules applicable to P2P platforms.278  

In France, there is a dedicated page on the Ministry of Economy and Finance's website 
where peer providers can find information about taxation of their collaborative economy 
revenue,  with  “fiches”  for  each  sector  (accommodation,  transport,  resale,  renting  of 
goods, online skills).279 The French Taxation Code requires platforms to distribute those 
“fiches”  to  peer  providers.280  The  Dutch  tax  authority  has  an  information  page  that 
determines the applicable tax legislation for peer providers, based on their answers to 
a set of pre-defined questions.281 In the transport sector, the Estonian Tax Board has 

268  Domini, A. and Guarnoni , E. (2017). Interviews for EC Study on Collaborative economy schemes in the 

EU-28 (AltroConsumo, expert, horizontal). 

269  British Business Bank (2017), 'British Business Bank Expands Partnership with Funding Circle', Press 

Release accessed via http://british-business-bank.co.uk/british-business-bank-investments-ltd-expands-
partnership-funding-circle/ on 23rd August 2017)  

270  Available at: http://ccff02.minfin.fgov.be/KMWeb/document.do?method=view&id=5b55946a-0fc4-4a3f-

ab59-4cfd61011c63#findHighlighted  

271  1. 2. SKAT (2016). "Lejlighedsvis biludlejning og samkørsel mv. - styresignal" (Transport). Available at: 
http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oId=2236667&vId=0 [06/09/2017] 2. SKAT (2017). "Crowdfunding". 
Available from: https://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oId=2234858 [30/08/17] 3. SKAT.dk "Du udlejer et 
værelse eller en bolig en del af året" (Accommodation) available at 
http://skat.dk/skat.aspx?oid=2234798  [07/09/17] 

272  Tax Administration (2017), "Jakamistalous". Available at: 

https://www.vero.fi/henkiloasiakkaat/verokortti-ja-veroilmoitus/tulot-ja-
vahennykset/ansiotulot/jakamistalous/;  

273  National Tax and Customs Authority issued a guidance document for taxation of accommodation 

provided through collaborative platforms called 'Most important things to know about tax obligations for 
the provision of accommodation services for commercial purposes using online booking systems'.  

274  Available at: revenue.ie  
275  Skatteverket.se available from: 

https://www.skatteverket.se/privat/fastigheterochbostad/uthyrningavbostad/bostadsratt.4.233f91f7126
0075abe8800033531.html  [18-08-17] 

276  UK Government (2016), Budget 2016, 7.1 table 2.1 section 73, Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme has 

its own website: http://www.seis.co.uk/  

277  Parliamentary question and answer from the ministry 

http://orka2.sejm.gov.pl/INT7.nsf/klucz/088552EF/%24FILE/i32705-o1.pdf  

278  Interview with financial law expert and a partner in a business law firm Tvins (07/08/2017) 
279  Economie.gouv.fr, Économie collaborative : quels sont les revenus imposables? Available at: 
https://www.economie.gouv.fr/particuliers/economie-collaborative-revenus-imposables  

280  Article 242-10 du Code général des impots. 
281  Available at: 

https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/belastingdienst/prive/werk_en_inkomen/
interneteconomie/interneteconomie-deeleconomie/interneteconomie-deeleconomie  

97 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

issued a guide for Taxify and Uber drivers for their tax declaration and choice of optimal 
tax regime.282 

There  is  less  information  available  on  national  employment  rules.  In  the  United 
Kingdom, the Taylor Review published in July 2017 outlines modern working practices 
and the legal and moral obligations employers have to their employees.283 In the Czech 
Republic, this information is available in a document published by the Czech ministry 
but not yet available on an official website.284  

The Member States that score higher in the Guidance on employment and tax rules 
indicator  are  thus  the  ones  where  official  guidance  on  both  topics  is  available  (i.e. 
Belgium, Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom).  

In  terms  of  policy  making,  there  are  no  dedicated  public  bodies  for  dealing  with 
legislation related to P2P services. Collaborative economy topics are mostly dealt 
with  by  existing  authorities,  such  as  financial  authorities  in  the  finance  sector.  In 
Germany  however,  the  Sachverständigenrat  für  Verbraucherfragen285  is  an  official 
advisory  council  set  up  in  2014  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Consumer  Protection 
(BMJV), which aims to analyse the situation of consumers in relation to broader themes, 
such  as  crowdfunding  and  digitalisation.  In  Italy,  in  the  legislative  proposal  which  is 
currently  being  considered  for  approval  by  parliamentary  committees,  the  Italian 
Communications  Regulatory  Authority  AGCOM  has  been  identified  as  the  responsible 
body devoted to such tasks.286 

There  are  several  initiatives  examining  the  development  and  impact  of  the 
collaborative  economy.  Collaborative  economy  studies  have  been  commissioned  by 
governments  notably  in  Austria287,  Czech  Republic288,  Denmark289,  Estonia290, 

282  Available at: https://www.emta.ee/et/tulu-deklareerimine/ettevotlustulu/kasulik-teave/uber-voi-taxify-

autojuhtide-tulu-maksustamisest  

283  Taylor, Matthew (2017), 'Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices' UK Government 

Review, p25. 

284  See the Czech report.  
285  http://www.svr-verbraucherfragen.de 
286  Interview with ENEA (31/08/2017). Interview with Altroconsumo (23/08/2017). 
287  Municipal Department 23 started with a study on share economy, made efforts to amend the Vienna 
Tourism Promotion Act and to get into contact with the share platforms. For the moment in the 
accommodation sector we are observing the number of the accomodations offered by sharing platforms, 
about 7 000 accomodations every month. 

288  See the Czech report.  
289  The Ministry of Commerce have conducted a mapping of sharing economy platforms in Denmark and a 

report regarding crowdfunding in order to study the possibilities for promoting crowdfunding in 
Denmark, including clarifying regulatory challenges in this area.  1. Erhvervsministeriet.dk available from 
http://em.dk/nyheder/2017/01-10-platformsokonomi [25/08/17] 2. Erhvervsministeriet.dk available 
from http://em.dk/publikationer/2015/15-05-08-rapport-om-crowdfunding [28/08/17] 

290  Survey and research project about collaborative economy, ordered by Ministry of Economics. Available 
at: https://www.mkm.ee/et/uudised/uuring-jagamismajanduse-kaive-eestis-oli-mullu-ule-40-miljoni-
euro  

98 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

Germany291, Luxembourg292, Malta293, Netherlands294, Slovakia295, Spain296, Sweden297 
and the United Kingdom.298  

For instance, in Spain, the National  Commission on Markets and Competition (CNMC) 
published a document in 2016 with the preliminary results of a study on new service 
models  and  the  collaborative  economy.299  In  the  Czech  Republic,  the  government 
released  in  September  2017  a  document  providing  definitions  of  the  collaborative 
economy in the accommodation and transport sectors, and recommendations as regards 
employment and taxation.300 In Luxembourg, scrutiny of the collaborative economy is 
part of a broader government strategy on the Third Industrial Revolution which includes 
the  digital  economy.301  In  the  United  Kingdom,  the  Office  for  National  Statistics  is 
working on assessing the feasibility of measuring the collaborative economy through a 
series of reports published since 2016.302 

Some public authorities have also established working groups. For instance, in France 
in  the  finance  sector,  two  working  groups  on  equity  and  lending  were  established 
between  2013-2014,  involving  collaborative  platforms,  the  Ministry  of  Economy  and 
Finance  and  banking  and  financial  authorities.  In  Catalonia,  an  interdepartmental 
working group on the collaborative economy was established in 2016 and has already 
released its first conclusions.303 

There  are  also  some  legislative  proposals  addressing  the  sharing  or  collaborative 
economy  which  are  in  the  process  of  development.  Since  January  2016,  the  Italian 
parliament  has  been  working  on  the  development  of  the  Sharing  Economy  Act 304, 
including  regulations  about  collaborative  economy  schemes.  The  legislative  proposal 
introduces a definition of collaborative platforms in the field of the sharing economy and 
covers  taxation  and  employment  issues.  The  Romanian  Parliament  is  working  (as  of 
2016) on a legislative framework which aims to differentiate between natural persons 
who engage occasionally in the provision of services through sharing economy platforms 
and those who perform economic activities as a part of their profession.305 In Bulgaria, 

291  Examples at national level: I-share economy: www.i-share-economy.org. Peer-sharing.de: - www.peer-
sharing.de. At regional level: Study on the sharing economy in Nordhrein-Westfalen funded by the 
Ministry Economy, Digitalisation, Energy and Innovation of Nordrhein-Westfalen: 
https://csr.nrw.de/no_cache/en/news/studie-zur-sharing-economy-in-nordrhein-westfalen/  

292  See below.  
293  The government in Malta is carried out opened consultation to stakeholder such as the tourism 

associations. The government also is supported by independent studies to examine the development and 
impact of the collaborative economy in the tourist sector, such as the University of Malta. 

294  https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2015/11/01/innoveren-in-de-deeleconomie  
295  By the Slovak business agency.  
296  See below.  
297  regeringen.se available from: 

http://www.regeringen.se/495f62/contentassets/82aabf7f731c4e18aaee3b8dc3621063/delningsekonomi
--pa-anvandarnas-villkor-sou-201726 [23/08/17]  

298  See below.  
299  Available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n65MjUaTmRLuZCqTIlqyWvobVqreR-

iAzsz1mhxy2y0/edit?pref=2&pli=1  

300  https://www.vlada.cz/assets/urad-vlady/poskytovani-informaci/poskytnute-informace-na-

zadost/Priloha_4_Material_Analyza.pdf  

301  http://www.troisiemerevolutionindustrielle.lu/  
302 https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/thefeasibilityofmeasuringthesharingeconomynovember2017 

progressupdate  
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/articles/thefeasibilityofmeasur
ingthesharingeconomy/2016-04-05  

303  Comissio Interdepartamental de l’Economia Collaborativa. Available at: 

http://sac.gencat.cat/sacgencat/AppJava/organisme_fitxa.jsp?codi=19907  

304  The legislative proposal 3564 of 27 January 2016 (Italian: Disciplina delle piattaforme digitali per la 
condivisione di beni e servizi e disposizioni per la promozione dell’economia della condivisione)  

305  CDEP (2016), Proiect de lege privind economia de acces. Available at: 

http://www.cdep.ro/proiecte/2017/000/90/6/pvg96_2017.pdf  

99 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

the chairman of the Commission for Consumer Protection has announced that they are 
working  on  draft  legislation  setting  out  a  regulatory  framework  for  the  collaborative 
economy.306  

Overall,  initiatives  aimed  at  reducing  administrative  burdens  falling  on  collaborative 
economy operators are widespread across Member States. The number of initiatives at 
national and local level aimed at assessing the scope and the impact of the collaborative 
economy  shows  the  growing  interest  of  public  authorities  regarding  these  business 
models.  However,  this  growing  interest  has  not  yet  led  to  an  abundance  of  guidance 
organisations and documentation supporting platforms or peer providers. 

High scores on the public administration theme can be attributed to: 

  The  presence  of  guidance  for  collaborative  economy  platforms  and  providers, 
especially  in  the  field  of  taxation  (e.g.  the  taxation  “fiches”  that  collaborative 
platforms must distribute to peer providers in France) or employment rules (e.g. 
the  recent  study  on  modern  work  practices  released  by  the  United  Kingdom 
government); and/or 

  The presence of public bodies dealing with collaborative economy topics (i.e. the 
Observatory on Sharing Mobility or the information point Collaboriamo! In Italy); 
and/or 

  The establishment of partnerships between public authorities and collaborative 
platforms  (i.e.  between  Airbnb  and  cities  in  France,  Spain,  Portugal  and  the 
Netherlands for tax collection); and/or 
Initiatives to scrutinise the impact of the collaborative economy (i.e. the United 
Kingdom’s  Office  for  National  Statistics  work  to  measure  the  collaborative 
economy).  

 

4.6  Business support 

4.6.1  Description of general results 

The indicator results for the business support theme, by Member State, are depicted in 
Figure 14: 

306  Press conference of the Commission for Consumer Protection on ‘The consumer 2016 – results, analyses 

and tendencies. The priorities in the activity of the Commission for Consumer Protection for 2017’, 
26/01/2017. Information available at: https://kzp.bg/novini/prez-minalata-godina-kzp-postavi-akcent-
varhu-borbata-s-neloyalnite-targovski-praktiki    

100 

 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

Figure 14 : Member State results for the business support theme  

Only two Member States, the United Kingdom and France, receive a “green” rating on 
the business support theme. 

4.6.2  Description of results per indicator 

for  the 

The  business  support  indicators  measure  the  level  of  business  support  provided  by 
public authorities to P2P providers within a Member State. Most Member States receive 
top  scores 
indicator  Promotion  of  P2P  services  within  public 
administration.  Conversely,  most  Member  States  do  not  score  any  points  on  the 
indicators  Accreditation  schemes  and  Preferential  tax  treatment.  For  the 
remaining two indicators, Financial support and Non-financial support, the results 
are mixed. The results for each Member State are presented in Figure 15. 

Figure 15 : Indicator results for the business support theme 

The Financial support indicator records whether there exist dedicated, publicly-funded 
grant  schemes  for  collaborative  platforms,  or  other  kinds  of  direct  or  indirect  public 
financial  support  for  which  collaborative  platforms  can  apply.  The  United  Kingdom 
reaches  the  maximum  score  here,  followed  by  France,  Italy,  Austria,  Hungary  and 
Ireland. 

101 

8910111213141516171819202122232425262775421001733333358335833425825334225017174242251758173325Business supportATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLVLUMTNLPLPTROSESISKUKTotal score42580252542253342583375174242581733335833253317171733100Financial support755000252525502550507507575750252550005000025100Non-financial support010005001000001000100000100100501005010050000050100Promotion of P2P services within public administration100500100100100100100100100100100010010010001000100100100100100100100100100Accreditation schemes000000000500100000000000000000100Preferential tax treatment010000000010000010000000501000000000100 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

The Non-financial support indicator measures whether national governments provide 
non-financial support services, such as training activities, technical and business advice. 
Eight Member States receive high scores and five obtain “yellow” ratings. 

The Promotion of  P2P services  within  public  administration indicator  measures 
whether public servants can use collaborative services in a professional capacity. This 
is the case in almost all Member States. 

Accreditation schemes records whether the national or local government provide an 
accreditation scheme for collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives 
for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label). Only two Member States – France and 
the United Kingdom – provide such accreditation schemes for collaborative platforms, 
thus receiving top scores. 

The  Preferential  tax  treatment  indicator  records  whether  the  government  has 
introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy. 
Again, only in five Member States – in Belgium, Croatia, Greece, Malta and the United 
Kingdom – can collaborative providers make use of specific tax rules. These countries 
receive the highest scores. 

4.6.3  Qualitative assessment  

Compared to the other indicators, Member States achieve relatively low scores on the 
business support indicators. At the same time, there are significant differences between 
the two Member States scoring best on this theme, i.e. United Kingdom and France, and 
the  rest  of  the  Member  States.  This  can  be  attributed  to  the  lack  of  specific  public 
instruments  dedicated  to  the  collaborative  economy  and,  sometimes,  to  failure  to 
address  the  specificities  of  these  business  models.  Indeed,  if  Member  States  provide 
some  support  to  collaborative  economy  initiatives,  this  support  has  in  most  cases  a 
broader scope and is dependent on start-up and entrepreneurship promotion policies.  

In  terms  of  financial  support,  there  are  barely  any  publicly  funded  grant  schemes 
dedicated  to  collaborative  platforms.  In  the  United  Kingdom,  the  public  innovation 
agency  InnovateUK307  regularly  runs  calls  for  collaborative  economy  platforms.  For 
example, in April 2016 it ran a competition for six businesses to win GBP 30 000 each. 
There are also some initiatives, such as the congress ShareBW, organised annually by 
the  German  Land  of  Baden-Württemberg  and  funded  by  the  regional  Ministry  for 
Science, Research and Arts, where collaborative platforms can win a grant of up to EUR 
180 000.308 

307  Innovate UK (2016), 'Funding competition: digital innovation in the sharing economy' accessed on 23rd 
August 2017 via https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/funding-competition-digital-innovation-
in-the-sharing-economy/funding-competition-digital-innovation-in-the-sharing-economy  

308  Available at: www.sharebw.de    

102 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

In Austria309, Belgium310, Czech Republic311, Spain312, Finland313, France314, Hungary315, 
Ireland316,  Italy317,  Latvia318,  Luxembourg319,  Malta320,  Poland321,  Slovakia322,  and 
Spain323,  there  are  grants  dedicated  to  start-ups  or  innovative  businesses  for  which 
collaborative  economy  platforms  can  apply.  For  instance,  in  Spain,  the  start-up  co-
investment  fund  ENISAis  open  to  any  start-up  initiatives,  including  collaborative 
economy platforms.324  

Other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support have also been identified. For 
instance,  in  France,  VTC  operators  can  participate  in  the  calls  published  by  the  local 
authorities to supply specific transport needs.325 Other examples include:  

 

In the United Kingdom, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport ran 
a  project  with  Crowdfunder,  awarding  up  to  GBP  20 000  to  each  successful 
applicant. For public engagement purposes too, the Department of Transport co-
funded  with  Transport  for  London,  “Carplus”,  a  national  NGO  whose  role  is  to 
promote car sharing in the UK; 

  The Malta Business Bureau, part  of the Malta  Chamber of Commerce, and the 
University of Malta have set up a crowdfunding platform to support local start-
ups and businesses. The initiative is supported by the Ministry for the Economy, 
Investment and Small Business;326  

  The platform We4Tourism in Austria is an initiative between the Austrian Federal 
Economic Chamber, the tourism and leisure industry, the associations of hotels 
and  restaurants  and  the  collaborative  platform  Conda,  aiming  to  open 
collaborative finance to tourism entrepreneurs;327  
In Latvia, the government has co-financed one hackathon on the collaborative 
economy.328 

 

Member States where there are dedicated grant schemes and/or other kinds of direct 
or indirect financial support available (i.e. Austria, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, and 
the United Kingdom) score higher in the Financial support indicator.  

309  The Austria Wirtschaftsservice offers a grant for the preparation of capital market prospects for SMEs. 

Available at: https://www.aws.at/foerderungen/aws-kapitalmarktprospekt/  

310  In Brussels, the programme Be.Circular supports circular economy initiatives, to which collaborative 
platforms can apply. Available at: http://www.circulareconomy.brussels/a-propos/introduction/  

311  Not available.  
312  Available at: http://www.enisa.es/  
313  The Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, Tekes – the Finnish Funding 

Agency for Innovation, Finnvera, and SITRA Corporate Investments. 

314  The French Public Bank of Investment (BPI) has dedicated funds for start-ups. Available at: 

http://www.bpifrance.fr/A-la-une/Actualites/Le-financement-des-start-up-par-Bpifrance-14093  

315  Not available.  
316  Not available.  
317  The Lombardia Region offers grants which support developing businesses in several areas (e.g. 

marketing, etc.). 

318  There are several programs partly funded by EU funds, loans, accelerator funds, risk capital, guarantees 

etc. 

319  Luxinnovation or Nyuko. 
320  The tourist sector is not dedicated public sources of funding to incentive the sector, due to having an 
excellent economic behavior. Conversely, the transport authority dedicates grant schemes which can 
applied by platforms, however is a general grant programme for the sector. 

321  Entrepreneurial activities support (for example to SMEs, innovative projects that increase 
productivity/qualification, internationalisation of SMEs) subject to a case-by-case analysis. 

322  Not available.  
323  See below.  
324  Available at: http://www.enisa.es/  
325  Grimaldi studio legale, Bocconi University, Wavestone, 2016. Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire 

car with driver and ridesharing in the EU. Annex III - Country reports, p. 316. 

326  Available at: http://www.zaar.com.mt/  
327  Available at: https://www.we4tourism.at/  
328  Interview with ViaInvest, a Latvian P2P debt equity platform (01/08/2017) 

103 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

In Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain and the 
United  Kingdom,  public  authorities  provide  support  services  (e.g.  training  activities, 
technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers. 
These Member States thus score higher in the Non-financial support indicator.  

Non-financial  support  can  be  organised  at  national  level.  In  Italy,  the  Chambers  of 
Commerce and industrial federations (such as Confindustria Italia) have organised one-
off workshops for SMEs and start-ups in the field of collaborative finance.329 The Dutch 
Chamber  of  Commerce  has  held  conferences  about  “Business  in  the  Collaborative 
Economy” together with the Amsterdam Economic Board and ShareNL, where general 
information about the business opportunities in the collaborative economy was shared. 
There were also elements of practical training during these conferences, as well as other 
training workshops.330 In the United Kingdom, the government has run conferences and 
seminars,  as  well  as  facilitated  training.  One  such  initiative  is  the  Financial  Conduct 
Authority’s  “Regulatory  Sandbox”,  a  testing  ground  for  collaborative  business  models 
with a team dedicated to ensuring regulatory compliance.331  

Support  initiatives  have  also  been  identified  at  local  level.  In  Barcelona,  the 
Comunificadora programme supports collaborative economy projects related to common 
well-being  (“pro-common”)  through  training  and  advice.  The  programme  is  part  of 
Barcelona  Activa,  an  initiative  by  the  Barcelona  city  council  to  support  start-ups  and 
entrepreneurs with training sessions, seminars, and targeted advice.332  

As  for  grant  schemes,  collaborative  platforms  can  also  benefit  from  broader  support 
services  targeted  at  start-ups  and  innovative  businesses,  such  as  in  Germany333, 
France334, Lithuania335, Luxembourg336 and Malta.337  

In addition, some public authorities actively encourage the use of collaborative economy 
services.  The  Dutch  government  promotes  the  use  of  ride  sharing  platforms  among 
public servants by reimbursing expenses from BlaBlaCar.338 Similarly in Finland, the use 
of collaborative services by public servants can be reimbursed.339 In Spain340, France341 
and  the  United  Kingdom,  public  sector  institutions  can  use  crowdfunding  platforms. 
Apart  from  Bulgaria,  Luxembourg  and  Lithuania,  where  interviewees  have  explicitly 
mentioned  that  the  use  of  collaborative  services  within  public  administration  is 
prohibited,  there  are  no  restrictions  in  the  other  Member  States.  Member  States 

329  Interviews with the collaborative finance platforms WeAreStarting (28/08/2017) and CrowdFundMe 

(30/08/2017). 

330  http://www.sharenl.nl/nieuws/workshop-business-in-de-deeleconomie-26-juni-2014  
331  Financial Conduct Authority (2017), 'The Regulatory Sandbox', accessed August 23rd 2017 via 

https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox  

332  Available at: http://emprenedoria.barcelonactiva.cat/emprenedoria/en/index.jsp  
333  In Germany, the support programme Exist.de of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and 
Energy (BMWi) regularly organises start-up and entrepreneurship trainings that can benefit from 
collaborative economy platforms. 

334  https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/inkomstenbelasting/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-is-de-maximale-

kilometervergoeding-die-ik-van-mijn-werkgever-kan-ontvangen  

335  Startup Lithuania provides general support services to start-ups, including P2P. 
336  Via the plateformes such as Nyuko, incubators, house of training and the chambre des métiers, the 

governement in Luxembourg is giving advice and providing information to starts-up in the collaborative 
environnement. 
337  Malta Entreprise.  
338  In the Netherlands, see: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/inkomstenbelasting/vraag-en-
antwoord/wat-is-de-maximale-kilometervergoeding-die-ik-van-mijn-werkgever-kan-ontvangen  

339  Interview with Ministry of Transport and Communications representative on 30/08/2017 
340  Interview with a Comisión Nacional de Mercados y Competencia representative, 24/08/2017. 
341  Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Autopartage en France. Available at: 

https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/autopartage-en-france#e4  

104 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

therefore  mostly  score  high  in  the  Promotion  of  P2P  services  within  public 
administration indicator.  

There are Accreditation schemes for the promotion of the collaborative economy in 
France and the United Kingdom. In France, the “label autopartage” for car sharing users 
allows  vehicles  to  benefit  from  reserved  parking  spots  and  preferential  tariffs  for 
parking.342 In the United Kingdom, the government works with industry bodies such as 
Sharing  Economy  UK  to  develop  quality  standards.  As  a  result,  the  “Trust  Seal”  was 
developed  and  awarded  to  platforms  meeting  certain  sectoral  principles.343  A  similar 
accreditation scheme is expected to be introduced in Estonia.344  

Five Member States have introduced tax allowances or specific tax rules for peers in the 
collaborative economy, which makes them score higher in the Specific tax treatment 
indicator. Belgium has introduced a new law in December 2016 where peer providers of 
collaborative services are subject to a simplified tax scheme with a reduced income tax 
rate  of  10  %  and  an  exemption  from  social  security  contributions  up  to  an  income 
threshold  of  EUR  5 100.345  In  Greece,  the  2017  Law  has  introduced  several  rules 
regarding taxation of short-term rentals.346 In the United Kingdom, since 2017, there is 
a tax-free allowance of GBP 1 000 on earnings from collaborative economy platforms. 
Sector-specific  tax  benefits  include  the  Seed  Enterprise  Investment  Scheme  for 
collaborative  finance  and  the  “rent  a  room  scheme”,  targeted  at  short-term  rentals 
which allows peer providers to earn up to GBP 7 500 a year tax-free.347 In Croatia and 
Malta, there are some tax simplifications for the short-term accommodation sector.348  

In France,  since December 2015, peer providers of P2P lending platforms can deduct 
the  potential  loss  from  non-reimbursement  of  a  crowdfunding  loan  from  the  interest 
received from other loans in the calculation of their income tax.349 A report published 
by the Senate proposes a EUR 3 000 tax allowance for collaborative economy revenues, 
but  this  has  not  yet  been  translated  into  a  legislative  proposal.350  In  Italy,  the 
government  has  recently  established  a  working  group  to  develop  legislation  about 
“home  restaurant”  schemes,  which  may  include  provisions  about  tax  allowances  or 
specific tax rules for this type of collaborative economy activity. The legislative proposal 

342  Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Autopartage en France. Available at: 

https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/autopartage-en-france#e4  

343  Sharing Economy UK (2017), 'Trust seal' accessed on 23rd August 2017 via 

https://sharingeconomytrustseal.com/about/  

344  Interview with the transport platform Taxify (15/08/2017). 
345  Under the condition that the transaction is between peers and it is intermediated by especially registered 

platforms. See: Loi du 18 décembre 2016 organisant la reconnaissance et l'encadrement du 
crowdfunding et portant des dispositions diverses en matière de finances. Available at: 
http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&table_name=loi&cn=20161218
01  

346  Article 39 A, Income Tax Code (Law 4172/2013) When the property is leasing furnished without the 

provision of any service (other than the provision of bed linen), taxation is:   
0 - 12 000 EURO: 15%  
12 001 - 35,000 EURO: 35% 
35 001 EUR or more: 45%. 

347  UK Government (2016), Budget 2016, 7.1 table 2.1 section 73 and www.SEIS.co.uk and 

https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home/the-rent-a-room-scheme  

348  In Croatia there is a lump sum tax of HRK 300 per bed or HRK 350 per accommodation unit for providers 
who do not provide more than 20 beds in a room, apartment or holiday houses, or, alternatively, more 
than 10 accommodation units. Source: 4liberty.eu. The Regulatory Framework of the Collaborative 
economy in Central and Eastern Europe. Available at: http://4liberty.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/09/The-Regulatory-Framework-of-the-Collaborative-Economy-in-Central-and-
Eastern-Europe.pdf   

349  Crowdfunding Hub, 2016. Current state of crowdfunding in Europe, p. 33. 
350  Rapport d'information de MM. Éric BOCQUET, Michel BOUVARD, Michel CANEVET, Thierry CARCENAC, 
Jacques CHIRON, Philippe DALLIER, Vincent DELAHAYE, André GATTOLIN, Charles GUENÉ, Bernard 
LALANDE et Albéric de MONTGOLFIER, fait au nom de la commission des finances, 27 March 2017 

105 

                                                 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

(Sharing  Economy  Act)  which  is  being  discussed  by  parliamentary  committee  will 
probably  introduce  exemptions  from  VAT  for  the  provision  of  all  services  through 
collaborative platforms. 

Besides these initiatives, a number of Member States have published some guidance on 
the applicability of tax rules in the collaborative economy (see Section 4.5.3). As noted 
in  Section  2.3.2.1,  such  initiatives  also  ensure  effective  taxation  of  collaborative 
economy activities. 

To sum up, the provision of support services to collaborative economy activities is not 
systematic and it is rarely targeted to the collaborative economy. Initiatives are spread 
across various levels. Member States that score best in this area, i.e. France and the 
United  Kingdom,  are  the  ones  where  support  measures  are  targeted  at  collaborative 
economy activities and recognise the specificities of collaborative business models. In 
the  United  Kingdom,  the  combined  presence  of  targeted  financial  instruments  (i.e. 
InnovateUK  grants),  support  services,  and  tax  allowance  for  collaborative  economy 
activities  explain  the  leading  position  of  this  Member  State  in  the  business  support 
theme. In France, measures such as the possibility for VTC operators to respond to calls 
for projects, the use of crowdfunding by public authorities and the presence of a quality 
label for car sharing activities justify this Member State’s good scores.  

4.7  Alignment 

4.7.1  Description of general results 

The indicator results for the alignment theme, by Member State, are shown in Figure 
16,  below.  This  is  an  area  where  smaller  and  centralised  Member  States  typically 
perform well, while in larger and decentralised Member States different practices may 
prevail in different parts of the country. 

106 

Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

Figure 16 : Member State results for the alignment theme 

4.7.2  Description of results per indicator 

The degree of regulatory alignment measures to what extent national rules related to 
peer providers differ within a Member State. The alignment of regulations considers the 
specific  rules  that  apply  to  authorisation/licensing  for  P2P  transport  services  and 
accommodation  services.  It  also  considers  tax  and  social  security  contribution 
thresholds for all sectors. The assumption is that the more aligned the national rules, 
the less time and effort is required for compliance. The results for each Member State 
are presented in Figure 17. 

Figure 17 : Indicator results for the alignment theme  

It can be seen from the figure above that in most cases the same rules on authorisation 
apply  for  both  transport  and  accommodation  services  throughout  a  Member  State. 
However, alignment is more common in the transportation than in the accommodation 
sector.  

4.7.3  Qualitative assessment  

On  the  transport  indicator,  the  same  authorisation  rules  apply  uniformly  in  most 
Member  States  (i.e.  Germany,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Spain,  Finland,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Poland,  Romania,  Sweden,  Slovakia  and  the  United 
Kingdom). In these Member States, licences are either issued by the same centralised 

107 

891011121314151617181920212223242526272829331003310010010067333333335033501003310050100838383100501001008367AlignmentATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLVLUMTNLPLPTROSESISKUKTotal score333350675050100100833310033838310033100678310033100331001005010033Transport sector50050001001001005010010050505010010010001001005010001001000100100Accommodation sector25505010075251001001000100251001001000100100751002510050100100751000  
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

authority  (e.g.  in  Denmark,  the  Danish  Transport  Authority)  or  by  different  local 
authorities but with harmonised requirements.  

Similarly,  on  the  accommodation  indicator,  the  same  regulations  tend  to  apply 
between  different  regions  and  cities.  It  is,  however,  frequently  reported  that  stricter 
rules  apply  in  major  tourist  destination  cities  (i.e.  in  Vienna  and  Salzburg  in  Austria, 
London in the United Kingdom, Barcelona in Spain), or in larger cities (i.e. in France, 
there are specific rules for cities of more than 200 000 inhabitants). The application of 
different  rules  can  also  be  attributed  to  Member  States’  government  structures.  For 
instance, in Belgium, Spain and Italy, regional authorities are responsible for regulating 
tourism. 

In  the  transport  sector,  recent  legislation  tends  to  harmonise  applicable  rules.  For 
instance, the modernisation of the Danish Act on  Transport centralised the issuing of 
taxi licences to the national Transport Authority.351 In Estonia, a new amendment to the 
Public  Transport  Act  seeks  to  harmonise  conditions  for  platform  providers  across  the 
country.352  The  same  has  been  found  for  Finland:  the  new  Transport  Law  will  bring 
transport market regulations into a single piece of legislation.353 However, this is less in 
the case of the accommodation sector, where there is a tendency to tailor regulations 
to local specificities. 

351  Regeringen (2017). Modernisering af taxiloven. Available at: 

https://www.regeringen.dk/media/2910/aftaletekst-taxiaftale.pdf    

352  Act amending the Public Transport Act, the Road Traffic Act and the State Fees Act, 188 SE, 2017. 

Available at: https://www.riigikogu.ee/tegevus/eelnoud/eelnou/17074c56-bf09-477f-befb-
a6e4ea86461f/%C3%9Chistranspordiseaduse%20muutmise%20seadus  

353  Law on Transport Services 320/2017. 

108 

 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

5  Recommendations on future improvements of the business 

environment  

This Chapter summarises potential suggestions to improve the business and regulatory 
environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 28 Member States.  

The  recommendations  are  based  on  the  results  of  the  Collaborative  Economy  Index, 
which  assesses  the  main  features  favouring  the  development  of  the  collaborative 
economy in the Member States.  As evidenced in Chapter 4, there is no single way to 
create a favourable business environment for the collaborative economy. While some 
Member states score high due to their tailored regulation for the collaborative economy 
in particular themes (e.g. Lithuania in transport,  or Greece in accommodation), other 
Member States’ good scores rely more on low barriers to entry for peer providers (e.g. 
Czech Republic, Estonia or Slovakia in transport) or the provision of tailored guidance 
and support for collaborative economy activities (e.g. France, or the United Kingdom).  

The  Collaborative  Economy  Index  does  not  seek  to  make  comparisons  between  the 
regulatory frameworks of different Member States for two main reasons: first, there are 
important differences between national and local contexts; and, second, the regulatory 
frameworks  of  good  performers  vary  greatly  from  one  another  making  comparisons 
difficult  and  not  always  relevant.  The  objective  is  rather  to  outline  different  good 
practices  in  order  to  promote  the  successful  development  of  collaborative  economy 
services in the EU in the future. 

There are two groups of recommendations. As many of the recommendations are related 
to  more  than  one  of  the  three  vertical  themes  (sectors)  of  the  study,  the 
recommendations  of  the  first  group  follow  the  structure  of  the  business  environment 
features  identified  in  Chapter  2,  namely,  Regulatory  clarity,  Market  access 
requirements, and Enforcement measures. The second group of recommendations 
are  specific  to  the  horizontal  themes,  Guidance  and  Oversight,  Business  support 
and  Facilitation  of  collaborative  economy  services,  and  Degree  of  regulatory 
alignment.  

1.  Regulatory clarity  

As  emphasised  in  Chapter  2,  regulatory  clarity  is  a  crucial  feature  encouraging  the 
development  of  the  collaborative  economy.  Since  collaborative  economy  operators 
deliver  similar  (if  not  identical)  services  as  the  traditional  economy  actors,  the  same 
regulatory regime usually applies to both categories of providers. As pointed out in the 
2016  Communication  on  a  European  agenda  for  the  collaborative  economy354  and 
evidenced  by  the  present  study,  national legislation  does  not  often  take  into  account 
the specificities of collaborative business models. This raises questions for collaborative 
platforms and providers as to whether and how far such regulations apply to them. 

Regulatory clarity implies legislation or regulations that define the scope of collaborative 
economy services and distinguishes them from traditional ones:  

a.  Definition of collaborative economy services 

Recommendation  1.a.:  Collaborative  economy  activity  should  be  explicitly 
allowed, and its scope should be clearly defined.  

354  European Commission (2016). A European Agenda for the collaborative economy. COM(2016) 356 final. 

Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:0356:FIN    

109 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Indicator results have shown that that Member States clearly defining the types of legal 
P2P  transactions  in  their  regulatory  framework  score  higher.  This  can  be  done  by 
creating a bespoke regime or integrating definitions for collaborative services in existing 
legislations.  For  instance,  in  the  finance  theme,  11  Member  States  have  a  bespoke 
regime  regulating  collaborative  finance.  In  the  transport  theme,  Estonia,  Denmark, 
France and Lithuania have definitions of P2P car sharing and ride sharing in the existing 
Transport or Taxi Codes.355 

The definition and explicit permission for P2P services helps to avoid uncertainty over 
applicable  rights  and  obligations  for  collaborative  economy  actors.  In  the  transport 
theme, uncertainty over the legality of ride hailing services or their preclusion by the 
dedicated legislation has had detrimental effects, as shown by the withdrawal of some 
platforms, e.g. Uber and Heetch, from national or local transport markets.  

b.  Distinction between peer and professional activities 

Recommendation  1.b.:  Peer  and  professional  activities  should  be  clearly 
differentiated  (e.g.  through  the  use  of  thresholds)  and  regulations  of  the 
traditional economy that apply to collaborative platforms and providers should 
be explicitly specified.  

In  addition  to  clear  definitions  for  collaborative  economy  services,  a  differentiation 
between peer and professional activities along with specifications of which regulations 
apply  to  which  type  of  provider  have  been  found  to  have  encouraging  effects  for  the 
collaborative economy in the Member States.  

An  effective  method  to  provide  the  distinction  is  the  definition  of  clear  thresholds, 
above  which  the  provision  of  activity  is  considered  to  be  a  professional  activity.  It  is 
recommended  that  quantitative  thresholds  (based  on  amounts  or  other  explicit 
definitions, such as assets and service providers) are established to increase clarity. For 
instance: 

 
 

 

In the transport theme: standard tax rate (e.g. in France); 
In the accommodation theme: types of asset (e.g. in Flanders), types of services 
provided  (e.g.  in  Greece),  duration  of  the  activity  (e.g.  in  Barcelona),  level  of 
income (e.g. in France);  
In the finance theme: level of income (e.g. in Spain), level of investment (e.g. 
in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Malta, Portugal). 

In addition, the establishment of  fiscal thresholds  (e.g. in Belgium or in the United 
Kingdom)  can  also  be  advantageous  as  it  is  likely  to  encourage  small  providers  to 
engage in the collaborative economy.  

2.  Market access requirements  

Recommendation  2:  Market  access  requirements  for  collaborative  economy 
providers  should  be  proportionate  to  the  size  and  risks  generated  by  the 
collaborative economy activity in order not to unduly restrict its development.   

355  This has been found to give clarity to platforms and providers as regards their rights and obligations 
provided bespoke regimes do not lead to regulatory differences across Member States that would 
damage cross-border provision of services (see Sections 2.2.3 and 4.4.3).  

110 

 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

As emphasised by the European Commission Communication (2016)356, it is important 
to adapt the relevant  regulations to the  specificities of the  collaborative economy, as 
opposed to the traditional sector. Collaborative economy providers often offer services 
of  a  smaller  size/extent  and  on  a  less  frequent  basis  than  their  traditional  economy 
competitors.  As  a  result,  any  fixed  regulatory  burden  is  relatively  costlier  for  them. 
Following  this  assessment,  it  is  recommended  that  market  access  requirements  are 
lowered when collaborative economy transactions are smaller in terms of economic size, 
and less frequent, than in the traditional sector, as their corresponding risks are lower 
too. In Flanders and in some Italian cities for instance, obtaining VTC licences require 
just a driving licence and a clean criminal record. In the accommodation theme, Member 
States  which  do  not  require  authorisations  from  public  authorities,  landlords  and/or 
building associations (i.e. Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Romania, 
Poland, Slovakia, the United Kingdom) score higher. In the finance theme, collaborative 
platforms are often asked for less documentation than banks or investment firms.  

Demary and Engels (2016) advise notably that market access requirements should be 
kept  to  a  minimum,  following  two  main  purposes:  first,  ensuring  a  level  playing  field 
between  collaborative  and  traditional  businesses;  and,  second,  guaranteeing  a  sound 
level of consumer protection.357  

Regulation  of  conventional  providers  has  often  been  devised  to  reduce  risks  for 
consumers  and  businesses.  The  solution  is  therefore  not  a  general  exemption  of  the 
collaborative economy from regulations, but a careful assessment of what risks are less 
(or more) relevant or probable in the collaborative economy, and which regulations are 
for that matter disposable or need to be strengthened.  

The study has identified the following differences in risk structures:  

  Price limits. As put in Section 2.2.2.2, fare regulations in the transport sector 
are justified as they provide more  certainty to passengers about the  cost that 
they  will  incur  and  avoid  potential  overcharge.  As  payment  of  collaborative 
economy  drivers  is  mostly  conducted  via  platforms  using  a  tariff  previously 
devised,  there  is  a  smaller  chance  that  drivers  overcharge  customers,  which 
questions the setting of price limits for the collaborative economy. 

  Quality  of  the  service  provided  and  personal  safety.  Contrary  to 
conventional  businesses,  which  generate  trust  through  compliance  with 
regulations,  collaborative  platforms  mostly  use  a  range  of  trust-building  tools, 
such  as  peer  review  and  rating  systems,  and/or  identity  verification 
mechanisms.358 As a result, collaborative economy consumers are likely to have 
more  information  about  the  provider  of  the  service  than  customers  of  the 
traditional industry.359 In the transport theme, this can justify the exemption for 
ride hailing services to be affiliated with a dispatch centre – whose purpose is to 
organise rides but also to guarantee the quality of the service.360 

356  European Commission (2016). A European Agenda for the collaborative economy. COM(2016) 356 final. 

Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:0356:FIN  

357  Demary V., Engels B. (2016). Collaborative Business Models and Efficiency. Potential Efficiency Gains in 

the European Union, p. 28. 

358  See European Commission (2017). Exploratory study of consumer issues in online peer-to-peer platform 

markets. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=77704   

359  Although the European Commission study on consumer issues in online peer-to-peer platform market 

finds that there was a need for more transparency in the use of trust-building tools by P2P platforms in 
order for them to be fully reliable. Source: European Commission (2017). Exploratory study of consumer 
issues in online peer-to-peer platform markets, p. 128. 

360  Usually, dispatch centres have requirements in terms of trustworthiness and competence for the drivers. 
Source: Grimaldi Studio Legale (2016). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 
ridesharing in the EU. Final report, p. 48. 

111 

                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

  Information  asymmetry.  The  smaller  size  of  collaborative  economy 
transactions and the use of trust-building tools contribute to reducing information 
asymmetry between peer providers and consumers. For instance, in comparison 
to large banking operations, the information difference between the lender and 
the borrower could be smaller for P2P lending operations since the lender is more 
likely to know exactly which project or operation the money funds.361 Information 
requirements  can  in  these  cases  be  less  extensive  for  collaborative  economy 
activities (e.g. in France, Lithuania). 

Because  of  these  specificities  of  collaborative  economy  business  models,  some 
regulations applying to the traditional economy aimed at guarantying fair prices, quality 
of the service, personal safety, or fight against information asymmetry, can therefore 
be adapted. However, there  should be no  exemption when  the  risks  are  equal in the 
collaborative  economy  and  the  traditional  sector.  For  instance,  in  the  transport  and 
accommodation  themes,  minimum  health  and  safety  requirements  are  essential  to 
ensure  consumer  protection.  Similar  reasoning  can  be  put  forward  as  regards 
investment limits in the finance sector.  

As  emphasised  by  the  Communication  on  a  European  Agenda  for  the  collaborative 
economy  (2016),  such  a  process  of  regulatory  review  for  the  collaborative  economy 
could be also a starting point for a review of the regulation of conventional services, i.e. 
for lowering the number of market access requirements  in both the collaborative and 
traditional sectors.362  

3.  Enforcement measures 

Recommendation  3:  Enforcement  measures  and  monitoring  of  collaborative 
economy providers should use methods better suited to collaborative economy 
operators  in  order  to  ensure  consumer  protection  and  avoid  unnecessary 
burdens.  

As emphasised in Section 2.2.2.2 and Section 2.2.3.2, enforcement measures can have 
two  broad  implications.  On  the  one  hand,  they  should  ensure  protection  for  both 
consumers and workers and, on the other hand, they should provide a level playing field 
between professional and peer providers. For instance, in the accommodation  theme, 
inspections of short-term rentals are justified by public authorities by the necessity to 
identify  and  deter  illegal  or  unregulated  professional  activities.  However,  it  has  been 
found that enforcement measures can deter peer provider activity if the level of control 
implies high fixed costs for them.  

As  the  nature  of  the  service  provision  and  the  information  collected  by  collaborative 
platforms allow different methods of enforcement, it is recommended that enforcement 
measures are clearly targeted to  collaborative economy  operators using the available 
information and do not just replicate enforcement measures of traditional businesses. 
In  this  sense,  the  design  of  enforcement  measures  requires,  as  above,  a  clear 
demarcation line between collaborative and traditional economy, and between peer and 
professional activity. 

361  The small size of the projects funded and the proximity between the investors and the customers are 
emphasised by collaborative finance platforms as characteristic of collaborative finance activities. 
Interview with Conda (12/07/2017). 

362  European Commission (2016). A European Agenda for the collaborative economy. COM(2016) 356 final. 

Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:0356:FIN    

112 

 
 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

4.  Guidance and oversight 

Recommendation  4:  Public  authorities  should  provide  targeted  guidance, 
especially  on  taxation  and  national  employment  rules,  to  collaborative 
platforms and providers.  

The novelty of collaborative economy business models and the low level of adaptation 
of the current legislation have been identified by the European Commission363 and this 
study’s findings as a source of uncertainty for collaborative platforms and providers. The 
study finds that provision of appropriate guidance by public authorities is a very useful 
tool to mitigate such uncertainty.  

Guidance  for  peer  providers  on  taxation  and  national  employment  rules  can 
notably  support  the  development  of  the  collaborative  economy.  As  the  collaborative 
economy has an important direct and indirect impact on employment and, potentially, 
on tax revenues and social insurance contributions364, it is therefore important that peer 
providers  benefit  from  clear  information  of  how  income  from  collaborative  economy 
activities is taxed. Notably:  

  Guidance should clearly identify the taxpayer and taxable income. An interesting 
initiative is the taxation “fiches” that collaborative platforms are required by the 
French  government  to  issue  to  peer  providers.  Targeted  guidance  is  also 
encouraged, such as the publication of specific guides for Uber and Taxify by the 
Estonian Tax Board; 

  As for national employment rules, information outlining the status and applicable 
rights  and  obligations  of  collaborative  economy  workers  is  encouraged.  Such 
guidance is not generally available in the Member States, except in government 
studies that are usually less accessible to peer providers.  

As de Groen and Maselli (2016) point out, the collaborative economy is often a source 
of additional income for peer providers, who are likely to opt for the least onerous regime 
in declaring the income they obtain from such activity.365 In this perspective, registration 
and  earnings  declaration  requirements  should  be  kept  to  the  minimum  necessary  for 
ensuring  effective  taxation.  Some  Member  States  have  already  taken  initial  steps 
towards a lean integration of collaborative economy services into the national 
tax system, as for instance, in the collaboration between Airbnb and local authorities 
to collect tourist tax, or the future partnership of the Estonian Tax Board with Uber and 
Taxify.  

The  existence  of  a  dedicated  public  body  to  oversee  collaborative  economy 
activities can help provide appropriate guidance. Indeed, the presence of such body 
could contribute to centralising knowledge on the collaborative economy in the country 
and improving the quality of the guidance provided.   

Moreover, public authorities need to understand and measure the collaborative 
economy  and  its  business  models.  The  Spanish  National  Commission  for  Markets 
and  Competition  (CNMC)  notably  advises  the  incorporation  of  collaborative  economy 

363  European Commission (2016). A European Agenda for the collaborative economy. COM(2016) 356 final. 

Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:0356:FIN  

364  De Groen P., Maselli I. (2016). “The Impact of the Collaborative Economy on the Labour Market”. CEPS 

Special Report No. 138, p. 22. 

365  De Groen P., Maselli I. (2016). “The Impact of the Collaborative Economy on the Labour Market”. CEPS 

Special Report No. 138, p. 22. 

113 

 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

figures into official statistics. This has already started by the United Kingdom’s Office 
for National Statistics and is also under consideration at European level. 

5.  Support services and facilitation of the collaborative economy 

Recommendation  5:  Business  support  services  should  be  targeted  to  the 
special needs of collaborative economy businesses.  

Even  though  collaborative  economy  platforms  and  providers  have  access  to  various 
support services, it is rare that such services are specifically targeted to the special 
needs  of  the  collaborative  economy.  Notably,  the  non-profit  nature  of  some 
collaborative  economy  activities  may  entail  difficulties  for  collaborative  platforms  to 
access  finance,  even  from  publicly-funded  schemes.  Moreover,  the  regulatory 
uncertainty  around  collaborative  economy  business  models,  which  has  already  been 
mentioned above, requires specific knowledge of collaborative economy services from 
public  authorities  to  provide  useful  support  services.  Training  activities  and  support 
services more broadly designed for start-ups and innovative businesses may therefore 
not be enough.  

Publicly funded grant schemes for collaborative economy initiatives, such as the 
one by the British agency InnovateUK or training and workshops for collaborative 
economy businesses could therefore be an important addition to the range of business 
support services.  

Knowledge about collaborative economy business models needs to be improved 
also at local and regional level, as business support services are very often organised 
sub-nationally (e.g. chambers of commerce).  

Public authorities can also play an important role in facilitating collaborative economy 
activities in other ways. For instance: 

  Encouraging  the  use  of  collaborative  economy  services  among  civil 
servants can signal a public authority’s openness toward the sector. This may 
take the form of reimbursing collaborative economy expenses, such as the Dutch 
government does with BlaBlaCar.  

 

  Setting up accreditation schemes for collaborative economy activities can 
help build trust in those services. A good example in this regard is the car sharing 
label introduced by the French government. 
Introducing tax allowances or specific tax rules for peer providers (besides 
providing guidance regarding tax obligations – see Recommendation 4) can make 
it attractive for peer providers to start their activity, especially at a small scale. 
366 However, they are not frequent among Member States, with only Greece and 
the United Kingdom providing such exemptions in the accommodation theme.   

6.  Alignment 

Recommendation  6:  Regulatory  frameworks  should  be  aligned  within  a 
Member  State  to  improve  peer  provider  understanding  of  regulations  and  to 
avoid disproportionate compliance costs.  

Regulatory  alignment  has  been  found  to  be  an  important  factor  of  growth  for  the 
collaborative economy as understanding and complying with different requirements is 

366  De Groen P., Maselli I. (2016). “The Impact of the Collaborative Economy on the Labour Market”. CEPS 

Special Report No. 138, p. 23. 

114 

 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the 
 EU – Final report 

costly,  especially  for  small  platforms.  Reducing  policy  fragmentation  is  therefore 
beneficial for the development of the collaborative economy in the EU. Good examples 
can be found in the transport sector. For instance, the reform of the Finnish Transport 
Code aims at gathering all transport regulations at national level. Similar initiatives have 
been found in Estonia and Denmark, where the transport regulations have harmonised 
conditions for peer providers to access the market.  

In addition to the harmonisation of local regulations on a national level, alignment of 
legislation  among  Member  States  has  been 
the 
internationalisation  of  platforms.  This  need  is  particularly  significant  in  the  finance 
theme, as the mobility of financial assets makes cross-border activities more likely367, 
but  it  is  also  relevant  to  transport  and  accommodation.  Although  this  study  has  not 
assessed initiatives aimed at harmonising rules across borders, this feature has been 
identified as crucial by both platforms and experts interviewed for this study and could 
be further developed.  

identified  as  crucial 

for 

367  Commission staff working document (2016), Crowdfunding in the EU Capital Markets Union, p. 11. 

115 

 
 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Annexes 

Annex 1: List of indicators measuring the business environment  

Feature 

Indicator 

CODE 

Questions 

Measurement 

TRANSPORT 
Regulatory clarity 

Bespoke legislation 

T1 

14.  Is there a definition of P2P car sharing 
and/or ride sharing in national law? 

Market access 
requirements 

Business model-specific 
market access 
requirements 

Peer and professional 
provider distinction 

T3 

15.  Does the applicable legislation allow non-

professional drivers to provide private hire 
transport (VTC) services via platforms for 
remuneration? 

T2 

16.  Is P2P car sharing permitted without 

obtaining a professional 
licence/authorisation? 

17.  Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an 
authorisation or professional licence if 
remuneration for the activity corresponds 
only to the running costs of operating the 
vehicle? 

18.  Is the number of taxi licences restricted? 
19.  Is the number of VTC licences restricted? 

20.  Are peer providers offering ride sharing 
services on an occasional basis exempt 
from authorisation or professional licences 
applicable to taxi or VTC services? 

21.  Is there a threshold to distinguish between 

peer and professional activity? 

No = 0 (no definition); Partially = 
0.5 (definition for car sharing or ride 
sharing); Yes = 1 (definitions for both 
car sharing and ride sharing) 
No = 0 (the legislation does not allow 
it); Partially = 0.5 (the legislation 
does not allow it, but it is done in 
practice); Yes = 1 (the legislation 
allows it) 
No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 0 (no threshold); Partially = 
0.5 (cost sharing or for profit nature 
of the activity); Yes = 1 (quantitative 
threshold) 
No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

Price restrictions 

T4 

22.  Are the fares for taxis unrestricted? 
23.  Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted? 

Dispatch centre affiliation 

T5 

24.  Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

to a dispatch centre to provide 
transportation services? 

116 

 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Feature 

Indicator 

CODE 

Questions 

Measurement 

General market access 
requirements 

T6 

25.  Are VTC service providers explicitly 

required to be affiliated to a dispatch 
centre? 

26.  Is there a requirement for providers to get 
a professional licence/authorisation that 
involves more than holding a driving licence 
and not to have a criminal conviction? 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

ACCOMMODATION 
Regulatory clarity  

Bespoke legislation 

A1 

14.  Is there a specific regulation for 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

Market access 
requirements 

Registrations, 
authorisations, 
notifications 

Restrictions on type of 
good or service provision 

accommodation services in the 
collaborative economy? 

15.  Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P 

transactions allowed? 

A2 

16.  Are peer providers required to register 

with, obtain an authorisation from, or notify 
a regulatory authority prior to letting their 
property? 

No = 1 (no requirement); Partially 
(notification) = 0.5; Yes (registration 
or authorisation) = 0 

17.  Are peer providers required to obtain 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

approval from their landlord prior to sub-
letting their property? 

18.  Are peer providers required to obtain 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

approval from their building association or 
other residents in their building prior to 
sub-letting their property? 

A3 

19.  Are peer providers permitted to let their 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

primary residence? 

20.  Are peer providers permitted to let their 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

secondary residence? 

21.  Is there a restriction in the size of the 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

property or the number of assets permitted 
to be rented out? 

22.  Are peer providers prevented from renting 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

out their whole property? 

23.  Are peer providers obliged to be present in 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

Peer and professional 
provider distinction 

the property they are renting out? 
24.  Are individuals offering services on an 

A4 

occasional basis exempt from regulations 
(e.g. health and safety requirements)? 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Feature 

Indicator 

CODE 

Questions 

Measurement 

Enforcement measures 

Inspections 

A5 

26.  Are peer providers subject to inspections 

from public authorities to ensure 
compliance with the law? 

25.  Is there a threshold to distinguish between 

peer and professional activity? 

