COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the Review of the Marrakesh Directive 2017/1564 and Marrakesh Regulation 2017/1563
Date: 2025-12-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, book trade, copyright, digitisation, facilities for people with disabilities, international convention, literary and artistic property, physically disabled person, press, reprography

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 11.12.2025  SWD(2025) 406 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the Review of the Marrakesh Directive 2017/1564 and Marrakesh Regulation 2017/1563 {COM(2025) 749 final}  
 
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 
Purpose and scope of the evaluation .......................................................................................................... 1 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ....................................... 3 
Description of the intervention and its objectives ......................................................................... 3 

2.1. 

2.2. 

Point(s) of comparison .................................................................................................................. 9 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ....................... 11 
Current state of play ................................................................................................................................. 11 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ....................................................................... 16 
To what extent was the intervention successful and why? .......................................................... 16 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

How did EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ....................................................... 49 

Is the intervention still relevant? ................................................................................................. 50 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................................. 58 
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 58 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Lessons learned ........................................................................................................................... 62 

ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION............................................................................................. 65 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ................................................... 67 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) () ......................................................................... 71 

ANNEX  IV.  OVERVIEW  OF  COSTS  AND  BENEFITS  ACROSS  THE  MAIN  STAKEHOLDER 
GROUPS (QUALITATIVE FACTORS) () ........................................................................................ 89 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT () .......................................... 96 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Authorised entities 

Entity authorised or recognised by a Member State to 
provide education, instructional training, adaptive 
reading or information access to beneficiaries on a 
non-profit basis (see also Article 2.4. of Directive 
(EU) 2017/1564) 

AVMSD 

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 

Accessible format copies 

Beneficiary 

Copy of a work (in the form of a book, journal, 
newspaper, magazine or other kind of writing, 
notation, including sheet music, and related 
illustrations, in any media, including in audio form 
such as audiobooks and in digital format, which is 
protected by copyright or related rights and which is 
published or otherwise lawfully made publicly 
available) subsequently made accessible to people 
with disabilities (see also Article 2.3. Directive (EU) 
2017/1564).  

Person who is blind, has a visual impairment which 
cannot be improved so as to give the person visual 
function substantially equivalent to that of a person 
who has no such impairment has a reading or 
perception disability, or is otherwise print disabled 
(see also Article 2.1 of Directive (EU) 2017/1564) 

Born accessible work 

Work initially produced in a way that allows people 
with disabilities to access it.  

CMO 

EAA 

EU 

Marrakesh Directive 

Collective management organisation 

European Accessibility Act 

European Union 

Directive (EU) 2017/1564 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 13 September 2017 on certain 
permitted uses of certain works and other subject 
matter protected by copyright and related rights for 
the benefit of persons who are blind, visually 
impaired or otherwise print disabled and amending 
Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain 
aspects of copyright and related rights in the 
information society 

 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Marrakesh Regulation 

SDG 

WIPO 

UNCRPD 

Regulation (EU) 2017/1563 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2017 
on the cross-border exchange between the Union and 
third countries of accessible format copies of certain 
works and other subject matter protected by copyright 
and related rights for the benefit of persons who are 
blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled 

Sustainable Development Goals 

World Intellectual Property Organization 

United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons 
with Disabilities  

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

Ensuring accessibility of copyright protected content for people with print disabilities is 
essential for promoting equal access to information and culture, as well as to ensure the 
full participation in society of people with disabilities on an equal basis with 
others (1) (2). Several EU initiatives have been adopted in the past decade with the aim to 
make the EU more accessible for people with disabilities. In the field of copyright, the 
Marrakesh Directive (3) and Regulation (4), adopted in 2017, aim to increase the 
availability of books and other printed material in accessible format, and to improve their 
circulation across borders. These instruments brought the necessary adaptations to EU 
law following the accession of the European Union to the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty to 
Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or 
Otherwise Print Disabled (5) (hereinafter, the Marrakesh Treaty). 

This staff working document is prepared on the basis of Article 10(1) of the Marrakesh 
Directive and Article 7 of the Marrakesh Regulation, which require the Commission to 
evaluate these instruments 5 years from their implementation (6), and to report on its 

(1)  The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is available at the following link: 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT. 

(2)  The Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030 is available at the link: 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3e1e2228-7c97-11eb-9ac9-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 

(3)  Directive (EU) 2017/1564 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2017 on 
certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related 
rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled and 
amending Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related 
rights in the information society – https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2017/1564/OJ. 

(4)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1563 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2017 on 
the cross-border exchange between the Union and third countries of accessible format copies of 
certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of 
persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled – https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32017R1563. 

(5)  The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually 

Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled, which was adopted at the World Intellectual Property 
Organization (WIPO) in 2013. The Treaty entered into force in September 2016 and has been ratified 
by 119 countries (including the 27 EU Member States). The European Union signed the Marrakesh 
Treaty in 2014 (Council Decision of 14 April 2014 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, 
of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually 
Impaired, or otherwise Print Disabled) and has ratified it in October 2018 following a Council 
decision on its conclusion in February 2018 (Council Decision (EU) 2018/254 of 15 February 2018 on 
the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to 
Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or otherwise Print Disabled). 
(6)  Marrakesh Directive: Transposition deadline 11 October 2018. Marrakesh Regulation: Applicable 

from 12 October 2018. 

1 

 
 
main findings to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and 
Social Committee. 

The aim of this evaluation is to assess the extent to which the Marrakesh Directive and 
Regulation have been effective in meeting their objectives, efficient, relevant, consistent 
with EU policy and international commitments and have demonstrated EU added value. 
In particular, this evaluation assesses how these two legal instruments have impacted the 
availability of accessible versions of works within its scope and have helped to facilitate 
the cross-border exchange of accessible format copies. As required expressly by 
Article 10 of the Marrakesh Directive, the evaluation specifically includes an assessment 
of the impact of the compensation schemes (that exist in certain Member States) on such 
availability and exchanges. Furthermore, the evaluation considers the possible impact of 
the rules provided for in the Directive and the Regulation on the commercial availability 
of certain works or other subject matter in accessible formats for beneficiaries, as well as 
the relevance of other policy areas related to the accessibility of published works, in 
particular the European Accessibility Act (‘EAA’) (7), which requires all e-books placed 
on the EU market after 28 June 2025 to be accessible. 

This evaluation covers the period running from the transposition date in the Directive and 
the date of application of the Regulation (October 2018) to 2023. It covers the 27 EU 
Member States and their exchanges with third countries that are signatories to the 
Marrakesh Treaty. 

The evaluation draws on a supporting study (hereinafter ‘the study’), which was launched 
in April 2023 and was completed in May 2024. The methodology employed by the 
contractor was based on literature review and desk research, in combination with 
interviews, consultation activities, and analysis of case studies, aiming to gather 
qualitative and, where it was possible, quantitative data. The contractor assisted the 
Commission in undertaking consultation activities with Member States (which were 
required to provide data to the Commission, in line with Article 10(2) of the Marrakesh 
Directive), as well as with stakeholders, through a targeted stakeholder consultation and 
in-depth interviews. In line with the requirement in Article 10(1) of the Directive, the 
consultations took account of the views of relevant civil society actors and of non-
governmental organisations, including organisations representing people with disabilities 
and those representing older people. The consultation activities included also 
rightholders, in particular for the assessment of the possible impact of the Regulation and 
the Directive’s rules on the commercial offer. The results of the data gathering fed into 
the evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation, based on the five criteria 
required under the Better Regulation Guidelines: effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, 
relevance and EU added value. 

(7)  Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the 

accessibility requirements for products and services, OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, pp. 70–115  

2 

 
 
The methodology is detailed in Annex II, while a synopsis report of consultation 
activities is available in Annex V. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Availability of books in accessible formats for people with disabilities can be driven by 
the market, through the production of ‘born accessible works’ (i.e. produced from the 
beginning in a format that is accessible), or by the intervention of public or publicly 
funded organisations which adapt existing works in formats that are available for people 
with disabilities (accessible format copies). The latter process involves copyright 
protected acts (e.g. reproduction), meaning that, unless a copyright exception or 
limitation applies, rightholders have the right to authorise or prohibit the relevant uses 
allowing for the copyright protected work to be adapted for people with disabilities. 

At global level, according to the World Blind Union, in 2013 only 7 per cent of published 
books had been made accessible in the developed countries (in formats such as Braille, 
audio and large print), and less than 1 per cent in the developing countries (8). 

Only a small fraction of books were born accessible. Market factors did not provide 
economic incentives for rightholderss to licence the production of works in accessible 
formats, while high production costs for older works discouraged industry innovation (9). 
Even if several countries had copyright exceptions in place for people with disabilities, 
allowing beneficiaries or their representatives to adapt works in accessible formats 
without the authorisation of the rightholders, the availability of accessible formats 
remained overall low. 

