COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Lifts Directive 2014/33/EU Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation and functioning of Directive 2014/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts and safety components for lifts
Date: 2019-02-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, application of EU law, disabled person, harmonisation of standards, lift, market approval, market supervision, marketing standard, product safety, safety standard

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 22.2.2019  SWD(2019) 26 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Lifts Directive 2014/33/EU Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation and functioning of Directive 2014/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts and safety components for lifts {COM(2019) 87 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5 

1.1. 

Purpose of the evaluation ............................................................................................... 5 

1.2. 

Scope of the evaluation ................................................................................................... 5 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 6 

2.1. 

Description of the intervention ....................................................................................... 6 

2.1.1. 

Scope of application of the Directive .......................................................................... 6 

2.1.2. 

The Directive’s intervention logic ................................................................................ 7 

2.2. 

Role of harmonised European standards and standardisation requests ...................... 10 

2.3.  Major amendments to the original Lifts Directive 95/16/EC ........................................ 11 

2.4. 

Baseline and points of comparison ............................................................................... 12 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 13 

3.1. 

Transposition and implementation of the Lifts Directive ............................................. 13 

3.2. 

Description of the market ............................................................................................. 16 

4.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 18 

4.1. 

Description of the methodology ................................................................................... 18 

4.2. 

Limitations and robustness of findings ......................................................................... 19 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 21 

5.1. 

Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 21 

5.1.1. 

Relevance of objectives to current needs related to free movement and safety .... 21 

5.1.2. 

Relevance to needs specifically related to innovation and new technologies ....... 22 

5.1.3. 

Clarity of the Directive .......................................................................................... 22 

5.2. 

Effectiveness .................................................................................................................. 25 

5.2.1. 

Overall contribution of the Directive to the achievement of its main objectives .. 25 

Assessment of specific issues related to the effective implementation of the 

5.2.2. 
EHSRs  30 

5.3. 

Efficiency ....................................................................................................................... 36 

5.3.1. 

Costs entailed by the Lifts Directive ..................................................................... 37 

5.3.2. 

Benefits entailed by the Lifts Directive ................................................................. 41 

5.4. 

Coherence ..................................................................................................................... 42 

5.5. 

EU added value .............................................................................................................. 43 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 44 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 47 

ANNEX 2: EVALUATION QUESTIONS .................................................................................................. 50 

1 

 
 
ANNEX 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... 52 

ANNEX 4: SYNOPSIS REPORT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ................................................... 65 

ANNEX 5: COMPARATIVE TABLE BETWEEN DIRECTIVE 84/528/EEC AND DIRECTIVE 

95/16/EC ............................................................................................................................................. 72 

ANNEX 6: OVERVIEW OF COSTS-BENEFITS IDENTIFIED IN THE EVALUATION ....................... 75 

2 

 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

ADCO Lifts 

Administrative Cooperation Group of Market Surveillance 
Authorities 

CABL-SC 

Standing Committee for the Cableways Directive 

CBA 

CEN 

DG 

DG GROW 

DoC 

EO(s) 

EEA 

Cost-Benefit Analysis 

European Committee for Standardisation 

Directorate-General 

Directorate General for Internal Market, Industry, 
Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

Declaration of Conformity 

Economic Operator(s) 

European Economic Area 

EEA-L (in this report) 

European Elevator Association 

EFTA 

EHSR(s) 

ELA 

ELCA 

hEN(s) 

EQ 

ESO(s) 

EU 

ETSI 

FTE(s) 

ICSMS 

LC 

LD 

European Free Trade Association 

Essential Health and Safety Requirement(s) 

European Lifts Association 

European Lifts & Lift Components Association 

harmonised European standard(s) 

Evaluation Question 

European Standardisation Organisation(s) 

European Union 

European Telecommunications Standards Institute 

Full time equivalent(s) 

Information and Communication System for the pan-European 
Market Surveillance 

Lifts Committee 

Lifts Directive 

3 

 
 
 
LWG 

MS 

MSA(s) 

NACE 

NB(s) 

NB-L 

NLF 

OJEU 

RAPEX 

R&D 

REFIT 

RfU 

SBS 

SBS 

SME(s) 

TC 

ToR 

TRIS 

UCMP 

UEAPME 

Lifts Working Group 

Member State(s) 

Market Surveillance Authority/ies 

Nomenclature Générale des Activités Économiques dans les 
Communautés Européennes 

Notified Body/ies 

European Coordination Group of Notified Bodies for Lifts 

New Legislative Framework 

Official Journal of the European Union 

EU Rapid Exchange System for dangerous non-food products 

Research and Development 

Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme 

Recommendation(s) for use 

Small Business Standards 

Structural Business Statistics 

Small- and Medium-sized Enterprise(s) 

Technical Committee 

Terms of Reference 

Technical Regulation Information System 

Unintended Car Movement Protection 

European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized 
Enterprises 

4 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. Purpose of the evaluation  

The  EU  legal  framework  relating  to  lifts  was  initially  introduced  by  means  of  two  directives:  Council 
Directive  84/528/EEC  of  17  September  1984  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws  of  the  Member  States 
relating  to  common  provisions  for  lifting  and  mechanical  handling  appliances  and  Council  Directive 
84/529/EEC  of  17  September  1984  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws  of  the  Member  States  relating  to 
electrically, hydraulically or oil-electrically operated lifts.  

As of 1 July 1999, both directives were repealed by Directive 95/16/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  of  29  June  1995  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws  of  the  Member  States  relating  to  lifts. 
Directive 95/16/EC provided common Essential Health and Safety Requirements (EHSRs) for lifts, regardless 
of the operating technique employed. 

Finally, on 20 April 2016 Directive  95/16/EC was  in turn repealed and replaced by Directive  2014/33/EU. 
The reason for this was to align the framework applicable to lifts to the New Legislative Framework (NLF) as 
part of the so-called "Alignment Package".1 

Considering that no major changes in the substance were brought by Directive 2014/33/EU in comparison 
to Directive 95/16/EC, the period before the entry  into force of the current Directive (i.e. between 1 July 
1999 and 20 April 2016, applying to the application of Directive 95/16/EC) remains relevant and has been 
taken into consideration for the evaluation of the performance of the new Directive.  

The main  purpose  of  this Staff  Working Document  is  to  assess  the  performance  of  the  Directive  and  the 
extent to which the Directive meets its objectives. The main objectives of the Directive are (i) guaranteeing 
the  free  circulation  of  lifts  and  safety components  for  lifts  within  the EU  and (ii)  ensuring  a  high  level of 
protection of health and safety of users and maintenance personnel. The evaluation examined whether the 
Directive has been effective, efficient, coherent and relevant in meeting these objectives and assessed its 
EU  added  value.  The  evaluation  draws  on  the  research  conducted  by  external  contractors  and  the 
Commission's experience with the enforcement and management of the Directive. 

The Commission is legally required, following Article 46 of the Directive, to submit a report to the European 
Parliament and the Council regarding the functioning and implementation of this Directive by 19 April 2018. 
This is done in order "to monitor and ensure the correct implementation and functioning of this Directive 
[…] exploring also the need for a new legislative proposal in this sector".2 This Commission Staff Working 
Document will form the basis of that report. It is also, more generally, meant to inform stakeholders and 
policymakers on the outcome of the evaluation and to form the basis of possible follow-up actions. 

1.2. Scope of the evaluation  

The geographic scope of the evaluation extends to the European Economic Area (EEA), which includes the 
28 Member States of the EU and three EFTA Countries (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein), Turkey within 
its Custom Union with the EU and Switzerland by virtue of the mutual recognition agreement with the EU.  

1 

2 

See also Decision 768/2008; the NLF introduced a common structure and definitions to be used in all EU product 
legislation. 
See also Recital 50 of the Lifts Directive. 

5 

 
                                                           
The evaluation covers the whole scope of the Directive with regard to (i) lifts intended for the transport of 
persons only, (ii) lifts intended for the transport of persons and goods, (iii) lifts intended for the transport of 
goods only, if the carrier is accessible to persons and if the controls of the lift are inside the carrier or can 
be reached from within the car, and (iv) six types of safety components for use in such lifts listed in Annex 
III  of  the  Directive.  It  includes  the  analysis  of  the  standardisation  process,  conformity  assessment  and 
market surveillance. To that  end, Member  States, notified bodies, standardisation organisations, industry 
stakeholders, and user's associations have been consulted. As benchmarks, where relevant, the experience 
of  key  trading  partners  (such  as  the  USA,  China,  Korea  and  Japan)  was  used  to  assess  performance  and 
identify best practices. 

Finally, regarding the temporal scope of the evaluation, the date of entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC, 1 
July 1999 is taken as a starting point of the assessment. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1. Description of the intervention  

2.1.1.  Scope of application of the Directive  

Pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2014/33/EU “Member States shall not prohibit, restrict or impede the 
placing  on  the  market  or  putting  into  service  of  lifts  or  the  making  available  on  the  market  of  safety 
components for lifts on their territory which comply with this Directive”. Therefore, the Directive does not 
cover  existing  lifts,  which  have  already  been  placed  on  the  market  and  put  into  service.  Furthermore, 
modernisation  activities  conducted  on  such  existing  lifts  also  fall  outside  the  scope  of  the  Directive. 
its 
Nevertheless, 
characteristics,  then  the  said  lift  should  be  considered  as  a  "new  product"  thus  in  turn  entailing  the 
application of the Directive.3 

is  subjected  to  significant  modifications  which  have  altered 

if  an  existing 

lift 

Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/33/EU  defines  a "lift" as "a lifting appliance  serving specific levels, having a 
carrier  moving  along  guides  which  are  rigid  and  inclined  at  an  angle  of  more  than  15  degrees  to  the 
horizontal,  or  a  lifting  appliance  moving  along  a  fixed  course  even  where  it  does  not  move  along  rigid 
guides". Furthermore, pursuant to Article 1, the Directive applies to lifts "permanently serving buildings and 
constructions and intended for the transport of (a) persons, (b) persons and goods" and "(c) goods alone if 
the  carrier  is  accessible,  that  is  to  say  a  person  may  enter  it  without  difficulty,  and  fitted  with  controls 
situated inside the carrier or within reach of a person inside the carrier". 

Lifts can be classified into two main categories according to their drive systems – traction or hydraulic lifts. 
Both categories are divided in sub-categories according to the specific technical solution used as shown in 
Figure 1. 

3 

c.f. Section 2.1. of “The ‘Blue Guide’ on the implementation of EU products rules 2016”, 2016/C 272/01 

6 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1: Classification of the lift product group4 

2.1.2.  The Directive’s intervention logic 

The Directive has two main objectives:  

  Ensuring  the  free  movement  of  lifts  and  safety  components  for  lifts  throughout  the  EU  and 
contributing to and effectively operating internal market for the  said products. As such, Member 
States must allow marketing on their territory of lifts and safety components for lifts that comply 
with the requirements of the Directive; 

  Guaranteeing that lifts and safety components for lifts within the scope of the Directive are safe for 

users and maintenance personnel thus improving the health and safety of these groups.  

These two strategic objectives are further broken down into three specific objectives, namely: 

  Simplifying and harmonising conformity assessment procedures in the EU;  
  Harmonising essential health and safety requirements (EHSRs) across the Member States; 
  Preventing the placing on the market of non-compliant lifts and related components.  

In order for these specific objectives to be achieved, the Directive includes key provisions to be transposed 
and implemented by Member States. These key provisions include: 

 

 

the  EHSRs  contained  in  Annex  I.  In  line  with  the  New  Approach  principles,  Directive  2014/33/EU 
does  not  harmonise the  product  requirements applicable  to  lifts  and  their  safety components  by 
prescribing  a  particular  set  of  technical  solutions  but  by  providing  for  the  essential  health  and 
safety  requirements  (hereinafter  "EHSRs")  with  which  these  products  must  comply.  Thus,  the 
manufacturers of lifts and safety components retain the choice of the specific technical solutions to 
adopt, provided that they prove that these technical solutions comply with the EHSRs.  This proof 
can be brought by manufacturers by means of one of conformity assessment procedures provided 
for in Annex IV of the Directive; 
the requirement to ensure the granting of a two-way communication between the lift installer and 
the building constructor pursuant to Article 6(1); 

4 

source: Ecodesign preparatory study for lifts implementing the Ecodesign Working  Plan 2016-2019 based on the 
E4 (Energy-Efficient Elevators and Escalators) project. 

7 

 
 
                                                           
 

 

the procedures for conformity assessment together with the related provisions on the CE marking 
and the  EU Declaration of Conformity (DoC). A manufacturer can only place a product on the EU 
market  when  it  meets  all  the  applicable  requirements.  The  conformity  assessment  procedure  is 
carried  out  before  the  product  can  be  placed  on  the  market.  The  conformity  assessment 
procedures  aim  to  demonstrate  that  the  product  in  question  meets  all  the  EHSRs  in  Annex  I.  It 
includes testing, inspection and certification and a Notified Body (hereinafter “NB”: a private body 
designated  by  an  the  competent  authorities  of  an  EU  Member  State  to  assess  the  conformity  of 
certain products before being placed on the market) is involved in all circumstances. In line with the 
principles of the New Legislative Framework (NLF), Decision 768/2008 has provided for a number of 
conformity assessment procedures which may be used to prove compliance depending on the risk 
presented  by  the  product  as  well  as  the  choice  of  the  manufacturer.  Once  the  conformity 
assessment  procedure  has  been  completed,  the  manufacturer  draws  up  a  DoC  which  contains 
identification  of  the  product,  the  relevant  applicable  legislation,  the  manufacturer  or  authorised 
representative's contact details as well as other relevant information;  
the provisions on market surveillance (in Chapter V of the Directive). The market surveillance is the 
ex-post verification which aims to ensure that the products which are available on the market and 
which circulate freely are compliant with the EHSRs. Unlike the conformity assessment procedure 
which  is  overseen  by  a  NB,  the  market  surveillance  tasks  are  carried  out  by  market  surveillance 
authorities  which  are  Member  States'  authorities.  Market  surveillance  is  usually  performed  by 
means  of  targeted  inspections,  regular  market  surveillance  programmes,  joint  actions  by  several 
MSAs etc. 

These provisions are expected to work through mechanisms (i.e. incentives – both regulatory and economic 
- to comply with the Directive, brand recognition, positive/negative feedback and penalties) that will trigger 
short, medium and long term results (referred to as outputs, outcomes and impacts respectively, see figure 
2 below). For instance, the obligatory CE marking may bring added value to economic operators due to the 
fact that it is perceived as a “brand” proving the safety of products. 

8 

 
 
 
Figure 2: The Directive’s intervention logic 

9 

 
The total harmonisation of the legal framework related to lift safety as well as the development 
of  harmonised  European  standards  (hereinafter  "hENs")  which  support  the  provisions  of  the 
Directive and allow the establishment of presumption of conformity are among the immediate 
results  stemming from the application of the Directive. The establishment of NBs for lifts  and 
safety  components  and  the  enforcement  of  market  surveillance  and  corrective  measures  are 
also seen as immediate outputs. 

The correct and full implementation of all these provisions is directed at achieving some specific 
outcomes, namely: a reduction in lift-related accidents, a reduced number of non-compliant lifts 
placed  on  the  market,  the  facilitation  of  intra-EU  trade  for  lifts  and  safety  components,  the 
establishment  of  a  fair  and  level-playing  field  for  businesses  in  the  lift  sector  and  an  overall 
increased competitiveness of the EU lift sector.  

In  the  long  term,  the  foreseen  impacts  of  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  are  the  increased 
health and safety for users and maintenance personnel and the removal of all trade barriers to 
the  Internal  Market  of  lifts.  These  foreseen  impacts  fully  meet  the  initial  objectives  of  the 
Directive. 

2.2. Role of harmonised European standards and standardisation requests 

Article  14  of  Directive  2014/33  lays  down  a  presumption  according  to  which  lifts  and  safety 
component for lifts, which are in conformity with hENs, references of which are published in the 
Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union,  shall  be  presumed  to  comply  also  with  the  EHSRs, 
provided  that  the  harmonised  standards  cover  the  risks  presented  by  the  product.  A 
harmonised  standard  is  defined5    as  "a  European  standard  adopted  on  the  basis  of  a  request 
made  by  the  Commission  for  the  application  of  Union  harmonisation  legislation".  These 
standards  are  developed  by  the  European  Standardization  Organizations  (ESOs)  such  as  the 
European Committee for Standardization (CEN), which are entrusted by the EU with the mission 
to develop and adopt European standards in support of EU legislation. The Commission confers 
such a mission to the ESOs by means of a standardisation request.  

Hence, the hENs play a pivotal role as they support the provisions of the Directive by providing 
manufacturers with possible technical solutions which are presumed to be compliant with the 
ESHRs.  

One  standardisation  request  (reference  M/BC/CEN/CLC/3/92)  in  relation  to  the  Lifts  Directive 
was  issued  by  the  Commission  to  CEN  in  1992.6  Thus,  since  1992,  CEN  has  elaborated  and 
published a number of hENs for lifts and safety component of lifts. To be in line with Directive 
2014/33/EU, the Commission issued a new standardisation request to CEN (reference M/5497) 
in September 2016. 

In Article 2(1) of Regulation 1025/2012 (to which Directive 2014/33 refers). 

5 
6  Directive 95/16/EC was in force at the time of this request. 
7  Available at http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-

databases/mandates/index.cfm?fuseaction=select_attachments.download&doc_id=1632. 

10 

 
 
                                                           
Regarding the relationship between the EHSRs and hENs, it should be noted that the application 
of hENs conferring presumption of conformity to the Directive's EHSRs is always voluntary and 
such  standards  cannot  add  additional  requirements  which  go  beyond  the  EHSRs.  The  hENs 
merely  provide  technical  solutions  to  manufacturers,  which  are  in  no  circumstances  binding, 
unlike  the  EHSRs  which  should  always  be  complied  with.  If  after  carrying  out  the  risk 
assessment, the manufacturer considers that the hENs do not address all the risks of its product 
or prefer other alternative technical solutions, he may apply alternative technical solutions but 
having to demonstrate the compliance with the EHSR in the technical file to be submitted to a 
NB within the framework of a conformity assessment procedure.   

The  development  of  hENs also  has  the  potential to  support  the  establishment of  global  value 
chains. For example, ESOs cooperate with international standardisation bodies such as ISO and 
IEC, to develop international standards to be used worldwide. The aim is that hENs for lifts to 
become  leading  international  standards.  For  example,  many  standards  for  lifts  developed  by 
CEN like EN 81-20/508 are already used worldwide. 

2.3. Major amendments to the original Lifts Directive 95/16/EC 

After  its entry  into  force  in  July  1999, Directive  95/16/EC was  amended on  several occasions, 
most  notably  by  the  revised  Machinery  Directive  2006/42/EC  before  being  repealed  and 
replaced by the new Directive 2014/33/EU as from 20 April 2016. 

During the implementation phase of the Directive 95/16/EC it appeared necessary to clarify the 
definition of lift in order to better delimitate the respective scopes of the Machinery Directive 
and  the  Lifts  Directive.  The  fact  that  there  are  a  number  of  machines  intended  for  lifting  of 
persons justified the need to clarify these borderline cases (products that could potentially fall 
under the scope of both Directives).9 The main objective of this intervention was to exclude the 
potential  situations  of  overlapping  between  both  Directives  in  which  the  two  legal  regimes 
would be applicable to the same product.10 

Thus,  Article  24(1)  of  the  Machinery  Directive  amended  the  scope  of  Directive  95/16/EC, 
clarifying the definition of a “lift” as “a lifting appliance serving specific levels, having a carrier 
moving along guides, which are rigid and inclined at  an angle of more than 15 degrees to the 
horizontal”.  The  amendment  extended  the  scope  of  the  Lifts  Directive  to  include  also  lifting 
appliances moving along a fixed course even where they do not move along rigid guides. This 
amendment also clarified the definition of carrier, which “is a part of the lift by which persons 
and/or goods are supported in order to be lifted or lowered”. 

8  Currently, there are three main prescriptive elevator codes used in the world: 

1  ASME A17/CSA B44 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, used in North America; 
2.  Building  Standard  Law  of  Japan  (BSLJ),  plus  the  Japanese  Industrial  Standards  (JIS)/Japan 
Elevator Association (JEA) series of standards used in Japan; and 
3.  EN 81 series of standards used in Europe and other regions and countries. ISO/TC 178 standard 
ISO 8100-1/-2 has the same content as EN 81-20/-50. The European and ISO-standards will be merged 
in amended versions of the EN-ISO 8100-1/-2 by the end of 2020. 
c.f. Recital 27 of Directive 2006/42/EC. 

9 
10  Furthermore,  the  requirements  of  the  Lifts  Directive  are  to  a  certain  extent  more  stringent  than  the 

requirements of the Machinery Directive. 

11 

 
                                                           
On  20  April  2016  the  new  Lifts  Directive  2014/33/EU  replaced  Directive  95/16/EC  and 
introduced relatively limited changes. Its main purpose was to align the legislation on lifts and 
safety components to the NLF. The main changes brought by the new Directive are: 

  The  terminology  of  the  list  of  safety  components,  Annex  III,  points  2  and  6,  has  been 
amended. Point 2, referring to devices to prevent “unchecked upward movements” has 
been  amended  into  “uncontrolled  movements”  (UCMP).  Point  6,  referring  to  "electric 
safety devices in the form of safety switches containing electric components" has been 
amended  into  "electric  safety  devices  in  the  form  of  safety  circuits  containing  electric 
components". 

  Several  new  or  amended  definitions,  additions  from  the  NFL,  such  as:  placing  on  the 
market,  making  available  on  the  market  for  safety  components,  authorised 
representative,  importer, distributor, economic operator, technical specification, recall 
and withdrawal; 

  The obligations of economic operators have been aligned to the NFL. For example, the 
installer  of  lifts  and  manufacturer  of  safety  components  must  report  to  the  national 
authorities any non-conformities or safety issues identified in their product(s); 

  New  and  modified  requirements  for  Member  States  for  setting  up  and  performing 

market surveillance and related activities; 

  Few modifications on the terminology used for EHSRs listed in Annex I; 
  New and modified requirements for accreditation, notification and operation of the NBs 

in accordance with the NFL. 

2.4. Baseline and points of comparison 

The Directive 95/16/EC, which has now been replaced by Directive 2014/33/EU, was adopted in 
1995 and became fully applicable on 1 July 1999. Due to the lack of sufficient quantified data 
relating to the period prior to the adoption of Directive 95/16/EC, the baseline scenario could 
not be fully reconstructed within the framework of the present evaluation. 

Directive 95/16/EC repealed and replaced Council Directives 84/528/EEC and 84/529/EEC. The 
scope of application of both Directives was limited to "electrically, hydraulically or oil-electrically 
operated"  lifts,  which  meant  that  the  requirements  applicable  to  lifts  using  other  propulsion 
techniques  were  not  subject  to  harmonisation.  Therefore,  before  the  entry  into  force  of 
Directive 95/16/EC, disparities between the binding provisions of the various national systems 
for  types  of  lifts  not  covered  by  Directives  84/528/EEC  and  84/529/EEC  subsisted.  These 
disparities constituted barriers to trade and limited the free movement of these products within 
the EU.  

Furthermore, Council Directives 84/528/EEC and 84/529/EEC did not reflect the New Approach 
principles, which were only introduced by Directive 95/16/EC. Thus, before Directive 95/16/EC, 
lift manufacturers were required to comply with a specific technical standard and they could not 
benefit  from  a  presumption  of  conformity  by  demonstrating  the  conformity of  their  products 
with hENs.  

12 

 
As  an  order  of magnitude,  while  trade  within  the EU-15  in  1995  (therefore  prior  to  the entry 
into force of Directive 95/16/EC)  amounted to around EUR 700 million, it reached nearly  EUR 
1,8 billion in 2004. In 2015, the intra-EU trade has surpassed EUR 2,8 billion. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

3.1.  Transposition and implementation of the Lifts Directive 

One of the two main objectives of the Lifts Directive is to ensure the free movement of lifts and 
safety components  for lifts throughout the EU and to contribute to the  effective operation of 
the  internal  market  for  these  products.  Therefore,  in  order  to  achieve  this  objective,  the 
provisions laid down by the Directive should be applied in a coherent manner throughout the 
EU  and  discrepancies  in  the  applicable  framework  in  different  Member  States  should  be 
minimal.  