No = 0 (no threshold); Partially = 
0.5 (no explicit threshold but different 
requirements for peers and 
professionals); Yes = 1 (threshold) 
No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

FINANCE 
Regulatory clarity 

Bespoke legislation 

F1 

14.  Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P 

No = 0; Partially =0.5; Yes = 1 

equity investment? 

15.  Is P2P equity investment prohibited? 
16.  Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 
No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

Market access 
requirements 

Registrations and 
authorisations 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 
Values are normalised from 0 to 1 (0 
= maximum achievable value; 1 
minimum value of 0).  

lending? 

17.  Is P2P lending prohibited? 
18.  Please indicate the maximum period 

F2 

(number of calendar days) within which an 
authority needs to decide on issuing a 
licence for P2P equity investment 
platforms. 

19.  Please indicate the maximum period 

(number of calendar days) within which an 
authority needs to decide on issuing a 
licence for P2P lending platforms. 

20.  What are the direct costs of obtaining all 
necessary authorisations/licences for P2P 
equity investment platforms? 

21.  What are the direct costs of obtaining all 
necessary authorisations/licences for P2P 
lending platforms? 

Peer and professional 
provider distinction 

F3 

22.  Are P2P equity investment platforms 

No = 0; Partially =0.5; Yes = 1 

exempt from any of the requirements 
applicable to investment firms for obtaining 
an authorisation/licence? 

23.  Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any 
of the requirements applicable to banks for 
obtaining an authorisation/licence? 

No = 1; Partially =0.5; Yes = 0 

24.  Is there a threshold to distinguish between 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

peer and professional activity? 

118 

 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Feature 

Indicator 

CODE 

Questions 

Measurement 

Prospectus requirement 

F4 

25.  Is there an amount over which peer 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

Information requirements 

F5 

providers are required to publish a 
prospectus? 

26.  Are peer providers required to provide 
information to public authorities before 
engaging in collaborative finance? 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

Enforcement measures 

Inspections 

F6 

15.  Are there enforcement measures taken by 

No = 1; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 0 

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 
Guidance on setting up 
P2P platforms  

Guidance on setting up 
P2P platforms 

public authorities to ensure compliance with 
regulations?  

PA1 

1.  Has the government (or any other public 

Guidance to peer providers  Guidance to peer providers 

PA2 

Cooperation between 
public authorities and 
platforms 

Cooperation between 
public authorities and 
platforms 

PA3 

authority) issued guidance on setting up a 
collaborative platform with respect to: 
a.  Taxation 
b.  Necessary licences 
c. 
d.  Applicable legislation 
e.  Other (please specify) 

Insurance requirements 

2.  Has the government (or any other public 
authority) issued a public document or a 
publication on an official website with 
respect to: 
a.  Legislation applicable to peer 

providers on P2P platforms 

b.  Rights and obligations of P2P 

providers 

c.  Tips for participating on P2P 

platforms 

d.  General information or campaigns on 

what P2P services are 
e.  Other (please specify) 
Is there a publicly supported body dealing 
with queries from peers on the regulatory 
aspects of use/offering of P2P services? 

3. 

4.  Has the government (or any other public 
authority) entered into a partnership with 
any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax 
collection purposes)? 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 
(guidance has been issued with 
respect to at least one topic) 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 
(guidance has been issued with 
respect to at least one topic) 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Feature 

Indicator 

CODE 

Questions 

Measurement 

Guidance on employment 
and tax rules 

Guidance on employment 
and tax rules 

PA4 

5.  Has the government provided guidance on 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

Policy making  

Policy making 

PA5 

BUSINESS SUPPORT 
Support services 

Financial support 

BS1 

the applicability of national employment 
rules to services provided on P2P 
platforms? 

6.  Has the government (or any other public 
authority) provided guidance on the 
applicability of national tax rules to 
services provided on P2P platforms? 
Is there a dedicated public body for 
dealing with legislation related to P2P 
services? 

7. 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

8.  Are there, or have there been any 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

initiatives from public authorities to 
examine the development and impact of 
the collaborative economy (e.g. 
government commission, stakeholder 
consultation, study)? 

1.  Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant 
schemes for collaborative platforms? 
2.  Are there other kinds of direct or indirect 

public financial support to which 
collaborative platforms can apply? 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

Non-financial support 

BS2 

3.  Does the government (or any other public 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

Facilitation of 
collaborative services 

Promotion of P2P services 
within public 
administration 

BS3 

Accreditation schemes 

BS4 

authority) provide support services (e.g. 
training activities, technical and business 
advice) for collaborative economy 
platforms or peer providers? 
4.  Are public servants allowed to use 

collaborative services in a professional 
capacity? 

5.  Does the government (or any other public 
authority) provide an accreditation scheme 
for the promotion of the collaborative 
platforms or actively support industry 
initiatives for self-regulatory standards 
(e.g. quality label)? 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

No = 0; Partially = 0.5; Yes = 1 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Feature 

Indicator 

CODE 

Questions 

Measurement 

Specific tax treatment 

BS5 

6.  Has the government or any other public 

No = 0; Partially =0.5; Yes = 1 

ALIGNMENT 
Degree of regulatory 
alignment 

Degree of regulatory 
alignment - Transport 

Degree of regulatory 
alignment - 
Accommodation 

authority introduced any tax allowance or 
specific tax rules for peers in the 
collaborative economy? (please specify) 

AL1 

1.  Do the same rules on authorisation apply 

No = 0; Partially =0.5; Yes = 1 

for peer transport services everywhere 
within a Member State? 

AL2 

2.  Do some regions or cities apply specific 

No = 1; Partially =0.5; Yes = 0 

regulations for peer to peer 
accommodation service providers?  
3.  Do some regions or cities apply the 

national regulations on accommodation 
service providers differently resulting in 
different regulatory burden? 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Annex 2: List of EU-level literature  

Books:  

Agyeman, J., McLaren, D., Schaefer-Borrego, A. (2013). “Sharing cities”. Friends Of The 
Earth. Available at;    
https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/agyeman_sharing_cities.pdf  

Chase,  R.  (2016).  Peers  Inc:  How  People  and  Platforms  Are  Inventing  the  Collaborative 
Economy and Reinventing Capitalism.  

Martin, Chris J. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish 
form of neoliberal capitalism? 

Owyang,  J.  (2013).  The  collaborative  economy:  Products,  services,  and  market 
relationships  have  changed  as  sharing  startups  impact  business  models.  To  avoid 
disruption, companies must adopt the collaborative economy value chain. 

Zvolska  (2015).  Sustainability  potentials  of  the  sharing  economy-  the  case  of 
accommodation sharing platforms. 

Academic articles: 

4Liberty.eu (2017). The regulatory framework of the collaborative economy in Central and 
Eastern  Europe.  Available  at:  http://4liberty.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-
Regulatory-Framework-of-the-Collaborative-Economy-in-Central-and-Eastern-Europe.pdf   

Badger, E. (2014). “How a System for Shared Taxi Rides Could Transform New York City”. 
CityLab,  the  Atlantic.  Available  at:  https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2014/03/how-
system-shared-taxi-rides-could-transform-new-york-city/8530/  

Balkin,  J.  (2016).  “Information  fiduciaries  and  the  First  Amendment”.  UC  Davis  Law 
Review, 49(4), pp 1183-1234. Available at: 
 https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/49/4/Lecture/49-4_Balkin.pdf  

Berger, R.  (2014). “SHARED MOBILITY: How new businesses are rewriting the rules of the 
private transportation game.” Think Act. Available at:  
https://www.rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/roland_berger_tab_shared_
mobility_1.pdf   

Boston Consulting Group (2016). “What’s ahead for the car sharing?”  BCG. Available at: 
https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/automotive-whats-ahead-car-sharing-
new-mobility-its-impact-vehicle-sales/?Chapter=7  

Botsman, R. (2016). “Thinking”. Available at: http://rachelbotsman.com/thinking/    

Brescia,  R.  (2016).  “Regulating  the  Sharing  Economy:  New  and  Old  Insights  into  an 
Oversight Regime for the Peer-to-Peer Economy”. Nebraska Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 1, p. 
87. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2728900  

Codagnone,  C.  and  Martens,  B.  (2016).  “Scoping  the  Sharing  Economy:  Origins, 
Definitions, Impact and Regulatory Issues. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies”. 
Digital Economy Working Paper 2016/01.  JRC100369. Available at:  
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2783662   

Cohen, M., Sundararajan, A. (2015). “Self-Regulation and Innovation in the Peer-to-Peer 
Sharing  Economy”.  The  University  of  Chicago  Law  Review  Dialogue,  82,  pp.  116-133. 

122 

 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Available at:    
http://adapt.it/adapt-indice-a-z/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/Sundararajan_Cohen_Dialogue.pdf  

Davidson, L. (2016). “World's first sharing economy tax breaks unveiled in Budget”. The 
Telegraph.  Available  at:    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/16/worlds-first-
sharing-economy-tax-breaks-unveiled-in-budget/   

De Groen P., Maselli I. (2016). “The Impact of the Collaborative Economy on the Labour 
Market”. 
at: 
https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/SR138CollaborativeEconomy_0.pdf  

Available 

Special 

Report 

CEPS 

138. 

No. 

Demailly, D., Novel, A.-S. (2014). “Economie du partage : enjeux et opportunités pour la 
transition écologique“. Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales, 
Sciences 
at: 
http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Analyses/ST0314_DD%20ASN_eco%20part
age.pdf   

Available 

Po. 

Demary,  V.,  Engels,  B.  (2016).  Collaborative  Business  Models  and  Efficiency.  Potential 
Efficiency Gains in the European Union.  Cologne Institute for Economic Research. Impulse 
Paper No. 07. 

Dondena, IHS. (2017). Literature review on taxation, entrepreneurship and collaborative 
economy.  Available  at:  http://www.case-research.eu/en/literature-review-on-taxation-
entrepreneurship-and-collaborative-economy   

DuPuis, N., Rainwater, B. (2015). “Shifting Perceptions of the Collaborative Consumption”. 
National League of Cities. Available at:  
http://www.nlc.org/sites/default/files/2017-01/Brief%20-
%20Shifting%20Perceptions%20of%20Collaborative%20Consumption2015.pdf   

Ellen,  I.  G.  (2015).  “Housing  Low-Income  Households:  Lessons  From  the  Sharing 
Economy?” Housing Policy Debate, 25(4), pp. 783-784. Available at:    
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10511482.2015.1042204?journalCode=rh
pd20   

Finck,  M.,  Ranchordas,  S.  (2016).  “Sharing  and  the  city”.  Vanderbilt  Journal  of 
Transnational Law, 49. Available at:  
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/wp-content/uploads/sites/78/8.-Ranchordas-
Finck_Paginated.pdf   

Frenken, K., Schor, J. (2016). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. ISU Working 
Paper  16.04.  Innovation  Studies  Utrecht  (ISU)  Working  Papers.  Utrecht  University. 
Available at: http://www.geo.uu.nl/isu/pdf/isu1604.pdf 

Goudin, P. (2016). The Cost of Non-Europe in the Sharing Economy: Economic, Social and 
Legal Challenges and Opportunities. PE 558.777.  

Guttentag, D. (2013). “Airbnb: Disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism 
accommodation sector”. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(12), pp. 1192-1217. Available at: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.827159  

Hamari,  J.,  Sjöklint,  M.,  Ukkonen,  A.  (2015).  “The  sharing  economy:  why  people 
participate in collaborative consumption”. Journal of the association for information science 
and technology. Available at:  
http://people.uta.fi/~kljuham/2015-hamari_at_al-the_sharing_economy.pdf  

123 

 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Henten, A., Windekilde, I. (2016). "Transaction costs and the sharing economy." info 18.1 
(2016): p. 4 Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/itse15/127145.html  

Katz,  M.L.,  Shapiro,  C.  (1985).  “Network  Externalities,  Competition  and  Compatibility”. 
American Economic Review, 75(3), pp. 424-440. Available at:    
http://brousseau.info/pdf/cours/Katz-Shapiro%5B1985%5D.pdf  

Luca, M. (2016). “Designing Online Marketplaces: Trust and Reputation Mechanisms (No. 
w22616)”. National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at:  
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/17-017_ec4ccdc0-4348-4eb9-9f46-
86e1ac696b4f.pdf 

Kagermeier, A., Koller, J., Stors, N. (2016). “Airbnb als Share Economy-Herausforderung 
für Berlin und die Reaktionen der Hotelbranche“. Available at:    
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281844630_Airbnb_als_Share_Economy-
Herausforderung_fur_Berlin_und_die_Reaktionen_der_Hotelbranche   

Lobel, O. (2016). “The Law of the Platform”. Univ. of San Diego, Legal Studies Research 
Paper Series. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract = 2742380  

Martin, C. J. (2016). “The Sharing Economy: A Pathway to Sustainability or a Nightmare 
Form  of  Neoliberal  Capitalism”.  Ecological  Economics  (121),  pp.  149-159.  Available  at: 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915004711  

O’Rourke, D., Lollo, N. (2015). “Transforming Consumption: From Decoupling, to Behavior 
for  Sustainable  Consumption”.  Annual  Review  of 
Change,  to  System  Changes 
Environmental Resources, 40, pp. 233-259. Available at:  
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021224.  

Schmücker, D. (2016) “Assessing the impact of “shared accommodation” for city tourism”. 
14th Global Forum on Tourism Statistics, Venice, Italy, 23-25 November 2016. Available 
at:  
http://tsf2016venice.enit.it/images/articles/Papers_Forum/6.2_Assessing%20the%20imp
act%20of%20shared%20accommodation%20for%20city%20tourism.pdf 

Shaheen,  S.,  Guzman,  S.,  Zhang,  H.  (2010).  “Bikesharing  in  Europe,  the  Americas  and 
Asia:  past,  present,  and  future.”  2010  Transportation  Research  Board  Annual  Meeting. 
Available at: http://cfile215.uf.daum.net/attach/11617E0E4C355E9118196C   

Slee,  T.  (2013).  “Some  obvious  things  about  internet  reputation  systems”.  Tom  Slee. 
Available at:    
http://tomslee.net/2013/09/some-obvious-things-about-internet-reputation-
systems.html 

Smorto, G. (2015). “The sharing economy as a means to urban commutingo.” Conference 
paper,  1st  IASC  Thematic  Conference  on  Urban  Commons,  November  6-7th,  2015, 
Bologna, Italy. Available at:  
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Sharing_Economy_as_a_Means_To_Urban_Commoning 

UCLA  labor  center  (2015).  “Ridesharing  or  ridestealing?  Changes  in  taxi  ridership  and 
revenue 
at: 
http://irle.ucla.edu/old/publications/documents/Taxi-Policy-Brief.pdf  

Policy  Brief.  Available 

Los  Angeles 

2009-2014.” 

loss 

in 

Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., Byers, J. (2016). “The rise of the sharing economy: estimating 
the impact of AirBnB on the hotel industry”. Available at:  
http://people.bu.edu/zg/publications/airbnb.pdf   

124 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

News articles: 

“European  court  takes  up  the  question:  what  is  Uber?”  Financial  Times.  Available  at:  
https://www.ft.com/content/f2774c9a-b566-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62 

“BlaBlaCar  afronta  en  Madrid  su  primera  sanción  en  Europa.”  El  País.  Available  at: 
https://elpais.com/ccaa/2016/10/17/madrid/1476701871_454042.html?rel=mas  

“All eyes on the Sharing Economy”. The Economist (2013).  Available at:  
http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21572914-collaborative-
consumption-technology-makes-it-easier-people-rent-items        

“BlaBlaCar  afronta  en  Madrid  su  primera  sanción  en  Europa.”  El  País.  Available  at: 
https://elpais.com/ccaa/2016/10/17/madrid/1476701871_454042.html?rel=mas  

Alix,  C.  (2017).  « Heetch  :  forte  condamnation  pour  la  start-up  des  noctambules. » 
http://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2017/03/02/heetch-forte-
Libération. 
condamnation-pour-la-start-up-des-noctambules_1552889  

Available at: 

Bundesverband  CarSharing  (2012).  „CarSharing  ist  auch  in  kleineren  Städten  und 
Gemeinden erfolgreich möglich“. BCS. Available at:  
https://carsharing.de/themen/carsharing-im-landlichen-raum/carsharing-ist-auch-
kleineren-stadten-gemeinden-erfolgreich   

Burgen,  S.  (2017).  “Barcelona  cracks  down  on  Airbnb  rentals  with  illegal  apartment 
squads”. The Guardian. Available at :  
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/02/airbnb-faces-crackdown-on-
illegal-apartment-rentals-in-barcelona 

Fromm, J. (2015). “Affluent millennial travelers embrace the sharing economy”.  Forbes. 
Available  at:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefffromm/2015/12/17/affluent-millennial-
travelers-embrace-the-sharing-economy/#d3a97f77a240   

Gee, O. (2016). “Paris in new crackdown on illegal Airbnb flats”. The Local. Available at:  
https://www.thelocal.fr/20160113/paris-cracks-down-on-illegal-airbnb-flats   

Martinez, J. (2016). ”Primera sanción de la Comunidad de Madrid a BlaBlacar: seis claves 
del varapalo”. El Español. Available at:  
http://www.elespanol.com/economia/empresas/20161017/163734321_0.html   

Novoa, J. (2015). ”Bus companies to sue Blablacar in Spain, want regulators to ban the 
car sharing company (Updated)”. NovoBrief. Available at:   
https://novobrief.com/blablacar-spain-regulation/   

Nussbaum, A. (2014). “Paris Officials Begin Raiding Airbnb Rentals for Housing Violations“. 
Available  at:  https://skift.com/2014/08/07/paris-officials-begin-raiding-airbnb-rentals-
for-housing-violations/   

O’Sullivan,  F.  (2016).  “Berlin  is  banning  most  vacation  apartment  rentals”.  City  Lab. 
Available  at:  https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/04/airbnb-rentals-berlin-vacation-
apartment-law/480381/ 

Osborne,  H.  (2016).  “Uber  loses  right  to  classify  UK  drivers  as  self-employed”.  The 
Guardian.  Available  at:  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-
tribunal-self-employed-status  

125 

 
 
 
 
 
  
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Payton, M. (2016). “Berlin stops AirBnB renting apartments to tourists to protect affordable 
housing”. The Independent. Available at:    
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/airbnb-rentals-berlin-germany-
tourist-ban-fines-restricting-to-protect-affordable-housing-a7008891.html  

Rafferty, J. (2010). “To Address Its Housing Shortage, Paris Cracks Down on Pied-à-Terre 
Rentals”. New York Times. Available at:  
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/business/global/07rent.html  

Rato,  C.  (2016)  “People  Who  Share  Portugal”.  The  People  Who  Share.  Available  at: 
http://www.thepeoplewhoshare.com/blog/the-people-who-share-portugal/ 

Rhodes, A. (2017). “Uber: which countries have banned the controversial taxi apps.” The 
Independent.  Available  at:  http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/uber-
ban-countries-where-world-taxi-app-europe-taxi-us-states-china-asia-legal-
a7707436.html 

Samaan, R. (2015). “AirBnB, rising rent, and the housing crisis in Los Angeles”. Available 
at: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2015/05/01166-
96023.pdf  

Scott, M. (2017). “Uber is a transportation company, Europe’s highest court rules”. Politico. 
Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/uber-ecj-ruling/  

Shead, S. (2016). “A sharing economy kitemark has been developed to take the danger 
out of platforms like Airbnb and Uber”. Business Insider UK. Available at:  
http://uk.businessinsider.com/sharing-economy-uk-has-developed-a-kitemark-called-
trustseal-2016-7 

Shontell,  A.  (2015).  “California  Labor  Commission  rules  an  Uber  driver  is  an  employee, 
which  could  clobber  the  $50  billion  company”.  Business  Insider  UK.  Available  at: 
http://uk.businessinsider.com/california-labor-commission-rules-uber-drivers-are-
employees-2015-6?r=US  

Skydsgaard,  N  (2017).  “Uber  eyes  EU  expansion  despite  Denmark  setback,  looming  EU 
court ruling”. Reuters.  
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-tech-europe-idUSKBN17K22V 

Stefansdotter, A., Danielsson, C., Nielsen, C., Sunesen, E. (2015), “Economic benefits of 
peer-to-peer  transport  services“,  Copenhagen  Economics  Stockholm.  Available  at: 
https://www.copenhageneconomics.com/dyn/resources/Publication/publicationPDF/0/320
/1441009386/economics-benefits-of-peer-to-peer-transport-services.pdf  

Steinmetz, K. (2015). “Lawsuit claims Instacart ‘personal shoppers’ should be classified as 
employees”.  Fortune.  Available  at:  http://fortune.com/2015/03/18/lawsuit-claims-
instacart-personal-shoppers-should-be-classified-as-employees/  

Reports: 

Crowdfunding Hub (2016). “Current state of crowdfunding in Europe”. An overview of the 
crowdfunding industry in more than 25 countries: trends, volumes & regulations. Available 
at:  
https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Entrepreneurship_Centre/Docs/OxEPR2/curr
ent-state-crowdfunding-europe-2016.pdf  

Deloitte (2014). “Geld verdienen in de deeleconomie? De fiscus kijkt mee” Available at: 
https://deloitte.ctrl.nl/nl/actual/Geld-verdienen-in-de-deeleconomie--De-fiscus-kijkt.aspx     

126 

 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Direzione centrale olitiche del lavoro, sviluppo economico e universita’, Settore innovazione 
economica,  smart  city  e  universita’.  “Proposta  di  de  liberazione  di  giunta  comunale”. 
Available at:    
http://www.milanosmartcity.org/joomla/images/delibera%20sharing%20economy.pdf  

Doing  Business  (2017).  “Distance  to  Frontier  and  Ease  of  Doing  Business  Ranking”. 
Available at:    
http://www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/WBG/DoingBusiness/Documents/Annual-
Reports/English/DB17-Chapters/DB17-DTF-and-DBRankings.pdf   

Eurobarometer Report (2016). The use of collaborative platforms. 

European Commission (2017). Exploratory study of consumer issues in online peer-to-peer 
platform 
http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-
detail.cfm?&item_id=77704  

Available 

markets. 

at: 

Fondazione Unipolis (2015). “Dalla Sharing Economy All’Economia Collaborativa. L’impatto 
e le opportunità per il mondo cooperativo.” I Quaderni Di Unipolis. Available at:  
http://www.fondazioneunipolis.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Ricerca-Economia-
collaborativa-e-Cooperazione.pdf 

FPA (2016). “Legge Sharing Economy: Riscriviam L'articolo Sull Pa Collaborativa”.  Report 
dei lavori a FORUM PA 2016. Available at:   
http://d12dpcxavd7bzx.cloudfront.net/forumpa/lemmon/media/attachments/files/0146/1
de6/-b06/8-47/2b-b/5db-
/bae0/bfd2/cf41/original/LeggeSharingEconomy_PaCollaborativa.pdf?1465297928 

FPA. “Utilizzo condiviso di beni tra Pubbliche Amministrazioni Locali”. Available at:  
http://www.forumpachallenge.it/soluzioni/condividipa  

Frost and Sullivan (2014). Car-sharing in London – Vision 2020, London. 

Grimaldi Studio Legale (2016). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver 
and ridesharing in the EU. Final report. Available at:  
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2016-09-26-pax-transport-taxi-
hirecar-w-driver-ridesharing-final-report.pdf  

Higton,  J.,  Nathwani,  T.,  Howe,  P.,  Rog.,  A.  (2017).  “A  review  of  the  IC  Tomorrow 
programme”. CFE Research. Available at:   
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/599840/
IC_Tomorrow_Review_2017.pdf  

ING (2016). “Airbnb heeft flink opwaarts effect op Amsterdamse huizenprijzen”. Available 
at:  
https://www.ing.nl/nieuws/nieuws_en_persberichten/2016/04/airbnb_heeft_flink_opwaa
rts_effect_op_amsterdamse_huizenprijzen.html 

OECD (1997). “Measuring Public Employment in OECD Countries: Sources, Methods and 
Results”. OECD, Paris. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/pem/1910752.pdf  

OECD  (2016).  “Protecting  Consumers  in  Peer  Platform  Markets:  Exploring  the  issues”. 
OECD Digital Economy Papers (253). 

Office  for  National Statistics (2016). “The feasibility of measuring the sharing economy: 
progress update.” Available at:  
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/articles/thefea
sibilityofmeasuringthesharingeconomy/progressupdate 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

PwC (2016). “Assessing the  size and presence  of the  collaborative economy in Europe”. 
Assessment prepared for DG GROW. Available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/16952/attachments/1/translations/en/renditi
ons/native 

Statista Market Sharing Forecast (2017), “Ride sharing 2017”, Available at:  
https://www.statista.com/outlook/368/100/ride-sharing/worldwide#  

Statista Market Sharing Forecast (2017). “eTravel: Mobility Services”. Available at:    
https://www.statista.com/download/outlook/whiterpaper/Mobility_Services_Outlook_011
7.pdf   

The World Bank (2017). “Starting a Business Methodology”. Doing Business. Available at: 
http://www.doingbusiness.org/Methodology/Starting-a-Business  

WSP (2016). “Making better places: Autonomous vehicles and future opportunities”. White 
http://www.wsp-pb.com/Globaln/UK/WSPPB-Farrells-AV-
paper. 
whitepaper.pdf  

Available 

at: 

Official EU documents:  

Committee of the Regions (2016). Opinion on Local and regional dimension of the Sharing 
Economy.  

European  Commission  (2016).  Commission  staff  working  document  accompanying  the 
document - A European agenda for the collaborative economy.   

European Commission (2016). Commission Staff Working Document. Crowdfunding in the 
EU Capital Markets Union.  

European  Commission  (2016).  A  European  agenda  for  the  collaborative  economy. 
COM(2016) 356 final.  

European  Commission  (2017).  10  Steps  Guide.  Available  at:  https://composite-
indicators.jrc.ec.europa.eu/?q=10-step-guide   

European  Parliament  (2015).  Tourism  and  the  sharing  economy:  challenges  and 
opportunities for the EU. IP/B/TRAN/FWC/2010-006/Lot5/C1/SC3, PE 563.411.  

National legislation: 

Case 5500/R/0052018/15, Decision of the District Court of Helsinki in the case of Yahyobek 
Adhamov, Decision of 6 April 2016, appeal pending. 

Lege  nr.  38  din  20  ianuarie  2003,  privind  transportul  in  regim  de  taxi  si  in  regim  de 
inchiriere publicata in M. Of. 45 din 28/01/2003 (Law 38/2003) 

Websites:  

AirBnB  (2016).  “Airbnb  Simplifies  Tourist  Tax  Collection  in  19  Cities  Across  France”. 
Available at: https://paris.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-simplifies-tourist-tax-collection-in-19-
cities-across-france/  

AirBnB. “In what area is  occupancy tax collection and  remittance by AirBnB available?”. 
Available  at:  https://www.airbnb.co.uk/help/article/653/in-what-areas-is-occupancy-tax-
collection-and-remittance-by-airbnb-available  

128 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

AirDNA statistics on the evolution of the number of AirBnB listings in Amsterdam, Paris, 
London, Barcelona and Berlin between 2015 and 2017. Available at: AirDNA.co 

Cooperation  agreement  between  AirBnB  and  the  city  of  Amsterdam.  Available  at: 
http://www.iamsterdam.com/en/media-centre/city-hall/press-releases/2014-press-
room/amsterdam-airbnb-agreement   

Covoiturage-nantesmetropole.fr.  “Partenaires “.  Available  at :  http://www.covoiturage-
nantesmetropole.fr/partenaires  

Digital  Belgium.  Available  at:  http://digitalbelgium.be/en/5-priorities/digital-skills-and-
jobs/  

Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications (2016). “Transport Code enables better 
transport  services  and  flexible  business  operations”.  Press  release.  Available  at: 
http://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/artikkeli/-/asset_publisher/liikennekaari-mahdollistaa-
paremmat-liikennepalvelut-ja-helpottaa-yritysten-toimintaa 

Generalitat  de  Cataluyna  (2017).  “Participa  en  la  economía  colaborativa”.  Available  at: 
http://web.gencat.cat/es/actualitat/detall/Participa-Gencat-leconomia-collaborativa  

iAmsterdam. 
https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/business/news-and-insights/sharing-
economy/mobility-in-the-shared-economy  

the  shared  economy”. 

“Mobility 

in 

iAmBusiness.  Available  at: 

Innovate  UK  (2016).  “Funding  competition:  digital  innovation  in  the  sharing  economy”. 
Available  at:  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/funding-competition-digital-
innovation-in-the-sharing-economy/funding-competition-digital-innovation-in-the-
sharing-economy   

Institut Bruxellois pour la Gestion de l’Environnement. “Infos fiches éco-mobilité – Guide 
pratique plan de déplacements pour les entreprises”. Available at: 
http://document.environnement.brussels/opac_css/index.php?lvl=coll_see&id=129  

Nesta  (2016).  “Nesta  ShareLab  Fund”.  Available  at:    http://www.nesta.org.uk/nesta-
sharelab-fund   

Nesta  (2016).  “ShareLab:  social  value  in  the  collaborative  economy”.  Available  at:  
http://www.nesta.org.uk/event/sharelab-social-value-collaborative-economy     

Republic of Estonia Tax and Customs Board. “Helm: Estonian Tax and Customs Board to 
introduce  several  solutions  to  simplify  procedures  in  the  coming  years.”  Available  at: 
https://www.emta.ee/eng/helm-estonian-tax-and-customs-board-introduce-several-
solutions-simplify-procedures-coming-years    

Service-public-pro.fr  (2017).  Exploitant  ou  conducteur  de  voiture  avec  chauffeur  (VTC). 
Available at: https://www.service-public.fr/professionnels-entreprises/vosdroits/F31027  

Service-public-pro.fr. Available at:   
https://www.service-public.fr/professionnels-entreprises  

Share NL. “Amsterdam Sharing City – a diverse collaborative economy ecosystem beyond 
the traditional examples”. Available at:  
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ba147de4b04c160a2f6dcc/t/59281043893fc05
d10ef2beb/1495797835729/Introducing+the+Amsterdam+Sharing+Economy+Ecosyste
m_shareNL_2017.pdf  

129 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Share NL. “Amsterdam Sharing City Projects”. Available at:  
http://www.sharenl.nl/amsterdam-sharing-city-projects  

ShareNL. Available at: http://www.sharenl.nl/sharing-city-platform/ 

Transport  for  London  (2016).  “TfL  sets  out  plans  to  modernise  and  enhance  London’s 
private hire industry”. Press release. Available at: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-
releases/2016/january/tfl-sets-out-plans-to-modernise-and-enhance-london-s-private-
hire-indust  

UK  Government  (2014).  “Government  Digital  Inclusion  Strategy”.  Available  at: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-digital-inclusion-
strategy/government-digital-inclusion-strategy  

UK  Government  (2015).    “Independent  review  of  the  sharing  economy.  Government 
Response”. Available at: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414111/
bis-15-172-government-response-to-the-independent-review-of-the-sharing-
economy.pdf  

UK Government (2015). “Working for yourself”. Available at:  
https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/what-counts-as-self-employed 

UK  Government  (2017).  “The  IC  tomorrow  programme:  an  evaluation  and  review”. 
Available at:  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-ic-tomorrow-programme-
an-evaluation-and-review  

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Annex 3: List of EU-level interviews  

Name 

Function 

Entity 

Sector 

Relevance 

Koen Frenken 

Professor 

Vera Demary 

Chair, Structural 
Change and 
Competition 

Martijn Arets 

Founder 

Utrecht 
University, 
Copernicus 
Institute 
Cologne Institute 
for Economic 
Research 

Horizontal 

Horizontal 

DeelEconomieIn-
Nederland 

Horizontal 

Collaborative economy 
expert. Author of papers 
on collaborative economy 
regulations across Europe.  
Collaborative economy 
expert. Author of papers 
on competition in the 
collaborative economy.  
Collaborative economy 
expert. Participates in 
academic conferences on 
the collaborative economy.   

Finance  

Accommodation   Participated to a European 
Commission workshop on 
market access 
requirements in the 
collaborative 
accommodation sector. 
The European 
Crowdfunding Network 
gather crowdfunding 
platforms and stakeholders 
to promote crowdfunding 
among European policy 
makers.  
BlaBlaCar is Europe’s 
biggest ridesharing 
platform.  
Independent collaborative 
economy legal expert.   
ShareNL is a research and 
networking institution on 
the collaborative economy.  

Transport  

Horizontal 

Horizontal 

Accommodation  Collaborative/ digital 

Lucia 
Hernandez 

Accommodation 
expert 

OuiShare 

Irene Tordera 

Member 

European 
Crowdfunding 
Network  

Fabienne Weibel  Head of Public 

BlaBlaCar 

Policy 

Rosa Guirado 

Regulatory expert  OuiShare 

Co-founder 

ShareNL 

Pieter van de 
Glind 

Diane Coyle 

Antoine Aubert 

Katharina 
Pühringer 
Pauline Beck 

Professor of 
Economics 
Director Public 
Policy, EU 
strategy 
Representative 

Representative 

University of 
Manchester 
Uber 

Transport 

CONDA 

Finance 

Office for National 
Statistics, UK 

Horizontal 

Carsten Olsson 

Head of Unit 

Eurostat 

Horizontal 

economy expert.  
Uber is Europe’s biggest 
ridehailing platform.  

CONDA is an Austrian P2P 
lending platform.  
The ONS is currently 
conducting a study on the 
feasibility to measure the 
collaborative economy in 
the UK.  
Eurostat is currently 
working on how to provide 
collaborative economy 
statistics.  

131 

 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Annex 4: Ranking of indicators by EU-level stakeholders 

Rating:  

1= Has no effect on the development of the collaborative economy; 
2= Slightly affects the development of the collaborative economy; 
3= Can affect the development of the collaborative economy;  
4= Has a significant effect on the development of the collaborative economy; 
5= Systematically hinders/encourages the development of the collaborative economy. 

Koen 
Frenken 

Martijn 
Arets 

Lucia 
Hernandez 

Fabienne 
Weibel 

Vera 
Demary 

Irene 
Tordera 

Rosa 
Guidaro 

1.  Passenger Transport 

1.1.  Is there a specific (national) regulation to allow 
non-professional drivers to provide private hire 
transport (VTC) services via a platform? 

1.2.  Is the number of taxi and VTC licences 

unrestricted? 

1.3.  Are the fares for taxis and VTCs unrestricted? 

1.4.  Can taxi or VTC services be provided without an 

affiliation to a dispatch centre? 

1.5.  Is P2P car sharing permitted? 

1.6.  Is P2P ride sharing permitted (profit or non-

profit making)? 

2.  Accommodation/tourism 

2.1.  Can peer providers let their property without 

obtaining prior state authorisation? 

2.2.  Are peer providers able to let their primary 

residence? 

2.3.  Are peer providers able to let their secondary 

residence? 

2.4.  Are peer providers able to let their property 
without being present in the property? 

5 

5 

3 

1 

5 

5 

2 

2 

5 

4 

132 

3 

5 

2 

1 

5 

5 

2 

4 

4 

1 

5 

5 

4 

4 

5 

5 

4 

5 

5 

2 

5 

5 

3 

4 

3 

5 

5 

5 

3 

4 

3 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Koen 
Frenken 

Martijn 
Arets 

Lucia 
Hernandez 

Fabienne 
Weibel 

Vera 
Demary 

Irene 
Tordera 

Rosa 
Guidaro 

2.5.  Are peer providers able to let rooms in their 
property as well as the whole property? 

2.6.  Are peer providers permitted to comply with 
less regulation than hotels on the basis that 
they are occasional providers? 

3.  Finance 

3.1.  Is peer-to-peer finance permitted (loans and 

equity investment)? 

3.2.  How long does it take to obtain all necessary 

licences for lending and equity platforms? 

3.3.  What are the direct costs to obtain all 

necessary licences for lending and equity 
platforms? (Euros) 

3.4.  Are collaborative lending platforms required to 

satisfy fewer regulations than banks? 

3.5.  Are collaborative equity platforms required to 
satisfy fewer regulations than investment 
firms? 

4.  Public administration 

4.1.  Has the government issued guidance to 

platforms on setting up a collaborative platform 
(e.g. on taxation, licences, insurance, etc.)? 

4.2.  Has the government issued guidance to peer 
providers or taken action to reduce their 
compliance burden (e.g. information campaign, 
guidelines, partnerships with platforms, etc.)? 

5.  Business support 

5.1.  Does the government provide grant schemes 

for entrepreneurs setting up a collaborative 
platform? 

5.2.  Does the government provide support services 
(e.g. training activities, technical and business 

5 

5 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3 

3 

5 

4 

5 

4 

5 

5 

5 

4 

4 

4 

4 

2 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

5 

2 

2 

4 

5 

5 

3 

3 

5 

4 

4 

3 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3 

5 

2 

2 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Koen 
Frenken 

Martijn 
Arets 

Lucia 
Hernandez 

Fabienne 
Weibel 

Vera 
Demary 

Irene 
Tordera 

Rosa 
Guidaro 

advice) for collaborative economy 
platforms/entrepreneurs? 

5.3.  Does the government actively promote the use 
of collaborative economy services through 
public procurement or by permitting public 
sector employees to use collaborative economy 
services professionally? 

5.4.  Does the government provide an accreditation 
scheme for the promotion of the collaborative 
economy (e.g. quality label)? 

5.5.  Has the government provided guidance to 

providers and platforms on the applicability of 
national employment rules with respect to 
services provided on digital platforms? 

6.  Alignment 

6.1.  Do the same rules apply for peer transport 

services within a Member State? 

6.2.  Do the same rules apply for peer 

accommodation services within a Member 
State? 

3 

3 

5 

2 

2 

2 

1 

5 

2 

2 

5 

1 

5 

5 

5 

5 

2 

2 

5 

5 

5 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Annex 5: Indicator calculation methods  

In the course of the project, three different methods for the calculation of the Collaborative 
Economy Index were considered. These were 

  Method 1: A straight aggregate of all underlying indicators 
  Method 2: An average of the themes aggregates of indicators 
  Method 3: Using the Rasch method  

At the end, method 2 was chosen for further analysis of the results and has been described 
in detail in the body of Deliverable 2.  
The following sections describe in detail the other two methods which were considered and 
tested. Different rules relating to visualisation of the results in the traffic light system were 
also considered and is described in the section below.  

Straight average of underlying indicators  

The straight aggregate can be calculated on a question level or on an indicator level. We 
propose  to  aggregate  the  indicators  as  they  are  more  representative.  Aggregating  the 
indicators rather than the questions has the advantage of a more balanced representation 
of the features studied. The aggregation of questions into one composite index has the 
disadvantage that some questions are related and thus, computing them all together might 
distort the results.  

Based on the above arguments and following a consultation with the client, we will follow 
the  chosen  approach  to  aggregate  the  indicators  into  an  index  (rather  than  the  data 
collection questions).  

The straight aggregate of the indicators is calculated following four steps: 

1)  Firstly, the score per Member State per question is calculated. As described above, 
for countries with larger population, data from more than one city was collected. 
This data is expressed, using the average of the cities studied. This ensures that in 
the end all questions will be in the range between 0 and 1 and that all cities within 
that Member State have the same weight. For example, if in Country X, 2 out of 
the 3 cities studied have answered “Yes=1” to question Y, the score of the Member 
State for this question is 0.67 (2/3).   

2)  Secondly,  the  score  per  indicator  is  calculated  per  Member  State.  The  indicators 
follow and are aggregated at “sub-feature” level in order to provide more insight. 
For each of the indicators, we take the simple average of the underlying questions. 
This  will  ensure  that  all  indicators  are  ranging  from  0  to  1  and  that  each  of  the 
underlying questions per indicator has the same weight.  

3)  Thirdly, the aggregate of all indicators is calculated per Member State. Again, the 
simple average of all indicators is used in order to present the results into one index 
and in a scale between 0 and 1.  

4)  Once the performance per Member State is calculated, the EU average is estimated. 

This provides a point of comparison on how EU countries are performing.   

This calculation method provides an easy way to compare the performance per Member 
State. The disadvantage is, however, that results will not provide information on Member 
States’  performance  per  theme.  Therefore,  the  calculation  will  have  limited  use  for 
providing  an  indication  into  which  theme  a  country  can  focus  its  efforts  on  to  further 
improve its business environment for peer providers. Additionally, this calculation method 
does not account for the difference in the number of indicators per theme. Therefore, some 
themes and the related indicators will be over-represented. 

135 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Final report 

Assigning weights to different answer options based on the Rasch method 

With the third method of calculation, the Collaborative Economy Index will be calculated 
so that the different questions and answer options have different weights. The weights will 
be determined based on a psychometric model – the Rasch analysis. The final figure will 
follow  the  logic  of  the  second  method  (averages  of  the  themes).  The  valuation  of  the 
different answer options however does not follow the predefined values (0, 0.33, 0.66, 1), 
but values are estimated on the basis of the “difficulty” to reach the positive valuation on 
each of the questions. These values can be, for example, 0, 0.66, 0.82 and 1.04 for the 
four answering options for a question where very few positive valuations are given, and 0, 
0.37, 0.46 and 0.59 for a question where there are relatively many positive valuations. 

Once  the  average  per  indicator  is  calculated,  the  second  step  is  calculating  the  simple 
average of all indicators into a score per theme. As we consider the different themes to be 
equally  important,  the  simple  average  of  all  themes  will  be  used  to  form  the  final 
Collaborative Economy Index.  

Representation of results 

The representation of the results in the Single Market Scoreboard follows the traffic light 
system. 

Initially,  we  considered  visualising  the  results  of  the  calculation  by  using  the  standard 
deviation to determine the band boundaries. Using a multiplier and the standard deviation, 
the following colouring rule was assigned: 

  Red colour is assigned if the answer is “no” (or “yes” for the negative scales) or if 
the calculated value is smaller than average – multiplier times standard deviation 

  Green colour is assigned if the answer is “yes” (or “no” for the negative scales) or  
if the calculated value is larger than average + multiplier times standard deviation  

  Yellow is assigned for everything in between 

After the calculation methods were refined, the ranking of the member states’ scores were 
used following the rule below: 

As described above, provided that the 28 Member States have different scores, the ranking 
will usually result in 9 MS coloured in red, 9 coloured in green, and 10 coloured in yellow. 

136 

 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Annex 6: Country fiches  

CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 138 

AUSTRIA ................................................................................................................. 139 

BELGIUM ................................................................................................................. 147 

BULGARIA ............................................................................................................... 155 

CROATIA ................................................................................................................. 162 

CYPRUS ................................................................................................................... 169 

CZECH REPUBLIC .................................................................................................... 176 

DENMARK ................................................................................................................ 184 

ESTONIA ................................................................................................................. 191 

FINLAND ................................................................................................................. 199 

FRANCE ................................................................................................................... 207 

GERMANY ................................................................................................................ 217 

GREECE ................................................................................................................... 229 

HUNGARY ................................................................................................................ 236 

IRELAND ................................................................................................................. 243 

ITALY ...................................................................................................................... 250 

LATVIA .................................................................................................................... 261 

LITHUANIA ............................................................................................................. 269 

LUXEMBOURG ......................................................................................................... 277 

MALTA ..................................................................................................................... 285 

NETHERLANDS ........................................................................................................ 292 

POLAND .................................................................................................................. 301 

PORTUGAL .............................................................................................................. 310 

ROMANIA ................................................................................................................ 318 

SLOVAKIA ............................................................................................................... 327 

SLOVENIA ............................................................................................................... 334 

SPAIN ..................................................................................................................... 341 

SWEDEN .................................................................................................................. 351 

UNITED KINGDOM ................................................................................................... 359 

137 

 
  
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Introduction 
The following country fiches provide an assessment of the business environment for the 
collaborative economy in the individual Member States. The country fiches show how the 
individual  Member  States  have  scored  on  the  different  indicators  and  questions  and 
provide the reasoning of that scoring. The country fiches will enable the reader to query 
and  test  the  individual  indicator  results  of  the  Member  States  and  understand  the 
regulatory landscape relevant for the collaborative economy in each Member State.  

The country fiches are structured in the following way:  

  An  overview  graph  compares  the  Member  State’s  Result  with  the  best-scoring 

Member State in each theme.  

  An  overview  assessment  explains  the  results  of  the  Member  States  across  all 

themes and indicators. 

  For  each  of  the  six  themes  of  the  study  a  graph  shows  the  individual  indicator 
results under the theme and explains the regulatory framework underlying those 
results.  

  A list of sources and interviews is provided.  
  Finally,  an  overview  table  shows  the  results  for  each  question  to  provide  full 

transparency based on the scoring.  

The  overall  conclusions  on  the  work  of  the  country  fiches  are  part  of  the  analysis  in 
Chapters 4 and 5 of the main report.  

138 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Austria 

2.2  Performance overview 

Overview 

The overall Austria performance overview shows that Austria is placed among the highest 
scoring in comparison to the other EU countries. Austria is a federal republic consisting of 
nine  autonomous  federal  states.  Consequently,  legislation  is  developed  in  each  federal 
state. However, the current legislation gives some latitude to peer providers to engage in 
the collaborative economy.  

Accommodation 

Austria scores in the upper half concerning accommodation in the sharing economy. There 
is  no  bespoke  regulation  for  accommodation  services  in  the  collaborative  economy; 
nevertheless, P2P accommodation services fall under the general Tenancy Law and Law 
on Trade and Commerce. 

Four types of transactions are allowed in Austria:  

1.  Mere letting of living space (reine Wohnraumvermietung); 
2.  Private letting of guestrooms as a secondary activity (Privatzimmervermietung als 

häuslicher Nebenerwerb); 

3.  Non-regulated hospitality industry (Freies Gastgewerbe); 
4.  Regulated hospitality industry (Reglementiertes Gastgewerbe). 

An  economic  activity  within  the  framework  of  the  collaborative  economy  in  the 
accommodation sector that is deemed to be either mere letting of living space or private 
letting of guestrooms as a secondary activity does not require  registration or a  licence. 
Consequently, peer providers can freely provide simple short-term lets on an occasional 

139 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections62503360100100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

basis.  However,  if  the  activities  fall  under  the  non-regulated  hospitality  industry  or  the 
regulated hospitality industry, registration and a licence are necessary. This means that 
when offering more than ten beds or providing services (e.g. breakfast, cleaning) a trading 
licence is required.  

Peer  providers  must  notify  their  landlord  prior  to  subletting  their  property  because 
subletting  of  the  entire  property  by  the  peer  provider  results  in  the  landlord’s  right  to 
terminate  the  tenancy  agreement  provided  that  the  peer  provider  does  not  need  the 
property  for  himself  or  close  relatives.  In  principle,  this  prevents  peer  providers  from 
subletting their whole residence without permission.  

In general, the owner of a flat is entitled to let his/her property without the consent of a 
building association or the other co-owners of a block of flats. However, there have been 
cases where there have been conflicts with the other co-owners of a block of flats. In these 
cases, the property has not just been let, other services such as cleaning and changing of 
linen have been provided. In such instances, the interests of the remaining co-owners are 
violated due to the commercialisation of the property. In a case like this, the consent of 
the remaining co-owners will be required. 

Austrian legislation  does  not  provide  for  specific  bans,  when  it  comes  to  the  use  of  the 
collaborative services. Consequently, individuals offering services on an occasional basis 
are  exempt  from  regulations  (e.g.  health  and  safety  requirements).  Peer  providers  are 
therefore not subject to inspections from public authorities.  

Transport 

Austria  is  placed  among  the  top  ten  countries  on  transport  indicators  compared  to  the 
other  Member  States,  the  reason  being  that  no  qualifications  are  required  from  peer 
providers providing car-sharing or ride-sharing on a cost-sharing basis. Ride-sharing and 
car-sharing are not regulated centrally. The regulatory framework can be found at federal 
state level. The following description concerns Vienna:  

P2P  car-sharing:  ‘Rental  business  without  driver’  is  a  non-regulated  trade  in  Austria. 
Hence, the peer provider does not need any qualifications. However, a business owner is 
required to register his business with the district administrative authority. Peer providers 
do not have to obtain a licence or register; they just need to subscribe to the platform of 
the business owner.  

P2P  Ride-sharing:  No  legislation  regulates  peer  providers  providing  non-profit  ride-
sharing.  Non-profit  ride-sharing  is  when  the  remuneration  does  not  exceed  the  cost  of 
running  the  car  (EUR  0.05/km  per  additional  passenger  has  been  established  by  the 
authorities and case law as an acceptable threshold).  

Ride-hailing:  The  same  rules  apply  to  private  transport  services  (VTC)  as  to  the  taxi 
sector. Consequently, the applicable legislation does not allow non-professional drivers to 
provide private transport services via platforms for remuneration. Taxi fares are regulated 
differently  in  VTC  services  and  the  taxi  sector.  Vienna  has  fixed  taxi  fares  (basic  rate, 
waiting fare and surcharge) per start-up and then per km. The fares for VTC services are 
not restricted, giving VTC services a marked advantage compared to the traditional taxi 
sector.  In  Austria,  it  is  not  mandatory  for  a  taxi  or  VTC  to  join  a  dispatch  centre. 

140 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements58010025501000 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Furthermore, when it comes to market access, there are no quantitative  restrictions on 
taxis or VTC services. 

In general, there is no distinction between professional and private drivers. It depends on 
the business model. For ride-hailing, the same requirements apply as for taxi drivers, and 
for ride-sharing the total payment made to the driver must not exceed the cost of running 
the  car  (see  above).  For  car-sharing  there  is  no  threshold  when  a  peer  becomes  a 
professional. 

Finance 

Bespoke  legislation  governs  P2P  investments  in  equity  and  P2P  lending  in  Austria  (the 
Alternative  Financing  Act).  Austria  ranks  11  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  concerning 
collaborative  finance  since  the  manager  of  an  alternative  investment  fund  must  hold  a 
licence to operate as a P2P equity investment platform or P2P lending platform.  

Both  P2P  equity  investment  platforms  and  P2P  lending  platforms  must  hold  a  licence 
granted  by  the  Federal  Market  Authority.  The  Federal  Market  Authority  must  decide  on 
issuing or refusing to issue a licence within 90 days of the receipt of the application or, if 
it is incomplete, within 90 days after the transmission of all the information necessary for 
the  notification.  The  Federal  Market  Authority  may  extend  this  period  by  up  to  three 
months  if  deemed  necessary  by  the  particular  circumstances  of  the  case  and  after 
notification  of  the  AIFM  (Alternative  Investment  Fund  Managers).  The  direct  cost  of 
obtaining certification is EUR 5 000. 

In  Austria,  there  is  a  threshold  to  distinguish  between  peer  and  professional  activity. 
Individual  peers  can  invest  EUR  5 000  per  year.  This  limit  applies  to  legal  persons  or 
professional  investors.  As  an  exception,  individual  investors  can  invest  more  than  EUR 
5 000, but no more than the double of their monthly net income or 10% of their financial 
assets. 

Administration 

Austria is a federal republic consisting of nine autonomous states, and, as result, there is 
no  centralised  information  or  guidance  on  setting  up  a  collaborative  platform  and  no 
guidance to peer providers. The information given varies across Austria. Austria therefore 
ranks 16 out of the 28 EU countries on the indicators for administration. 

The City of Vienna assumes that many citizens participate in the sharing economy as peer 
providers,  particularly  in  the  accommodation  sector,  without  being  sufficiently  aware  of 
the  legal  framework.  Thus,  the  city  government  of  Vienna  has  intensified  its 
communication and information activities. The City of Vienna has launched a website with 
information  concerning  sharing  activities.  The  website  provides  tips  on  participating  on 
P2P platforms (https://www.wien.gv.at/wirtschaft/standort/share-economy.html). 

141 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections551004267000Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making4450502550 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Business support 

Austria ranks 7 out of the 28  EU countries on business support indicators. Collaborative 
platforms can seek funding from public grant schemes, but platforms cannot seek technical 
support  or  business  advice  at  government  level.  The  Austria  Wirtschaftsservice  offers  a 
grant  for  the  preparation  of  capital  market  prospects  for  SMEs,  including  collaborative 
platforms. Moreover, the Ministry of Tourism has launched a crowdfunding platform in the 
tourism  sector,  We4Tourism,  which  concentrates  tourism-related  funding  projects  from 
different platforms. Hence, P2P services are promoted within public administration.  

Alignment 

Concerning alignment, Austria ranks 21 out  of the 28  EU countries. Austria is a federal 
republic consisting of nine autonomous states, regulations are not centralised resulting in 
a medium score. Cities and regions make additional rules. Regarding regulations applying 
to accommodation providers, the strictest Airbnb rules are found in Vienna and Salzburg.  

142 

Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment4275010000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector335025 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Manager, Crowd4Projects GmbH [Finance]  
  Policy expert, Labour and Statistics Department economy, Stadt Wien [Horizontal]

Written sources 

  Alternative Investment Fund Manager Act (Alternative Investmentfonds Manager-

Gesetz AIFMG), par. 4.-9.    
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetz
esnummer=20008521  

  Austria Wirtschaftsservice website. Available at:    

https://www.aws.at/foerderungen/aws-kapitalmarktprospekt/ 

Federal 

  Austrian 

Economic  Chamber 
Alternativfinanzierungsgesetz und Crowdinvesting-Plattformen    
https://www.wko.at/branchen/k/information-
consulting/finanzdienstleister/Artikel_Crowdinvesting-Plattformen_1-9-2015.pdf 
  Austrian Law on Trade and Commerce (Gewerbeordnung, GewO), §94; §5, para 2. 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetz
esnummer=10007517  

(Wirtscahfstkammer  Österreich), 

  Austrian  Supreme  Court,  Oberster  Gerichtshof  (OGH),  3  Ob  158/11y  (8th  of 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Justiz& 

November 
Dokumentnummer=JJT_20111108_OGH0002_0030OB00158_11Y0000_000 

2011) 

  Austrian Supreme Court, Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH), 5 Ob 59/14h (23rd of April 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Justiz&Dokument 

2014): 
nummer=JJT_20140423_OGH0002_0050OB00059_14H0000_000  

  City  of  Vienna  (Stadt  Wien),  ‘Wir  machen  in  wien  die  share  zur  fair  economy’, 
https://www.wien.gv.at/wirtschaft/standort/pdf/share-economy-in-wien.pdf  
  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Crowdfunding  in  the  EU  Capital  Markets 

Union, 2015. 

  CrowfundingHub, 2016. Current State of Crowdfunding in Europe: An Overview of 
the  Crowdfunding  Industry  in  more  than  25  Countries,  Trends,  Volumes  & 
Regulations. 