Recognising the significant negative impact of the limited access to written material in 
accessible form (‘book famine)’ on the participation in society of people with disabilities, 
and on their access to education, the Member States of the World Intellectual Property 
Organization adopted in 2013 the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published 
Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled. The 
Treaty introduced mandatory limitations and exceptions to copyright for the benefit of 
the blind, visually impaired and otherwise print disabled people, in order to allow the 
reproduction, distribution and the making available of works (such as books, newspapers 
and magazines, or other kinds of writing, and the related illustrations, in any media, 

(8)  https://worldblindunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Press-Release-AP-Marrakesh-2017.pdf). 
(9)  Fitzpatrick, S, Setting Its Sights on the Marrakesh Treaty: The U.S. Role in Alleviating the Book 

Famine for Persons with Print Disabilities, Boston College International and Comparative Law 
Review, 2014, 37(1), pp. 139-172. https://lira.bc.edu/work/ns/b6b42abb-99aa-4e02-9956-
e3b3d6a3a086/reader/6aea64d8-5009-4a4a-ad14-a7c1b8353ed2, quoted in the study, p. 29. 

3 

 
 
including audiobooks) in accessible formats. The Treaty also permits the exchange of 
these works across borders (10). 

The European Union signed the Marrakesh Treaty in 2014 (11) and concluded the Treaty 
in February 2018 (12). 

The Marrakesh Directive and the accompanying Marrakesh Regulation brought the 
necessary adaptations to EU law in order for the EU to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty. With 
the Marrakesh Directive, the EU legislator introduced a mandatory exception and 
harmonised the scope of the exception to improve the availability of accessible format 
copies (clarifying which are the beneficiaries, the type of works, the permitted uses) with 
effect throughout the internal market. In addition to the harmonisation of the exception, 
the Marrakesh Directive enabled also the cross-border exchange within the EU of these 
copies, while the Marrakesh Regulation enabled the exchange with third countries party 
to the Marrakesh Treaty. 

Problems and needs 

At the moment of the legislative proposal for the Marrakesh Directive (13), it was 
estimated that between 7% and 20% of books were available in formats accessible to 
people with visual and print-related disabilities despite the fact that digital technology 
facilitated accessible publishing. The international book famine negatively impacted the 
access to information of beneficiaries and their participation in cultural, economic and 
social life. 

The Marrakesh Treaty aims to address these gaps by mandating at international level a 
copyright exception allowing people with print disabilities to access more books and 
other print material in formats that are accessible to them. The adoption of the Marrakesh 
Directive and Regulations brought EU law into line with the EUʼs international 
commitments under the Marrakesh Treaty. 

(10)  https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/marrakesh/summary_marrakesh.html. 
(11)  Council Decision of 14 April 2014 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Marrakesh 
Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or 
otherwise Print Disabled. 

(12)  Council Decision (EU) 2018/254 of 15 February 2018 on the conclusion on behalf of the European 
Union of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, 
Visually Impaired, or otherwise Print Disabled. The ratification of the Treaty followed in October 
2018. 

(13)  COM(2016) 596 final, 14.9.2016. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the 

Council on certain permitted uses of works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related 
rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled and 
amending Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related 
rights in the information society. (The Proposal for the Marrakesh Directive) https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0596&from=HU. 

4 

 
 
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the 
‘UNCRPD’) in its Concluding observations on the initial report of the European Union, 
adopted on 4 September 2015 (14) encouraged the European Union to take all appropriate 
measures to implement the Marrakesh Treaty ‘as soon as possible’. 

Objectives 

The general objective of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation is to improve the 
availability of accessible format copies, accessible to beneficiaries, for books and other 
printed material. They also aim to improve the circulation of these copies across borders, 
in line with the EUʼs international commitments under the Marrakesh Treaty. 

Similar to the other EU instruments in the field of copyright, the adoption of the 
Marrakesh Directive and Regulation also aims to contribute to the proper functioning of 
the internal market, as well as to promote access to knowledge and culture by protecting 
works and other subject matter and by permitting exceptions or limitations that are in the 
public interest. Furthermore, they aim to safeguard a fair balance of rights and interests 
between rightholders and users. 

The adoption of the Marrakesh instruments also took into consideration the rights of 
blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled people as recognised in the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’). It furthermore aimed to 
respond to one of the objectives of the UNCRPD to promote the participation in cultural 
life of people with disabilities. In particular, Article 30(3) of UNCRPD requires parties to 
take all appropriate steps, in accordance with international law, to ensure that laws 
protecting intellectual property rights do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory 
barrier to access by people with disabilities to cultural materials. 

The Marrakesh Directive and Regulation, alongside the Marrakesh Treaty, are relevant to 
address the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDG 10 
(Reduced inequality), by improving access to education and culture for people with print-
related disabilities, both in the EU, as well as in third countries, and SDG 4 (quality 
education) by facilitating access to educational materials catering to the needs of people 
with disabilities. Finally, as indicated by the study, the Marrakesh Treaty is relevant for 
the SDG 17 (partnership for the goals) through the setting up of an international 
framework allowing cooperation between Member States (through the authorised 
entities) to benefit people with disabilities (15). 

(14)  Concluding observations on the initial report of the European Union: Committee on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities, 2015, available at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/812354?v=pdf. 

(15)  The study, p. 92. 

5 

 
 
Inputs 

In line with the Marrakesh Treaty, the Directive provides for a mandatory exception to 
copyright, for the benefit of blind, visually impaired, and otherwise print disabled people. 
The exception enables the beneficiaries or authorised entities to make accessible format 
copies of books and other written material, including in the form of audio books. The 
Directive allows Member States, in line with the Marrakesh Treaty, to subject the uses 
under the Directive to compensation schemes, within certain limits. The framework 
introduces obligations for authorised entities to prevent the unauthorised dissemination of 
the works in accessible formats and to ensure the access to relevant information for 
beneficiaries, rightholders and other authorised entities. 

The Directive also facilitates the cross-border exchange of the accessible format copies in 
the internal market. In addition, the Regulation facilitates the exchanges of accessible 
format copies between EU Member States and the third countries parties to the 
Marrakesh. 

Expected outputs 

The main outputs expected were an increase in availability of books and other printed 
material in accessible formats for people with print-related disabilities, as well as an 
increase in the circulation of such formats in the internal market and with third countries. 
In addition, authorised entities – which are organisations, such as libraries, educational 
establishments and other public or non-profit organisations, that serve people with a print 
disability as one of their primary activities, institutional obligations or as part of their 
public interest missions (16) - were expected to establish practices to prevent the 
unauthorised dissemination of works. 

Expected results 

In line with the main objectives described above, the expected results were to improve 
access to printed works for beneficiaries, including through cross-border access within 
EU and with third countries, while safeguarding the balance of interests between 
rightholders and users. The increased cross-border access was expected to generate 
savings and efficiency gains, by reducing the demand for duplication of work in 
producing accessible format copies of the same work. Furthermore, the harmonisation of 
the copyright exception was expected to increase the legal certainty when beneficiaries 

(16)  Recital 5 of the Marrakesh Directive; see also definition in Article 2(4) of the Marrakesh 
Directive:‘entity that is authorised or recognised by a Member State to provide education, 
instructional training, adaptive reading or information access to beneficiary persons on a non-profit 
basis. It also includes a public institution or non-profit organisation that provides the same services to 
beneficiary persons as one of its primary activities, institutional obligations or as part of its public 
interest missions’. 

6 

 
 
and authorised entities were undertaking uses covered by the Marrakesh rules. More 
generally, the Marrakesh instruments were expected to contribute to a better integration 
of people with disabilities and to their participation in the life of the community. The 
picture below summarises and operationalises the intervention logic.

7 

 
Figure 1. Intervention logic 

Problems  / needs   

General objectives 

1. 

2. 

3. 

“Book famine"   

Unequal access to social and cultural life for persons with disabilities   

International oblig ation to remove discrimi natory barriers in copyright law   

To improve digital and soci al inclusion and opportunities for persons with disabilities to  participate in cultural life.  

To implement the Union's international  obligations in a  harmonis ed manner.   

Specific Objectives  

Operational objectives  

• 
• 
• 

• 

To increase access to printed works for benefi ciaries .  

To improve efficiency in m aking and distributing accessible format copies .   

To increase l egal certainty and further harmonise  EU copyright and accessibility law.  

To balance the rights of right holders and users   

Beyond the specific  objectives ther e were als o operati onal objectives which were turned  into actions and the actions turned into outputs: 

Operat ional objectiv es   

Actions   

Output  

To increas e the av ailabi lity of works in accessib le form ats .  

The right of benefici aries and AEs to convert printed works into accessible formats; the right of  A Es to reproduce, trans fer, l end and make those copies avail able to the public (Article 3(1))   

Increased number of works in accessibl e form ats  

To improve the ci rculation of acces sible format  copies in the int ernal mar ket .   

The right for AEs to operate i n the inter nal m arket (Article 4)    

Increased circulati on of works in  accessible formats in the internal market   

To prevent abus es of the copyright ex ception   

The oblig ation  for MS to set up a framew ork to prevent abuse of the copyright except ion (Article 5)  

Practices establis hed to prevent abuses of the copyright exception   

Operat ional objectiv es   

To encourag e informat ion exch ange   

Actions   

Output  

Voluntary shari ng of nam es and cont act details of AEs (Article 6)   

Information exchange am ong AEs   

To facilitat e the import and export of accessib le form at copies from and to third countries.   