The Directive has been fully transposed into the national legislation of the Member States and is 
part  of  the  acquis  to  be  implemented  by  the  new  Member  States.  Following  the  subsequent 
enlargements of the European Union, the Lifts Directive became applicable in more and more 
countries.  

Overall,  all  Member  States  have  uniformly  transposed  the  main  provisions  of  the  Directive 
relating  to  the  EHSRs  and  conformity  assessment.11The  evaluation  study  found  that  no 
significant  discrepancies  persist  across  the  Member  States  and  no  major  problems  in  the 
implementation of the  Directive were reported. Also, 73% of the interviewed stakeholders do 
not consider that there have been any persisting national practices which incorporate costly or 
unnecessary requirements into products or structures covered by the Directive. 

Nevertheless,  some  discrepancies  have  been  identified  by  stakeholders  in  relation  to  the 
provisions  of  Directive  95/16/EC.  Their  impact  on  the  performance  of  the  Directive  and  in 
particular its effectiveness are analysed with more details in section 5 of this document. 

(1)  The  definition  of  “installer”  was  transposed  in  the  exact  same  terms  used  by  Directive 
95/16/EC  in  26  Member  States.  The  Estonian  legislation  initially  contained  a  different 
definition.12 

(2)  The  provision  requiring  the  establishment  of  a  two-way  flow  of  information  between  the 
person  responsible  for  the  building  construction  and  the  lift  installer  (Article  6(1)  of  the 
Directive) has been transposed in its exact terms in the national legislation of 26 Member States 
and no additional requirements  were  introduced. The Austrian and the Hungarian legislations 
both  provide  for  specific  mechanisms  to  ensure  that  this  two-way  flow  of  information  is 
ensured.13 

11 
12 

c.f. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, final report, pages 39-45 and 132-137. 
In the Estonian Product Conformity Act, which was transposing the provisions of Directive 95/16/EC, 
reference was made to “manufactuer” instead of “installer”. Nevertheless, this did not have an impact 
on  the  obligations  entrusted  to  that  economic  operator.  The  Building  Code,  which  transposes  the 
provisions of Directive 2014/33/EU now refers to “installer” in its Article 80. 

13  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, final report, page 40. 

13 

 
                                                           
(3) Twenty Member States have included into their respective national transposition legislation 
provisions relating to the accessibility of disabled persons, namely EHSR 1.2. and 1.6.1., which 
are  formulated  in  the  exact  terms  as  those  in  the  Directive.  The  remaining  8  Member  States 
have  incorporated  the  accessibility  provisions  for  lifts  mainly  into  their  respective  national 
building  regulations.  In  this  regard,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  general  building  accessibility 
rules  fall  under  the  realm  of  competence  of  the  Member  States  and  therefore  they  have 
exclusive competence to regulate these aspects.14 

(4)  A  number  of  stakeholders  have  raised  concerns15  regarding  the  application  of  the  third 
paragraph  of  EHSR  2.216  related  to  the  prevention  of  the  risk  of  crushing.  This  EHSR  is  of 
particular relevance for the health and safety of maintenance personnel operating outside the 
lift  car.  The  provision  stipulates  that  the  risk  of  crushing  is  to  be  prevented  by  means of  free 
space  or refuge  beyond the  extreme  positions that can be  reached by the lift car to enable a 
person  to  avoid  being  crushed  in  case  of  unexpected  movement  of  the  car.  The  first  two 
paragraphs  of  this  EHSR  set  the  requirements  for  lifts  to  be  "designed  and  constructed  to 
prevent the risk of crushing when the car is in one of its extreme positions. The objective will be 
achieved by means of free space or refuge beyond the extreme positions." The third paragraph 
introduces a flexibility by allowing "in specific cases, in affording Member States the possibility 
of  giving  prior  approval,  particularly  in  existing  buildings,  where  this  solution  is  impossible  to 
fulfil, other appropriate means may be provided to avoid this risk." 

The  “prior  approval”  procedure  allows  installers  to use  alternative  means  to avoid  the  risk  of 
crushing  after  obtaining  the  prior  approval  of  the  respective  national  authority.  However,  the 
Directive  does  not  provide  indications  as  to  the  criteria  according  to  which  the  national 
authorities may grant or refuse to grant such a prior approval.  

In fact, some stakeholders consider the “prior approval” as the most recurrent problem related 
to  the  implementation  of the  Directive,  and  some  others  consider  that  the  application  of  the 
“prior  approval”  represents  the  deepest  discrepancy  in  existing  differences  across  Member 
States.1718 

(5) Additional issues have been raised in relation to the conformity assessment and in particular 
in  relation  to  the  EC-type  examination  certificate  for  lifts.  Specifically,  information  gathered 
from  some  stakeholders  had  suggested  that  installers  were  sometimes  requested  to  present 
further  evidence  on  lift  compliance.  However,  following  the  entry  into  force  of  Directive 

14  For  instance,  in  France,  Ireland,  Spain,  Sweden  and  the  UK,  building  regulations  “accessible” 
passenger  lifts  should  conform  to  harmonised  standard  EN  81-70.  In  Poland,  the  national  building 
regulations include specific provisions for granting disabled persons accessibility to lifts, aligning with 
the  recommendations  of  the  Declaration  made  by  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the 
Commission. In Cyprus, Italy and Latvia the building regulations provide for specific requirements on 
the  dimensions  of  the  lift  car,  on  the  presence  of  telephone  devices  and  on  the  exact  location  of  lift 
control panels. In Spain,  Latvia and Italy local regulations  prescribe additional requirements  such as 
the use of Braille system. 

15  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 145. 
16  This provision remained unchanged following the entry into force of Directive 2014/33/EU. 
17  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 147. 
18  With regards to the Directive 95/16/EC, the Evaluation study had pointed out to some discrepancies in 
the  national  transposition  legislations  of  the  different  Member  States.  For  further  information  c.f. 
Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 41.These discrepancies now seem to have 
been addressed in the national measures transposing Directive 2014/33/EU. 

14 

 
                                                           
2014/33/EU,  these uncertainties  have  been clarified as the new  Directive  has partly  amended 
the  content  of  the  EC-type  examination  certificate  (now  called  “EU-type  examination 
certificate”) for lifts and safety components for lifts.        

6)  In  relation to the  market  surveillance,  unlike Directive  95/16/EC  which  did not  contain  any 
specific  procedures,  Directive  2014/33/EU  now  incorporates  dedicated  provisions  in  line  with 
the  New  Legislative  Framework.19  The  evaluation  demonstrated  that  market  surveillance  has 
been  differently  implemented  across  Member  States,  in  terms  of  strategies,  extent  of 
monitoring activities and frequency and types of checks. Thus, at least 11 Member States have 
adopted an essentially proactive approach towards market surveillance, while only one Member 
State has declared to have rather opted for a reactive approach.20 

Surveillance activities also differ between Member States in terms of type of checks. Thus, some 
MSAs  monitor  mainly  documents  and  authorisation  checks  (e.g.  Hungary,  Norway,  Slovakia, 
Sweden  and  Poland),  while  others  focus  on  product  marketing 
inspections  and  on 
accompanying  document  checks  in  the  lift  sector  (e.g.  the  Czech  Republic)  or  conduct 
inspections in the premises of lifts installers and in buildings where lifts are installed (i.e. Estonia 
and Cyprus).21 The same applies for the numbers of checks performed by the different Member 
States  which  vary  considerably,  in  some  cases  ranging  from  1  to  582  checks  performed  in 
2013.22 

Data  gathered  within  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  indicated  some  degree  of  divergence 
regarding  the  respective  penalty  regimes  adopted  by  the  different  Member  States  for  the 
infringements to the provisions of Directive 95/16/EC. However, Directive 2014/33/EU has now 
introduced a dedicated provision and requires that the “penalties provided for shall be effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive”.23 

The evaluation has concluded, based on a number of concurring sources, that the proportion of 
non-compliant lifts in relation to the total number of installed lift is negligible. For instance, the 
number of penalties imposed, as well as the instances of voluntary corrective measures taken 
by economic operators or restrictive measures imposed by MSAs in the lift sector between 2010 
and  2013  have  been  relatively  low.24  Thus,  at  EU  level  in  2013,  few  measures  were  reported 
relating  to  non-compliant  lifts  or  safety  components,  consisting  mainly  in  voluntary  measures 
(15), restrictive measures (14) and penalties (3).25   

19  See also Decision 768/2008; the NLF introduced a common structure and definitions to be used in all 

EU product legislation. 

20  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, final report, page 44. 
21  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, final report, page 44. 
22  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, final report, page 45. 
23  Article 43 of Directive 2014/33/EU. 
24  Data aggregated by the authors of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, based on the report on the MS 
reviews and assessment of the functioning of market surveillance activities for the 2010-2013 period 
pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, Sector 10 Lifts. cf. Table 4, Evaluation of 
the Lifts Directive, final report page 45. 

25  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 62. 

15 

 
                                                           
Furthermore, over the period 2005-2015, no RAPEX26  notifications related to lifts or lift safety 
components  in  scope  of  the  Directive  were  submitted.  In  addition,  only  one  safeguard  clause 
procedure has been initiated. At Member State level, the few data collected through national 
reports reflect this positive outline. Although these data could be also interpreted as due to low 
MSAs’  effectiveness  in  identifying  non-compliant  lifts,  they  still  allow  inferring  on  the  low 
absolute dimension of non-compliance in the sector.27 

3.2.  Description of the market 

The  lift  market  is  characterised  by  enterprises  that  besides  manufacturing  lifts  and  safety 
components  in  scope  of  the  Directive,  sell  also  other  products  and  services  (i.e.  other  lifting 
equipment and maintenance services) that do not fall in scope of the Directive.  

The  number  of  firms  active  in  the  lifts market  including  manufacturing of safety  components, 
installation of lifts and modernisation and maintenance activities was equal to 0,1% of the total 
number of firms active  in all the  manufacturing sectors in the EU28 in 2014 corresponding to 
around 2 000 firms according to Prodcom data. 

Nevertheless, the number of firms impacted by the Directive is actually lower than 2 000, as this 
number  includes  also  firms  performing  only  modernisation  and  maintenance  which  are 
activities outside the scope of the Directive.  

The distribution in the number of firms per size is very uneven in the lifts sector: 51% of firms 
are micro, 31% are small, 15% are medium, and only 3% are large firms. While, the number of 
firms in the  lift  sector has been overall declining since  2008, possibly due to the  financial and 
real  estate  crisis,  this  trend  seems  to  particularly  impacting  large  firms  (8%  decrease).  The 
number of medium and small firms has decreased on average by 6 and 5% respectively, while 
the number of micro firms has increased overall by 1%. In 2015, large firms employed 62% of EU 
workforce in the lift sector, medium firms employed 24%, small firms 11% and micro firms 3%. 

When looking at the distribution per country, 70% of firms in the lift sector were located in ten 
Member  States  in  2014.  Over  the  period  2008-2014,  all  EU  countries,  with  the  exception  of 
Bulgaria,  Greece  and  Poland,  experienced  a  decrease  in  the  number  of  firms active  in  the  lift 
sector.  

Most  turnover  is  produced  by  large  firms,  with  a  strong  presence  of  four  large  multinational 
companies – Kone, Otis, Schindler, and ThyssenKrupp Elevator28 – which had a combined market 
share of at least 55% in terms of value in Europe in 2014.  Micro and SMEs play a key role as 
manufacturers  and  importers  of  safety  components,  as  well  as  providers of  maintenance  and 
modernisation services.  

26 

In  addition  to  ICSMS,  RAPEX  (Rapid  Exchange  of  Information  System)  is  a  system  set  up  for 
improving  communication  and  collaboration  between  MSs  and  the  Commission  on  measures  and 
action taken in relation to products posing serious risks, which ensures that appropriate action can be 
taken everywhere in the EU. 

27  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, final report, page 62. 
28  Kone  is  a  Finnish  company,  ThyssenKrupp  is  German  and  Schindler  is  Swiss.  Otis  is  a  US-based 
company  with  a  strong  presence  on  the  EU  market  through  its  subsidiaries,  which  were  taken  into 
account for the purposes of this analysis. Other relevant European companies are the Spanish Orona 
and the Greek Kleemann. 

16 

 
                                                           
The overall turnover related to the sales of new lifts and components is estimated to be equal 
to around EUR 5 billion in Europe in 2014 according to European Lifts Statistics (2017) provided 
by the European Lifts Association (ELA). According to the same source, the number of new lifts 
installed in the EU28 plus Norway, Switzerland and Turkey experienced an average decrease of 
1%  over  the  period 2010-2015,  passing  from  132 857  units  in  2010  to  124 574  units  in  2015.  
This trend is almost entirely due to significant drops in two of the biggest markets – Italy (-61%) 
and  Spain  (-53%)  –  both  having  suffered  the  real  estate  bubble  crash  in  2008.  In  most  other 
countries, the number of new lifts installed has actually increased (+16% on average). 

Figure 2: Turnover related to the sales of new lifts and components in the EU between 2008 and 
2014 

Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, Final 

report, based on Eurostat SBS, data for EU28 

Based  on  statistics  provided  by  the  European  Elevator  Association  (EEA-L),  ELA  and  European 
Lifts & Lift Components Association (ELCA), the number of existing lifts in service in Europe is 5 
700  000.  This  figure  includes  both  lifts  put  into  service  before  the  Directive  was  in  force  and 
those placed on the market under it. 

Six  countries  totalled  nearly  80%  of  the  overall  production  value  of  the  EU28  in  2015:  Spain 
(23%),  Germany  (19%),  Italy  (16%),  and  France  (10%).  Well  below  follow  Finland  (6%)  and 
Sweden (5%).  

The  major  producing  countries  are  also  those  where  R&D  mainly  takes  place.  The  most 
innovative European country in the lift sector is Germany, granting on average 52 patents per 
year,  i.e. 30%  of  total  patents  granted  in  the EU over  the  period  1990-2012.  It  is  followed  by 
France  (11%  on  average),  Spain  (9%),  Finland  (6%)  and  Italy  (4%).  These  countries  are  also 
amongst the ten most innovative worldwide in the lift sector between 1990 and 2014. The full 
list includes China, Japan, Germany, the USA, the Republic of Korea, France, Switzerland, Spain, 
Finland, and Taiwan. 

17 

 - 1 2 3 4 5 62008200920102011201220132014EUR bln 
 
4.  METHOD 

4.1.  Description of the methodology 

The main purpose of the present evaluation is to assess the performance of the Lifts Directive 
and the extent to which the Directive meets its objectives in an efficient and coherent way, is 
still relevant  and has EU  added value. The evaluation aimed at gathering both qualitative and 
quantitative evidence from a number of complementary data sources, including European and 
industry  associations,  economic  operators,  notified  bodies, 
national  public  authorities, 
consumer organisations and citizens/users of lifts.  

The  evaluation  project  was  monitored  by  an  Inter  Service  Steering  Group  (hereinafter "ISSG") 
composed  of  representatives  of  three  European  Commission  services,  namely  DG  Internal 
Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, DG Justice and the Secreteriat-General. 

The evaluation was supported by a study29 conducted by an independent consultant – consortia 
between EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting. This study comported three major phases. 
The  first  two  phases  were  aimed  to  collect  data.  On  the  one  hand  this  collection  was 
accomplished by means of desk research and literature review in the initial inception phase. On 
the other hand, during the second phase data was gathered from the stakeholder by different 
means such  as  interviews,  targeted consultations  as well  as  a  Public  Consultation.  Finally,  the 
independent  consultant  analysed  the  collected  data  and  presented  its  Final  Report  to  the 
Commission submitted in the end of 2017. The whole process and the findings are included in 
the publicly available Final Report on the evaluation of the Lifts Directive. 

The  desk  research  during  the  initial  inception  phase  included  a  comprehensive  review  of  the 
existing documents and legislative texts at international, EU and national levels. Insights on the 
policy context have been gathered through previous studies and reports on the on-going work 
of  the  Commission  on  harmonisation  legislation,  the  standardisation  requests,  documents  of 
the  European 
the  NB-L  co-ordination  group 
manufacturers/installers associations and economic operators annual reports. These documents 
have  been  crucial  to  frame  the  legislative  background,  the  Directive’s  main  provisions  and 
working mechanisms and to identify the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders’ concerned by 
the Directive. 

the  RfUs,  documents  of 

including 

During  the  second  phase,  data  was  collected  using  various  tools  aiming  to  reach  out  all 
stakeholders in the most effective way. The following techniques were used: 

  A Public Consultation launched by the Commission in early June 2016 and concluded in 
January  2017, involving overall 66 stakeholders. The  results  of the  Public Consultation 
have  been  considered  as  evidence  to  be  triangulated  with  information  gathered 
through the other research tools;  

  Four  targeted  surveys  addressed  to  four  categories  of  stakeholders  (Member  State 
authorities  in  charge  of  the  implementation  of  the  Directive,  MSAs  in  charge  of  the 
enforcement  of  the  Directive,  Notified  Bodies,  lift  installers  and  safety  component 

29  Evaluation  of  Directive  95/16/EC  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws  relating  to  lifts,  Final  report, 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9f1a5907-e539-

2017 

November 
11e7-9749-01aa75ed71a1/language-en    

18 

 
                                                           
 

manufacturers,  including  SMEs,  and  related  industry  associations).  Overall,  it  involved 
116  stakeholders.  The  targeted  surveys  included  both  closed  and  open  questions 
complementing the questions of the Public Consultation;  
Interviews  with  38  stakeholders.  Interviewees  were  selected  on  the  basis  of  their 
specific  knowledge  of  or  experience  with  the  Directive,  particularly  for  the  case 
studies30.  They  were  also  selected  to  ensure  a  balanced  geographical  coverage  and  a 
balanced representation of all of the above mentioned stakeholder categories;  

  A  Workshop  held  in  the  context  of  the  LWG.  The  workshop  served  to  discuss  the 
preliminary  results  of  the  study  with  representatives  of  the  Commission,  of  Member 
States and observers from the industry, standardisation bodies and NB-L. The workshop 
has  been  a  valuable  tool  to  collect  further  evidence  and  validate  the  results  with  the 
Member States and the relevant stakeholders.  

Altogether, through the different tools used, more than 220 stakeholders were consulted, with 
a wide geographical coverage.  

More details on the consultation are included in the synopsis report in Annex 3. 

4.2.  Limitations and robustness of findings  

The  limitations  of  the  study  conducted  by  the  independent  consultant  as  well  as  the 
corresponding mitigation actions undertaken are described in Table 1. 

Table 1 - Limitations and mitigation actions 

Limitation 

Mitigation measure 

Lack  of  assessment  of  the 
the 
effectiveness 
Directive 
the 
baseline  

of 
against 

Whenever  possible 
reported  by  stakeholders 
referring  to  the  situation  previous to  the entry  into  force  of  the 
Directive has been considered in the analysis 

information 

Lack  of  data  on  market 
lift 
surveillance 
sector 

the 

in 

A number of questions were foreseen in the  targeted surveys to 
fill in these gaps. The answers to these questions proved to be not 
entirely 
the 
effectiveness of market surveillance was based on available data 
collected through desk research. 

the  assessment  of 

informative, 

therefore 

Lack/incompleteness 
market data  

of 

A specific methodology, to gather estimates to disaggregate data, 
has  been  developed,  also  through  additional  stakeholder 
consultation  

Lack  of  official  data  on  lift 
accidents at EU level 

Additional reports/literature have  been investigated to fill-in the 
gaps  at  least  for  the  main  MS.  Most  of  the  analysis  is  based  on 
data requested to ELA  

Low 

response 

rate 

to  Specific 

interviews  were  scheduled  to 

fill-in  these  gaps. 

30  The Evaluation study contains five case studies covering inter alia the issues of the lift accessibility for 
disabled persons, the prior approval procedures, market surveillance activities etc.; c.f. Evaluation of 
the Lifts Directive, final report, pages 137-175. 

19 

 
                                                           
targeted  survey  questions 
collecting data for the CBA 

Moreover,  the  CBA  performed  within  the  framework  of  the 
evaluation  study  presents  the  estimates  resulting  from  this 
exercise  trying  to  avoid  generalisations  due  to  small  sample  on 
which calculations are based. 

Unbalanced  representation 
of some stakeholders/MS 

General  interviews  aimed  at  involving  the  least  represented 
categories/ MS 

Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting, Evaluation of the Lifts Directive, Final 
report, page 25 

The main limitation that the independent consultant had to face while conducting the study was 
linked to the difficulties to reconstruct the baseline scenario. This was partly due to the fact that 
no impact assessment was conducted prior to the adoption of Directive 95/16/EC and also due 
to the difficulties to collect information dating back to more than 20 years.  

In order to mitigate this limitation, the independent consultant relied on information regarding 
the period prior to the adoption of the Directive that was gathered by the various stakeholders 
which took part in the targeted survey. 

In  addition,  the  independent  consultant  has  invoked  limitations  related  to  the  lack  of  market 
data as well as standardised lift-accident data. The lack of such data is due to several factors: 

 
 

 
 

 

incomplete data in the national reports on market surveillance activities;  
the fact that maintenance and modernisation activities are excluded from the scope of 
the Lifts Directive renders more complex the precise definition of the lifts market. Due 
to data aggregation, it was not possible to distinguish the number of firms active in the 
production  and  installation  from  those  performing  modernisation  and  maintenance 
only, and therefore not impacted by the Directive but by the national legislation; 
incomplete official accident data in national reports on market surveillance for lifts; 
the  absence  of  an  official  centralised  reporting  system  on  accidents  as  well  as  a 
common classification on the seriousness of the injuries; 
lack of distinction between accidents involving lifts subject to the Directive and “existing 
lifts” (i.e. lifts installed before the entry into force of the Directive) 

In order to mitigate the limitations related to lack of market data, the consultant has developed 
a specific methodology to the market  analysis which is described in section 4.2.1. of the Final 
Report of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive study.31 

In  order  to  mitigate  the  consequences  of  the  fragmented  lift-related  accident  data,  the 
consultant has performed a more in-depth desk research and gathered additional information 
about  the  lift  accidents  for  at  least  the  biggest  national  markets  (such  as  DE,  ES,  FR  and  IT). 
However, as mentioned in section 3.4. above, the data that has been gathered did not allow to 
conduct  a  detailed  comparison  between  the  state  of  play  in  the  different  Member  States. 
Nevertheless, some trends could still be observed. 

The  Inter  Service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  which  closely  monitored  the  study  expressed 
reservations  regarding  the  quality  of  the  first  interim  deliverables.  For  example,  the  desk 

31  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 26. 

20 

 
                                                           
research was very limited and the ISSG had to suggest alternative sources of information. After 
the consultant had taken into account the comments of the ISSG, the quality of the Final Report 
has improved. 

Overall, the reliability and robustness of the data gathered within the framework of the study 
has  been  assessed  as  satisfactory  given  the  care  that  was  taken  to  carry  out  inclusive 
consultation  and  measures  put  in  place  to  reach  in  a  balanced  way  European  industry 
associations, manufacturers, installers, national authorities and notified bodies to ensure input 
is 
of  representative  sample  of  stakeholders.  Furthermore,  the  qualitative  assessment 
considered  to  be  sufficiently  reliable.  Finally,  as  regards  the  quantitative  analysis,  data  on 
cost/benefits  were  available  only  for  a  limited  number  of  companies  and  hence  it  makes 
sometimes impossible to draw firm general conclusions at EU level.  

Nevertheless, despite these shortcomings, the study managed to gather more information, with 
a  sufficient  level  of  precision  in  comparison  to  the  one  already  available  to  the  responsible 
Commission service.  

The  final  results  and  conclusions  of  the  study  report  are  therefore  considered  sufficiently 
reliable  to  use  as  a  basis  for  the  present  document.  The  Final  Report  of  study  was  also 
presented in a meeting of the Lifts Working Group which took place on 17 January 2018. This 
Working  Group  is  composed  of  representatives  of  the  national  authorities  in  charge  of  the 
implementation of the legislation and the market surveillance. Also at this level, the quality of 
the report and its conclusions were well received and supported. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The core of the evaluation is the analysis of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence 
and  EU  added-value  of  the  Lifts  Directive.  Detailed  evaluation  questions32  were  developed  to 
ensure that the evaluation criteria could be properly assessed. 

5.1.  Relevance 

The relevance of the Directive is assessed by checking the relevance of its objectives to current 
needs,  especially  taking  into  account  innovation  and  new  technologies  and  the  clarity  of  the 
Directive. 