  European Consumer Centre Austria. Available at:   

http://europakonsument.at/en/page/strict-rules-airbnb 

  Federal law on the non-scheduled commercial transportation of persons with motor 
vehicles  (Occasional  traffic  law)  (Bundesgesetz  über  die  nichtlinienmäßige 
gewerbsmäßige 
Kraftfahrzeugen 
(Gelegenheitsverkehrs-Gesetz 1996 - GelverkG)), §3 (1) 2. Available at:  
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetz
esnummer=10007795 

Personen  mit 

Beförderung 

von 

  Grimaldi Studio Legale (2015), ‘Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with 

 

driver and ridesharing in the EU’. 
ING-DiBA, 2016. Rund ums Geld Ein Redaktionsservice der  ING-DiBa Austria Bei 
Rückfragen,  Nr.  58  vom  7.  Jänner  2016.  Available:  https://www.ing-
diba.at/fileadmin/uploads/media/kommunikation/redaktionsservice/2016/01_Nac
hhaltig_teilen.pdf 

  Spark Legal Network and Consultancy, unpublished. Study on the Assessment of 
the  Regulatory  Aspects  Affecting  the  Collaborative  Economy  in  the  Tourism 
Accommodation Sector in the 28 Member States. 

  Tenancy  Law  (Mietrechtsgesetz),  §  30,  para  2,  lit  4.  https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/ 
GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10002531 

  We4Tourism platform. Available at: https://www.we4tourism.at/ 
  Wiener  Tourismusförderungsgesetz  (Vienna  Tourism  Promotion  Act,  WTFG), 
Sections 11, 12(1) & 13. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/lgbl/wi/2017/7/20170217  

143 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Austria – Vertical themes 

144 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelATTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationViennaNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsViennaYes4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsViennaYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsViennaNo6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsViennaNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionViennaNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionViennaPartially9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsViennaNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsViennaYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationViennaNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationViennaNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsViennaYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelATACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNationalYesViennaYesNationalPartiallyViennaPartiallyNationalPartiallyViennaPartiallyNationalYesViennaYesNationalNoViennaNo NationalYesViennaYesNationalNo ViennaNoNationalNoViennaNoNationalYesViennaYesNationalYesViennaYesNationalNoViennaNo13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinction11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionRegistrations, authorisations, notifications3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their Registrations, authorisations, notifications8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionRestrictions on type of good or service provision9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionRestrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence? 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

145 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelATFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalYes4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational906. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational907. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational50008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational50009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalYes14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Austria – Horizontal themes 

146 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelATPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalPartially2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalPartially7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalPartially2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalYes3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalPartially2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalYes3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalPartially 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Belgium  

Performance overview 

Overview 
Belgium excels in the administration area as the Belgian government has issued guidelines 
on several topics relevant to collaborative platforms and peer providers. At the local level, 
some  regional  authorities  have  even  entered  into  partnerships  with  certain  platforms. 
However, when it comes to transport and business support, Belgium is lagging behind the 
EU leaders since P2P lending is outright prohibited and P2P car-sharing is strictly regulated. 
Moreover, regulation of the collaborative economy varies significantly across the Belgian 
regions,  which  can  also  be  considered  an  obstacle  for  peer  providers  and  platforms. 
Despite these obstacles to the Belgian collaborative economy, it ranks 5 among the 28 EU 
countries.  

Accommodation 

Belgium  has  some  of  the  lowest  scores  in  the  EU  with  a  score  of  28  out  of  the  28  EU 
countries. There are specific regulations for accommodation services in the collaborative 
economy in Belgium, but the regulations vary across regions and there is no clear definition 
of P2P transactions. Prior to letting their property, peer providers are required to obtain a 
written authorisation if more than two rooms are offered or if accommodation is provided 
to more than eight tourists. This rule applies to all regions. Peer providers are also required 
to obtain approval from their landlord. It is possible to let a primary residence as well as 
a secondary residence. There are no inspections from the authorities but non-compliance 
with the above rules of obtaining authorisation may result in a fine ranging from EUR 250 
to EUR 25 000.  

147 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections28017NA170 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Transport  

In Belgium, most of the rules regulating the transport sector are set at a local level, i.e. 
in the Belgian regions of Brussels, Wallonia and Flanders. The City of Brussels also has its 
own  regulations  in  some  areas.  The  City  of  Brussels  is  currently  discussing  a  new  legal 
framework  for  taxis  and  hire  cars,  but  at  present,  no  legislative  proposal  has  been 
submitted to the parliament.  

P2P  ride-sharing  is  currently  not  allowed  in any  Belgian  region  without  authorisation. 
The requirements for obtaining an authorisation vary across the regions but more than a 
driver’s licence and a certificate of good conduct are usually necessary. In March 2014, 
the  Commercial  Court  of  Brussels  prohibited  UberPOP  from  operating  in  the  City  of 
Brussels.  The  court’s  decision  was  based  on  UberPOP  drivers  providing  their  services 
without the taxi licence required by the 1995 Ordonnance. In case of non-compliance, a 
penalty of EUR 10 000 is imposed for each offence. In all regions, the number of licences 
for taxis and VTC are restricted, but the specific rules vary across the regions. In Wallonia, 
the cap is one taxi per 2 500 inhabitants while in the City of Brussels the cap is a total of 
1 200 vehicles. All regions also have maximum fares set for taxis and VTC and the fares 
also vary across the regions. Finally, there is no need to be affiliated to a dispatch centre 
in  any  of  the  Belgian  regions.  Drivers  can  be  employees  of  a  taxi  company  or  be  self-
employed. If the driver chooses to be self-employed he/she must be registered with the 
Banque Carrefour and pay social security, tax and VAT.  

P2P  car-sharing  does  not  require  an  authorisation  and  is  carried  out  by  several 
companies in Belgium such as Zen Cars and Cambio. Because of this, Belgium ranks 19 
on the transport score even though P2P ride-sharing is not allowed.  

Finance 

In  Belgium,  P2P  equity  investments  are  allowed  and  regulated  by  the  FSMA  (Financial 
Services and Markets Authority). Local crowdfunding sites have been active since 2011, 
and in 2014 the existing legislation was modified to cover this new type of investment. 
Due  to  this  modification,  Belgium  scores  high  compared  to  other  EU  countries,  ranking 
Belgium  4  on  the  finance  score.  However,  P2P  lending  is  prohibited  by  the  FSMA.  P2P 
lending is the type of crowdfunding that is by far the most important in terms of volume 
both globally and in the EU (Current State of Crowdfunding in Europe: 2016).  

Administration 

Belgium reaches a score of 5 out of the 28 EU countries. In Belgium, the ‘FPS Economy’ 
acts as an interdepartmental coordination for collaborative economy. `FPS Economy’ deals 

148 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements53075255010033Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections761006510001000Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making881008310075 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

with  queries  from  peers  using  or  offering  of  P2P  services.  This  body  also  deals  with 
legislation related to P2P services. However, the Belgian government has yet to issue any 
guidance  specifically  dealing  with  setting  up  a  collaborative  platform.  Nevertheless,  the 
government  has  issued  guidance  on  several  other  areas  relevant  to  the  collaborative 
economy. Thus, it provides guidance on the applicability of national employment rules as 
well  as  the  applicability  of  national  tax  rules  with  respect  to  services  provided  on  P2P 
platforms. Public documents with information for P2P providers and platforms have also 
been published, and the Flemish local authority has entered into a partnership with the 
collaborative  platform  Green  Deal  Shared  Mobility  in  Flanders  (Service  Public  Fédèral 
Finances: 2017. The Shift: 2017).  

Business support  

The  business  support  score  is  quite  good  in  Belgium’s  performance  overview.  Belgium 
scores 3 compared to the 28 EU countries. Nevertheless, there are no dedicated, publicly 
funded  grant  schemes,  but  collaborative  platforms  can  apply  for  other  indirect  support 
schemes  such  as  BeCircularBrussels.  The  ‘FSP  Economy’  and  the  ‘Federal  Council  for 
Sustainable Development’ are currently cooperating to set up an award and accreditation 
scheme for platforms. The award is developed in line with the UN Sustainable Development 
Goals.  The  launch  is  foreseen  for  the  beginning  of  2019.  Finally,  the  government  has 
introduced a tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative platforms. 
Belgium has introduced new legislation where peer providers of collaborative services are 
subject  to  a  simplified  tax  scheme  with  a  reduced  income  tax  rate  of  10%  and  an 
exemption from social security contributions up to an income threshold of EUR 5 100 but 
under the condition that the transaction is between peers and it is intermediated by specific 
registered platforms.  In addition, one interviewed platform (CarAmigo) has  successfully 
agreed to a special regulation with the Tax Administration, giving tax advantages to people 
renting out their cars on the platform. Lastly, peers are not required to pay VAT when their 
annual earnings are below EUR 25 000.  

Alignment 

Belgium  is  a  federal  state.  While  some  of  the  relevant  regulations  on  the  collaborative 
economy are established in federal legislation, a significant proportion of applicable rules 
are  provided  by  the  individual  regions,  i.e.  the  Capital  Region  of  Brussels,  the  Walloon 
Region and the Flemish Region. Especially accommodation legislation differs significantly 
across the different regions and even at municipal level, which is why Belgium receives a 
low score ranking Belgium as number 21 in the EU. 

149 

Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment5850100500100Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector33050 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Advisor to the Belgian government, Belgian Federal Government [General]. 
  Cofounder, CarAmigo [Transport]. 
  Project Responsible, TaxiStop [Transport].  

Written sources 

  Current State of Crowdfunding in Europe (2016).   

http://www.crowdfundinghub.eu/the-current-state-of-crowdfunding-in-europe/  
  European  Commission  (2008).  ‘Momo  Car-Sharing:  More  Options  for  Energy 

Efficient Mobility through Car-Sharing’.  
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-
projects/files/projects/documents/momo_car-
sharing_car_sharing_guidelines_for_public_authorities_en_en.pdf. 

  Ministère  de  la  Région  de  Bruxelles-Capitale  (2006).  Ordonnance  modifiant 
l'ordonnance  du  27  avril  1995  relative  aux  services  de  taxis  et  aux  services  de 
location de voitures avec chauffeur. http://www.etaamb.be/fr/ordonnance-du-20-
juillet-2006_n2006031477.html  

  Ministère de la Région Wallonne (2007). Décret relatif aux services de taxis et aux 

services de location de voitures avec chauffeur.    
https://wallex.wallonie.be/PdfLoader.php?type=doc&linkpdf=9404-15894-9186  
  Région  de  Bruxelles-Capitale  (2014).  Arrêté  du  Gouvernement  de  la  Région  de 
Bruxelles-Capitale modifiant l'arrêté du 29 mars 2007 relatif aux services de taxis 
et aux services de location de voitures avec chauffeur.  

  Service  Public  Fédéral  Finances  (2017).  Demande  d’agrément  d’une  plateforme 

électronique.:  
https://finances.belgium.be/fr/entreprises/economie-collaborative/demande-d-
agrement-d-une-plateforme-electronique 

  The  FPS  Economy:  https://economie.fgov.be/fr/themes/entreprises/economie-

durable/economie-collaborative [05/03/18] 

  The  Shift  (2017).  Green  Deal  Shared  Mobility:  https://theshift.be/en/our-

projects/planet/green-deal-shared-mobility  

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Belgium – Vertical themes 

151 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelBETRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNoBrusselsNoWalloniaNoFlandersNoBrusselsYesWalloniaYesFlandersYesBrusselsYesWalloniaYesFlandersYesBrusselsYesWalloniaYesFlandersYesBrusselsNoWalloniaNoFlandersNoBrusselsNoWalloniaNoFlandersNoBrusselsPartiallyWalloniaPartiallyFlandersPartiallyBrusselsNoWalloniaNoFlandersNoBrusselsYesWalloniaYesFlandersYesBrusselsNoWalloniaNoFlandersNoBrusselsNoWalloniaNoFlandersNoBrusselsYesWalloniaYesFlandersNo11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliation12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliation13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirements8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictions10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictions5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinction2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislation3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirements4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirements 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

152 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelBEACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNationalBrusselsYesWalloniaYesFlandersYesNationalYesBrusselsYesWalloniaYesFlandersYesNationalNoBrusselsYesWalloniaN/AFlandersNo NationalBrusselsYesWalloniaYesFlandersYesNationalBrusselsYesWalloniaN/AFlandersYesNationalBrusselsNoWalloniaNoFlandersNoNationalBrusselsN/AWalloniaN/AFlandersNoNationalBrusselsN/AWalloniaNoFlandersNoNationalBrusselsNoWalloniaNoFlandersNoNationalBrusselsNoWalloniaNoFlandersYesNationalYesBrusselsYesWalloniaYesFlandersYes12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

153 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelBEFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalYes4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational906. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational907. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational25008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational25009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalNo14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Belgium – Horizontal themes 

154 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelBEPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalYes2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalPartially8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalPartially2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalPartially3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalYes4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalPartially5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalYesALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalNo2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalPartially3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalPartially 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Bulgaria  

Performance overview 

Overview 
Bulgaria ranks 28 out 28 EU countries line-up in respect of the sharing economy placing 
the country at the bottom of the ranking. The collaborative economy is currently regulated 
inside existing applicable legislation. The scorecard implies that the applicable legislation 
impedes the development of transport and financial services in the collaborative economy. 
Moreover,  the  scorecard  makes  the  indicators  on  administration  and  business  support 
noticeable.  The  study  finds  that  there  is  no  business  support  and  only  little  guidance 
directed towards the sharing economy in Bulgaria.  

Accommodation 

Bulgaria ranks 13 out of the 28 EU countries when it comes to accommodation services in 
the collaborative economy. There is no sector-specific legislation for P2P accommodation 
services,  making  it  difficult  for  peers  to  navigate  inside  the  applicable  legislation. 
Nevertheless, the applicable legislation provides some latitude to peers wanting to sublet 
their property.  

Peer  providers  providing  short-term  accommodation  services  systematically  and 
consistently  against  remuneration  are  part  of  the  tourism  sector.  At  national  level,  the 
main legislation setting out a regulatory framework for the collaborative accommodation 
sector is the Tourism Act. Consequently, peer providers must register their activity with a 
regulatory authority since short-term accommodation service is part of the Tourism Act, 
which  states  that  accommodation  services  may  only  be  provided  by  classified 
accommodation  establishments.  In  general,  the  applicable  legislation  means  that  peer 
providers must register as merchants to provide accommodation services. However, there 
is one relevant exception to the general rule. Peer providers subletting a guest room or a 
guest house are not required to register as a merchant if the guest room/house is part of 
where the peer provider lives (according to official address registration). Contrary to the 
applicable legislation, the interviewed expert from the European Consumer Centre (ECC) 
believed  that  peer  providers  are  not  subject  to  any  type  of  registration.  However,  the 

155 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections580501002550 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

interviewed  peers  say  they  must  register  with  their  local  municipalities.  Thus,  the 
registration requirements for peer providers appear to be unclear in Bulgarian.  

Bulgarian  legislation  does  not  employ  an  approach  to  dividing  accommodation  service 
providers  into  ‘peers’  and  ‘professionals’,  but  in  principle,  the  distinction  between  non-
merchants and merchants in many aspects corresponds to the distinction between peers 
and  professionals.  If  a  peer  provider  sublets  short-term  accommodation  consistently 
against remuneration this would be considered a professional service that will result in the 
peer provider being given  status as a merchant.  If this  is the case, the merchant must 
comply with the special regulatory regime intended for these legal subjects (e.g. health 
and safety requirements). On the other hand, if a peer provider offers remunerated short-
term accommodation services but not ‘as a business’ (i.e. systematically and consistently), 
he  or  she  will  not  be  considered  a  merchant  and  will  not  be  subject  to  the  complex 
regulatory regime and control.  

Transport 

Bulgaria  ranks  26  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  concerning  transport  in  the  collaborative 
economy.  While  there  is  clear  legislation  concerning  taxi  services  in  Bulgaria,  other 
alternatives such as private hire cars, rental cars and ride-sharing services are not part of 
the legislation.  

Ride-hailing:  According  to  Bulgarian  legislation  if  the  driver  receives  compensation, 
regardless of amount and/or grounds, this is considered to be ‘public carriage’ (Carriage 
by Road Act). This definition applies regardless of the construction of the vehicle, number 
of seats, nature or frequency of the ride-hailing service. Consequently, VTC services may 
only be performed by professional drivers. 

P2P  car-sharing  and  P2P  ride-sharing  are  allowed  without  an  authorisation  or 
professional licence if the remuneration for the activity corresponds to the running costs 
of operating the vehicle according to the interviewed expert and peers. Car-sharing and 
ride-sharing would be considered to be public carriage if money is exchanged to make a 
profit.  In such a case,  a  licence is needed otherwise it would be an illegal service. Car-
sharing and ride-sharing are widely discussed due to the lack of specific sector legislation 
in  Bulgaria.  The  public  debate  is  ongoing  mainly  due  to  the  entry  of  many  start-up 
enterprises and online platforms offering car-sharing/ride-sharing services in the market. 
Thus,  legislative  amendments  may  be  proposed  regarding  the  transport  sector  in  the 
collaborative economy.  

Finance 

Concerning the finance sector, Bulgaria ranks 23 out of the 28 EU countries. There is no 
bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment or P2P lending. P2P equity investment 
and P2P lending are regulated inside the applicable legislation. This can be an obstacle for 
platforms, since it makes it difficult for collaborative finance platforms to navigate within 
the  applicable  legislation.  Neither  P2P  equity  investment  nor  P2P  lending  is  prohibited. 

156 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements27038001000Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections2950000100100 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Moreover, Bulgarian legislation does not provide a licensing process for either P2P equity 
investment or P2P lending. However, the interviewed platform states that it is not clear if 
a P2P lending platform must have a non-banking financial institution registration with the 
Bulgarian National Bank. Thus, many platforms apply for it to ‘be on the safe side’.  

Administration 

Bulgaria is almost at the bottom compared to other EU Member States regarding indicators 
for  administration.  The  government  has  neither  issued  guidance  on  setting  up  a 
collaborative  platform  nor  are  there  any  initiatives  to  support  the  development  of  the 
collaborative economy, which ranks Bulgaria 25 on the administration score 

However, the government is taking ‘baby steps’ towards the collaborative economy. At a 
press  conference  at  the  end  of  January  2017,  the  chairman  of  the  Commission  for 
Consumer Protection announced that they are working on draft legislation to regulate the 
collaborative economy, which they intend to propose to the Parliament.  

Business support 

Bulgaria has one of the lowest scores on the indicators for business support since no public 
support services exist for collaborative economy start-ups, and neither financial nor non-
financial support is given to the platforms.  

Alignment 

Bulgaria ranks 17 out of the 28 EU countries when it comes to alignment. Regulations on 
accommodation  and  financial  services  are  mainly  centralised  in  Bulgaria,  whereas 
regulations  in  the  transport  area  may  vary  across  municipalities  since  they  are  self-
governing.  Nevertheless,  most  of  the  interviewed  peers  are  not  aware  of  municipalities 
applying different legislation. 

157 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making13002525Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment000000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector505050 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Academic Policy expert, European Consumer Centre (ECC) [Horizontal] 
  Adviser, Klear [Finance] 
  CEO, CarAmigo [Transport]   
  Peer, AirBnB and Hotel Apartments Bulgaria [Accommodation]   
  Peer, Spodeleno Patuvane [Transport] 
  Policy expert, Aktini Potrebiteli [Horizontal] 

Written sources 

  Administrative Procedure Code published in State Gazette No. 30/11.04.2006, last 

amended State Gazette Issue No. 63/04.08.2017 

  Carriage by Road Act published in State Gazette No. 82/17.09.1999, last amended 

State Gazette Issue No. 58/18.07.2017 

  Competition  Protection  Commission  Decision  No.  251/18.03.2015,  CPC  case  No. 

1221/2014 

  Competition Protection Commission Decision No. 390/08.04.2015 
  Competition  Protection  Commission  Decision  No.  540/30.06.2015  for  breaching 

competition rules 

  Competition  Protection  Commission  Decision  No.  553/17.07.2007,  CPC  and 

Decision No. 731/25.06.2010 

  Collaborative economy - the new challenge in front of the modern society, Dimitar 

Margaritov, Consumer Protection Committee. Available at:  
https://kzp.bg/data/content/u/8/upload/4.%20Spodelenata%20ikonomika.pdf 
  Commerce Act published in State Gazette issue No. 2/05.12.1950, last amended 

State Gazette Issue No. 62/01.08.2017 

  Conference organized by the Digital National Coalition (DNA) and the Parliamentary 
Committee on Transport, IT and messaging on .Shared Economy, a Single Digital 
Market  and  Rules  in  the  Economy  of  Modern  Times.,  28/06/2016  Information 
available at: https://www.digitalalliance.bg/single-post/2016/06/29/ 

  Criminal  Procedure  Code  published  in  State  Gazette  No.  86/28.10.2005,  last 

amended State Gazette Issue No. 63/04.08.2017 

  Law  on  Administrative  Violations  and  Sanctions  published  in  State  Gazette  No. 

92/28.11.1969, last amended State Gazette Issue No. 63/04.08.2017 

  Obligations and Contracts Act published in State Gazette No. 48/18.07.1991, last 

amended State Gazette Issue No. 50/30.05.2008 

  Ordinance No. 34 of 06/12/1999 on the taxi transport of passenger, published in 

State Gazette Issue No. 109/14.12.1999, as amended time to time. 

  Press  conference  of  the  Commission  for  Consumer  Protection  on  ‘The  consumer 
2016  –  results,  analyses  and  tendencies.  The  priorities  in  the  activity  of  the 
Commission for Consumer Protection for 2017’, 26/01/2017. Information available 
at: https://kzp.bg/novini/prez-minalata-godina-kzp-postavi-akcent-varhu-borbata 
-s-neloyalnite-targovski-praktiki   

  Spatial  Development  Act  published  in  Stage  Gazette  No.  1/02.01.2001,  last 

amended State Gazette Issue No. 63/04.08.2017 

  Supreme Administrative Court Ruling No. 9696/23.09.2015 
  Tourism  Act  published  in  Stage  Gazette  No.  30/26.03.2013,  last  amended  State 

Gazette Issue No. 58/18.07.2017 

  Universita  Commerciale  Luigi  Bocconi  CERRTeT,  Wavestone  (2017).  Study  on 
passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and ride-sharing in the EU., Annex 
III Country Reports: Bulgaria 

  VVA, Spark (2017). Study on the Assessment of the Regulatory Aspects Affecting 
the Collaborative Economy in the Tourism Accommodation Sector in the 28 Member 
States. Research questionnaire: Bulgaria, p. 6, 8, 9, 13 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Bulgaria – Vertical themes 

159 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelBGTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationSofiaNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsSofiaNo4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsSofiaPartially5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsSofiaPartially6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsSofiaPartially7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionSofiaNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionSofiaNo9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsSofiaNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsSofiaNo11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationSofiaNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationSofiaNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsSofiaYes 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

160 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelBGACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalYes4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalPartially5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?InspectionsNationalPartiallyQuestionsIndicatorsLevelBGFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3656. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3657. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalNo14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalNo 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Bulgaria – Horizontal themes 

161 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelBGPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalNo3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalPartially7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalPartiallyBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalNo3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalNo5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalPartially2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalYes3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNoStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Croatia 

Performance overview 

Overview 
Croatia ranks number 27 compared to the other 28 EU countries in respect of the sharing 
economy because Croatia has no definition of the collaborative economy and no regulatory 
framework  governing  the  collaborative  economy  in  respect  of  the  three  sectors  of  this 
study.  Currently,  these  sectors  are  governed  under  legislation  that is  not  suited  to  P2P 
activities. Thus, there is also no business support and very little guidance directed at the 
sharing  economy.  This  results  in  issues  regarding  the  application  of  the  existing  legal 
framework.  

Accommodation 

Croatia ranks 19 out of the 28 EU countries concerning accommodation in the collaborative 
economy  because  there  is  no  specific  legislation  covering  the  accommodation  sector  in 
Croatia. The accommodation sector in the collaborative economy is governed by a wide 
range of regulations that primarily refer to general hospitality activities. However, it should 
be  noted  that  the  applicable  legislation  is  not  interpreted  in  the  framework  of  the 
collaborative  economy.  As  a  result,  there  are  no  explicit  requirements  related  to  peer 
providers  providing  accommodation  services,  but  peer  providers  must  still  adhere  to 
certain  applicable  rules  related  to  hospitality  services.  In  general,  peer  providers  are 
required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to subletting. However, there is no 
direct requirement for peer providers to obtain approval from their building association or 
other residents in their building prior to subletting. 

In  general,  the  Hospitality  Act  differentiates  between  legal  entities  providing  hospitality 
and  catering  services  and  natural  persons  providing  such  services  in  households.  The 
Croatian Hospitality Act refers to a specific service called Private Accommodation Service 
that  may  be  provided  by  private  individuals.  Providers  must  fulfil  several  regulatory 
requirements, including: 

 
 
 

obtaining official permission to provide private accommodation; 
meeting technical requirements; and  
being categorised.  

162 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections5003380750 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

These requirements are lower than standard accommodation services, but still appear to 
be unsuitable for individuals who would like to let their accommodation once a year only. 
Peer  providers  can  be  subject  to  inspection  from  the  authorities  if  they  conduct 
accommodation  activities  without  fulfilling  the  requirements.  Peer  providers  conducting 
unauthorised activities may face a fine ranging between EUR 330 – EUR 1 330. There is a 
threshold  between  peers  and  professionals  in  Croatia.  The  threshold  is  defined  by  the 
number  of  rooms.  Peers  can  only  sublet  10  rooms  with  a  maximum  of  20  beds,  not 
including extra beds in the household.  

It is worth mentioning that accommodation services in private homes make up the largest 
tourist capacity of Croatia. Currently, more beds are in private homes than in hotels and 
other places. Hence, public authorities need to pay great attention to this when developing 
regulations  separating  P2P  providers  from  professional  providers  to  avoid  ruining  the 
market for professional accommodation service providers.  

Transport 

Croatia  ranks  24  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  concerning  transport  in  the  collaborative 
economy since current regulations make it difficult for peers to provide ride-hailing.  

Ride-sharing: Croatia has no specific definition of ride-sharing services either at national 
or at local level. Therefore, ride-sharing is not regulated. Thus, peer providers are allowed 
to  offer  ride-sharing  services  without  obtaining  authorisation  or  a  professional  licence 
applicable to taxi services. 

Ride-hailing:  Non-professional  drivers  are  not  allowed  to  provide  private  transport 
services  (VTC)  via  platforms  for  remuneration.  Peers  providing  ride-hailing  must  obtain 
authorisation or professional licences applicable to taxi services. According to the current 
legislation, the local government is entitled to determine the price of taxi transport and 
the number of taxi licences issued, and this may therefore vary depending on the area.  

Uber is currently subject to a case in the Croatian courts where the courts must assess 
whether  Uber  is  a  taxi  service  or  an  online  platform.  Uber  describes  their  services  as 
renting out a car together with a driver as defined in Article 60 of the Road Transportation 
Act. Uber argues that they are therefore exempt from meeting the requirements applicable 
to taxi services. 

Finance 

Croatia ranks 26 out of the 28 EU countries concerning P2P equity investment and P2P 
lending  because  there  is  no  bespoke  regime  regulating  P2P  equity investments  or  P2P 
lending in Croatia. However, P2P equity investments and P2P lending could, in some cases, 
be  subject  to  regulatory  requirements  related  to  financial  services  such  as  covering 
business  activities  of  alternative  funds,  prospectus,  MiFID  (Markets  in  Financial 
Instruments Directive), consumer protection, etc., although these matters are covered on 

163 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements352550001000Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections2050NA0000 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

a  case-by-case  basis.  There  are  no  specific  rules  or  answers  available  to  the  platform 
owners  and  it  may  therefore  be  useful  for  platform  owners  to  seek  guidance  from  the 
‘HANFA documents’ on the Croatian Financial Services Supervisory Agency website. Since 
there is no specific guidance for platform owners, it is hard for platform owners to navigate 
inside the applicable legislation. Nevertheless, if a platform has been given a licence from 
the  authorities,  it  will  become  subject  to  regulatory  requirements.  In  general,  the 
authorities have 3 months to decide on issuing a licence.  

Administration 

Croatia is placed at the bottom concerning administration. None of the people involved in 
the collaborative economy in Croatia are aware of any government documents or guidance 
on the collaborative economy. Despite this, peers can address their queries to  the same 
bodies  as  any  other  service  provider.  Nevertheless,  the  government  is  working  on 
guidance  for  the  collaborative  economy,  especially  on  taxation.  The  Tax  Authority  is 
preparing guidance on taxation.  

Business support 

Croatia  is  also  placed  at  the  bottom  concerning  business  support  in  the  collaborative 
economy  because  there  is  no  business  support  in  Croatia  directed  specifically  at  the 
sharing economy. No experts or suppliers in the P2P sectors are aware if any such business 
support exists.  

The  Croatian  government  has  introduced  a  tax  allowance  specifically  for  peers  in  the 
collaborative economy. 

A  tax  simplification  for  the  short-term  accommodation  sector  has  been  introduced.  For 
peer  providers  who  do  not  provide  more  than  20  beds  in  a  flat  or  a  holiday  house,  or, 
alternatively, more than 10 accommodation units, there is a lump sum tax of HRK 300 per 
bed or HRK 350 per accommodation unit.  

Alignment 

When  it  comes  to  alignment,  Croatia  ranks  11  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  because  the 
legislation applies equally in all regions and cities in Croatia. Regions or cities do not have 
separate regulations for P2P accommodation service providers.  

164 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making601700Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment170000100Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector8350100 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Expert, Association of hospitality workers [Accommodation] 
  Expert, Brodoto, Crowdfunding Academy [Finance] 
  Expert, HANFA [Finance] 
  Peer provider, Entrepreneur [Accommodation] 
  Peer provider, Entrepreneur [Accommodation] 

Written sources 

  Current State of Crowdfunding in Europe: An Overview of the Crowdfunding 

Industry in more than 25 Countries: Trends, Volumes & Regulations. 
  Hospitality and Catering Industry Act, (OG no. 85/2015 and 121/2016)  
  Hospitality Services in a household Ordinance (OG 9/2016, 54/2016, 61/2016) 
Jutarnji.hr: https://www.jutarnji.hr/biznis/tvrtke/dok-radna-grupa-ministra-
 
butkovica-smislja-model-po-kojem-bi-ubuduce-trebao-poslovati-i-uber-hrvatska-
obrtnicka-komora-tuzila-uber-croatia-sudu/5578271/ 

  Law on Croatian financial services supervisory agency (OG 140/05, 12/12) 
  Law on the Alternative Investment funds (OG 16/2013 and 143/2014) 
  Law on Tourist Inspection (OG 19/14) 
  Several public appearances of Minister for transport of the Republic of Croatia 

(http://www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/vlada-rh-odgovorila-na-pitanje-u-uberu-
ministarstvo-mora-prometa-i-infrastukture-utvrdilo-je-da-uber-prijevoz-putnika-
obavlja-na-nezakonit-nacin/5742471/  and others) 

  Spark Legal network, VVA (2017) RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE Study on the 

Assessment of the Regulatory Aspects Affecting the Collaborative Economy in the 
Tourism Accommodation Sector, Country: Croatia. European Commission - 
Directorate General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG 
GROW). 

  The Law on Providing Tourism Services (OG 68/07, 88/10, 30/14, 89/14, 152/14) 
  Vedriš (2008) Građansko pravo (Civil Law), Narodne novine, Zagreb, 2008, p. 

584.) 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Croatia – Vertical themes 

166 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelHRTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationZagrebPartially3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsZagrebNo4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsZagrebYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsZagrebYes6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsZagrebNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionZagrebNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionZagrebNo9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsZagrebNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsZagrebNo11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationZagrebNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationZagrebNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsZagrebYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelHRFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNationalN/A6. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNationalN/A7. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNationalN/A8. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNationalN/A9. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalYes14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

167 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelHRACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNationalYesZagrebYesNationalYesZagrebYesNationalNoZagrebNoNationalYesZagrebYesNationalYesZagrebYesNationalYesZagrebYesNationalNoZagrebNoNationalNoZagrebNoNationalPartiallyZagrebPartiallyNationalYesZagrebYesNationalYesZagrebYes12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their Registrations, authorisations, notifications 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Croatia – Horizontal themes 

168 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelHRPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalNo3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalNoBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalNo3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalNo5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalYesALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalPartially2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Cyprus  

Performance overview 

Overview 
The accommodation sector in the Cypriot collaborative economy scores high. There is no 
specific regulatory framework for accommodation, which gives peer providers freedom to 
act, and this may explain the high score. The opposite is seen in the transport and finance 
sectors, which are much more regulated resulting in a low score. The overall regulatory 
framework  of  the  collaborative  economy  is  still  under  examination  by  the  relevant 
authorities in Cyprus, and the current legislation may therefore change significantly in the 
future.  

Accommodation 

Cyprus  ranks  9  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  in  relation  to  the  regulations  affecting 
collaborative accommodation service. There is no regulation at national level that sets a 
specific  regulatory  framework  for  accommodation  in  the  collaborative  economy.  The 
applicable  legislation  for  letting  property  does  not  forbid  part-renting.  However,  part-
renting is almost non-existent since peers own the small houses or flats available for rent. 
Mostly,  whole  properties  are  let.  Because  of  the  non-specific  framework  peer  providers 
have some latitude when it comes to letting their properties. For instance, peer providers 
are  not  required  to  register  with  or  notify  a  regulatory  authority  prior  to  letting  their 
property,  but  they  are  required  to  have  an  approval  letter  from  their  landlord  prior  to 
letting  their  property.  Peer  providers  can  sublet  their  primary  as  well  as  secondary 
residences,  without  being  present  in  the  property,  but  they  must  adhere  to  health  and 
safety requirement, etc., even when letting takes place on an occasional basis. However, 
they are not subject to inspections from the public authorities. Finally, in the absence of 
legislation  no  threshold  exists  to  distinguish  between  peer  and  professional  activities. 
Therefore, peers can sublet as many assets as their wish, since there is no restriction on 
the size or the number of assets that can be let.  

169 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections620671000100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Transport 

Cyprus  is  placed  at  the  bottom  compared  to  other  EU  Member  States  regarding 
transportation in the collaborative economy. There is no definition of P2P car-sharing or 
P2P ride-sharing, and there is no national legislation concerning this issue. Nevertheless, 
the applicable legislation makes it hard for collaborative transportation services to evolve 
in Cyprus. As a result, Cyprus ranks 28 out 28 EU countries on the transport score. 

Car-sharing: The existing legislation does not provide any guidelines on P2P car-sharing, 
but  the  taxi industry  generally  requires  drivers  to  hold  a  professional  licence.  Providers 
must take exams and undergo health checks to obtain a professional licence. 

Ride-hailing: Non-professional drivers are not allowed to provide private transport (VTC) 
services  via  platforms  for  remuneration.  Drivers  can  only  provide  this  type  of  business 
after having been granted the required business approval. The number of taxi licences is 
restricted due to the implementation of the ‘Piazza taxi system’ in local municipal areas 
(The  ‘Piazza  taxi  system’  is  a  system  where  taxis  can  park  and  pick  up  passenger  in 
designated areas). Lastly, taxi fares are restricted and regulated under local legislation. 
Due  to  the  applicable  legislation,  traditionally  taxis  have  a  clear  competitive  advantage 
compared  to  alternative  transport  services  such  as  car-sharing,  ride-hailing,  and  ride-
sharing. 

Finance 

When it comes to finance in the collaborative economy, Cyprus scores quite low, with the 
country ranking 25 out of 28 EU countries. There is no specific legislation regulating the 
sector. Thus, there is no bespoke regime regulating P2P lending or P2P equity investment 
in Cyprus. P2P equity investment is not prohibited, whereas, P2P lending is prohibited for 
any person. Only licensed credit institutions can engage in the business of taking deposits 
or other repayable funds.  Hence, the development of lending platforms  seems unlikely. 
However, a regulatory framework is underway, but the Cyprus Securities and Exchange 
Commission is still in early negotiations.  

Administration 

Cyprus  ranks  24  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  when  it  comes  to  administration  in  the 
collaborative  economy.  Currently,  neither  national  nor  regional  public  administration 
supports development of the collaborative economy. The overall regulatory framework on 
collaborative  economy  is  still  under  examination  by  the  relevant  authorities.  The 
competent  authorities  in  charge  of  the  accommodation  sector  are  the  Ministry  of 
Commerce and the Cyprus Tourism Organisation. These authorities define the regulatory 
framework for the accommodation sector. The regulatory framework for the finance sector 

170 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements19013001000Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections2125000100100Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making1900075 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

in  the  collaborative  economy  will  be  handled  by  the  Cyprus  Securities  and  Exchange 
Commission. 

Business support 

Cyprus ranks 19 out of the 28 EU countries in relation to business support. Collaborative 
platforms cannot seek financial support from the publicly-funded grant scheme. And there 
are  no  other  types  of  direct  or  indirect  public  financial  support  to  which  collaborative 
platforms  can  apply.  No  public  initiatives  have  been  taken  to  promote  P2P  services. 
However,  public  servants  are  allowed  to  use  collaborative  services  in  their  professional 
capacity, and thus support P2P services indirectly.  

Alignment 

Cyprus  is  placed  medium  concerning  alignment.  Taxi  fares  are  restricted  and  regulated 
regarding  accommodation  apply 
regulations 
legislation,  whereas 
under 
homogenously in the whole country.  

local 

171 

Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment2505010000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector670100 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Staff at the Department of Communications [Horizontal] 
  Staff at the Department of Road Transport, Ministry of Communications [Transport]  
  Senior  Officer,  Coordinator  EU  affairs,  Ministry  of  Commerce  and  Industry 

[Horizontal] 

  Staff at the CTO, Cyprus Tourism Organisation [Accommodation] 
  Director Crowdfunding Cyprus, Anirot Organisation Ltd [Finance]  
  Officer. Internal Market Section, Ministry of Commerce and Industry [Horizontal]  
  Staff at the CTO, Cyprus Tourism Organisation [Accommodation] 
  Peer providers 

Written sources  

  Cyprus Productivity Centre: http://www.kepa.gov.cy/diktiothite/ 
  European  Commission  -  Directorate  General  Internal  Market,  Industry, 
Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  (DG  GROW)  Authors:  Spark  Legal  Network  (April 
2017):  Study  on  the  Assessment  of  the  Regulatory  Aspects  Affecting  the 
Collaborative  Economy  in  the  Tourism  Accommodation  Sector  in  the  28  Member 
States (580/PP/GRO/IMA/15/15111J) 

  Law No. 25(I)/2015 
  Ministry of Commerce website: www.mcit.gov.cy 
  Keane  T.  &  Vgenopoullou  C.  (2015):  Crowdfunding:  An  overview  and  its 

applications for Cyprus. 
  Report on taxi industry 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Cyprus – Vertical themes 

173 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelCYTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationNicosiaNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsNicosiaNo4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsNicosiaNo5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsNicosiaYes6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsNicosiaPartially7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionNicosiaNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNicosiaNo9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsNicosiaNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsNicosiaNo11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationNicosiaNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationNicosiaNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsNicosiaYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelCYFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalYes5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3656. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3657. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalNo14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalNo 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

174 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelCYACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalYes5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?InspectionsNationalNo  
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Cyprus – Horizontal themes 

175 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelCYPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalNo3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalPartially8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalNo3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalPartially4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalNo2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNo 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Czech Republic  

Performance overview 

Overview 
Overall,  the  Czech  Republic  ranks  high  compared  to  the  other  EU  Member  States 
concerning the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy 
since  the  country  has  no  legislation  specifically  regulating  the  three  studied  services  , 
which therefore gives some latitude for people engaging the collaborative economy (i.e. 
accommodation, transport, and finance). Another reason for the medium score is the lack 
of business support where both peer providers and platforms are left to their own devices 
and cannot seek guidance about collaborative activities. However, it is worth mentioning 
that  the  government  is  currently  carrying  out  a  study  on  transportation  and 
accommodation platforms in the new collaborative economy.  

Accommodation 

The Czech Republic ranks 7 out of the 28 EU countries regarding accommodation service 
in  the  collaborative  economy.  There  is  no  bespoke  legislation  governing  P2P 
accommodation services. Consequently, peers have some freedom when subletting, and 
this may explain the high score 

There  is  no  clear  definition  of  P2P  accommodation.  Only,  a  general  definition  regarding 
traditional accommodation service exists. Traditional accommodation service is defined as 
‘accommodation provided in residential buildings, houses or family recreation centres with 
a capacity of up to ten beds and where breakfast is included’.  

In the Czech Republic, peers living permanently in their flat do not need approval from 
their landlord prior to subletting. However, peers who do not live permanently in their flats 
must receive approval from their landlord. Peer providers can sublet their property in two 
ways, if approval is received. Either through a classic renting platform such as Airbnb or 
they can sublet their property on their own as self-employed without the use a platform. 
In both cases, the peer providers are required to inform the Trade License Office about 
their  service  and  obtain  a  licence  from  the  authorities  to  provide  the  accommodation 
service.  Moreover,  peer  providers  subletting  through  a  platform  must  register  their 
guest(s)  in  a  written  contract  and  pay  tax  on  their  activity-generated  income.  Peer 

176 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections65083100500 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

providers  subletting  on  their  own  as  a  self-employed  provider  may  rely  on  an  oral 
agreement with the guest. Self-employed providers must pay tax on their income as well. 
Finally, peer providers are subject to inspections from public authorities.  

Transport 

Even  though  the  Czech  Republic  ranks  3  among  the  28  EU  countries  on  the  transport 
score, the country earns a medium score in this sector. There is currently no definition of 
P2P car-sharing or P2P ride-sharing and no specific regulations for these activities.  

Ride-sharing: Currently,  ride-sharing is just considered a  cost-sharing service and the 
service  is  therefore  likened  to  carpooling.  Therefore,  non-professional  drivers  are  not 
required  to  obtain  a  licence  prior  to  their  activities.  Only  commercial  drivers  and 
transportation entrepreneurs are required to register their services. In addition, only the 
fares for commercial taxi drivers are regulated. Therefore, fares for non-professional VTC 
drives are unrestricted. However, once a ride-sharing operation generates a profit, it stops 
falling into the category of ride-sharing and the same legislation applicable to professional 
activities will apply to it as well. 

Nevertheless, there is no simple threshold in the law. There is a general understanding 
based  on  legal  precedent  of  what  constitutes  ‘business  activity’  –  own  name,  own 
responsibility, with a view to make a profit and on regular basis. As result, the threshold 
between non-for-profit/for profit is assessed on a case-by-case basis (depending on the 
type of business). This means that some services (e.g. UberPOP) define themselves as a 
ride-sharing service (carpooling), while other services (e.g. UberBLACK) must obtain a taxi 
licence.  UberPOP  is  therefore  regulated  by  the  Civil  Code  and  not  subject  to  the 
requirements  that  apply  to  the  taxi  industry,  while  UberBLACK  is  subject  to  the  same 
requirements  as  taxis.  Consequently,  UberBLACK  drivers  are  required  to  obtain  a  taxi 
driving  licence  (tied  to  the  driver),  register  their  vehicle,  and  other  qualitative 
requirements  related  to  taxi  equipment/driver  (clean  criminal  record,  no  drunk  driving, 
and no significant taxi offense in the past three years). Some cities require drivers to pass 
additional tests. The above-mentioned requirements do not exist for ridesharing services 
such as UberPOP. 

P2P  Car-sharing:  P2P  car-sharing  is  considered  to  be  a  rental  service.  Because  the 
activity is for profit, peer providers must follow the Trade Act and obtain a licence. 

Finance 

The Czech Republic ranks 12 out of the 28 EU countries when it comes to finance in the 
collaborative economy. The overall reason is that there are no specific regulations for this 
sector. Currently, the finance sector is evolving inside applicable legislation, which seems 
to exhibit some latitude due to this medium score.  

P2P lending is not specifically regulated in the Czech Republic and there is no specific 
regulation with regards to P2P lending. Currently, P2P lending falls under the regulations 

177 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements622575752510050Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections5050763301000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

of the Consumer Credit Act. P2P lending is assessed by activity – it can be considered to 
be a non-banking credit provider or credit intermediary. The Czech National Bank has 120 
days  to  decide  on  granting  or  refusing  an  application  in  case  a  P2P  lending  platform  is 
considered to be a non-banking provider, and 30 days in case a P2P lending platform is 
considered to be a credit intermediary. The administration fee varies between these two 
types  of  platforms.  It  costs  EUR  200  to  obtain  all  necessary  authorisations/licences  for 
platforms considered to be a credit intermediary, while it costs EUR 2 000 for platforms 
considered  to  be  a  non-banking  provider.  Nevertheless,  both  types  of  platforms  are 
exempt from requirements applicable to banks.  

To operate a P2P equity investment platform, the provider must obtain a licence from 
the Czech National Bank according to Act no. 284/2009. The Czech National Bank has 6 
months to decide on granting or refusing the application. It is quite expensive for platforms 
to  obtain  all  the  necessary  licences.  The  lowest  administrative  fee  for  authorisation 
necessary to run P2P equity investment platform is EUR 400. This is based on an ESMA 
interpretation  of  what  is  necessary  to  obtain  authorisation.  There  is  currently  only  one 
functioning platform (Fundlift), in the Czech Republic. 

Administration 

The Czech Republic ranks among the highest scoring when it comes to administration in 
the collaborative economy. At this point, the government has not issued a public document 
or guidance in relation to setting up a platform. However, the government has published 
a  study  on  transportation  and  accommodation  platforms  regarding  the  rights  and 
obligations  of  P2P  providers  engaging  in  the  P2P  activities.  The  study  also  address  the 
applicable  rules  in  relation  to  employment  and  taxation.  Moreover,  the  Czech  tax 
administration has published information on their website, on how to assess tax obligations 
for peer providers generating an income through P2P services.  

In is also worth mentioning that at the beginning of 2018 Prague City promised to save 
parking  spaces  for  car-sharing  services  to  support  this  service  due  to  environmental 
questions. 

Finally,  there  is  currently  an  ongoing  discussion  about  how  to  adjust  the  Public 
Transportation Act to the collaborative economy. There are two proposals on how to amend 
the  Public  Transportation  Act,  one  setting  up  special  conditions  for  online  transport 
platforms,  allowing  these  to  operate  without  taximeter,  paper-form  contracts  between 
customers  and  providers,  etc.,  and  the  other  imposing  tougher  conditions  on  Uber  and 
putting the service on the level of taxi regulations. 

Business support 

The Czech Republic ranks 19 out of the 28  EU countries, in relation to business support 
because there are no dedicated, publicly funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms. 
Moreover,  there  is  no  direct  or  indirect  public  financial  support  targeting  collaborative 
platforms. There is only financial support for starts-ups. Lastly, other types of non-financial 
support services are not available for platforms or peer providers either.  

178 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making7508310075Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment2525010000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Alignment 

Concerning alignment, the Czech Republic ranks 17 out of the 28  EU countries because 
regulations  are  generally  homogenous  for  the  whole  country  except  P2P  car-sharing 
service, which tends to be more regulated at the municipal level compared to ride-sharing.  

179 

Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector50075 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Director, Zonky [Finance] 
  Stroukal, Academic/Policy expert, Ludwig von Misses Institute [Horizontal] 
  Expansion Manager, Taxify [Transport] 
  Co-founder, Liftago [Transport] 

Written sources  

  4liberty.eu: http://4liberty.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-Regulatory- 
Framework-of-the-Collaborative-Economy-in-Central-and-Eastern-Europe.pdf 

  Act No. 256/2004, on Capital Market Business §34 (4), §7 (2), 30a (4) 
  Act No. 634/2004 on Administrative fee.  
  Association  for  International  Affairs  (2016).  Analyza  vybranych  sektoru  sdilene 

ekonomiky v Ceske republice. Available at:  
https://www.amo.cz/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/amocz_RP_2_2016_web.pdf 

  Civil Code. Act No. 89/2012 §2275, §2275 
  Civil Code. Act No. 89/2012 §420 
  Ekonomika  (2015).  V  Česku  se  rozjíždí  on-line  půjčování  napřímo  a  bez  bank. 

Available at:    
http://ekonomika.idnes.cz/p2p-lending-se-naplno-rozjizdi-v-cesku-d8u-
/ekonomika.aspx?c=A150210_2138278_ekonomika_rny 

  Penize (2014). Spotrebitelske uvery. Available at:  

https://www.penize.cz/spotrebitelske-uvery/293583-lide-lidem-peer-to-peer-
pujcky-snazsi-cesta-k-uveru-i-vyhodna-investice 

  Podnikatel (2016). Jak vydelat na AIRbnb. Available at:   

http://www.podnikatel.cz/clanky/jak-vydelavat-na-airbnb-a-nedostat-se-do-
krizku-se-zakonem/ 

  Prague City Council (2017). Maximum prices of personal taxi services. Available at: 

https://www.google.sk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&
uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwif0MfSsobWAhWK2xoKHbfIA_IQFgg0MAI&url=http%3A%2
F%2Fwww.praha.eu%2Fpublic%2Fd5%2F16%2F55%2F495204_62687_Priloha_t
axi_1.doc&usg=AFQjCNFcXRbFakyf9Krbl_bovthgZyholw 
  Regulating of AirBnb service in Prague (2017). Available at: 

 https://is.muni.cz/th/425741/esf_b/BP_chalupnikova.pdf  

  Road  Transport  Act  (1994).  Available  at:  https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1994-

111 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Czech Republic – Vertical themes 

181 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelCZTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationPraguePartially3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsPragueNo4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsPragueYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsPragueNo6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsPragueNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionPragueYes8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionPraguePartially9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsPragueNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsPraguePartially11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationPragueNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationPragueNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsPraguePartiallyQuestionsIndicatorsLevelCZFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational1806. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational757. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational4008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational11009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalNo14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

182 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelCZACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalPartially5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?InspectionsNationalYes  
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Czech Republic – Horizontal themes 

183 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelCZPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalPartially8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalPartially2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalNo3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalNo2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalPartially3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNoStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Denmark  

Performance overview 

Overview 
The  overall  Danish  performance  for  the  sharing  economy  is  in  the  lower  middle  when 
compared  to  the  EU28.  The  sharing  economy  has  no  separate  legislation,  but  it  is 
considered  an  economic  activity  on  par  with  other  business  models.  Thus,  the  shared 
economy  in  Denmark  is  regulated  under  general  legislation  in  connection  with 
finance.  SKAT  (the  Danish  Customs  and  Tax 
accommodation,  transport  and 
Administration) has web-based guidance for peers that let their flats or cars. P2P finance 
platforms need licences like any other financial business. The Danish Taxi Act was revised 
in 2017 after a long debate on Uber relating to unfair competition, passenger safety and 
tax evasion. The revision aimed to deregulate the taxi market, but at the same time, it 
effectively  excluded  commercial  car-hailing  services  such  as  Uber  from  operating  in 
Denmark. The Danish government has announced initiatives that will promote the sharing 
economy in Denmark.  

Accommodation 

Denmark reaches a score of 18 out of the 28 EU countries. Although no specific Danish 
legislation  mentions  accommodation  services  in  the  collaborative  economy  in  Denmark, 
housing  and  tax  rules  regulate  the  area.  The  general  legislation  regulates  all  private 
individuals  who  sublet  a  room,  their  flat  or  a  vacation  home.  There  are  general  tax 
regulations  for  subletting  as  well  as  rental  and  housing  regulations,  and  the  same 
regulations also apply to peer providers. The subletting rules are complicated and depend 
on the type of accommodation as well  as ownership. There is no clear definition of P2P 
transactions and no requirements to register or obtain authorisations from the authorities. 
Peer providers in rented dwellings may need to get permission from the property owner 
or  building  association  before  subletting.  In  some  areas  of  Denmark,  the  local  Housing 
Control Act stipulates that owners must live in their dwelling for at least 180 days a year. 
The authorities do not make inspections, but the rent control board may intercede in some 
cases of conflict. 

Transport 

184 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections54067607550 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Denmark  scores  18  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  in  relation  to  the  transport  sector.  In 
Denmark ride- and car-sharing is not defined in the legislation, but both are legal as long 
it is  a  matter  of  cost  sharing  and  not  a  professional  business  for  peers.  A  platform  like 
GoMore  (https://gomore.dk/  )  offers  both  ride-sharing  and  car-sharing.  New  legislation 
has made it illegal for car-hailing platforms such as Uber to operate in Denmark. 

P2P ride-sharing is defined clearly in the Danish 2017 Taxi Act where transportation of 
persons is defined as occupational driving if the payment for the ride exceeds the costs 
associated with operating the car (such as gasoline, service, and tolls). If the price does 
not  exceed  expenses,  it  is  deemed  to  be  ‘ride-sharing’.  The  legislation  only  allows 
professional/licenced  drivers  to  provide  transport  via  platforms  for  remuneration.  From 
2017-2020, 500 new licences can be issued annually by the Danish Transport Authority, 
and  from  2020  the  number  of  taxis  will  not  be  restricted.  A  new  fare  system  is  under 
development. Every provider holding a universal licence must be affiliated with a so-called 
‘Kørselskontor’ - the equivalent to a dispatch centre. With the modernisation of the Danish 
Taxi Act (Regeringen 2017) drivers may not have any debts to public authorities and they 
may not have been declared bankrupt. Furthermore, they are required to have a certain 
capital base, i.e. DKK 40 000 for their  first  registered vehicle and  DKK 20 000  for each 
new vehicle after that (Regeringen 2017, Section 1-3). They are also required to complete 
and pass  a driver’s training programme (Regeringen 2017, Section 3) and have certain 
equipment in the car, such as a fare meter and seat sensors (Regeringen 2017, Section 
4). 

P2P car-sharing is not defined in national legislation. Danish legislation only concerns 
car rental businesses in general. P2P car-sharing is allowed on an occasional basis and a 
platform like GoMore offers P2P car-sharing in Denmark. 

Finance 

Danish finance legislation has no specific regulations towards P2P or exemptions for P2P 
equity investment or lending, but the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (Danish FSA) 
has issued a clarification of the general regulation to help companies and platforms that 
want to participate in P2P equity investment to understand the concept better. Thus, the 
Danish indicators are in the middle of the EU28. 

P2P lending is legal in Denmark if the lender/platform has a licence from the Danish FSA. 
The Danish FSA has 6 months to decide on granting or refusing an application. If a lending 
platform  or  an  investment  platform  receives  a  licence  it  must  pay  an  annual  fee  to  the 
Danish FSA. A prospectus must be prepared if the securities exceed EUR 1m. The Danish 
FSA must approve the prospectus. No Danish P2P platforms have reached such a level yet. 

185 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements4225100252500Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections48508250000 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Administration 

Concerning  administration,  Denmark  scores  3  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  due  to  a  high 
level of guidance for peers and platforms. The Danish government has issued a guidance 
on  crowdfunding  (the  Danish  FSA)  and  taxes  in  relation  to  crowdfunding  (SKAT).  SKAT 
also has web-based information on tax reporting when letting a property or room (SKAT 
2017). Moreover, SKAT has provided some information about car-sharing and the tax rules 
applying  to  this  (SKAT  2016).  In  addition,  a  government  website  has  been  launched 
dealing  specifically  with  questions  from  peers  regarding  collaborative  activities.  On  this 
site, peers can also receive guidance on the applicability of the national employment rules 
(deleokonomi.dk). 