The right for AEs to exchang e copi es with AEs in third countries  (the Regul ation)   

Increased exchange of works in accessible formats with  third countries   

To allow for remun erat ion of rightholders for the copyright exception  

The right for MS to set up compensation schem es for right holders for the uses permitted under the Directive (Article 3(6))   

Possibility for MS to set compensation schem es in place to remunerat e rightsholders  

General objectives and impacts  

The results and the impacts  of thes e acti ons and outputs, related to the gener al and specific  objectives, wer e as follows :  

Gener al objectiv es   

Impacts   

To improve digit al and social inclusion and opportunities for persons with disabi liti es to parti cipat e in cultur al life.  

Improved digital and social inclusi on  on and cultural participation of benefici aries  

To implement the Union's intern ational obli gations in a h armonis ed man n er.   

Improved functioning  of the singl e market and uni formly met inter national obligations   

Other EU policies related to  Impacts   

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

InfoSoc Directive  

European Accessibility Act  

Web Accessibility Directive  

Strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities 2021- 2030   

Other policy initiatives   

Specific objectives and resu lts  

Specifi c objectiv es   

To increas e access to printed works for ben efici ari es .  

Resu lts  

Increased access to printed works for benefici aries  

To improve effi cien cy in making and distr ibuting accessib le form at copi es   

Increased effici ency in maki ng and distributing accessible format copies due to increas ed cooperation and reduced duplication  

To increas e legal certainty  and further harmonis e EU copyright and accessibi lity law .  

Increased leg al certai nty due to harmonis ation of rules i n the inter nal mark et  

Balance between the rights of right holders and users  

To balan ce the ri ghts of rightholders and users   

External factors related to results   

• 

• 

• 

• 

International law  (e.g ., UN CRPD)   

Global initiatives (e.g ., ABC)  

Technologi cal devel opments  

Market response  

Source: The Study. 

8 

 
 
 
2.2.  Point(s) of comparison 

Prior to the adoption of the Marrakesh Treaty, EU law already granted Member States the 
option to provide in national law an exception from copyright and related rights for 
people with disabilities, for uses of a non-commercial nature which are directly related to 
the disability, to the extent required by the specific disability (17), and all Member States 
had to some extent made use of the optional copyright exception or limitation (18). 

There is no comprehensive data on how the application of these national laws impacted 
in quantitative terms the availability of works in accessible formats for books and other 
written materials prior to the adoption of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation. 

Certain estimates were available at global level. As mentioned above, in the explanatory 
memorandum for the legislative proposal for the Marrakesh Directive, it was estimated 
that between 7% and 20% of books were available in formats accessible to people with 
visual and print-related disabilities. According to the World Blind Union, in 2013 only 7 
per cent of published books had been made accessible in developed countries (in formats 
such as Braille, audio and large print) (19). Less than 1 per cent of published books were 
available in developing countries (20), with some sources estimating that people with 
print-related disabilities in certain developing countries only had access to around 0.5% 
of the books published (21). 

At EU level, certain data on the availability of works in accessible formats is provided in 
the impact assessment for the European Accessibility Act, which analysed in particular 
the availability of born accessible works. The impact assessment quotes a 2011 study 
which found that 32.5% of e-books were accessible, noting that these were often 
provided by public or publicly funded organisations and not by the market (22). The 
number was likely to be much lower when also considering accessibility of physical 
books23. For example, in 2013, in France it was estimated that between 8% and 20% of 

(17)  Article 5(3)b of Directive 2001/29. 
(18)  COM/2016/0596 final, Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF 

THE COUNCIL on certain permitted uses of works and other subject matter protected by copyright 
and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print 
disabled and amending Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and 
related rights in the information society. 

(19)  https://worldblindunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Press-Release-AP-Marrakesh-2017.pdf 
(20)  https://worldblindunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Press-Release-AP-Marrakesh-2017.pdf;. 
(21)  Cassells, L. (2021). The Impact of the Marrakesh Treaty on South African Publishers. Publishing 

Research Quarterly, 37, 41-52. 

(22)  The MeAc 2011 study quoted in the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT 
ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament 
and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the 
Member States as regards accessibility requirements for products and services, SWD/2015/0264 final 
- 2015/0278 (COD), available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2015:0264:FIN. 

(23)   The Study, p.29 

9 

 
 
all the books available on the market were accessible for people with disabilities (24). As 
concerns new titles published digitally in 2012 in France, only 3.5% had been adapted in 
accessible formats (25). 

Furthermore, a study from 2013 found that, even if exceptions from copyright had been 
introduced at national level in EU Member States for the benefit of people with 
disabilities, challenges remained for the cross-border exchange of accessible format 
copies. This was because Article 5(3)b) of Directive 2001/2926 set out only minimum 
requirements, leaving it to the Member States to define the detailed conditions for the 
application of the exception , which lead to divergences in the scope of application of the 
exception (27) The 2013 study argued that territorial application of copyright and the 
different scope of the national exceptions, especially in terms of permitted acts and 
beneficiaries, were found to reduce legal certainty in cross-border exchanges (28). 
Similarly, stakeholders (institutional users, performing arts industry, NGOs or chambers 
of commerce) highlighted in a 2014 consultation on the review of copyright rules that the 
scope of disabilities covered by national laws was too narrow (e.g. not covering 
dyslexia) (29). Organisations representing end users and collective management 
organisations complained that the diverging scope of national exceptions creates legal 
uncertainty for the exchange of accessible format copies (30). 

The adoption of the framework was expected to improve the availability of written works 
in accessible format, facilitating the production of accessible format copies by authorised 
entities or beneficiaries, on the basis of an EU harmonised copyright exception for the 
benefit of people with disabilities which increases legal certainty. The framework was 
also expected to facilitate the cross-border exchange of such accessible format copies 
adapted for the use of people with disabilities, both within EU and with third countries. 

(24)  Catherine Meyer-Lereculeur ʻException ʻhandicapʼ au droit d’auteur et développement de l’offre de 

publications accessibles à l’ère numériqueʼ, May 2013, quoted in the study, p. 29, and in the 
explanatory memorandum to the Marrakesh Directive, COM(2016) 596 final. 

(25)  Catherine Meyer-Lereculeur ʻException ʻhandicapʼ au droit d’auteur et développement de l’offre de 

publications accessibles à l’ère numériqueʼ, May 2013, quoted in the study, p. 29. 

26   Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the 

harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167, , 
pp. 10–19) (“InfoSoc Directive) 

(27)  European Commission, Directorate-General for the Internal Market and Services, Francquen, A., 
Dusollier, S., Triaille, J. et al., study on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and 
related rights in the information society (the ‘InfoSoc Directive’), European Commission, 2013, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2780/90141, p. 428. 
idem, p 437 

(28) 
(29)  Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, 

available at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/modernisation-eu-copyright-rules-useful-
documents. 

(30)  idem. 

10 

 
 
 
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

Current state of play 

The Marrakesh Directive entered into force on 10 October 2017 and it had to be 
transposed into national law by 11 October 2018. After the transposition deadline, the 
Commission opened infringement proceedings against 16 Member States that were late 
in notifying complete transposition of the Marrakesh Directive. 14 of these Member 
States notified complete transposition by the end of 2019, while the remaining two 
Member States notified transposition by April 2020, putting an end to the infringements. 
The Commission did not open any infringement proceedings on the conformity of the 
national transposition. 

The Marrakesh Regulation, which permits the cross-border exchange of accessible 
format copies made under the exception between the EU and third countries that are 
parties to the Treaty is directly applicable to all EU Member States since 12 October 
2018 and did not need to be implemented in national law. 

The implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty into EU law ensures that the obligations 
apply in a harmonised manner throughout the internal market, clarifying the scope of 
beneficiaries of the exception, works covered and permitted acts. The Directive defines 
the beneficiaries (31) as being people who are blind or have a visual impairment  
which cannot be improved so as to give the person visual function substantially 
equivalent to that of a person who has no such impairment, as well as those who have a 
reading or perceptual disability or who are otherwise print disabled (they cannot hold or 
manipulate a book or focus or move their eyes to the extent that would be normally 
acceptable for reading). 

The Directive clarifies also that the mandatory exception applies to the exclusive rights 
that are harmonised by EU law and are relevant for the uses and works covered by the 
Marrakesh Treaty (including the rights of reproduction, communication to the public, 
making available to the public, distribution and lending by beneficiaries or authorised 
entities). It also expressly defines the type of works for which accessible format 

(31)  Based on the definitions of the Marrakesh Directive, ‘beneficiary person’ means, regardless of any 

other disabilities, a person who: (a) is blind; (b) has a visual impairment which cannot be improved so 
as to give the person visual function substantially equivalent to that of a person who has no such 
impairment, and who is, as a result, unable to read printed works to substantially the same degree as a 
person without such an impairment; (c) has a perceptual or reading disability and is, as a result, unable 
to read printed works to substantially the same degree as a person without such disability; or (d) is 
otherwise unable, due to a physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move their 
eyes to the extent that would be normally acceptable for reading. 