5.1.1.  Relevance of objectives to current needs related to free 

movement and safety 

The Directive pursues two strategic objectives: to ensure the free movement of compliant lifts 
and safety components for lifts  throughout  the EU  and also to guarantee  that lifts  and safety 
components  for  lifts  within  the  scope  of  the  Directive  are  safe  for  users  and  maintenance 
personnel (see also the intervention logic in section 2.1.2 above). 

interviews  confirms  that  both  objectives 
The  evidence  gathered  through  surveys  and 
correspond to the present needs of consumers and economic operators in the field and are still 
particularly  relevant  today.  99%  of  respondents  to  the  survey stated  that  the Directive meets 

32  C.f. Annex 2. 

21 

 
                                                           
their  current  needs  to  a  great/some  extent.  The  relevance  has  been  confirmed  also  by  six 
interviewees.33 

On  the  one  hand,  in  respect  to  the  objective  to  ensure  the  free  movement  of  compliant 
products,  94%  of  the  consulted  stakeholders  acknowledge  that  the  Directive  contributes  to 
reducing barriers to intra-EU trade.34 

On  the  other  hand,  in  respect  to  the  objective  to  guarantee  a  high  level of  safety of  lifts  and 
components, the need for a Directive harmonising the EHSRs for lifts and safety components is 
also confirmed by 94% of survey respondents.35 While the core needs identified at the time of 
the  Directive’s  adoption  are  still  persistent  and  the  objectives  of  the  Directive  still  relevant 
thereto,  the  evaluation  identified  some  specific  needs,  such  as  the  prevention  of  the  risk  of 
crushing  as  well  as  the  accessibility  for  disabled  persons  that  are  not  addressed  according  to 
some  respondents.  These  respondents  point  out  to  the  lack  of  specificity  of  the  relevant 
provisions  as  well  as  the  different  implementation  of  these  provisions  at  national  level  as 
sources  of  concern.36  These  concerns  and  more  specifically  the  effectiveness  of  the  relevant 
provisions will be further analysed in Section 5.2.2. below. 

5.1.2.  Relevance to needs specifically related to innovation and new 

technologies 

Over time, a number of drivers – such as demographic development, urbanisation, safety, travel 
speed acoustic noise, ride comfort and occupied space – have contributed to the development 
of new technologies related to lifts. The drivers that led to such developments are various and 
are not directly related to the implementation of the Directive. 

The Directive is still adequate in addressing needs related to these developments thanks to the 
flexibility  of  its  EHSRs,  which  leave  to  the  manufacturers/installers  the  choice  of  the  specific 
technical solutions used to comply therewith. Also, 72% of survey respondents and 91% of the 
Public Consultation acknowledge that the flexibility of EHSRs allows to address potential safety 
needs related to innovation and new technologies. The Directive’s EHSRs are considered flexible 
enough  so  that  according  to  94%  of  survey  respondents,  they  allowed  European  firms’ 
propensity  to  innovate  and  for  84%  of  respondents  it  increased  the  European  lift  sector 
competitiveness with respect to global competitors. 

Therefore,  the  Directive  is  still  needed  as  it  sets  common  requirements  for  all  economic 
operators  active  in  the  sector  across  Europe,  providing  that  all  lifts  placed  on  the  EU  market 
comply  with  its  EHSRs.  Moreover,  the  Directive  demonstrated  to  be  able  to  align  to 
technological  developments  occurred  in  the  lift  sector  and  to  take  into  account  risks  related 
thereto. 

5.1.3.  Clarity of the Directive 

On  average,  92%  of  survey  respondents  deem  that  tasks,  obligations  and  rights  of  all 
stakeholders  concerned  by  the  Directive  (i.e.  safety  component  manufacturers,  lift  installers, 

33  An  Italian  MSA,  two  implementing  authorities,  an  Italian  and  a  Spanish  industry  association 

representing SMEs, a German representative from the coordination of NBs for lifts. 

34  89 out of 95 survey respondents. 
35 
36  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page v of executive summary and page 50. 

Including 72 out of 109 “to a large extent”, 31 out of 109 “to a moderate extent”. 

22 

 
                                                           
NBs, public authorities – namely Member States and their market surveillance authorities) are 
clear, in particular in Directive 2014/33/EU. Among the tasks of stakeholders concerned by the 
Directive,  the  rules  for  affixing  the  CE  marking  are  clear,  according  to  the  large  majority  of 
respondents  (69%)  or  clarified  in  Directive  2014/33/EU  (20%).37  Moreover,  they  are  easy  to 
apply  in  practice,  raising  only  some  needs  for  further  clarification  with  respect  to  rules  for 
affixing  the  CE  marking  on  UCMP  devices  -  a  subsystem  made  sometimes  up  of  several 
components. As for the drafting of the EU DoC, 79% of survey respondents declare there are no 
issues in relation to its content.38 

Overall  79%  of  survey  respondents  and  64%  of  Public  Consultation  respondents  deem  the 
different definitions provided in Directive 95/16/EC (Article 1(4)) clear, complete and up to date. 
Furthermore,  according to 73% of survey respondents,  the definitions provided in Article 2 of 
the new Directive 2014/33/EU are even clearer. It should be noted that Directive 2014/33/EU 
aligned  the  legal  framework  applicable  to  lifts  to  the  New  Legislative  Framework  (hereinafter 
"the  NLF").  Therefore,  a  significant  number  of  these  definitions  have  been  taken  over  from 
Decision  No  768/2008/EC  thus  ensuring  consistency  with  the  respective  legal  frameworks 
applicable to other harmonised products. Nonetheless, the consultations revealed some issues, 
which may require additional clarification.39 

In  particular,  several  stakeholders  have  raised  issues  regarding  the  precise  definition  of  the 
scope  of  the  Lifts  Directive.  While,  pursuant  to  Article  2(5), the  Lifts Directive  applies  to  lifts, 
which  are  made  available  on  the  market  for  the  first  time,  it  does  not  cover  modernisation 
activities  conducted  on  existing  lifts.  Therefore,  modernisation,  maintenance,  (software) 
updates and changes are regulated by the national legislation of the respective Member States. 
In the light of these elements, some stakeholders have indicated that that they would welcome 
guidance on when a lift is no longer considered as a "modernised old lift" but as a new lift, thus 
requiring a CE marking.40   

Another issue identified in the study is related to the definition of "installer" as provided for in 
Article 1(4) of Directive 95/16/CE. This definition was also taken over by Directive 2014/33/EU in 
its  Article  2(6).    According  to  this  definition,  the  installer  is  "the  natural  or  legal  person  who 
takes  responsibility  for  the  design,  manufacture,  installation  and  placing  on  the  market  of  the 
lift",  i.e.  the  Directive  uses  the  term  "installer"  instead  of  "manufacturer"  of  the  person  who 
places the CE marked lift on the market in the end of the 'manufacturing process'. Installation of 
a lift – its incorporation into a building or construction – is part of that process. Neither the old 
Directive, nor the new Directive separately defines the “manufacturer of a lift” which in theory 
could be used to refer to the operator applying for the EU type-examination certificate and not 
necessarily installing the lift on site. The study has pointed to the fact that today very often the 
manufacturer  and  the  installer  of  a  lift  are  two  distinct  economic  operators.  However,  both 
Directives  clearly  indicate  that  the  installer  is  the  responsible  economic  operator  for  the 
compliance of the lift with the Directive. 

37  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 55. 
38  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 55. 
39  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 55. 
40  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 53. 

23 

 
                                                           
Furthermore,  Directive  2014/33/EU  foresees  the  possibility  for  several  economic operators  to 
be  involved  in  the  supply  chain  of  a  lift  in  its  Article  16(2)  stipulating  that  "where  the  person 
responsible  for  the  design  and  manufacture  of  the  lift  and  the  person  responsible  for  the 
installation and testing of the lift are not the same, the former shall supply to the latter all the 
necessary documents and information to enable the latter to ensure correct and safe installation 
and testing of the lift". In conjunction with Article  7 on obligations of installers, this provision 
indeed covers the situation where different persons are involved in the design/manufacturing 
and the installation/testing, and provides clarity on each party's responsibilities. 

A third issue identified in the study is related to the delimitation of the concepts of "putting into 
service" and "placing on the market". While "placing on the market" of a lift is defined in Article 
2(5)  of  Directive  2014/33/EU,  the  concept  of  "putting  into  service"  mentioned  in  Article  3(1) 
thereof is not defined. This seems to contribute to a certain confusion of both concepts by some 
stakeholders. Thus, 43% of survey respondents41 claim that “putting into service of a lift” may 
occur a number of years after the lift has been placed on the market, in particular for large and 
complex  projects. According to installers, this causes difficulties when either the  legislation or 
the  relevant  hENs  change  between  the  moment  the  lift  is  placed  on  the  market  and  the 
moment  the  said  lift  is  put  into  service.  These  installers  explain  that  they  are  bound  by  the 
contract  signed  before  a  possible  change  occurred,  implying  that  they  have  to  provide  a  lift 
complying with new requirements.42    

Article 4(1) of the Directive provides that “Member States shall take all appropriate measures to 
ensure that the lifts covered by this Directive may be placed on the market and put into service 
only if they comply with this Directive”. In regards to the concerns raised by the stakeholders, it 
should be noted that point 2.3. of the Blue Guide43 clarifies that the concept of placing on the 
market refers to the moment when a product is made available for the first time on the Union 
market. It is at that moment that the conformity assessment procedure has been concluded and 
the  product’s  compliance  with  the  applicable  EHSRs  is  established.  At  the  same  time,  the 
reference to the concept of putting into service essentially serves to ensure that no additional 
requirements  are  imposed  on  lifts  which  have  been  installed  correctly  (i.e.  in  line  with  the 
specific  technical  solution  assessed  during  the  conformity  assessment  procedure).  Therefore, 
even  in  case  of  a  change  of  the  legal  framework,  the  reference  point  for  the  conformity 
assessment remains the moment of placement on the market. This is furthermore confirmed by 
Article 44 of Directive 2014/33/EU which lays down the transitional provisions between the old 
and the new Directive.44   

In the light of the above elements, it can be concluded that the confusions regarding the three 
areas of concern reported in the study are not attributable to an unclear or conflicting wording 
of the provisions of the Directive  but  rather  to a certain misinterpretation of the  Directive  by 
some stakeholders. 

41  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 53. 
42  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 53. 
43  The “Blue Guide” on the implementation of EU product rules, 2016; 2016/C 272/01. 
44  Pursuant  to  Article  44(1)  “Member  States  shall  not  impede  the  putting  into  service  of  lifts  or  the 
making  available  on  the  market  of  safety  components  for  lifts  covered  by  Directive  95/16/EC  which 
are in conformity with that Directive and which were placed on the market before 20 April 2016. “ 

24 

 
                                                           
After  having  been  made  aware  of  the  above  problems  and  in  order  to  provide  the  necessary 
clarification, the Commission has published in June 2018 a revised version of the Guide to the 
application  of  the  Lifts  Directive.45  In  this  regard,  it  should  be  noted  that  already  76%  of  the 
survey respondents have expressed satisfaction with the clarity of the previous versions of the 
guidance  documents  to  the  Directive  and  in  particular  the  Guide  to  Application  of  the  Lifts 
Directive. The Commission will monitor further issues raised by stakeholders in relation to the 
interpretation of the Directive and develop together with the stakeholders (most notably within 
the framework of the Lifts Working Group) further specific guidance documents if necessary. 

5.2.  Effectiveness 

To assess the effectiveness of the Directive, the evaluation has looked into the contribution of 
the  Directive  towards  the  achievement  of  its  main  objectives,  namely  to  ensure  the  free 
movement  of  compliant  lifts  and  safety  components  for  lifts  throughout  the  EU  and  also  to 
guarantee that lifts and safety components for lifts within the scope of the Directive are safe for 
users and maintenance personnel. 

5.2.1.  Overall contribution of the Directive to the achievement of its 

main objectives 

5.2.1.1.Overall contribution of the Directive to the achievement of its 

main objectives 

Both the market analysis and stakeholder consultation conducted within the framework of the 
present  evaluation  have  shown  that  the  Directive  has  had  a  significant  positive  impact  on 
reducing barriers to trade. 

Nearly  all the  stakeholders (96% of survey respondents) consider that the Directive facilitated 
the free movement of lifts and safety components, and 75% deem this is specifically achieved 
through a reduction of different requirements across Member States.46     

This  general  perception  of  the  stakeholders  is  also  supported  by  the  available  market  data 
which clearly indicates an overall growth of the value of sold production of lifts between 1995 
and 2015. 

However, as shown in Figure 3 below, this overall growth is unevenly distributed throughout the 
reference  period:  the  steady  growth  between  1999  and  2005  is  followed  by  a  period  of 
stagnation  between  2005  and  2008  before  returning  again  to  a  period  of  a  more  moderate 
growth. 

In  the  period  preceding  the  entry  into  force  of  Directive  95/16/EC  (1995-1999),  the  annual 
average growth rate of the overall sold production of lifts was equal to +1%. After the entry into 
force of that Directive, the value of sold production of lifts grew on average by 14% in the EU15 
from  1999  to  2005.  During  the  period  between  2006  and  2015,  sold  production  decreased 
annually  on  average  by  3%  in  the  EU28  including  a  sharp  decrease  (-29%)  between  2008  and 
2009, possibly due to the financial and real estate market crisis. 

45  https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/29961  
46  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 63. 

25 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 3 – Value of sold production of lifts in scope of the Directive in Europe between 1995 and 
2015 (nominal values)47 

Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom 

The overall trend with regards to the production of safety components also points towards an 
overall growth of the value  of sold production between 1995 and 2015. However, unlike  lifts, 
the  growth of  the  lift  safety  components'  value  has been  more  steady  and  evenly  distributed 
throughout  the  reference  period.  Between  1995  and  1999  the  annual  average  growth  rate of 
the overall sold production of safety components was equal to +14%. After the entry into force 
of Directive 95/16/EC, the value of sold production of lift safety components grew annually on 
average by 2% in the EU15 from 1999 to 2005. Considering the period between 2006 and 2015, 
sold production continued to increase annually on average by 2% in the EU28. This included a 
sharp decrease (-17%) between 2008 and 2009. 

Figure 4 – Value of sold production of lift safety components in scope of the Directive in Europe 
between 1995 and 2015 (nominal values)48 

47  The figure presents data within the maximum available timeframe. The “EU15” and the “EU28” are to 

be considered as geographical aggregates. 

48  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 63. 

26 

 - 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015EUR blnEU15EU28 - 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015EUR blnEU15EU28 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom 

A comparison between intra- and extra-EU trade of lifts and their components shows how the 
former is impressive with respect to the latter, although this difference is reducing over time.  

Between 1995 and 1999, the annual average growth rate of extra-EU trade of products in the 
scope of the Directive was equal to +4%, while the annual average growth rate of intra-EU trade 
was equal to +12%.  

After the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC, the extra-EU trade grew annually on average by 
8% from 2000 to 2005. After the enlargement to EU28, the average annual growth rate of extra-
EU trade was 5% between 2006 and 2015.  

Regarding the intra-EU trade, the average annual growth rate in the EU15 was on average 9% 
between 2000 and 2005, and 1% in the EU28 from 2006 to 2015. 

Figure 5 – Intra- and extra-EU trade in products within scope of the Directive between 1995 and 
201549 

Source: EY, Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom 

The  above  data  indicates  that  the  Directive  had  at  least  potentially  a  positive  impact  on 
reducing barriers to trade.  

Based on the evidence gathered, the Directive contributed to an effectively operating internal 
market for the products in its scope.  

90%  of  survey  respondents  think  that  the  Directive  contributed  to  the  establishment  of  legal 
certainty and a level playing field for companies in the EU. By way of example, an implementing 
authority observes the Directive created a level playing field for all NBs, whose requirements for 
accreditation have been harmonised, particularly with Directive 2014/33/EU. 

Moreover,  notwithstanding  the  few  discrepancies  identified  across  Member  States  in  the 
application  of  the  Directive  it  substantially  contributes  to  the  legal  certainty  as  well  as  to the 
establishment of a level-playing field across the EU, which both ensure an effectively operating 
internal  market.  To  confirm  this,  71%  of  survey  respondents  declare  that  national 

49  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 63. 

27 

 - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015EUR mlnExtra-EU15 tradeExtra-EU28 tradeIntra-EU15 tradeIntra-EU28 trade 
 
                                                           
implementations  have  no  impact  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive  nor  do  they  influence 
regulatory or administrative costs across Member States.50    

5.2.1.2. Contribution to the objective of ensuring the safety of lifts and 

safety components  

Accidents  related  to  lifts  can  involve  users  or maintenance  personnel.  They can  be  lethal  (i.e. 
leading to death), serious (i.e. leading to hospitalisation) or minor. 

The  overall  perception  of  the  stakeholders  is  that  the  Lifts  Directive  has  contributed  to  the 
improvement of the level of safety. Thus, lift safety is perceived as satisfactory by 97% of survey 
respondents  and  by  91%  of  Public  Consultation  respondents.  In  addition,  94%  of  survey 
respondents think the Directive increased lift safety.51 

This perception of increased levels of safety is supported by some evidence indicating a trend 
towards a reduction of the number of lift-related accidents. 

Data  on  lift-related  accidents  throughout  the  EU  is  fragmented  and  statistics  from  Member 
States often appear to lack details on the precise causes of accidents (e.g. lift misuse rather than 
lack of  lift safety)  and they  do  not  distinguish  between  accidents  involving  lifts  subject  to  the 
Directive  and  “existing  lifts”  (i.e.  lifts  installed  before  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Directive). 
Furthermore,  statistics  from  Member  States  do  not  cover  the  same  reference  periods  and  do 
not necessarily consider the same types of accidents in their respective national reports. Hence, 
these  data  can  only  provide  selected,  anecdotal  indications  on  the  number  of  accidents  and 
trends over time in individual countries. The most significant limitation comes from the fact that 
available  data  often  do  not  distinguish  clearly  between  the  concerned  groups  (users  or 
maintenance  personnel  or  both  altogether),  between  the  types  of  lifts  concerned  (lifts  falling 
inside the scope of the Directive or outside its scope i.e. installed prior to its entry into force) 
and between the types of accidents (lethal or non-lethal and in the second case the degree of 
gravity  of  the  accident).  These  data  cannot,  therefore,  be  compared  or  aggregated. 
Nevertheless, some trends can be observed when analysing these data together. 

A preliminary observation before analysing the available data on lift related accidents concerns 
the evolution of the new lift installations in recent years. This data is particularly relevant as the 
evolution  of  the  stock  of  installed  lifts  should  be  analysed  together  with  the  evolution  of  the 
number of lift-related accidents. This is the only way to distil an accurate ratio of accidents in 
proportion to the  number of lifts. Thus, according to data  provided by ELA, in 2015 there has 
been an average  increase of 16% of the  newly installed lifts  in a number of Member States.52  
Despite an average overall decrease of 1% over the period 2010-2015, the disaggregated data 
indicates  that  opposite  trends  existed  in  2010 and  2015  regarding  new  lift  installations  in the 
largest EU national markets (Spain and Italy) and the other Member States. Thus, while in Spain 
and Italy, a much higher number of lifts were being installed in 2010 in comparison to the other 
Member States, this trend has been inversed in 2015 when Germany accounted for 17% of the 

50  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 63. 
51  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 64. 
52  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 35. 

28 

 
                                                           
total new installations in Europe.53 This data clearly shows that the stock of installed lifts in the 
EU has been steadily increasing until 2015. 

information  contained 

Regarding accident-related data on the other hand, reports are available from 6 Member States 
(Greece,  France,  Italy,  the  Netherlands, Germany, and Spain) which contain data on accidents 
involving  lifts  in  the  period  around  2009-2013  It  should  be  noted  that  these  reports  do  not 
necessarily  use  the  same  reference  periods,  the  same  method  of  calculating  the  ratio  of 
accidents,  nor  the  same  definition  of  "lift  accident".  Furthermore,  neither  of  these  reports 
indicates  whether  these  accidents  involve  the  same  users,  maintenance  personnel  or  both 
groups  altogether.  Nevertheless,  the 
in  these  reports  provides 
indications  that  the  number  of  lethal  accidents  remains  very  low  and  has  been  reduced  over 
time. For example, between 1998 and 2009, there were in total 41 lethal accidents related to 
lifts in Greece varying between 1 and 8 annually54 being equivalent to less than 0,20 accidents 
per 100 000 lift units in service. In France the total number of lethal accidents reported between 
2001 and 2013 is 44.55 The number of accidents varied between 0 and 8 annually representing 
up to about 0,16 accidents per 100 000 lift units. The annual number of all reported accidents in 
France diminished from 3 200 in 2008 to 1 840 in 2013. In the Netherlands the number of all 
accidents related to lifts  was very low varying between 3 in 2011 and 2013 to as high as 9 in 
2014  over  the  period  from  2011  to  201556  equalling  0,3  to  1,0  accidents  per  100  000  lifts.  In 
Germany  the  number  of  all  accidents  declined  over  the  period  2011-2013  from  178  to  133 
incidents representing reduction from 2,7 to 1,9 accidents per 100 000 lift units while in Spain 
the number of all accidents decreased from 5,1 (2012) to 3,0 (2013) accidents per 100 000 lift 
units.57   

In  contrast  to  the  above,  according  to  ELA  the  number  of  accidents over  the total  number of 
installed lifts has been increasing at an annual average rate of 7% over 2008-2015. However, the 
relevance  of  this  distinct  information  is  questionable,  as  these  data  relate  to  both  accidents 
involving "existing lifts" (which are outside the scope of the Directive) as well as lifts covered by 
the Directive.  Furthermore, it has not been specified whether this increase concerns accidents 
involving users, maintenance personnel or both groups together.  

A  possible  approach  towards  identifying  trends  in  the  evolution  of  the  number  of  lift-related 
accidents  is  to  focus  specifically  on  those  accidents  involving  maintenance  personnel.  The 
reason  for  this  is  that  such  accidents  are  much  better  reported  and  documented  as  they 
constitute  work-related  accidents  and  as  such  they  trigger  a  specific  follow-up  (maintenance 
personnel  can  benefit  from  specific  social  security  services).  Conversely,  accidents  involving 
users are mostly reported by users themselves and in general, no specific follow-up is ensured. 
Therefore, the reliability of such data can be seen as questionable.   

53  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 35. 
54  Zarikas, V. and others (2013), ‘Statistical survey of elevator accidents in Greece’, Safety Science, Vol. 

59, pp. 93–103. 

55  Fédération des ascenseurs (2014), ‘Situation économique du secteur’, mai 2014, p. 10. 
56  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 47. 
57  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 47-48. 

29 

 
                                                           
Thus,  according  to statistics  collected  in the  framework  of  an  EU  Commission's  study  (2007)58 
there were 1 339 lift accidents involving maintenance personnel within eight EU Member States 
between 2001 and 2005.  

Furthermore,  according  to  the  evaluation  study  (based  on  PRODCOM  and  ELA  data),  the 
number  of  lift-related  accidents  involving  maintenance  personnel  compared  over  the  existing 
installations has been decreasing at an annual average rate of 3% between 2008 and 2015.59   

Based  on  these  concurring  sources,  the  study  has  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  trend 
towards a reduction of the lift-related accidents involving maintenance personnel is indicative 
of  the  improvement  in  lift  safety  levels.60  This  conclusion  can  be  further  reinforced  by  a 
comparison between the evolution of the stock of lifts and the number of accidents during the 
period 2010-2015. Data regarding both the stock of lifts and the number of accidents has been 
provided  by  ELA.  Bearing  in  mind  the  overall  increase  of  the  stock  of  installed  lifts  over  the 
period, the 7% increase  in lift  accidents indicated by ELA should be  relativized. Unfortunately, 
the limited data available does not allow to draw quantitative conclusions in this regard.     

In  the  light  of  the  above,  the  evaluation  has  concluded  that  the  accident  related  data  is  not 
entirely  reliable.  One  of  the  main  reasons  for  this  is  the  fact  that  the  said  data  does  not 
distinguish  between  lifts  within  the  scope  of  the  Lifts  Directive  and  outside  its  scope. 
Nevertheless it can be concluded that the Lifts Directive has been overall effective in improving 
the  level  of  protection  of  health  and  safety  of  maintenance  personnel.  As  far  as  users  are 
concerned,  the  data  available  does  not  enable  drawing  any  quantitative  conclusions. 
Nevertheless, the data provided by the national reports in particular suggest that the impact of 
the Directive is in no circumstances adverse and the Directive could even have brought a minor 
contribution to the improvement of the level of lift safety. 