The Danish Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs has conducted a mapping 
of sharing economy platforms in Denmark. The mapping is part of a strategy regarding 
collaborative  services  published  in  October  2017.  The  ‘Strategy  for  economic  growth 
through the collaborative economy’ aims to increase clarity about P2P services, so Danes 
can choose platforms safely knowing that the services take place within the limits of the 
legislation.  Furthermore,  the  Danish  Ministry  of  Industry,  Business  and  Financial  Affairs 
has  conducted  a  study  regarding  crowdfunding  to  study  the  possibilities  of  promoting 
crowdfunding in Denmark, including clarifying regulatory challenges in this area.  

Business support 

When it comes to business support in the collaborative economy, Denmark scores 19 out 
of  the  28  EU  countries.  Any  start-up  company  can  receive  advice  from  the  Danish 
authorities, but there is no service specifically targeting collaborative platforms.  

Alignment 

Concerning alignment, Denmark ranks 1 out of the 28 EU countries since legislation applies 
equally in all regions and cities in Denmark. 

186 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making751001005050Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment2525010000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector100100100 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  CEO, Lendino [Finance]  
  Provider, Airbnb [Accommodation]  
  CEO, Findaroomate [Accommodation]  
  CEO, Mover [Transport]  
  Head of department - Tourism and Experience economy, Confederation of Danish 

Industry [Accommodation]  

  Business  Policy  Consultant  at  the  Confederation  of  Danish  Enterprise  and  board 
member at Danish Crowdfunding Association, The Confederation of Danish Industry 
[Finance]  

Written sources 

  Erhvervsministeriet.dk available at   

http://em.dk/nyheder/2017/01-10-platformsokonomi  [25/08/17] 

  Erhvervsministeriet.dk  available  at  http://em.dk/publikationer/2015/15-05-08-

rapport-om-crowdfunding  [28/08/17] 

  Erhvervsministeriet.dk available at:  

https://www.regeringen.dk/publikationer-og-aftaletekster/strategi-for-vaekst-
gennem-deleoekonomi/  [12/12/17] 

  Finanstilsynet (2017). ‘Alternative finansieringsformer: Crowdfunding og peer-to-
låneformidling’.  Available  at  https://www.finanstilsynet.dk/da/Tal-og-

peer 
fakta/Rapporter/2013/Alternative-finansieringsformer-crowdfunding-peer-to-
peer-laaneformidling.aspx  [28/08/17]  

  Finanstilsynet (FSA). Accessed on 30/08/17.  

https://www.finanstilsynet.dk/da/Ansoeg-og-Indberet/Soeg-om-tilladelse-
mv/Ansoeg/Ansoegning-Tilladelse-Betalingsinstitut.  

  Regeringen (2017). Modernisering af taxiloven. Accessed on 18/08/2017. 

https://www.regeringen.dk/media/2910/aftaletekst-taxiaftale.pdf   

  Rental Act, 2016. Accessed on 21/08/17.   

https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/r0710.aspx?id=173642.m-crowdfunding 
[28/08/17] 

  SKAT  (2016).  ‘Lejlighedsvis  biludlejning  og  samkørsel  mv.  -  styresignal’ 
(Transport).  Available  at  http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oId=2236667&vId=0 
[06/09/2017]  

  SKAT (2017). ‘Crowdfunding’. Available at  

https://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oId=2234858 [30/08/17] 

  SKAT.dk  ‘Du  udlejer  et  værelse  eller  en  bolig  en  del  af  året’  (Accommodation) 

available at http://skat.dk/skat.aspx?oid=2234798  [07/09/17] 

  SKAT (2017). ‘Crowdfunding’. Available at  

https://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oId=2234858 [30/08/17]  
  Startvaekst.dk. Accessed on 28/08/17. https://hjaelp.virk.dk/.  
  Tax rules (SKAT). Accessed on 16/08/2017.  

http://skat.dk/skat.aspx?oid=2234798 

  Transportministeriet (2013). Bekendtgørelse af lov om taxikørsel m.v. LBK nr 107 

af 30/01/2013. Accessed on 18/08/2018.   
https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/r0710.aspx?id=143491  

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Denmark – Vertical themes 

188 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelDKTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalPartially2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationCopenhagenNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsCopenhagenYes4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsCopenhagenYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsCopenhagenNo6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsCopenhagenNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionCopenhagenNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionCopenhagenPartially9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsCopenhagenNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsCopenhagenPartially11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationCopenhagenYes12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationCopenhagenYes13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsCopenhagenYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelDKFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational1806. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational907. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational08. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational09. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalYes14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

189 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelDKACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalPartially5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalPartially6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalPartially7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalPartially8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?InspectionsNationalPartially  
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Denmark – Horizontal themes 

190 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelDKPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalYes2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalPartially3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNoStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Estonia  

Performance overview 

Overview 
The collaborative economy in Estonia is evolving. However, the collaborative economy is 
developing inside current regulations that are not geared to this new form of economy. 
Even though the collaborative economy is developing inside the current regulations both 
the accommodation and transport sectors score quite high. The overall reason is that the 
current regulations gives peers some latitude when engaging in the P2P services, and this 
may  explain  the  overall  score  of  7  compared  to  the  other  EU28  countries.  The  finance 
sector scores low since financial P2P transactions involve registration with ‘The Financial 
Supervision Authority’, which may hamper the development of financial P2P transactions.  

Accommodation 

Estonia is placed among the top-ten EU countries on the accommodation score. Estonia 
earns this high score since peers are not subject to registration requirements. There are 
no specific regulations regarding accommodation services in the collaborative  economy. 
Currently, accommodation service provision can be divided into two broad categories in 
the Estonian legal system: 

  providing accommodation service as an economic and professional activity; and 
letting property outside the scope of an economic and professional activity.  
 

In the latter, accommodation service can be regarded as letting of property, and in this 
case, it is regulated by the provisions of the Estonian Law of Obligations Act. There are no 
authorisation,  licence,  or  registration  requirements  for  peer  providers.  Peer  providers 
neither need to register nor are they obliged to notify a regulatory authority prior to letting 
their property. However, peer providers must notify their landlord before subletting their 
property.  

Peer providers are not obliged to be present in the property they are letting, and they are 
not  obliged  to  meet  the  health  and  safety  requirements  to  which  professionals  must 
adhere. However, if the letting of accommodation turns into a permanent financial activity, 

191 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections620671000100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

they  must  set  up  a  company  or  register  as  self-employed  and  follow  the  applicable 
legislation. 

Transport 

Estonia  achieves  one  of  the  highest  scores  concerning  transport  in  the  collaborative 
economy. Estonia ranks 1 out of 28 EU countries since passenger carrier service provided 
for free is allowed and does not require any authorisation or professional licence in Estonia.  

P2P ride-sharing (shared costs) is covered through negation under the Public Transport 
Act. The carriage of passengers using an automobile is not deemed to be a taxi service if:  

a)  the carrier does it on a route planned for personal purposes, where the destination 

is planned by the driver; and  

b)  where the aim of carriage is not to generate an income (only to cover costs). 

The Act on Amendments to the Public Transport Act, the Traffic Act and the State Fees Act 
(188 SE)  stipulates that P2P  services  can be provided by  self-employed persons if they 
comply with the requirements of good reputation, such as the provider not having been 
convicted  of a  criminal offence or misdemeanour such as driving under the influence of 
alcohol  or  illegal  substances.  Moreover,  the  applicant  must  also  have  good  financial 
standing. The legal and administrative requirements are designed in a way that everyone 
complying  with  the  requirements  may  provide  transport  services  via  a  platform  or 
remuneration. The driver must have a service provider card and the car must have vehicle 
card. This is required for both taxis and P2P services. Lastly, there is no threshold between 
peer and professional providers as such and the requirements are the same for peers and 
professionals.  

The  number  of  private  hire  vehicle  licences  are  not  restricted  in  the  main  governing 
regulation, i.e. the Public Transport Act. In addition, municipal authorities, such as Tallinn, 
do not impose quantitative restrictions on licences. 

P2P car-sharing is not defined in the national legislation.  

Finance 

Estonia  ranks  21  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  concerning  finance  in  the  collaborative 
economy.  P2P  equity  funding  and  P2P  lending  are  regulated  in  Estonia.  Both  platforms 
must  register  their  activities  with  ‘The  Financial  Supervision  Authority’.  The  registration 
involves a lot of work and because of this Estonia scores low. 

P2P  Equity  funding:  There  is  no  bespoke  regime  regulating  P2P  equity  investment  in 
Estonia. If a P2P platform offers transferrable securities, or its operator acts as a securities 
broker,  the  platform  may  be  deemed  to  provide  investment  services  in  the  meaning  of 

192 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements777510075501000Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections3050540000 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Securities  Market  Act  of  Estonia.  In  this  case,  it  will  have  to  obtain  an  investment  firm 
licence and will be subject to the requirements of the act. 

If a P2P equity investment platform applies for a licence to operate as an investment firm, 
the Financial Supervision Authority will make a decision on issuing or refusing to issue an 
activity  licence  within  two  months  after  receipt  of  all  the  necessary  information  and 
documents, but not later than six months after receipt of the application for the activity 
licence’  (Securities  Market  Act  2001,  Article  55(3)).  The  Financial  Supervision  Authority 
Act (FSAA) stipulates that an authorisation application costs EUR 1 000 in processing fee.  

P2P Lending: There is no bespoke regime regulating P2P lending in Estonia. Lending is 
regulated  by  the  Creditors  and  Credit  Intermediaries  Act  of  Estonia.  However,  the  act 
regulates  traditional  lending  practices  and  is  not  currently  geared  to  P2P  lending.  For 
example,  according  to  the  act,  a  creditor  may  operate  as  a  public  limited  company,  a 
private limited company, or, in accordance with the Savings and Loan Associations Act, a 
commercial association (Article 5 (2)). Therefore, current legislation does not include peers 
and  individuals  borrowing  from  or  lending  money  to  each  other.  However  P2P  lending 
between private persons is not prohibited in Estonia. Hence, the relevant legislation does 
not provide a distinction between peer and professional peer activity.  

If a P2P lending platform applies for an authorisation to operate as a credit institution, the 
‘The Financial Supervision Authority will make a decision on granting or refusing to grant 
authorisation  within  six  months  after  receipt  of  all  the  necessary  documents  and 
information that meet the requirements, but not later than twelve months after receipt of 
the application for authorisation’ (Credit Institutions Act 1999, Article 14(1)). The Financial 
Supervision  Authority  Act  (FSAA)  stipulates  that  an  authorisation  application  costs  EUR 
1 000 in processing fee. 

Finally,  Estonia  does  not  explicitly 
finance.  However, 
persons/companies  who  want  to  provide  investment  or  credit  services  need  to  obtain 
authorisations  and/or  licences.  The  process  includes  supplying  multiple  types  of 
information  to  the  various  public  supervision  authorities.  Moreover,  the  Financial 
Supervision  Authority  of  Estonia  conducts  supervision  of  platforms  that  have  been 
authorised by the Financial Supervision Authority.  

regulate  collaborative 

Administration 

There is  some public administration in relation to the  collaborative economy in Estonia, 
and therefore Estonia ranks 7 out of the 28 EU countries concerning administration.  

The Estonia Tax Board has issued a guide for ride-hailing services (Guide for Taxify and 
Uber  driver  on  tax  reporting).  Moreover,  the  Estonia  Tax  Board  now  accepts  electronic 
revenue  declarations  from  platforms  willing  to  provide  such  a  service  to  their  business 
users.  Currently  a  few  platforms  enable  this  (e.g.  Taxify).  Lastly,  a  non-governmental 
association  in  Estonia  supports  the  collaborative  economy.  Thus,  the  Estonia  Sharing 
Economy Association cooperates with public authorities on the issues of financial services. 
Moreover, to gain an insight into the size of the sharing economy, the Estonian Ministry of 
Economics has ordered a survey of and a research project on the collaborative economy. 

193 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making63100675050 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Business support 

Estonia  ranks  12  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  when  it  comes  to  business  support,  since 
collaborative platforms can seek financial support at both national and municipal level. It 
is possible to gain financial support, but  support services in terms of  training activities, 
technical and business advice are not available to platforms. However, parts of the medium 
score  can  be  explained  by  public  servants  being  allowed  to  use  P2P  services  in  a 
professional capacity and thereby supporting the sharing economy indirectly.  

Alignment 

Concerning alignment, Estonia earns the highest score because the new amendment to 
the Public Transport Act (188 SE) attempts to harmonise conditions for platform providers 
in the transport sector across Estonia. For example, municipal tariff limits do not apply if 
the customers can see the price of the journey beforehand.  

194 

Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment3350010000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector100100100 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Executive Officer of the Financial Markets Policy Department, Ministry of Finance 

[Finance] 

  Executive Officer of the Internal Market Department, Ministry of Economic Affairs 

and Communications [Finance] 

  Counsellor  for  Digital  Affairs,  Permanent  Representation  of  Estonia  to  the  EU 

[Horizontal] 

  Head  of  Trade  and  Services  Division,  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs  and 

Communications [Horizontal] 

Written sources 

  Act amending the Public Transport Act, the Road Traffic Act and the State Fees 

Act, 188 SE, 2017. Available at: 
https://www.riigikogu.ee/tegevus/eelnoud/eelnou/17074c56-bf09-477f-befb-
a6e4ea86461f/%C3%9Chistranspordiseaduse%20muutmise%20seadus 

  Credit Institutions Act 1999. Available at: 

https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/Riigikogu/act/515032016003/consolide 

  CrowdfundingHub (2016). Current State of Crowdfunding in Europe. 

Crowdfunding Hub, Amsterdam. Available at: 
https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Entrepreneurship_Centre/Docs/OxEP
R2/current-state-crowdfunding-europe-2016.pdf  
  Financieestonia.eu: http://www.financeestonia.eu/wp-

content/uploads/2016/02/%C3%9Chisrahastuse-Hea-Tava.pdf [05/03/18] 
  Open Evidence, EY, the ECN and Politecnico di Milano (ongoing). Assessing the 
potential for crowdfunding and other forms of alternative finance to support 
research and innovation. Available at: 
http://crowdfunding4innovation.eu/country-fiches/country-fiche-estonia 

  Press release of The Act on Amendments to the Public Transport Act, the Traffic 

Act and the State Fees Act (188 SE). Available at: 
https://www.riigikogu.ee/en/press-releases/plenary-assembly/the-riigikogu-
passed-an-act-on-platform-based-taxi-service/ 

  Public Transport Act 2015. Available at: 

https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/516022016006/consolide 

  Securities Market Act 2001. Available at: 

https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/523112015001/consolide/current 

  Survey and research project about collaborative economy, ordered by Ministry of 

Economics. Available at: https://www.mkm.ee/et/uudised/uuring-
jagamismajanduse-kaive-eestis-oli-mullu-ule-40-miljoni-euro 

  Tallinn Taxi Requirements, 2015. Available at: 
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/429102015031 

  The Estonian Commercial Code: 

https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/504042014002/consolide 

  The Estonian Law of Obligations Act 2001. Available at: 

https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/524012017002/consolide 

  The Estonian Tourism Act 2000. Available at: 

https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/526022015001/consolide 

  The Financial Supervision Authority Act: FSAA §45_3 (2), §38 (1). 

195 

 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Estonia – Vertical themes 

196 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelEETRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalPartially2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationTallinnYes3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsTallinnYes4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsTallinnYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsTallinnNo6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsTallinnNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionTallinnYes8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionTallinnPartially9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsTallinnNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsTallinnYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationTallinnNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationTallinnNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsTallinnYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelEEFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational1806. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3607. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational10008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational10009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalYes14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

197 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelEEACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalYes5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?InspectionsNationalNo  
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Estonia – Horizontal themes 

198 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelEEPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalYes2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalYes3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNoStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Finland  

Performance overview 

Overview 
Knowledge  about  collaborative  economy  is  quite  fragmented  in  Finland,  and  the 
government is only beginning to understand the need for new or adjust legislation. There 
is no specific legislation at this point, and the general legislation will therefore deal with 
the  collaborative  economy.  Public  authorities  are  currently  advising  peer  providers  and 
platform  owners  on  precedent  due  to  the  lack  of  legislation.  As  a  result,  an  informal 
ministerial network, run by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, has started to 
look into what could be done in terms of supporting the collaborative economy.  

Accommodation 

Finland ranks 1 out of the 28 EU countries in relation to promoting accommodation services 
in  the  collaborative  economy.  There  is  no  national legislation  regarding  accommodation 
services in the collaborative economy in Finland. Consequently, peer providers wanting to 
sublet a flat on a short-term basis must follow the general legislation. However, this leaves 
the legal frame of interpretation quite open, and for this reason, Finland receives a high 
score. 

Peer  providers  can  sublet  a  flat  or  room  on  a  short-term  basis  without  notifying  their 
landlord  or  building  association,  if  they  do  not  sublet  more  than  half  of  the  property. 
However, subletting the entire flat is only permitted with the specific approval of the lessor. 
In exceptional cases, the building associations can ban the use of flats for accommodation 
business.  

There is no generally applicable definition, defining a threshold to distinguish between peer 
and  professional  peer  activity  in  the  collaborative  context.  However,  other  Finnish  acts 
defines ‘professional’ as aiming at financial results, but there is no definition of peer activity 
in Finland. Consequently, peer providers acting occasionally and without major financial 
targets  are  therefore  not  obliged  to  follow  the  ‘Act  on  Accommodation  and  Restaurant 
Operations’, which specifies health and safety regulations. The legislation only applies to 
professional peers.  

199 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections7708310075100 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Transport 

Finland  ranks  20  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  concerning  transport  in  the  collaborative 
economy because profit-generated services are quite regulated compared to cost-sharing 
services.  

P2P  ride-sharing  and  P2P  car-sharing  are  not  acknowledged  or  regulated  by 
legislation. A new act on Transport Services will come into force on 1 July 2018, but the 
act does not define or regulate P2P ride-sharing or P2P car-sharing. P2P ride-sharing and 
P2P car-sharing are currently considered to be non-professional activities if the payment 
for the ride is insignificant or on a cost-sharing basis. A non-professional activity does not 
require a professional licence or authorisation. Any private person can therefore provide 
P2P ride-sharing and P2P car-sharing services without holding a licence if the service is on 
a cost-sharing basis.  

P2P  car-sharing  and  P2P  ride-sharing  are  considered  to  be  professional  activities  if  the 
activities  generate  a  profit.  Unlike  non-professional  activities,  professional  car-sharing 
requires a licence regardless of the size of the profit.  

Ride-hailing  cannot  be  handled  by  non-professional  drivers.  A  licence  is  required  to 
provide ride-hailing. To obtain a licence, applicants must have a valid driver’s licence, fulfil 
certain health criteria, pass a course for taxi drivers, etc. Finland receives a medium score 
in  relation  to  the  transport  service  in  the  collaborative  economy  due  to  the  regulations 
applicable to the ride-hailing service.  

Finance 

Finland  ranks  5  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  in  relation  to  financial  services  in  the 
collaborative economy because the regulatory environment of the finance sector is quite 
broad in Finland. It is therefore easy for platforms to engage in the finance sector. 

There  is  a  bespoke  regime  regulating  P2P  equity  investment  and  P2P  lending.  Both 
business models are regulated through the Crowdfunding Act 25.8.2016/734, which came 
into force in 2016. P2P lending is currently not subject to licence in Finland. P2P lending 
platforms only needs a registration, but this is free of charge. Unlike P2P lending, platforms 
that  want  to  participate  in  P2P  equity  investment  must  register  their  activities  with  the 
Finnish  financial  services  authority  (FSA).  P2P  equity  investment  requires  a  licence  for 
which a fee is EUR 5 300. Moreover, there is a supervision fee that relates to the scope of 
operations.  Peer  providers  are  required  to  publish  a  prospectus  if  their  combined 
consideration  of  the  securities  exceeds  EUR  5 000 000  over  12  months.  However, 
investors do not need to provide information to public authorities.  

200 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements3805025251000Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections721005110001000 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Administration 

Concerning administration, Finland ranks 12 out of the 28 EU countries, since awareness 
about the sharing economy is still fragmentary. The government is just becoming aware 
of  the  need  for  guidance  and  regulation.  No  real  guidance  exists  at  this  point.  Public 
servants  are  currently  giving  advice  based  on  precedent.  However,  the  Finnish  Tax 
Administration  (Verohallinto/Skatteförvaltningen)  has  provided  instructions  to  peer 
providers on how to report their income from P2P services as well as specific instructions 
on accommodation services. 

The Council of State has now started an informal network on collaborative economy run 
by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, and it is also preparing a report on 
the status of collaborative economy in Finland. The report covers taxation, employment, 
and rights and responsibilities of platforms and peers. The report also suggests next steps, 
including offering more advice and guidance. 

Business support 

Finland  ranks  12  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  when  it  comes  to  business  support  in  the 
collaborative  economy.  There  are  no  public  grant  schemes  specifically  targeting 
collaborative  platforms.  However,  there  are  several  public  funds  for  start-ups  and 
innovation  projects  where  collaborative  platforms  can  apply  for  financial  support.  There 
are  no  support  services  (e.g.  training  activities,  technical  and  business  advice)  for 
collaborative  platforms  or  peer  providers,  but  the  government  is  currently  making 
guidelines as mentioned above.  

Alignment 

Concerning alignment, Finland ranks 1  out  of the 28  EU  countries since the  same  rules 
applies equally in all Finnish regions and cities. 

201 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making500507550Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment3350010000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector100100100 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Policy Expert and Ministerial Counsellor, Ministry of Transport and Communications 

[Transport] 

  Academic Policy expert and Researcher, University of Helsinki [Horizontal] 
  Helsinki Bed and Breakfast [Accommodation] 
  Chief Executive Officer, Vertaislaina Oy [Finance]  
  Senior Policy Advisor, Finnish FSA [Finance] 

Written sources 

  Act on Accommodation and Restaurant Operations 28.4.2006/308. Given in 

Helsinki on 28 April 2016. 

  Financial Supervisory Authority (2016): 

http://www.finanssivalvonta.fi/en/About_us/Powers_funding/Funding/Processing_
fees/Documents/Schedule_of_processing_fees_15_03_2016.pdf [05/03/18] 
  Act on Credit Institutions 8.8.2014/610. Given in Helsinki on 8 August 2014. 
  Act on Residential Leases 31.3.1995/481. Given in Helsinki on 31 March 1995. 
  Act on Right to Conduct Business 27.9.1919/122 Given in Helsinki on 27 September 

1919. 

  Act on the Professional Requirements of the Taxi Driver 18.9.2009/695. Given in 

Helsinki on 18 September 2009. 

  Crowdfunding Act 25.8.2016/734. Given in Helsinki on 25 August 2016. 
  Grimaldi Studio Legale. (2015). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with 

driver and ridesharing in the EU 
ITSET. (2017). Retrieved from http://itset.fi/ 

 
  Law on Transport Services 320/2017. Given in Helsinki on 24 May 2017.  
  Limited Liability Housing Companies Act 22.12.2009/1599. Given in Helsinki on 22 

December 2009. 

  Menestyvä yritys. (n.d.). Startup-yritysten rahoitus. Retrieved from  

http://www.menestyvayritys.com/rahoitus.html#Julkisia%20rahoittajia 

  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs  and  Employment.  (2016).  Opas  -  Ohjeita 

kotimajoitusta tarjoavalle. Retrieved from   
https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/74945/3_2016_ohjeit
a_kotimajoitusta_tarjoavall%20e_25042016_WEB.pdf?sequence=1 

  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs  and  Employment.  (2017).  Jakamistalous  Suomessa 

2016: Nykytila ja kasvunäkymät. Retrieved from   
https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/79253/TEMrap_9_201
7_verkkojulkaisu.pdf?sequence=1 

  Public Transport Act 13.11.2009/869. Given in Helsinki on 13 November 2009. 
  Spark  &  VVA.  (not  published).  Research  Questionnaire,  Finland,  Dr  Katri  Havu: 
Study  on  the  Assessment  of  the  Regulatory  Aspects  Affecting  the  Collaborative 
Economy in the Tourism Accommodation Sector in the 28 Member States 

  Supreme Court judgment KKO 2008:107 
  Tax Administration (2014). Majoitustoiminnan verotuksesta. Retrieved from    

https://www.vero.fi/syventavat-vero-ohjeet/ohje-
hakusivu/48166/majoitustoiminnan_verotuksest/ 

  Tax Administration. (2017). Jakamistalous. Retrieved from  

https://www.vero.fi/henkiloasiakkaat/verokortti-ja-veroilmoitus/tulot-ja-
vahennykset/ansiotulot/jakamistalous/ 

  The Consumer Advisory Services. (2017). Retrieved from  

https://www.kkv.fi/en/consumer-advice/ 

  The Consumer Ombudsman. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.kkv.fi/en/about-

us/the-consumer-ombudsman/ 

202 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

  The Consumer Protection Act 20.1.1978/38. Given in Helsinki on 20 January 1978. 
  The Investment Services Act 14.12.2012/747. Given in Helsinki on 14 December 

2012. 

  The Social Insurance Institution of Finland. (2017). Perustulokokeilun tavoitteet ja 
from  http://www.kela.fi/perustulokokeilu-tavoitteet-ja-

toteutus.  Retrieved 
toteutus  

  The Taxi Traffic Act 2.3.2007/217. Given in Helsinki on 2 March 2007.  

203 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Finland – Vertical themes 

204 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelFITRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationHelsinkiNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsHelsinkiYes4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsHelsinkiYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsHelsinkiYes6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsHelsinkiYes7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionHelsinkiNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionHelsinkiPartially9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsHelsinkiNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsHelsinkiPartially11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationHelsinkiNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationHelsinkiNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsHelsinkiYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelFIFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalYes4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3656. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational07. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational53008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational09. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalNo14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

205 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelFIACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNationalNoHelsinkiNoNationalPartiallyHelsinkiPartiallyNationalNoHelsinkiNoNationalYesHelsinkiYesNationalYesHelsinkiYesNationalNoHelsinkiNoNationalNoHelsinkiNoNationalNoHelsinkiNoNationalYesHelsinkiYesNationalPartiallyHelsinkiPartiallyNationalNoHelsinkiNo12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their Registrations, authorisations, notifications  
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Finland – Horizontal themes 

206 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelFIPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalPartially6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalYes3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNoStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

France  

Performance overview 

Overview 
The performance overview shows that the French accommodation sector is quite regulated 
compared  with  the  finance  and  the  transport  sectors  that  are  more  suited  to  the 
collaborative  economy.  There  are  no  specific  regulations  regarding  accommodation 
services in the collaborative economy. Consequently, this activity seems to be in a grey 
area. However, the current extent of short-term rental has led to some regulations – where 
especially  large  cities  are  more  regulated  now.  Conversely,  the  finance  and  transport 
sectors are defined and well-regulated in relation to the collaborative economy making it 
easy for platforms to access and easy for peers to engage in the collaborative economy. 

Accommodation 

France  ranks  16  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  in  relation  to  accommodation  in  the 
collaborative  economy.  There  are  regulations  on  online  platforms  (Digital  Republic  Act) 
and short-term rentals (tourism and urban planning legislation), but there is no specific 
legislation on accommodation services in the collaborative economy. 

There is no clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed. However, the French 
Tourism Act defines short-term rental as ‘rentals of furnished housing’. ‘Furnished housing’ 
is defined as ‘furnished villas, flats or studios for the exclusive use of the tenant, offered 
in rental to a passing customer who makes a  stay characterised by a day, a week or a 
month, and who does not elect domicile there’. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that this 
definition does not fully cover a P2P transaction, since there is no mention of the peer or 
professional nature of the transaction. 

Peer providers wanting to sublet their housing must notify the city administration when 
the short-term rental is a secondary residence. In cities of more than 200 000 inhabitants, 
a municipal authorisation is also required for changing the use of the residence when the 
rental  is  a  secondary  residence  and  for  turning  primary  residences  into  secondary 
residences. In some cities (e.g. Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Nice, Strasbourg), the owner of a 
residence must compensate the P2P accommodation service. For example, the owner of a 

207 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections552521100500 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

residence in Paris must pay for the change in use by providing a conventional dwelling in 
the  same  neighbourhood  (arrondissement).  If  a  peer  provider  does  not  respect  the 
notification  and  authorisation  requirements,  the  peer  provider  may  be  fined  up  to  EUR 
50 000. 

There  are  some  regulations  at  national  level.  Tenants  cannot  offer  a  short-term  rental 
without  the  agreement  of  their  landlord  or  their  building  association.  If  a  peer  provider 
receives approval, he or she is not obliged to be present in the property while letting the 
property.  

There is a clear threshold distinguishing between peer and professional peer activities. A 
peer  provider  becomes  a  professional  peer  if  he  or  she  offers  more  than  five  rooms, 
provides accommodation, and serves breakfast to more than 15 people. There is also the 
‘professional  furnished  renter’  status,  which  applies  when  a  person  is  registered  in  the 
French Commercial Register as a ‘professional renter’, and when the annual receipts for 
this activity exceed EUR 23 000 or the total amount of other income from the household. 
Despite  this  difference,  a  peer  provider  must  meet  regulations  applying  to  professional 
operators, i.e. sanitary standards, minimum equipment, etc. 

Transport 

France  ranks  6  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  concerning  transport  in  the  collaborative 
economy since cost-sharing car-sharing and ride-sharing do not require any authorisation 
or professional licence.  

In the French Transport Code, P2P car-sharing is defined as ‘the pooling of a land-based 
motorised transport vehicle or a fleet of land-based motorised transport vehicles for the 
benefit of subscribed users or users authorised by the vehicles' manager organisation or 
person.  Each  subscriber  or  authorised  user  can  access  a  vehicle  without  driver  for  the 
route  of  his  choice  and  for  a  limited  time’.  There  is  no  need  for  any  professional 
licence/authorisation for peer providers to join P2P car-sharing.  

P2P ride-sharing is defined as ‘the joint use of a motor vehicle with a driver and one or 
more passengers, as part of a journey that the driver performs on his own account, for no 
consideration except cost-sharing’. The French Court of Cassation has declared that there 
is no need for any authorisation or professional licence if the ride-sharing service is free 
or on a cost-sharing basis.  

To be able to operate, ride-hailing operators must be registered in the VTC register. This 
involves providing a copy of the extract of the registration of the company; an insurance 
certificate covering professional liability; a copy of the registration certificate (grey card) 
for each vehicle and driver; a copy of the professional card of each driver obtained after 
training and an exam; and proof of financial capacity for each vehicle. 

Consequently,  non-professional  drivers  may  not  provide  VTC  services,  and  ride-hailing 
providers  may  not  provide  services  on  an  occasional  basis  without  a  licence.  This  has 
recently  been  confirmed  by  the  French  Constitutional  Court  in  a  decision  on  UberPOP 
activities. For this reason, the Paris city administration has prohibited the activities of the 
ride-hailing platforms UberPOP, Djump and Heetch whose drivers were non-professionals 
without a VTC licence. 

208 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements58507525501000 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Finance 

France ranks 3 out of the 28 EU countries concerning finance in the collaborative economy 
because  both  P2P  equity  investment  platforms  and  debt  funding  platforms  are  exempt 
from bank requirements and do not need to adhere to the professional associations that 
regulate and control the banks.  

P2P equity investment is allowed. Decree 2014-1053 on crowdfunding sets up a status 
for P2P equity investment platforms called ‘Conseiller en Investissement Participatif (CIP)’. 
The decree provides a legislative framework for this activity. A financial platform seeking 
status  as  a  P2P  equity  investment  platform  must  apply  for  a  CIP  certification,  which  is 
provided by ORIAS (Organisme pour le registre unique des intermédiaires en assurance, 
banque  et  finance).  Platforms  must  be  established  in  France,  carry  an  insurance,  and 
managers must furnish proof of a diploma or professional experience in the field to be able 
to  apply.  The  application  must  also  contain  a  number  of  annexes  including  a  business 
continuity  plan,  mission  statement,  the  contract  with  the  payment  service  provider, 
accounts, annual meeting minutes, organisation chart, statutes, managers' CVs, detailed 
screenshots of the website. The preparation process can therefore be long. ORIAS has 60 
days to reply to an application, but can take between 4 to 12 months to decide whether 
to grant or refuse the application, as indicated by a finance platform. The direct cost of 
obtaining the certification is only EUR 30. 

Debt funding is allowed in France. Decree 2014-1053 on crowdfunding sets up a status 
for  P2P  lending  platforms  called  ‘Intermédiaire  en  Financement  Participatif  (IFP)’.  The 
decree provides a legislative framework for this activity. Financial platforms seeking status 
as  a  debt  funding  platform  must  apply  for  an  IFP  certification.  The  procedure  is  quite 
similar  to  the  CIP  procedure,  but  much  shorter  than  the  CIP  procedure  since  it  is  a 
registration procedure. ORIAS has 60 days to reply to the application. The certification will 
cost the platform EUR 30.  

Administration 

There is good administration support in France in relation to the collaborative economy - 
especially regarding the finance sector. For this reason, France ranks 3 out of the 28  EU 
countries  concerning  administration.  The  financial  markets  authority  (AMF)  and  the 
prudential authority (ACPR) have published guidelines for platforms and peer providers. 
For  platforms,  these  guidelines  provide  information  on  authorisation,  insurance 
requirements  and  applicable  legislation,  but  they  do  not  cover  taxation.  The  guidelines 
provide  information  on  applicable  legislation  to  peer  providers  as  well  as  on  rights  and 
obligations and tips for participating on platforms - especially regarding safety.  

In  the  transport  (ride-hailing)  and  accommodation  sectors,  the  website  Servicepublic.fr 
provides information  on the applicable legislation and the rights and obligations of peer 
providers (licences, insurance requirements, etc.). Moreover, there is a dedicated page on 
the Ministry of Economy and Finance's website where peer providers can find information 
about the taxation of their collaborative economy revenue with targeted ‘fiches’ for each 
sector (accommodation, transport, resale, renting of goods, online skills). The platforms 

209 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections771007183100500Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making75100835075 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

are obliged to distribute these fiches to peer providers according to the Taxation Code. In 
relation to taxation, the public authorities have a tax partnership with Airbnb where Airbnb 
currently collects taxes in 19 French cities.  

Between 2013 and 2014, the Ministry of Economy and Finance and banking and financial 
authorities  worked  on  gaining  an  insight  into  the  financial  size  of  the  collaborative 
economy. However, there still has not been any horizontal initiatives on the topic.  

The interviewed platforms,  especially in the finance sector, emphasised that the French 
authorities  are  dedicated  to  encouraging  the  development  of  collaborative  platforms  in 
their  sectors.  A  finance  platform  interviewee  noted  that  the  information  given  by  the 
authorities was very comprehensive and helpful to peer providers. 

Business support 

France ranks 2 out of the 28 EU countries concerning business support in the collaborative 
economy. The French Public Bank of Investment (BPI) has a dedicated fund for start-ups 
and  it  provides  training  activities,  but  these  initiatives  are  not  specifically  aimed  at  the 
collaborative  economy.  However,  in  the  finance  sector,  a  special  department  within  the 
ACPR  provides  support  to  innovation  firms,  targeting  collaborative  finance  platforms  in 
particular. 

The  government  has  provided  quality  labels  for  the  transport  and  finance  sectors.  The 
label for car-sharing peer providers is called ‘label autopartage’. The label allows vehicles 
to benefit from  reserved parking spots and preferential tariffs for parking. The label for 
the finance sector is called ‘label plateforme de financement participatif’ certifying that the 
platforms comply with crowdfunding regulations. It should be noted that this label can be 
assimilated into a certification as finance platforms must obtain the label to operate. 

Alignment 

When  it  comes  to  alignment,  France  ranks  21  out  of  the  28  EU  countries.  Even  though 
legislation  in  the  transport  sector  is  normally  set  at  national  level  (court  decisions 
regarding some platforms, e.g. Uber and Heetch, have been made at city level), there is 
a difference between cities concerning taxi fares and licence restrictions. This is also the 
case  in  the  accommodation  sector.  Legislation is  set  and imposed  at  national level,  but 
there are special authorisation requirements for cities with more than 200 000 inhabitants.  

210 

Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment75751001001000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector335025 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Manager, Ecobole [Finance] 
  Manager, Heetch [Transport] 
  Manager, Babyloan [Finance] 
  Manager, Gwenneg [Finance] 
  Manager, Wedogood [Finance] 
  Policy expert, Fédération des plateformes collaboratives [Horizontal] 

Written sources 

  ACPR,  AMF,  2014.  S'informer  sur  le  nouveau  cadre  applicable  au  financement 

participatif. Available at:  
https://acpr.banque-
france.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/acp/Communication/Communiques%20de%20pr
esse/20140930-Sinformer_sur_le_nouveau_cadre_applicable_au_ 
financement_participatif.pdf 

  Airbnb  website.  Available  at:  https://paris.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-simplifies-

tourist-tax-collection-in-19-cities-across-france/ 

  Article 242-10 of the Taxation Code (Code général des impôts). 
  Article L.1231-14 of the Transport Code. 
  Article L.3122-9 of the Transport Code. 
  Banque  de  France,  Cadre  du  financement  participatif  :  les  nouveaux  status. 
Available  at:  https://acpr.banque-france.fr/publications/revue-de-lacpr/revue-de-
lacpr-n20-sommaire/supervision-bancaire/cadre-du-financement-participatif-les-
nouveaux-statuts.html 

  BOCQUET E., et al., 2017. Taxation of collaborative economy: a need for simplicity, 

unity, equity. Senate, Finance Commission. Available at:  
https://www.senat.fr/notice-rapport/2016/r16-481-notice.html  

  BPI France, Le financement des start-ups par BPI France. Available at:   

http://www.bpifrance.fr/A-la-une/Actualites/Le-financement-des-start-up-par-
Bpifrance-14093 

  Conseil Constitutionnel, Décision n°2015-484 QPC du 22 septembre 2015.  
  Cour  de  Cassation,  civile,  Chambre  commerciale,  12  March  2013,  Décision  11-

21.908. Available at:  
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=
JURITEXT000027184572&fastReqId=46526540&fastPos=7 

  Crowdfunding Hub, 2016. Current state of crowdfunding in Europe. 
  Decree no. 2002-120, 30/01/2001 on decent dwelling. 
  Decree no. 2014-1053, 16/09/2014 on collaborative finance.  
  Decree no. 87-149, 6/03/1987 on sanitary standards.  
  Digital  Republic  Act,  2016  (Loi  n°2016-1321  du  7  octobre  2016  pour  une 

République numérique). Available at:  
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichLoiPubliee.do?idDocument=JORFDOLE00003
1589829&type=general&legislature=14  

  Economie.gouv.fr,  Économie  collaborative  :  quels  sont  les  revenus  imposables? 
Available  at:  https://www.economie.gouv.fr/particuliers/economie-collaborative-
revenus-imposables 

  Grimaldi studio legale, Bocconi University, Wavestone, 2016. Study on passenger 
transport by taxi, hire car with driver and ridesharing in the EU. Annex III - Country 
reports. 
Impots.gouv.fr,  IR  -  Base  d'imposition  -  Revenu  global  -  II.  Non-imposition  des 
revenus  perçus  dans  le  cadre  d'une  activité  de  ‘co-consommation’.  Available  at: 
http://bofip.impots.gouv.fr/bofip/1322-PGP.html?identifiant=BOI-IR-BASE-10-10-
10-10-20160830#1322-PGP_Non-imposition_des_sommes_e_11 

 

211 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

  Law no. 2015-995 on energy transition for green growth, 2015 (Loi n° 2015-992 
du  17  août  2015  relative  à  la  transition  énergétique  pour  la  croissance  verte). 
Available at:    
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000031044385
&categorieLien=id  

  Law no. 89-462 to improve rental relationships, 1989 (Loi n° 89-462 du 6 juillet 
1989 tendant à améliorer les rapports locatifs et portant modification de la loi n° 
86-1290 du 23 décembre 1986). Available at:  
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000509310  
  Ministry for Ecological and Solidary Transition (Ministère de la Transition écologique 
et  solidaire),  Autopartage  en  France.  Available  at:  https://www.ecologique-
solidaire.gouv.fr/autopartage-en-france#e4 

  Ministry  for  Economy  and  Finance  (Ministère  de  l'Économie  et  des  Finances),  Un 

label pour le financement participatif. Available at:  
https://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/Ressources/11060_un-label-pour-le-
financement-participatif 

  Order no. 10-1734  on taxi regulations in the Rhône Department, Art.  43 (Arrêté 
n°10-1734 relatif à la réglementation des taxis dans le  -département  du Rhône; 
Art. 43). Available at:  
http://www.rhone.gouv.fr/content/download/2480/17894/file/p86_9106d1f9db1c
c116bccd52f9f40d79beAp1734-2010.pdf 

  Police Préfecture, Taxis parisiens. Available at:  

https://www.prefecturedepolice.interieur.gouv.fr/Demarches/Professionnel/Trans
ports/Taxis-parisiens 

  Préfecture of Paris, Arrêté n°2015176-0009, 25 juin 2015. 
  Service public.fr, Autorisation de stationnement de taxi (licence de taxi). Available 
at: https://www.service-public.fr/professionnels-entreprises/vosdroits/F1347 
  Service  public.fr,  Exploitant  ou  conducteur  de  voiture  avec  chauffeur  (VTC). 

Available at:    
https://www.service-public.fr/professionnels-entreprises/vosdroits/F31027 

  Service  public.fr,  Location  de  vacances  en  meublé  de  tourisme  :  déclaration  et 

classement. Available at:  
https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2043 

  Service public.fr, Tarifs et paiement des taxis. Available at: https://www.service-

public.fr/professionnels-entreprises/vosdroits/F22127 

  Spark  Legal  Network,  VVA  (not  published  yet).  Study  on  the  assessment  of  the 
regulatory  aspects  affecting 
tourism 
accommodation sector in the 28 Member States. Research questionnaire – France. 

the  collaborative  economy 

the 

in 

  Tourism Code, art. D. 324-13. 

212 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

France – Vertical themes 

213 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelFRTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalYesParisNoLyonNoLilleNoParisYesLyonYesLilleYesParisYesLyonYesLilleYesParisYesLyonYesLilleYesParisNoLyonNoLilleNoParisNoLyonNoLilleNoParisPartiallyLyonPartiallyLillePartiallyParisNoLyonNoLilleNoParisYesLyonYesLilleYesParisNoLyonNoLilleNoParisNoLyonNoLilleNoParisYesLyonYesLilleYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliation12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliation13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirements8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictions10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictions5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinction2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislation3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirements4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirements 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

214 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelFRACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalPartially2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNationalPartiallyParisYesLyonYesLilleYesNationalYesParisYesLyonYesLilleYesNationalPartiallyParisPartiallyLyonPartiallyLillePartiallyNationalYesParisYesLyonYesLilleYesNationalYesParisYesLyonYesLilleYesNationalNoParisNoLyonNoLilleNoNationalNoParisNoLyonNoLilleNoNationalNoParisNoLyonNoLilleNoNationalNoParisNoLyonNoLilleNoNationalYesParisYesLyonYesLilleYesNationalYesParisYesLyonYesLilleYes12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

215 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelFRFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalYes4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3606. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational607. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational308. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational309. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalNo13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalPartially14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

France – Horizontal themes 

216 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelFRPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalYes2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalPartially8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalPartially2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalYes3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalYes4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalYes6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalPartially2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalYes3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalPartiallyStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Germany  

Performance overview 

Overview 
Germany  has  a  below  medium  score  of  17  and  a  less  conductive  environment  for 
collaborative economy. Clear definitions of P2P services are lacking in all sectors, and most 
of  the  activities  are  covered  by  existing  legislation  on  tax,  authorisation  and  licences. 
Regarding  accommodation,  restrictions  vary  from  city  to  city.  Regarding  transport, 
Germany ranks among the EU top 10 and ride-sharing has a long history in Germany. Car-
hailing  services  such  as  Uber  are  not  allowed.  Regarding  finance,  the  rules  for  P2P 
crowdfunding are the same as for banks as soon as the platform function exceeds broking 
between peers. There are no financial support programmes directed at P2P platforms, but 
access to services for entrepreneurs is the same as for other types of enterprises.  

Accommodation 

Germany  has  a  low  score  for  collaborative  economy  within  accommodation  due  to  the 
restrictions  on  peer-to-peer  accommodation  services.  The  most  important  regulation  to 
consider  is  the  so-called  misuse  ban  (Zweckentfremdungsverbot)  regulating  how  living 
spaces may be used. The rules vary from city to city, so the regulatory environment for 
accommodation  services  is  very  heterogeneous.  Moreover,  over  time  the  rules  have 
tended to be renewed in some cities (such as Berlin) while they are never changed in other 
cities (such as Munich).  

In Berlin, Hamburg and Munich, peers can let up to 50 per cent of their private residence 
without any licensing requirements.  

An entire flat can be let in Berlin if a licence is granted (which is very hard to obtain). In 
Hamburg, the entire flat can be let up to 6 months within a year if it does not affect the 
character of the flat, and in Munich a flat can be let for up to six weeks within a year.  

There is no national legislation on subletting secondary residences. For example, in Berlin 
licences  are  required  and  are  almost  never  issued.  In  Hamburg,  subletting  secondary 

217 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections3303357250 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

residences is forbidden, and in Munich subletting secondary residences is not foreseen in 
the city regulations.  

There is no regulation regarding obligations for peer providers to be present in the property 
when  letting  their  property.  For  providers  of  accommodation,  health  and  safety 
requirements are only applicable for accommodation services consisting of more than 12 
guest beds.  

The main threshold for distinguishing between peer and professional activity can be set at 
the taxation level, and the question whether the rental activity is subject to a tax or not. 
The German tax code specifies that the tax-exempted minimum income is EUR 8 820. This 
means that an annual income up to this amount is not taxed (personal income tax).  In 
addition, the German business tax (Gewerbesteuer) allows persons to deduct EUR 24 500 
from their taxable base for business tax purposes. The business tax may be relevant for 
all business activities as well as private persons offering their flat or other accommodation 
on Airbnb. In addition, VAT may apply - in Germany the threshold is set at EUR 12 500 for 
non-taxable persons and EUR 17 500 for small businesses. Anyone letting their flat has to 
declare this on their tax return.  

There are no national level inspections from public authorities. In Berlin, peer providers 
may face a fine of up to EUR 100 000 if they do not comply with the legislation and the 
municipal  authorities  are  empowered  to  ensure  that  peer  providers  comply  with  the 
legislation. Berlin has 2-4 employees per city district (Bezirk) for control and inspection. 
Berlin  also  has  a  tell-on-your-neighbour  website  and  public  campaigns  to  report  illegal 
Airbnb activity. In Hamburg and Munich, peer providers can face a fine of up to EUR 50 000 
if they do not comply with the legislation. 

Transport 

Germany  scores  5  out  of  the  28  EU  countries.  On  the  one  hand,  Germany  has  a  long 
tradition for ride-sharing. On the other hand, Uber has raised issues of unfair competition 
and the need for professional licences. Uber is banned in Germany, but operates on equal 
terms  with  taxi  operators  in  Berlin  and  Munich  under  the  names  UberX  and  UberPOP. 
Neither  car-sharing  nor  ride-sharing  is  well-defined  in  the  national  legislation  but  is 
controlled by licensing and tax regulation. 

P2P  car-sharing.  There  is  no  national  legislation  defining  P2P  car-sharing,  but  the 
German government has introduced draft legislation on car-sharing. Peers are allowed to 
provide P2P car-sharing services without a professional licence or authorisation as long as 
their activity is not for commercial purposes. The Federal Association of German Car Rental 
(Bundesverband der Autovermieter) contested this in court in 2013 arguing that private 
persons  should  be  subject  to  the  same  regulations  as  professional  car  rental  providers. 
The Berlin civil court ruled in favour of the P2P car-sharing providers reasoning that P2P 
car-sharing  cannot  be  compared  to  professional  car  rental  providers  because  P2P  car-
sharing was understood as an occasional rental aiming to reduce the costs of operating 
the vehicle and not making money through the activity. 

P2P ride-sharing has a long tradition in Germany and is not legally defined. The payment 
for  the  service  is  decisive.  As  stated  in  §1  (2)  of  the  Passenger  Transport  Act 
(Personenbeförderungsgesetz), the legislation does not apply to the transport of a person 
in a private vehicle as long as the person is transported for free or as long as the payment 
only covers the running costs of operating the vehicle.  

218 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements5909250501000 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

P2P car-hailing. Disputes over unfair competition and licences for passenger transport 
have  been  taken  to  court  in  Berlin  and  Frankfurt  am  Main.  In  March  2015,  the  Higher 
Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main ruled against Uber and issued a Germany-wide ban 
of the service UberPOP. Uber operates only in Berlin and Munich as a luxury hire car service 
(UberBLACK)  and  a  standard  taxi  service  (UberX)  that  provides  transport  services  by 
licenced professional drivers. The number of taxis is capped in most parts of Germany, but 
not in Berlin and Hamburg. In Munich, the number of taxis is set at 3 400 taxis. Taxi fares 
are regulated by the municipal authorities, meaning that the price of a taxi ride may vary 
in  Berlin,  Hamburg  and  Munich.  The  taxi  operators  do  not  have  to  be  affiliated  with  a 
dispatch centre, but private car drivers are not allowed to pick up passengers in the street. 

For  both  car-sharing  and  ride-sharing  there  is  not  a  set  threshold  between  peer  and 
professional activity. For car-hailing the threshold consists of the need for a licence and/or 
the level of taxation (income tax applies when the remuneration is at least EUR 256 in a 
calendar year). 

Finance 

Germany  scores  relatively  low  compared  to  the  EU28  on  the  finance  indicators  since 
crowdfunding (equity funding and lending) falls under the same legislation as professional 
investment  and  lending  activities.  Platforms  can  connect  peers,  and  as  long  as  the 
platforms simply act as brokers between peers, they are not subject to special regulation 
and do not need an authorisation for the platform to  operate.  However, peers  may  still 
need a licence to borrow or lend money. 

P2P Equity funding. There is no special legislation for P2P equity investments but the 
usual regulations for all equity investments apply. However,  In April 2015, the German 
Bundestag passed the Small Retail Investor's Protection Act (Kleinanlegerschutzgesetz). 
The act mentions crowd funding (Schwarmfinanzierung) with requirements to information 
and prospects to protect peer investors from dubious offers. No prospectus is needed for 
public offers below EUR 100 000. 

from 

Platforms  wishing  to  conduct  banking  business  or  provide  an  organised  business 
undertaking  need  written  authorisation 
the  Federal  Financial  Services 
Supervisory (BaFIn). Certain exemptions from authorisation may apply if: 1) the platform 
merely  performs  investment  or  contract  broking,  2)  does  not  obtain  ownership  or 
possession  of  the  money,  or  3)  if  the  placement  business  is  conducted  exclusively  for 
providers or issuers. This is the case for most investment platforms being offered today. 
However,  investment  intermediaries  (the  peers)  may  be  subject  to  an  authorisation 
requirement  pursuant  to  Section  34f  of  the German  Trade,  Commerce  and  Industry 
Regulation Act (GewO). If an authorisation is needed from the BaFin, there is no maximum 
numbers of days that BaFin can spend on deciding whether to issue a licence for P2P equity 
investment platforms or not. If an authorisation is required, the cost to the platform relates 
to  having  to  partner  with  a  bank,  lawyer,  accountant  and  the  time  lost  waiting  for  the 
licence 

P2P Lending. The scope of the German Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz) is much broader 
than  in  other  countries,  which  means  that  a  majority  of  the  peers  (lenders  and/or 
borrowers) active on P2P platforms may have to apply for a KWG licence. Simply brokering 
loans does not require authorisation for the platform. It could be assumed that these costs 
would  be  minor  if  no  licence  is  needed.  However,  if  the  platform  conducts  any  kind  of 
banking  business  it  needs  the  corresponding  licence.  There  is  no  exemption  for  P2P 

219 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections575099500500 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

platforms from the licence requirements. Thus, P2P lending platforms avoid applying for a 
licence themselves and operate as investment vehicles through collaborating with banks. 
The bank continues to be the only actor taking deposits and drafting loan contracts. Only 
one P2P platform, Berfürst, has had a licence, but gave it up in 2015 because of the costs 
involved.  There  is  no  monetary  threshold  to  distinguish  between  peer  and  professional 
activity. The main criteria of difference that would have to be taken into account is the 
type of activity conducted. 

finance.  However,  a 

There is no general obligation to provide information to public authorities before engaging 
in  collaborative 
(Vermögensan-
lageninformationsblatt - VIB) must be submitted to the BaFin and provided to the investors 
(the  peers)  for  information/transparency  if  the  peer  provider  is  obliged  to  publish  a 
prospectus.  There  is  no  maximum  amount  that  peer  providers  can  receive  from 
collaborative platforms as long as they publish the prospectus to the authorities. 

fact  sheet 

three-page 

If the legislation is not followed, the authorities can request information and submission 
of documents, inspect and search, and if business has been conducted without the required 
authorisation the authorities has the power to discontinue and wind up the business. 

Administration 

Germany scores low on administration since there is only a few signs of coordinated efforts 
to  promote  or  guide  the  collaborative  economy  through  an  authority,  a  website  or 
campaigns. Information is very heterogeneous at the moment, and there is no dedicated 
public body to deal with legislation related to P2P services. 

The  German  government  provides  no  overall guidance  on  the  collaborative  economy  or 
how to set up a collaborative platform. However, useful information can be found on the 
websites  of  the  authorities  in  charge  of  supervising  some  of  the  collaborative  economy 
activities. For instance, the website of the BaFin is quite practical and publishes 'Guidance 
Notes'  (Merkblätter)  in  German  and  English  on  crowd  investing  and  crowd  lending  that 
help  platforms  and  peers  find  out  if  a  licence  for  the  activity  is  necessary.  Regarding 
information on accommodation it is necessary to look at the websites of different cities, 
since regulations vary from city to city. There are a few examples of authorities giving tips 
or guidance to platforms on how to set up a crowdfunding campaign.  

There are no partnerships between the government and collaborative platforms concerning 
tax collection. In this connection it has been discussed to force Airbnb to give data to the 
local  authorities  for  control  purposes  on  tax  regulations.  However,  this  was  soon 
discontinued for reasons of privacy. There is no guidance on the applicability of national 
tax rules and no guidance on applicability of national employment rules. 

Business support 

Germany  ranks 7  out of the 28  EU  countries  on business support indicators since there 
have been initiatives to actively support the collaborative economy through non-financial 
support  in  terms  of  guidance.  There  are  no  dedicated  grant  schemes  or  other  types  of 

220 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making4410050050Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment422510010000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

financial  support  in  Germany  for  collaborative  platforms.  However,  there  are  support 
services, such as exist.de, that support entrepreneurs and innovators in the early stages. 
Peer-sharing.de, supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, gives tips 
on and support for the development of platform business model to future or present P2P 
platforms. There have been no initiatives to promote or develop accreditation platforms, 
quality labels for the platforms, or specific tax rules for peers.  