11 

 
 
copies (32) can be made under the exception, namely books, journals, newspapers, 
magazines or other kind of writing, notation, including sheet music, and related 
illustrations, in any media, including in audio form such as audiobooks and in digital 
format. 

The harmonisation of the category of beneficiaries led in certain cases to widening the 
scope of the exception compared to what was previously in place at national level, in 
particular because, as evidenced by the responses to the 2014 EU public consultation (33), 
not all national exceptions covered perceptual or reading disabilities. This was the case 
for instance in France where the above-mentioned 2013 report referred to the narrow 
definition existing at the time (34). At the same time, the harmonised rules had likely a 
more limited impact on the application of the exception in Member States(35) where the 
scope already included these categories of beneficiaries  

The Directive also includes a provision ensuring cross-border access: authorised entities 
in one Member State are allowed to make and distribute accessible format copies for 
beneficiaries in other Member States. In addition, beneficiaries and authorised entities are 
granted the right to access works held by authorised entities in any Member State. The 
cross-border exchange within the EU is complemented by the Marrakesh Regulation 
which enables cross-border exchanges with third countries party to the Marrakesh Treaty. 

The Directive allows Member States to maintain or introduce compensation schemes for 
uses permitted under the Directive undertaken by authorised entities established in their 
territory (Article 3(6)). To date, compensation schemes are in place in Austria, Germany, 
Denmark, Finland, Greece, Sweden, covering different scopes (36); in Greece it applies to 
primary, secondary and higher education textbooks, in Denmark it applies to downloaded 

(32)  Based on the definitions of the Marrakesh Directive, ‘accessible format copy’ means a copy of a work 

or other subject matter in an alternative manner or form that gives a beneficiary person access to the 
work or other subject matter, including allowing such person to have access as feasibly and 
comfortably as a person without any of the impairments or disabilities referred to in Article 2 point 2 
of the Directive. 

(33)  Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, 

available at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/modernisation-eu-copyright-rules-useful-
documents. 

(34)  Catherine Meyer-Lereculeur ʻException ʻhandicapʼ au droit d’auteur et développement de l’offre de 

publications accessibles à l’ère numériqueʼ, May 2013 , available at 
https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Espace-documentation/Rapports/EXCEPTION-HANDICAP-AU-
DROIT-D-AUTEUR-ET-DEVELOPPEMENT-DE-L-OFFRE-DE-PUBLICATIONS-
ACCESSIBLES-A-L-ERE-NUMERIQUE. 

(35)   For instance the exception in Sweden and the Netherlands covered dyslexia- see Catherine Meyer-
Lereculeur ʻException ʻhandicapʼ au droit d’auteur et développement de l’offre de publications 
accessibles à l’ère numériqueʼ, May 2013, p. 106, available at https://www.culture.gouv.fr/espace-
documentation/rapports/exception-handicap-au-droit-d-auteur-et-developpement-de-l-offre-de-
publications-accessibles-a-l-ere-numerique. 
(36)  For a more detailed overview, see the study, p. 43. 

12 

 
 
audiobooks and e-books, in Sweden it covers talking books (37), in Finland it covers 
physical loans of CDs and digital loans that are downloaded and kept by the user, while 
in Germany and Austria it applies to all type of formats within the scope of the copyright 
exception. In two more Member States (Malta and the Netherlands), the national laws 
refer to the possibility to introduce a compensation scheme if there is a prejudice to the 
interests of rightholders. However, these Member States have not made use of this option 
so far (38). 

The Directive and the Regulation introduced obligations for authorised entities in order 
to prevent the unauthorised dissemination of the works in accessible formats (Article 5(1) 
of the Directive and Article 5(1) of the Regulation), and to ensure the access to relevant 
information for beneficiaries, rightsholders and other authorised entities (Article 5(2) of 
the Directive and Article 5(2) of the Regulation). The authorised entities are also 
encouraged to voluntarily transmit their contact details to their Member States of 
establishment in case they engage in exchanges in the internal market or if they import or 
export accessible format copies under the Marrakesh Regulation (Article 6 of Marrakesh 
Directive). Member States transmit this information to the Commission, which makes it 
publicly available (39). 

Member States generally transposed verbatim the obligations on authorised entities, 
leaving the organisations to establish the specific practices necessary to ensure that the 
works are transmitted only to the beneficiaries and other authorised entities, to prevent 
the unauthorised distribution, to maintain appropriate records and to publicise the way 
they comply with the obligations. 

Authorised entities use different methods to verify the eligibility of the beneficiaries. 
They may require proof of disability or require users to register with the relevant 
organisation (e.g. the organisations for the blind), or they may accept self-declaration. 
Other authorised entities (e.g. Celia in Sweden) do not employ a formal verification of 
eligibility, however access to their service is preceded by a discussion with a librarian 
where the use and restrictions are explained (40). In addition, to prevent unauthorised use, 
some authorised entities use technical protection measures (e.g. watermarking with the 
name of the entity and user name), or keep a loan history, introduce use limitations, or 
provide information on liability to the users. 

To ensure legal certainty, the Directive clarifies in a recital that authorised entities should 
not be required to check, prior to making an accessible format copy, that the work is also 
available in accessible format on the commercial market. Therefore, Member States are 

(37)  In Swedish legislation there is a distinction between an audiobook, which is a commercial product, 
and a talking book, which is a recorded version of a published book produced by the authorised 
entities for people with disabilities. (https://www.mtm.se/kunskap-om-tillganglig-lasning/vad-ar-en-
talbok/). 

(38)  The study, p. 39. 
(39)  https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/marrakesh-treaty. 
(40)  The study, p. 45. 

13 

 
 
not allowed to introduce additional requirements on authorised entities such as prior 
verification of the commercial availability of works in accessible formats. In Denmark, 
the transposition of the Directive led to removing such obligation previously present in 
the national law. Instead, authorised entities and rightsholders developed cooperation 
practices incentivised by an agreement concerning the application of the compensation 
scheme in Denmark, which provides a higher level of compensation if a work is available 
as born accessible and shared in a digital form by the rightholder with the authorised 
entities (41). Furthermore, checks to verify commercial availability may sometimes take 
place voluntarily in Member States where the publishing market is small and where the 
authorised entity is in direct contact with the publishers in that market (42). However, the 
Italian law contains a provision which appears to set out such an obligation to verify the 
commercial availability on authorised entities (43). Furthermore, in France, one 
authorised entity reported that existing national rules create uncertainty as to whether 
they are required to check the commercial availability of the format requested (44). 
According to the authorised entity interviewed in the context of the study, the advice 
received from the authorities was that it is prohibited to adapt a work to which a person 
with a disability can have access without adaptation, but organisations are not obliged to 
check this condition beforehand. In some Member States, platforms are developed to 
enable the cooperation of authorised entities with rightholders, in order to facilitate the 
production of format copies. This is the case in France, where a platform called Platon is 
used by authorised entities to upload their catalogues, while rightholders upon request 
use it to submit a digital copy of their work (45). In other Member States, authorised 
entities and rightholders agree on a bilateral basis to receive the digital files of the works 
that will be converted into accessible formats (Germany, Belgium, Spain) (46). Finally, in 
certain Member States (Sweden, Lithuania) the authorised entities and rightholders have 

(41)  The study, p. 35. 
(42)  The study, p. 39. 
(43)  According to the last sentence of paragraph 7-bis of Article. 71-bis of Law 633 of 22 April 1941, as 

amended, the exception does not apply to the authorised entity where accessible versions of a work or 
other subject matter are already available on the market, without prejudice to the possibility of 
improving their accessibility or quality (‘L’eccezione di cui al comma 2-bis non si applica all’entità 
autorizzata nel caso in cui siano già disponibili in commercio versioni accessibili di un’opera o di 
altro materiale, fatta salva la possibilità di miglioramento dell’accessibilità o della qualità delle 
stesse’. (https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1941-04-22;633!vig= ‘). 

(44)  Paragraph 7 of Article L122-5 of the Code of Intellectual Property refers to the fact that persons with 
disabilities are prevented, as a result of those impairments, from accessing the work in the form in 
which the author makes it publicly available: ‘Dans les conditions prévues aux articles L. 122-5-1 et 
L. 122-5-2, la reproduction et la représentation par des personnes morales et par les établissements 
ouverts au public, tels que les bibliothèques, les archives, les centres de documentation et les espaces 
culturels multimédia, en vue d’une consultation strictement personnelle de l’œuvre par des personnes 
atteintes d’une ou de plusieurs déficiences des fonctions motrices, physiques, sensorielles, mentales, 
cognitives ou psychiques et empêchées, du fait de ces déficiences, d’accéder à l’œuvre dans la forme 
sous laquelle l’auteur la rend disponible au public;Ces personnes empêchées peuvent également, en 
vue d’une consultation strictement personnelle de l’œuvre, réaliser, par elles-mêmes ou par 
l’intermédiaire d’une personne physique agissant en leur nom, des actes de reproduction et de 
représentation 

(45)  The study, p. 39, 206, 219. 
(46)  The study, p. 39. 