5.2.2.  Assessment of specific issues related to the effective 

implementation of the EHSRs 

The wording and content of the Directive's provisions and annexes were assessed on how they 
impact the effectiveness of the Directive. No major concerns were identified with regards to the 
provisions on the defining the tasks, obligations and rights of all stakeholders concerned by the 
Directive  (i.e.  safety  component  manufacturers,  lift  installers,  Public  Authorities  –  namely 
Member State implementing authorities and MSAs, NBs).  

Some  stakeholders  have  pointed towards specific  risks  which  have  not  been  addressed  under 
the Lifts Directive such as the risk of fire. However, this specific risk is addressed by the EHSRs of 
the Machinery Directive61 which apply to lifts. Therefore, these concerns are not directly linked 
to the wording of the Lifts Directive.  

58  Health and Safety Laboratory (2007), ‘Technical assessment of means of preventing crushing risks on 

lifts subject to Directive 95/16/EC’.  

59  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 46, figure 19. 
60  Nevertheless,  the  study  pointed  out  the  increase  in  the  skills  of  maintenance  personnel  and  the 
potential improvements in the national legislation on safety at the workplace could be also contributing 
factors to this decrease. 

61  Directive 2006/42/EC on Machinery, Annex I, EHSR 1.5.6, 3.5.2 and 5.5. 

30 

 
                                                           
Nevertheless, the evaluation has identified two issues which are related to the interpretation by 
the  stakeholders  of  the  EHSRs:  the  first  one  is  the provision  on  the  risk  of  crushing  and  prior 
approval and the second one is the provision regarding the lift accessibility for disabled persons. 

5.2.2.1.Effectiveness of the implementation of the provision on the 
prevention of the risk of crushing and prior approval 

As  already  mentioned  in  Section  3.1.  above,  this  EHSR  requires  lift  designers  to  provide  free 
space or refuge when the lift is at one of its extreme positions (extreme top or extreme bottom 
position  in  the  lift  shaft/well)  in  order  to  prevent  the  risk  of  crushing.  According  to  45%  of 
survey respondents and to 59% of respondents to the Public Consultation, the risk of crushing is 
not properly addressed by the Directive. According to 42% of survey respondents, the wording 
of  this  EHSR  leaves  little  room  for  choice  how  to  address  this  risk  thus  disregarding  the  New 
Approach principles.62 

In  addition,  concerns  have  been  expressed  regarding  the  “prior  approval”  provision  (third 
paragraph of EHSR 2.2) which constitutes an exception to the requirement to provide for a free 
space/refuge  in  the  extreme  top  or  bottom  positions  of  the  lift  shaft.63  This  exception  is 
particularly relevant for lifts which are to be installed in existing buildings where the limitations 
of the existing structures might not allow to provide free space or refuge. 

The  wording  of  the  “prior  approval”  provision  suggests  that  its  application  is  not  limited  to 
existing  buildings  (“[…]  particularly  in  existing  buildings  […]”).  In  this  regards,  the  evaluation 
study  outlined  the  concerns  of  some  stakeholders  related  to  the  scope  of  application  of  this 
provision.64 

The concerns expressed by the stakeholders evolve around two main issues with this provision: 
on the one hand, the criteria used by Member States to grant or refuse a prior approval are not 
harmonised (thus leading to divergent practices) and, on the other hand, by allowing Member 
States to grant installers permission to use alternative means, different safety standards might 
emerge both across the EU and even within individual Member States. 

With  regards  to  the  concern  related  to  the  lack  of  harmonised  criteria  to  be  used  by  the 
different  Member  States  when  granting  prior  approval,  the  evaluation  has  indeed  identified 
diverging  practises  across  the  Member  States.  However,  fragmented  data  on  the  respective 
national  practices  only  covers  seven  Member  States  which  does  not  allow  to  establish  clear 
trends across the entire EU.65  In particular, data on the  number of prior approvals granted by 
each Member State is lacking except for Cyprus which declares to have granted a prior approval 
on two occasions.  

62  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 50. 
63  Pursuant  to  the  third  paragraph  of  ESHR  2.2.  of  Annex  I  to  Directive  2014/33/EU  :  “However,  in 
specific  cases,  in  affording  Member  States  the  possibility  of  giving  prior  approval,  particularly  in 
existing buildings, where this solution is impossible to fulfil, other appropriate means may be provided 
to avoid this risk.” 

64  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 112. 
65  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 147. 

31 

 
 
                                                           
The available data nevertheless suggests that the Member States’ practices diverge on several 
points: application to new and/or existing buildings, requirement to prove the impossibility to 
provide  free  space,  involvement  of  a  NB  and  also  the  possibility  to  choose  the  specific 
alternative solution to be used to prevent the risk of crushing. 

The later constitutes the second point of concern  for stakeholders. A number of stakeholders, 
(mainly  economic  operators)  across  the  EU  have  taken  the  view  that  the  third  paragraph  of 
EHSR  2.2.  should  be  either  amended  in  order  to  introduce  a  clear  set  of  criteria  for  granting 
prior approval or it should be repealed altogether.66 Those stakeholders that advocate for the 
repeal of this provision mainly  do so because of alleged risk for distortion of competition and 
hindering of innovation. On the other hand, those stakeholders that prefer to see this provision 
amended stress that while is necessary and relevant, the application of the third paragraph of 
EHSR 2.2. should be limited exclusively to existing buildings. 

However,  there  could  have  been  a  misconception  among  the  stakeholders  concerning  the 
interpretation of EHSR 2.2. as a whole and the "prior approval" procedure in particular. In fact, 
it should be noted that EHSR 2.2 is in line with the New Approach as its paragraph 1 defines the 
objective to be achieved but at the same time does not prescribe the technical specification to 
be applied. While it is true that the second paragraph of EHSR indicates what is considered to be 
the  most  effective  way  to  achieve  this  objective,  the  third  paragraph  on  the  prior  approval 
actually  introduces  a  certain  flexibility  as  it  enables  installers  to  opt  for  alternative  technical 
solutions. In any case, this procedure does not allow to derogate from the safety objective but 
enables, the adoption of other appropriate means to avoid the risk of crushing.   

As  a  stakeholder  had  rightly  observed  within  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  study’s 
consultations,  “the  Directive  leaves  “room  for  manoeuvre”  to  cover  the  risk  of  crushing,  the 
problem  being  that  not  all  MS  apply  this  provision  in  the  same  way,  and  this  is  the  issue.”67  
Therefore,  despite its  particular structure  in three paragraphs, EHSR 2.2. is in fact  in line  with 
the New Approach principles. 

Improved  coordination  at  the  level  of  the  MSAs  (especially  in  the  framework  of  the  ADCO 
Group)  could  contribute  the  emergence  of  a  more  coherent  and  uniform  application  of  this 
provision  at  EU  level.  This  improved  coordination  between  the  MSAs  could  be  further 
complemented by specific standardisation activities. 

The Commission will further investigate the practical implications of the divergent approaches 
by the Member States on the effective application of the Directive. In addition, the Commission 
will support within the boundaries  of its competences  the coordination between the MSAs as 
well as any standardisation activities specific to this provision. 

5.2.2.2.Effectiveness of the implementation of the provision regarding 

lift accessibility for disabled persons 

The  Directive  ensures  non-discriminatory  access  conditions  for  users  with  disabilities  through 
provisions set  in paragraphs 1.2  and 1.6.1 of Annex I, which are related only to the minimum 
size of door entry, the dimensions of the lifts car and the position of control panels.   

66  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 148. 
67  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 148. 

32 

 
                                                           
However, the second paragraph of EHSR 1.2. does not require that lifts are made accessible for 
disabled  persons  in  all  circumstances  but  only  "where  the  lift  is  intended  for  the  transport  of 
persons, and where its dimensions permit". If this is the case, the Directive sets out harmonised 
accessibility requirements for the lift car. 

According to 71% of survey respondents the provisions on lift accessibility to disabled persons 
have been implemented differently across the EU.  

However, these results do not distinguish between the accessibility requirements applicable to 
lifts and the accessibility requirements applicable to the entire buildings. Unlike the former, the 
later  have  not  been  harmonised  at  EU  level  and  therefore,  they  fall  under  the  realm  of 
competence of Member States. 

As a result, Member States have sometimes introduced specific provisions to complement the 
EHSRs related to lift accessibility for persons with disabilities. Thus, different national practices 
for granting lifts accessibility to disabled persons have emerged inter alia depending on the type 
of  building  in  which  a  lift  operates  (new  or  existing  building),  its  function  (public  or  private 
building), or its height (two or more floors). For example, some Member States have laid down 
provisions defining the minimum size of the lift car, while others refer to the standard EN 81-
70.68 

In any case, 65% of survey respondents do not perceive the accessibility requirements for lifts to 
have  any  major  impact  on  the  implementation  and  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive.69  In 
that  sense,  the  additional  national  requirements  which  are  sometimes  introduced  are  not 
perceived by stakeholders as burdensome or hindering the internal market for lifts. As a matter 
of fact, 54% of them70 even consider that there is a need to enshrine additional provisions for 
minimum  compulsory  awareness  of  manufacturers  and  installers  in  the  legal  framework  for 
ensuring accessibility to lifts of disabled persons. 

5.2.2.3.Effectiveness of the implementation of the provisions relating to 

the harmonised European standards 

Nearly  all  the  stakeholders  (95%  of  the  survey  respondents)  agree  that  development  of  hENs 
have been pivotal in ensuring an effective application of the Directive by all the actors involved. 
This  support  is  also  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  no  formal  objections  to  hENs  have  ever  been 
raised since the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC.71 

79%  of  the  survey  respondents  acknowledge  that  the  development  of  hENs  constitutes  an 
effective tool for promoting both the free movement of compliant lifts and components as well 
as for promoting a high degree of safety. The hENs are largely used as one of the main reference 
guide for ensuring compliance with the Directive.72 

68  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 139. 
69  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 50. 
70  49 out of a total of 90. 
71  Pursuant  to  Article  11(1)  of  Regulation  (EU)No  1025/2012,  Member  States  and  the  European 
Parliament may raise a formal objection against a hEN if they consider that it "does not entirely satisfy 
the  requirements  which  it  aims  to  cover  and  which  are  set  out  in  the  relevant  Union harmonisation 
legislation" 

72  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 59. 

33 

 
                                                           
Nevertheless,  some  concerns  have  been  identified  regarding  the  wide-spread  reliance  on  the 
hENs. In fact, despite the voluntary character of these standards they are often perceived as de 
facto mandatory by economic operators and in particular by SMEs. Generally, the latter tend to 
rely  (nearly  exclusively)  on  hENs  as  they  provide  a  much  less  expensive  alternative  for 
demonstrating compliance with the Directive than providing their own technical specifications. 
SMEs  generally  have  rather  limited  resources  available  for  R&D  purposes  and  thus  relying  on 
the technical solutions provided by the hENs (which are generally reflecting the state-of-the-art) 
is more cost-effective than developing own solutions. Nevertheless, due to the voluntary nature 
of hENs SMEs wishing to advance an innovative solution on the market, which is not covered by 
a hEN, are free to do so.  

Another  issue  raised  within  the  framework  of  the  present  evaluation  is  related  to  the 
lengthiness  of  procedure for adoption of the  hENs. In fact,  75%  of respondents to the Public 
Consultation  identified  as  a  drawback  the  sometimes  lengthy  procedure  needed  by  CEN  to 
develop  hENs.73  Therefore,  hENs  might  not  always  be  able  to  cope  with  the  speed  of 
technological  progress.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  compliance  with  the  hENs  is  not 
mandatory  and  therefore  they  cannot  in  principle  constitute  barriers  to  innovation.  The 
Commission  is  committed  to  collaborate  closely  with  the  ESOs  within  the  boundaries  of  the 
framework  laid  down  by  Regulation  (EU)  1025/2012  so  as  to  ensure  the  smooth  and  swift 
functioning of the standardisation activities in the Lifts sector.  

Finally,  SMEs  might  be  potentially  disadvantaged  by  the  way  the  hENs  are  developed.  Some 
stakeholders  have  raised  their  concerns  regarding  the  inclusiveness  of  the  process  of 
development  of  hENs  in  which  SMEs  are  not  necessarily  well  represented.  While  the 
Commission  is  committed  to  involve  the  broadest  possible  range  of  stakeholders  in  the 
standardisation  activities,  the  question  of  the  representation  of  SMEs  in  the  process  of 
development  of  hENs  relates  to  the  internal  organisation  of  the  relevant  ESOs  which  are 
independent private bodies. 

5.2.2.4.Effectiveness of the implementation of the conformity assessment 

procedures  

The  study  concluded  that  conformity  assessment  procedures  represent  one  of  the  main 
strengths of the Lifts Directive.74 The possibility for installers and manufacturers to choose one 
(or  more)  of  the  different  conformity  assessment  procedures  fully  matches  the  needs  of 
operators to achieve compliance. 

Moreover, conformity assessment procedures cover all production phases and act as a sort of 
“checklist”  to  ensure  that  all  steps  are  covered  and  comply  with  the  Directive’s  EHSRs. 
Therefore,  despite  being  reported  as  the major  compliance  cost  stemming  from  the Directive 
(see  section  5.3.1),  92  %  of  survey  respondents  recognise  the  effectiveness  of  conformity 
assessment procedures to ensure product compliance with the EHSRs.75 Furthermore, according 
to some stakeholders, the application of the Directive raised fewer problems than most other 
New  Approach Directives  thanks  to  the  conformity  assessment  procedures  harmonised  under 
the  Directive.  These  procedures  indeed  require  all  lifts  to  be  assessed  by  NBs  before  being 

73  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 60. 
74  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 61. 
75  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 61. 

34 

 
                                                           
placed on the market, which the evaluation identified as a factor relevant to the low extent of 
product non-compliance in the Lifts sector. 

5.2.2.5.Effectiveness of the implementation of the provisions on 

enforcement and market surveillance  

The market surveillance is conducted once the products have been placed on the market. Thus, 
the  market  surveillance,  which  is  the  ex-post  compliance  check,  is  complementing  the 
conformity  assessment  which  is  the  ex-ante  compliance  check,  Unlike  the  conformity 
assessment  which  is  entrusted  to  the  NBs,  the  responsibility  for  conducting  the  market 
surveillance  lies  with  the  Member  States  and  more  specifically  with  their  respective  Market 
Surveillance  Authorities  ("MSAs").  Also,  unlike  the  conformity  assessment  procedures  which 
have  been  harmonised  by  Decision  768/2008  (and  then  taken  over  in  the  Lifts  Directive),  the 
Directive  does  not  harmonise  the  market  surveillance  procedures.  Therefore,  Member  States 
are  free  to  organise  their  market  surveillance  activities.  However,  this  has  the  adverse  effect 
that  today  the  implementation  of  market  surveillance  activities  across  the  Member  States  is 
very uneven and there is a general lack of resources. 

The available information shows that the level of non-compliance in the sector is very low. This 
conclusion is shared by 87%  of the  stakeholders  consulted within the  framework of the study 
and the data collected for the report on market surveillance activities.   

This  overall  high  level  of  compliance  can  be  credited  also  to  the  conformity  assessment 
procedures  which  impose  that  all  lifts  must  be  assessed  by  one  or  several  third  party 
assessment  bodies  (the  NBs)  before  being  placed  on  the  market.  Therefore,  it  should  be 
concluded that the high level of compliance should be achieved by the effective conjunction of 
the ex-ante (conformity assessment) and ex-post (market surveillance) compliance checks. 

Nevertheless,  some  barriers  to  the  enforcement  of  the  market  surveillance  have  been 
identified.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  these  barriers  are  not  attributable  to  any 
shortcomings  in  the  legal  framework.  Instead,  these  barriers  are  related  to  the  resources 
allocated  to  market  surveillance  activities  by  the  Member  States  and  the  coordination  of  the 
said  activities.    Firstly,  Member  States  report  a  lack  of  resources  for  conducting  market 
surveillance  in  the  lifts  sector,  which,  in  turn,  may  hamper  effective  enforcement.  A  second 
barrier of effective enforcement is the differences in the implementation of market surveillance 
activities in the Member States.76 In order to be effective, the level of enforcement needs to be 
uniform across the EU. 

Regarding  the  resources  affected  to  market  surveillance  activities,  the  study  has  identified 
certain  discrepancies  between  the  different  Member  States.  Thus,  in  2013,  only  four  MSAs77 

76  Data  gathered  within  the  framework  of  the  Evaluation  Study  indicate  that  there  are  discrepancies 
between the market surveillance authorities in different Member States in terms of budget allocated to 
these activities, the proactive  or reactive  approach of the  different MSAs, the  number of inspections 
per year etc. For further detailed information c.f. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, 
page 158.   

77  Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland and Hungary. 

35 

 
                                                           
have declared to have a budget specifically dedicated to activities in the lifts sector and five78  
had dedicated staff/inspectors to perform market surveillance of lifts and safety components. 

On the other hand, the priority given to market surveillance in the lift sector differs across the 
Member  States.79  Thus,  some  Member  States  such  as  Spain  allocate  medium  priority  to  lift 
surveillance, while others such as the Netherlands allocate high priority. Such lack of uniformity 
across Member States could potentially lead in long run to the creation of weaknesses, which 
could, at least in theory, result in lower compliance. In this regard, 78% of survey respondents 
and  81%  of  respondents  to  the  Public  Consultation state  that market  surveillance  activities  in 
the sector are not fully effective.80   

Overall, the Directive has been uniformly transposed across the Member States, and there is no 
evidence of any transposition difficulties. As for its implementation, the analysis identified some 
discrepancies  across  Member  States.  A  number  of  them  (i.e.  those  related  to  the  EU  type-
examination  certificate,  content  of  the  EU  DoC,  NBs’  notification  procedures)  have  been 
addressed in the new Directive. 

5.3.  Efficiency 

To assess the efficiency of the Directive, the costs which it entails for the different stakeholders 
categories  (MSAs,  NBs  and  EOs)  were  analysed  against  the  benefits  resulting  from  the 
application  of  the  Directive  for  the  economic  operators  (EOs),  users  and  maintenance 
personnel.  A  detailed  overview  of  the  costs  and  benefits  identified  in  the  framework  of  the 
evaluation is available in Annex 5 to the present document.  

Unfortunately, a general limitation on data hampered a thorough assessment of the Directive’s 
efficiency.  Very  few  stakeholders  were  able  to  provide  quantitative  data,  and  those  who  did, 
provided  mostly  rough  estimations.  Therefore,  this  section  presents  only  anecdotal  evidence, 
whenever  available,  which  should  be  considered  as  purely  indicative.  The  analysis  remains 
therefore mainly qualitative. 

Despite  the  above  methodological limitations, there seems to be  an overall consensus among 
stakeholders on the benefits outweighing the administrative and compliance costs.   

The  Directive  improved  the  internal  market  by  harmonising  national  procedures  and  hence 
reducing costs  for economic operators. While larger companies benefit  more  than SMEs  from 
the internal market, the overall positive opinions on the Directive are shared also by SMEs.   

Also, evidence shows a general reduction in lift-related accidents over recent years, which could 
lead to think of an increase in lift safety. While the direct causal link with the Directive cannot 
be  quantitative  proved,  it  is  common  opinion  of  stakeholders  that  the  Directive  helped  to 
increase safety. 

78  Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Greece and Hungary. 
79  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 62. 
80  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 62. 

36 

 
                                                           
5.3.1.  Costs entailed by the Lifts Directive  

The  main  driver  concerning  costs  comes  from  the  ex-ante  and  ex-post  controls  that  each 
product (either a lift or a safety component) must undergo before and after being placed on the 
market.    The  stakeholders  concerned  are:  the  Market  Surveillance  Authorities  (MSAs),  the 
Notified Bodies (NBs) the economic operators and users.  

It  should  be  noted  that  the  great  part  of  costs  (for  example,  the  conformity  assessment  by 
MSA/NB)  were  already  present  with  the  previous  Directives  and  cannot  be  credited  to  the 
Directive 95/16/EC and Directive 2014/33/EU. 

  Market Surveillance authorities 

Market Surveillance Authorities mainly bear the enforcement costs due to recurrent market 
surveillance activities, withdrawal of non-compliant products from the market, assessment of 
NBs, and periodic communication to the Commission and other MS of their activities.81 

MSAs’ duties in terms of enforcement of the Directive’s provisions were already foreseen in the 
previous  Directives  84/528/EEC  and  84/529/EEC.  Thus,  the  costs  of  inspections  could  not  be 
attributed  directly  to  the  Directive,  since  MSAs  would  have  incurred  them  anyway.  There  is, 
however,  a  reduction  of  burden  for  MSAs,  since  NBs  are  now  in  charge  of  conducting  the 
conformity assessment verifications.  

The main source of costs for the Notified Bodies are related to the need to gather the necessary 
resources (human as well as material resources) to ensure the performance of the conformity 
assessments  and  the 
issuing  of  the  EU-type  approval  certificates,  cost  for  national 
accreditations, cost for purchase harmonised standards. 

Directive 95/16/EC mandated the NBs to perform the conformity assessment procedures in the 
lift sector. Before that, under Directives 84/528/EEC and 84/529/EEC, the "EEC type-approval" 
was  granted  by  the  Member  States  authorities.  Hence,  Directive  95/16  did  not  introduce 
additional  costs  as  the  conformity  assessment  procedure  was  already  existing  under  the  old 
legal  framework.  Instead,  the  Directive  shifted  the  responsibility  for  this  procedure  from  the 
Member  States  authorities  to  NBs  without  significantly  changing  the  scope  of  the  obligation. 
However, it should be noted that today, the NBs can perform conformity assessments which are 
valid throughout the whole EU and their services may be solicited by EOs established  in any of 
the  Member  States.  Therefore,  while  the  costs  related  to  the  performance  of  the  conformity 
assessment are now borne by the NBs, they benefit in return from an EU-wide market and their 
activities are no longer limited to the territory of a single Member State.82 

  Notified bodies 

However, NBs bear also some other specific costs: 

81  MS  are  required  to  periodically  inform  the  Commission  on  their  market  surveillance  activities, 
including the inspections on the lift market. Costs due to information obligations as foreseen by Art. 
7(1); Art. 9(1) and (3); Art. 11 were already due in Dir 84/528/EC and hence not assessed. 

82  Before the entry into  force of Directive 95/16/EC,  the  geographical competence of the  MSAs  which 
were  entrusted  with  the  performance  of  the  conformity  assessment  procedures  was  limited  to  their 
respective Member State. 

37 

 
                                                           
The  primary  source  of  costs  for  NBs  is  related  to  periodic  fees  due  to  national  accreditation 
procedures or any of the other means to periodically prove their sufficient level of competence 
to  the  notifying  bodies.  These  costs  are  not  strictly  derived  from  Directive  95/16/EC,  since  it 
does not require mandatory accreditation. 

Evidence gathered from NBs in 8 MSs83 indicates that the average annual cost for accreditation 
increase with the size:  €625 for two micro NB (1% of their annual turnover), €1 500 (0,05% on 
the  annual  turnover)  for  one  small  NB  and  €3  800  (0,01%  on  the  annual  turnover)  for  seven 
medium and large NBs. 

Training  expenses  are  also  a  burdensome  compliance  cost.  16  respondents  report  an  annual 
spending on training ranging between €500 (for micro NBs) and €12 000 (for medium and large 
NBs). In terms of NBs’ annual turnover, it represents an average of 0,9%  for three micro NBs, 
0,55% for three small NBs, 0,12% for eight medium NBs and 0,03% for two large NBs.84 

The  NBs  may  be  required  to  buy  (and  update)  harmonised  European  standards.  This  cost  is 
quite relevant, especially for smaller NBs that usually buy singular standard/update.85 However, 
larger  NBs,  which  are  usually  active  in  several  harmonised  sectors  may  need  to  buy  more 
standards. Therefore, they usually prefer to pay an annual flat-rate fee to a service provider in 
order to have access to any subsequent updated standards 

NBs  replies  to  the  survey  highlighted  other  types  of  costs  (without  any  quantification).  49% 
claims additional costs for innovate their equipment and systems to comply with the Directive 
and 53% (n=24) underwent process re-engineering for the same purpose.  Overall, 44% of NBs 
replying  to  the  survey  deem  that  costs  to  innovate equipment  and  systems would  have  been 
lower if the Directive had not been implemented. 