No  legislation  prohibits  public  servants  from  using  collaborative  services  in  their 
professional capacity.  

Alignment 

Germany scores low on alignment, since there is variation in the rules of providing P2P 
accommodation across the German cities. 

While  the  rules  for  professional  peer  transport  services  may  vary  between  regions  and 
cities,  they  tend  to  be  homogeneous  throughout  Germany  regarding  peer  transport 
services. 

Housing falls under the shared jurisdiction at federal, regional, and local level. As a result, 
regional authorities may issue a regulation on accommodation services but it is up to the 
city  to  implement  such  regulations.  When  comparing  Berlin,  Hamburg  and  Munich,  it is 
possible  to  distinguish  some  general  similarities,  although  there  are  still  some  minor 
differences (e.g. minimal rental period without a licence). The variation in implementation 
of regulations across the cities is burdensome for a peer wishing to provide accommodation 
in a specific city.  

221 

Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector5010025 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin, University of Mannheim [Finance]  
  Team leader of Market Finance, Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband [Finance]  
  Founder/ CEO, Bergfuerst [Finance] 
  PhD student, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) [Accommodation]  
  CEO, Bettervest [Finance]  
  Founder/ CEO, ifunded.de [Finance]  
 
  Head  of  Structural  Change  and  Competence,  Cologne  Institute  for  Economic 

Junior Fellow, Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut [Finance]  

Research [Horizontal]  

Written sources 

  Berliner Mieterverein, „Kampf gegen Zweckentfremdung – jetzt wird’s ernst’ Access 

31-10-2017 at  
https://www.berliner-mieterverein.de/magazin/online/mm0516/051614.htm  
  Berliner Mieterverein, „Zweckentfremdungsverbot - Keine gemeinsame Task-Force’ 

Access 31-10-2017 at  
https://www.berliner-mieterverein.de/magazin/online/mm0714/071407b.htm  

  Berliner Taxitarifordnung: https://www.taxi-in-berlin.de/taxitarif/  
  Bundesanstalt 

Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht 
Erlaubnispflicht von Kreditvermittlungsplatformen’:  
https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Merkblatt/mb_070514
_kreditvermittlungsplattform.html?nn=8249098 

‘Merkblatt 

(2007), 

für 

zur 

  Bundesfinanzministerium 

‘The 
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/EN/Standardartikel/Topics/Inter
national_affairs/Articles/2016-12-13-study-fintech-market-in-
germany.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2. 

FinTech  Market 

in  Germany’:  

(2016), 

  Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur, ‘BMVI unterstützt Car-

sharing’:  
https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/LA/car-sharing-gesetz.html 

  Crowdfunding  Innovation  (2015),  Country  fiche  for  Germany  accessible  at:  

http://crowdfunding4innovation.eu/country-fiches/country-fiche-germany 

  Deutscher Bundestag 18/11285, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Bevorrechtigung des 

Car-sharing (Carsharinggesetz - CsgG):  
http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/112/1811285.pdf 

  Deutscher  Tourismusverband  (2016),  ‘Die  Sharing  Economy  und  der  deutsche 
Beherbergungsmarkt’: http://docplayer.org/37595548-Die-sharing-economy-und-
der-deutsche-beherbergungsmarkt.html 

  Document A, p.1 & p.29, p.39 - 40 
(2016), 
  European  Commission 

‘Commission  Staff  Working  Document: 

Crowdfunding in the EU Capital Markets Union’, p.39-42. 

  Federal  Financial  Supervisory  Authority  (2014),  ‘Crowdfunding:  Supervisory 

requirements and investor responsibility’:   
https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Fachartikel/2014/fa_bj
_1406_crowdfunding_en.html?nn=8249098 

  Federal  Financial  Supervisory  Authority  (BaFin),  written  answer  provided 

(08/09/2017) 

  FeV - Fahrerlaubnis Verordnung: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/fev_2010/  
  Gesetz über das Kreditwesen: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kredwg/  
  Gesetz  über  das  Verbot  der  Zweckentfremdung  von  Wohnraum  (ZwVbG), 

29/11/2013, published in GVBI 2013, 626:  

222 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

http://gesetze.berlin.de/jportal/?quelle=jlink&query=WoZwEntfrG+BE&psml=bsb
eprod.psml&max=tr 

  Gesetz  über  den  Schutz  und  die  Erhaltung  von  Wohnraum  (HmbWoSchG), 

21/05/2013, published in HmbGVBI 1982, S.47:    
http://www.landesrecht-
hamburg.de/jportal/portal/page/bshaprod.psml?showdoccase=1&st=lr&doc.id=jlr
-WoPflGHArahmen&doc.part=X&doc.origin=bs 

  Gesetz über Vermögensanlagen:  

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vermanlg/ 

  Gesley,  Jenny  (2016),  ‘Legal  Challenges  for  Uber  in  the  European  Union  and 

Germany’, Library of Congress (Blog):  
https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2016/03/legal-challenges-for-uber-in-the-european-
union-and-in-germany/ 

  Gewerbeordnung: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gewo/  
  Hamburger 
fahrpreise/ 

Taxitarifordnung: 

http://www.hamburg.de/taxi/2936756/taxi-

  Hamburgische  Bauordnung  (HBauO),  14/12/2005,  HmbGVBl.  2005,  S.  525: 

http://www.landesrecht-hamburg.de/jportal/portal/page/bshaprod.psml; 
jsessionid=7CF795F04F1CBF55D0801FE6A3893614.jp24?showdoccase=1&st=lr&
doc.id=jlr-BauOHA2005rahmen&doc.part=X&doc.origin=bs 

  Kapitalanlagegesetzbuch, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kagb/ 
  Kilimann,  Susanne  (2013),  ‘Wann  darf  ich  mein  Auto  verleihen?’,  Die  Zeit: 

http://www.zeit.de/mobilitaet/2013-10/klage-privates-car-sharing  

  Landratsamt  Weilheim-Schongau  Amt  für  Öffentliche  Sicherheit  und  Ordnung 

(2007), ‘Rechtsinformation zum Taxi- und Mietwagenverkehr:    
http://www.weilheim-
schongau.de/inhalt/stichworte_a_z/_Sg_30/05TaxiMietwagenRechtsinfo01.pdf 
  Lehmann, Claus (2014), ‘The state of P2P lending in Germany’, published in altfi 

news:   
http://www.altfi.com/article/0572_the_state_of_p2p_lending_in_germany 

  LG Frankfurt, decision 18 March 2015, 3-8 O  136/14, juris, at 112 et seq.;  OVG 
Berlin Brandenburg, decision 10 April 2015, OVG 1 S 96.14, juris, at 48 et seq.; 
OVG Hamburg, decision 24 September 2014, 3 Bs 175/14, juris, at 17 et seq. 
  MessEG  -  Gesetz  über  das  Inverkehrbringen  und  die  Bereitstellung  von 
Messgeräten  auf  dem  Markt,  ihre  Verwendung  und  Eichung  sowie  über 
Fertigpackungen:  
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/messeg/BJNR272300013.html 

  Monopolkommission  (2016),  Competition  2016,  21st  Biennial  Report,  Chapter  V, 

Digital markets: The Sharing Economy und FinTechs:  
http://www.monopolkommission.de/images/HG21/HGXXI_Chapter_V.pdf  

  Moscovici,  Benjamin  et.al  (2016),  ‘Warum  illegale  Vermietung  über  Airbnb  so 

schwer zu unterbinden sind’, die Süddeutsche Zeitung:    
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/zweckentfremdung-warum-illegale-
vermietungen-ueber-airbnb-so-schwer-zu-unterbinden-sind-1.2944876 

  München.de:   

https://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/Stadtverwaltung/Sozialreferat/Wohnungsamt/
Zweckentfremdung.html 
  Münchener Taxitarifordnung:  

http://www.taxi-muenchen-online.de/programme/taxi00.pdf 

  Naïdji,  Clara  (2017),  ‘Regulation  of  European  peer-to-peer  lending  Fintechs’,  KU 

Leuven, Research Gate:  
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316702106_Regulation_of_European_
peer-to-peer_lending_Fintechs_Regulatory_framework_to_improve_ 
SME%27s_access_to_capital 
  Personenbeförderungsgesetz §1:  

https://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/pbefg/index.html#BJNR002410961BJNE001604305 

223 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

  Personenbeförderungsgesetz §51:   

https://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/pbefg/index.html#BJNR002410961BJNE001604305 

  Peuckert,  Bätzing  et.al  (2017),  ‘Kontext  des  Teilens:  Herausforderungen  bei  der 
gesellschaftlichen  Verankerung  von  Peer-to-Peer  Sharing  am  Beispiel  von 
Übernachten  und  Autoteilen’,  Peer-sharing.de,  p.39:  http://www.peer-
sharing.de/data/peersharing/user_upload/PeerSharing_Arbeitspapier4_Kontexte_
des_Teilens.pdf 

  Research  Questionnaire (Germany), ‘Study  on  the Assessment  of the  Regulatory 
Aspects Affecting the Collaborative Economy in the Tourism Accommodation Sector 
in the 28 Member States (580/PP/GRO/IMA/15/15111J)’, p.10 

  Research  Questionnaire (Germany), ‘Study  on  the Assessment  of the  Regulatory 
Aspects Affecting the Collaborative Economy in the Tourism Accommodation Sector 
in the 28 Member States (580/PP/GRO/IMA/15/15111J)’, p.12 

  Research  Questionnaire (Germany), ‘Study  on  the Assessment  of the  Regulatory 
Aspects Affecting the Collaborative Economy in the Tourism Accommodation Sector 
in the 28 Member States (580/PP/GRO/IMA/15/15111J)’, p.42 

  Satzung  der  Landeshauptstadt  München  über  das  Verbot  der  Zweckentfremdung 

von Wohnraum (ZeS), 30/12/2013 (MüABl. S. 550):  
https://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/Stadtrecht/vorschrift/999.pdf 

  Senatsverwaltung  für  Stadentwicklung  und  wohnung,  „Eine  zweckentfremdete 
Wohnung  melden’  Access  31/10/2017  at  https://ssl.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/ 
wohnen/zweckentfremdung_wohnraum/formular/adresswahl.shtml  

  Verbraucherzentrale  Bundesverband  (2015), 

VERBRAUCHER 
default/files/downloads/dvt15-diskussionspapier-vzbv-2015-06-29.pdf 

‘TEILEN,  HABEN,  TEILHABEN 
IN  DER  SHARING  ECONOMY’:  http://www.vzbv.de/sites/ 

  Vogelpohl,  Thomas  &  Arno  Simons  (2015),  ‘Kontroversen  ums  Teilen’,  Peer-
sharing.de:  http://www.peer-sharing.de/data/peersharing/user_upload/Dateien/ 
PeerSharing_Arbeitsbericht2.pdf 

  Wertpapierprospektgesetz, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/wppg/ 

224 

 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Germany – vertical themes 

225 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelDETRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNoBerlinNoHamburgNoMunichNoBerlinYesHamburgYesMunichYesBerlinYesHamburgYesMunichYesBerlinNoHamburgNoMunichYesBerlinNoHamburgNoMunichNoBerlinPartiallyHamburgPartiallyMunichPartiallyBerlinPartiallyHamburgPartiallyMunichPartiallyBerlinNoHamburgNoMunichNoBerlinYesHamburgYesMunichYesBerlinNoHamburgNoMunichNoBerlinNoHamburgNoMunichNoBerlinYesHamburgYesMunichYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliation12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliation13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirements8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictions10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictions5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinction2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislation3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirements4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirements 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

226 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelDEACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNationalBerlinYesHamburgYesMunichYesNationalYesBerlinYesHamburgYesMunichYesNationalBerlinNoHamburgNoMunichNoNationalBerlinYesHamburgYesMunichYesNationalBerlinYesHamburgNoMunichNoNationalBerlinYesHamburgYesMunichYesNationalBerlinPartiallyHamburgPartiallyMunichPartiallyNationalBerlinNoHamburgNoMunichNoNationalBerlinNoHamburgNoMunichNoNationalPartiallyBerlinPartiallyHamburgPartiallyMunichPartiallyNationalBerlinYesHamburgYesMunichYes12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

227 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelDEFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational06. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational07. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational2208. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational09. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalPartially14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Germany – horizontal themes 

228 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelDEPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalYes2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalPartially2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalNo3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalYes4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalPartially3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalYes 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Greece  

Performance overview 

Overview 
Overall Greece ranks 12 out of the 28 EU countries in respect of the collaborative economy. 
The  regulatory  framework  affecting  the  accommodation  sector  is  well  suited  for  the 
collaborative  economy.  There  is  specific  legislation  on  accommodation  services  but  the 
legislation is simple, and it is therefore easy for peers to engage in P2P accommodation 
service.  Conversely,  the  transport  and  finance  sectors  are  more  regulated  compared  to 
the  accommodation  sector.  The  study  shows  that  ride-hailing  is  particularly  heavily 
regulated, which hinders VTC service.  

Accommodation 

Greece earns the highest score on the accommodation indicators compared to other  EU 
countries.  There  is  specific  legislation  on  collaborative  accommodation  service,  but  the 
legislation is quite liberal, leaving some latitude to peer providers wanting to sublet their 
properties. 

Article  84  of  Act  4472/2017  ‘Arrangements  for  short-term  rental  of  real  estate  in  the 
context of the collaborative economy’ specifically deals with accommodation service in the 
collaborative economy.  

The act specifies the types of P2P transactions that are allowed. The legal transactions are 
defined in relation to duration and type of property. Due to a joint decision of the Ministries 
of  Economy  and  Development  and  Finance  and  Tourism,  restrictions  on  the  disposal  of 
accommodation for short-term rental do not allow short-term letting of up to two dwellings 
per Tax Identification Number (TIN) of income beneficiaries. The reason for this restriction 
is  to  protect  housing  areas  so  that  peer  providers  do  not  turn  their  homes  into  hotels. 
Concerning the duration, peer providers  can generally sublet their property for 90 days 
per calendar year, but they can only sublet their property for 60 days if the property is 
located on an island with a population under 10 000 inhabitants.  

229 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections7710067100500 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Section  2  of  Act  4472/2017  states  that  peer  providers  must  register  with  a  regulatory 
authority  prior  to  letting  their  property.  The  peer  provider  must  be  registered  in  the 
‘Register  of  Short-Term  Lease  Property’  maintained  by  the  Independent  Authority  for 
Public Revenue (IAPR). Moreover, the registration number in the ‘Register of Short-Term 
Lease  Property’  must  accompany  the  property  posting  in  a  visible  place  on  digital 
platforms. According to the applicable legislation, peer providers are not obliged to notify 
their landlord or building association. Article 593 of the Greek Civil Code states that ‘The 
lessee has the right, unless otherwise agreed, to give to another the use of the lease and, 
in particular, to sublet it’.  

There  is  not  an  explicit  threshold  to  distinguish  between  peer  and  professional  peer 
activity. However, in principle, peer activity is when a peer provider sublets their furnished 
property without the provision of any service other than the provision of bedding. If any 
other services are provided, income from this service will be considered a business income, 
and the service will therefore be seen as a professional peer activity.  

Transport 

Greece ranks 20 out of the 28 EU countries on the transport score. To date, no legislative 
initiatives have been recorded with respect to ride-sharing and car-sharing practices, 
thus leaving these two fields unregulated. Strict legislation on ride-hailing is the reason 
for the medium score on P2P transport services.  

Ride-hailing: There is no relevant legislation allowing non-professional drivers to provide 
private transport services (VTC) for remuneration. Act 1903/1990 states that ‘the driver 
of any vehicle which carries out passenger services assigned to another body or person in 
accordance with the applicable provisions is punishable by imprisonment of up to three 
years  and  by  a  fine’.  Thus,  non-professional  drivers  are  not  allowed  to  provide  private 
transport services.  

According  to  Articles  107  and  108  of  Act  4070/2012,  natural  persons  and  legal  entities 
wishing  to  obtain  a  professional  licence/authorisation  must  fulfil  the  following 
prerequisites: i) must be part of an EU Member State; ii) must not be  convicted of any 
serious crime; iii) must be cleared from a tax and social security perspective; iv) must be 
financially  competent  to  exercise  the  professional  activity;  v)  must  have  available 
appropriate premises for the parking of, security and maintenance of their vehicles, if they 
hold more than five registrations of public use passenger vehicles. 

It is worth mentioning that the Ministry of Transport is currently working on an act that 
has  not  yet  been  published  (it  is  expected  early  in  2018).  This  act  will  regulate  the 
institutional  framework  for  passenger  services.  According  to  press  reports,  passenger 
transport  services  will now  only  be  available  for  licenced  companies  and  only  for  public 
cars, i.e. taxis. The new act will effectively abolish Act 4070/2012. In the draft, fines will 
be  given  to  both  companies  and  drivers  as  well  as  customers  who  use  unlicensed 
businesses.  Finally,  platforms  wishing  to  operate  must  sign  three-year  cooperation 
agreements with taxi drivers. 

230 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements380500501000 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Finance 

Greece is placed among the top ten countries concerning collaborative financing. There is 
no  bespoke  regime  regulating  P2P  equity investment  or  P2P  lending.  Currently,  for  P2P 
equity investment and P2P lending platforms to be authorised as a platform that can offer 
transferable  securities (crowd investing platform), the platform must  operate under the 
umbrella of an investment services firm, an AIFM or a  credit institution. Therefore, P2P 
equity investment and P2P lending platforms are not exempt from any of the requirements 
applicable  to  investment  firms  for  obtaining  an  authorisation/licence.  The  regulatory 
authorities will make a decision on issuing or refusing to issue an activity licence within 60 
calendar days after receiving all the necessary information and documents. 

Administration 

Greece ranks 25 out of the 28 EU countries on the administration score, because there is 
only  little  public  guidance  on  the  collaborative  economy.  There  has  not  been  any 
governmental guidance on setting up collaborative platforms in Greece, and there is no 
evidence  of  any  governmental  action  on  issuing  a  public  document  or  a  publication 
regarding  the  legislation  or  the  rights  and  obligations  of  peer  providers.  Moreover,  the 
government  has  not  provided  guidance  on  the  applicability  of  national  tax  rules  with 
respect to services provided on P2P platforms. The only guidance regarding taxation in the 
accommodation  sector  has  been  issued  by  the  Pan-Hellenic  Federation  of  Real  Estate 
Owners  informing  real  estate  owners  how  they  will  be  taxed  on  short-term  rental  of 
accommodation.  

Business support 

Greece  ranks  7  out  of  28  EU  countries  when  it  comes  to  business  support  in  the 
collaborative  economy.  Any  start-up  company  can  receive  financial  support  from  the 
‘Operational Programme for Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship’, however, this does 
not  target  collaborative  platforms.  Moreover,  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  government 
providing support services (financial or non-financial) for collaborative economy platforms 
or peer providers. The ranking can be explained by the government introducing specific 
tax rules for peers that distinguish between professional accommodation service providers.  

Alignment 

Greece ranks 11 out of the 28 EU countries on alignment, since the same legislation applies 
everywhere in Greece.  

231 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections6210042330100100Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making1303300Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment422501000100Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector8350100 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Founder of the Facebook group, Thess carpooling project [Transport] 
  Policy  expert,  Independent  Department  for  the  Coordination  of  Reforms  and 

Communications - Ministry of Finance [Horizontal - Accommodation] 

  Advisor in Ministry of Economy and Development, General Secretariat of Commerce 

[Horizontal - Accommodation] 

Written sources 

  Art. 18 of Greek Law 1903/1990 ‘For the amendment of the provisions of the Road 
Traffic Code, ratified by Law 614/1977 (Government Gazette 167 / A '/ 16.6.1977) 
and other provisions.’ 

  Art. 23 and 24 of Greek Law 4416/2016 ‘Amendment of Law 4099/2012 (A 250) 
(transposition  of  Directive  2014/91  /  EU  /  L  257  into  national  law)  and  other 
provisions. 

  Art. 84 ‘Amendments to Article 111 of Law 4446/2016’ of Greek Law 4472/2017 
‘Public  pension  provisions  and  amendment  of  the  provisions  of  Law  4387/2016, 
measures  for  the  implementation  of  fiscal  targets  and  reforms,  social  support 
measures  and  labour  regulations,  Medium-term  Financial  Strategy  Framework 
2018-2021 and other provisions’. 

  Art. 111 ‘Arrangements for short-term  rental of real estate in the context  of the 
sharing  economy.’  of  Greek  Law  4446/2016  ‘Bankruptcy  Code,  Administrative 
Justice,  Fees-Fees,  Voluntary  Reveal  of  Taxable  Matter  of  Past  Years,  Electronic 
Transactions, Amendments to Law 4270/2014 and other provisions’. 

  Art 593. ‘The right of sub-leasing’ of Greek Civil Code 
  Greek  Law  4070/2012  ‘Electronic  Communications,  Transport,  Public  Works  and 

 

other provisions.’ 
Joint  Ministerial  Decision  No.  16597  /  29/12/2010  ‘Terms  and  conditions  for  the 
establishment and operation of private car rental (private) passenger cars, without 
driver’ 

  Law  3401/2005  ‘Public  Offering  of  Securities  Prospectus  and  their  admission  to 

trading’ (which is amended by Art 23 of Law 4416/2016) 

  Law  3606/2007  ‘Financial  instruments  markets  and  other  provisions.’  (which  is 

amended by Art 24 of Law 4416/2016) 

  Ministerial  Decision  No.  A54501  /  5518  /  28.1.2014  ‘Setting  Fees  for  Public 

Passenger Cars – TAXI’ 

  Supporting Files (A) from VVA, regarding Greek Transport Sector. 

232 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Greece – Vertical themes 

233 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelELTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationAthensNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsAthensYes4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsAthensYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsAthensYes6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsAthensYes8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionAthensNo9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsAthensNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsAthensYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationAthensNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationAthensNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsAthensYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelELFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalYes4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational606. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational607. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalNo14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalNo 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

234 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelELACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalYes3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalYes4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?InspectionsNationalYes 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Greece – Horizontal themes 

235 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelELPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalNo3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalNoBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalPartially3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalYesALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalPartially2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNoStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Hungary 

Performance overview 

Overview 
Hungary  ranks  25  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  in  relation  to  the  regulatory  environment 
affecting the collaborative economy. The performance overview shows that the regulatory 
environment has a negative impact on the collaborative economy in Hungary. The study 
indicates  that  applicable  legislation  is  not  suited  for  the  collaborative  economy.  The 
consequences  are  that  peers  and  platforms  are  prevented  from  taking  part  in  the 
collaborative  economy.  Moreover,  it  does  not  seem  like  the  government  is  encouraging 
the development of P2P services. When looking at administration and business support, 
the  overall  conclusion  is  that  regulatory  developments  concerning  the  collaborative 
economy are quite stagnant.  

Accommodation 

Hungary  ranks  19  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  concerning  accommodation  in  the 
collaborative economy because there is no specific legislation on accommodation services 
in  the  collaborative  economy.  Provisions  concerning  accommodation  service  through 
collaborative platforms fall within ‘other accommodation’ as described in Decree 239/2009 
on ‘the detailed requirements to engage in accommodation service activities and on the 
procedure for the issuance of accommodation licence’. ‘Other accommodation’ is described 
as an independent building or part of a building used for accommodation services that is 
not a hotel, B&B, camping, hostel, rural accommodation or holiday resort. Furthermore, 
Decree 239/2009 imposes two restrictions for ‘Other accommodation’:  

 

 

the property let for the purposes of collaborative economy cannot be built for the 
purpose  of  letting  rather  than  for  the  purpose  of  living  (e.g.  houses  or  flats  for 
permanent residence); and 
restrictions  on  the  size  of  the  activity  (max.  8  rooms  and  max.  16  beds  in  one 
property). 

236 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections500338025100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Decree 239/2009 does not specify whether the peer provider is obliged to be present in 
the  property  he  or  she  is  letting.  Nor  does  Decree  239/2009  specify  whether  the  peer 
provider is required to obtain approval from their landlord or building association prior to 
subletting the property. Nevertheless, peer providers must register their activities with the 
local  regulatory  authority.  The  registration  process  is  conducted  by  the  notary  of  the 
competent local government based on the location of the property, applying the general 
rules  of  administrative  process.  However,  peer  providers  are  not  subject  to  inspections 
from local authorities. 

Lastly,  the  relevant  acts  do  not,  per  se,  differentiate  between  peers  and  professionals 
offering accommodation services, but they do differentiate between the applicable rules 
for individuals and corporations more generally. 

Transport 

In terms of the transport sector, Hungary ranks 15 out of the 28  EU countries since the 
legislation  on  this  issue  depends  on  whether  the  services  are  based  on  profit  or  cost-
sharing. 

Ride-sharing: In Hungary, there is no separate regulatory regime specifically applying to 
ride-sharing services. P2P ride-sharing without a professional licence is only allowed on a 
cost-sharing  basis.  This  means  that  ride-sharing  is  allowed  without  an  authorisation  or 
professional licence if the remuneration for the activity does not exceed the running costs 
of operating the vehicle. The requirement for a professional licence depends on whether 
the activities generate a profit or not. There are many requirements for peer providers to 
get a professional licence apart from holding a driving licence and not having a criminal 
record,  including  having  to  take  special  courses  and  exams  concerning  passenger 
transportation, and strict medical examinations are required every 5 years. In case of IT 
intermediaries facilitating professional passenger transport, the platform must comply with 
the legislation on dispatch centres and obtain a licence. Conversely, taxis are not explicitly 
required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services, they can 
operate as freelancers as well. 

Car-sharing  is  not  defined  in  Hungarian  national legislation,  and  P2P  car-sharing  does 
not exist in Hungary currently. 

Finance 

Hungary ranks 27 out of the 28 EU countries concerning the finance sector. P2P equity 
investment is currently not allowed under Hungarian legislation. The Hungarian financial 
sector  is  heavily  regulated.  As  a  result,  P2P  equity  investment  platforms  are  seen  as 
providing  a  lending  activity,  and  they  are  therefore  subject  to  the  same  licensing 
requirements as investment firms.  

On  the  one  hand,  P2P  lending  is  unregulated  in  Hungary,  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
applicable legislation does not allow P2P lending platforms to operate  without holding a 

237 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements460100050500Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections11001700100 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

licence. In Hungary, P2P lending platforms are subject to licensing requirements if they 
operate  as  a  business.  The  Hungarian  National  Bank  views  such  platforms  as  providing 
lending  activities  and  they  are  therefore  subject  to  licensing  requirements.  Overall, 
regulations and enforcement measures in relation to the finance sector are not seen as a 
priority in Hungary. 

Administration 

Hungary ranks 21 out of the 28 EU countries concerning administration in the collaborative 
economy.  There  is  no  official  guidance  and  peer  providers  and  platform  owners  must 
therefore look for guidance and rely on current regulations. Moreover, there is no publicly 
supported body dealing with enquiries from peers on the regulatory aspects of using or 
offering  of  P2P  services.  Furthermore,  there  is  no  dedicated  public  body  dealing  with 
legislation  related  to  P2P  services.  Regulatory  developments  affecting  the  collaborative 
economy are therefore quite stagnant at the moment, but the National Tax and Customs 
Authority has issued some guidance regarding taxation in connection with accommodation 
service.  

In March 2017, the Sharing Economy Association was established in Hungary with the aim 
to  teach  Hungarian  consumers  about  the  collaborative  economy  and  its  utilisation.  The 
Sharing  Economy  Association  also  hopes  to  develop  a  relationship  with  the  regulatory 
bodies in Hungary to support cooperation in the sector. 

Business support 

Concerning business support, Hungary ranks 7 out of the 28 EU countries since there is 
funding for start-ups from which collaborative platforms can benefit. However, there is no 
dedicated,  publicly  funded  grant  schemes  targeting  platforms  in  the  collaborative 
economy. Moreover, no information has been found on whether the government provides 
an accreditation scheme for the promotion of collaborative platforms or actively support 
industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards. 

Alignment 

Concerning alignment, Hungary ranks 11 out of the 28 EU countries since taxi fares may 
vary across Hungary. For instance, in Budapest, taxi prices are fixed by the authorities, in 
other cities taxi fares are not fixed, which means that taxi fares vary from city to city.  

238 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making25033500Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment4275010000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector8350100 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  CEO, Oszkar.hu [Transport] 
  Professor, Central European University [Horizontal] 

Written sources 

  31/2013.  (IV.  18.)  Főv.  Kgy.  rendelet  a  személytaxival  végzett  személyszállítási 
szolgáltatás  és  a  személytaxi-szolgáltatást  közvetítő  és  szervező  szolgálat 
működtetésének  feltételeiről,  a  taxiállomások  létesítésének  és  igénybevételének 
rendjéről és a személytaxi-szolgáltatás hatósági áráról. Available at:  
https://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=A1300031.FOV&dbnum=104&r
endelettar=fovaros&timeshift=fffffff4&celpara . Last accessed on 20/11/2017. 
  176/2015.  (VII.  7.)  Korm.  rendelet  a  személygépkocsival  díj  ellenében  végzett 
https://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen 
Available 

közúti 
/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=a1500176.kor.  Last accessed on 20/11/2017. 

személyszállításról. 

at: 

  239/2009.  (X.  20.)  Korm.  rendelet  a  szálláshely-szolgáltatási  tevékenység 
folytatásának  részletes  feltételeiről  és  a  szálláshely-üzemeltetési  engedély 
kiadásának rendjéről. Available at:  https://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/getdoc2.cgi?docid 
=A0900239.KOR.  Last accessed on 20/11/2017. 

  1988.  évi  I.  törvény  a  közúti  közlekedésről.  Available  at:  http://www.terc.hu 
on 

/tudastar/1988-evi-i-torveny/2017-04-07-11-25-50. 
20/11/2017.  

accessed 

Last 

  2012.  évi  XLI.  törvény  a  személyszállítási  szolgáltatásokról.  Available  at: 
 https://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=a1200041.tv.  Last  accessed  on 
20/11/2017. 

  2007.  évi  CXXXVIII.  törvény  a  befektetési  vállalkozásokról  és  az  árutőzsdei 
szolgáltatókról,  valamint  az  általuk  végezhető  tevékenységek  szabályairól. 
Available  at:  https://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=A0700138.TV.  
Last accessed on 20/11/2017.  

  2014.  évi  XVI.  törvény  a  kollektív  befektetési  formákról  és  kezelőikről,  valamint 
egyes 
at: 
 https://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=A1400016.TV. Last accessed on 
20/11/2017. 

törvények  módosításáról. 

pénzügyi 

Available 

tárgyú 

  Budapest Business Journal (2017). Crowdfunding: Feasible in Hungary? Available 

at: https://bbj.hu/opinion/crowdfunding-feasible-in-hungary_130190 

  Grimaldi  Studio  Legale,  Universita  Commerciale  Luigi  Bocconi  CERTeT  and 
Wavestone (2017). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 
ridesharing in the EU. Annex III. Country Reports. [Unpublished] 
Jesus, F. and J. DiPietro, D. Maruca (2014). Crowdfunding in Hungary: Analysis & 
Opportunities,  A  collaboration  with  The  National  Innovation  Office  of  Hungary. 
Available  at:  https://american.edu/sis/practica/upload/Bocskor-Hungary-NIH-
Crowdfunding-Final-Report.pdf 

 

  Magyar Nemzeti Bank (2016). Állásfoglalás közösségi finanszírozás (crowdfunding) 

felügyeleti megítéléséről. Available at:  
http://alk.mnb.hu/data/cms2450224/tmp2F0F.tmp(11394111).pdf 

  Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal (2016). Kereskedelmi szálláshely-szolgáltatást online 
rendszeren  keresztül  nyújtó  adóalanyok  adózására  vonatkozó 

foglalási 
legfontosabb tudnivalók. Available at:  
https://www.nav.gov.hu/nav/ado/afa080101_hatalyos?pagenum=2. 

  Spark Legal, VVA Consulting (2017). Study on the Assessment of the Regulatory 
Aspects Affecting the Collaborative Economy in the Tourism Accommodation 
Sector in the 28 Member States (580/PP/GRO/IMA/15/15111J). Research 
Questionnaire answered by Dr Andrea Fejos for Hungary. [Unpublished] 

239 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Hungary – Vertical themes 

240 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelHUTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationBudapestNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsBudapestYes4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsBudapestYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsBudapestNo6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsBudapestNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionBudapestNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionBudapestNo9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsBudapestNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsBudapestYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationBudapestNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationBudapestYes13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsBudapestYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelHUFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalYes3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalYes5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3656. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3657. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalYes14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalNo 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

241 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelHUACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNationalYesBudapestYesNationalYesBudapestYesNationalNoBudapestNoNationalYesBudapestYesNationalYesBudapestYesNationalYesBudapestYesNationalNoBudapestNoNationalNoBudapestNoNationalNoBudapestNoNationalPartiallyBudapestPartiallyNationalNoBudapestNo12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their Registrations, authorisations, notifications 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Hungary – Horizontal themes 

242 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelHUPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalNoBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalPartially2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalYes3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalPartially2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNoStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Ireland  

Performance overview 

Overview 
The overall Irish performance for the sharing economy ranks number 13 in the EU. Number 
17  in  finance,  number  12  in  transport,  number  9  in  accommodation  and  number  1  in 
alignment. Regulations in Ireland are almost unaware of the sharing economy and there 
is no regulation of platforms or peers within accommodation, transport and finance. Thus, 
there  is  also  very  little  and  fragmented  business  support  and  e-guidance  directed 
specifically towards the sharing economy.  

Accommodation 

Ireland  is  placed  among  the  highest  scoring  on  accommodation  indicators  compared  to 
other  EU  countries  because  there  are  no  restrictions  or  regulations  for  peers  providing 
accommodation in Ireland except from agreeing with the property owner. 

If Ireland were to establish a bespoke regime regulating the P2P accommodation sector, 
the existing legislation regulating the accommodation sector in general is quite efficient 
and would provide a very good starting point for this process, according to an interview 
with  the  City  Council  of  Dublin.  Moreover,  there  is  no  definition  of  the  type  of  P2P 
transactions allowed in relation to accommodation. There is no regulatory restrictions or 
requirements on peer providers to register, obtain an authorisation or notify a regulatory 
body before subletting a property.  If the peer  provider is a tenant, then the tenant will 
have  a  legal  tenancy  agreement  with  the  landlord  registered  at  the  national  regulatory 
authority,  so  any  person  subletting  the  property  must  notify  the  landlord.  Individuals 
offering services on an occasional basis are not exempt from regulations (e.g. health and 
safety  requirements).  The  regulation  is  proportional  to  the  type  of  accommodation 
provided. There is clear health and safety guidance but it is a risk-based, common sense 
approach. 

There  is  no  threshold  to  distinguish  between  peer  and  professional  peer  activity  in  the 
accommodation  sector.  Finally,  there  are  no  inspections,  and  the  City  Council  will  only 
interfere if there are complaints coming from neighbours, etc. 

243 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections620671000100 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Transport 

Ireland scores 12 out of the 28 EU countries in relation to the transport sector. In Ireland, 
there is no legislation regulating car-sharing, ride-sharing or ride-hailing services  – and 
there  are  no  licence  requirements  for  neither  car-sharing  nor  ride-sharing  providers. 
However, taxi and professional car hire services need  licences to  operate legally. These 
licences  are  not  restricted  by  numbers  but  any  new  licence  will  only  be  granted  to 
wheelchair  accessible  vehicles  (since  2010).  Peer  providers  (taxi/private  hire  vehicle 
drivers)  offering  ride-sharing  services  on  an  occasional  basis  are  not  exempt  from 
authorisation  or  professional  licences  applicable  to  taxi  or  VTC  services.  Taxi  fares  are 
regulated, and since 2006 Ireland has counted as a single taximeter area when a National 
Maximum Taxi Fare was introduced to ensure that fares are transparent and predictable 
and that customers are not confused. Taxis are not required to be affiliated to a dispatch 
centre. For P2P ride-hailing there are no restrictions or regulations regarding the fare, but 
all vehicles must be wheelchair accessible. 

Finance 

Ireland reaches the  score of 17  out of the 28  EU countries  on the indicators for shared 
economy in finance. There is no regulation of P2P equity funding or debt funding. With no 
licences  and  authorisations  required  and  with  no  regulations,  the  sharing  economy  can 
operate freely in the finance sector in Ireland. However, some platforms may fall under 
the scope of ‘banking business’ and then require an authorisation from the Central Bank 
of Ireland. If an entity is not taking deposits, while it may be caught by other licensing 
requirements it will not be required to hold a bank licence. Lastly, prospectus requirements 
apply to peers as well as to professional providers. 

Administration 

The  Irish  government  ranks  9  among  the  Member  States  on  the  indicators  for 
administration.  There  is  only  little  information  and  guidance  to  be  found  with  the 
government. The low level of initiatives reflects the low level of regulation of the sharing 
economy in Ireland. 

The Irish government has issued some guidelines for setting up a collaborative platform. 
For instance, the Irish Revenue publishes reports regarding platforms such as Airbnb on 
guidance  regarding  taxation,  and  the  Dublin  City  Council  is  working  on  a  guideline  for 
applicable legislation. 

There are no publicly supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory 
aspects  of  use/offering  of  P2P  services,  and  there  is  no  government  cooperation  with 
platforms. There is no government guidance on national employment rules with respect to 

244 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements5007525501000Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections36500330100100Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making56100337550 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

services  provided  on  P2P  platforms.  Revenue.ie  provides  guidance  on  taxes,  but  not 
specifically for P2P platforms or peer providers. There have been no initiatives from public 
authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy (such as 
a government commission, stakeholder consultation, study). 

Business support 

When it comes to business support, Ireland scores 7 out of the 28 EU countries. Any start-
up company can receive advice from start-up schemes. The same applies to collaborative 
platforms.  Otherwise  there  is  no  business  support  in  Ireland  directed  specifically  at  the 
sharing economy. 

Alignment 

The  legislation  applies  equally  in  all  regions  and  cities  in  Ireland.  Regulations  are 
centralised in Ireland, hence regulations across municipalities do not vary that much. 

245 

Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment4275010000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector100100100 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Association Sharing Economy Ireland, Sharing Economy Ireland [Horizontal]  
  Head of Housing Policy Daithi Downey, Dublin City Council [Accommodation]  
  Professor, Trinity College Dublin [Accommodation]  

Written sources 

  Central  Bank  Ireland,  available  at:  https://www.centralbank.ie/consumer-
hub/consumer-notices/consumer-notice-on-crowdfunding-including-peer-to-peer-
lending  

  Regulation  of 

taxis  and  small  public  service  vehicles,  available  at: 

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/public_transport/reg
ulation_of_taxis_and_small_public_service_vehicles.html  

  The Companies Act (2014) 

246 

 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Ireland – Vertical themes 

247 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelIETRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationDublinNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsDublinYes4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsDublinYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsDublinPartially6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsDublinPartially7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionDublinNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionDublinPartially9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsDublinNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsDublinYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationDublinNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationDublinNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsDublinYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelIEFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3656. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3657. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalNo14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalNo 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

248 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelIEACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalYes5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?InspectionsNationalNo 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Ireland – Horizontal themes 

249 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelIEPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalYes2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalPartially6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalPartially2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalYes3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNoStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Italy 

Performance overview 

Overview 
Italy ranks 15 compared to the 28 EU countries, which is explained by a strong regulatory 
regime  towards  the  collaborative  economy.  Registration,  licences,  documentation,  etc., 
are  required  for  many  of  the  indicators  surveyed.  With  regard  to  accommodation, 
providers are  required to register as guesthouses and guests must be  registered at the 
police  station  by  the  host.  Transport  and  financial  service  platforms  need  a  licence  or 
authorisation to operate legally. Italy has taken legal action and there is information about 
both  platforms  and  peers.  Business  support  is  predominantly  for  start-ups  and  can 
therefore be used by start-ups within the collaborative economy. 

Accommodation 

Italy ranks 17 on accommodation compared to other  EU countries. Nationally, there are 
no specific regulations for accommodation services in the collaborative economy, but in 
some regions peer providers are required to register as guesthouses and guests must be 
registered  at  the  police  station  by  the  host.  For  rentals  lasting  more  than  30  days,  the 
tenancy agreements must be registered with the tax authorities. For tenants, it is usually 
difficult to gain permission from property owners to sublet. Property owners are free to 
sublet  their  primary  or  secondary  homes.  It  is  unclear  when  the  provision  of 
accommodation is a professional activity or a private activity. 

In  Italy,  there  is  no  specific  regulation  for  accommodation  services  in  the  collaborative 
economy and there is no legal unitary concept/definition of the type of P2P transactions 
allowed.  The  general  civil  code  regulates  short-term  accommodation  and  rentals  to 
tourists.  

Professional providers must register for VAT and register with the business registry of the 
Chamber of Commerce to gain access to grants and benefits for tourism activities. They 
must  also  inform  their  municipality  of  their  activity  to  obtain  a  SCIA  -  Segnalazione 
Certificata Inizio Attivitá.  

250 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections540331005050 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Private peer providers must also register for VAT, register with the business registry of the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  and  register  tenancy  agreements  with  the  Income  Revenue 
Authority (Agenzia delle Entrate) if the rent is high and the duration of the agreement is 
more than 30 days. If a short-term agreement lasts more than 30 days and the peer fails 
to register the contract, a sanction between 120% and 140% of the revenue due will be 
applied. The regions have additional regulations. 

In 2011, the Municipality of Rome introduced a revenue per night per client and the peer 
provider had to notify the local authorities by registering on the Capital City Online portal. 

In  the  Lombardy  Region,  the  peer  provider  must  register  property  for  let  as  a  vacation 
rental and register the guests at the local police station. According to experts, it is very 
likely that these rules are applicable to all other Italian regions.  

In the Lazio Region, a tenant providing P2P services must notify the Regional Office for 
Tourism and the municipality about the guests.  

The Italian Civil Code, Article 1594 - which provides for the general legal framework for 
subletting properties – states that a tenant can sublet properties but they need the owner’s 
approval in advance. In Italy, rental agreements generally do not allow subletting. There 
is  no  difference  at  the  regional  or  municipal  level.  There  are  no  requirements  for  peer 
providers  to  obtain  approval  from  their  building  association  or  other  residents  in  their 
building prior to subletting their property. 

It is easier for property owners to participate in the collaborative economy. Both primary 
residences  and  secondary  residences  may  be  used  for  collaborative  economy  purposes. 
There is a lack of clear legislation at national level. Homes and flats can be used for tourism 
purposes without providing any additional services (daily cleaning service, changing linen 
service, breakfast, etc.), and there are no regional or municipal differences to this rule. 
Whole properties may be let for a short period and the property owner need not be present. 

From a fiscal point of view there is a distinction between a peer acting in his/her private 
capacity carrying out an occasional activity (short-term letting) by letting a room or a flat 
and  a  professional  acting  in  his/her  professional  capacity  letting  more  than  one  flat. 
Agreements that last less than 30 days have been included in a new tax regime since June 
2017. 

Transport 

Italy scores medium on the transport indicators compared to other EU countries and ranks 
17.  Car-sharing,  ride-sharing  and  carpooling  are  not  defined  by  law,  but  platforms  still 
need a licence or authorisation to operate legally. Car-hailing services are legal if they are 
not unfair competition to taxi drivers. 

Car-sharing  has  not  been  defined  in  the  Italian  legislation  or  other  governmental 
guidelines but new legislation was passed in June 2017. A report issued in 2016 by the 
Observatory  on  Sharing  Mobility  clarifies  the  notion  of  ride-sharing  of  Italian  public 
authorities. The Decree on Sustainable Mobility was the main and initial means to enhance 
and spread car-sharing in Italy.  

To provide ride-sharing, car-sharing and car-pooling the collaborative platforms (not the 
peer providers) must have a licence or an authorisation otherwise the activity is considered 

251 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements4405005010067 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

to be illegal. At present, no platform has been launched in Italy to enable P2P car-sharing. 
A pilot initiative was recently launched (spring 2017) to create a new car-sharing platform 
with the financial support of an insurance group (Auting platform, http://auting.it/). 

Peer providers for P2P services do not have to obtain a licence or authorisation to operate. 
Peer providers must pay taxes of any income above EUR 5 000. 

Ride-sharing. Peer providers do not have to obtain a licence or authorisation to operate. 
Taxis must have a licence from their municipality. The municipalities issue licences (and 
authorisations) based on provisions set out by the region and the municipalities set the 
fares.  The  number  of  licences  (and  authorisations)  is  set  on  the  basis  of  the  resident 
population: the higher the number of people living in an area, the higher the number  of 
licences  (and  authorisations)  awarded  to  operate  non-scheduled  PTSs.  In  Italy,  taxi 
licences  are  distributed  free  of  charge  in  limited  quantities  in  public  tender  procedures. 
The  licences  can  be  traded  afterwards.  For  instance,  The  Municipality  of  Milan  is  the 
authority entitled to issue licenses to operate a taxi within the municipality. Between 2010 
and 2015, the Municipality of Milan did not issue any new licences.  

Standards for the regulation are set by the regions, and the municipalities must adopt the 
specific  regulations  concerning  the  granting  of  licences/authorisations,  the  number  and 
types  of vehicles than can operate the taxi service, daily shifts, working hours,  rules of 
conduct, general and safety conditions, and fares of the taxi service. Taxis do not need to 
be affiliated to a dispatch centre. 

Car-hailing. There is no specific legislation allowing non-professional drivers to provide 
private transport services via platforms and be paid for their services. Recent Italian case 
law allows private transport provision services via platforms for remuneration. A judgment 
of the Milan Tribunal in May 2015 declared the service UberPOP to be akin to a taxi service 
constituting unfair competition to taxi drivers. Consequently, all Uber Italia activities have 
been  suspended  in  Italy.  However,  other  ride-hailing  services  based  on  collaborative 
economy platforms, such as BlaBlaCar, continue to be successful. 

There  are  no  legal  thresholds  between  a  peer  provider  and  professional  at  the  national 
level.  Individual  platforms  may  set  their  own  criteria.  In  the  case  of  TicTocBox368,  a 
professional  platform  provider,  the  peer  has  expertise,  work  experience  and  perhaps  a 
specific driving licence, while peer providers do not have these features. 

Finance 

Italy scores medium compared to other EU countries on finance and ranks as number 16. 
Crowdfunding  is  strictly  regulated  in  Italy  and  requires  registration,  licences  for  the 
platforms, yearly reports and documentation to the financial authorities. Small platforms 
may be exempt if they are start-ups, but the demand for documentation constitutes a high 
entry barrier for potential platforms. 

368   http://www.toctocbox.com/  

252 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections42754633000 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Equity crowdfunding is regulated by an Act (17 December 2012) and by the CONSOB 369 
regulation (26 June 2013). Donations and reward-based crowdfunding are not regulated. 

Equity  funding.  Equity  investment  is  considered  to  be  financial  intermediaries  and  is 
therefore  monitored  by  the  CONSOB  authority.  Crowdfunding  is  allowed,  and  Italy  was 
one of the first European counties to legislate in the field of crowdfunding. To operate in 
the Italian market, platforms need to have a licence and be registered with the Register 
of Online Platforms Providers according to AGICOM Regulation (Italian: Albo degli operatori 
dei portali online).  

Debt funding. Lending-based crowdfunding is heavily regulated and platforms must have 
a licence from the Bank of Italy. Collaborative finance platforms are exempt from part of 
the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/licence if 
they  follow  the  guidelines  of  innovative  start-ups,  SMEs  and  others,  such  as  charitable 
association.  No  guidelines  have  been  issued  by  the  Italian  authorities  for  collaborative 
finance platforms in the field of debt funding.  

It will take 60 working days, exclusive of additional delays linked to the need for additional 
documentation (in 2014), to obtain a licence for either equity or debt funding. For reward-
based platforms (such as DeRev, Triboon and Idea Ginger, etc., which fall into the category 
of  equity  funding  platforms),  the  most  common  direct  costs  involved  in  obtaining  the 
necessary authorisation include IT development costs, trademark registration fee, an ex-
ante assessment study and the cost of establishing the company (e.g. tax disc). The most 
common  indirect  costs  necessary  to  obtain  the  required  authorisation  include 
communication,  marketing  (including  social  community  management),  legal  and 
administrative  costs  and  other  financial  costs  (e.g.  bank  account  management).  This 
applies to both equity and debt funding.  

Companies collecting funds via online platforms registered as innovative start-ups, follow 
the guidelines of the Development Decree 2.0 of December 2012 (Italian: Decreto Crescita 
2.0). The threshold above which a crowdfunding activity goes from being non-professional 
(P2P activity) to a professional activity is set at EUR 5 000 000. 

The cap on the amount peer providers can receive from collaborative platforms is set by 
law,  and  each  platform  cannot  collect  more  than  EUR  5 000 000  for  each  campaign  or 
product. Peer providers are not required to publish a prospectus. 

Platforms (of cooperative finance) must provide a number documents to the CONSOB, the 
authority  supervising  crowdfunding  platforms,  such  as  a  list  of  members,  details  of 
members, minutes of meetings, etc.  

Public authorities may monitor the activities of a platform by periodical audit controls to 
the platform premises/offices. Moreover, platforms must provide the CONSOB authorities 
with a yearly report on the state of the art of ongoing and upcoming campaigns. 

Administration 

369   http://www.consob.it/ CONSOB is the supervisory authority for the Italian financial products 
market. It aims to protect investors and the efficiency, transparency and development of 
the market. 

253 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making751001002575 
                                                 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Italy ranks 3 out of the 28 EU countries on the indicators for administration because there 
is information to be found from both relevant government agencies and local initiatives. 
The Italian government is working on a Sharing Economy Act. 

Since January 2016, the Italian parliament has been working on the development of the 
Sharing Economy Act, which includes regulations about collaborative economy schemes. 
This  work  includes  definitions  of  collaborative  platforms  and  a  suggestion  to  regard 
platforms as 'unpaid tax collectors' for tax authorities and introduce a VAT (value added 
tax) exemption for activities of the collaborative economy. 

The  government  has  not  issued  any  complete  and  clear  guidance  about  collaborative 
economy platforms yet, but there are a number of sector initiatives and local initiatives. 

Imprese 

recently  published  a  manual  and  a  website 
The  Registo  delle 
(www.sartups.registroimprese.it ) that collects all guidance on innovative start-ups, under 
which collaborative economy platforms may fall. For collaborative finance platforms, the 
CONSOB authority has issued webpages for collaborative economy platforms. The Ministry 
for Economic Affairs has also set up webpages on collaborative finance platforms, i.e. the 
Observatory 
Milano 
of 
(http://www.osservatoriocrowdinvesting.it/),  and  the  Observatory  on  Sharing  Mobility 
(http://osservatoriosharingmobility.it/),  which  is  an  initiative  of  the  Ministry  for 
Environment.  

Crowdfunding 

Politecnico 

the 

on 

di 

‘Sharitaly’  is  an  initiative  launched  in  2013  by  the  NGO  Collaboriamo  and  TRAILab 
(Università Cattolica di Milano) and the Municipality of Milan, which has created a website 
dealing  with  collaborative  schemes  mainly  focused  on  the  users  of  P2P  services.  The 
information site is called Collaboriamo! (http://www.collaboriamo.org/). The Municipality 
of Milan and Airbnb has established a partnership to enable family members of hospitalised 
patients to stay in Airbnb accommodation while being reimbursed by the municipality. 

Collaborative  economy  platforms  may  benefit  from  the  rules  for  innovative  start-ups, 
which  include  tax  allowances  and  special  tax  regimes.  Revenues  lower  than  EUR  5 000 
may not be taxable, and this could benefit peer providers. 

Business support 

Italy scores 3 out of the 28 EU countries on business support indicators compared to other 
European Member States. Though there is business support for collaborative platforms the 
main support is general support for innovative start-ups.  

At the national level, there are no funding schemes for collaborative economy platforms. 
However, at the local and regional levels there may be non-refundable loans and grants 
at the disposal of innovative start-ups in the field of collaborative economy. The Lombardy 
Region offers grants that support developing businesses in several areas (marketing, etc.). 
The  Emilia-Romagna  Region  organises  training  for  young  entrepreneurs  interested  in 
developing  platforms  and  initiatives  of  circular  economy.  The  Municipality  of  Milan  has 
launched the platform ‘Collaboriamo!’ and organises events, such as workshops, to inform 
potential investors and platforms of the rules governing the establishment of collaborative 
finance platforms. 

254 

Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment587510010000 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Alignment 

Italy scores relatively low on alignment because municipalities and regions may regulate 
specific issues concerning accommodation differently. However, in the matter of legislation 
on vacation homes (holiday homes) the regional legislation tends to be similar in all Italian 
regions. There are no differences between regions or municipalities in the application of 
rules on authorisation applying for peer transport or crowdfunding services.  

255 

Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector331000 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Giancarlo FAGLIA, TocTocBox [Transport]  
  Eliana GUARNONI, AltroConsumo [Horizontal]  
  Carlo ALLEVI, WeAreStarting, Fundera [Finance]  
  Tommaso BALDISSERA PACCHETTI, Crowd Fund Me ! [Finance]  
  Guglielmo APOLLONI, School Raising [Finance]  
  Francesca  CAPPELLARO,  ENEA  -  Italian  National  Agency  for  New  Technologies, 

Energy and Sustainable Economic Development [Horizontal]  

  Alfonso STEFANELLI, Triboom [Finance]  
  Filippo CELATA, Università la Sapienza - Roma [Horizontal]  

Written sources 

  European  Commission  (2016),  ”Crowdfunding  in  the  EU  Capital  Markets  Union:: 
ANNEX 2: Overview of Crowdfunding Regulatory Frameworks in a Selection of EU 
Member States  

  Domini, A. and Allevi, C. (2017). Interviews for EC Study on Collaborative economy 

schemes in the EU28 (WeAreStarting, Fundera, platform, finance); 

  Study  on  the  Assessment  of  the  Regulatory  Aspects  Affecting  the  Collaborative 
Economy  in  the  Tourism  Accommodation  Sector  in  the  28  Member  States 
(580/PP/GRO/IMA/15/15111J); 

  The CONSOB regulation n. 18592 of 26 June 2013 ‘Rules for risk capital collection 
via online portals’ (Italian: Regolamento sulla raccolta di capitali di rischio tramite 
portali on-line; amended with the resolution n. 19520 of 24 February 2016) 

  The  platform  Collaboriamo!, 
http://www.collaboriamo.org/  

funded  by 

the  Municipality  of  Milan. 

  The  monitoring  centre  Osservatorio  Crowdinvesting  (http://www.osservatorio 

crowdinvesting.it/ ) of the Politecnico di Milano  

  The Observatory on Sharing Mobility, which has been launched by the Ministry for 

Environment and the Sustainable Development Foundation 

  The Sustainable Development Foundation, which works on climate change issues 

which are strictly link to the collaborative economy in transport. 