14 

 
 
entered into coproduction agreements, where they share the cost of production. The 
accessible format, which is produced by the authorised entities, is shared with the 
rightholder which makes it first available via commercial channels for a certain period, 
after which it becomes available to the beneficiaries through the authorised entity (47). 

In order to avoid duplication of efforts, authorised entities verify if a work in accessible 
format, in a particular language, is available in the catalogue of another authorised 
entity (48). This may be especially the case where there are several authorised entities that 
operate in a Member State and benefit from platforms that support the exchange of 
information (e.g. France and Germany), but also in cross-border situations involving 
language areas that transcend one country, where authorised entities might check the 
availability through the WIPO ABC platform (49). 

The authorised entities are not subject to a specific authorisation procedure to carry out 
the uses covered by the framework. At the same time, authorised entities can be those 
which are authorised or recognised by a Member State to provide education, instructional 
training, adaptive reading or information access to beneficiaries on a non-profit basis or 
public institution or they can be non-profit organisation that provide the same services to 
beneficiaries as one of its primary activities, institutional obligations or as part of its 
public interest mission. The Directive clarifies that authorisation and recognition 
requirements which Member States may apply to authorised entities, e.g. relating to the 
provision of services of a general nature to beneficiaries, should not have the effect of 
preventing them from undertaking the activities permitted by the Directive. Furthermore, 
the authorised entities are encouraged to voluntarily transmit their contact details to their 
Member States of establishment if they engage in exchanges in the internal market or if 
they import or export accessible format copies under the Marrakesh Regulation (Article 6 
of Marrakesh Directive). Member States transmit this information to the Commission, 
which makes it publicly available. Based on the information available, most Member 
States do not impose registration and notification obligations on the authorised entities, 
but information was not available for all Member States. In Finland, the obligation of 
authorised entities to register with the national authorities was removed when transposing 
the Directive (50). In some Member States (Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Hungary 
and Italy) certain procedures are in place for the authorised entities which must notify the 
national authorities of their contact details, and/or their status of authorised entities which 
provide activities addressing the needs of the people with disabilities (51). 

(47)  The study, p. 39-40. 
(48)  The study, p, 34. 
(49)  The Accessible Book Consortium features notably an online catalogue allowing authorised entities 
from ratifying states to exchange books in accessible formats without seeking the authorisation of 
rightsholders; see https://www.accessiblebooksconsortium.org/. 

(50)  The study, p. 35. Currently, Finnish law provides for an obligation for authorised entities established 
in Finland to provide their names and contact details to the Ministry for Education and Culture. 

(51)  The study, p. 37. 

15 

 
 
The Directive does not include any specific monitoring requirements. The consultation 
of Member States, while not providing a comprehensive picture, revealed that monitoring 
practices are in place in Italy, Lithuania, Germany, Finland, Spain, Slovakia, Belgium 
and France. Such practices can consist of periodical reporting of the authorised entity to 
the relevant authority (e.g. in Spain, France, Finland, Italy, Slovakia) and/or of ad hoc 
controls (Belgium, Germany). At the same time, in Ireland no information was available 
on the implementation of the Marrakesh rules due to a lack of information on which were 
the authorised entities functioning in that country. 

A quantitative analysis of the evolution in the reference period is difficult to perform in 
the absence of a baseline. In the next chapter, sample data from a few authorised entities 
is used to quantify to the extent possible the effectiveness of the intervention. 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

This Section discusses the analytical findings of the evaluation, encompassing all five 
evaluation criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value). 
As described in Section 1, the analysis is based on a supporting study, which included a 
targeted consultation and interviews with stakeholders. The study team also assisted the 
Commission services in collecting and assessing the Member States’ replies submitted in 
accordance with Article 10(2) of the Marrakesh Directive and Article 7(2) of the 
Marrakesh Regulation. 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? 

To assess the success of the intervention, this Section discusses to what extent the 
intervention achieved its objectives in an effective, efficient and coherent way, 
addressing each of these elements separately. 

4.1.1.  Effectiveness 

To assess if the intervention was effective, the analysis aims to understand to what extent 
the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation improved the availability of accessible format 
copies within the EU and their cross-border exchanges within the EU and with third 
countries which are parties of the Marrakesh Treaty. It also analyses if there are factors 
which affected the progress towards the objectives as well as if there were any 
unexpected and unintended consequences. It also looks into how the framework 
contributed to broader social goals. Finally, this Section looks at the impact of 
compensation schemes. 

Availability of accessible format copies and their cross-border exchange for people with 
disabilities covered by the Marrakesh instruments 

16 

 
4.1.1.1.  Beneficiaries 

The impact assessment for the European Accessibility Act estimates that there are 
approximately 109 million people with disabilities in the EU (approximately 1 in 5). Of 
these, it was estimated that around 21.08 million people had a visual impairment and 
23.87 million had a cognitive impairment (52), these two categories reaching 
approximately 1 in 10 EU residents) (53). 

Participant statistics 

Data available from authorised entities in seven Member States (54) shows important 
variations among Member States as concerns the users of the services of authorised 
entities in 2023. The share of users is higher in the Nordic countries, reaching 
approximately 4.2% of the total population in Denmark (55), 1.9% in Sweden and 1.25% 
in Finland. In the other Member States for which data was available, the share of users 
(expressed as a percentage of the total population) was much lower. 

Figure 2. Number of users of the services of authorised entities per 1000 citizens in a 
sample of Member States 

41,7

18,9

12,5

Denmark

Sweden

Finland

Lithuania

Croatia

Spain

Poland

1,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

2018

2023

Source: The Study. 

Based on the data provided by a sample of 25 authorised entities from 18 Member States 
(Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, 
Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and 
Sweden), the study found that the overall number of users of authorised entities between 
2018 and 2023 increased by 39%. There is no data to identify the precise cause of the 
increase. However, the fact that prior to the adoption of the Marrakesh Directive, the 

(52)  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:3df7dfd6-99a0-11e5-b3b7-

01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_2&format=PDF, p. 32. 

(53)  For the category of print-related physical disability there is no data which allows distinctions within 

the category of mobility impairments covered by the impact assessment for the EAA. 

(54)  The study only collected almost complete data from the major authorised entities for seven states. 
(55)  The data from Denmark comes from the National Library for people with reading difficulties, which 
reported 235 000 users, while estimating that around 600 000 to 700 000 persons have a visual 
impairment or reading disability in Denmark (see the response to the call for evidence 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-
blind-and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-Regulation_en). 

17 

 
 
 
scope of beneficiaries in certain Member States did not extend to cognitive and physical 
print-related disabilities, while these categories are now covered by the Marrakesh 
Directive, can account for the overall increase in the number of users (56). 

Figure 3. Number of users registered with a sample of 25 authorised entities in 2018 
and 2023 

2023

2018

+39.0%

0

100.000 200.000 300.000 400.000 500.000 600.000 700.000 800.000

Source: The Study 

It should be noted that the number of loans granted by the authorised entities in the 
reference period increased to a lesser extent compared to the increase in the user base, 
reaching a 16% increase in the number of loans in 2022 compared to 2018. 

Figure 4. Number of loans (in millions) made by a sample of 25 authorised entities 
over the period of a year in 2018 and in 2022 

2022

2018

+15.7%

0

2

4

6

8

10

Source: The Study 

The increase in loans from authorised entities (16%) is less than half compared to the 
increase in the number of beneficiaries. Since the catalogues of authorised entities have 
increased (as detailed below) as well as their user base, it is not clear if this lower rate of 
increase in loans compared to the rate of increase of beneficiaries could for example be a 
result of beneficiaries not being always aware of the increased availability of the titles in 
accessible formats, or not identifying the required title or format suitable to them. 

(56)  See the response to the call for evidence from Luisterpuntbibliotheek, available at 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-
blind-and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-
Regulation/feedback_en?p_id=31995115. 

18 

 
 
 
 
4.1.1.2.  Availability of accessible format copies 

The sample quantitative data obtained by the study provides insights into the evolution of 
the collections of accessible format copies of the authorised entities in the reference 
period. It shows that there was a substantial increase (slightly more than 50%) in the 
number of titles offered by authorised entities to beneficiaries in accessible formats 
during the period under review. 

Figure 5. Numbers of titles in accessible format held by a sample of 26 authorised 
entities from 18 Member States, in 2018 and 2023 

2023

2018

+51.1%

0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

Source: The Study, page 61 

The targeted consultation of stakeholders and the consultation of national authorities 
show that the increase of accessible format copies is reflected in the opinion of those 
consulted: in general, all categories perceive an increase in the availability of accessible 
format copies, as shown in Figure 6 below. 

Figure 6. Results of targeted consultation and consultation of national authorities - 
Perceived change in the availability of accessible format copies between 2018 and 
2023 

Authorised entities

Representatives of beneficiaries

National authorities

Other respondents

8%

48%

32%

16%

4%

31%

45%

14%

7%

3%

22%

39%

6%

33%

75%

8%

8%

Increased a lot

Increased somewhat

Remained the same

Decreased somewhat

Decreased a lot

I don't know / no opinion

Source: The Study 

19 

 
 
 
While in absolute terms the increase in the number of titles is mostly due to in house 
production by the authorised entities rather than exchange (57), the data gathered by the 
study from the authorised entities shows that, in relative terms, the production of titles of 
accessible format copies has slightly decreased in importance in the reference period due 
to the corresponding increase of the availability of titles obtained through exchanges, 
including cross-border. For instance, a French authorised entity interviewed by the study 
estimated its own production at around 35% of the accessible copies it offers (down from 
96% in 2018); the rest of the titles were sourced from domestic exchanges (42%), or 
from cross-border exchanges (23%) (58). 