  Economic operators  

Economic operators (installers of lifts and manufacturers of safety components) are subject to 
several obligations at different stages: (i) in the design and production of the safety component; 
(ii) in the design phase of the lift, and (iii) in the lift installation phase. Costs for these economic 
operators are mainly derived from both compliance costs and administrative burden. The first 
are,  for  example,  costs  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  EHSRs,  to  perform  the  conformity 
assessments and related to NBs’ service fees, training specialised technicians, periodic purchase 
of  hENs  or  the  creation  of  alternative  technical  solutions.  The  Administrative  burden  includes 
costs  related  to  the  CE  marking,  the  production  of  the  EU  Declaration  of  Conformity  and  its 
archive for the period required by the Directive (i.e. ten years). 

Compliance  costs  are  mainly  related  to  the  conformity  assessment  procedures  (e.g.  the  EU 
type-examinations) and to on-site verifications performed by NBs (e.g. final inspection). Other 
compliance  costs  include  training  expenses,  the  purchase  of  updated  harmonised  standards, 

83  Data  on  accreditation  costs  and  turnover  have  been  gathered  through  ten  interviews  involving  NBs 

from BE, DE, DK, FI, FR, IT, NL, SE. 

84  These figures are calculated as the ratio between the average expenditure on training activities related 

to the Directive and the annual turnover, as reported by interviewees and survey respondents. 

85  Data  on  costs  for  harmonized  standards  and  turnover  have  been  gathered  through  14  interviews 

involving NBs from AT, BE, DE, DK, FI, FR, HU, IT, NL. 

38 

 
                                                           
initial  expenses  for  new  equipment  bought  to  comply  with  the  Directive,  re-engineering  of 
internal  processes  to  acquire  a  system  certification  and  other  expenses  due  to  external 
consulting services. It is to be noted however that some of these costs (e.g. expenses for new 
equipment, re-engineering and external consulting services) might have occurred even without 
the entry into force of the Directive.  

The  overall  burden  of  compliance  costs  varies  considerably  from  one  economic  operator  to 
another depending on:  (i) the size of the company; (ii) the business structure; (iii) the preferred 
conformity assessment procedures. 

Interviewed  companies  confirmed  that  conformity  assessment  procedures  are  the  most 
burdensome provisions of the Directive and strongly depends on the type-examination chosen 
(see also section 5.2. above for details of the EU-Type examination). 

The data gathered within the framework of this evaluation concerning the specific costs related 
to  each  conformity  assessment  module86  does  not  allow  to  draw  generalised  quantitative 
conclusions regarding the costs entailed for the economic operators. Nevertheless, some trends 
can be observed.      

Large  firms  tend  to  opt  for  the  “full  quality  assurance”  system  (Module  H)    introduced  by 
Directive  2014/33/EU  which,  although  entailing  higher  initial  costs  and  recurring  annual 
inspection  costs,  is  more  convenient  for  large  production  volumes.    In  fact,  the  cost  for  this 
module does not depend on the number of lifts designed, being a one-off cost. Before Directive 
95/16/EC  the  conformity  assessment  procedures  were  a  variable  cost  proportional  to 
production volumes. The introduction of Module H has reduced the marginal compliance cost 
for  larger  companies,  which  could  spread  the  fix  cost  on  a  larger  number  of  produced  lifts. 
However, these costs should include other, non-identified internal costs (i.e. the labour cost of 
employees) and may change depending on the size of the company, but interviewees could not 
provide an estimate for such costs. 

Lack of statistics on the number of conformity assessments, does not allow for a quantification 
of the cost  reduction for enterprises using module H. However, according to some  interviews 
the  current  compliance  cost  is  estimated  to  be  around  half  in  comparison  to  the  situation 
existing before the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC.   

Among the compliance costs entailed by the Lifts Directive, there are also the costs related to 
the purchase of hENs. Before the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC, EOs, were required to 
comply with a multitude of national rules. Furthermore, they were not able to benefit from the 
presumption of conformity related to the compliance with hENs. Today, by proving compliance 
with a hEN, the EOs are presumed to comply with the relevant EHSRs and thus their product can 
circulate freely throughout the EU. 

While  this  undoubtedly  a  benefit  and  a  reduction  of  costs  for  economic  operators,  the 
evaluation study has nevertheless pointed out to the fact that this change may affect differently 
the  companies  according  to  their  size.  Thus,  SMEs  which  generally  tend  to  be  less  export-

86  Data has been mainly provided by the relevant stakeholders (the economic operators). However, only a 
limited number of stakeholders provided such information which does not allow to draw generalised 
conclusions. 

39 

 
                                                           
oriented  and  are  usually  active  on  the  territory  of  a  single  Member  State  benefit  to  a  lesser 
extend from this administrative simplification then bigger companies which operate in several 
Member States. Instead, the SMEs have to incur the costs of acquiring the standards as well as 
the  successive  updates  thereof.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  cost  of  acquiring  these 
standards  is  lower  than  the  costs  associated  with  alternative  technical  solutions.  Thus,  it 
appears  more  cost-efficient  for  SMEs  to  opt  for  a  demonstration  of  the  compliance  with  the 
Directive by relying on the presumption of conformity. 

Another  concern  in  relation  to  SMEs  which  has  been  highlighted  in  the  evaluation  study  is 
related to the fact that hENs are recognised by consumers as a reference for "high quality" and 
tend to become a de facto market standard. Hence, the application of the hENs which should be 
voluntary  becomes  de  facto  mandatory  for  all  economic  operators  in  the  market,  including 
SMES that are generally less export-oriented. This may entail additional costs for SMEs respect 
to the cheaper national standards (that are less frequently updated). Nevertheless, should the 
SMEs  wish  to  propose  innovative  solutions  to  the  market,  they  are  free  to  do  so  as  the 
application of hENs is purely voluntary.  

The frequent updates of hENs also imply additional costs for the economic operators, which do 
not have the same weight depending on the size of the company.  

According to data available for 7 companies  the cost for a single harmonised standard ranges 
between €50 and €250; their the annual expenses for harmonised standards account for 0.010% 
of  annual  turnover  for  larger  companies  to  0.035%  for  SMEs,  though  this  incidence  changes 
considerably on the specific products/services. Furthermore, larger companies, which are often 
active in more than one product sector and thus usually buy more standards, pay an annual flat-
rate fee to a service provider in order to have access to any update and fix to a certain amount 
the overall costs for technical standards. For this reason, the weight of these expenses on SMEs 
is proportionally higher in comparison to larger companies. Nevertheless, as shown above, it is 
more  cost-efficient  for  SMEs  to  acquire  these  hENs  rather  than  to  conduct  the  conformity 
assessment. 

Another relevant source of costs is the training of employees on issues related to the Directive. 
While  the  initial  costs  borne  by  economic  operators  straight  after  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive  were  directly  linked  to  it,  it  is  acknowledged  by  the  companies  that  the  recurrent 
annual  training  expenses  are  only  partially  due  to  the  Directive.  Unfortunately,  interviewees 
were not able to disentangle the costs of training due to the Directive from other types of costs.  

The  provisions  entailing  administrative  burden  for  drafting  the  EU  DoC  and  affixing  the  CE 
marking  are  not  particularly  burdensome  for  lift  installers.  Similar  requirements  to  prepare  a 
DoC  and  mark  each  lift  with  an  EEC  marking  were  already  present  in  the  previous  Directive 
84/528/EEC, thus these costs are considered as not relevant for the purpose of this analysis.  

Finally,  the  economic  operators  reported  other  costs  related  to  the  Directive  (but  not 
quantifiable).  58%  of  economic  operators 
their 
equipment/machineries  and  59%  undertook  process  re-engineering  to  be  compliant  with  the 
Directive. 28% of economic operators reported that they requested external support from legal 
consultants to comply with the Directive. 

some  updates 

implemented 

to 

40 

 
5.3.2.  Benefits entailed by the Lifts Directive  

The potential benefits of the Directive for the economic operators are: 

  A  reduced  administrative  burden/compliance  costs  and  harmonised  level-playing  field 

 

due to harmonisation of the regulatory framework; 
Increased internationalisation due to both harmonisation legislation and perceived high 
quality of EU product requirements.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

The creation of a common EU regulatory framework for the lifts has reduced the intra-EU export 
costs  because  exporters  are  no  longer  required  to  perform  any  local  testing  or  receive  any 
additional authorisation from the local authority.  

This  benefit  is  generally  recognised  mainly  from  large  operators  (more  export  oriented  than 
SMEs) and according to one of them the total burden of compliance costs is nearly half than the 
cost to comply to each national regulation. 

However,  SMEs  are  generally  less  export-oriented  and  are  most  often  active  in  their  national 
market  and  hence  benefit  to  a  lesser  extent  from  the  enhanced  functioning  of  the  Internal 
market. 

Furthermore,  1/3  of  the  respondents87  to  the  survey  claim  that  such  harmonised  regulatory 
framework  across  Europe  has 
stronger 
internationalisation  strategy  also  in  third  countries.  In  fact,  as  reported  by  an  Italian 
manufacturer of safety components, the CE marking is increasingly perceived as a standard of 
quality by the industry beyond the EU borders: buyers in Asia and US prefer products with a CE 
marking being a signal of higher quality and safety.  

implement  a 

companies 

supported 

to 

However, also in this case, large enterprises benefit more than SMEs and their revenues from 
exports in the lift sector are higher in comparison to SMEs. 

These findings have been confirmed by the contributions received within the framework of the 
Open Public Consultation. All large enterprises with few exceptions have declared that the costs 
and benefits induced by the Directive are balanced and acceptable, with 14 of 63 indicating that 
benefits  outweigh  costs.  Similarly,  all  large  enterprises  agree  that  the  Directive  has  increased 
their  competitiveness.  Finally,  73%  of  survey  respondents  do  not  perceive  that  national 
practices  incorporate  costly  or  unnecessary  requirements  into  products  or  structures  covered 
by the Directive.88  

The  benefits  for  consumers/users  are  considered  in  terms  of  a  lower  number  of  lift-related 
accidents and of increased lift accessibility for people with disabilities. 

Unfortunately, available accident statistics do not allow to establish a direct causal link between 
the  Directive  and  an  increase  in  lift  safety.  Evidence  shows  that  the  number  of  accidents 
involving  maintenance  personnel  has  been  decreasing  since  2008  possibly  indicating  a 
progressive improvement in lift safety levels. 

87  20 out of 63 survey respondents. 
88  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 75. 

41 

 
                                                           
In  the  same  view,  available  data  are  not  sufficient  to  quantitatively  estimate  the  increase  of 
disabled  persons’  well-being.  However,  the  Directive  should  be  seen  as  a  great  improvement 
with  respect  to  the  previous  regulatory  framework  that  did  not  foresee  any  provisions 
targeting their needs. For example, the Directive provides for rules on the dimension of the lift 
car and the position of lift controls. However, these provisions suffer some limitations as they 
vary  considerably  across  Member  States,  thus  granting  different  levels  of  accessibility  and 
deemed as insufficient. 

5.4.  Coherence 

The  Lifts  Directive  is  interrelated  with  other  EU  legislation,  in  particular  the  Machinery 
Directive89, the Cableway Installations Regulation90 and the Construction Products Regulation91. 
identify  overlaps, 
In  order  to  assess  the  coherence,  stakeholders  were  asked  to 
complementarities  and  additional  requirements  for  products  in  other  pieces  of  legislation 
relevant  for  lifts.  The  internal  coherence  of  the  Lifts  Directive  was  also  assessed,  looking 
amongst  others  at  the  requirements  for  installers  of  lifts  and  manufacturers  of  safety 
components. 

No  major  issues  of  overlaps  or  inconsistencies  have  emerged  from  the  evaluation.  On  the 
contrary, a number of complementarities exist, and they cause no duplication of costs according 
to 88% of survey respondents. 

The Machinery Directive has strong interrelations with the Lifts Directive. The hazards related to 
lifts  that  are  not  covered  by  the  Lifts  Directive  are  covered  by  the  EHSRs  of  the  Machinery 
Directive. Applicable EHSRs are also described in the NB-L’s dedicated Recommendation for Use 
document, together with the reasons for their applicability to lifts. This contributes to making 
economic operators aware of the relation between the EHSRs defined in the Lifts Directive and 
those applied under the Lifts Directive but defined in the Machinery Directive. 

Also  with  reference  to  the  coherence  of  the  Lifts  Directive  with  the  Cableway  Installations 
Directive (replaced as of 21 April 2018 by Regulation (EU) 2016/424), the study did not identify 
any overlaps or inconsistencies as their scopes are mutually exclusive. The study referred to the 
concerns  raised  by  a  few  isolated  stakeholders  regarding  the  interface  between  the  Lifts 
Directive  the  old  Cableway  Installation  Directive92.  In  particular,  according  to  one  stakeholder 
the distinction between "inclined lifts" and "funiculars" need to be further clarified.  This issue 
was discussed during a meeting of the Standing Committee for the Cableways Directive (CABL-
SC) and it was agreed that these concerns can be clarified by means of improved guidance. 

With  regard  to  the  Construction  Products  Regulation,  any  reference  was  removed  in  the  new 
Lifts Directive 2014/33/EU. The relation between the two areas of legislation, considering that a 

89  Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, 

and amending Directive 95/16/EC. 

90  Regulation  (EU)  2016/424  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  March  2016  on 
cableway  installations  and  repealing  Directive  2000/9/EC  is  already  in  force  and  will  become  fully 
applicable on 21 April 2018. 

91  Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying 
down  harmonised  conditions  for  the  marketing  of  construction  products  and  repealing  Council 
Directive 89/106/EEC. 

92  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 77. 

42 

 
                                                           
lift installation has an interface with the building or construction where  it is installed, is dealt 
with  through  the  Lifts  Directive’s  Article  2(2)  that  introduces  a  two-way  flow  of  information 
between  the  lift  installer  and  the  person  responsible  for  the  work  on  the  building  or 
construction. 

The  internal  coherence  of  the  Directive  has  been  assessed  by  looking  specifically  at 
requirements  for  lift  installers  and  safety  component  manufacturers.  No  overlapping  rule  has 
been identified and the  definition of “safety component manufacturer” and “lift installer” are 
overall  clear,  with  clearly  identified  responsibilities.  In  addition,  the  alignment  of  the  Lifts 
Directive with the NLF has significantly contributed to clarify the requirements for all economic 
operators concerned. 

5.5.  EU added value 

As  part  of  the  Union  harmonisation  legislation,  the  Directive  aligned  the  former  national 
legislations relating to the lift sector. Even though a baseline scenario on national legislation in 
force  before  the  full  applicability  of  the  Directive  could  not  be  reconstructed,  a  number  of 
factors allow to conclude that the Directive did bring additional value compared to what would 
have been achieved at national level in the context of multiple deviating provisions. 

A  large  majority  (94%)  of  respondents  to  the  survey  recognise  the  EU  Added  Value  of  the 
Directive, especially in terms of enhanced free circulation of lifts and safety components and of 
their increased safety.93   

The  study  has  concluded  that  the  introduction  of  the  Directive  and  the  New  Approach  has 
supported  innovation  thanks  to  the  flexibility  of  its  EHSRs.  According  to  94%  of  survey 
respondents, the Directive has stimulated the European enterprises’ propensity to innovate. It 
increased  the  European  lift  sector's  competitiveness  with  respect  to  global  competitors 
according  to  84%  of  respondents.  The  trend  in  the  number  of  patents  granted  in  the  sector 
since 1995 and in the years immediately after the entry into force of the Directive up to 2004 
confirms this. Without a harmonised legal framework, a fragmented EU lift market would not be 
as competitive on the world stage.  

The internal market legislation has, in the case of the lift industry, indeed acted as a “catalyst for 
promoting  innovation”.  First  of  all,  there  has  been  a  positive  impact  on  innovation,  since  the 
economies  of  scale  generated  by  product  standardisation  allowed  new  investments  in  R&D. 
Second, new demand for certain products has been created by EHSRs over the years. This was 
the  case  for  instance  of  the  Directive’s  EHSR  4.5  relating  to  the  incorporation  of  “two-way 
means of communication” in new lift units, which were reported to have boosted the demand 
for emergency telephone systems.  

Alongside  the  stakeholders’  perception,  the  EU  Added  Value  of  the  Directive  in  terms  of 
enhanced  free  movement  of  lifts  and  safety  components  is  confirmed  by  the  increasing 
relevance  of  intra-EU  trade  since  1995,  which  suggests  an  improvement  in  the  conditions  for 
placing lifts and safety components on the market due to the introduction of the Directive. The 

93  Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 79. 

43 

 
                                                           
hENs  and  EHSRs  have  been  important  in  this  sense,  as  recognised  in  particular  by  Member 
States that accessed the EU after the entry into force of the Directive. 

The EU added value of the Directive is further confirmed since, through harmonising EHSRs for 
lifts  and  obligations  for  the  relevant  economic  operators,  it  overall  reduced  the  costs  for 
complying  with  the  legislation,  if  compared  to  the  previous  regulatory  framework.  This  is 
especially true for companies that were already operating cross-borders. 

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

The evaluation covered the performance of the Lifts Directive since the entry into application of 
Directive 95/16/EC in July 1999. It assessed the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence 
and  EU  added-value  in  order  to  verify  whether  it  meets  its  objectives  and  provides  the 
mechanisms to deal with future changes in the business environment. 

The  main  conclusion  of  the  evaluation  is  that  the  Directive  is  functioning  properly  and  is 
contributing positively to its main objectives of ensuring an effectively operating internal market 
for  safety  components  and  lifts  and  of  improving  the  health  and  safety  of  lift  users  and 
maintenance personnel.  

The evaluation has been supported by an evaluation study which itself has been mainly based 
on desk research and field research using a number of tools such as an Open Public Consultation 
(Public Consultation), targeted surveys, interviews and a workshop organised in the context of 
the Lifts Working Group. A broad range of stakeholders (Member State authorities in charge of 
the implementation of the Directive, MSAs in charge of the enforcement of the Directive, NBs, 
lift  installers  and  safety  component  manufacturers,  including  SMEs,  and  related  industry 
associations) were involved in these activities in order to gather the most representative results.  

The main limitations which the evaluation has faced are related to the availability of sufficient 
quantitative data allowing to reconstruct the baseline scenario, the lack of official quantitative 
data on the lift-related accidents at EU level, the lack of sufficient data on market surveillance in 
the lift sector as well as the low response rate to the targeted survey questions collecting data 
for the CBA. In order to mitigate these limitations, the available qualitative data  was analysed 
together with the available qualitative data in order to identify overall trends.  

As market surveillance is entrusted to the Member States and the Directive does not provide for 
any reporting mechanisms, the Commission does not have the tools to gather detailed country-
specific  data  on  lift-related  accidents  and  market  surveillance  activities.  However,  the 
Commission is committed to work closely with the MSAs by making use of all of the available 
coordination  mechanisms  such  as  the  coordination  between  the  ADCO  group  and  the  Lifts 
Working Group. 

Looking more specifically into the conclusions of the evaluation, firstly the Directive’s objectives 
are  still  considered  to  be  relevant.  The  Directive  demonstrated  to  be  able  to  align  to 
technological  developments  occurred  in  the  lift  sector  and  to  take  into  account  risks  related 
thereto.  

44 

 
 
While  the  Directive  is  perceived  as  overall  clear  by  stakeholders,  some  issues  have  been 
identified within the framework of the evaluation. In particular, some of the definitions such as 
“lift  installer”  and  the  concepts  of “putting  into  service”  and  “placing on  the  market”.  Finally, 
some concerns have been raised regarding the precise definition of the scope of the Directive. 
However, the evaluation has concluded that these concerns are not to be attributed to unclear 
or conflicting wording within the Directive, but rather to certain difficulties in the interpretation. 
Therefore, while some issues have been clarified by the new Directive 2014/33/EU, the others 
are  covered  in  the  revised  version  of  the  Guide  to  the  application  of  the  Lifts  Directive.  The 
Commission will monitor further issues raised by stakeholders in relation to the interpretation 
of  the  Directive  and  develop  together  with  the  stakeholders  (most  notably  within  the 
framework of the Lifts Working Group) further specific guidance documents if necessary. 

While  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  have  been  uniformly  transposed  across  the  Member 
States, the evaluation has nevertheless identified discrepancies in the implementation of some 
of the provisions and most notably the EHSR 2.2. on the prevention of the risk of crushing and 
the prior approval as well as the provisions on lift accessibility for disabled persons. However, 
the evaluation has concluded that the implementation issues related to both of these provisions 
are essentially due to the diverging provisions and/or practices adopted by the Member States 
to  complement  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Directive.  The  Commission  is  committed  to 
promote improved cooperation between the Member States in general and between the MSAs 
in  particular  so  as  to  contribute  to  the  emergence  of  more  coherent  practices  across  the 
Member States regarding the granting of prior approval pursuant to the third paragraph of EHSR 
2.2.  Regarding  the  provision  on  the  lift  accessibility  for  disabled  persons,  the  evaluation  has 
concluded  that  the  additional  requirements  which  are  sometimes  introduced  by  the  Member 
States to complement the relevant EHSRs of the Directive do not impose additional burden on 
the economic operators and do not hinder the internal market for lifts.   

The  evaluation  has  concluded  that  the  Directive’s  contribution  to  the  achievement  of  its 
objectives,  namely  the  achievement  of  a  well-functioning  internal  market  for  lifts  and  safety 
components and the improvement of safety of lifts, has been overall effective.  

The development and use of harmonised standards has been key to ensure the effectiveness of 
the Directive, especially providing SMEs which have rather limited resources  in comparison to 
the larger economic operators with an easier and cost-effective way to achieve compliance with 
the EHSRs. 

The conformity assessment procedures caused no major implementation problem and resulted 
to  be  one  of  the  main  strengths  of  the  Directive.  Unlike  a  number  of  other  New  Approach 
Directives, in the case of the Lifts Directive all of the conformity assessment modules used for 
the  conformity  assessment  of  lifts  require  the  involvement  of  a  NB.  This  particularity  has 
contributed to the low levels of non-compliance in the lifts sector.  

Regarding specifically the Directive’s contribution to objective of improving the  lift safety, the 
major difficulty to assess the performance of the Directive is due to the lack of official data on 
lift-related accidents across the Member States. In addition, the available data sourced mainly 
from  national  reports  and  provided  by  sectorial  associations  does  not  allow  to  quantify  the 
involving 
Directive’s  contribution.  Nevertheless,  the  available  data  regarding  accidents 

45 

 
maintenance  personnel  provides  some  indications  on  the  overall  trends.  This  data  has  been 
considered as particularly relevant for the assessment due to the fact that accidents involving 
maintenance  personnel  are  generally  better  reported  and  documented  and  they  trigger  a 
specific  follow-up.  In  the  light  of  the  above,  the  data  gathered  within  the  framework  of  the 
evaluation concerning the period between 2008 and 2015 indicates an average annual decrease 
of accidents involving maintenance personnel. This clearly indicates the positive contribution of 
the  Directive  regarding  this  specific  group.  Regarding  the  users  of  lifts,  the  evaluation  has 
concluded  that  the  impact  of  the  Directive  is  in  no  circumstances  adverse  and  the  Directive 
could even have brought a minor positive contribution to the improvement of the level of lift 
safety. 

Regarding  the  implementation  of  the  market  surveillance  provisions,  the  evaluation  has 
concluded  that  the  level  of  non-compliance  in  the  sector  is  very  low.  Nevertheless,  there  are 
discrepancies  between  the  Member  States  regarding  both  the  resources  allocated  to  market 
surveillance as well as the overall approach towards these activities (proactive or reactive). As 
market surveillance activities are entrusted to the Member States, the Commission will support 
further coordination between the MSAs especially within the framework of the ADCO Group.  

Regarding the efficiency of the Directive, the evaluation has concluded that there is no evidence 
that compliance costs due to the Directive have increased in comparison to the period prior to 
its  entry  into  force.  Based  on  the  available  qualitative  data,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the 
Directive  has  achieved  a  balance  of  the  costs  and  benefits  for  all  stakeholder  categories.  By 
replacing the different national regimes with a single harmonised EU-wide legal framework, the 
Directive reduced the associated administrative and compliance costs. However, these benefits 
seem not evenly spread, with larger companies benefiting more than SMEs from harmonisation 
due to their orientation to intra-EU export. 