256 

 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Italy – Vertical themes 

257 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelITTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNoRomeNoMilanNoFlorenceNoRomeYesMilanYesFlorenceYesRomeYesMilanYesFlorenceYesRomeYesMilanYesFlorenceYesRomeYesMilanYesFlorenceYesRomeNoMilanNoFlorenceNoRomeNoMilanNoFlorenceNoRomeNoMilanNoFlorenceNoRomeYesMilanYesFlorenceYesRomeNoMilanN/AFlorenceN/ARomeNoMilanN/AFlorenceN/ARomeYesMilanNoFlorenceNo11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliation12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliation13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirements8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictions10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictions5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinction2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislation3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirements4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirements 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

258 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelITACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNationalYesRomeYesMilanYesFlorenceYesNationalYesRomeYesMilanYesFlorenceYesNationalNoRomeNoMilanNoFlorenceNoNationalYesRomeYesMilanYesFlorenceYesNationalYesRomeYesMilanYesFlorenceYesNationalNoRomeNoMilanNoFlorenceNoNationalNoRomeNoMilanNoFlorenceNoNationalNoRomeNoMilanNoFlorenceNoNationalNoRomeNoMilanNoFlorenceNoNationalYesRomeYesMilanYesFlorenceYesNationalPartiallyRomePartiallyMilanPartiallyFlorencePartially12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

259 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelITFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalYes4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalYes5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational606. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3657. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational08. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalYes14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Italy – Horizontal themes 

260 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelITPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalYes2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalPartially7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalPartially8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalPartially2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalYes3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalYes4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalYes3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalYesStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Latvia 

Performance overview 

Overview 
Latvia ranks 22 out of the 28 EU countries. It does well on accommodation, which is mostly 
regulated by tax and housing regulations, and less well on finance and transportation. On 
administration, Latvia ranks towards the low end of the scale since there appears to be 
very little guidance and awareness of the collaborative economy in general in Latvia. 

Accommodation 

Latvia  ranks  among  the  top-10  European  countries  on  accommodation  indicators. 
Accommodation is regulated by tax legislation and housing and tenancy legislation. There 
is  no  regulation  of  platforms,  and  peer  providers  with  regular  activity  or  revenues 
exceeding  EUR  14,229  in  a  tax  year  have  to  register  as  professional  service  providers. 
Tenants must agree with the property owner before subletting. 

Latvian  legislation  does  not  regulate  the  accommodation  sector  in  the  collaborative 
economy and ‘peer’ and P2P transactions are not defined. There are no authorisations or 
licences, but peers must register as a professional service for tax purposes with the State 
Revenue Service (SRS) or inform the SRS about the conclusion of each tenancy agreement 
within 5 days of its conclusion. The tax rules do not distinguish between short-term and 
long-term lets. 

In the Act on Personal Income Tax a ‘Professional service provider’ is defined by 1) the 
frequency and regularity of transactions (three and more transactions in a taxation period 
or five and more transactions in three taxation periods); 2) the revenue from a transaction 
exceeds EUR 14,229 or more in a tax year; or 3) the economic nature of an activity or the 
number of items owned by a person indicate a regular activity aimed at making money. 

261 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections45010067250 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Similarly, the Civil Law and the Law on Residential Tenancy allow a tenant to sublet his or 
her flat if the landlord agrees. Subletting only part of a room is not allowed. The Law on 
Residential  Properties  does  not  impose  any  limits  on  property  owners.  There  are  no 
inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the legislation. 

Transport 

Currently, Latvia scores 20 out of the 28 EU countries on the transport indicators. On 28 
September 2017, there were some ‘amendments to the Law on Road Transportation’ in 
respect of P2P services. However, ride-hailing platforms, such as Uber, cooperate with the 
government and taxi representatives to find ways to include ride-sharing and ride-hailing 
into the legal framework. 

Car-sharing is not regulated by law. In practice, the services of hire cars with drivers are 
provided by two contracts, i.e. a car rental contract and a driver service contract. 

Ride-hailing/ride-sharing  is  not  regulated  by  legislation.  Taxis  are  regulated  by  the 
regulations on the carriage of passengers with passenger taxis and the regulations do not 
include ride-sharing or ride-hailing. The Ministry of Economics is currently in dialogue with 
Uber and taxi representatives about the inclusion of ride-sharing/ride-hailing providers in 
the Latvian transportation industry and the legal framework.  

Taxis are regulated locally. According to Section 39(5) of the Law on Carriage by Road, 
local  governments  that  issue  licences  for  passenger  carriage  by  taxis  determine  the 
maximum fare (prices) for such carriage. Usually local governments provide the maximum 
price for hiring a taxi, distance price per 1 kilometre and a time price per minute. However, 
local  governments  may  also  determine  other  types  of  prices.  For  example,  some  local 
governments  determine  maximum  night  and  day  distance  prices.  There  is  no  legal 
obligation to have a dispatch affiliation centre or provide a certain amount of service as a 
compulsory minimum.  

Each municipality specifies its own requirements for obtaining a taxi licence. All of them 
involve more than holding a driving licence and not having a criminal conviction. In the 
case  of  Riga,  for  instance,  the  driver  may  have  no  debts  to  the  public  and  hold 
documentation on the state of the vehicle. 

Finance 

Latvia  ranks  towards  the  low  end  of  the  scale  on  collaborative  funding.  Collaborative 
platforms can operate without a licence if they do not work on a commercial scale. Peer 
providers  must  provide  information  to  the  authorities  before  engaging  in  collaborative 
finance.  

Equity funding. Currently, there is no bespoke regulation on equity investments, but a 
regulation is currently being drafted. Several P2P equity investment companies operate in 
Latvia,  such  as  Minto,  DoFinance,  ViaInvest  and  Twino,  which  may  currently  operate 

262 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements50050251001000Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections2950750000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

without an investment brokerage company licence. According to the Financial Instrument 
Market  Law  of  Latvia,  anyone  intending  to  provide  investment  services  in  Latvia 
commercially or on a scale that requires a commercially organised business undertaking 
needs a licence from the Financial and Capital Market Commission. 

Debt  funding.  Currently  there  is  no  bespoke  regulation  on  equity  investments,  but  a 
regulation  is  currently  being  drafted.  Minto,  DoFinance,  ViaInvest  and  Twino  are  debt 
funding  platforms  that  currently  operate  without  a  licence.  There  is  no  threshold  to 
distinguish between peer and professional peer activity. 

There is no requirement to publish a prospectus for peer providers. Peers are exempt from 
prospectus requirements if it is a matter of a small amount (>EUR 100 000) over a short 
period (>12 months), few investors (>150). There is no cap on the amount peer providers 
can  receive  from  collaborative  platforms,  but  peer  providers  are  required  to  provide 
information to the authorities before engaging in collaborative finance.  

If the P2P platform facilitates the offering of securities or  other financial instruments or 
holds money belonging to third persons, the operator of the platform most likely provides 
investment or financial services. In this case, an authorisation is required from the FCMC 
(the Financial Capital Market Commission). Finally, P2P platforms that are considered to 
be  investment  brokerage  companies  are  subject  to  inspection  at  least  once  every  two 
years by the FCMC. 

Administration 

Latvia scores low on the administration indicators since no government organisations carry 
any  responsibility in  connection  with  the  sharing  economy  and  there  is  no  guidance  for 
platforms or peers. 

The Latvian government has not issued any guidance on setting up collaborative platforms, 
and there are no government websites or publications on collaborative platforms, and no 
government  organisation  has  been  appointed  to  do  so.  Peers  with  regulatory  questions 
can  either  contact  the  Consumer  Rights  Protection  Centre  of  Latvia  or  platforms  may 
contact the Latvian Startup Association. Platforms must interpret employment rules from 
local regulation since there is no specific guidance.  

Nevertheless,  it  is  worth  mentioning  that  in  a  memorandum  the  Ministry  of  Economics 
concluded  that  they  wish  to  oversee  legislation  specially  related  to  ride-sharing.  Thus, 
adjustments in respect to applicable legislation may be made.  

Business support 

Latvia scores relatively high on business support, since public servants are allowed to use 
collaborative services and there are some indirect publicly funded financial support to be 
found. There is, however, no government guidance on or promotion of the collaborative 
economy in Latvia. 

263 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making25050025Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment33251000050 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

There are no grant schemes specifically for collaborative platforms in Latvia, but platforms 
may find indirect public financial support for which collaborative platforms can apply, such 
as various grants, business incubators, and venture capital funds. The Latvian government 
has co-financed only one hackathon on a sharing economy topic, and no further initiatives 
are  planned  to  promote  the  collaborative  economy.  Public  servants  are  allowed  to  use 
collaborative services in their professional capacity. 

Alignment 

Concerning alignment, Latvia scores 15 out of the 28 EU countries as each city may have 
their  own  regulations  and  licences  for  transport,  whereas  there  is  no  regional  variation 
when it comes to accommodation service providers. 

264 

Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector8310075 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Country Manager for Latvia, Taxify [Transport]  
  Market and Product Manager, Autolevi [Transport]  
  PR and Marketing Communications Manager, Viainvest [Finance]  
  CEO, Viventor [Finance]  

Written sources 

  Amendments to the Financial Sector Development Plan 2014-2016. Available at: 

https://likumi.lv/ta/id/279842-grozijumi-finansu-sektora-attistibas-plana-2014-
2016-gadam 

  Financial Instruments Market Law of Latvia. Available at: 

http://www.fktk.lv/en/law/financial-instruments-market/laws/4310-2011-06-14-
law-on-the-financial-ins.html 

  Labs of Latvia (2016). ""The law on interoperable loan platforms is scheduled to 

be developed next year"". Available at: 
http://www.labsoflatvia.com/lv/zinas/savstarpejo-aizdevumu-platformu-darbibas-
likumu-plano-izstradat-nakamgad 

  Labs of Latvia (2017). "Most promising P2P lending and crowdfunding platforms in 
the Baltics". Available at: http://www.labsoflatvia.com/news/most-promising-
p2p-lending-and-crowdfunding-platforms-in-the-baltics 

  Open Evidence, EY, ECN & Politecnico di Milano (ongoing). Assessing the potential 
for crowdfunding and other forms of alternative finance to support research and 
innovation. Available at: 
http://crowdfunding4innovation.eu/sites/default/files/country_fiches/country-
fiche_Parte16.pdf 

  P2P-Banking (2017). ""Interview with the Founders of DoFinance Janis and 

Viesturs Kulikovoskis"". Available at: https://www.p2p-banking.com/tag/latvia/ 

  Regulations of 29 March 2011 No 118 of Riga City Council “Regulations on the 

maximum fares (prices) for passenger and baggage carriage with taxis in Riga”. 
Available: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=229993 

  Road Transport Law, 1995. Available at: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=36720 
  Rules for the carriage of passengers with light taxis, 2012. Available at: 

http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=249996 

  Techcrunch (2016). ""Latvia’s Mintos Scores €2M Investment For P2P Loans 
Marketplace"". Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/23/mintos/ 

  The Civil Law. Available at: https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=90221 
  The Law On Residential Tenancy. Available at: 

https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=56863 

  The Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Economics, Uber and 

Taxify, 2016. Available at: https://www.em.gov.lv/en/news/10594-the-
memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-ministry-of-economics-uber-and-
taxify-have-been-signed 

265 

 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Latvia – Vertical themes 

266 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelLVTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationRigaNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsRigaNo4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsRigaNo5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsRigaNo6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsRigaNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionRigaNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionRigaNo9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsRigaNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsRigaYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationRigaNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationRigaNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsRigaYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelLVACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalYes5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?InspectionsNationalNo 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

267 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelLVFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational906. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3657. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalNo13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalYes14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Latvia – Horizontal themes 

268 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelLVPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalNo3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalPartially8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalNoBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalPartially3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalPartially4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalNo2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNo 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Lithuania 

Performance overview 

Overview 
Lithuania is leading the  European  Member States  on the indicators for the collaborative 
economy. The collaborative economy has been integrated into the legislation of Lithuania, 
indeed,  it  has  its  own  legislation  such  as  the  Act  on  Crowdfunding.  For  peers  offering 
accommodation there can be some uncertainty as to whether the Act on Tourism or the 
regulation  on  renting  should  be  followed.  Lithuania  has  embraced  the  collaborative 
economy and made it possible to integrate it into in the Lithuanian economy as any other 
business model. 

Accommodation 

Lithuania’s  collaborative  economy  for  accommodation  is  one  of  the  leaders  among  the 
EU28. The collaborative economy is regulated through either the Act on Tourism,  i.e. as 
bed  and  breakfast,  or  the  through  the  regulation  on  letting  residential  flats,  which  has 
fewer requirements than the Act on Tourism. 

Lithuanian  regulations  do  not  specifically  mention  the  collaborative  economy  or  the 
collaborative platforms for accommodation. Peer providers are regulated under the Act on 
Tourism equally to those providing a B&B service or rural tourism services. The act restricts 
the  number  of  rooms  and  includes  regulations  regarding  safety  and  hygiene.  Peer 
providers  must  notify  the  State  Department  of  Tourism  about  their  services  before 
commencing provision of services. The regulation concerning peer providers is not clear, 
since  the  regulation  for  letting  residential  flats  has  fewer  requirements  than  the  Act  on 
Tourism. Subletting is legal if the peer provider obtains written consent from the property 
owner. Primary and secondary residences are not at concept in Lithuanian legislation, and 
there is no obligation for the peer provider to be present in a property when letting it.  

269 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections7308310050100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Transport 

Lithuania is in the lead in the collaborative economy for transportation. Car-sharing, ride-
sharing and ride-hailing services have been fully integrated into Lithuanian legislation since 
2016 on par with professional taxi services. To be operating legally both taxis and peer 
providers must notify the authorities for tax reasons. The requirements for taxis are a little 
stricter than for peer providers. The market is self-regulating since there are no limits on 
fares or the number of providers. 

The Road Transport Code of Lithuania was amended on 27/09/2016 to accommodate car-
sharing,  ride-sharing  and  ride-hailing  services.  Natural  persons  and  legal  entities  can 
organise the carriage of passengers, and passengers may be transported not only by taxis 
but also by private cars, if the cars meet the general requirement for motor vehicles. If 
the  service  involves  payment,  the  service  can  be  arranged  by  a  contract  between  the 
carrier and the passenger or through a service organiser such as a collaborative platform. 
Non-professional  drivers  are  allowed  to  provide  transport  services  via  platforms  for 
remuneration. Peer providers, ordinary taxis, or private persons must submit a declaration 
of intent to provide the service under the light vehicle taxi rules to the municipality under 
which  the  carrier  is  registered  or  resides  in  (in  the  case  of  natural  persons).  Carrier 
authorisation for the service must be issued on the day after the declaration of the intent 
to  carry  out  the  service.  Alternatively,  the  declaration  of  intent  can  be  submitted  by  a 
passenger  transport  service  organiser,  i.e.  a  collaborative  platform.  The  provision  of 
transport must follow the terms set by the State Tax Inspectorate under the Ministry of 
Finance of the Republic of Lithuania and provide information on the income received from 
providing the service. Tax information can be delivered to the State Tax Inspectorate by 
the peer provider or the organiser of the service, i.e. the collaborative platform. Service 
providers do not have to be connected to a platform or a dispatch centre. 

There  are  no  requirements  concerning  professional  licences  or  authorisations  for  car-
sharing  or  ride-sharing  other  than  the  licence  obtained  by  submitting  a  declaration  of 
intent to provide the service to the municipality under which the carrier is registered or 
resides. The rules apply equally to taxis and private peer providers. In addition to a driving 
licence, providers must submit a certificate of  individual activity, declaration of place of 
residence within the same municipality where services are to be provided, the registration 
certificate of the vehicle, documents on the vehicle’s roadworthiness, driver’s civil liability 
insurance  documents,  and  documents  proving  legal  basis  for  possession  of  the  vehicle. 
Official taxi drivers must pass a specific taxi driving test. Car sharing providers do not need 
a professional licence but requirements for commercial rendering of services apply, e.g. 0 
alcohol, possible higher insurance, more frequent periodical technical inspections, etc. 

Fares  are  unrestricted  for  both  peer  providers  and  taxis,  but  taxis  have  additional 
regulations in terms of their taximeter, car markings, technical check-up, etc.  

There are no restrictions on the number of taxis in the legislation. However, municipalities 
have the right to impose restrictions, but there are no examples of this. 

270 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements7710010001001000 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Finance 

Lithuania are among the leading countries on the finance indicators due to the Lithuanian 
Crowdfunding Act that lets the collaborative platforms operate if they are accepted on a 
public list of operators by the Bank of Lithuania. There are requirements for documentation 
to be accepted on the list, and depending on the size of the individual projects there are 
proportional requirements for documentation and security.  

P2P  equity  investment  and  P2P  lending  are  legal  in  Lithuania  and  are  regulated  by  the 
Lithuanian Crowdfunding Act, which was adopted on 3 November 2016. The operator has 
the right to engage in crowdfunding activities after the operator is included on the public 
list of crowdfunding platform operators operated by the Bank of Lithuania. When applying 
to  the  supervisory  authority  to  be  included  on  the  public  list  of  crowdfunding  platform 
operators,  the  operator  must  submit  information  related  to  members  and  managers 
(heads) of the platform operator, information on prudential requirements of the platform, 
a  plan  in  case  of  an  ongoing  concern  and  other  documents.  The  supervisory  authority 
makes a decision regarding inclusion on the list within 30 business days. There is no fee 
for the inclusion on the list mentioned in the regulation. The administrative burden lies in 
the preparation of the documentation. 

There is no explicit threshold to distinguish between a peer and a professional peer activity. 
However, there is a requirement for a peer to be an informed investor. Before providing 
an  opportunity  for  an  investor  to  enter  into  a  specific  type  of  financing  transaction 
(investment  or  lending)  for  the  first  time,  the  platform  operator  must  carry  out  an 
assessment  of  suitability  of  the  specific  type  of  financing  transaction  for  the  investor  in 
question.  

The platform operator must request the investor (peer) to provide information on his/her 
knowledge and experience in the area  of investments  related to the  type of anticipated 
financing  transaction.  If  the  information  is  not  acceptable,  the  platform  operator  must 
inform the investor that the transaction is not acceptable or ask for more information.  

The project owner wishing to enter into one or more financing transactions for the total 
amount of EUR 5 million or more in 12 months can do so only by issuing securities in the 
manner  established  by  the  Act  on  Securities,  i.e.  by  preparing  a  prospectus,  and  after 
obtaining approval from the supervisory authority. 

There  are  no  restrictions  on  the  maximum  amount  that  can  be  invested  under  the 
Lithuanian Crowdfunding Act. If the total amount is between EUR 100 000 up to EUR 5m 
in a 12-month period, the project owner must draft a document specifying the information 
about the project owner and the proposed project and submit it to the platform operator. 
If the total amount exceeds EUR 5m or more in a 12-month period it is only possible by 
issuing securities in the manner established by the Act on Securities, i.e. by preparing a 
prospectus and after obtaining approval from the supervisory authority. 

According  to  the  Lithuanian  Crowdfunding  Act,  the  supervisory  institution  (the  Bank  of 
Lithuania) analyses, verifies and monitors the activities of the operators of crowdfunding 
platforms. It has the power to ask an operator to suspend actions infringing on the relevant 
regulations, and, as a final measure, it can delist an operator from the public crowdfunding 
operators list, thereby revoking its licence and its ability to operate. 

271 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections6910092670500 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Administration 

Lithuania ranks 12 compared to the 28 EU countries on the public administration score in 
the collaborative economy. In Lithuania, the government, including the Bank of Lithuania 
and the State Tax Inspectorate, issues positions, guidance, and explanations in the follow-
up  to  the  adoption  of  the  Act  on  Crowdfunding  (November  2016).  However,  the  desk 
research could not locate the information and most of the guidance was undertaken in the 
form of stakeholder meetings.  

Business support 

Lithuania  is  among  the  countries  providing  the  least  business  support  to  P2P  services, 
ranking Lithuania 23 on the business support score. 

Platforms  in  Lithuania  may  use  the  information  from  Startup  Lithuania  that  provides 
general support services to start-ups. There are no specific support programmes or offers 
on P2P services. According to an expert, public servants are in principle not allowed to use 
collaborative finance in their professional capacity. 

Alignment 

The rules in Lithuania are aligned across the country. Thus, the rules for the collaborative 
economy are aligned across Lithuania. The rules for peer transport are the same across 
the country. Regions or cities do not apply specific regulations on accommodation services. 

272 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making50100175075Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment170100000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector100100100 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Head of Startup Lithuania  
  Partner, Tvins 

Written sources  

  Lithuanian 

at: 
tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/60391540ab3c11e6a6f98c1425a5ffa8  

Crowdfunding 

Available 

Law. 

https://www.e-

  Road Transport Code of the Republic of Lithuania (Articles 7 & 18). Available at:  
https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/6aea4d30856511e6a0f68fd135e6 
f40c?jfwid=-cqcuop6i2   

  The  Act  on  Tourism  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  (Lietuvos  Respublikos  turizmo 
įstatymas),  Official  Gazette  19-03-1998,  No.  VIII-667,  identification  code 
0981010ISTAVIII-667,  https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.52605/ 
EOmEAXQxmf  

  The Description of Accommodation Types, approved by the Order of the Director of 
the State Department on Tourism under the Ministry of Economy (Apgyvendinimo 
rūšių aprašas, patvirtintas Valstybinio turizmo departamento prie Ūkio ministerijos 
direktoriaus  2011  m.  lapkričio  21  d. įsakymu  Nr.  V-141),  Registry  of  Legal  Acts, 
2014-10-28, No. 14993, identification code 2014-14993,  
https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/19c388105eaf11e4bad5c03f56793630   

  The Rules on Carriage of Passengers by Taxi Cars. Available at:   

https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/416c0a20ce9411e69e09f35d37acd719   

273 

 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Lithuania – Vertical themes 

274 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelLTTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationVilniusYes3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsVilniusYes4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsVilniusYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsVilniusNo6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsVilniusNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionVilniusNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionVilniusNo9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsVilniusYes10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsVilniusYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationVilniusNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationVilniusNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsVilniusYes 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

275 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelLTACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalPartially4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?InspectionsNationalNoQuestionsIndicatorsLevelLTFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalYes4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational306. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational307. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNationalN/A8. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNationalN/A9. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalPartially14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Lithuania – Horizontal themes 

276 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelLTPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalYes2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalNo3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalPartially8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalNo3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalYes4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalNo5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNo 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Luxembourg 

Performance overview 

Overview 
Luxembourg  has  not  really  addressed  the  development  and  potential  impact  of  the 
collaborative economy yet, which can be seen by examining the current legislation. There 
are  no  specific  legal  frameworks  for  collaborative  platforms  in  the  accommodation, 
transport and financial sectors. Instead, all P2P services fall within the scope of the existing 
legislation  covering  the  different  sectors.  The  lack  of  specific legislation  results  in  some 
unintended obstacles for the collaborative platforms. Because of this Luxembourg scores 
23 out of the 28 EU countries. However, Luxembourg does not appear to be fighting the 
development of the collaborative economy. The subject simply needs to be addressed by 
the  government.  Therefore,  Luxembourg  could  score  significantly  higher  if  they  begin 
working on establishing specific legal frameworks in the different sectors.  

Accommodation 

When it comes to the accommodation sector, Luxembourg’s medium score is only enough 
to place them as number 23 among the 28 EU countries. There is no legal framework that 
can be specifically applied to the collaborative platforms in the accommodation sector. For 
the time being, the Ministry of Economy does not envisage that regulation of short-term 
rental of housing by individuals is needed. For this reason, collaborative platforms in the 
accommodation sector are regulated by traditional rental legislation. This means that there 
is no definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed. It also means that there are no 
requirements as to authorisation.  

Generally, peer providers have the right to sublet their residence without the approval of 
the landlord. However, subletting is often prohibited in normal tenancy agreements. If no 
such prohibition exists in the agreement, peer providers may let both their primary and 
secondary residences.  

277 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections45010067250 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

The lack of specific legislation applicable to collaborative platforms in the accommodation 
sector means that there are no restrictions on the proportion of the property that can be 
let  and  nothing  preventing  peer  providers  from  letting  their  entire  property  and  no 
obligations for the peer provider to stay in his/her property while subletting. However, as 
the  collaborative  platforms  are  regulated  by  traditional  renting  legislation,  inspections 
carried out by the public authorities do occur to assure compliance with the legislation. 

Transport 

Luxembourg  has  a  medium  score  when  it  comes  to  the  conditions  for  collaborative 
platforms  in  the  transport  sector  and  is  almost  reaching  a  place  among  the  top  ten 
countries.  Luxembourg  does  not  define  P2P  car-sharing  and  P2P  ride-sharing  in  its 
legislation.  Uber  has  been  publicly  welcomed  by  the  Prime  Minister  (if  they  follow  the 
legislation)  and  ride-sharing  services  exist  in  the  country  (such  as  Karzoo  and 
Pendlerportal).  

‘The  Law  of  2nd  September  2011’  states  that  P2P  car-sharing  is  only  permitted  by 
obtaining a licence/authorisation. The law  states nothing about certain levels of income 
needed to obtain such a licence.  

When  it  comes  to  P2P  ride-sharing,  ‘The  Law  of  2nd  September  2011’  states  that 
authorisation is needed to perform VTC and taxi services. Non-professional drivers cannot 
provide  these  services.  As  soon  as  a  profit  is  made  the  driver  is  obliged  to  become  a 
professional driver and carry a licence. However, ride-sharing offered by non-professionals 
is allowed - and even promoted by the government - if the remuneration for the activity 
only covers the cost of operating the vehicle.  

The number of taxi licences is restricted across Luxembourg, but the specific number of 
taxis depends on the geographic area. In Canton Luxembourg, for example, the maximum 
number of licences is 290. Both taxi drivers and VTC drivers are free to set their own fares 
but they must inform their passengers about their prices prior to departure. Neither taxis 
nor VTC cars are obliged to be affiliated with a dispatch central. To be considered for a 
professional licence applicants must have a driver’s licence, no criminal history, be fluent 
in at least one of the three languages used in the public administration and fulfil certain 
criteria  of  morality  and  professional  capacity  (Grand-Duché  de  Luxembourg  (2011)  and 
interview with Robin Jacquet & Sarah Mellouet).  

Finance 

Luxembourg is number 22 out of the 28 EU countries on the finance score. Both P2P equity 
investment  and  P2P  lending  are  allowed  in  Luxembourg.  However,  there  is  no  legal 
framework  specifically  addressing  crowdfunding  and  this  is  one  of  the  main  reasons 
preventing  Luxembourg  from  scoring  above  medium.  In  2014,  the  Ministry  of  Finance 
officially stated that crowdfunding is currently subject to the general financial regulations. 
The  CSSF  (Surveillance  Commission  for  the  Financial  Sector)  analyses  each  case  to 
determine which regulations apply to a specific platform. The platforms can fall within the 

278 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements50050251001000Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections2950750000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

scope of several different regulations regulating the financial sector. Therefore, the direct 
and indirect costs as well as the maximum number of days before a licence is issued cannot 
be determined as it varies depending on the regulations applicable to each platform. As 
there is no specific legal framework for crowdfunding platforms they are not exempt from 
any  of  the  requirements  applicable  to  other  financial  companies  for  obtaining  a  licence 
(e.g.  investment  firms  or  banks).  The  collaborative  platforms  simply  must  respect  the 
requirements of the legislation applicable to them.  

In Luxembourg, there is no threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity. 
If a platform is regulated by the Directive Prospectus (after being analysed by the CSSF), 
the  platform  will  have  to  draft  a  complete  prospectus  if  the  investments  exceed  EUR 
5m/year. There are no  investment limits but if the platform is regulated by  ‘the Law of 
April 1993 on the Financial Sector’ it is subject to supervision by the CSSF (CSSF (1993), 
European Parliament (2010) and interviews with Sarah Mellouet & Isabelle Goubin).  

Administration 

The government of Luxembourg has issued little or no guidance on collaborative platforms, 
taxation rules, necessary licences, insurance requirements and applicable legislation. One 
exception  is  a  public  document  guiding  platforms  in  the  accommodation  sector  on 
applicable legislation relevant to peer providers. The document also contains some tips to 
facilitate  the  use  of  P2P  platforms.  There  is  no  specific  body  dealing  with  queries  from 
peers  on  the  regulatory  aspects  of  using/offering  P2P  services  or  any  guidance  on  the 
applicability of national employment rules and national tax rules with respect to services 
provided on P2P platforms. Finally, the government of Luxembourg has yet to initiate an 
examination of the development and impact of the collaborative economy in the country. 
The  Ministry  of  Economy  has  supported  the  work  on  the  strategy  ‘3rd  Industrial 
Revolution’, which includes a chapter on sharing platforms, but the chapter only contains 
a brief and general discussion of the subject. Consequently, Luxembourg scores 21 out of 
the 28 EU countries when it comes to public administration in the collaborative economy 
(Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Working Group and TIR Consulting Group LLC (2017)). 

Business support 

Luxembourg  is  doing  fairly  well  when  it  comes  to  providing  business  support  for 
collaborative platforms, ranking 12 on the business support score. The government does 
not provide any publicly funded grant schemes, etc., but it does offer advice (e.g. help for 
writing a business plan) and information to ‘start-ups’ in the collaborative economy. These 
services are provided via platforms like Nyuko, Incubators, House of Training and Chambre 
des Métiers. There is no accreditation scheme for collaborative platforms in Luxembourg. 
Some platforms may obtain the label ‘Made in Luxembourg’ – but this should be seen as 
a branding tool rather than a recommendation tool.  

279 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making25050025Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment33251000050 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Alignment 

Luxembourg  is  a  very  small  country  and  all  the  relevant  legislation  regulating  the 
collaborative  economy  applies  to  the  entire  country  (except  for  one  tax  regulation,  see 
below). This earns Luxembourg a high alignment score. However, the country scores 11 
out of the 28 EU countries because a specific accommodation tax is collected in some of 
the municipalities while others do not impose this tax at all (Interview with Sarah Mellouet 
& Tom Theves).  

280 

Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector8310075 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Economist (policy expert) Sarah Mellouet, Fondation IDEA [Horizontal]  
  Civil  servant  at  the  Ministry  of  Finance  Isabelle  Goubin,  Ministry  of  Finance 

[Finance]  

  Civil  Servant  at  the  Ministry  of  Economy  Tom  Theves,  Ministry  of  Economy 

[Horizontal] 

  Peer provider Robin Jacquet [Transport] 

Written sources 

  Chambre des Métiers (2017). http://www.cdm.lu/  
  Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier or CFFS (2017). ‘The Law of April 
http://www.luxembourgforfinance.com 

1993 
/sites/luxembourgforfinance/files/files/1993_04_05_financial_sector.pdf  

Financial  Sector’. 

the 

on 

  European 

Parliament 

(2010). 

Directive 

2010/73/EU. 

http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0073  

  Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Working Group and TIR Consulting Group LLC (2017). 
‘The  Third  Industrial  Revolution  Strategy  Study’  http://imslux.lu/eng/nos-
activites/pole-de-specialites/8_the-third-industrial-revolution-in-Luxembourg  
  Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (2011). ‘ACCÈS AUX PROFESSIONS D’ARTISAN, DE 
COMMERÇANT, D’INDUSTRIEL AINSI QU’À CERTAINES PROFESSIONS LIBÉRALES’. 
http://data.legilux.public.lu/file/eli-etat-leg-memorial-2011-198-fr-pdf.pdf  

  House of Training (2017). https://www.houseoftraining.lu/  
  LuxFutureLab (2017). http://www.luxfuturelab.lu/  
  Nyuko (2017). https://nyuko.lu/blog/  

281 

 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Luxembourg – Vertical themes 

282 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelLUTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationCapitalNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsCapitalNo4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsCapitalYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsCapitalYes6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsCapitalNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionCapitalNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionCapitalPartially9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsCapitalYes10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsCapitalYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationCapitalNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationCapitalNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsCapitalYes 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

283 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelLUACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalN/A6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalN/A7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalN/A11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?InspectionsNationalYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelLUFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational1806. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational07. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNationalN/A8. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNationalN/A9. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalYes14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Luxembourg – Horizontal themes 

284 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelLUPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalPartially8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalNoBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalPartially2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalNo3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalYes4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalNo5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalPartiallyALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalPartially3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNoStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Malta 

Performance overview 

Overview 
Malta is starting to adapt to the new collaborative economy, but currently the collaborative 
activities are developing inside applicable rules and regulations. As a result, Malta scores 
medium according to the three studied sectors (accommodation, transport and finance). 
The Maltese government is aware of the enterprise policy support. The government has 
launched different initiatives and capacities in this policy domain. There are two sectors 
with  initiatives  in  line  with  collaborative  economy,  i.e.  accommodation  for  the  English 
education sector and emerging initiatives in the financial sector. In both cases there is no 
specific  legislation  as  the  current  legislation  is  compatible  with  collaborative  economy 
practices. 

Accommodation 

Malta ranks 19 out of the 28 EU countries concerning accommodation in the collaborative 
economy, since the accommodation sector in Malta is regulated by the Malta Travel and 
Tourism Services Act, which governs tourist accommodation in Malta in general terms with 
a  traditional  approach.  Thus,  there  is  no  specific  regulation  for  accommodation  in  the 
collaborative economy. The current Maltese legislation does not have any specific definition 
related to P2P transactions. Peer providers must therefore base their activities on general 
rules.  

Peer  providers  are  required  to  obtain  a  valid  licence  issued  by  the  authorities  before 
subletting  their  property.  No  person  can  therefore  operate  a  tourism  accommodation 
establishment unless he or she has obtained a valid licence. The current tourist legislation 
in Malta considers two cases of property letting, i.e. ‘Host Families’ where any portion of 
the  property  is  let  to  third  parties,  and  ‘Holiday  Furnished  Premises’  where  the  whole 
property is let to third parties. 

285 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections4603310000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

The current tourist legislation in Malta allows the letting of a primary residence through 
the  Host  Family  License.  In  this  case,  the  person  letting  the  residence  is  living  in  the 
property with the tourists. Letting a secondary residence is allowed through the License of 
a Holiday Furnished Premises, where properties are fully equipped for holiday rentals. In 
such properties, owners are not allowed to reside in the property with the tourists.  

Transport 

Malta ranks 25 out of the 28 EU countries with respect to transportation in the collaborative 
economy.  P2P  transport  is  currently  not  subject  to  sector-specific  legislation  or 
authorisations in Malta but is allowed under the applicable legislation. 

Ride-sharing:  According  to  the  Road  Transport  Services  Licensing  Unit  of  the  Land 
Transport Directorate, Authority for Transport in Malta, there is no specific legislation in 
the  current  legal  framework,  either  at  national  or  local  level,  that  specifically  regulates 
ride-sharing covering professionals or peer providers. 

The  applicable  legislation  allows  non-professional  drivers  to  provide  private  transport 
(VTC)  services  if  the  peer  provider  has  obtained  the  necessary  licence.  To  obtain  the 
licence  non-professional  VTC  drivers  must  provide  the  following  five  documents:  Police 
Conduct Certificate, Medical Certificate, copy of residence card, proof of payment for the 
permit, and proof of payment for the licence upgrade including a harmonised code.  

Car-sharing:  According  to  the  Road  Transport  Services  Licensing  Unit  of  the  Land 
Transport Directorate, Authority for Transport in Malta, there is no specific legislation in 
the  current  legal  framework  that  specifically  regulates  car-sharing,  neither  for 
professionals nor for peer providers. 

Finance 

Malta ranks 12 out of the 28 EU countries concerning collaborative financing. There is no 
specific regulation in relation to the financial subsector. Consequently, there is a vacuum 
in the applicable legislation. The Maltese government is working on guidelines on how to 
interpret  the  current  legislation  in  relation  to  crowdfunding  platforms.  Moreover,  the 
government  is  starting  to  support  crowdfunding  platforms  through  a  grant  scheme  of 
sponsorship articulated through a partnership between the government and the platform 
for three years. This is a pioneering programme. 

However, at this point P2P equity investment platforms and P2P lending platforms must 
hold a licence to operate. It takes approx. 30 days for the authorities to decide whether 
to issue a licence or not. The costs include an application fee of EUR 5 000 and an annual 
fee  of  minimum  EUR  2 000.  This  procedure  applies  to  both  P2P  equity  investment 
platforms and P2P lending platforms.  

286 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements23025050500Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections465050670NA0 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Administration 

Malta ranks 16 out of the 28 EU countries on the administration score. In Malta, there is 
no  specific  guidance  on  setting  up  collaborative  platforms.  Nevertheless,  in  each  sector 
the corresponding competent authority is open to supporting and consulting. For example, 
an independent body appointed by the government is in charge of dealing with enquiries 
in the finance sector. In the case of investments, a specific department in the Ministry of 
Economy  deals  with  these  specific  issues.  In  the  case  of  tourism,  the  tourist  authority 
deals with all the enquiries of the sector.  

Malta  has  no  specific  public  body  for  dealing  with  specific legislation.  The  authorities  in 
each  sector  address  the  legislative  development  accordingly.  In  the  case  of  the  tourist 
sector, the tourist authority is working on new legislation because the current legislation 
is very old and not suited for the collaborative economy. In the case of the finance sector, 
the Ministry of Economy - while not intending legislative innovation - is working on setting 
up  guidelines  about  how  to  interpret  the  current  legislation  in  relation  to  crowdfunding 
platforms. 

Business support 

There is no general policy promoting and supporting the collaborative economy in Malta, 
and the matter is treated independently from  sector to  sector. For instance, the tourist 
sector does not have a dedicated public source of funding to incentivise the sector, and 
the sector is already doing well financially. Conversely, the transport authority dedicates 
grant schemes which can used by platforms, but it should be noted that the grant schemes 
are a general grant programme for the entire transport sector. In addition, the government 
is  starting  to  support  crowdfunding  platforms  through  a  grant  scheme  of  sponsorship 
through a partnership between the government and the platform. Due to these initiatives, 
Malta ranks 3 out of the 28 EU countries in relation to the score on business support for 
the collaborative economy. 

Alignment 

When it comes to alignment, Malta ranks 1 out of the 28 EU countries. The accommodation 
sector in Malta is regulated by the Malta Travel and Tourism Services Act which sets the 
regulatory  framework  for  accommodation  services.  These  rules  apply  homogeneously 
across the whole country. The transport sector is regulated by the Road Transport Services 
Licensing Unit of the Land Transport Directorate, which sets the regulatory framework for 
transport services. These regulations also apply across the whole country. 

287 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making38050075Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment5850501000100Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector100100100 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Alfred Quitano, Professor, University of Malta [Accommodation]   
  Benny Borg, Chairperson, Consumer Association Malta [Horizontal] 
  Kevin Farrugia, Co-founder & CEO, Bumalift [Transport]   
  Matthew Caruana, Co-founder & CEO, Zaar [Finance] 
 

Written sources 

  Grimaldi studio legale, Bocconi University, Wavestone, 2016. Study on passenger 
transport  by  taxi,  hire  car  with  driver  and  ride-sharing  in  the  EU.  Annex  III  - 
Country reports. Pg 34. 

  Transport regulation framework of Malta.  
  VVA, SPARK, 2017, Study on the Assessment of the Regulatory Aspects Affecting 
the Collaborative Economy in the Tourism Accommodation Sector in the 28 Member 
States (580/PP/GRO/IMA/15/15111J) 

288 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Malta – Vertical themes 

289 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelMTTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationVallettaNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsVallettaNo4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsVallettaNo5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsVallettaYes6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsVallettaNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionVallettaNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionVallettaNo9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsVallettaNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsVallettaYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationVallettaNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationVallettaYes13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsVallettaYes 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

290 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelMTACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalYes4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalYes5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?InspectionsNationalYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelMTFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational306. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational307. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational50008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational50009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalN/A14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Malta – Horizontal themes 

291 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelMTPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalNo3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalPartially8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalPartially2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalPartially3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalPartially4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalYesALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNo 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Netherlands 

Performance overview 

Overview 
The  collaborative  economy  is  evolving  in  many  areas  of  the  Netherlands,  however,  the 
country  is  not  among  the  European  front  runners  when  it  comes  to  facilitating  the 
collaborative economy. In 2016, the Dutch parliament adopted new legislation on financial 
markets so that the legal framework now also covers equity funding and debt funding. In 
addition, the Dutch government calls for the need to compile, codify, and publish the rights 
and  obligations  of  P2P  providers  in  the  collaborative  economy.  However,  the  Dutch 
accommodation service sector is quite strictly regulated (e.g. peer providers are obliged 
to be present in the property they are letting and only 30% of the gross floor area of their 
primary residence may be let) making it difficult for peer providers to let their flat or house. 
When  it  comes  to  alignment  of  local  policies  with  national  policies,  the  Dutch 
cities/municipalities have much latitude to apply additional specific rules, but this is not 
seen as a regulatory burden.  

Accommodation 

The Netherlands ranks  25 out of the 28  EU countries when it comes to accommodation 
services in the collaborative economy because there is no clear definition of the type of 
P2P transactions allowed under the national Dutch legal framework. Moreover, there is no 
specific regulation that covers accommodation services in the collaborative economy. In 
general, peer providers are required to obtain an authorisation from or notify a regulatory 
authority prior to letting their property. Moreover, peer providers must always report to 
the Tax and Customs Administration (Belastingdienst) of the Municipality of Rotterdam as 
they are liable to a tourist tax. Based on national contract law, and specifically tenancy 
legislation,  a  tenant  needs  the  approval  of  the  landlord  before  subletting  any  part  of  a 
rented  property.  This  also  applies  to  tenancy  agreements  with  a  housing  association 
(subletting is prohibited except with prior approval of the housing association). If a tenant 
sublets without the permission of their landlord, this may be a reason to terminate their 
lease and a penalty clause is found in the tenancy agreement).  

292 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections402533357550 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

The  Dutch  municipalities  may  make  their  own  policies  regarding  market  access  and 
business models for providers in the accommodation sector (there is no national legislation 
in this area). In Rotterdam, peer providers are allowed to let up to 30% of the gross floor 
area  of  their  primary  residence  while  letting  of  a  secondary  residence  is  prohibited. 
Amsterdam applies the same restrictions on the proportion of the property permitted to 
be let, and in Amsterdam letting of secondary residences is only allowed for licenced short-
term stays. In both cities, peer providers must be present in the property they are letting. 
Also, individuals offering accommodation services on an occasional basis are responsible 
according to the same regulations regarding, for instance, health and safety requirements 
like everyone else subletting their property. 

Transport 

The  Netherlands  ranks  6  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  concerning  transportation  in  the 
collaborative economy. Currently, no special legislation is applicable to P2P ride-sharing 
or  P2P  car-sharing,  and  there  is  no  official  definition  of  any  of  the  two  concepts  in 
national legislation. P2P ride-sharing is permitted without an authorisation or professional 
licence  if  the  remuneration  for  the  activity  corresponds  only  to  the  running  costs  of 
operating  the  vehicle  (Passenger  Transport  Act,  2000).  Licenses  for  both  private  hire 
vehicles  and  taxis  are  necessary  for  anyone  who  wants  to  engage  in  a  ride-sharing 
business with the aim of making a profit regardless of the frequency of activities. There is 
no limit to the number of licences for taxis and private hire vehicles. P2P car-sharing is 
permitted without obtaining a professional licence. Hence, there is no requirement for a 
professional licence depending on the level of income/profit from the activity. 

In the Netherlands, private hire cars with drivers (ride-hailing) are considered part of the 
taxi  market.  Rules  and  legislation  apply  horizontally  as  all  players  in  all  segments  are 
considered to offer the same service. Therefore, only registered businesses can provide 
private  transport  services  for  payment.  In  order  to  obtain  a  professional  licence  all 
providers need a business permit, a certificate of good conduct for individuals from the 
Ministry of Security and Justice, a declaration of collective transport, a vehicle registration 
card, periodic technical inspection (APK), a taxi business card and a taxi driver's card, the 
driver  must  subscribe  to  a  complaints  procedure,  hold  a  taxi  test  certificate,  have  blue 
number plates, a taxi meter, a taxi on-board computer, a taxi driver's diploma, additional 
insurance, and passenger insurance. 

Finance 

Concerning collaborative financing, the Netherlands ranks 8 among the 28 EU countries. 
New  legislation  has  recently  been  adopted  that  regulates  P2P  equity  investment 
(Financial Markets Change Decision, 2016). P2P equity investment is not prohibited in the 
Netherlands, and in 2015 equity-based crowdfunding amounted to EUR 4.5 million. The 
legal deadline during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a licence for P2P equity 
investment platforms is 13 weeks. The direct cost of the licence is EUR 175 per hour with 
a maximum of EUR 100 000 for Multilateral Trading Facilities (MTFs) and EUR 5 500 for all 

293 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements58010025501000Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections62100416710000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

other businesses. There are no indirect costs involved in obtaining a licence for P2P equity 
investment platforms.  

P2P debt funding is regulated in the same way as P2P equity funding. In 2015, lending-
based crowdfunding amounted to EUR 98.9 million in the Netherlands. The legal deadline 
for licences is the same as for P2P equity investment, and the direct and indirect costs are 
also the same.  

Under  Dutch  law,  there  is  an  obligation  for  anyone  offering  an  investment  product  to 
publish a prospectus, and there are no exceptions for peers. There is no cap on the amount 
peer providers can receive from collaborative platforms. However, the Netherlands has a 
limit on the amount that can be invested in the collaborative economy. This limit is EUR 
40 000  (equity-based)  and  EUR  80 000(loan-based).  Any  loan-based  or  equity-based 
crowdfunding platform must complete the monitoring form made available on the website 
of the AFM on a semi-annual basis. 

Administration 

Regarding public administration in the collaborative economy, the Netherlands ranks 12 
out of the 28  EU countries. The Dutch government has issued guidance on setting up a 
collaborative platform with respect to taxation, but not in other areas. The government 
has held conferences to give peers tips on participating on P2P platforms in collaboration 
with  the  non-for  profit  organisation  ShareNL.  Furthermore,  the  Dutch  Chamber  of 
Commerce has held conferences about 'Business in the Collaborative Economy' together 
with the Amsterdam Economic Board. Some information on lending and crowdfunding is 
also  available.  The  Netherlands  has  no  publicly  supported  body  dealing  with  questions 
from  peers  on  the  regulatory  aspects  of  use/offering  of  P2P  services.  In  most 
municipalities, peer providers are responsible for paying tourist taxes themselves, but in 
Amsterdam the municipality has entered into a partnership with Airbnb which has resulted 
in Airbnb paying tourist taxes automatically on behalf of the peer providers. Peer providers 
still  need  to  register  with  the  Tax  and  Customs  Administration  and  address  the  tourist 
taxes  in  their  income  tax  returns.  The  Tax  and  Customs  Administration  also  provides 
information  on  taxation  for  peer  providers  and  ‘calculates’  the  legislation  applicable  to 
them  depending  on  their  level  of  involvement  in  collaborative  economy  activities.  No 
bespoke  dedicated  public  body  deals  with  legislation  related  to  P2P  services  in  the 
Netherlands. However, the former Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs Henk Kamp stated 
in a letter to the Dutch Parliament that the rights and obligations of P2P providers need to 
be compiled, codified, and published. 

Business support 

The  Netherlands  also  ranks  12  among  the  28  EU  countries  when  it  comes  to  business 
support in the collaborative economy. Currently, there are no dedicated, publicly-funded 
grant schemes for collaborative platforms. There are, however, private organisations that 
set  crowdfunding  as  a  prerequisite  for  awarding  grants  (e.g.  Jacoba  van  Beierenfonds 
Teylingen),  and  some  organisations  have  started  a  campaign  to  make  the  public 
authorities  to  do  the  same.  The  Dutch  government  provides  support  services  for 

294 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making500675050Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment33010010000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

collaborative  economy  platforms  or  peer  providers  (e.g.  at  the  conferences  about 
'Businesses in the Collaborative Economy' there were also elements of practical training 
as well as other training workshops), but there are no tax allowances or specific tax rules 
for  peers  in  the  collaborative  economy.  Finally,  the  Dutch  government  is  actively 
promoting car-pooling and sharing economy platforms in the transport sector and public 
servants can have their expenses reimbursed.  

Alignment 

The  Netherlands  ranks  21  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  concerning  alignment  since  the 
general authorisation for peer transport  services is national and this applies throughout 
the  entire  country.  However,  cities/municipalities  may  apply  additional  specific  rules. 
legislation  exists,  and 
Concerning 
cities/municipalities  are  allowed  to  apply  additional  specific  rules  for  peer-to-peer 
accommodation service providers. Large municipalities such as Amsterdam and Rotterdam 
certainly do so. 

the  accommodation  sector, 

little  national 

295 

Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector335025 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Martijn Arets, international platform expert, Deeleconomie in Nederland [Generel]  

Written sources  

  AFL,  Requirements 

relating 

to 

business 

operations.  Available 

at: 

https://www.afm.nl/~/profmedia/files/onderwerpen/crowdfunding/voorschriften-
crowdfunding.ashx  

  Civil 

Wetboek), 
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/2017-07-01. 

(Burgerlijk 

Code 

Article 

7:244 

  CrowfundingHub,  Current  State  of  Crowdfunding  in  Europe:  An  Overview  of  the 
Crowdfunding Industry in more than 25 Countries, Trends, Volumes & Regulations. 
at: 

  Financial 

Available 

Decision, 

Markets 

Change 

2016. 

https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2016-98.html 

  Grimaldi Studio Legale (2015), ‘Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with 

driver and ridesharing in the EU’. 

  Law  on  Financial  Supervision  (Wet  op  het  Financieel  Toezicht),  Article  4:30a. 
Available  at:  http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0020368/2017-06-27#Titeldeel5 
_Hoofdstuk5.1_Afdeling5.1.3_Paragraaf5.1.3.2_Artikel5:9  

  https://www.amsterdam.nl/publish/pages/593837/notitie_toeristische_verhuur_v

an_woningen.pdf  (p. 11)  

  https://www.rotterdam.nl/werken-leren/bed-en-breakfast/Factsheet-Bed-

breakfast-april-2017.pdf  

  https://www.amsterdam.nl/veelgevraagd/?productid=%7BC8EA978C-5861-

4C8D-906E-C805F4D80CD8%7D  

  https://www.amsterdam.nl/wonen-

leefomgeving/wonen/woningeigenaren/verhuren/shortstaybeleid / 

  https://www.rotterdam.nl/werken-leren/bed-en-breakfast/Factsheet-Bed-

breakfast-april-2017.pdf 

  http://www.digitaal.loket.afm.nl/nl-

NL/Diensten/Beleggingsondernemingen/Vergunning/Pages/vergunningaanvraag-
beleggingsonderneming.aspx?tab=1 

  https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/belastingdienst/pr

ive/werk_en_inkomen/interneteconomie/interneteconomie-
deeleconomie/interneteconomie-deeleconomie 

  https://www.independer.nl/verzekeringen/info/deeleconomie.aspx 
  http://www.sharenl.nl/nieuws/workshop-business-in-de-deeleconomie-26-juni-

2014 

  https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/arbeidsomstandigheden 
  https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2015/11/01/innoveren-in-

de-deeleconomie 

  http://www.deeleconomieinnederland.nl/slimme-subsidig-crowdfunding/ 
  Letter of Minister of Economic Affairs to the House of Representatives, ‘Working 

on future-proof legislation: digital platforms and the rise of the sharing economy’ 
of 18 December 2015, 33009, no. 12, p. 4/5. Available at: 
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijksoverheid/documenten/kamerstukken/2
015/12/18/kamerbrief-over-toekomstbestendige-wetgeving-digitale-platforms-
en-de-deeleconomie-waaronder-particuliere-verhuur-aan-toeristen/kamerbrief-
over-toekomstbestendige-wetgeving-digitale-platforms-en-de-deeleconomie-
waaronder-particuliere-verhuur-aan-toeristen.pdf  

  Netherlands’ Passenger Transport Act, 2000, Article 2, Paragraph 5. 
  ShareNL,  ‘Innoveren  in  de  deeleconomie:  Een  inventarisatie  van  kansen  en 
belemmeringen  die innovatieve  investeringen  in  de  deeleconomie,  op  het  gebied 

296 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

groene 

(on)mogelijk 
van 
http://www.ruimteinregels.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Rapport-Innoveren-
in-de-deeleconomie.pdf  

Available 

maken’. 

groei, 

at: 

  Spark Legal Network and Consultancy, Study on the Assessment of the Regulatory 
Aspects Affecting the Collaborative Economy in the Tourism Accommodation Sector 
in the 28 Member States. 

297 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

The Netherlands – Vertical themes 

298 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelNLTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNoAmsterdamNoRotterdamNoAmsterdamYesRotterdamYesAmsterdamYesRotterdamYesAmsterdamNoRotterdamNoAmsterdamNoRotterdamNoAmsterdamNoRotterdamNoAmsterdamPartiallyRotterdamPartiallyAmsterdamPartiallyRotterdamPartiallyAmsterdamPartiallyRotterdamPartiallyAmsterdamNoRotterdamNoAmsterdamNoRotterdamNoAmsterdamYesRotterdamYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliation12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliation13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not General requirements8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictions10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictions5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC Peer and professional provider distinction2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislation3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirements4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of Model-specific market access requirements 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

299 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelNLACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalPartially2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNationalAmsterdamPartiallyRotterdamPartiallyNationalPartiallyAmsterdamPartiallyRotterdamPartiallyNationalYesAmsterdamYesRotterdamYesNationalAmsterdamYesRotterdamYesNationalAmsterdamYesRotterdamNoNationalAmsterdamYesRotterdamYesNationalAmsterdamYesRotterdamYesNationalAmsterdamPartiallyRotterdamYesNationalAmsterdamYesRotterdamNoNationalYesAmsterdamYesRotterdamYesNationalAmsterdamYesRotterdamNo12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsQuestionsIndicatorsLevelNLFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalYes4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational656. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational657. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalNo13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalYes14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

The Netherlands – Horizontal themes 

300 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelNLPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalNo3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalYes4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalPartially2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalYes3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalPartially 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Poland 

Performance overview 

Overview 
Poland ranks 21 out of the 28 EU countries when it comes to facilitating the collaborative 
economy.  Currently,  Poland  has  little  sector  specific  legislation  concerning  the 
collaborative  economy.  In  general,  P2P  services  are  neither  prohibited  nor  regulated. 
However, several of the areas are in effect regulated in accordance with decisions of the 
Polish Supreme Court or interpretations of the difference between professionals and peer 
providers made by public authorities, which, for example, is the case in the transportation 
sector. Concerning finance, the Commission for Financial Control is currently working on 
separate  legislation  that  will  exempt  peer  providers  from  the  requirements  that 
professional capital firms need to meet (such as having to register as a company and have 
EUR  50 000  in  initial  capital).  Critics  of  the  system  argue  that  the  legal  status  of  peer 
financial  providers  is  in  fact  a  deal  breaker  for  the  entire  system  of  finance  in  the 
collaborative economy.  