Figure 7. Share of titles held by a sample of 19 authorised entities in 2018 and 2023 
produced or sourced 

80,0%

73,5%

7,1%

10,3%

10,7%

13,6%

2,0%

2,7%

Produced

Sourced domestically

Sourced from EU MS

Sourced from third countries

2018

2023

Source: The Study 

4.1.1.3.  Cross-border exchanges   

The cross-border exchange within EU and with third countries party to the Marrakesh 
Treaty amounted on average to 16.3% of overall titles held in 2023 by the consulted 
authorised entities, a slight increase compared to the 12.7% of titles sourced from EU and 
third countries in 2018. The cross-border exchanges that preceded the entry into force of 
the Marrakesh instruments can be explained by bilateral or multilateral cooperation 
agreements in place, especially for the countries that were part of the same language 
areas. For example, exchanges had been possible since 2003 between Austria, Germany 
and Switzerland (via the Medibus network) (59), between Denmark, Sweden and 
Norway (60), or between Czechia and Slovakia (61). The ratification of the Marrakesh 
Treaty has made possible the cooperation on general level with authorised entities in all 
EU Member States and in those third countries that are contracting parties. It also 
facilitated the access to the ABC Global Book Service, which supports the 
implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty . 

(57)  The study, p. 61. 
(58)  The study, p. 204. 
(59)  The study, p. 207. 
(60)  The study, p. 207. 
(61)  Information submitted by Member States as part of the consultation. 

20 

 
 
 
A vast majority of the titles held by authorised entities (91.5%) are in the national 
language(s)(62), which are understandably more desired by the local beneficiaries. This 
also explains why countries that share a common language tend to have a higher rate of 
imported titles. For example, the percentage of imported titles in the overall catalogue 
stands at 60.5% in Belgium, 34% in the Netherlands, 23% in France (63), and falls below 
5% in Denmark or Lithuania (64). 

While titles in foreign languages are exchanged only to a limited extent, they are mostly 
sourced by authorised entities through cross-border exchanges, not production. For 
example, the Spanish authorised entity indicates that foreign titles constitute a small 
percentage (1%) of the overall catalogue of the authorised entity, and 85% of these 
foreign works are available through imports from signatories of the Marrakesh 
Treaty (65). Such foreign titles cater for instance to the needs of people to access works in 
other languages, such as educational material, or to the needs of minority populations or 
immigrants who seek access to works in their national language (66). 

The imported titles are mostly sourced from other EU Member States, however 
authorised entities also import titles from third countries party to the Marrakesh Treaty, 
with such imports reaching a share of 2.7% of the catalogue in 2023 (up from 2% in 
2018). Authorised entities interviewed indicate that works are usually imported from the 
USA, the UK and Canada (67). The exchanges can be quite significant in the case of 
specific authorised entities. As an example, the catalogue of a French authorised entity 
contains 15% of titles imported from Switzerland and Canada (68). 

The Marrakesh rules allowing cross-border exchange are also relevant for the exports 
from EU to third countries. While no overall data is available, interviews with authorised 
entities indicate that exchanges with countries from Latin America and Africa largely 
consist of exports from the EU. At the level of individual authorised entities, a relevant 
example is the export of accessible format copies by the Spanish authorised entity to 
countries in Latin America (69). Exports can also be directly to beneficiaries, as was the 
case for one authorised entity in France providing accessible format copies to 
beneficiaries in African countries parties to the Marrakesh Treaty (however no exports 

(62)   The study, p. 62 
(63)  For example, an authorised entity in France imported 50 000 titles from Belgium, Switzerland, 

Canada (the study, p. 208). 

(64)  The study, p.e 62. 
(65)  The study, p. 204. 
(66)  For example, the Swedish authorised entity imports books in foreign languages to cater for minorities 
and refugees (the study, p. 67); Furthermore, authorised entities in Sweden, Finland and Norway 
cooperate to provide works in accessible format catering to the Saami speaking community in Lapland 
(see the study, p. 208). 

(67)  The study, p. 76. 
(68)  The study, p. 212. 
(69)  ONCE exported 421 copies to Argentina and Peru in 2023, and 568 copies to Guatemala, Mexico and 

Argentine (the study, p. 212). 

21 

 
 
took place to the authorised entities) (70). The same French authorised entity has 
exported, through the ABC platform, 13 981 titles since 2014, with 63% of them going to 
third countries (predominantly Canada). 

4.1.1.4.  Consideration on the impact of the rules on the availability of accessible 

format copies 

As presented above, the quantitative data available from the sample of authorised entities 
shows that since the adoption of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation there has been 
an increase in the number of beneficiaries that used the services of authorised entities (by 
about 39%) and in the number of accessible works (by about 50%). In house production 
remains the most significant source of accessible format copies, also because users 
favour works in their own language, which could be available through exchanges only in 
countries with shared languages. Nevertheless, from the adoption of the Marrakesh 
instruments, the importance of in house production decreased in relative terms, due to a 
mild increase in the cross-border exchange. 

While no quantitative data is available to qualify the impact of the implementation of the 
Marrakesh rules, the opinion of the stakeholders consulted by the study is that the 
Marrakesh framework has had a positive impact on the availability of accessible format 
copies (Figure 8). 

Figure 8. Perceived impact of the Framework on the increased availability of 
accessible format copies on a scale from 0 (no impact of the Framework) to 10 (all of 
the increase is attributable to the Framework) 

Other respondents

Representatives of beneficiaries

Authorised entities

6,67

5,71

4,80

National authorities

2,71

Source: The Study 

(70)  The study, p. 212; the French authorised entity mentioned also that the lack of exchange with African 
authorised entities was due to a lack of digital and physical infrastructure of the authorised entities in 
African countries – see the study p. 67. 

22 

 
 
 
Another survey conducted for an academic article (71) shows that 55% of the 
beneficiaries interviewed perceived an increase of the access to works in accessible 
formats in 2022, with the article explaining that, in particular, ‘persons who are blind and 
using Braille printers experienced an improvement in their access to printed 
materials’ (72) The article suggests that the Marrakesh framework facilitated in particular 
the conversion of printed material into Braille format, and had little impact on access to 
digital books (73). 

In addition, the responses to the targeted consultation carried out in the context of this 
evaluation indicate that authorised entities and national authorities appreciate that there 
was an important impact of the framework on the EU and international cross-border 
exchanges, more than on production (Figure 9). 

Figure 9. Impact of the Framework on perceived increases in the exchange of 
accessible format copies on a scale from 0-10, where 0 indicates no impact of the 
Framework, and 10 indicates that the increase is entirely attributable to the 
Framework (n=18) 

Authorised entities

National authorities

5,09

5,00

7,33

8,46

6,67

7,50

Domestic exchanges

Exchanges within the EU

Exchanges with third countries

Source: The Study (based on responses to the targeted consultation and consultation with 
Member States) 

The direct impact of the Marrakesh instruments can be seen in a more straightforward 
way on cross-border exchange than on the production of accessible format copies. This is 
because copyright exceptions to benefit people with disabilities existed prior to the 
adoption of the Marrakesh Directive, already allowing authorised entities to make books 
and other written materials in accessible formats. Furthermore, regardless of the 
copyright framework, budgetary constraints and technological capabilities are more 
likely to drive the production capacities of authorised entities. As concerns cross-border 
exchanges, while certain Member States had cooperation agreements in place (especially 

(71)  Ferri, D. The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, 

Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled in the European Union: Reflecting on Its 
Implementation and Gauging Its Impact from a Disability Perspective. IIC 55, 89-109 (2024). 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01410-y Available at 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-023-01410-y#Sec7. 

(72)  idem 
(73)  idem. 

23 

 
 
 
covering exchanges in the same language areas), the Marrakesh instruments opened up 
the possibility of exchanges with all Member States and with third countries, as well as 
providing access to international platforms facilitating international exchanges. 
Authorised entities in several Member States (e.g. Austria, Germany, Finland, Lithuania) 
reported that the implementation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation either 
allowed them to make such exchanges for the first time, or permitted them to expand the 
exchanges to a wider number of countries (74). 

At the same time, it could be speculated that the access to accessible format copies 
through cross-border exchange means some funds could be freed up (see Section 4.1.2 on 
efficiency), allowing authorised entities to use them for the production of other titles that 
were not available through exchanges. 

Furthermore, the framework, which also includes people with perceptual, reading or 
print-related physical disabilities among beneficiaries in additions to people who are 
blind or visually impaired, led to an expansion on the scope of beneficiaries covered in 
the reference period (39%). In theory, the increase in the user base could have impacted 
the production of the accessible format copies, however the data to correlate these factors 
is not available. In any case, as the study cautions, the production of new titles is 
influenced by several other factors, as developed in the Section below. 