Finally, the reduction of lift-related accidents involving maintenance personnel over the recent 
years  suggests  that  the  Directive  has  contributed  to  the  increase  of  lift  safety.  While  a  direct 
causal  link  with  the  Directive  cannot  be  proven  based  on  the  available  quantitative  data, 
stakeholders acknowledge the Directive’s contribution to the improvement of the level of safety 
of lifts. 

Lastly, the EU added value was acknowledged by all stakeholders. Intra-EU trade would not be 
as  easy  with  diverging  national  requirements  in  place.  The  Directive’s  added  value  to  the 
enhancement  of  the  free  movement  is  confirmed  by  the  increasing  relevance  of  intra-EU28 
trade  since  1995.  This  relates  to  the  positive  role  of  EHSRs,  which  not  only  created  better 
conditions  for  the  placing  of  lift-related  products  on  the  market,  but  also  allowed  the 
internationalisation  and  innovation  in  the  sector.  Despite  the  limited  data  available  regarding 
lift-related  accidents,  the  Directive’s  added  value  to  the  improvement  of  the  lift  safety  is 
confirmed  by  the  reduction  of  the  number  of  lift-related  accidents  concerning  maintenance 
personnel.  Finally,  the  evaluation  has  concluded  that  the  overall  cost  of  compliance  with  the 
Directive have been reduced.  

46 

 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1. 

LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

Lead  DG:  Directorate-General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  (DG 
GROW); Unit C3 Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Systems. 

Work planning reference: 2016/GROW/003 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The  Inter  Service  Steering  Group  consisted  of  SG,  DG  JUST  and  DG  GROW.  After  the  kick-off 
meeting  on  09.09.2015,  the  ISSG  met  on  14.01.2016,  17.03.2016,  15.09.2016,  14.12.2016, 
09.03.2017, 18.10.2017 and 16.03.2018. 

3. 

EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

Not applicable. 

4. 

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB (IF APPLICABLE) 

Not applicable. 

5. 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The  evaluation  study  was  outsourced  to  an  independent  consultant  applying  standardised 
methodology for external evaluations as defined in the Better Regulation framework. 

Literature,  open  on-line  sources  and  publicly  available  reports  and  studies  have  been  used. 
Other  important  sources  of  information  were  an  Public  Consultation  involving  overall  66 
stakeholders, four targeted surveys addressed to four categories of stakeholders (Member State 
authorities in charge of the implementation of the Directive, MSAs in charge of the enforcement 
of the Directive, Notified Bodies, lift installers and safety component manufacturers, including 
SMEs,  and  related  industry  associations)  involving  116  stakeholders  and  interviews  with  38 
stakeholders. Additionally, a Workshop held in the context of the LWG. 

Market  data  about  the lifts and safety components for lifts  sector is not  readily available and 
there  is  no  specific  matching  product  categories  in  statistical  databases  of  Eurostat  or  other 
sources.  Additionally,  lifts  are  products  which  are  placed  on  the  market  only  once  their 
installation  on-site  has  been  completed  implying  that  statistics  may  not  fully  catch  these 
products. 

General market information was collected from publicly available sources (e.g. annual reports of 
economic  operators)  and  from  the  European  and  national  industry  associations'  publications. 

47 

 
 
 
More  detailed  cost  related  information  was  collected  vie  specific  consultation  of  a  limited 
number of economic operators which agreed on to provide elementary data. 

The robustness of the consultations: 

-  During the preparatory phase, the external used existing studies and documents of the 
Lifts  Working  Group  and  the  Notified  Bodies  Lifts  to  prepare  the  next  steps  in  the 
evaluation  study.  The  work  resulted  in  preliminary  questionnaires  for  the  interviews, 
targeted and public consultation. It also provided an insight to the evolution of the legal 
framework  and  the  adaptation  to  the  technical  progress  and  innovation  of  the  Lifts 
Directive over the period covered by the evaluation. 

-  The Inter Service Steering Group monitored the development of the consultation both 
with regard the process and the analysis of the information collected by the contractor. 
The  ISSG  paid  particular  attention  to  the  independence  of  the  evaluation  team 
considering that information sources were limited and replies were potentially driven by 
commercial interests of the economic operators. 

-  The external consultant team carefully sought for technical expertise from wide range 
of  consultees  and  the  ISSG  in  analysing  the  few  more  technical  and/or  safety  related 
issues raised during the evaluation. This approach resulted in a balanced analysis of the 
replies and reduced the risk of errors and confusion in the interpretation of the results. 
-  The  Public  Consultation  was  announced  on  the  Europa  website  but  also  widely 
published via indirect channels to reach also SMEs and consumer associations to unlock 
the potential of stakeholders who initially did not engage to the evaluation process. 
-  Contributions  by  industry  appear  to  be  coherent  and  representative  for  the  sector. 
Through  the  Public  Consultation  and  targeted  surveys  but  in  particular  through  the 
Workshop  held  in  the  context  of  the  LWG  information  and  feedback  from  national 
authorities  could  be  collected  from  the  majority  of  the  Member  States.  The  online 
Public  Consultation  resulted  in  66  replies,  providing  also  the  view  of  users  and 
confirmed conclusions that could be drawn from the information already obtained from 
economic operators, Notified Bodies and national authorities. 

-  Triangulation  of  data  from  the  surveys,  the  interviews  and  the  Public  Consultation, 
allowed identifying divergences between the data collected through the different tools. 
The answers were largely covering and reinforcing conclusions drawn on the basis of the 
different stakeholder groups' feedback. 

-  Compliance costs appear to be limited, at least balanced with the benefits of having a 
European  level  harmonisation  legal  framework  in  place,  however  it  was  extremely 
difficult to obtain this kind of information as economic operators and Notified Bodies do 
not have a record of the break-down of costs for this purpose. Most of the investment, 
operation  and  maintenance  costs  are  inherent  to  the  manufacturing  and  installation 
processes  anyhow  and  the  specific  costs  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Directive 
appear to be very low. 

Whereas the number of replies and the level of coherence are sufficiently high, the qualitative 
assessment  can  be  considered  as  reliable.  However,  information  related  to  market  size  and 
compliance costs need to be interpreted with care and should be seen as indications of an order 
of magnitude rather than as precise estimates. 

48 

 
Given the significant  number  of lifts  in service  (approximately 5 700 000 units) and placed on 
the market annually (approximately 125 000 units), used in most cases on daily basis by tens of 
millions  users,  the  number  of  reported  accidents  is  extremely  low.  There  is  however  no 
systematic  collection  of  information  about  causes  of  accidents,  many  minor  incidents  are  not 
reported  by  users  and  available  accident  statistics  does  not  distinguish  between  incidents 
associated with lifts which were placed on the market under the Directive and older lifts. None 
of the reported cases reveal any shortcomings in the Directive itself. Whereas this situation is 
confirming the excellent safety record of lifts covered by the Directive, caution is needed on the 
interpretation of this finding and national authorities are encouraged to collect data related to 
accidents and problems they may identify with lifts and safety components for lifts. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2: Evaluation questions94 

22  evaluation  questions  (EQ)  have  guided  the  assessment  of  the  Directive.  They  refer  to  the 
analysis  of  the  European  lift  market,  and  to  five  evaluation  criteria:  relevance,  effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence, and EU added value. The evaluation criteria were understood to mean:  

  Relevance: whether the objectives of the Directive still correspond to current problems, 
needs  and  challenges.  In  particular,  the  study  assessed  to  what  extent  the  scope  and 
mechanisms  of  the  Directive  allowed  addressing  the  main  issues  arising  from  the  lift 
sector and in regard to lift safety. It also assesses whether the Directive follows up and 
adapts to technological, scientific and social developments (EQ from 2 to 5).  

  Effectiveness:  whether  and  to  what  extent  the  Directive’s  objectives  in  terms  of  lift 
safety and functioning of the internal market for lift and safety components have been 
achieved so far at both national and EU level (EQ from 6 to 15).  

  Efficiency:  whether  the  Directive  has  proportionally  delivered  its  results  in  terms  of 

costs and benefits (EQ from 16 to 18). 

  Coherence:  whether  the  Directive  is  consistent  with  other  EU  pieces  of  legislation 

relevant for lifts and whether it is internally coherent (EQ 19 and 20). 

  EU Added value: to what extent the results of the EU action are additional to those that 

would have resulted from action at Member State level (EQ 21 and 22).  

The following lists enumerates the evaluation questions that have been addressed in the study: 

The European lift market 

EQ 1.  How has the European lift market evolved since the adoption of the Directive? What is 

the current situation and trends in the lift market?  

Relevance 

EQ 2.  To what extent did the initial objective of facilitating the functioning of internal market 

correspond to needs/issues of all stakeholders and still do?  

EQ 3.  To  what  extent  did  the  initial  objective  of  ensuring  a  high  level  of  safety  of  lifts 

correspond to needs/issues of all stakeholders and still do? 

EQ 4.  How are innovation and new technologies taken into account? 
EQ 5. 
Effectiveness 

Is there an issue of clarity of the Directive? 

The implementation of the Directive 

EQ 6.  What  are  the  discrepancies  between  MS  in  the  process  of  the  implementation  of  the 

Lifts Directive?  

EQ 7.  Have there been problems with the implementation of the Directive? 
The effectiveness of the Directive in achieving its objectives 

94  For further details c.f. Section 8.3. of Final report of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study. 

50 

 
 
 
                                                           
EQ 8.  How effective was the development and use of the European harmonised standards for 

the Lifts Directive?  

EQ 9.  To  what  extent  has  the  conformity  assessment  procedure  for  lifts  and  safety 
components for lifts been effective and provided highest degree of health and safety for 
consumers and users? 

EQ 10.  How effective are Market Surveillance Authorities in identifying non-compliant lifts and 

safety components for lifts? 

EQ 11.  To  what  extent  has  the  Lifts  Directive  contributed  to  an  effectively  operating  internal 

market for the products in its scope? 

EQ 12.  To  what  extent  does  the  Directive  ensure  legal  certainty,  transparency  and  non-

discrimination between companies?  

EQ 13.  To what extent has the Lifts Directive achieved its aims with regard to the protection of 

health and safety of users and maintenance personnel? 

Enabling factors 

EQ 14.  What  are  the  barriers  to  effective  application  and  enforcement,  in  particular  through 

surveillance of lifts on the market?  

EQ 15.  What are the factors that influence positively and negatively the effective application of 

the Directive? 

Efficiency 

EQ 16.  What are the regulatory (including administrative) costs for the different stakeholders? 
EQ 17.  What  are  the  main  benefits  for  stakeholders  and  civil  society  that  derive  from  the 

Directive? 

EQ 18.  To  what  extent  are  the  regulatory  costs  proportionate  to  the  benefits  achieved?  How 
affordable are the costs for the stakeholders, given the benefits they receive? What does 
this represent in terms of administrative and reporting burdens? 

Coherence 

EQ 19.  Are there overlaps/complementarities between the Lifts Directive and any pieces of EU 
legislation  or  Member  State  legislation  in  the  relevant  areas  (in  particular  Cableways 
and  Machinery  Directives)?  To  what  extent  are  they  coherent?  Are  there  additional 
requirements  at  EU  and  national  level  with  regard  to  certain  products?  Are  there 
contradictions? 

EQ 20.  Are  the  requirements  for  installers  and  manufacturers  clear?  Are  there  overlapping 

rules? 

EU added value 

EQ 21.  What is the additional value resulting from the Lifts Directive, compared to what could 

be achieved at national level?  

EQ 22.  What is the added value of the Lifts Directive for stakeholders? 

51 

 
Annex 3: Research Methodology95 

The evaluation grids 

The approach to answering the evaluation questions has been defined in specific evaluation grids, 
presenting:  

  The judgment criteria used to specify the meaning of the evaluation question;  
  The  analytical  approach  used  in  order  to  answer  the  evaluation  question,  given  the  judgement 

criteria;  

  The indicators used to evaluate the achieved results as well as to identify potential shortcomings; 
  The  sources  of  information,  including  primary  sources  (i.e.  stakeholders),  and secondary  sources, 

i.e. existing documents, publications, reports. 

  All  evaluation  grids  are  presented  in  Annex  8.3.  to  Final  report  of  the  Evaluation  of  the  Lifts 

Directive Study. 

The research approach 

The approach to the analysis has been based on the understanding of the relation between the evaluation 
questions and the intervention logic of the Directive. Besides the reconstruction of the intervention logic, 
the tools and techniques adopted in the study and described in the following sections include:  

  Desk research;  
  Field research;  
  Case studies.  

Desk research 

The desk research included a comprehensive review of the existing documents and legislative texts at 
international, EU and national levels. Some examples are relevant literature on lift safety and sector, the 
policy context and the main issues related to the Directive’s implementation. 

Policy context, transposition and implementation 

Insights on the policy context have been gathered through previous studies and reports on the on-going 
work of the EC on harmonisation legislation, NB-L RfU, the requests for standardisation and the 
amendments to the Directive. These documents have been crucial to frame the legislative background, the 
Directive’s main provisions and working mechanisms and to identify the roles and responsibilities of 
stakeholders’ concerned by the Directive. Finally, for assessing the transposition and implementation of the 
Directive at Member State level, the national transposition laws of the 28 EU Member States have been 
analysed specifically focusing on: 

  The definition of the "installer of a lift"; 

95  This section is based on Section 4 of Final report of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study. 

52 

 
 
                                                           
  The provisions in the national building regulations in relation with the requirement of Article 2(2) of 
the Directive  in order to ensure  a two-way flow  of information between the  lift installer and the 
person responsible for work on the building or construction; 

  The  transposition  of  Article  8  of  the  Directive  included  any  restrictions  in  the  use  of  harmonised 

standards; 

  The  prior  approval  as  set  out  in  section  2.2  of  Annex  1  of  the  Directive  to  prevent  the  risk  of 

crushing; 

  The provisions for granting lift accessibility to disabled persons.  

The raw data of this analysis are presented in Annex 8.6. to the Final report of the Evaluation of the Lifts 
Directive Study. The national reports for market surveillance, drafted by MSAs pursuant to Article 18(6) of 
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, represented another information source to understand the policy context of 
the Directive.  

Market data analysis  

Products falling in scope of the Directive include lifts intended for the transport of persons, persons and 
goods, goods alone if the carrier is accessible, and their safety components (as listed in Annex IV). After-
sales services (e.g. maintenance) are not in scope of the Directive.  

The market analysis looked at the following indicators:  

  Units and value of lifts and safety components sold (production);  
  Overall value and volume of intra/extra EU imports/exports of lifts and safety components; 
  Competitiveness; 
  Turnover; 
  Number of patents;  
  Number and size of enterprises (i.e. safety component manufactures, lift installers); 
  Number of employees.  

A number of sources have been analysed to look for the above-mentioned indicators. The table below 
summarises the results of this analysis, showing which indicators have been identified, in which sources 
and referred to which products. Unfortunately, in many cases the available data do not fully match with the 
products in scope of the Directive. Where possible, indicators related only to the products in scope of the 
Directive have been estimated by integrating official and non-official sources. 

.

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1 – Methodology for each indicator 

Indicator 

Source 

Coverage 

Issues 

Action 

Estimate 

Units and value of 
lifts and 
components sold 
(production) 

ELA reports 
(2013, 2015, 
2017) 

Products: Lifts and safety 
components 

Territory:  EU28  with 
the 
exception  of  BG,  CY,  EE,  HR, 
IE, LV, MT, SK + CH, NO, TR 

Fully matching with the 
scope  of  the  Directive, 
though  likely  to  under-
represent SMEs. 

Where available, these data were used to provide a breakdown at MS level and to calculate 
the ratio of the number of accidents/number of installed lifts for MS.  

None 

The under-representation of SMEs is not deemed to hinder the estimate of production sold, 
as they play a minor role in lift production. 

In some cases, these data were used to triangulate data provided by official sources. 

Timeframe:  

2010-2015 

Eurostat 
Prodcom

96 

Products: Lifts: NACE Rev. 2 
code 28221630 and 28221650  

(A) Data at MS level are 
very fragmented. 

Safety components: NACE 
Rev. 2 code 28221950 

Territory: EU28 and EEA  

Timeframe:  

1995-2015 

Products: Lifts: SITC Rev. 3 
code 74481 

Safety components: SITC Rev. 
3 code 74493 

(B) NACE codes for lifts 
include skip hoists.

97 

(C) NACE codes for lifts 
include  lifts  that  might 
fall 
the 
under 
Machinery 
Directive 
(e.g.  due  to  different 
speeds).

98

(D)  The  NACE  code  for 
safety 
components 
refers also to escalators 
that are not in scope of 
the Directive.  

Territory: EU28 and EEA  

(E) The number of new 

Intra- and extra-
EU28 trade 
(import and 
export) in volume 
and value  

Eurostat 
International 
Trade102  
And UN 
Comtrade 

(A) Data have been used only at aggregate level (EU). 

(B)  The  inclusion  rather  than  the  exclusion  of  skip  hoists  in  scope  of  the  Directive  is  not 
straightforward. Nonetheless, skip hoist production value  -whether  in scope or not of  the 
Directive-  over  total  EU  production  of  lifts  and  skip  hoists  is  estimated  to  not  exceed 
10%,99 meaning that those outside the scope of the Directive are even fewer. This estimate 
is confirmed by data provided by the German statistical office.100 As a result, the indicator 
has been used as it is. 

(C)  The  percentage  of  lifts  that  may  fall  under  the  Machinery  Directive  (MD)  has  been 
estimated as residual, considering that most products in its scope are “captured” by NACE 
Rev. 2 code 2822. As a result, the indicator has been used as it is. 

(D)  We  estimate  that  only  92%  of  the  NACE  code  for  safety  components  fall  within  the 
scope of the Directive, being the remaining 8% related to escalator.  

(E) The number of new lifts installed has been estimated based on Prodcom data, by adding 
to lifts produced in the EU the net import/export balance. The units of imported/exported 
lifts (not provided by Prodcom) has been estimated by dividing the import/export values by 
the  (estimated)  unitary  lift  cost  (total  production  value/total  production  quantity).  The 

Value of lifts sold = no 
calculation necessary 

value  of 

Value  of  lift  components 
sold  = 
lift 
components 
including 
escalator 
components*0.92 

Units of new lifts installed 
= units of lifts sold + units 
of lifts imported – units of 
lifts exported 

Import/export of lifts = no 
calculation necessary  

Import/export 
components 
import/export 

of 

of 

lift 
= 
lift 

96   Eurostat PRODCOM provides the value and volumes of sold production. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/EN/prom_esms.htm  
97   A skip hoist is a bucket or car operating up and down a defined path, receiving, elevating, and discharging bulk materials. 
98   The Directive does not apply to lifting appliances whose speed is not greater than 0,15 m/s. (Art. 1(3)). 
99   Feedback from  four industry  representatives: an EU representative of SMEs, an Italian industry association, an expert of the sector and a representative from CEN TC10. 

Overall, 24 stakeholders were contacted but only these replied. 

100  Based  on  the  authors’  estimates,  the  production  value  of  skip  hoists  in  Germany  was  equal  to  11%,  10%  and  10%  in  2013,  2014  and  2015  respectively  over  total  EU 
production of lifts, skip hoists and components. Similar data have been requested also to statistical offices of other major producing countries (i.e. ES, FR, IT), but this level of 
disaggregation  was  not  available.  Similarly,  more  disaggregated  data  were  requested  to  Eurostat  (to  account  for  the  value  of  skip  hoists  only),  but  this  level  of  detail  for 
NACE codes was not available. 

54 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                           
Indicator 

Source 

Database 

Coverage 

Timeframe:  

2002-2015 

Issues 

Action 

lifts  installed  needs  to 
be estimated. 

underlining assumption is that lifts are imported/exported at the price they are produced.  

Although these  figures are  not  fully  comparable  with those  provided by  ELA,
  for  some 
years  there  is  a  good  correspondence  between  Prodcom  and  ELA  data,  the  latter  being 
equal to 82% of the former in 2010, to 74% in 2012, to 84% in 2013. 

101

Competitive-ness   None 

None 

Needs to be estimated 

Estimated based on UN Comtrade Database. 

Turnover  

Eurostat 
Structural 
Business 
Statistics 
103 
(SBS)

Products: Lifting and handling 
equipment: NACE Rev. 2 code 
2822  

Territory: EU28 + NO and TR  

Timeframe:  

2008-2014 

Lifting 
includes  also 
lifting  machineries  that 
do  not  fall  in  scope  of 
the Directive. 

equipment 
Handling 
are  not  in  scope  of  the 
Directive. 

To  isolate  the  turnover  related  to  the  products  in  scope  of  the  Directive,  data  from  both 
ELA and the annual reports of the four largest market players have been considered. 
1)  Data from ELA provided the value of new lifts sold and of modernisation in Europe, 
per year, between 2010 and 2015. Knowing that maintenance accounted for around 
 this percentage was used to 
50% of total turnover in the sector in 2011 and 2013,
calculate  the  overall  turnover  in  the  lift  sector.  The  resulting  value  was  then 
compared to the turnover of the lifting and handling equipment sector based on SBS 
data,  to  get  the  share  over  the  total  turnover  including  lifting  and  handling 
equipment. This share was equal to 15% on average between 2010 and 2014.105  
2)  Data  from  the  annual  reports  provided  the  turnover  of  the  four  largest  market 
players  in  the  sector.  Based  on  the  market  analysis  performed  by  Credit  Swiss,106 
their turnover accounts for 55% of total EU turnover. We assumed that their market 
share is still 55% in the other regions their reports refer to, i.e. EMEA and Europe 38 
countries.  This  percentage  has  been  used  to  calculate  the  total  turnover  in  the  lift 

104

Estimate 

including 

components 
escalator 
components*0.92 

Export shares 

Turnover  of  products  in 
scope  of  the  Directive  = 
Turnover in the lifting and 
handling 
equipment 
sector,  related  to  both 
production  and  services  * 
0.22 * 0.40 

102  Prodcom does not provide details on trade partner countries as does Eurostat International Trade database. 

101   The reason could be that the definition of “new lift” changes from one database to the other. Moreover, geographical coverage is different.  
103  “Turnover”  includes  all  duties  and  taxes  on  the  goods  or  services  invoiced  by  the  unit  with  the  exception  of  the  VAT  invoiced  vis-à-vis  its  customer  and  other  similar 
deductible taxes directly linked to turnover. It also includes all other charges (transport, packaging, etc.) passed on to the customer, even if these charges are listed separately 
in the invoice. Reduction in prices, rebates and discounts as well as the value of returned packing must be deducted. Income  classified as other operating income, financial 
income and extra-ordinary income in company accounts is excluded from turnover. Operating subsidies received from public authorities or the institutions of the EU are also 
excluded. Source for definitions: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/setupMetadata.do (document named Help for Indicators).  
Production value provided by SBS cannot be compared to the value of sold production provided by Prodcom, as production value  is calculated differently from one database 
to the other. Production value in SBS is defined as turnover, plus or minus the changes in stocks of finished products, work in progress and goods and services purchased for 
resale, minus the purchases of goods and services for resale, plus capitalised production, plus other operating income (excluding subsidies). Income and expenditure classified 
as financial or extra-ordinary in company accounts is excluded from production value. Included in purchases of goods and services for resale are the purchases of services 
purchased in order to be rendered to third parties in the same condition. Production value in Prodcom is valued at the selling price net of turnover tax and discounts granted to 
customers. Packaging costs are included even if charged separately. Freight costs are not included.  As a consequence, turnover from SBS is not related to production value 
from Prodcom. 

104  According to Credit Suisse (2012 and 2014), Elevators and Escalators. 
105  The definition of turnover provided by Eurostat (see footnote 103) includes values that are excluded from ELA data. Moreover, since ELA mainly represents large enterprises, 

this share could be an underestimation of the value of turnover in the lift sector. 

106  According to Credit Suisse (2015) and EFESME (2014). 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Indicator 

Source 

Coverage 

Issues 

Action 

Estimate 

sector between 2010 and 2014. The resulting value was then compared to turnover 
of the lifting and handling equipment sector based on SBS data. This share was equal 
to 30% on average between 2010 and 2014.