Accommodation 

Poland ranks 6 among the 28 EU countries when it comes to accommodation services in 
the  collaborative  economy.  Currently,  there  are  no  specific  rules  for  peers  providing 
services in the collaborative economy regarding requirements for authorisation or licences. 
Moreover, there is no separate legislation regulating P2P accommodation services or any 
clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed. The general rules for letting flats 
are set out the Civil Code and separate legislation on protecting tenants as well as in the 
Act on Tourist Service. In most cases, peer providers are required to obtain approval from 
their landlord prior to subletting their property, whereas peer providers are not required 
to obtain approval from their building association prior to subletting. Also, peer providers 
are permitted to let primary as well as secondary residences. There are no restrictions on 

301 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections6906710050100 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

the proportion of the property that can be let. In general, it is the ownership right or the 
contract with the landlord that defines the right to let the property. 

Peers offering services on an occasional basis are not exempt from regulations regarding 
basic  conditions  that  must  be  met  to  let  the  property.  This  is  defined  in  a  ministerial 
regulation based on the Act on Tourist Services and imposes some basic standards that 
must be met for the dwelling to be allowed to be used for accommodation (water access, 
trash,  mirror,  heating  in  cold  months,  etc.).  However,  peers  are  exempt  from  the 
regulations pertaining to hotel service providers (such as rules for evacuation, sanitation, 
etc.)  which  are  not  transposed  to  private  flats.  Also,  peer  providers  are  not  subject  to 
inspection from public authorities. 

Transport 

Concerning transportation in the collaborative economy, Poland ranks 8 out of the 28 EU 
countries.  The  Polish  legal  system  provides  no  definition  of  P2P  car-sharing  and  P2P 
ride-sharing, meaning that P2P transportation is not regulated in general. 

The  Road  Transport  Act  regulates  only  passenger  transport  by  taxi  and  VTC,  which  is 
restricted to economic operators (legal entities) that must apply for a licence. However, 
all  passenger  transport,  even  occasional  transport  generating  an  income,  is  subject  to 
licensing  (taxi)  and  lack  of  such  licence  can  be  punished  with  fines  (as  it  happened  in 
several Polish cities where city hall controllers were trying to impose fines on Uber drivers 
by means of different regulations). According to the Polish government, P2P ridesharing 
activities are allowed because prohibition of such activities would be difficult to justify. The 
Road Transport Act only covers cases where the passengers pay a fraction of the costs, 
whereas the Civil Code covers the cases of ‘courtesy transportation’. However, the latter 
classification  suffers  some  issues,  like  the  question  of  insurance  coverage  and 
responsibility of the driver in case of an accident. 

The existing national level regulations do not link professional licences for transport activity 
with  the  level  of  income  or  profit.  The  interpretations  of  the  national  tax  office  use  the 
term ‘systematic and constant’ activity to distinguish between professional services (need 
to register economic activity) and private peer services.  

Finance 

Poland ranks 28 out of the 28 EU countries concerning collaborative financing. There is no 
sector  specific  legislation  governing  P2P  equity  investments  in  Poland.  The  act 
regulating capital markets in general allows P2P equity investments, but it also requires 
all types of lenders to register as a company having PLN 200 000 (around EUR 50 000) 
initial  capital.  Hence,  the  existing  regulations  and  supreme  court  decisions  make  P2P 
equity investments particularly difficult for small actors. Critics of the system argue that 
the legal status of peer financial providers is in fact a deal breaker for P2P finance, leading 
to many legal disputes. There is no procedure for authorisation of P2P equity investment 
platforms, but they are subject to registration as any other company wanting to engage 

302 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements58251000501000Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections700001000 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

in capital investment. The capital market regulations allow equity funding up to the limit 
of EUR 100 000 without having to publish a prospectus.  

In Poland, P2P debt funding is not governed by sector specific legislation. The Civil Code 
provides general rules for lending using a limited number of paragraphs. Moreover, the 
act regulating capital markets is also applicable to P2P debt funding. The Commission for 
Financial  Control  is  currently  working  on  separate  legislation  that  will  exempt  peer 
providers  from  the  necessity  to  register  a  company.  Also,  the  Commission  for  Financial 
Control  is  prone  to  set  up  a  limit  for  P2P  loan  activity  exempting  peers  from  economic 
activity  registration  obligations.  Currently,  there  is  no  threshold  to  distinguish  between 
peer and professional peer activity in the finance sector. Some of the P2P lending platforms 
have  introduced  limits  to  lending  (up  to  PLN  4 000  maximum  (approx.  EUR  1 000)  for 
private  lenders  thereby  supporting  the  argument  of  the  non-professional  status  of  peer 
activities.  

Administration 

When it comes to public administration in the collaborative economy, Poland ranks 20 out 
of the 28 EU countries. So far, the Polish government has not undertaken any supportive 
actions regarding developments in the collaborative economy. Hence, no official guidance 
on setting up collaborative platforms has been issued. Regarding taxation issues for P2P 
providers,  the  government  has  issued  a  public  answer  as  a  response  to  deputy 
interpellation. Also, there are several court decisions on taxation of services  provided in 
the  collaborative  economy.  Concerning  employment  rules,  the  government  has  not 
provided any guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to 
services provided on P2P platforms. 

Poland has no dedicated body dealing with inquiries from peers on the regulatory aspects 
of using/offering of P2P services. However, some institutions provide information on the 
collaborative economy to peers as part of their responsibility (e.g. the Office of Competition 
and Consumer Protection as well as the Polish Tax Office).  

Business support 

Poland  ranks  19  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  when  it  comes  to  business  support  in  the 
collaborative economy. Currently, the government is concentrating on observation of the 
collaborative  economy  and  ensuring  that  taxes  on  P2P  services  are  paid.  There  are  no 
dedicated  publicly  funded  grant  schemes  for  collaborative  platforms.  However, 
collaborative platforms may apply for funding from EU Structural Funds as well as other 
national and international funding for innovative enterprises under the same legislation as 
everyone  else.  Poland  has  no  support  services  for  collaborative  platforms  or  peer 
providers. There are general support  services that provide advisory  and training to any 
business (e.g. EEN network). The government has not introduced any tax allowances or 
specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy. Public servants are not prohibited 
from using collaborative services in their professional capacity,  e.g. for travelling if they 
can receive an invoice eligible for reimbursement.  

303 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making31050050Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment2505010000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Alignment 

Concerning alignment, Poland ranks first among the 28  EU  countries  because the  same 
rules on authorisation apply to peer transport services everywhere in Poland. Moreover, 
there  are  no  differences  regarding  regions  or  cities  in  Poland  in  the  application  of  the 
national regulations on accommodation services.  

304 

Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector100100100 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

Jakub Sobczak, CEO, PolakPotrafi.pl [Finance]  

  Artur Nowak-Gocławski, CEO, ANG Spółdzielnia Pożyczek Wzajemnych [Finance]  
 
  Katarzyna Gruszka, researcher, Vienna University [Cross-cutting]  
  Krzysztof Russek, P2P provider, Uber [Transport]  
  Lukasz Zgiep, CEO and researcher, zgiep.pl [Cross-cutting] 
  M. Kuston, P2P provider, [Accommodation] 
  Marcin Czugan, deputy CEO, KPF -Confederation of Financial Enterprises in Poland 

[Finance] 

  Michal Rymwid, P2P provider, booking.com [Accommodation]  
  Piotr Palutkiewicz, researcher, instigos.pl [Cross-cutting]  
  Piotr Strzelecki, CEO, Kreative.pl [Finance] 
  Sebastian Starzynski, CEO, taketask.pl [Cross-cutting]  

Written sources  

  19/08/2004,  Dziennik  Ustaw  Nr  188,  pozycja  1945.  Available  at: 

http://isip.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20041881945 

  Act on public offerings Dz.U. 2005 nr 184 poz. 1539 Ustawa z dnia 29 lipca 2005 
r.  o  ofercie  publicznej  i  warunkach  wprowadzania  instrumentów  finansowych  do 
zorganizowanego  systemu  obrotu  oraz  o  spółkach  publicznych.  Available  at: 
http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20051841539  

  Art.4(1) Ustawa o swobodzie działalności gospodarczej 02/07/2004, Dz. U. 2004, 
173/1807  z  późniejszymi  zmianami  –  the  Freedom  of  Economic  Activity  Act, 
02/07/2004, Official Journal 2004, 173/1807 with later amendments, Available at: 
http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20041731807   

  Article  about  lending  companies.  Available  at:  http://www.rp.pl/Nieruchomosci/ 

303279952-Firmy-udzielajace-chwilowych-pozyczek-pod-wieksza-
kontrola.html#ap-2  

  Article 

on 

consumer 

credit. 

Available 

at: 

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kredyt_konsumencki  

  http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20051841539  Act 

on 

public 

offerings  

  http://poradniktransportowy.pl/03/licencje-zezwolenia-wymagane-przy-

okazjonalnym-przewozie-osob/  

  http://rejestracjaspolkizoo.pl/2011/09/15/ile-kosztuje-zalozenie-spolki-z-o-o/  
  http://taxi.um.warszawa.pl/oplaty-za-przewoz  
  http://www.bankier.pl/wiadomosc/Koniec-social-lendingu-w-Polsce-7371120.html  
  http://www.rp.pl/Nieruchomosci/303279952-Firmy-udzielajace-chwilowych-

pozyczek-pod-wieksza-kontrola.html#ap-1  

  http://www.rp.pl/Nieruchomosci/303279952-Firmy-udzielajace-chwilowych-

pozyczek-pod-wieksza-kontrola.html#ap-2 

  http://www.sejm.gov.pl/sejm7.nsf/InterpelacjaTresc.xsp?key=5CF9400E  
  http://www.televan.pl/uploads/CENY.pdf 
  http://zgiep.com/regulator-musi-isc-z-duchem-czasu-aby-polska-gospodarka-nie-

zostala-w-tyle/  

  https://lifestyle.newseria.pl/komunikaty_pr/motoryzacja/legalny_przewoz_osob,b

1306388330  

  https://www.bip.krakow.pl/?dok_id=14313  
  Law  on  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  tenants,  municipal  housing  and  the 
amendment of the Civil Code, Ustawa o ochronie praw lokatorów, mieszkaniowym 
zasobie 
at: 
zmianie 
http://isip.sejm.gov.pl/Download?id=WDU20140000150&type=2  

cywilnego. 

Available 

Kodeksu 

gminy 

o 

i 

305 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

  Means of electronic communication definition is included in art. 2(5) of the Provision 
of  Services  by  Electronic  Means  Act  (Ustawa  o  Świadczeniu  Usług  Drogą 
at: 
Elektroniczną, 
2002.144.1204. 
http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=wdu20021441204). 
law 
implements the E-Commerce Directive in Poland  

Available 
This 

18/07/2002, 

DZ.U. 

  Ministry  regulation  regarding  hotel  services  Dz.U.  2004  nr  188  poz.  1945 
Rozporządzenie Ministra Gospodarki i Pracy z dnia 19 sierpnia 2004 r. w sprawie 
obiektów  hotelarskich  i  innych  obiektów,  w  których  są  świadczone  usługi 
hotelarskie. Available at:  
http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20041881945  

  Opinion  of  the  1st  June  2015  of  the  Polish  Minister  of  Finance,  No. 
221850.654195.427483, DD2.054.20.2015, to the interpellation of a deputy in the 
Lower  Chamber  of  Polish  Parliament  Mr.  Zbiogniew  Chmielowec  concerning  the 
Ministry’s  standpoint  on  taxation  issues  connected  with  the  “sharing  economy”. 
Available at:    
http://orka2.sejm.gov.pl/INT7.nsf/klucz/088552EF/%24FILE/i32705-o1.pdf    

  Parliamentary  question  and  answer 

from 

the  ministry.  Available  at: 

http://orka2.sejm.gov.pl/INT7.nsf/klucz/088552EF/%24FILE/i32705-o1.pdf  

  Road Transport Act Dz.U. 2001 nr 125 poz. 1371 Ustawa z dnia 6 września 2001 r. 

o transporcie drogowym. Available at: 
http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20011251371  

  Rozporządzenie  Ministra  Gospodarki  i  Pracy  w  sprawie  obiektów  hotelarskich  I 

innych obiektów, w których sa świadczone usługi hotelowe 
up 

lending 

setting 

for 

company. 

a 

  Rules 

Available 

at: 

http://www.firmapozyczkowa.pl/  

  The Civil Code (Kodeks Cywilny 23/04/1964, Dz.U. nr. 16 poz. 93, Official Journal 

16/93, law from 23/04/1964. Available at:  
http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU19640160093  

  The  Law  on  Tourism  Services,  1997,  with  later  amendments,  Official  Journal  Nr. 
13, 884– Ustawa o Usługach Turystycznych z późniejszymi zmianami, Dz.U. 1997 
nr 133 poz. 884). Available at:  
http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU19971330884  

  Ustawa z dnia 29/07/2005 r. o obrocie instrumentami finansowymi. Available at: 

http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/Download?id=WDU20051831538&type=3  

  USTAWA  z  dnia  5  sierpnia  2015  r.  o  zmianie  ustawy  o  nadzorze  nad  rynkiem 

finansowym oraz niektórych innych ustaw. Available at:   
http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/opinie7.nsf/nazwa/3460_u/$file/3460_u.pdf  

306 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Poland – Vertical themes 

307 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelPLTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationWarsawPartially3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsWarsawYes4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsWarsawYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsWarsawNo6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsWarsawNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionWarsawNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionWarsawNo9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsWarsawNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsWarsawYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationWarsawNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationWarsawNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsWarsawYes 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

308 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelPLACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNational0WarsawNoNationalYesWarsawYesNationalNoWarsawNoNationalYesWarsawYesNationalYesWarsawYesNationalNoWarsawNoNationalNoWarsawNoNationalNoWarsawNoNationalPartiallyWarsawPartiallyNationalPartiallyWarsawPartiallyNationalNoWarsawNo12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their Registrations, authorisations, notificationsQuestionsIndicatorsLevelPLFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalYes3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalYes5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3656. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3657. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalNo14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Poland – Horizontal themes 

309 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelPLPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalPartially8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalPartiallyBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalNo3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalPartially4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNo 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Portugal 

Performance overview 

Overview 
In Portugal, the collaborative economy is well-established within the finance sector, while 
only evolving within transportation and accommodation. Hence, Portugal ranks 14 out of 
the  28  EU  countries  when  it  comes  to  facilitating  the  collaborative  economy.  P2P 
accommodation  service  is  regulated  by  the  ‘Local  Accommodation  Act’.  P2P  equity 
investment  and  P2P  debt  funding  are  regulated  by  legislation  that  has  been  specifically 
designed  to  meet  the  new  ways  of  financing  in  the  collaborative  economy  (Act  no. 
102/2015  ‘Regulatory  regime  of  collaborative  financing’).  However,  neither  P2P  ride-
sharing nor P2P car-sharing is defined in Portuguese legislation. Consequently, there are 
no  specific  regulations  allowing  or  prohibiting  the  transportation  services  of  the 
collaborative  economy.  In  general,  there  is  a  mixed  capacity  and  efficiency  of  public 
administration  at  national  and  regional  level  to  support  the  development  of  the 
collaborative economy. 

Accommodation 

In  relation  to  the  accommodation  sector,  Portugal’s  score  is  only  enough  to  place  the 
country as number 26 among the 28 EU countries. In Portugal, peer providers are required 
to  register  with  the  National  Registry  of  Local  Accommodation  prior  to  letting  their 
property. Furthermore, peer providers must obtain authorisation from their landlord prior 
to subletting a property. However, there is no regulation requiring peer providers to obtain 
approval  from  their  building  association  or  other  residents  in  their  building  prior  to 
subletting their property. Letting accommodation is a remunerated activity, and therefore 
the exploitation of tourist accommodation must always comply with rules and it is always 
subject to a declaration of commencement of activity with the Tax Authority. All providers 
of  local  accommodation,  even  occasional  ones,  must  comply  with  the  applicable 
regulations.  Finally,  all  local  accommodation  may  be  subject  to  inspection  by  the  local 
authority  within  30  days  of  registration,  ASAE  (Food  and  Economic  Security  Authority) 
regarding  compliance  with  general  requirements  and  safety  requirements,  and  the  Tax 
Authority regarding fiscal rules on letting property. 

310 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections380338000 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

In Portugal, accommodation in the collaborative economy is regulated through Decree-law 
128/2014 of 29 August 2014, ‘Local Accommodation Act’, amended in 2015 by Decree-
law 63/2015 of 23 April 2015 and adopted in the Autonomous Region of Madeira through 
Regional  Legislative  Decree  No.  13/2015/M  of  22  December  2015.  While  the  Local 
Accommodation Act does not specify the length or remuneration, it does regulate the size 
of the property. Local accommodation can only consist of a maximum of 9 rooms and 30 
users, with hostels as an exception. There is no regulation preventing peer providers from 
letting their entire property. Portuguese legislation does not distinguish between primary 
and secondary residences, and therefore peer providers may let their primary as well as 
their secondary residences.  

Transport 

Concerning transportation in the collaborative economy, Portugal ranks 15 out of the 28 
EU countries. Neither P2P ride-sharing nor P2P car-sharing is defined in national law. 
There are no specific regulations allowing or prohibiting these services. However, with the 
Precautionary Procedure n. 7730/15.0T8LSB, the Court of Lisbon prohibited Uber Pool/Pop 
and similar platforms from providing transportation services in 2015 (UberBLACK, UberX 
and Uber Green are allowed as they take advantage of the legislation on car rentals). In 
Lisbon, however, a number of ride-sharing platforms are operating without any problems 
despite  the  lack  of  ride-sharing  regulations.  Given  the  Precautionary  procedure  n. 
7730/15.0T8LSB  case  law,  these  activities  are  currently  only  allowed  as  not-for-profit 
activities.  

Ride-hailing  is  regulated  in  the  same  manner  as  taxi  activity,  which  also  explains 
Portugal’s  medium  score  concerning  transportation  in  the  collaborative  economy.  The 
number of private hire vehicle licences is regulated in the same manner as the number of 
taxi  licences  (Decree-Law  251/98  and  its  subsequent  amendments).  The  procedure  for 
issuing  taxi licences  through  open  tenders  as  well  as  the  maximum  licenced  number  of 
taxis is described in Municipal Bulletin No. 463 of 2 January 2003. Furthermore, taxi fares 
and fares for VTC services are regulated at national level by the Ministry of Economy and 
Labour  (the  last  revision  was  made  in  2012).  According  to  Law  5/2013,  Article  3,  taxi 
activity can only be carried out by licenced commercial or cooperative companies or by a 
self-employed  person  holding  a  specific  licence.  Taxi  drivers  are  required  to  hold  a 
Professional  Certificate  (valid  for  5  years).  The  necessary  requirements  involved  in 
obtaining  a  Professional  Certificate  are  age  (between  18  and  65),  basic  education, 
proficiency in Portuguese, and a driving licence (Article 4 of Decree Law 263/98). Since 
the 2013 amendment, capacity to manage a business is also required. The same regulation 
applies to VTC service providers' affiliation to a dispatch centre as the one regulating taxi 
dispatch centre affiliations. 

Finance 

Portugal is among the European front runners when it comes to finance in the collaborative 
economy  with  Portugal  ranking  as  number  2  out  of  the  28  EU  countries.  Recently, 
legislation  on  P2P  equity  investment  and  P2P  debt  funding  has  been  adopted.  The  two 

311 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements460637501000Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections821009210010000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

areas are regulated by the same rules and regulations, and a national authority is in place 
to ensure compliance with these regulations. 

P2P equity investment is legal and regulated by Act no.102/2015 Regulatory Regime of 
Collaborative  Financing.  The  maximum  number  of  calendar  days  that  an  authority  can 
spend on deciding on issuing a licence for P2P equity investment platforms is 30 working 
days.  The  cost  connected  with  licences  for  P2P  equity  investment  platforms  equals  the 
administrative costs, however, a specific amount is not available. The initial capital of the 
platform  (indirect  costs)  must  be  EUR  50 000  together  with  an  activity-related  liability 
insurance  or  any  equivalent  guarantee  covering  liability  arising  from  professional 
negligence, representing at least EUR 1 000 000 per insurer and overall EUR 1 500 000 
for all claims incurred during a year. P2P equity investment platforms are  exempt from 
some  requirements  applicable  to  investment  firms  for  obtaining  a  licence  (see  Act  no. 
102/2015). This act also establishes that there is no amount over which peer providers 
are required to publish a prospectus.  

P2P debt funding is regulated by the same act as P2P equity funding (Act no. 102/2015 
Regulatory Regime of Collaborative Financing). Hence, the same regulations apply to P2P 
debt funding as to P2P equity funding concerning the maximum number of calendar days 
needed for issuing a licence, the direct costs as well as the indirect costs of obtaining all 
necessary licences. Regulation of CMVM (National Council of Financial Supervisors) states 
a maximum amount of EUR 3 000 per transaction or EUR 10 000 per year, however, this 
does  not  apply  to  individuals  with  an  annual  income  of  over  EUR  70 000  or  entities 
described in sections a) to k) of Article 30 of the Securities Code (as approved by Decree-
law 486/99 of 13 November 1999, and subsequently amended). Furthermore, lending and 
investment  crowdfunding  platforms  must  be  registered  with  CMVM.  CMVM  is  also  the 
responsible  body  that  ensures  compliance  with  the  national  regulation  of  P2P  equity 
investment and lending (Regulation of CMVM no. 1/2016).  

Administration 

Concerning administration, Portugal ranks 9 out of the 28 EU countries. In general, there 
is a mixed capacity and efficiency of public administration at national and regional level to 
support the development of the collaborative economy. The Portuguese government has 
not  provided  any  guidance  on  how  to  set  up  a  collaborative  platform  with  respect  to 
taxation, necessary  licences, insurance requirements  or applicable legislation. However, 
the government and other official agencies/authorities have published documents on their 
websites  regarding  the  collaborative  economy  and  peer  providers.  This  is  the  case 
concerning legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms as well as the rights 
and  obligations  of  P2P  providers.  Tourism  of  Portugal  has  published  a  guide  on  how  to 
establish local  accommodation  facilities,  FAQs,  and  inspection  documents.  Furthermore, 
Tourism of Portugal acts as a publicly supported body dealing with queries from peers on 
the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services. There is no dedicated public body 
for dealing with legislation related to P2P services, and the government has not provided 
any  guidance  on  the  applicability  of  national  employment  rules  with  respect  to  services 
provided on P2P platforms.  

At  local  level,  the  Lisbon  City  Council  has  been  in  a  partnership  with  Airbnb  regarding 
tourist tax collection from listings within the city since 2016. 

312 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making560835050 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Business support 

Portugal  ranks  12  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  concerning  business  support  in  the 
collaborative economy. The reason is that all in all, the Portuguese government provides 
limited direct public financial support services  to collaborative platforms and starts-ups. 
There are no dedicated publicly funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms, and the 
government  does  not  provide  support  services  (e.g.  training  activities,  technical  and 
business  advice)  for  collaborative  economy  platforms  and  peer  providers.  Furthermore, 
there  is  no  government  provided  accreditation  scheme  for  the  promotion  of  the 
collaborative platforms or active support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards. 
However,  there  are  other  kinds  of  direct  or  indirect  public  financial  support  for  which 
collaborative  platforms  can  apply.  They  include  entrepreneurial  activities  support  (for 
SMEs,  innovative  projects  that  increase  productivity/qualification,  internationalisation  of 
SMEs, etc.) subject to a case-by-case analysis. Also, public servants are allowed to use 
P2P services in a professional capacity.  

Alignment 

When it comes to alignment, Portugal ranks 21 out of the 28 EU countries. The reason is 
that legislation regulating peer transport services and regulations for P2P accommodation 
service providers do not apply to all Portuguese territories. Also, the Autonomous Regions 
of  the  Azores  and  Madeira  have  specific  regulations  in  relation  to  P2P  accommodation 
service legislation compared to the rest of the Portuguese territory. The regions and cities 
do not apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently. 

313 

Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment3350010000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector33050 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Department director Ana Blanco, Tourismo de Portugal [Accomodation]  

Written sources 

 

"Grimaldi  Studio  Legale,  Universita  Commerciale  Luigi  Bocconi  CERTeT  and 
Wavestone (2017). Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with driver and 
ridesharing in the EU. Annex III. Country Reports. [Unpublished] 

  Lei 10/90 de 17 de Março Lei de Bases do Sistema de Transportes Terrestres 
  Decree Law 251/98 
  Decreto Lei No. 263/98 de 19 de Agosto 1998 
  Law  5/2013  of  22  January  on  the  simplification  to  the  access  of  the  transport 

activity. 

  Decree-law 128/2014 of 29 August 2014, ‘Local Accommodation Act’ 
  Decree-law 63/2015 of 23 April 2015 amending Decree-law 128/2014 
  Regional Legislative Decree No. 13/2015/M of 22 December 2015 
  Spark Legal, VVA Consulting (2017). Study on the Assessment of the Regulatory 
Aspects Affecting the Collaborative Economy in the Tourism Accommodation Sector 
in the 28 Member States (580/PP/GRO/IMA/15/15111J). Research Questionnaire 
answered by Dr. Mariana Chaves for Portugal. [Unpublished] 

  Act no. 102/2015 Regulatory regime of collaborative financing 
  Regulamento da CMVM No. 1/2016 Financiamento Colaborativo de capital ou por 

empréstimo"  
  Securities Code 
  Decree-law 486/99 of 13 November 1999 

314 

 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Portugal – Vertical themes 

315 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelPTTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationLisbonNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsLisbonYes4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsLisbonYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsLisbonYes6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsLisbonYes7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionLisbonYes8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionLisbonPartially9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsLisbonNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsLisbonNo11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationLisbonNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationLisbonNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsLisbonYes 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

316 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelPTACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNationalYesLisbonYesNationalYesLisbonYesNationalNoLisbonNoNationalYesLisbonYesNationalYesLisbonYesNationalYesLisbonYesNationalNoLisbonNoNationalNoLisbonNoNationalNoLisbonNoNationalNoLisbonNoNationalYesLisbonYes12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their Registrations, authorisations, notificationsQuestionsIndicatorsLevelPTFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalYes4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational306. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational307. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNationalN/A8. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNationalN/A9. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalNo13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalYes14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Portugal – Horizontal themes 

317 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelPTPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalYes3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalNo2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalYes3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNo 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Romania  

Performance overview 

Overview 
Romania is a complex country when it comes to facilitating the collaborative economy. On 
the one hand, Romania ranks  very high concerning accommodation in the collaborative 
economy  and  alignment.  On  the  other  hand,  Romania  ranks  very  low  in  relation  to 
administration and business support leaving platforms and peer providers largely ‘on their 
own’ when it comes to the new business models of the collaborative economy. Moreover, 
Romania  does  not  have  a  definition  of  the  collaborative  economy  or  any  regulatory 
framework  governing  the  collaborative  economy.  The  Chamber  of  Deputies  of  the 
Romanian Parliament has issued Decision No 77 of September 2016 aimed at creating a 
regulatory framework for the sharing economy in Romania. The document stipulates that 
the regulation of the sharing economy based on self-regulation, voluntary measures and 
certification marks should not be too lenient.  

Accommodation 

Romania  ranks  third  among  the  28  EU  countries  concerning  accommodation  in  the 
collaborative economy. The reason is that rental and subletting of residential property by 
peers are not subject to sector-specific legislation or authorisations. The only regulations 
that apply to accommodation by peers are the contract rules established in the Romanian 
Civil Code. As stated in the general rules of the Civil Code, subletting is allowed unless it 
is  expressly  forbidden  in  the  initial  contract  between  the  owner  and  the  tenant  (Article 
1805).  Peer  providers  are  not  required  to  register,  obtain  an  authorisation,  or  notify  a 
regulatory  authority  prior  to  letting  their  property.  Nor  are  peer  providers  required  to 
obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to 
subletting  their  property.  Peer  providers  can  sublet  primary  residences  as  well  as 
secondary residences. There are no restrictions on the proportion of the property that can 
be let, and the Romanian legislation does not oblige peer providers to be present in the 
property  they  are  letting  (Article  1777  of  the  Romanian  Civil  Code).  However,  peer 

318 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections7308310050100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

providers are obliged by Law 571/2003 to declare the income obtained from letting their 
property.  From  a  legislative  point  of  view,  the  Ministry  of  Tourism  argues  that  there  is 
currently a need to differentiate between accommodation services offered by professionals 
and those offered by peers on an occasional basis (there are specific regulations applicable 
to tourism services, such as classification of accommodation types, requiring the economic 
operators to comply with certain quality requirements).  

Transport 

With respect to transportation in the collaborative economy, Romania ranks 24 out of the 
28  EU  countries.  P2P  ride-sharing  is  not  permitted  without  an  authorisation  or 
professional licence if the scope is to make a profit and P2P ride-sharing is carried out on 
a  regular  basis  (Law  no.  38/2003).  Regarding  P2P  ride-sharing,  which  merely  involves 
cost-sharing,  this  is  neither  regulated  nor  illegal.  The  lack  of  a  regulatory  framework 
regarding the cost-sharing of P2P ride-sharing has allowed this type of platform to exist in 
Romania (e.g. BlaBlaCar, 4inmasina). In 2016, a legislative proposal was submitted to the 
Senate to regulate the services provided by private individuals who wish to share car travel 
costs. The proposal also included the creation of digital platforms to facilitate ride-sharing. 
The proposal would give ride-sharing activities a special status, while paid public transport 
with a vehicle without a taxi licence would remain prohibited.  

P2P  car-sharing  is  strictly  forbidden  without  obtaining  a  professional  licence  (Law 
38/2013).  Law  265/2007  establishes  the  rent-a-car  legislation  in  Romania,  which  is 
transposed at municipal level. Article 16, paragraph (f) states the financial means required 
to  obtain  a  professional  car-sharing  licence.  Thus,  the  economic  operator  (defined  as 
registered  persons  and  companies)  must  provide  the  necessary  logistics  (i.e.  cars  and 
parking spaces) and a declaration stating that the economic operator does not have any 
debts to the local or national authorities. Moreover, obtaining the necessary authorisation 
involves substantial administrative costs for the economic operators. The legislation does 
not define P2P car-sharing services clearly but simply restricts these types of services to 
authorised economic operators renting out cars on a professional basis. 

Finance 

Romania ranks 15 out of the 28 EU countries when it comes to finance in the collaborative 
economy as there are only limited rules and regulations governing this sector. Currently 
Romania  has  no  legislative  framework  regulating  or  prohibiting  equity  investment  by 
peers.  The  first  P2P  equity  investment  platforms  appeared  from  2012  onwards.  Since 
2012, there have been discussions on the need to regulate the sector (put forward by a 
Romanian crowdfunding platform, multifinantare.ro) as well as a legislative proposal, but 
no  legislation  has  been  adopted  yet.  Hence,  there  are  neither  direct  nor  indirect 
administrative  costs  to  obtain  the  necessary  authorisations/licences  for  P2P  equity 
investment platforms. Moreover, these types of P2P investments are not monitored by the 
Romanian Financial Supervision Agency.  

319 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements3550252550500Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections42500750100100 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Debt  funding  by  peers  is  regulated  by  the  Romanian  Civil  Code  (Article  2158),  while 
professional lending is regulated by the Romanian National Bank (BNR). Lending between 
peers is allowed if the lender is paid the same amount of money. Hence, lending involving 
interest (or usury) is prohibited (Law 216/2011). However, there is no specific legislation 
on  P2P  lending  platforms.  Lending  by  peers  is  not  subject  to  financial  and  banking 
regulations and there is no limit to the amount that can be granted as a loan by peers. As 
there  is  no  sector  specific  regulation,  there  are  no  direct  or  indirect  costs  involved  in 
obtaining all the necessary authorisations/licences for P2P lending platforms.  

Administration 

Concerning public administration, Romania ranks 25 out of the 28 EU countries. Platforms 
and peer providers are largely ‘on their own’ when it comes to the new business models 
of the collaborative economy. The government has not issued any guidance on setting up 
a collaborative platform in any sectors.  Nor has the government  or  other  official bodies 
published  information  regarding  applicable  legislation,  rights,  and  obligations  (i.e. 
employment rules, taxation), tips, etc. In 2016, there was a legislative proposal to define 
the sharing economy, but where this proposal is now in the legislative process is unclear. 
Moreover,  there  is  no  publicly  supported  body  dealing  with  queries  from  peers  on  the 
regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services in Romania. 

Business support 

Romania also ranks low (number 23 out of the 28 EU countries) when it comes to business 
support in the collaborative economy. There are neither dedicated, publicly funded grant 
schemes  for  collaborative  platforms,  nor  any  other  direct  or  indirect  public  financial 
support to which collaborative platforms can apply. Moreover, the Romanian government 
does not provide support services of any kind (such as training activities, technical and 
business  advice)  for  collaborative  economy  platforms  or  peer  providers,  and  the 
government  has  not  introduced  any  tax  allowance  or  specific  tax  rules  for  peers  in  the 
collaborative  economy.  Furthermore,  there  is  no  indication  that  public  servants  are  not 
allowed to use sharing economy platforms in a professional capacity.  

Alignment 

Concerning alignment, Romania ranks first among the 28 EU countries because the same 
rules apply everywhere in Romania and no specific legislation has been created at local 
level  regarding  peer  transportation  services  as  well  as  peer-to-peer  accommodation 
services. 

320 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making1300050Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment170010000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector100100100 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Coordinator Catalina Azamfirei, Crestem Idei [Finance]  
  Executive Director Bogdan Manolea, Asociatia pentru Tehnologie si Internet - ApTI 

[Horizontal]  

  Platform  representative  for  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  Matej  Benuska,  Taxify 

[Transportation]  

Written sources 

  Adevarul  (2017),  Cum  funcţionează  BlaBlaCar,  serviciul  prin  care  se  împart 
costurile  călătoriei  între  mai  mulţi  pasageri.  Este  tot  mai  folosit  şi  în  România. 
Available 
at:  http://adevarul.ro/locale/alba-iulia/cum-functioneaza-blablacar-
serviciul-impart-costurile-calatoriei-mai-pasageri-mai-folosit-romania-
1_58df7a2d5ab6550cb8df38e7/index.html  

  Art. 1783 Noul cod civil Durata maximă a locaţiunii Dispoziţii generale Contractul 
locaţiune.  Available  at:  http://legeaz.net/noul-cod-civil/art-1783-durata-

de 
maxima-a-locatiunii-dispozitii-generale-contractul-de-locatiune  

  Avocat.net  (2015),  Legea  care  interzice  autostopul  se  aplica  de  astazi.  Available 
http://www.avocatnet.ro/content/articles/id_35563/Legea-care-interzice-

at: 
autostopul-se-aplica-de-astazi.html   

  Business  Review  (2016),  Romanian  Parliament  could  legalise  ride-sharing  amid 

transport players’ opposition. Available at:  
http://www.business-review.eu/news/romanian-parliament-could-legalise-ride-
sharing-amid-transport-players-opposition-120765 

  CDEP (2016), Proiect de lege privind economia de acces. Available at:   

http://www.cdep.ro/proiecte/2017/000/90/6/pvg96_2017.pdf 
  CODUL FISCAL din 22 decembrie 2003 (Legea nr. 571/2003):    

http://www.unbr.ro/fisiere/file/LEGEA_51/CODUL_FISCAL_ACTZ_24-02-
2012_00070193_DOPDF.pdf 

  Eduard Popescu (2015), Un asociat isi poate imprumuta cu bani firma. In ce conditii 
se acorda imprumutul? Available at: https://www.avocatnet.ro/articol_41406/Un-
asociat-isi-poate-imprumuta-cu-bani-firma-In-ce-conditii-se-acorda-
imprumutul.html   

  Euroavocatura 

(2017), 

Legea 

taximetriei 

actualizata. 

Available 

at: 

http://www.euroavocatura.ro/legislatie/1254/Legea_taximetriei,_Actualizata_201
7__Legea_38_2003 

  Financial Supervision Agency, Crowdfunding. Available at:  

http://edufin.asfromania.ro/index.php/abc-ul-investitorului/produse-financiare-
inovative/33-multifinantarea-crowdfunding  

  Finantare.ro  (2016),  Proiect  de  lege  pentru  dezvoltarea  crowdfunding-ului. 
http://www.finantare.ro/proiect-de-lege-pentru-dezvoltarea-

at: 

Available 
crowdfunding-ului.html 

  Government  Ordinance  No.  1267  of  8  December  2010.  Available  at: 

http://turism.gov.ro/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/turism_legislatie_hg_1267_18122010.pdf  

  Grimaldi Studio Legale (2016), Study on passenger transport by taxi, hire car with 

driver and ridesharing in the EU. 

  http://www.avocatnet.ro/content/forum%7CdisplayTopicPage/topicID_397138/Fo

losirea-apartamentului-in-regim-de-inchiriere-hoteliera.html 

  Law 

216/2011. 

Available 

at: 

http://www.dreptonline.ro/ 

legislatie/legea_camatariei_216_2011_interzicerea_activitatii_camatarie.php 

  Law 230/2007. Available at:  

http://www.dreptonline.ro/legislatie/asociatii_proprietari.php  

321 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

  Law 

38/2003, 

Taxi 

legislation 

in 

Romania. 

Available 

at: 

http://www.euroavocatura.ro/legislatie/1254/Legea_taximetriei,_Actualizata_201
7__Legea_38_2003  

  Legea  nr  365/2002  privind  comertul  electronic.  Available  at:  http://www.legi-

internet.ro/legislatie-itc/comert-electronic/legea-comertului-electronic.html  

  Legea  nr.  265/2007  pentru  modificarea  și  completarea  Legii  nr.  38/2003  privind 
închiriere.  Available  at: 

transportul 
https://lege5.ro/Gratuit/geydmojzgq/legea-nr-265-2007-pentru-modificarea-si-
completarea-legii-nr-38-2003-privind-transportul-in-regim-de-taxi-si-in-regim-
de-inchiriere/2  

în  regim  de  taxi  și 

în  regim  de 

  Ministry of Tourism, Legea Turismului. Available at:  

http://www.mdrl.ro/_documente/transparenta/consultari_publice/consultare135/l
ege_turism.pdf    

  Ministry of Tourism: http://turism.gov.ro/legislatie/control-si-autorizare/ 
  Mirel  Borodi:  Despre  Legea  privind  Dezvoltarea  Finantarilor  Participative 
(Crowdfunding).  Available  at:  https://laurentiumihai.ro/interviu-mirel-borodi-
despre-crowdfuding/  

  Ordinance 

protection. 
http://www.anpc.gov.ro/anpcftp/anpc_junior/og_21_1992.pdf 

consumer 

21/1992 

No. 

on 

Available 

at: 

  PMB,  Tarife  pentru  prestaţiile  specifice  realizate  de  autoritatea  de  autorizare  în 
activitatea  de  eliberare  a  copiilor  conforme  pentru  serviciul  public  de  transport 
RENT CAR. Available at:  
/autorizatii_taxi/doc/Anexa_3_tarife_rent_car.pdf‘ 

http://www.pmb.ro/adrese_utile/transport_urban 

  Primaria  Cluj-Napoca,  Regulament  organizare  serviciu  taxi.  Available  at: 
http://www.primariaclujnapoca.ro/doc/administratie/Regulament%20organizare
%20serviciu%20taxi.pdf 

  Regulament cadru pentru organizarea si executarea serviciului public de transport 
local  in  regim  de  taxi  pe  teritoriul  municipiului  Bucuresti.  Available  at: 
http://www.adti.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Regulament-Cadru-HOT-
178..2008.pdf 

  REGULAMENT-CADRU  PENTRU  ORGANIZAREA  SI  EXECUTAREA  SERVICIULUI 
PUBLIC  DE  TRANSPORT  LOCAL  ÎN  REGIM  DE  ÎNCHIRIERE.  Available  at: 
http://www.pmb.ro/adrese_utile/transport_urban/autorizatii_taxi/doc/Anexa_1_r
egulament_rent_car.pdf 

  Romanian Civil Code. Available at:  http://camerabrasov.ro/wp-content/themes 

/camerabrasov/pdf/noul-cod-civil.pdf 

  Romanian Civil Code. Available at:   

http://www.avocatconstanta.com/Noul%20Cod%20Civil%20actualizat.pdf  

  Spark  Legal  Network,  VVA  (not  published  yet).  Study  on  the  assessment  of  the 
tourism 

the  collaborative  economy 

the 

regulatory  aspects  affecting 
accommodation sector in the 28 Member States. 

in 

322 

 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Romania – Vertical themes 

323 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelROTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalPartiallyBucharestPartiallyClujPartiallyBucharestNoClujNoBucharestNoClujNoBucharestYesClujYesBucharestNoClujNoBucharestNoClujNoBucharestPartiallyClujPartiallyBucharestNoClujNoBucharestYesClujYesBucharestYesClujYesBucharestNoClujNoBucharestYesClujYes2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislation3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirements4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of Model-specific market access requirements5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC Peer and professional provider distinction8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictions10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictions11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliation12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliation13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not General requirements 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

324 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelROACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNational0BucharestNoClujNoCity 20NationalPartiallyBucharestPartiallyClujPartiallyCity 20NationalNoBucharestNoClujNoCity 20NationalYesBucharestYesClujYesCity 20NationalYesBucharestYesClujYesCity 20NationalNoBucharestNoClujNoCity 20NationalNoBucharestNoClujNoCity 20NationalNoBucharestNoClujNoCity 20NationalYesBucharestYesClujYesCity 20NationalNoBucharestNoClujNoCity 20NationalNoBucharestNoClujNoCity 2012. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

325 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelROFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalPartially4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalPartially5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3656. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3657. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalN/A10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalNo14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalNo 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Romania – Horizontal themes 

326 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelROPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalNo3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalPartially8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalPartiallyBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalNo3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNo 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Slovakia 

Performance overview 

Overview 
Slovakia is in the process of adopting the collaborative economy in all sectors. Currently, 
there is limited sector-specific legislation, but the Slovak government has begun discussing 
and investigating how to manage the collaborative economy. Within the accommodation 
sector as well as the transportation sector, peer providers have a great deal of latitude 
when  it  comes  to  letting  their  properties  and  providing  transportation  services.  In  both 
sectors, the sector-specific legislation is limited, hence, there are few restrictions for peers 
offering  services  in  the  collaborative  economy.  When  it  comes  to  administration  and 
business support, the Slovak government does not offer any specific financial support or 
grants  that  could  promote  the  collaborative  economy.  Recently,  however,  the  Slovak 
Business Agency has been established under the auspices of the Ministry of Economy with 
the  purpose  of  examining  the  development  and  impact  of  the  collaborative  economy  in 
Slovakia. This work is now ongoing. Finally, Slovakia has a very high degree of alignment 
of local and national policies within the accommodation sector as well as the transportation 
sector.  

Accommodation 

Slovakia ranks 7 among the 28  EU countries concerning accommodation services in the 
collaborative economy since peer providers have a great deal of latitude when it comes to 
letting their properties. Slovakia does not have any specific regulation for accommodation 
services in the collaborative economy, and it does not have a clear definition of the type 
of  P2P  accommodation  types  allowed.  However,  Slovakia  does  have  short-term  rental 
legislation  on  letting  properties.  According  to  the  short-term  rental  legislation,  peer 
providers must let their property in accordance with the income tax legislation. Primary as 
well  as  secondary  residences  can  be  let  by  registration  according  to  Slovak  income  tax 
legislation. However, if the residences are not privately owned, the lessor must enter into 
an agreement with his or her landlord. Peer providers may let their whole property and 
are not obliged to be present in their property while letting it. When peer providers provide 
additional services apart from letting their property, it is seen as providing accommodation 

327 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections650100100250 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

services. In this case, peer providers must obtain a trade licence and follow the same rules 
as  professional  peer  providers.  Moreover,  inspections  may  be  performed  by  the  Trade 
Licencing Office, which will determine whether it is a matter of a short-term rental or a 
business, and, if it is a business, a trade licence would be required.  

Transport 

Concerning transportation in the collaborative economy, Slovakia ranks 3 out of the 28 EU 
countries. P2P ride-sharing does not have a distinct definition and is not limited by any 
legislation.  The  number  of  taxi  licences  issued  are  decided  by  the  regional  authorities, 
while the number of private hire vehicles are not regulated by any legislation. Moreover, 
there does not exist any legislation for peer providers that are exempt from authorisation 
or professional licences. Concerning P2P ride-hailing the only requirements are a driving 
licence,  being  self-employed  and  having  one’s  own  till.  Uber  drivers  are  subject  to  the 
same requirements as professional taxi drivers, i.e. they must pass a competency test as 
well as a psychology test, car checks and they must have a driver’s ID.  

P2P car-sharing is not defined in national legislation. However, the Ministry of Finance 
is currently in the process  of making a definition.  P2P  car-sharing is not limited by any 
legislation, and a professional car-sharing licence is not required.  

In general, there is limited difference between peer and professional peer activity. Uber 
falls under the same regulation as taxi drivers, whereas services like BlaBlaCar do not fall 
under any regulations.  

Finance 

Slovakia ranks 17 out the 28 EU countries concerning collaborative financing because there 
is  limited  sector  specific  regulation.  For  instance,  no  P2P  regulation  or  licence  exists  in 
Slovakia. P2P equity investment has no legal definition in Slovak legislation and does 
not come under any regulation.  

P2P debt funding is not regulated by any bespoke legislation either. It does not fall under 
any regulation, not even the control of the National Bank of Slovakia. P2P lending platforms 
are exempt from the requirements to banks regarding special financial legislation, but all 
standard consumer protection legislation applies. The legal basis of P2P lending is a civic 
code, whereas consumer lending is governed by the Commercial Code. Also, there is no 
amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus or a cap on the 
amount peer providers can receive from collaborative platforms.  

Administration 

328 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements622575251001000Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections36500330100100Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making560675075 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Regarding public administration in the collaborative economy, Slovakia ranks 9 out of the 
28  EU  countries.  The  financial  management  authority  has  produced  a  report  for  Uber 
drivers on how to follow the rules of taxation. Furthermore, the National Bank of Slovakia 
a  position  on  crowdfunding,  including  P2P  lending,  published  in  May  2017.  In  this 
document,  the  central  bank  briefly  explained  these  activities  and  described  the  risks 
connected  to  them  for  investors  and  debtors.  Apart  from  these  examples,  the  Slovak 
authorities  have  not  published  any  guidance  on  setting  up  P2P  platforms.  The  Slovak 
government has had some negotiations with Uber, which is the only case of partnerships 
with  collaborative  platforms.  Finally,  to  examine  the  development  and  impact  of  the 
collaborative  economy,  the  Slovak  Business  Agency  has  been  established  under  the 
auspices of the Ministry of Economy.  

Business support 

Slovakia ranks 12 out the 28 EU countries concerning business support in the collaborative 
economy.  There  is  limited  direct  or  indirect  public  financial  support  that  collaborative 
platforms can use. Likewise, there are no dedicated publicly-financed grant schemes for 
collaborative  platforms.  However,  collaborative  platforms  may  apply  for  non-specialised 
grant  schemes.  The  government  does  not  provide  any  special  support  services  for 
collaborative platforms, but it does offer some support services for start-ups in general. 
Also, public servants are allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity. 
The standard rules of taxation apply to all, hence there is no tax allowance or specific tax 
rules for peers in the collaborative economy.  

Alignment 

When  it  comes  to  alignment,  Slovakia  ranks  first  among  the  28  EU  countries  since  the 
relevant Slovak legislation applies to all of Slovakia. Regions and cities in Slovakia apply 
the  same  national  rules  and  regulations  for  providers  of  the  services  within  both  the 
transport sector and the accommodation sector.  

329 

Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment33255010000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector100100100 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Analyst Robert Chovanculiak, INESS [Horizontal] 
  Analyst Tomas Puchly, Institut Hayeka [Horizontal] 
  Chairman of the board Roman Feranec, Zlty Melon [Finance] 
  Expansion manager Matej Benuska, Taxify [Transport] 
  Platform advisor Martin Barto, ZincEuro [Finance] 
  President Marek Harbulak, Slovak Tourism Association [Horizontal] 

Written sources  

  Financna sprava Slovenskej Republiky (2015). Available at:  

https://www.financnasprava.sk/_img/pfsedit/Dokumenty_PFS/Profesionalna_zon
a/Dane/Metodicke_usmernenia/ERP/2015.09.04_Uber.pdf  
  Financna sprava, Zakon o dani z prijmov (2017). Available at:   

https://www.financnasprava.sk/_img/pfsedit/Dokumenty_PFS/Zverejnovanie_dok
/Sprievodca/Sprievodca_danami/2017.01.04_dan_z_prijmov.pdf 

  Zakon o kratkodobom najme bytu (2015). Available at:    

http://www.zakonypreludi.sk/zz/2014-98 

330 

 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Slovakia – Vertical themes 

331 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelSKTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationBratislavaYes3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsBratislavaYes4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsBratislavaYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsBratislavaYes6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsBratislavaNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionBratislavaNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionBratislavaPartially9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsBratislavaYes10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsBratislavaYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationBratislavaNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationBratislavaNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsBratislavaYes 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

332 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelSKACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalPartially13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?InspectionsNationalYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelSKFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3656. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3657. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalNo14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalNo 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Slovakia - Horizontal themes 

333 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelSKPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalPartially8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalPartially2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalNo3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalPartially4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNo 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Slovenia 

Performance overview 

Overview 
Overall, Slovenia ranks low as 24 among the 28 EU countries concerning the business and 
regulatory environment affecting the EU collaborative economy. This is particularly due to 
the lack of administrative capacity and efficiency of the Slovenian authorities to support 
the development of the collaborative economy as well as the minimal business support of 
the  Slovenian  authorities  for  collaborative  economy  start-ups.  On  the  positive  side,  the 
Slovenian  collaborative  economy  is  evolving  within  the  three  sectors  of  interest  to  this 
study, i.e. accommodation, transport and finance. There is no regulation aimed specifically 
at services in the collaborative economy, but existing sector specific regulation is applied 
to collaborative services. Within transport as well as finance, the Slovenian authorities are 
currently working on legislative reforms to include the new services and intermediaries of 
the collaborative economy. 

Accommodation 

Slovenia  ranks  21  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  regarding  accommodation  services  in  the 
collaborative  economy.  Slovenia  has  no  regulation  aimed  specifically  at  accommodation 
services in the collaborative economy. The applicable legislation is part of the tourism and 
hospitality industry regulatory framework. The Hospitality Act makes a distinction between 
professional  accommodation  service  providers  and  P2P  providers  (who  are  called 
entrepreneurs in Slovenia). This distinction has implications for tax and employment rules. 
Peer  providers  of  accommodation  services  may  let  their  premises  60  nights  per  year 
without being subject to regulation. However, several peer providers are registered in the 
business register as entrepreneurs with a NACE code aligned to accommodation rental. In 
terms of taxes, they report tax books to the Financial Service of the Republic of Slovenia 
as entrepreneurs. Some platforms do not issue a full invoice to the guest (they deduct the 
fee to the platform) which makes it difficult for entrepreneurs to report taxes under the 
Slovenian legislation.  

334 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections46001000100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

In  general,  peer  providers  are  required  to  obtain  approval  from  their  landlord  prior  to 
subletting their property and/or from their building association. There is no restriction on 
the proportion of the property that peer providers are permitted to let. Also, there is no 
clear regulation as to which inspections P2P accommodation service providers are subject 
to.  

Transport 

Concerning transportation in the collaborative economy, Slovenia ranks 12 out the 28 EU 
countries.  The  current  legislation  does  not  offer  a  definition  of  P2P  ride-sharing,  P2P 
car-sharing or ride-hailing. However, the Ministry of Transport is currently working on 
a  legislative  reform  to  include  also  the  new  intermediaries  and  ride-sharing  in  the 
transportation law.  

Not-for-profit  ride-sharing,  car-sharing  and  ride-hailing  are  permitted  without  an 
authorisation or professional licence if the remuneration for the activity corresponds to the 
running costs of operating the vehicle.  

For-profit  P2P  transportation  services  are  seen  as  a  professional  activity  requiring  a 
licence. For now, peer providers offering ride-sharing services on an occasional basis are 
exempt  from  having  an  authorisation  or  professional  licences  applicable  to  taxi  or  VTC 
services. Moreover, there is no special requirements for a professional car-sharing licence 
depending  on  the  level  of  income/profit  from  the  activity  since  there  is  no  specific 
regulation in this area.  

Finance 

Slovenia ranks 19 out the 28 EU countries concerning collaborative financing. In general, 
P2P equity investments are regulated under the Act on Venture Capital Companies and 
Act on Enterprises. According to this latter, P2P equity investments are legal. Within fifteen 
days from the date of receipt of the completed application, the Ministry of Economy must 
decide on granting the venture status as a venture capital company and this procedure is 
also  used  for  P2P  equity  investment  platforms.  There  are  no  direct  costs  involved  in 
obtaining  status  as  a  venture  capital  company.  Nevertheless,  there  are  indirect  costs 
related  to  establishing  a  new  company  because  Slovenian  legislation  does  not  allow 
existing  companies  to  gain  status  as  an  equity  investment  entity.  Venture  capital 
companies may invest in a particular company only if, at the time of acquisition, the value 
of  all  contributions  to  the  company,  including  loans  granted,  mezzanine  capital  or 
guarantees,  does  not  exceed  25  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  balance  sheet  total  of  the 
venture capital company. 

In  general,  P2P  debt  funding  is  regulated  by  the  Slovenian  Enterprise  Act,  which  is 
applicable to all business entities. P2P debt funding is not prohibited, but further regulation 
needs to be developed due to the needs of the Slovenian Agency for Capital Markets. No 
special authorisation/licence is necessary for peers to borrow and lend money without the 
use of an official financial institution as an intermediary. Hence, there are neither direct 

335 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements5007550251000Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections3550740000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

costs nor indirect costs. Also, there is no threshold to distinguish between peer-to-peer 
and professional activities. 

Administration 

Regarding public administration in the collaborative economy, Slovenia ranks in the lower 
half (18 out of the 28 EU countries) because the Slovenian authorities have little capacity 
and efficiency to support the development of the collaborative economy. The government 
has not issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to any of the 
following  areas:  taxation,  necessary  licences,  insurance  requirements,  and  applicable 
legislation.  

However, the Ministry of Employment, Family and Social Affairs has issued an explanatory 
document  on  peer-to-peer  car-sharing,  and  the  National  Financial  Service  has  issued  a 
statement on taxation of cars in the case of P2P car-sharing. Moreover, the government 
has  not  issued  any  documents  or  publications  on  an  official  website  with  respect  to 
guidance  of  peers,  e.g.  rights  and  obligations  of  P2P,  and  tips  for  participating  in  P2P. 
Finally, Slovenia has no publicly supported body dealing with enquiries from peers on the 
regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services. 