4.1.1.5.  Factors affecting the production and exchange of accessible format copies 

Based on the responses to the targeted consultation with the authorised entities, the most 
important obstacles to providing more accessible format copies are insufficient funding 
for the institutions producing the copies, or other insufficient resources (human 
resources, know-how, technology). Another challenge identified by respondents was the 
limited awareness among beneficiaries about where to obtain accessible format copies 
(see Figure 10). 

(74)  The study, p. 35. 

24 

 
 
Figure 10. Obstacles to providing more accessible format copies, according to 24 
AEs 

Insufficient funding for your institution to produce accessible
format copies

Insufficient other resources of your institution to produce
accessible format copies

Limited awareness and/or information among the beneficiaries
about where to obtain accessible format copies

38%

38%

21%

13%

4%

21%

4%

25%

8%

17%

13%

21%

8%

25%

29%

17%

Inaccessibility of gateways

8%

13%

8%

25%

Limited demand from beneficiaries for accessible format copies

4%

13%

8%

25%

38%

46%

8%

4%

Very important

Important

Somewhat important

Rather unimportant

Not important at all / has not happened I don't know / no opinion

Source: The Study, page 74 

For funding sources, the authorised entities rely mostly on public funding (e.g. in 
Denmark, France, Lithuania), or a combination of public funding and donations (e.g. in 
France, Germany) (75). In one Member State (Spain) the authorised entity, ONCE, is 
funded mainly through the gross income obtained from the marketing of lotteries (76). 
There is no comprehensive data on the budget available to authorised entities in Member 
States, or on the variation from 2018 to 2023. However, the replies to the targeted 
consultation indicate that the lack of funds and other capacity constraints are viewed by 
the authorised entities as main limiting factors to the production of accessible format 
copies. In particular, authorised entities in France and Germany interviewed in the study 
mentioned a significant reliance on donations (77). Even when the authorised entities rely 
mostly on public funding, as in Lithuania, they are also supported by donations or by 
volunteers, for example for audio narration (78). 

Authorised entities in smaller markets are also confronted by constraints due to limited 
production capacity, though it can be noted that among small markets, the richness of the 
catalogues of authorised entities varies significantly, with Nordic countries like Finland 
and Denmark possessing many more titles than authorised entities in Croatia or 
Lithuania (79). In particular, when they are not part of larger language areas, such 
countries are confronted with a lack of economies of scale and are less likely to benefit 
from technological tools that are more accessible in larger language markets. For 

(75)  The study, p. 38. 
(76)  https://www.fundaciononce.es/en/about-us/introduction, last accessed on 6 August 2024. 
(77)  The study, p. 75. 
(78)  The study, p. 38. 
(79)  69 021 titles in Finland and 84 000 in Denmark versus 7 727 in Croatia and 15 433 in Lithuania (see 

the study, p. 215). 

25 

 
 
 
instance, larger markets can benefit from synthetic voices for adaptations, while in 
smaller markets the production would likely rely on human voice narrators, implying 
higher costs (80). 

The awareness of beneficiaries (people with disabilities) as to where and how to find 
accessible format copies was also identified as an issue affecting access to accessible 
format copies, both during the targeted consultation and the call for evidence (81). This 
factor was flagged as important or very important by 29% of authorised entities, as well 
as by 59% of the beneficiaries representatives, educational institutions, cultural heritage 
institutions and other respondent participating in the targeted consultation. 

Certain tools are available to facilitate access to information about available titles (82). 
For instance, beneficiaries may access online catalogues (e.g. Platon in France, catalogue 
of Celia in Sweden, catalogue of ONCE in Spain, Medibus catalogue in Germany). The 
ABC beneficiary application also ensures that information on available copies is 
accessible in a centralised manner for the use of beneficiaries, however it is not yet 
available to beneficiaries in all Member States (83). 

The issue of awareness of the framework has been explored also by D. Ferri in 2023 (84). 
The research showed that there is limited knowledge of the Marrakesh framework, not 
only among people with disabilities, who can make use of copyright exceptions to access 
material in accessible formats, but also among representatives of organisations of people 
with disabilities. It seems that people who are blind might have a better awareness of the 
Marrakesh Treaty than people with a visual impairment, which the research article 
suggests could be caused by the different methods employed to access works (e.g. using 
copyright exceptions to produce Braille copies for people who are blind versus using 
visual magnifiers for people with visual impairments) (85). 

Certain authorised entities also flagged the importance of access to the relevant 
technology to allow the use of the digital accessible formats, which is still lagging (for 
instance a survey conducted by a French authorised entity in 2021 revealed that 41% of 
its users did not have access to computers or laptops or smartphones, and only 7% had 

(80)  The study, p. 215. 
(81)  Response of EDF to the call for evidence, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-

regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-blind-and-visually-impaired-people-
evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-Regulation_en. 

(82)  The study, p. 218. 
(83)  New ABC Application Gets Accessible Books Directly to People who are Print-Disabled 
(84)  Ferri, D. The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, 

Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled in the European Union: Reflecting on Its 
Implementation and Gauging Its Impact from a Disability Perspective, IIC 55, 89-109 (2024). 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01410-y available at 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-023-01410-y. 

(85)  Ferri, Delia and Rossello, Giulia (2023) The Role of the Marrakesh Treaty in Supporting Access to 

Printed Material for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired: A Critical Discussion of the Results 
of an Empirical Study Conducted in Six European Countries, Disabilities, 3 (2), p. 162. 

26 

 
 
read an e-book) (86). To facilitate access, beneficiaries are given the option to request 
CDs or paper-based Braille versions. In Belgium, in addition to providing online access 
to catalogues, the authorised entities offer information to beneficiaries via email or by 
phone. Furthermore, library networks are available in certain Member States, 
intermediating access of beneficiaries via their local library to physical copies held by 
authorised entities. 

The cross-border exchange, especially with third countries, encounters also some 
challenges, for instance in the interoperability of formats and metadata (e.g. USA and 
Latin America have been reported to use different digital formats than the ones usually 
employed in the European Union) (87). The cross-border exchange with third countries 
was also reported to be impacted by legal uncertainty: even if they are parties to the 
Marrakesh Treaty, the legal framework in certain third countries might not be clear 
enough to allow seamless exchange (88). 

4.1.1.6.  Impact of compensation schemes 

The Marrakesh Treaty leaves the option to contracting parties to decide whether they 
introduce a compensation scheme (89). On this basis, the European Union legislator 
introduced in Article 3(6) of the Marrakesh Directive the possibility for Member States to 
provide compensation for uses permitted under the Directive. The Directive confines the 
compensation scheme by providing several safeguards: compensation schemes should 
apply to uses undertaken by authorised entities established in the territory of the Member 
State introducing the scheme; compensation schemes should not require payments from 
beneficiaries or from authorised entities established in other Member States or third 
countries party to the Marrakesh Treaty; there should not be more burdensome 
requirements for the cross-border exchange of accessible format copies under such 
compensation schemes than for non-cross-border situations, including with regard to the 
form and possible level of compensation. The level of compensation should take account 
of the nature of the not-for-profit use. Furthermore, where the harm to a rightholder is 
minimal, no obligation for payment of compensation should arise. 

As indicated in Section 3, six Member States have chosen to introduce compensation 
schemes, namely Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece and Sweden, while two 
more Member States (Malta and the Netherlands) provide the possibility in their national 
law to introduce a compensation scheme if there is a prejudice to the interests of 

(86)  The response to the call for evidence by AVH (Association Valentin Haüy) (France), 11 May 2023, 
available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-
copyright-law-for-blind-and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-
Regulation/feedback_en?p_id=31995115; see also the study, p. 75. 

(87)  The study, pp. 59 and 76. 
(88)  The study, p. 76  
(89)  According to Article 4(5) of the Marrakesh Treaty, ‘[i]t shall be a matter for national law to determine 

whether limitations or exceptions under this Article are subject to remuneration’. 

27 

 
 
rightholders. These two Member States did not make use of the option at the time of the 
evaluation. 

The mapping done by the study showed that the compensation schemes in use in the six 
Member States vary in scope: in Austria and Germany the schemes apply to all types of 
works to which the Marrakesh exception applies. The fee is of approximately EUR 0.12 
per copy in Austria, and EUR 0.15 per copy in Germany, payable through the relevant 
collective management organisation (CMO) to authors and publishers. The study 
mentions that in 2020 the authorised entities in Germany paid EUR 27 000 as 
compensation for uses under Marrakesh rules (90) (the study did not collect this 
information for Austria). 

In the other Member States (Denmark, Finland, Greece, Sweden) the compensation is 
limited either in terms of sectors or by types of medium covered. Thus, in Denmark, with 
the implementation of the Marrakesh Directive, the prior commercial check was removed 
and instead the legislation introduced a compensation scheme where the amount of 
compensation varies depending on whether it concerns the loan of a copy of a work that 
has been published commercially in an accessible format (in which case the payment per 
loan is approximately EUR 1.60) or not (EUR 0.94) (91). Overall, yearly the 
compensation is around EUR 1.78 million (92). The compensation is due to authors and 
publishers by the authorised entity for all copyright protected works covered by the 
Marrakesh framework, in relation to adaptation on certain media (audiobooks and e-
books). 