107

Then, the average resulting  from estimates 1) and 2) above was calculated for each year, 
and applied to data related to the total lifting and handling equipment sector provided by 
SBS  (22%  on  average).  Resulting  estimates  have  been  cross-checked  with  some  external 
sources.  Based  on  our  estimates,  the  total  turnover  in  the  lift  sector  was  equal  to  €12 
billion in 2012. Based on EFESME (2012), the same variable was equal to €10 billion in the 
same year. Similarly, according to Elevatori (2015)108 the turnover in the Italian lift sector 
2014 was equal  to  €2.1  billion,  while  according  to  our  estimates it  was €1.8  billion in the 
same year.  

Result: the turnover in the lift sector (including turnover from both production and services, 
indicator  1)  is equal  to  around  22%  of  the  turnover  of  the  lifting  and  handling  equipment 
sector. 

We calculated the value of turnover related to the sale of products in scope of the Directive 
applying the parameter of 40%109 to the above-calculated indicator 1. 

These data were used to triangulate data provided by official sources. 

None 

services 

Turnover  includes  also 
from  after-
revenues 
(i.e. 
sales 
modernisation 
and 
maintenance)  that  do 
not  fall  in  scope  of  the 
Directive. 

Both  the  product  and 
geographical  coverages 
are  outside  the  scope 
of 
Directive. 
Moreover,  these  data 
do not cover SMEs. 

the 

Annual reports of 
Kone, Otis, 
Schindler, 
Thyssen Krupp  

Products: Lifts, escalators, 
auto-walks, automatic doors 
and integrated access control 
systems 

Territory: Europe, Middle-East 
and  Africa,  and  “Europe  38 
countries”110 

Timeframe:  

2008-2015 

Number of 
patents  

European Patent 
Office (EPO)  

Products: Lifting and handling 
equipment: NACE Rev. 2 code 
2822 

Territory: World  

The number of patents 
refer to the NACE code 
related to lifting and 
handling equipment, 
including products that 

Turnover  and  R&D  expenses  in  the  lifting  and  handling  equipment  sector  are  correlated. 
Based on Amadeus’ data, this correlation is equal to 0.77 (R2=0.6) in both 2013 and 2014. 
We  assumed  that  the  correlation  between  expenses  in  R&D  (and  related  patents)  and 
turnover is the same in the lift sector as in the lifting and handling equipment sector.  

As  explained  above,  we  estimated  turnover  related  only  to  sales  of  new  lifts  and 

of 

patents 
Number 
related  to  products 
in 
scope  of  the  Directive  = 
Number  of  patents  in  the 
handling 
lifting 

and 

107  Given that the geographical coverage of reference is wider than the EU28 and that figures for turnover do not related only to lifts, this share could be an overestimation of the 

value of turnover in the lift sector. 

108  Elevatori (2015), The great beauty: the Italian lift industry, Interlift 2015. 
109  CreditSuisse (2012, 2014, 2015), EFESME (2014), interview with an EU SME representative, with an Italian industry association, with a large installer.  
110  Including, a part from the 28 EU MS, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey. 

56 

 
 
                                                           
Indicator 

Source 

Coverage 

Issues 

Action 

Estimate 

Timeframe:  

1990-2014 

are not in scope of the 
Directive. 

components in the EU, which is equal to around 9% (i.e. 22%*40%) of total turnover in the 
lifting and handling equipment sector.  

equipment sector * 0.22 * 
0.40 

As a result, the number of patents related to products in scope of the Directive has been 
calculated by applying the parameter of 9% to the number of patents in the lifting and 
handling equipment sector provided by EPO. 

Number of 
enterprises 

Eurostat 
Structural 
Business 
Statistics (SBS) 

Products: Lifting and handling 
equipment: NACE Rev. 2 code 
2822  

Territory: EU28 + NO and TR  

Timeframe:  

2008-2014 

Size of 
enterprises falling 
within the scope 
of the Directive 

Amadeus 
Database 
(Bureau van Dijk) 

Products: Lifting and handling 
equipment: NACE Rev. 2 code 
2822 

Territory: EU28 + NO and TR  

Timeframe:  

2005-2014 

Lifts and safety components 

Number of 
employees 

ELA reports 
(2013, 2015, 
2017) 

includes  also 
Lifting 
lifting  machineries  that 
do  not  fall  in  scope  of 
the Directive; 

Handling equipment 
are not in scope of the 
Directive; 

Number of enterprises 
include also those 
enterprises active only 
in the after-sales 
services that do not fall 
into the scope of the 
Directive. 

Amadeus database 
provides micro-level 
data for the sector of 
lifting and handling 
equipment. 

Although related only 
to the lift sector, these 
data include also 
employees and 
enterprises active only 
in the after-sales 
market (i.e. not 

The number of active enterprises falling within the scope of Directive has been estimated at 
being  at  the  maximum  between  21%  and  25%  of  the  corresponding  SBS  data  (i.e.,  22% 
average).
that  also  include 
enterprises active only in the after-sales services (i.e., outside the scope of Directive).  

  This  proxy  is  based  on  data  for  Germany

and  Italy

112 

113 

111

Being impossible to disaggregate further, this data will be considered as purely indicative.  

Number of enterprises in 
the lift sector (i.e. 
including both 
manufacture/ installation 
and after-sales services) = 
Number of enterprises in 
the lifting and handling 
equipment sector * 0.22 

We  calculated  the  shares  of  micro,  small,  medium  and  large  enterprises  in  the  sector  of 
lifting and handling equipment for the available years and applied them to official data on 
the number of enterprises provided by SBS. 

As  a  result,  we  obtained  the  distribution  of  firms  per  size  in  the  sector  of  lifting  and 
handling equipment, assuming it is similar to that of the lift sector.  

Count  of  firms  according 
to  size  to  obtain  their 
relative  share  over  total 
in  the  sector  of 
firms 
lifting 
handling 
equipment.  

and 

Data  provided  by  ELA  specifically  relate  to  the  lift  sector.  These  data  include  employees 
involved in both production/installation and the provision of after-sale services (the latter 
not being covered by the Directive). However, considering that: 
1) 

ELA data are likely to exclude micro and small firms  –and related employees- active 
only in the after-sales market; 

None 

2) 

For most firms, employees involved in installation are likely to be also involved in the 

111  It was not possible to apply the same share as for turnover since the underlining assumption would have been that the turnover per firm in the lift sector is distributed equally 

as in the lifting and handling equipment sector, which is likely not to be the case. 

112  According to estimates based on data provided by the German statistical office, the number of firms in the lift sector in Germany in 2014 was equal to around 188, i.e. equal to 

around 21% of the firms active in the lifting and handling equipment sector in the country in the same year, according to SBS. 

113  The number of firms in the Italian lift sector is equal to 400, i.e. equal to around 25% of the firms active in the lifting and handling equipment sector in the country in the same 

year according to SBS. Source: ANACAM (the Italian lift industry association) http://www.anacam.it/anacam/chi-siamo 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Indicator 

Source 

Coverage 

Issues 

Action 

Estimate 

covered by the 
Directive). Moreover, 
these data are likely to 
refer to large 
enterprises only, as 
they are represented 
by ELA. 

provision of service;  

ELA  data  are  considered  sufficiently  reliable.  Moreover,  they  are  coherent  with  data 
retrieved  from  the  annual  reports  of  the  major  producers,  considering  that  they  employ 
40% of total workforce in the sector.

114

As a result, the indicator has been used as it is and was preferred to the indicator from SBS. 

When presenting data from ELA disaggregated per firm size, we assumed that the 
distribution of employees across different firms in the lift sector is the same as that of the 
lifting and handling equipment sector. 

These data were used to triangulate data provided by official sources. 

None 

Annual reports of 
Kone, Otis, 
Schindler, 
Thyssen Krupp 
(from 2008 to 
2015) 

Products: Lifts, escalators, 
auto-walks, automatic doors 
and integrated access control 
systems 

Both the product and 
geographical coverages 
are outside the scope 
of the Directive. 

Territory: Europe, Middle-East 
and  Africa,  and  “Europe  38 
countries”.  

Timeframe:  

2008-2015 

114  Based on authors’ estimates on Amadeus data applied to SBS. 

58 

 
 
                                                           
Lift-related accidents 

As for accidents related to lifts, in light of the lack of data from official sources, the evaluation 
mainly relied on data provided by ELA, in combination with information from national studies, 
national reports on market surveillance specifically conducted in the lift sector115 and reported 
in the targeted surveys. Similarly to data for the market analysis, accident data are limited (see 
below section 0), hindering a thorough evaluation of the Directive’s  effectiveness in improving 
lift safety.  

Cost-benefit analysis 

Table 20 in Annex 8.8. to the Final report of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study maps the 
obligations  deriving  from  the  Directive  for  each  stakeholder  impacted.  The  identification  and 
assessment of the costs and benefits introduced by the Directive could not rely on a previous 
impact assessment, and has therefore been based on a comparison with the previously existing 
directive regulating lifts (i.e. Directive 84/528/EEC). The matching allowed for the identification 
of  new  requirements  and  simplifications  that  caused  new  costs  or  the  ceasing  of  others  (see 
Table 21 in Annex 8.8. to the Final report of the Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study).  

Data  on  cost/benefits  has  been  collected  through  surveys  and  interviews  to  the  different 
categories of stakeholders.  

Field research 

The field research consisted of a combined mix of tools:  

  A Public Consultation launched by the Commission in early June 2016 and concluded in 
January  2017, involving overall 66 stakeholders. The  results  of the  Public Consultation 
have  been  considered  as  evidence  to  be  triangulated  with  information  gathered 
through the other research tools;  

  Four  targeted  surveys  addressed  to  four  categories  of  stakeholders  (Member  State 
authorities  in  charge  of  the  implementation  of  the  Directive,  MSAs  in  charge  of  the 
enforcement of the Directive, NBs, lift installers and safety component manufacturers, 
including SMEs, and related industry associations). Overall, it involved 116 stakeholders. 
The  targeted  surveys  included  both  closed  and  open  questions  complementing  the 
questions of the Public Consultation;  
Interviews to 38 stakeholders. Interviewees were selected on the basis of their specific 
knowledge  of  or  experience  with  the  Directive,  particularly  for  the  case  studies.  They 

 

115  European  Commission;  Report  on  the  Member  States  reviews  and  assessment  of  the  functioning  of 
market surveillance activities for the 2010-2013 period pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 
765/2008.http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/building-blocks/market-surveillance/organisation_en   

59 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
were  also  selected  to  ensure  a  balanced  geographical  coverage  and  a  balanced 
representation of all stakeholder categories; 116 

  A  Workshop  held  in  the  context  of  the  LWG.  The  workshop  served  to  discuss  the 
preliminary  results  of  the  study  with  representatives  of  the  Commission,  of  Member 
States and observers from the industry, standardisation bodies and NBs. The workshop 
has  been  a  valuable  tool  to  collect  further  evidence  and  validate  the  results  with 
relevant stakeholders.  

Altogether, through the different tools used, more than 220 stakeholders were consulted, with 
a  wide  geographical  coverage.  Bulgaria  and  Croatia  are  the  only  countries  for  which  no 
stakeholder was willing to participate.  

Please  refer  to  Annex  0 of  the  Final  report  of  the  Evaluation of  the  Lifts  Directive  Study  for  a 
detailed overview of stakeholder consultation.  

Case studies 

Five thematic case studies have been drafted, with the objectives of: 

  Ensuring a higher  level of detail, not  feasible  with reference  to all the Member States 
and all the aspects of the implementation of the Directive (e.g. its effectiveness in terms 
of  safety,  the  costs  for  economic  operators,  the  use  and  benefits  of  harmonised 
standards).  Therefore,  case  studies  have  been  used  to  produce  useful  insights  and 
specific evidence, that helped to better understand the overall situation in the EU and 
the results achieved with the Directive in specific areas of action;  
Illustrating in practical terms the implication and impacts of specific situations;  

 
  Understanding the causal links between the intervention and the achievements/results/ 

impacts;  
Identifying successful practices and approaches.  

 

In line with the issues highlighted in the evaluation questions and emerging from the targeted 
surveys, the case studies focused on the following topics: 

  Access to lifts for disabled persons: national policies and regulations on the matter (case 

study 1);  
“Prior approval”: implementation issues and possible solutions (case study 2);  

 
  Technological  trends  in  the  lift  industry  since  1999:  are  EHSRs  and  European 
harmonised standards appropriate, flexible and effective to support the implementation 
of the Lifts Directive? (case study 3); 

  Market  surveillance  of  lifts:  a  comparison  between  Italy,  the  Netherlands, Poland  and 

Spain (case study 4);  

  Analysis of costs and benefits induced by the Directive on SMEs (case study 5).  

Case studies have been based on both desk and field research – with a total of 20 stakeholders 
being interviewed. Please refer to Annex 8.7. to the Final report of the  Evaluation of the Lifts 
Directive Study for the case studies. 

60 

 
                                                           
 
Limitations and mitigation measures 

Overview  

The following table  presents  the mitigation measure undertaken for each limitation described 
below. The following sections provide details. 

Table 2 –Limitations and mitigation measures 

Limitation 

Mitigation measure 

Lack  of  assessment  of  the 
the 
effectiveness 
the 
Directive 
baseline  

of 
against 

Whenever possible, the report highlights information reported by 
stakeholders referring to the situation previous to the entry into 
force of the Directive 

Lack  of  data  on  market 
lift 
surveillance 
sector 

the 

in 

A number of questions were foreseen in the targeted surveys to 
fill in these gaps. The answers to these questions proved to be not 
entirely 
the 
effectiveness of market surveillance was based on available data 
collected through desk research. 

the  assessment  of 

informative, 

therefore 

Lack/incompleteness 
market data  

of 

A specific methodology, to gather estimates to disaggregate data, 
has  been  developed,  also  through  additional  stakeholder 
consultation  

Lack  of  official  data  on  lift 
accidents at EU level 

Additional reports/literature have  been investigated to fill-in the 
gaps  at  least  for  the  main  MS.  Most  of  the  analysis  is  based  on 
data requested to ELA  

rate 

response 

to 
Low 
targeted  survey  questions 
collecting data for the CBA 

interviews  were  scheduled  to 

fill-in  these  gaps. 
Specific 
Moreover, the CBA in section 6.3 presents the estimates resulting 
from  this  exercise  trying  to  avoid  generalisations  due  to  small 
sample on which calculations are based. 

Unbalanced  representation 
of some stakeholders/MS 

General  interviews  aimed  at  involving  the  least  represented 
categories/ MS 

Desk research limitations 

Policy context, transposition and implementation data limitations 

To  properly  assess  the  Directive,  the  definition  of  a  baseline  scenario  would  have  been  ideal. 
However,  the  reconstruction  of  the  baseline  scenario  was  not  possible  in  the  context  of  this 
study. This was due firstly to the lack of an impact assessment for the Directive at the time of its 
adoption  –  which  should  provide  a  “picture”  of  the  baseline.117  Secondly,  the  collection  of 
information  dating  back  to  more  than  20  years  ago  (as  the  Directive  was  adopted  in  1995) 
would have proved cost-ineffective. 

117  Inasmuch  as  an  Impact  Assessment  “verifies  the  existence  of  a  problem,  identifies  its  underlying 

causes”. EC (2015), Better Regulation Guidelines, p.16. 

61 

 
 
                                                           
 
To partly address this limitation, whenever possible, the report highlights information reported 
by stakeholders referring to the situation previous to the entry into force of the Directive. 

Moreover,  the  evaluation  of  the  effectiveness  of  market  surveillance  in  the  lift  sector  was 
hampered  by  a  serious  lack  of  data  in  the  national  reports  on  market  surveillance  activities. 
More  specifically,  a  number  of  indicators118  could  not  be  obtained.  As  a  consequence,  a 
number of questions of the targeted survey were foreseen to fill in these gaps. The answers to 
these  questions  however  proved  to  be  not  entirely  informative,  therefore  a  thorough 
assessment of the effectiveness of market surveillance could not be achieved. 

Market data analysis limitations 

The limitations encountered in gathering market data related to:  

Incomplete data for the years before 2000;  

 
  The NACE codes used for the analysis include products that are outside the scope of the 
Directive  (i.e.  some  lifts  and  skip  hoists  that  are  subject  to  the  Machinery  Directive), 
thus limiting a precise estimate of the lift market;  

  Available data do not allow distinction between safety components manufacturers and 

lift installers, thus again hindering an accurate assessment of the lift market; 

  For the same reason, available data do not provide the number of new lift installers and 
safety components manufacturers entering the market since 1999. Furthermore, data at 
national level are highly fragmented; 

  Finally,  as  part  of  the  Union  harmonisation  legislation,  the  Directive  does  not  cover 
after-sales  services  (i.e.  maintenance  and  modernisation  of  lifts).  However,  these 
constitute an integral and relevant part of the lift sector, particularly in Europe. Due to 
data  aggregation,  it  was  not  possible  to  distinguish  the  number  of  firms  active  in  the 
production  and  installation  from  those  performing  modernisation  and  maintenance 
only, and therefore not impacted by the Directive but by the national legislation.  

As  a  result  of  the  limitations  encountered,  a  specific  methodology  to  the  market  analysis  has 
been  developed,  as  described  in  section  4.2.1.  The  limitations  described  partly  hindered  the 
assessment of the impacts of the Directive on the internal market, though some trends can still 
be identified. 

Lift-related accident data limitation  

The constraints in accident data are related to several factors, such as:  

118 

i.e.  the  number  of  safety  components  for  lifts  recalled  from  the  market,  per  MS,  per  EU/non-EU 
product; the number of inspections carried out by MSA as reported in the national reports; % of non-
compliant  lifts  or  safety  components  for  lifts  recalled  from  the  market  per  MS,  per  EU/non-EU 
product; comparison to key trading partners; time necessary to take a safety component off the market, 
if it is taken in whole EU at the same time; % of non-compliant lifts and safety components for lifts in 
all  production  placed  on  the  market  and  put  into  service,  per  MS;  %  of  controls  that  resulted  in 
identification of non-conformity of lift or safety component; % of controls that resulted in prohibiting 
lifts and safety components for lifts to put on the market or put into service, per MS, per product; % of 
inspections by MSAs, where the conclusions are different from the results provided by the conformity 
assessment procedures (particular of final inspection or unit verification). 

62 

 
 
                                                           
  The  absence  of  an  official  centralised  reporting  system  on  accidents  and  of  common 

classifications on the seriousness of the injury;  

  The  lack  of  details  on  the  causes  of  accidents  (e.g.  whether  accidents  are  due  to 
drawbacks in the Directive’s EHSRs, lack of maintenance or to lift misuse), and tendency 
not to report minor accidents;119   

  The  lack  of  a  sufficiently  wide  timeframe  (i.e.  from  1995  to  2015)  for  both  registered 

accidents and the number of lifts into service per Member State; 

  Statistics never distinguishing between accidents involving lifts subject to the Directive 

and “existing lifts” (i.e. lifts installed before the entry into force of the Directive);  
Incomplete official accident data in national reports on market surveillance for lifts. 

 

As a consequence, additional reports and literature have been consulted to gather data on lift 
accidents  at  least  for  the  leading  countries  (e.g.  DE,  ES,  FR,  IT),  but  for  the  abovementioned 
reasons, they are hardly comparable. Moreover, specific requests for data were sent to ELA. It is 
to  be  noted  that  ELA  mainly  represents  the  big  market  players  and  that  the  methodology  to 
collect  these  data  was  not  provided.  However,  when  national  industry  associations  were 
contacted to triangulate such data, they always referred to data collected by ELA.  

The  lack  of  accident  statistics  has  in  part  hindered  the  evaluation  of  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Directive in terms of increased lift safety, although some trends may still be observable. 

Cost-benefit analysis limitations 

The analysis incurred some limitations that did not allow for a comprehensive assessment of all 
the costs and benefits entailed by Directive 95/16/EC. To collect the largest possible amount of 
quantitative data from MSAs, NBs and economic operators, questions on the costs and benefits 
entailed by the Directive were included in the surveys and in the Public Consultation. However, 
only  a  small  number  of  respondents  could  provide  the  requested  data  or  were  willing  to, 
possibly  for  confidentiality  reasons  (i.e.  none  of  the  respondents  could  or  would  provide  an 
overall number of performed EC type-examinations). In addition, respondents could not provide 
exact  figures  but  rather  average  estimates  of  most  of  the  costs  that  they  incurred  when  the 
Directive came into force.  

Regarding  the  development  of  a  baseline  to compare  costs  and  benefits  before  and  after  the 
implementation of the Directive, as previously discussed, data are not available.  

The major benefit of the Directive for consumers and maintenance personnel is a higher safety 
level of lifts. However, data on the period before the implementation of the Directive are not 
available, thus a more in-depth analysis of the effects on lift safety could not be performed. 

These  limitations  made  it  difficult  to  calculate  the  overall  costs  and  benefits  entailed  by  the 
Directive.  Whenever  possible,  costs  and  benefits  are  reported  in  quantitative  terms  and  with 
respect to the whole EU market. In other cases, costs are only available in unitary terms for a 
single  company,  but  could  not  be  extended  to  the  whole  market.  Finally,  some  other 
costs/benefits were not quantifiable and were described only in qualitative terms. 

119  ELA (2012). The Importance of Accident Statistics. 

63 

 
                                                           
Field research limitations 

The  field research  has  been  extensive  and  largely outdid  the expected targets (as  reported  in 
Annex 0 on stakeholder consultation). Moreover, stakeholders were, for the large majority, very 
keen on providing their input to the evaluation.  

Nonetheless,  some  issues  are  worth  mentioning.  As  for  the  targeted  surveys,  it  resulted  that 
information requested was very detailed and respondents expressed the need for an extension 
of the deadline in order to provide more complete information. This implied a rescheduling of 
activities (e.g. interviews) that were specifically aimed at investigating issues emerged from the 
targeted  surveys.  Furthermore,  as  already  mentioned,  quantitative  questions  aimed  at 
collecting data for the CBA received very low rates of response. In addition, some categories of 
stakeholders (i.e. large enterprises)120were particularly represented, to the detriment of other 
categories (i.e. SMEs). The same consideration regards the geographical representation, with a 
particularly high involvement of German stakeholders.121  

When  referring  to  the  evidence  provided  by  the  targeted  surveys  or  Public  Consultation  in 
Chapter  6,  percentages  are  calculated  on  the  actual  number  of  answers  received  per  each 
question, thus excluding:  

  Answers that did not provide any information, i.e. the “I do not know” selections; 
 

“Not applicable” answers, i.e. those questions that were not asked to some respondents 
as it was outside their area of competence; 
“No answer received”, i.e. when the respondent decided to skip the question. 

 

In practice, reported percentages often have a different calculation basis, and the base might be 
less than 116 (the total number of respondents to the targeted surveys) and less than 66 (the 
total number of respondents to the Public Consultation).  

As  for  the  interviews,  a  general  lack  of  Public  Authorities’  willingness  to  participate  was 
detected.

120  85% (28 out of 33) of total enterprises responding to the targeted survey are large enterprises. 
121  19% (22 out of 116) of total respondents are German. 

64 

 
 
                                                           
Annex 4: Synopsis report Stakeholder consultation  

1. Introduction 

The overall process of stakeholder consultation for the evaluation of the Directive began in early 
June  2016  and  continued  up  to  January  2017.  The  consultation  collected  inputs  from  a  wide 
range of stakeholders through different tools, namely: 

  A Public Consultation launched and managed by the EC; 
  Four  targeted  consultations  based  on  online  surveys  addressed  to  MS  implementing 

authorities, MSAs, NBs, economic operators; 

  Targeted interviews; 
  A workshop presenting the first findings to the LWG. 

The  Public  Consultation  and  the  four  targeted  consultations  were  conducted  ahead  of  the 
interviews,  as  the  latter  were  aimed  at  complementing  and  triangulating  the  information 
collected and clarifying issues emerged. The workshop held in the context of the LWG served to 
collect  further  evidence  and  validate  the  results  with  the  Member  States  and  the  relevant 
stakeholders. 

2. Scope of the consultation activities and stakeholder groups covered 

Regarding  the  geographical  coverage  of  the  stakeholder  consultation,  all  EU  Member  States, 
together  with  Norway,  Switzerland  and  Turkey,  were  involved  in  the  consultation,  except  for 
Croatia and Bulgaria (figure below). 

Figure 1 - EU coverage and number of stakeholders involved per Member States122 

Source: Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report 

122  In addition to those presented in the map, 17 EU level organisations were involved in the study. 

65 

5256193919301324423372822321088134 
 
 
                                                           
1.1. 