Business support 

Slovenia also ranks low (23 among the 28 EU countries) when it comes to business support 
in the collaborative economy. There are no dedicated publicly funded grant schemes for 
collaborative platforms. Moreover, there is no direct or indirect public financial support for 
which collaborative platforms can apply. Slovenia has no support services for collaborative 
platforms or peer providers. The government has not introduced tax allowance or specific 
tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy. Nevertheless, there are no legal obstacles 
for  public  servants  to  use  collaborative  services  if  the  P2P  provider  is  able  to  issue  an 
invoice for services rendered. 

Alignment 

Concerning alignment, Slovenia ranks 17 out the 28 EU countries. National regulation is 
valid  in  all  regions  and  municipalities  of  Slovenia,  but  the  municipalities  may  have 
additional  requirements  and  may  apply  regulatory  details  in  specific  areas,  such  as 
accommodation  services.  However,  local  regulations  must  be  in  line  with  national 
regulations. 

336 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making380335050Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment170010000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector50075 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Expert Aleš Špetič, Klevio [Finance]  
  Expert Jernej Zajec, Avrigo [Transport]  
  Peer entrepreneur Irena Podlipec, [Accommodation]  
  Peer entrepreneur Vesna Kavčič, [Accommodation] 

Written sources  

  Background document on transportation in Slovenia, VVA. 
  Explanatory document on the peer to peer care sharing, Ministry of employment, 
family  and  social  affairs  in  its  name  mag.  Lovro  Lončar,  Available  at: 
https://prevoz.org/static/carshare/docs/mddsz-pojasnilo.pdf  

  Housing act (OG 69/03, 18/04, 47/06, 45/08, 57/08, 62/10, 56/11  – Decision of 

the Constitution court, 87/11 and 40/12). 

  Pravilnik  o  minimalnih  tehničnih  pogojih  in  o  obsegu  storitev  za  opravljanje 
gostinske  dejavnosti  (Uradni  list  RS,  št.  21/14),  English:  Rules  on  minimum 
technical conditions and level of services for catering services. 

  Regulation  on  reimbursement  for  business  travel  abroad  (Official  Gazette  of  RS, 
Nos. 38/94, 63/94, 24/96, 96/00, 35/02, 86/02, 66/04, 73/04, 16 / 07, 30/09 and 
51/12). 

  Study  on  the  Assessment  of  the  Regulatory  Aspects  Affecting  the  Collaborative 
Economy  in  the  Tourism  Accommodation  Sector  in  the  28  Member  States 
(580/PP/GRO/IMA/15/15111J),  European  Commission  -  Directorate  General 
Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW). 

  Zakon o gostinstvu (Uradni list RS, št. 93/07 – uradno prečiščeno besedilo, 26/14 
–  ZKme-1B  in  52/16),  English:  atering  Act  (Official  Gazette  of  RS,  Nos.  93/07  - 
official consolidated text, 26/14 - KME-1B and 52/16). 

  Zakon  o  spodbujanju  razvoja  turizma  (Uradni  list  RS,  št.  2/04,  57/12,  17/15  in 
52/16  –  ZPPreb-1)),  EPA:  0955-III;  English:  Promotion  of  Tourism  development 
Act.  

  Zakon o družbah tveganega kapitala (ZDTK) (Uradni list RS, št. 92/07 in 57/09); 
English: Act on Venture Capital Companies (Official Gazette of RS, Nos. 92/07 and 
57/09). 

  Zakon  o  gospodarskih  družbah  (Uradni  list  RS,  št.  65/09  –  uradno  prečiščeno 
besedilo, 33/11, 91/11, 32/12, 57/12, 44/13  – odl. US, 82/13, 55/15 in 15/17); 
English:  The  Enterprises  Act  (Official  Gazette  of  RS,  Nos.  65/09  -  official 
consolidated text, 33/11, 91/11, 32/12, 57/12, 44/13 - odl. US, 82/13, 55/15 and 
15/1 

337 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Slovenia – Vertical themes 

338 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelSITRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationLjubljanaNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsLjubljanaNo4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsLjubljanaYes5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsLjubljanaNo6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsLjubljanaNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionLjubljanaPartially8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionLjubljanaPartially9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsLjubljanaNo10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsLjubljanaPartially11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationLjubljanaNo12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationLjubljanaNo13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsLjubljanaYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelSIACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNationalYesLjubljanaYesNationalYesLjubljanaYesNationalYesLjubljanaYes6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYesNationalYesLjubljanaYesNationalNoLjubljanaNoNationalNoLjubljanaNoNationalNoLjubljanaNoNationalNoLjubljanaNoNationalNoLjubljanaNoNationalNoLjubljanaNo12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their Registrations, authorisations, notifications 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

339 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelSIFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational156. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational3657. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational08. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational09. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalYes14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Slovenia – Horizontal themes 

340 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelSIPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalNo3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalNo2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalPartially3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNo 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Spain 

Performance overview 

Overview 
In  general,  Spain  ranks  8  among  the  28  EU  countries  when  it  comes  to  facilitating  the 
collaborative economy. Spain is a very decentralised and federalised country making the 
regulatory landscape of some sectors very fragmented. This is the case with the tourism 
sector (where accommodation services belong) where a great deal of variance is seen in 
the way that the Spanish regions and municipalities apply rules and regulations. Hence, 
there  is  a  lack  of  a  clear  framework  in  the  accommodation  services  area.  The  opposite 
holds  true  in  the  finance  sector  where  Spain  recently  adopted  a  national  act  on 
crowdfunding  regulating  and  establishing  national  rules  regarding  investments  made 
through  crowdfunding  platforms.  Overall,  the  Spanish  authorities  have  a  cautious 
approach  to  the  collaborative  economy.  However,  a  few  public  authorities  have  begun 
working on how to deal with the legal aspects of the collaborative economy, i.e. developing 
new legislative frameworks or amending existing rules and regulations.  

Accommodation 

Spain ranks 24 out of the 28 EU countries and earns a rather low score on accommodation 
in the collaborative economy. Spain has no national regulatory framework applicable to 
accommodation services in the collaborative economy and no clear definition of the types 
of  P2P  accommodation  services  allowed.  According  to  the  Spanish  Constitution,  the 
development  and  regulation  of  tourism  (including  accommodation  services)  is  the 
responsibility of the regions, which, in general, consider P2P accommodation activities to 
be a type of tourism activity. However, in case of lack of regional legislation, the use of 
privately  owned  dwellings  for  tourism  is  ruled  by  Spanish  civil  law  in  relation  to  rules 
governing tenancies.  

In most regions, peer providers of accommodation services are required to obtain approval 
from  their  landlord  prior  to  subletting  their  property  or  from  their  building  association. 
Furthermore, peer providers are required to obtain an accommodation licence from their 
municipal government  prior  to  subletting  their  property.  The  proportion  of  the  property 

341 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections420077830 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

that can be let differs among the Spanish regions. For example, in Barcelona (the Region 
of  Catalonia)  partial  letting  of  a  private  dwelling  is  not  allowed,  but  letting  an  entire 
dwelling is. In Valencia, Regional Decree 92/2009 states that direct letting by the owner 
of  only  one  single  dwelling  for  touristic  purposes  is  exempt  from  regulations  (e.g. 
registration and notification to the competent authority).  

In  Madrid,  the  Regional  Decree  of  the  Governing  Council  considers  the  definition  of 
dwellings for tourist use a new modality of accommodation with two types: tourist flats 
and  dwellings  for  tourist  use.  Tourist  flats  are  ‘complex  accommodation  units  regularly 
intended for occasional tourist accommodation’, whereas dwellings for tourist use are ‘flats 
and houses commercialised and promoted via tourist supply channels, to be offered in its 
entirety by its owner to third parties’. Any tourist activity delivered for a minimum period 
of  three  continuous  months  during  a  year  is  considered  a  regular  activity.  In  addition, 
letting of rooms is not considered ‘dwellings for tourist use’. Barcelona stands out as the 
municipal  government  has  adopted  a  regulation  aiming  at  reducing  the  impact  of  the 
growth in peer accommodation services caused by Airbnb. Thus, Barcelona has adopted a 
policy  of  ‘zero  growth’,  thereby  freezing  authorisation  of  new  licences  for  this  type  of 
service. 

The regions have a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity 
within  accommodations  services.  The  threshold  is  measured  in  days.  For  example,  in 
Madrid, the regulation sets a threshold if the letting exceeds more than 90 days per year, 
while in Barcelona, the regulation sets a threshold of 31 days per year divided into two or 
more rental periods within a year. Due to this threshold, peer providers may be subject to 
inspection by the competent municipal authorities. 

Transport 

Concerning transportation in the collaborative economy, Spain ranks 23 out of the 28 EU 
countries. There is no special definition or regulation of P2P car-sharing in Spain. Car-
sharing is considered to be a particular form of car hire without a driver and falls under 
the  land  transport  legal  framework.  This  legislation  only  recognises  companies  with  a 
minimum  fleet  of  10  vehicles.  Operators  carry  out  this  activity  through  a  pay-per-use 
business model. The first operator of car-sharing in Spain was Avancar, which started in 
Barcelona in 2005. Other operators are Zipcar, Bluemove, car2go, Respiro, Clickcar, Ibilek 
and Cochele. According to a recent amendment of the applicable legislation, car hire (which 
includes car-sharing) is permitted without obtaining a professional licence.  

Regarding P2P ride-sharing, Spain has no national definition or any specific regulation 
applicable  to  ride-sharing.  Nevertheless,  ride-sharing  is  only  allowed  for  sharing  the 
running costs of running the vehicle (i.e. ride-sharing is not considered to be a hire car 
with  driver  and  it  is  thus  not  considered  to  be  taxi  service).  Therefore,  there  are  no 
administrative requirements concerning authorisations or professional licence for the car 
owner or the driver of ride-sharing activities. In 2015, the Spanish Competition Authority 
initiated research on sharing economy activities to determine the impact of these activities 
on future regulation. The report has not been approved, but there is increasing concern in 
Spain  regarding  activities  in  the  collaborative  economy  and  the  need  for  regulation  to 
guarantee free competition and avoid unnecessary and discriminatory barriers. In Spain, 
peers  offer  ride-sharing  services  through  ride-sharing  operators  such  as  Blablacar  and 
carpoolWorld. 

342 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements36050050830 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

In Spain, ride-hailing or VTC services are considered to be hire cars with drivers. These 
services are governed by the national act on discretionary passenger transportation aimed 
at a professional market. Hence, ride-hailing and VTC  services can only be provided by 
persons having obtained the corresponding professional licence for VTC. Furthermore, VTC 
licence holders must have a minimum fleet of 10 vehicles, whereas drivers can be a VTC 
licence holder or employee of the licence holder. Taxi fares are restricted by the competent 
regional authorities, which is not the case for VTC fares. VTC providers are required to be 
affiliated  to  a  dispatch  central  to  obtain  a  licence.  Moreover,  they  must  be  a  physical 
person,  a  Spanish  national,  have  complied  with  all  tax,  labour  and  social  security 
obligations, have a liability insurance and have at least one public office for carrying out 
the commercial activity.  

Finance 

Spain  ranks  first  among  all  EU  countries  concerning  collaborative  financing  due  to  the 
adoption  of  a  new  act  (2015)  on  crowdfunding  regulating  investments  made  through 
crowdfunding platforms. This act applies to equity funding and debt funding, which are 
both  allowed.  According  to  the  legal  framework,  platforms  must  be  registered  with  the 
CNMV (the agency in charge of supervising and inspecting the Spanish Stock Markets) or 
at the Bank of Spain to develop their activities. The maximum timeframe during which the 
authorities need to decide on issuing a licence for P2P equity investment platforms is three 
months. There is no licence fee, but crowdfunding platforms must pay audit costs (EUR 
5 000) and the costs of technical assistance (EUR 15 000). The indirect costs correspond 
to  the  operating  costs  of  the  crowdfunding  platform  to  support  the  licence  procedure. 
According  to  the  current  Spanish  act,  P2P  equity  investment  or  lending  platforms  are 
exempt  from  the  requirements  applicable  to  traditional  investment  firms  and  banks  for 
obtaining an authorisation. Furthermore, the act does not require peer providers to provide 
information  to  public  authorities  before  engaging  in  collaborative  finance.  However, 
crowdfunding  platforms  are  given  the  legal  responsibility  of  evaluating  projects  prior  to 
admission  to  the  platform  as  well  as  identify  the  peer  provider.  The  act  distinguishes 
between two kinds of investors and lenders,  i.e. qualified and unqualified based on two 
parameters,  i.e.  annual  income  and  limits  of  investment  and  lending  for  each  type  of 
investors. The legislation considers qualified lenders/investors to be those who have a total 
income of more than EUR 50 000 per year or financial assets of more than EUR 100 000. 
Unqualified lenders/investors are considered to be those with an income of less than EUR 
50 000 per year. While qualified investors can invest more than EUR 3 000 in the same 
project or more than EUR 10 000 in the same platform per year, unqualified investors can 
invest less than EUR 3 000 per project. 

Administration 

When it comes to public administration in the collaborative economy, Spain ranks 7 out of 
the  28  EU  countries.  The  government  has  neither  issued  any  guidance  on  setting  up  a 
collaborative platform nor has it issued any public documents with respect to legislation 
applicable to providers on P2P platforms, the rights and obligations of P2P providers, etc. 
Currently,  la  Comisión  Nacional  de  Mercado  y  Competencia  is  the  only  public  body  at 
national level with a positive approach to issuing guidance on the developing collaborative 

343 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections89100881001001000Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making57NA83075 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

economy. However, the main work accomplished so far for the entity has been guidance 
targeted  at  the  national  government  and  other  public  authorities.  Since  the  regional 
governments have the authority when it comes to tourism and accommodation as well as 
some aspects of transport, some regional governments have issued guidance related to 
specific issues in these sectors affecting the collaborative economy.  

The government has not provided guidance on the applicability of national employment 
rules  or  tax  rules  with  respect  to  services  provided  on  P2P  platforms.  Also,  there  is  no 
dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services. However, there 
are two national initiatives aimed at taking the necessary preliminary steps to legislation 
related  to  P2P  services.  The  Ministry  of  Industry,  Tourism  and  Digital  Agenda  (MITDA) 
launched a public consultation last June to be able to draft a further strategy for digital 
economy.  

Moreover, from the perspective of free competition, La Comisión Nacional de Mercado y 
Competencia  (CNMC)  published  a  document  last  year  with  the  preliminary  results  of  a 
study  on  the  new  service  models  in  the  collaborative  economy.  This  document  issues 
guidance to government and public authorities on the collaborative economy and gives a 
set of recommendations about how to deal with legislation related to P2P services.  

Business support 

Spain  ranks  third  among  the  28  EU  countries  concerning  business  support  in  the 
collaborative  economy.  There  are  no  publicly  funded  grant  schemes  for  collaborative 
platforms.  Platforms  are  considered  to  be  like  any  other  start-up  business  (from  the 
perspective  of  entrepreneurship  promotion  policy),  hence,  they  can  make  use  of  public 
initiatives  and  programmes  either  at  national  or  regional  level  that  support  start-ups, 
business  incubators  or  SME  development.  Moreover,  there  are  specific  policies  and 
programmes  aimed  at  supporting  sustainable  business  initiatives.  In  this  context, 
BlaBlaCar  received  a  grant  from  the  Ministry  of  Energy,  Industry  and  Tourism  in  2010. 
Apart  from  these  programmes,  Spain  has  no  specific  support  services  for  collaborative 
platforms or peer providers at national level or regional level. At national level, there is 
currently  no  specific  tax  rules  for  peers  in  the  collaborative  economy.  However,  the 
Ministries of Treasury and Industry, Tourism, and Digital Agenda are working to implement 
specific tax regulations for collaborative platforms that will also apply to peers. Regarding 
the accommodation sector, some municipalities (such as Madrid and Valencia) intend to 
implement specific tax rules for peer services of tourist accommodation.  

In general, public servants are prevented from using collaborative services for professional 
purposes  since  the  invoices  from  platforms  as  providers  are  not  accepted  as  official 
invoices. In this sense, the current legal framework limits the access of platforms to public 
procurement  processes.  The  public  sector  does,  however,  make  use  of  collaborative 
services such as crowdfunding platforms to raise co-funding for social projects.  

Alignment 

344 

Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment5850100100500Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector331000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Concerning  alignment,  Spain  ranks  21  out  of  the  28  EU  countries.  The  regional 
governments have the legal authority when it comes to the accommodation sector, and 
the  regulatory  landscape  of  this  sector  is  therefore  very  fragmented.  Regarding  peer 
transportation,  the  national  legal  framework  for  authorisation  of  transport  services  is 
homogenous in Spain.  

345 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Policy expert, Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios [Cross-cutting]  
  Sub-director, Comisión Nacional de Mercados y Competencia [Cross-cutting]  
  Director, Sharing España [Cross-cutting]  
  Founder and CEO, Legal Sharing [Cross-cutting]  
  Co-founder, Ouishare [Cross-cutting]  
  Chief of Operation Office, Loanbook Capital [Finance]  
  Co-founder and CEO, WorldCoo [Finance] 

Written sources  

  Analysis of Legal framework of transport sector in Spain. VVA, 2017. 
  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Crowdfunding  in  the  EU  Capital  Markets. 

Brussels, 2016.  

  Current State of Crowdfunding in Europe. Crowdfunding Hub, 2016. 
  Decreto  159/2012,  de  20  de  noviembre,  de  establecimientos  de  alojamiento 

turístico y de viviendas de uso turístico.  

  Decreto  74/2005,  de  28  de  julio,  por  el  que  se  aprueba  el  Reglamento  de  los 

servicios de transporte público urbano en automoviles de turismo. 

  http://www.dogv.gva.es/portal/ficha_disposicion_pc.jsp?sig=007941/2009&L=1  
  https://es.airbnb.com/help/article/1208/comunidad-valenciana---valencia 
  Law 5/2015, de 27 de abril, de fomento de la financiación empresarial, article 70. 
  Ley  1/1999,  de  12  de  marzo,  de  Ordenación  del  Turismo  de  la  Comunidad  de 

Madrid.  

  Ley 13/2002, de 21 de juny, de turisme de Catalunya. 
  Ley 16/1987, de 30 de Julio, de ordenación de los transportes terrestres. 
  Ley 29/1994, de 24 de noviembre, de Arrendamientos Urbanos. 
  Ley 49/1960, de 21 de julio, sobre propiedad horizontal.  
  Ordenanza del Taxi de Madrid, ANM 2012/74. 
  Real  Decreto  1211/1990,  de  28  de  septiembre,  por  el  que  se  aprueba  el 

Reglamento de la Ley de ordenación de los transportes terrestres. 

  Real  Decreto  763/1979,  de  16  de  marzo,  por  el  que  se  aprueba  el  Reglamento 
nacional  de  los  servicios  urbanos  e  interurbanos  de  transportes  en  automóviles 
ligeros. 

  Real  Decreto  79/2014,  de  10  de  julio,  del  Consejo  de  Gobierno,  por  el  que  se 
regulan los apartamentos turísticos y las viviendas de uso turístico de la Comunidad 
de Madrid.  

  Reglamento Metropolitano del Taxi, 8 junio de 2017. 
  Reglamento Regulador del Servicio de Auto-Taxis y Auto-Turismos de Valencia. 
  Study  on  the  Assessment  of  the  Regulatory  Aspects  affecting  the  Collaborative 

Economy in the transport sector in Spain. VVA, 2017. 

  Study  on  the  Assessment  of  the  Regulatory  Aspects  Affecting  the  Collaborative 
Economy in the Tourism Accommodation Sector in the 28 Member States. Spark & 
VVA, 2017. 

346 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Spain – Vertical themes 

347 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelESTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNoMadridNoBarcelonaNoValenciaNoMadridYesBarcelonaYesValenciaYesMadridYesBarcelonaYesValenciaYesMadridYesBarcelonaYesValenciaYesMadridYesBarcelonaYesValenciaYesMadridNoBarcelonaNoValenciaNoMadridNoBarcelonaNoValenciaNoMadridNoBarcelonaNoValenciaNoMadridYesBarcelonaYesValenciaYesMadridNoBarcelonaYesValenciaNoMadridNoBarcelonaNoValenciaNoMadridYesBarcelonaYesValenciaYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliation12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliation13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirements8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictions10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictions5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinction2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislation3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirements4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirements 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

348 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelESACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNationalMadridYesBarcelonaYesValenciaYesNationalMadridYesBarcelonaYesValenciaYesNationalYesMadridYesBarcelonaYesValenciaYesNationalMadridNoBarcelonaPartiallyValenciaYesNationalMadridYesBarcelonaYesValenciaYesNationalMadridYesBarcelonaYesValenciaNoNationalMadridNoBarcelonaNoValenciaNoNationalNoMadridNoBarcelonaNoValenciaNoNationalMadridPartiallyBarcelonaPartiallyValenciaYesNationalMadridYesBarcelonaYesValenciaYesNationalMadridYesBarcelonaYesValenciaYes3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

349 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelESFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalYes4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational906. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational907. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational08. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational09. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalNo13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalNo14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Spain – Horizontal themes 

350 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelESPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalNo 2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalPartially8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalPartially2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalPartially3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalYes4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalPartially6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalYes3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalYesStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sweden 

Performance overview 

Overview 
The  collaborative  economy  is  evolving in  Sweden,  and  Sweden  ranks  18  out  the  28  EU 
countries.  There  is  only  limited  sector-specific  legislation,  but  the  Swedish  government 
recently published  a study on the whole collaborative  economy and the need  for  sector 
specific  legislation  covering  sectors  such  as  transportation  (primarily  ride-sharing)  and 
finance by peers in the collaborative economy. Concerning alignment, Sweden has a very 
high degree of alignment of local policies with national policies. The Swedish authorities 
have started offering administrative guidance and business support targeted at parts of 
the  collaborative  economy  (i.e.  taxation  guidelines  for  letting  a  private  residence).  This 
work, however, still does not cover the entire collaborative economy.  

Accommodation 

Sweden ranks 13 out of the 28 EU countries when it comes to accommodation services in 
the collaborative economy because peer providers have some latitude when it comes to 
letting  their  properties.  Sweden  has  not  adopted  any  specific  legal  framework  for 
accommodation  services  in  the  collaborative  economy,  and  there  is  no  legislation  that 
specifies the type of P2P accommodation services allowed. Peer providers are not required 
to register or obtain a licence from any authority before letting their property. Primary as 
well  as  secondary  residences  can  be  let.  However,  P2P  accommodation  services  are 
regulated in the same way as all tenants who wish to provide short-term lets. This means 
that  permission  is  either  required  from  the  landlord  or  the  building  association.  House 
owners are free to let their house or flat. The Swedish Tax Authorities apply a threshold 
to  distinguish  between  peer  activity  and  professional  activity  (based  on  four  questions 
concerning  the  kind  of  accommodation  service  and  the  rental  period).  Moreover,  peer 
providers can become subject to inspection from the Swedish Tax Agency, which was the 
first  public  authority  in  Sweden  to  acknowledge  a  monitoring  problem  within  the 
collaborative economy. When subletting a room, the peer provider must pay tax on 30% 
of revenues above SEK 40 000. Subletting is considered to be a capital income.  

351 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections58033901000 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Transport 

Concerning transportation in the collaborative economy, Sweden ranks 24 out of the 28 
EU countries. Currently, every situation in which transport is provided for remuneration is 
regulated under the Swedish Taxi Act, hence, P2P ride-sharing and VTC are regulated 
by  this  act.  However,  a  recent  special  enquiry  set  up  by  the  government  (SOU  2016) 
addressed  ride-sharing  in  the  collaborative  economy.  This  report  concludes  that  some 
types  of  ride-sharing  should  not  be  considered  to  be  a  taxi  service  and  thus  not  be 
regulated by the Swedish Taxi Act. They include ride-sharing where the passengers are 
acquaintances (friends, colleagues, etc.), ride-sharing where the passengers are going to 
the same destination and split the costs, and ride-sharing where the provider of the service 
does not profit from providing the service (SOU 2016:38). These recommendations have 
yet to become official legislation, but it is very likely they will be implemented soon. The 
consequence  will  be  that  peer  providers  offering  ride-sharing  services  on  an  occasional 
basis will be exempt from obtaining an authorisation or licence.  

P2P car-sharing is not defined in the Swedish Car Rental Act (Regeringskansliet 1998). 
The  act  only  addresses  commercial  car  rental  business  when  the  duration  of  the  rental 
period is less than a year. In this case, you need a licence to rent out your car(s). A licence 
can be obtained by both a private person and a legal entity. For instance, GoMore Sweden 
has a licence that makes it legal for peer providers to rent out cars through GoMore without 
having  a  personal  licence  themselves.  In  modern  times,  the  Swedish  courts  have  not 
tested  what  can  be  considered  a  commercial  car  rental  business  and  what  can  be 
considered P2P car-sharing.  

Finance 

Sweden ranks 20 out of the 28 EU countries concerning collaborative financing because 
very  few  sector  specific  regulations  exist,  i.e.  no  licences  are  needed.  P2P  equity 
investment  has  no  legal  definition  in  Swedish  legislation.  Recently,  a  report  from  the 
Swedish Supervisory Financial Authority indicated that under  certain circumstances it is 
even unclear which public authority is responsible for supervising P2P equity investments 
(Finansinspektionen  2015).  Because  there  are  no  specific  regulations  applying  to  P2P 
equity investments, it is the structure of each individual business that determines which 
regulations apply. However, the government has issued a study on whether sector specific 
legislation is needed. This study was set to be published in an official report by the end of 
December  2017.  Sweden  has  special  licensing  for  P2P  equity  investment  platforms, 
however, these are without any cost. According to the government, it takes 150 days for 
a MiFID licence to be granted. The platforms that operate in Sweden are either regulated 
as  financial  institutes,  securities  companies  or  are  entirely  unregulated  (as  described 
above).  

P2P debt funding is regulated in the same way as P2P equity funding, and there is no 
sector  specific  legislation  yet.  According  to  the  Swedish  Financial  Authorities  P2P  debt 
funding in general is not prohibited. P2P lending platforms (crowd-lending) are only subject 
to  registration  of  the  platform  with  the  Swedish  Financial  Supervisory  Authority.  In 

352 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements420630100500Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections3450300010050 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

general, no licence is needed. However, a licence as a payment service provider is needed 
if the platform wishes to conduct cross-border activities. According to the government, it 
can take between 90 days to six months for the licence to be granted. Currently, there are 
no licenced platforms because all platforms are constructed in a way that falls between 
statutes  and  there  are  no  rulings  in  the  area  that  can  serve  as  guidance 
(Crowdfundinghub.eu).  Also,  there  is  no  cap  on  the  amount  peer  providers  can  receive 
from collaborative platforms.  

Administration 

When it comes to public administration in the collaborative economy,  Sweden ranks 12 
out of the 28 EU countries. The Swedish government has issued guidance on certain parts 
of the collaborative economy, but not in most areas. Thus, the Swedish government has 
issued  guidance  on  setting  up  a  collaborative  platform  with  respect  to  taxation  and  the 
necessary licences. With respect to rights and obligations, the Swedish government has 
stated that consumer rights do not apply to transactions within the collaborative economy 
as long as the supplier does not act as a trader. Sweden has a public body dealing with 
questions  from  peers  on  the  regulatory  aspects  of  use/offering  of  P2P  services.  The 
government has also published a rapport on the sharing economy to shed light on relevant 
issues  within  this  type  of  economic  model.  Moreover,  the  Swedish  Taxation  Authority 
(Skatteverket) provides guidance regarding the national tax  rules. There is no guidance 
on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P 
platforms. 

Business support 

Sweden  ranks  23  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  when  it  comes  to  business  support  in  the 
collaborative  economy.  There  are  neither  dedicated  publicly  funded  grant  schemes  for 
collaborative platforms, nor is there any direct or indirect public financial support to which 
collaborative  platforms  can  apply.  Sweden  has  no  support  services  for  collaborative 
platforms or peer providers. However, peer providers and platforms are always welcome 
to contact public authorities with their questions.  

Alignment 

Sweden  is  number  1  among  the  EU  countries  concerning  alignment in  the  collaborative 
economy  because  the  relevant  Swedish  legislation  and  authorisations  apply  to  all  of 
Sweden.  In  the  case  of  P2P  accommodation  services,  the  regions  and  cities  in  Sweden 
apply the same national rules and regulations for providers of this service.  

353 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making50100335050Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment170010000Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector100100100 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Founder and CEO Mattias Jägerskog, Skjutsgruppen [Transport]  
  Founder and CEO Sebastian Archanbeaud, Handiscover [Accommodation]  
  Head of investor relations Lovisa Strömsholm, FundedByMe [Finance]  
  Head of support unit Eleonore Forsberg, The Swedish Transport Agency [Transport]  
  Provider Igor Tchehoff, Airbnb [Accommodation]  
  Senior  Analyst  Moa  Langemark,  The  Swedish  Financial  Supervisory  Authority 

[Finance] 

  Senior researcher Karolina Zurek, Stockholm University [Accommodation]  
  VD Jonas Björkman, Tessin Nordic [Finance]  

Written sources  

  Crowdfundinghub.eu  (2016).  "Crowdfunding  Crossing  Borders".  Available  at: 

http://www.crowdfundinghub.eu/crowdfunding-cross-borders/    

  Finansinspektionen  (2015).  "Crowdfunding  in  Sweden  –  an  overview".  Ref.  15-
17414.  Available  at:  http://www.fi.se/contentassets/0ffe196bc6ba4569bc16682 
da5faae14/grasrotsfinansiering_151214_eng.pdf  
regeringen.se. Available at:   
http://www.regeringen.se/495f62/contentassets/82aabf7f731c4e18aaee3b8dc36
21063/delningsekonomi--pa-anvandarnas-villkor-sou-201726  . 
  Regeringskansliet (1970). Jordabalk (1970:994). Available at:    

 

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-
lagar/dokument/svenskforfattningssamling/jordabalk-1970994_sfs-1970-994. 

  Regeringskansliet (1998). Law on car rental (1998:492). Available at    

http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-
forfattningssamling/lag-1998492-om-biluthyrning_sfs-1998-492 

  Regeringskansliet 

(2005). 

informationssamhällets 
/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-2002562-om-
elektronisk-handel-och-andra_sfs-2002-562. 

"Lagen  om  elektronisk  handel  och  andra 
tjänster".  Available  at:  http://www.riksdagen.se/sv 

  Regeringskansliet (2005). Aktiebolagslag. Available at:    

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-
forfattningssamling/aktiebolagslag-2005551_sfs-2005-551   

  Regeringskansliet  (2012).  Act  on  taxi  transportation  (2012:238).  Available  at: 

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-
forfattningssamling/taxitrafikforordning-2012238_sfs-2012-238  

  Regeringskansliet (2012). Lag om uthyrning av egen bostad 2012:978.  Available 
http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattnings 

at: 
samling/lag-2012978-om-uthyrning-av-egen-bostad_sfs-2012-978. 

  Regeringskansliet  (2012).  Law  on  taxi  transportation  (2012:211).  Available  at: 

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-
forfattningssamling/taxitrafiklag-2012211_sfs-2012-211  

  Regerinskansliet (1991). Bostadsrättslag (1991:614). Available at:  
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-
forfattningssamling/bostadsrattslag-1991614_sfs-1991-614   

  Skatteverket.se.  "Hyra  ut  tillgångar  som  bostad,  båt  med  mera".  Available  at: 

https://www.skatteverket.se/privat/skatter/arbeteochinkomst/inkomster/delnings
ekonomi/hyrauttillgangarsombostadbatmedmera.4.24321e0c1165ddd612080002
033.html#Olikauthyrningssituationer. 

  Skatteverket.se.  "Vanligt  med  oredovisade  inkomster  vid  uthyrning  av  bostad". 
Available  at:  https://www.skatteverket.se/omoss/press/pressmeddelanden/riks 

354 

 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

/2017/2017/vanligtmedoredovisadeinkomsterviduthyrningavbostad.5.5c281c7015
abecc2e20c29b.html 

  Skatteverket.se.  Available  at:  https://www.skatteverket.se/privat/fastigheteroch 

bostad/uthyrningavbostad/bostadsratt.4.233f91f71260075abe8800033531.html  

  Statens Offentliga Utradningar (2016). Taxi och samåkning – i dag, i morgon och i 

övermorgon. Available at:   http://www.sou.gov.se/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/SOU-2016_86-WEBB.pdf 

  Statens  Offentliga  Utradningar  (2017).  Delningsekonomi  på  användarnas  villkor. 
http://www.regeringen.se/rattsdokument/statens-offentliga-

at: 

Available 
utredningar/2017/04/sou-201726/   

  Transportstyrelsen (2017). "UberPOP är olaga taxitrafik". Accessed 28/08/2017 

355 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sweden – Vertical themes 

356 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelSETRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislationStockholmNo3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirementsStockholmNo4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirementsStockholmPartially5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsStockholmNo6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirementsStockholmNo7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinctionStockholmNo8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionStockholmNo9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictionsStockholmYes10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictionsStockholmYes11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliationStockholmPartially12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliationStockholmPartially13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirementsStockholmYesQuestionsIndicatorsLevelSEACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalNo4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalYes5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notificationsNationalYes6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalYes8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalNo10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provisionNationalPartially11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?InspectionsNationalYes 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

357 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelSEFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalNo4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational1506. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational1357. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55008. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational55009. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalNo14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalPartially 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sweden – Horizontal themes 

358 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelSEPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalYes2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalNo5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalNo6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalNo2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalNo3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalNo4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalNo6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalNoALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalNo3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalNoStudy to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

United Kingdom 

Performance overview 

Overview 
The United Kingdom is one of the leading nations in Europe when it comes to facilitating 
the collaborative economy. While the collaborative economy suffers from weak alignment 
of the relevant regulations, it excels in almost all other fields. The UK government offers 
excellent  business  support  to  collaborative  platforms.  The  government  also  provides 
guidance,  testing  grounds,  seminars,  and  conferences  and  several  departments  have 
entered partnerships with collaborative platforms. Both P2P equity funding and P2P lending 
is allowed. P2P car-sharing is unregulated while P2P ride-sharing requires a licence if the 
driver earns a profit (if the remuneration only covers the cost of operating the vehicle the 
service  is  allowed  without  licence).  The  collaborative  accommodation  sector  is  generally 
not addressed by UK legislation. Instead general regulations apply.  

Accommodation 

The  United  Kingdom  ranks  13  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  on  the  accommodation  score. 
There is no regulation which governs P2P accommodation services. As a result, there is no 
clear  definition  of  the  type  of  P2P  transactions  permitted  or  forbidden.  Another 
consequence of the absence of a legal framework regulating P2P accommodation services 
is  that  peer  providers  are  not  required  to  obtain  an  authorisation  prior  to  letting  their 
residence.  Furthermore,  the  2015  ‘Review  of  Property  Conditions  in  the  Private  Rented 
Sector’  established  that  the  government  has  no  desire  to  regulate  the  market  at  the 
national level by introducing a licensing regime. However, things are slightly more rigid in 
London  than  in  the  rest  of  the  UK  where  local authorities  technically  have  the  power  to 
introduce licensing requirements if they wish to do so. Peer providers do not have to notify 
their landlord or their building association when letting their residence – this also applies 
at  the  national  level.  Peer  providers  may  let  their  residence  for  90  days  per  year  in 
accordance  with  the  Deregulation  Act  2015,  after  which  the  property  is  considered 
'temporary sleeping accommodation’ and the owner must apply for planning permission. 

Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations, authorisations, notificationsRestrictions on type of good or service provisionPeer and professional provider distinctionInspections5808310000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

It is also possible to let a secondary residence, but this may demand a licence. There are 
no restrictions on the proportion of the residence than can be let, and it is not prohibited 
to  let  an  entire  residence.  Also,  the  peer  provider  is  not  required  to  be  living  in  the 
residence  during  the  letting  period.  Finally,  local  authorities  can  inspect  and  identify 
hazards  in  residential  housing  under  the  ‘Housing  Health  and  Safety  Rating  System’, 
introduced by the ‘Housing Act 2004’. Inspections can be carried out either at the request 
of the tenant or the wish of the council. The inspections  cover water, gas and electrical 
equipment, hygiene and sanitation facilities, etc.  

Transport 

The United Kingdom ranks 11  out  of the 28  EU countries on the transport sector score. 
P2P  car-sharing  has  no  definition  in  the  national  legislation  and  thus  no  specific 
regulations apply to the activity. This also means that currently no authorisation is needed 
for peers to share their car on a collaborative platform.  

P2P ride-sharing (including ride-hailing), on the other hand, is more regulated. Ride-
sharing where the remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the cost of operating 
the vehicle is allowed and not regulated. However, if the driver earns a profit from providing 
the service, his/her vehicle will be categorised as a private hire vehicle (PHV) and the driver 
must be licenced accordingly (1998 PHV Act). Even peer providers offering services on an 
occasional basis need a licence. The requirements to obtain a licence involves more than 
just holding a driver’s licence and having no criminal record, and the requirements vary 
across cities. 

The regulations on applying for taxis licences vary significantly from the rules applying to 
PHVs.  The  number  of  taxi  licences  is  not  restricted  in  London,  however,  the  capital  has 
very high quality standards, which work as an alternative type of barrier to the number of 
licences issued. In Liverpool, the limit is 1 417 licences and in Manchester the number is 
814. In all three of the above urban areas there is no limit on private hire vehicle licences. 
Taxi fares are not unrestricted in the UK, no matter the city or region. On the other hand, 
PHVs are free to set their own fares, as there is no control regime concerning the fares. 
However, PHVs must always agree on their fee in advance. Taxis are neither required to 
be affiliated to a dispatch centre nor are PHVs, unless they have no operator licence (then 
the  PHV  can  be  part  of  a  dispatch  centre  with  such  a  licence).  In  London,  new  2016 
legislation  requires  that  the  customer  must  be  able  to  speak  to  someone  else  than  the 
driver  at  all  times.  This  essentially  means  that  PHVs  are  required  to  be  affiliated  with  a 
dispatch/operating centre. In September 2017, TFL (Transport for London) rejected Uber's 
application for a new licence on the basis that the company is not a ‘fit and proper’ private 
car hire operator. The platform has launched an appeal and will continue operating until 
the legal process is exhausted. 

Finance 

The current conditions for collaborative platforms and peers in the financial sector in the 
United  Kingdom  give  the  country  a  score  in  the  top  ten,  ranking  it  9  out  of  the  28  EU 

360 

Total scoreBespoke legislationModel-specific market access requirementsPeer and professional provider distinctionPrice restrictionsDispatch centre affiliationGeneral requirements500832550830Total scoreBespoke legislationRegistrations and authorisationsPeer and professional provider distinctionProspectus requirementInformation requirementsInspections581005167000 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

countries. P2P equity funding and P2P lending are allowed, and the UK government also 
operates a bespoke regime of regulation for both types of funding activities. This has been 
the case since the 2014 amendments to the ‘Financial Services and Markets Acts 2000’. 
Some  equity  platforms  might  benefit  from  watered  down  licence  requirements  whilst 
lending platforms are exempt from a few regulations compared to banks, but in general, 
P2P platforms are not exempt from general authorisation requirements. Depending on the 
required authorisation applicants can expect that it will take 3-12 months to process their 
case. The direct costs of obtaining an authorisation for a P2P equity funding platform can 
be rather high ranging from GBP 1 500 to GBP 25 000 depending on the complexity of the 
case. Most cases are moderately complex and the direct cost is GBP 5 000. For P2P lending 
the costs range from GPB 800 to GPB 10 000. There are also significant indirect costs, but 
these  vary  greatly  from  case  to  case.  To  encourage  all  platforms  to  have  the  correct 
authorisations, The Financial Conduct Authority has general enforcement powers for the 
collaborative  platforms  in  the  financial  sector.  These  enforcement  measures  include 
removal of authorisation, fines, injunctions, and assets freezes.  

There  is  no  official  threshold  to  distinguish  between  peer  and  professional  activity,  but 
crowdfunding sites under MiFID licences do distinguish between the two categories to some 
extent.  Peer  providers  are  obliged  to  publish  a  prospectus  if  the  total  value  of  their 
investment exceeds EUR 5 million, but there is no limit to the amount a company can raise 
through crowdfunding.  

Administration 

On the public administration score, the United Kingdom ranks 2 out of the 28 EU countries. 
In general, the UK government provides lots of advice across a variety of departments for 
collaborative economy platforms and there are serious efforts across most governmental 
departments to promote and advise on P2P collaborative economy questions. This is what 
earns the country its position as second best in Europe. The Financial Conduct Authority 
has produced statements on the licensing requirements for P2P platforms and it also runs 
the 'Regulatory Sandbox', which allows firms and ‘start-ups’ to test their ideas and their 
regulatory  compliance  with  an  in-house  team,  thus  reducing  the  costs  of  legal  advice. 
Specific to the transport sector, several policy papers have been released, such as the 'Car 
Club Strategy for London'. There are lots of examples of the UK Government or its agencies 
partnering with P2P platforms, especially in the finance sector. Both ‘Her Majesty's Revenue 
and  Customs’  and  ‘The  Financial  Conduct  Authority’  provide  guidance  with  respect  to 
taxation  allowances  for  sharing  economy  activities.  There  is  no  dedicated  public  body 
dealing  exclusively  with  P2P  services  because  the  UK  government  carries  out  a  sectoral 
approach meaning that each department deals with their own P2P related issues. Lastly, 
there have been numerous reports by the UK government examining the development and 
impact of the collaborative economy. Business support 

The United Kingdom earns the highest score on the business support parameter making it 
the  leading  nation  in  this  field.  The  country  earns  the  highest  score  because  the  UK 
government and its various departments offer extensive business support to collaborative 

361 

Total scoreGuidance on setting up P2P platformsGuidance to peer providersGuidance on employment and tax rulesPolicy making811008310050Total scoreFinancial supportNon-financial supportPromotion of P2P services within public administrationAccreditation schemesPreferential tax treatment100100100100100100 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

‘start-ups’.  The  government’s  Innovation  Agency  provides  dedicated  grants  to  P2P 
platforms  and  in  addition  to  that  several  departments  provide  grants  for  the  offering  of 
services or promotion of collaborative activities. Some examples are the Department for 
Culture,  Media and Sport that ran a project with ‘Crowdfunder’ that awarded up to GBP 
20 000  to  each  successful  applicant.  Another  example  is  the  Department  of  Transport 
which is a cofounder of 'Carplus', a national NGO whose role it is to promote car sharing in 
the UK. The UK government also runs conferences and seminars and facilitates training for 
platforms  and  peers  in  the  collaborative  economy.  No  accreditation  schemes  have  been 
established  but  the  government  collaborates  with  industry  bodies  to  develop  quality 
standards.  Finally,  there  are  both  general  and  specific  tax  allowances  for  peers  in  the 
collaborative economy. A new tax rule from 2017 gives a GBP 1 000 free tax allowance to 
earnings from collaborative platforms.  

Alignment 

The  United  Kingdom  ranks  21  out  of  the  28  EU  countries  on  the  alignment  score.  This 
indicates  that  the  legislation  affecting  the  collaborative  economy  does  not  apply  at  the 
national level but depends on the local authorities. Licensing of Taxis and PHVs is handled 
at local level, and in London completely different rules apply compared to the rest of the 
UK. Furthermore, there is a regional difference in which regulations apply to peer-to-peer 
service  providers  in  the  accommodation  sector.  The  situation  is  more  rigid  especially  in 
London. 

362 

Total scoreTransport sectorAccommodation sector331000 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

Sources 

Interviews 

  Head of IT & Regulation Jim NG, EasyCar Club [Transport]  
  Head  of  Regulation  Kieran  Garvey,  Cambridge  Centre  for  Alternative  Finance 

[Finance]  

Written sources  

  APFA, The Cost of Regulation Report 2016, p2 
  Butcher, Louie (2014). 'Taxis: quantity restriction', House of Commons Library, p3. 
  Corporation Tax Act 2009 c.4: Part 4, Chapter 4, Section 216, Income Tax (Trading 

and Other Income) Act 2005 c.5: Part 3, Chapter 4, Section 27. 

  Crowdfunder  (2016),  'Up  to  £20 000  of  extra  funding  for  artists  and  arts 
via 

accessed 

August 

23rd 

the 

organisations' 
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/funds/arts 

on 

  EasyCar  Club 

(2017), 

'How  To',  promotional 

video,  accessed 

via 

https://carclub.easycar.com/home/howto on the 18th August 2017  

  European Commission (2014), Capital Requirements Directive IV 
  Financial Conduct Authority (2017), 'Enforcement Information Guide', p1 
  Financial  Services  Act  2012 

(Consumer  Credit)  http://www.elexica.com 
/en/Resources/Microsite/LaunchPlus/Get-started/FCA-authorisation-basic-process  
and  https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/statement-peer-peer-applications-
full-authorisation  

  Grimaldi:  Studio  Legale,  'Taxi  and  Private  Hire  Legislation  in  the  UK,Bocconi 
University , p40 and Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, sections 2, 6 and 12. 
  Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by the Housing Act 2004. Gas 
Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, Section 36(2), Electrical Equipment 
(Safety) Regulations 1994, s.5. 

  https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/authorisation/fee  
  https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/FEES/3/Annex1.html  
 

Innovate  UK  (2016),  'Funding  competition:  digital  innovation  in  the  sharing 
https://www.gov.uk 
economy' 
/government/publications/funding-competition-digital-innovation-in-the-sharing-
economy/funding-competition-digital-innovation-in-the-sharing-economy 

on  23rd  August  2017 

accessed 

via 

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. 
  Office for Fair Trading (2003). 'The regulation of licensed taxi and PHV services in 

the UK', p28. 

  Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. 
  Sharing  Economy  UK  (2017),  'Trust  seal'  accessed  on  23rd  August  2017  via 

https://sharingeconomytrustseal.com/about/ 

  The  Financial  Conduct  Authority  (2015).  'A  review  of  the  regulatory  regime  for 
crowdfunding  and  the  promotion  of  non-readily  realisable  securities  by  other 
media', p1 

  The  Financial  Services  and  Markets  Act  2000  (Appointed  Representatives) 

(Amendment) Regulations 2014.  

  The  Financial  Services  and  Markets  Act  2000  (Consumer  Credit)  (Miscellaneous 

Provisions) Order 2014.  

  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) 

Order 2014.  

  The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973, Section 25(2). 
  The  London  Cab  Order  (1934)  Local  Government  (Miscellaneous  Provisions)  Act 

1976. 

  Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. 
  Town and Country Planning Act 1990, P.3, s.57 
  Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

363 

 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

  Transport  for  London  (2017).  'Information  for  Taxis  and  Private  Hire  Vehicles' 
accessed  via  https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/english-language-
requirement on the 17th August 2017  

  UK Government (1847), ‘Town and Police Clauses Act', Section 37 
  UK Government (1934). 'London Cab Order'.  
  UK Government (2016), Budget 2016, 7.1 table 2.1 section 73 
  UK Government (2016), Budget 2016, 7.1 table 2.1 section 73 and www.SEIS.co.uk 

and https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home/the-rent-a-room-scheme 

  UK  Government,  (2014)  'Model  agreement  for  a  shorthold  assured  tenancy', 
Department  for  Communities  and  Local  Government,  Last  updated:  1  February 
2016. 

  UK  Government,  'Transport  Act',  Section  16  and  House  of  Commons  Transport 
Committee (2004), 'The Regulation of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicle Services in the 
UK', Volume 1, p9 

  Williams,  Matthew  (2017).  'Study  on  the  Assessment  of  the  Regulatory  Aspects 
Affecting the Collaborative Economy in the Tourism Accommodation Sector in the 
28 Member States'. 

364 

 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

United Kingdom – Vertical themes 

365 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelUKTRANSPORT1. Is there a definition of P2P car sharing and/or ride sharing in national laws?Bespoke legislationNationalNoLondonNoManchesterNoLiverpoolNoLondonYesManchesterYesLiverpoolYesLondonYesManchesterYesLiverpoolYesLondonNoManchesterYesLiverpoolYesLondonNoManchesterNoLiverpoolNoLondonNoManchesterNoLiverpoolNoLondonPartiallyManchesterPartiallyLiverpoolPartiallyLondonNoManchesterNoLiverpoolNoLondonYesManchesterYesLiverpoolYesLondonNoManchesterNoLiverpoolNoLondonYesManchesterNoLiverpoolNoLondonYesManchesterYesLiverpoolYes2. Does the applicable legislation allow non-professional drivers to provide private transport (VTC) services via platforms for remuneration?Bespoke legislation3. Is P2P car sharing permitted without obtaining a professional license/authorisation?Model-specific market access requirements4. Is P2P ride sharing permitted without an authorisation or professional license if remuneration for the activity corresponds only to the running costs of operating the vehicle?Model-specific market access requirements5. Is the number of taxi licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements6. Is the number of private hire vehicle licenses restricted?Model-specific market access requirements7. Are peer providers  offering ride sharing services on an occasional basis exempt from authorisation or professional licenses applicable to taxi or VTC services?Peer and professional provider distinction8. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction9. Are the fares for taxis unrestricted?Price restrictions10. Are the fares for VTC services unrestricted?Price restrictions11. Are taxis explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre to provide transportation services?Dispatch centre affiliation12. Are VTC service providers explicitly required to be affiliated to a dispatch centre?Dispatch centre affiliation13. Is there a requirement for providers to get a professional license/authorisation that involves more than holding a driving license and not to have a criminal conviction?General requirements 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

366 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelUKACCOMMODATION1. Is there a specific regulation for accommodation services in the collaborative economy?Bespoke legislationNationalNo2. Is there a clear definition of the type of P2P transactions allowed?Bespoke legislationNationalNoNationalNoLondonNoManchesterNoLiverpoolNoNationalPartiallyLondonPartiallyManchesterPartiallyLiverpoolPartiallyNationalNoLondonNoManchesterNoLiverpoolNoNationalYesLondonYesManchesterYesLiverpoolYesNationalYesLondonYesManchesterYesLiverpoolYesNationalNoLondonNoManchesterNoLiverpoolNoNationalNoLondonNoManchesterNoLiverpoolNoNationalNoLondonNoManchesterNoLiverpoolNoNationalNoLondonNoManchesterNoLiverpoolNoNationalNoLondonNoManchesterNoLiverpoolNoNationalYesLondonYesManchesterYesLiverpoolYes12. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional activity?Peer and professional provider distinction13. Are peer providers subject to inspections from public authorities to ensure compliance with the law?Inspections9. Are peer providers prevented from renting out their whole property?Restrictions on type of good or service provision10. Are peer providers obliged to be present in the property they are renting out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision11. Are individuals offering services on an occasional basis exempt from regulations (e.g. health and safety requirements)?Peer and professional provider distinction6. Are peer providers permitted to let their primary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision7. Are peer providers permitted to let their secondary residence?Restrictions on type of good or service provision8. Is there a restriction in the size of the property/number of properties permitted to be rented out?Restrictions on type of good or service provision3. Are peer providers required to register, obtain an authorisation from, or notify a regulatory authority prior to letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications4. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their landlord prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications5. Are peer providers required to obtain approval from their building association or other residents in their building prior to sub-letting their property?Registrations, authorisations, notifications 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

367 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelUKFINANCE1. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P equity investment?Bespoke legislationNationalYes2. Is P2P equity investment prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo3. Is there a bespoke regime regulating P2P lending?Bespoke legislationNationalYes4. Is P2P lending prohibited?Bespoke legislationNationalNo5. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P equity investment platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational284.766. Please indicate the maximum number of calendar days during which an authority needs to decide on issuing a license for P2P lending platforms.Registrations and authorisationsNational250.877. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P equity investment platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational16958. What are the direct costs to obtain all necessary authorisations/licenses for P2P lending platforms?Registrations and authorisationsNational9049. Are P2P equity investment platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to investment firms for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes10. Are P2P lending platforms exempt from any of the requirements applicable to banks for obtaining an authorisation/license?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalYes11. Is there a threshold to distinguish between peer and professional peer activity?Peer and professional provider distinctionNationalNo12. Is there an amount over which peer providers are required to publish a prospectus?Prospectus requirementNationalYes13. Are peer providers required to provide information to public authorities before engaging in collaborative finance?Information requirementsNationalYes14. Are there enforcement measures taken by public authorities to ensure compliance with regulations? InspectionsNationalYes 
 
 
Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the  
EU – Annex 6 

United Kingdom – Horizontal themes 

368 

QuestionsIndicatorsLevelUKPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION1. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued guidance on setting up a collaborative platform with respect to: taxation, necessary licenses, insurance requirements, applicable legislation, other.Guidance on setting up P2P platformsNationalYes2. Has the government (or any other official authority) issued a public document or a publication on an official website with respect to: legislation applicable to peer providers on P2P platforms, rights and obligations of P2P providers, tips for participating on P2P platforms, general information or campaigns on what P2P services are, other.Guidance to peer providersNationalYes3. Is there a publicly-supported body dealing with queries from peers on the regulatory aspects of use/offering of P2P services?Guidance to peer providersNationalPartially4. Has the government (or local authority) entered into a partnership with any collaborative platform (e.g. for tax collection purposes)?Guidance to peer providersNationalYes5. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national employment rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes6. Has the government provided guidance on the applicability of national tax rules with respect to services provided on P2P platforms?Guidance on employment and tax rulesNationalYes7. Is there a dedicated public body for dealing with legislation related to P2P services?Policy makingNationalNo8. Are there, or have there been any initiatives from public authorities to examine the development and impact of the collaborative economy?Policy makingNationalYesBUSINESS SUPPORT1. Are there dedicated, publicly-funded grant schemes for collaborative platforms?Financial supportNationalYes2. Are there other kinds of direct or indirect public financial support to which collaborative platforms can apply?Financial supportNationalYes3. Does the government provide support services (e.g. training activities, technical and business advice) for collaborative economy platforms or peer providers?Non-financial supportNationalYes4. Are public servants allowed to use collaborative services in a professional capacity?Promotion of P2P services within public administrationNationalYes5. Does the government provide an accreditation scheme for the promotion of the collaborative platforms or actively support industry initiatives for self-regulatory standards (e.g. quality label)?Accreditation schemesNationalYes6. Has the government introduced any tax allowance or specific tax rules for peers in the collaborative economy? (please specify)Preferential tax treatmentNationalYesALIGNMENT1. Do the same rules on authorisation apply for peer transport services everywhere within a Member State?Transport sectorNationalYes2. Do some regions or cities in the country apply specific regulations for peer to peer accommodation service providers? Accommodation sectorNationalYes3. Do some regions or cities apply the national regulations on accommodation service providers differently and cause different regulatory burden?Accommodation sectorNationalYes 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[
C
a
t
a
o
g
u
e

l

n
u
m
b
e
r
]

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu) ; 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

  
 
 
 
 
 
E
T
-
0
2
-
1
8
-
5
5
1
-
E
N
-
N

         doi: 10.2873/972344