Public Consultation 

The Public Consultation was launched on 22 September and closed on 16 December 2016.123  It 
consisted of an online questionnaire available in six official languages: English, French, German, 
Italian,  Spanish  and  Polish.  It  ran  on  the  Commission’s  infrastructure  (EU  Survey)  and  was 
addressed to all EU citizens. The survey was designed to gather feedback on:  

  The evaluation criteria, in particular the relevance, effectiveness and added value of the 

Directive;  

  Newly developed technologies and their impact on the lift industry and safety;  
  The current state of the art of the accessibility to lifts granted to people with disabilities 

(either permanent or temporary);  

  The clarity and exhaustiveness of the definitions and rules provided in the Directive. 

61  questionnaires  were  received  from  stakeholders  who  reported  having  some  knowledge  of 
the Directive and of the lift sector, namely: 

  8 Public Authorities (AT, CZ, 3 DE, FI, PL, UK); 
  6 NBs (ES, CZ, FR, 2 IT, TR); 
  1 Standardisation Organisation (IT); 
  24  manufacturers/installers  (AT,  BE,  CH,  CZ,  DE,  ES,  DK,  FI,  FR,  IT,  NO,  PL,  RO,  SE,  TR, 

UK); 

  10 industry associations124  (CH, 2 DE, FR, 2 EU level, IT, PT, SE, UK); 
  12 maintenance personnel, users and other target groups125 (EU level, FR, PL, SE, UK). 

Additionally,  five  questionnaires  were  received  from  stakeholders  stating  to  have  a  basic 
knowledge  of  the  sector  (a  German  Public  Authority,  a  Finnish  trade  association  and  three 
anonymous).  

To  avoid  overlapping,  the  Public  Consultation  had  a  very  general  character  as  compared  with 
the specific information required in the targeted surveys. 

1.2. Targeted surveys 

Four targeted surveys based on online questionnaires, were launched on 6 June 2016, closed on 
15  September  2016  and  ran  on  the  EY  online  survey  tool  (eSurvey).  The  questionnaires  have 
been differentiated and aimed at: 

  The analysis of the implementation of the Directive at national level; 
  The collection of data on accidents, the overview of the market surveillance activities - 

in order to fill-in the gaps of the reports currently available126;  

123  Available at http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8930  
124  Of whom two representing SMEs. 
125  Three  organisations  representing  lifts  owners,  two  EU  organisations  representing  persons  with 
disabilities,  three  organisations  representing  users,  one  EU  organisation  representing  maintenance 
personnel, three users/citizens. 

66 

 
 
                                                           
  The assessment of the costs and benefits of the Directive, for companies, MS authorities 

(including MSAs) and NBs; 

  The in-depth analysis of conformity assessment procedures. 

Overall, the targeted surveys was addressed to 595 stakeholders, 116 of which replied: 

  11 Member State implementing authorities127  (out of 35; missing replies from AT, BE, 

BG, CZ, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LV, NO, PT, RO, SE, SK, TR, UK); 

  11 MSAs128 (out of 92; missing replies from AT, BG, CH, CY, CZ, EL, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, 

LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, TR); 

  53 NBs (out of 268) in 15 different countries129;  
  33 among installers and manufacturers, 28 large, three SMEs and two micro (out of 153) 

in 17 different countries130;   

  Six  national 

industry  associations131  and  one  European  association  (out  of  47 

representatives). 

1.3. Interviews 

The  project  also  foresaw  stakeholder  involvement  through  38  interviews  (with  two  Public 
Authorities not willing to be involved). 

More in detail, the interviews aimed at: 

 

Investigating  in  details  specific  topics  and  issues  emerged  from  the  analysis  of  the 
survey as well as from the desk-based research, by discussing them with the involved 
national and EU stakeholders; 

  Gaining  a  better  understanding  of  the  consequences  of  current  practices,  the  most 
important and emerging issues, by involving stakeholders acting in the lift market (e.g. 
representatives  of  user  associations,  representatives  of  industry  associations,  lift 
installers, manufacturers of safety components, NBs, standardisers); 

  Understanding  the  different  perspectives  and  viewpoints,  by  discussing  with  different 

stakeholders; 

  Triangulating information and interpreting data collected throughout the desk and field 

research carried out so far. 

  The  stakeholders  involved  were  selected  according  to  a  combination  of  the  following 

criteria: 

  Geographical  representativeness,  to  ensure  a  balanced  representation  of  all  EU 

Member States; 

126  Report on the MS reviews and assessment of the functioning of market surveillance activities for the 

2010-2013 period pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, Sector 10 Lifts. 

127  From CH, CY, DE, EE, IE, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, SI. The complete coverage of the EU28 MS could 
not  be  achieved  due  to  stakeholders’  unwillingness  to  reply,  despite  the  several  reminders  sent  to 
highlight the importance of the study. 

128  From BE, DE, DK, EE, FI, LT, NL, NO, SE, SK, UK. The complete coverage of the EU28 MS could 
not  be  achieved  due  to  stakeholders’  unwillingness  to  reply,  despite  the  several  reminders  sent  to 
highlight the importance of the study. 

129  AT, BE, CZ, FI, FR, DE, IE, IT, LV, LU, NL, PL, SK, TR, UK. 
130  AT, BE, CH, CZ, DK, ES, FI, FR, DE, HU, NL, NO, PL, RO, SE, TR, UK. 
131  From BE, DE, DK, IT, MT, UK. 

67 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
  Balanced representation of all stakeholders, so as to include those categories that were 
(i)  not  addressed  by  the  targeted  consultations,  and  especially the  ESOs,  user,  worker 
and other civil society associations; (ii) under-represented in the previous two types of 
consultations, i.e. the Public and the targeted consultation (e.g. SMEs). 

The stakeholders involved are listed below: 

  3 MS implementing authorities (EL, NL, PT); 
  4 MSAs (FR, IT, LV, PL); 
  7 NBs; 
  2 ESOs; 
  9 installers/manufacturers (a large, five medium and four small-sized enterprises); 
  6 industry associations; 
  7 user and worker associations and other target groups132. 

3. Stakeholder Consultation: Results 

According to the large majority of respondents to the targeted survey, the definitions provided 
in the Directive are clear, complete and up to date. Moreover, 73% of respondents think that 
the definitions are now clearer in Directive 2014/33/EU.133 Among these, all economic operators 
(both large companies and SMEs) agree on the above statement. 

Conversely,  the  results  of  the  Public  Consultation  suggest  that  some  definitions  such  as 
"installer  of  a  lift",  "placing  on  the  market  of  the  lift"  and  "model  lift"  might  need  to  be 
reviewed.  Similar  issues  were  raised  in  the  context  of  the  LWG  and  the  interviews  and  thus 
confirmed that some stakeholders would welcome a revision of the said definitions. It should be 
noted however, that these stakeholders belong to different target groups. 

A large share of respondents134 to the survey deem that tasks, obligations and rights of all the 
stakeholders  concerned  by  the  Directive  (i.e.  safety  component  manufacturers,  lift  installers, 
Member  State  implementing  authorities,  MSAs,  and  NB)  were  already  clear  in  Directive 
95/16/EC. When this was not the case, they have been either partially or completely clarified in 
Directive 2014/33/EU.135  

The  respondents  to  the  Public  Consultation  state  at  a  near  unanimity136,  that  the  EHSRs  took 
sufficiently  into  account  innovations  and  technologies  at  the  time  of  the  Directive’s  approval. 
Furthermore,  responses  to  the  targeted  survey  and  the  Public  Consultation  also  confirm  that 
the stakeholders consider the EHRSs to be flexible enough to adjust to the development of new 
technologies that offer the same or better levels of safety than the one provided by ENs.137 

132  Three  organisations  representing  disabled  people  (LU,  EU  level),  three  organisations  representing 

maintenance personnel (ES, FI, FR) and a consumer association (EU level). 
133  (74 out of 101), c.f. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 108. 
134  On average, 46% (39 out of 84 on average) of respondents to this question, cf. Evaluation of the Lifts 

Directive, Final report, page 109. 

135  On average, 46% (39 out of 84 on average) of respondents to this question, cf. Final report, page 109. 
136  (98%, 56 out of 57), cf. Final report, page 110. 
137  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 110. 

68 

 
                                                           
With regard to accessibility of lifts by people with disabilities, both the majority of respondents 
to  the  targeted  survey138  and  to  the  Public  Consultation139  underline  the  need  to  enshrine 
additional provisions for minimum compulsory awareness of manufacturers and installers in the 
legal framework for ensuring accessibility to lifts of disabled persons. More specifically, nearly 
half of the Public Consultation respondents consider the general information about accessibility 
of lifts  and access conditions as bad/very bad and 42%  consider that the availability of lifts  in 
public buildings with more than one floor could be improved.140  

The large majority141 (84 out of 107 or 78%) of survey respondents deem European ENs in line 
with  developments  occurred  in  the  lift  and  safety  component  industry.  The  results  of  the 
stakeholder consultations indicate  that  the support for the  ENs in the lift sector is stronger in 
the Member States which have joined the EU after 2004 as compared to the all-EU average.142   

It  should  be  noted  nevertheless  that  39  out  of  54  (72%)143  of  the  Public  Consultation 
respondents deem the length of EN development process as excessive. Similarly, 33 out of 54 
(61%) of respondents  believe that hENs should be revised more often.  

For the large majority of survey respondents144 (72 out of 105 or 69%), the rules for affixing the 
CE  marking  were  clear  already  in  Directive  95/16/EC,  and  if  this  was  not  the  case,  they  have 
been either partially or completely clarified in the new Directive. Moreover, 62% (65 out of 105) 
of  the  survey  respondents  declare  to  have  never  encountered  a  situation  where  these  rules 
needed to be clarified and only 1% (1 out of 105) declare to have had the need for clarification 
in some cases. 

As  far  as  the  conformity  assessments  procedures  are  concerned,  the  large  majority  of  survey 
respondents  deem  them  to  have  proved  adequate  for  both  the  design  and  the  production/ 
installation  phase.  Only  8%  (8  out  of  100)  of  the  stakeholders  assess  procedures  as 
inadequate.145   

With regard to the market surveillance, the responses to the stakeholder consultation indicated 
that overall the stakeholders are not completely satisfied with the market surveillance activities 
in their countries. Thus, 53% (49 out of 92) of respondents to the targeted survey report that 
market  surveillance  is  only  somehow  effective  and  25%  (23  out  of  92)  evaluate  it  as 
ineffective.146 An analysis by category of stakeholders shows that in general economic operators 
and  NBs  tend  to  be  more  critical  towards  the  effectiveness  of  the  market  surveillance 
activities.147  These  conclusions  are  also  supported  by  the  results  of  the  Public  Consultation  in 
the course of which 81% of the stakeholders have indicated that they deem the effectiveness of 

138  54%, (49 out of 90), cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 113. 
139  73%, (24 out of 32), cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 113. 
140  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 113. 
141  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 114. 
142  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 113. 
143  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 115. 
144  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 115. 
145  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 116. 
146  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 117. 
147  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 116. 

69 

 
                                                           
market surveillance authorities in removing non-compliant products from the market as low or 
very low.148  

Regarding  the  relevance  and  effectiveness  of  the  Lifts  Directive,  69%  (80  out  of  116)  of  the 
survey respondents declared not to be aware of any discrepancies across EU Member States in 
the  implementation  of  the  Directive  which  would  hinder  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive  in 
achieving its objectives.149   

However, respondents to the Public Consultation have reported their concerns regarding some 
aspects  related  to  the  market  surveillance.  Thus,  around  70%  (33  out  of  47)  of  respondents 
deem  that  the  extent  of  market  surveillance  activities,  the  MSAs'  approach  to  determining 
compliance as well as the penalties applicable in case of infringements are not uniform across 
the Member States.150 Furthermore, 61% of the respondents to the Public Consultation (36 out 
of 59) consider  the  uneven enforcement  of market surveillance across EU Member States the 
major obstacle hindering the free circulation of lifts and lift safety components.151  

In this regard, it should be noted however, that the market surveillance as well as the choice of 
the specific  penalty regime  to be applied in case of infringements are within the  realm of the 
competence of the Member States which could explain these discrepancies.  

As far as the relevance of the Lifts Directive concerned, the respondents to the targeted survey 
almost unanimously (115 out of 116 or 99%) have declared that the Directive is relevant as it 
meets their current  needs to a great or at least to some  extent.152  Similarly, almost  all survey 
respondents  regard  the  Directive  as  effective  in  guaranteeing  the  free  circulation  of  lifts  and 
safety components within the EU (112 out of 116 or 97%) and in ensuring a high degree of lift 
safety (113 out of 116 or 98%).153   

With  regard  to  the  overall  clarity  of  the  Directive,  40  out  of  60  (66%)  of  respondents  to  the 
Public  Consultation  report  having  faced  only  small  issues  related  to  the  clarity  of  the 
definitions.154  Similarly,  the  majority  of  stakeholders  (35  out  of  61 or  58%)  did  not  encounter 
difficulties due to the clarity of economic operators’ responsibilities all along the value chain.155  

Stakeholders  consulted  through  both  the  targeted  surveys  and  the  Public  Consultation  have 
very similar opinions on the positive value brought by the Directive, inasmuch as they recognise 
that  although  the  Directive  contributed  to  reducing  costs  to  a  lower  extent,  it  brought  other 
major  benefits  such  as  the  free  movement  of  lifts/safety  components  and  the  reduction  of 
disparities among Member States.156  

Overall,  the  stakeholders  consulted  in  the  framework  of  the  targeted  survey  expressed  their 
positive assessment regarding the impacts of the Lifts Directive. More specifically, over 90% of 

148  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 116. 
149  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 118. 
150  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 119. 
151  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 120. 
152  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 119. 
153  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 119. 
154  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 121. 
155  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 121. 
156  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 122. 

70 

 
                                                           
the stakeholders deem that  the Directive  has facilitated the free circulation of lifts  and safety 
components, has reduced the barriers to trade by harmonising the national requirements and 
practices and has thus established a level playing field for all economic operators.157  

These conclusions are supported to a significant extent by the results of the Public Consultation. 
Respondents  to  the  Public  Consultation  were  asked  to  give  their  opinions  about  positive  and 
negative  aspects  potentially  induced  by  the  Directive.  Among  the  most  positive  impacts, 
stakeholders signalled the alignment with the “state of the art” of lift technology through ENs 
and  the  facilitation  of  intra-EU  trade  for  lifts  and  safety  components  and  cost  savings. 
Conversely, the respondents did not rank the increasing safety of lifts and the reduction of the 
number  of  non-compliant  lifts  placed  on  the  market  as  the  main  contributions  of  the 
Directive.158  

On  the  other  hand,  among  the  negative  aspects  of  the  Directive,  33  of  the  54  (61%)  the 
consulted  stakeholders  highlighted  the  fact  that  the  Directive  did  not  play  a  relevant  role  in 
introducing  mandatory  requirements  for  accessibility  to  lifts  by  disabled  persons  and  also  the 
fact  that the  reduced Member  States’  competences to regulate  the sector eventually led to a 
less  specific  legislation  for  lifts.159  Finally,  for  43%  of  the  respondents,  the  Lifts  Directive  has 
increased the administrative burden.160   

157  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 123. 
158  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 124. 
159  Respectively 61% (33 out of 54) and 54% (27 out of 50), cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, 

Final report, page 124. 

160  cf. Evaluation of the Lifts Directive Study, Final report, page 125. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Annex 5: Comparative Table between Directive 84/528/EEC 
and Directive 95/16/EC 

Provisions in Directive 
84/528/EEC 

Provisions in Directive 
95/16/EC 

Baseline 

Art. 5: Establishes that all 
products in the scope of the 
Directive shall undergo an EEC 
Type-Examination before being 
placed on the market. 

Art. 2 and Art. 3: MSA must 
ensure that only lifts and 
components compliant with 
the safety requirements are 
placed into market. 

No additional or reduced 
burden for MSAs. 

Art. 6: EEC type-
approval/component type 
approval are granted by the 
Member States which also 
provide a type-approval 
certificate. 

Art. 7: If a MS which has 
granted an EEC type 
approval/component approval 
fail to conform to the type, it 
shall suspend or withdraw the 
approval and inform other MSs 
and the Commission. 

Art. 9, par. 2 and Art. 10: EEC 
type-examination shall be 
carried out by bodies approved 
for this purpose by the 
Member States; Approved 
bodies appointed by Member 
States to carry out EEC type-
examination in accordance 
with Art. 11 shall comply with 
minimum criteria laid down in 
Annex II. 

Art. 8: the EC type-
examination (and other 
technical inspections) are 
performed by NBs. 

The administrative burden 
entailed by the conformity 
assessments are on NBs and 
no longer on MSs. 

Art. 7: While in previous 
regulation only issuing 
authority could withdraw a 
certificate, the new 
regulation allows any MSA 
which identifies a non-
compliant product to remove 
it from the market. 

Art. 8: the verification 
procedures, as set out in this 
article and further described 
in the mentioned annexes, 
are carried out by NBs 

Art. 9 par 2: MSs shall apply 
the criteria set in annex VII in 
assessing NBs. 

This provision, affecting 
MSAs, does not add or 
reduce the related 
enforcement and 
administrative costs. 

This article of the Directive 
indicates the conformity 
assessments that can be used 
by lift installers and 
manufacturers. While the 
previous Directive did foresee 
only the EEC type-
examination, the new 
Directive allows for multiple 
solutions. The additional or 
reduced costs for economic 
operators relating to the 
conformity assessments are 
considered for the purposes 
of this analysis.  

72 

 
 
 
 
Provisions in Directive 
84/528/EEC 

Provisions in Directive 
95/16/EC 

Baseline 

Art. 10, par. 2: MS shall notify 
other MSs and the Commission 
of the body or list of bodies 
concerned. 

Art. 13/14: MSs shall monitor 
the approved bodies and, in 
case of withdrawal of approval, 
communicate the changes to 
the Commission and ensure 
continuity and remove from 
the market all improper 
certificates. 

Art. 17: Manufacturer, or 
authorised representative, 
using the EEC mark must: (i) 
inform the body which granted 
the certification; (ii) allow 
representatives of such body to 
perform inspections. The 
approved body granting the 
certificate must provide copies 
to other approved bodies, MSs 
and Commission. 

Art. 18: The approved body 
which has granted the EEC 
type-certificate must carry out 
the EEC inspection of the 
appliance/components for 
which the EEC type-certificate 
was granted. 

Art. 9: MS shall notify the 
Commission and other MSs 
of the bodies which they 
have appointed to carry out 
the verification procedures. 

Art. 9 par. 3: A Member State 
which has notified a body 
must withdraw its 
notification if it finds that the 
body no longer meets the 
criteria laid down in Annex 
VII and immediately inform 
the Commission and the 
other MSs. 

Art. 8: The article (and the 
related annexes) sets out the 
conformity assessment that 
lift installers and 
manufacturers of safety 
components should follow 
before placing a product on 
the market. 

Art. 8: The article (and the 
related annexes) sets out the 
duties of NBs regarding the 
inspections to conduct before 
granting a certificate. 

Art. 20: The EEC mark of 
conformity affixed to an 
appliance and/or component 
shall certify that it conforms to 
the type approved or granted 
an EEC type-examination 
certificate. 

Art. 10: the CE marking is 
regulated in this article. 
Manufacturers are required 
to affix the marking on the 
products.  

No relevant changes for MSs 
in comparison to previous 
Directive. 

No relevant changes for MSs 
in comparison to the previous 
Directive. 

The Directive foresees 
different types of conformity 
assessments. The additional 
or reduced costs for 
economic operators relating 
to the conformity 
assessments are considered 
for the purposes of this 
analysis. 

The Directive foresees 
different types of conformity 
assessments. The additional 
or reduced costs for 
economic operators relating 
to the conformity 
assessments are considered 
for the purposes of this 
analysis. 

Directive 84/528/EEC already 
required installers and 
manufacturers to affix the 
EEC marking. For this reason, 
the CE marking will not be 
accounted in the analysis of 
costs. 

73 

 
Provisions in Directive 
84/528/EEC 

Provisions in Directive 
95/16/EC 

Baseline 

Art. 21: MSs communicate to 
other MSs and the 
Commission: (i) list of bodies 
responsible for carrying out 
examinations; (ii) list of 
approved bodies; (iii) any 
subsequent amendment to the 
lists. 

Art. 9: MS shall notify the 
Commission and other MSs 
of the bodies which they 
have appointed to carry out 
the verification procedures. 

No relevant changes for MSs 
in comparison to previous 
Directive. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6: Overview of costs-benefits identified in the 
Evaluation 

 Regulatory (including administrative) costs for the different stakeholder categories impacted by 
the Directive 95/16/EC 

(given the low representativeness of data available the estimated costs should consider as 
purely indicatives) 

Type of cost  Description 
Monitoring 
costs 

MSAs / 
administra
tion 
MSAs/ 
administra
tion 

NBs/ 

Administrati
ve costs 

Human 
resources 

NBs 

Investment 
costs 

NBs 

Investment 
costs 

and 

recurring 

Costs  due  to  inspection  activities  as 
foreseen  by  Art.  2(1)  and  (2);  Art. 
7(3); Art. 9(2) and (3); Art. 10(4)(b). 
Costs  due  to  information  obligations 
of MSs towards the EC and other MSs 
as foreseen by Art. 7(1); Art. 9(1) and 
(3); Art. 11.  
Initial 
training 
expenses:  (i)  to  familiarise  with  the 
Directive (and related ENs); (ii) due to 
year-on-year  training  related  to  the 
Directive. 
Cost  of  purchasing  ENs.  Recurring 
costs  depend  on  (i)  the  range  of 
services  provided;  (ii)  size  of  NBs 
(larger NBs pay flat-rates to providers 
of technical standards).  
Cost 
procedures  

accreditation 

national 

for 

Business  Monitoring 

costs 

Cost  of  conformity  assessments: 
variable  costs  depending  on  the  type 
of conformity assessment  

Estimated cost 
Two  SMAs  (DK  and  FI)  report  cost 
approximately  between  €1,100  and 
€1,800 per inspection.  
Not assessed as already due in previous 
Directive 84/528/EEC.  

16  NBs  report  costs  ranging  between 
€500  and  €12,000.  Accounting,  on 
average,  for  0.34%  of  annual  turnover 
(higher for SMEs)(data from) 

from 

0.01% 

Normally updated twice a year. 13 NBs 
report  cost  for  Harmonised  Standards 
between €50 and €250.  Accounting on 
average 
larger 
for 
companies to 0.035% for SMEs  
Average  annual  cost  per  year:  1%  of 
annual  turnover  for  2  micro  NBs;  
0.05%  for  1  small  NB;  0.01%  for  7 
medium/large NBs 
2  large  companies  reports  an  EC  type-
  €440-€580. 
examination  costs  for 
Three 
unit 
verification  costs  €900-€1,000.  The 
share  of  cost  over  the  turnover  is 
negligible 
installers  and 
large 
manufacturers,  while  it  is  0.74%  for  2 
SMEs.  

enterprises 

reports 

for 

Business 

Investment 
costs 

Cost  of  purchasing  ENs.  Recurring 
costs  depend  on  (i)  the  range  of 
products;  (ii)  size  of  EO  (larger  EOs 
pay flat-rates to providers of technical 
standards). 

Normally  updated  twice  a  year.  13 
companies  report cost for Harmonised 
Standards  between  €50  and  €250, 
from  0.01%  of  annual 
accounting 
turnover 
large  companies  and 
0.035% for SMEs. 

for 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Type of cost  Description 

Business 

Human 
resources 

Business 

Administrati
ve costs 

and 

recurring 

Initial 
training 
expenses:  (i)  to  familiarise  with  the 
Directive (and related ENs); (ii) due to 
year-on-year  training  related  to  the 
Directive. 
Costs  for  preparing  an  EC  DoC  mark 
and for affixing it on each lift 

Estimated cost 
However,  large  companies  may  also 
opt  for  module  H  and  pay  flat-rates  to 
providers  of  technical  standards.  This 
reduce  dramatically  the  cost  per  unit 
verified. 
Harmonized  standards  are  updated 
more  frequent  than  nationals.  This 
causes additional unnecessary costs for 
SMEs  because  they  are  usually  not 
export-oriented. 
Accounting,  on  average,  between 
0.08% for SMEs and to 0.12% for large 
enterprises,  only  part  of  which  relates 
to the Directive. 

Not assessed as already due in previous 
Directive 84/528/EEC.  

76