In Finland, the compensation is due to authors for physical loans of CDs or for digital 
downloads that are kept by the user. The compensation amount is negotiated by the 
authorised entity Celia with the CMO Sanasto. The cost is of EUR 0.38 per copy, and 
overall in 2022 the compensation due for uses under the Marrakesh rules was 
EUR 159 000. The compensation is paid from funds provided by the Ministry of 
Education and Culture to Celia for its statutory activities (93). 

In Sweden, authors and translators receive compensation for uses under Marrakesh rules 
for ‘talking books’ (books read aloud), which are aimed at people with visual and reading 
disabilities (94). The compensation amount is calculated based on the length of the work 
and is paid out by the Ministry of Culture in a lump sum. For 2022, the compensation 
amounted to EUR 1.07 million (95). 

(90)  The study, p. 43. 
(91)  The study, p. 159. 
(92)  The study, p. 159. 
(93)  The study, p. 43. 
(94)  The study, p. 163. 
(95)  The study, p. 163. 

28 

 
 
Finally, in Greece, authors and publishers receive compensation from the budget of the 
Ministry of Education for the use of educational works adapted in accessible format 
copies (96). 

While the Marrakesh Directive requires the evaluation to look in particular at the impact 
of compensation schemes on the availability and cross-border exchange of accessible 
format copies, the limited data available does not allow a quantitative analysis of this 
impact. 

The study compared the increase in the volumes of catalogues of 5 authorised entities 
present in 4 Member States with compensation schemes, and 19 authorised entities in 12 
Member States without compensation schemes (Figure 11). While the data shows that the 
overall volume of titles in all the 19 authorised entities increased to a significantly greater 
extent than in the 5 authorised entities from the Member States with compensation 
schemes, the data has to be treated with many caveats. As explained in the study, the data 
is very limited, might not be representative, and does not allow asserting correlation 
between the lack of compensation schemes and the increased volume of titles in 
accessible formats. This is because other factors may account for the difference in the 
rate of increase of catalogues, such as the fact that authorised entities in Member States 
with compensation schemes from the outset had an extensive collection of titles while 
other authorised entities might have started to build up an entire collection (97). As shown 
also in the sub Section above, catalogues of authorised entities in countries like Finland 
and Denmark (which have a compensation scheme) had significantly more titles than 
authorised entities in Croatia or Lithuania where no compensation scheme applies (98). 
The lack of contextual data therefore does not permit a conclusion about impact from this 
comparison. 

Figure 11. Total number of titles held by selected AEs in Member States with and 
without a compensation scheme in 2018 and in 2023 (n=24) 

Countries with a compensation scheme
(4 Member States; 5 AEs)

Countries without a compensation scheme
(12 Member States; 19 AEs)

+18.55

+87.5%

0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

2023

2018

(96)  The study, p. 161. 
(97)  The study, p. 71. 
(98)  69 021 titles in Finland and 84 000 in Denmark versus 7 727 in Croatia and 15 433 in Lithuania (see 

the study, p. 211). 

29 

 
 
 
Source: The Study 

Opinions of stakeholders in their responses to the call for evidence differ depending on 
the interests represented, with representatives of beneficiaries considering that the 
compensation schemes should be eliminated (99), in particular mentioning that 
compensation schemes create barriers and that authorised entities should not be paying 
for work that publishers should do themselves. Two of these respondents consider that 
compensation schemes are against the spirit of the Marrakesh Treaty. However, the 
Treaty allows contracting parties to introduce compensation schemes. At the same time, 
rightholders emphasise in particular that compensation schemes are needed to remunerate 
authors and publishers (100). 

Interviews conducted by the study team with stakeholders from Germany, Finland and 
Denmark, as well as replies submitted to the call for evidence, show that opinions on the 
impact of compensation schemes on the availability of works also vary depending on the 
national compensation scheme. 

As concerns the production of accessible format copies, the Finnish authorised entity 
considers that the compensation scheme has only a minimal impact. Several factors can 
explain this view, as indicated also in the study (101). In Finland, as described above, 
compensation is due for a limited type of formats (copies that remain with the user - 
physical loans of CDs, downloads), and do not cover uses such as streaming, which have 
become an important method of consumption in Finland (102). Another factor to consider 
is the level of funding from the state budget also covering the compensation paid by the 
Finnish authorised entity (103). The opinion of the association representing visually 
impaired people living in Finland was that, in order to ensure the availability of 
accessible copies of works, the Finnish compensation scheme should remain at most at 
the current level (104). 

On the other hand, interviews conducted by the study team with a German authorised 
entity, as well as with German representatives of beneficiaries, revealed that these 
stakeholders consider that the compensation scheme limits the capacity of authorised 
entities to produce accessible format copies in that country. While the yearly 
compensation paid by that authorised entity (approx. EUR 27 000) is lower than that paid 
by the Finnish authorised entity, the interviews indicate that the sum is considered 

(99)  See responses to call for evidence, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-
your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-blind-and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-
the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-Regulation_en. 

(100) See responses to call for evidence, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-
your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-blind-and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-
the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-Regulation_en. 

(101) The study, p. 70. 
(102) The study, pp. 70 and 196. 
(103) Idem. 
(104) Response to the call for evidence by Näkövammaisten liitto ry available at EU copyright law for blind 
and visually impaired people – evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation (europa.eu). 

30 

 
 
relevant in the overall budget of the authorised entity, which relies on donations for its 
functioning. The negative impact on production capacity was also raised by Austrian 
representatives of beneficiaries in relation to the compensation scheme in that 
country (105). 

Finally, the compensation scheme in Denmark was considered by the Danish authorised 
entity Nota to have an impact on production, but for reasons that are linked to the process 
of setting up the scheme rather than the compensation scheme itself. More exactly, the 
negotiations with rightholders on the design of the compensation scheme were found by 
the authorised entity to have had a short term impact on its resources which had to be 
dedicated to administrative tasks, and halving the production of titles for 2022, when the 
negotiations took place (106). At the time the interview was conducted, the scheme had 
been recently put into place, thus the potential impact of the scheme itself was yet to be 
seen (107). 

While quantitative data is not available to quantify possible effects, certain stakeholders 
argue that authorised entities engage less in cross-border exchanges, in particular due to 
uncertainties regarding the application of compensation in cross-border dissemination 
and the difficulty of calculating compensation for exporting, which could dissuade 
authorised entities from engaging in such exchanges (108). Representatives of 
beneficiaries have raised concerns in particular in relation to the compensation schemes 
from Germany and Austria. The Austrian federation for blind and visually impaired 
people considers that compensation schemes negatively affect the cross-border exchange 
between these countries because in both countries, in principle, compensation is claimed 
for the same right (109). The Spanish and Finnish authorised entities consider that the 
exchange of accessible format copies in the German language is made difficult because 
exporting authorised entities do not have clarity as to what extent the compensation 
scheme applies to the cross-border exchanges and, if it does, how to track the use for the 
purposes of calculating compensation (110), 

Authorised entities from Germany, Austria and Switzerland have established a trilateral 
agreement for cross-border exchange. According to the input provided by the Austrian 

(105) Response to the call for evidence by Blinden- und Sehbehindertenverband Österreich (BSVÖ) and by 
the European Blind Union, available at EU copyright law for blind and visually impaired people – 
evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation (europa.eu). 

(106) The study, p. 200. 
(107) The study, p. 71. 
(108) The study, p. 194. 
(109) See response to the call for evidence by the Austrian Federation of the Blind and Partially Sighted, 

and the response to the call for evidence by European Blind Union available at 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-
blind-and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-
Regulation/F3407696_en. 
(110) The study, pp. 71 and 194. 

31 

 
 
CMO Literar Mechana (111), the agreement with VG Wort (Germany) and Prolitteris 
(Switzerland) in place since 2012 ensures that works created by German or Swiss 
authorised entities, for which compensation is paid in Germany or Switzerland 
respectively, can be ordered by Austrian libraries and lent to their users without further 
compensation, as long as the concerned works are returned afterwards. Where the 
Austrian authorised entity intends to make the work part of their collection, they would 
have to pay a fee for such use under the Austrian compensation scheme. 

In Sweden, Finland and Denmark, practices vary as to the application of compensation 
schemes in the case of cross-border exchange. The Finnish authorised entity reported that 
the number of cross-border loans is low, and considering the difficulty of tracking use 
abroad it is preferred not to impose a compensation fee for such use (112). In Sweden the 
compensation fee paid to rightsholders is not dependent on the number of loans 
(including if they are abroad) (113). Finally, in Denmark rightsholders are also paid for 
cross-border uses (114). 

In this context, it is important to bear in mind that compensation schemes should only 
apply to uses by authorised entities established in the territory of the Member State 
providing for such a scheme, and they should not require payments by authorised entities 
established in other Member States or third countries that are party to the Marrakesh 
Treaty. 

The correlation between compensation schemes and cross-border exchange is not 
possible to quantify or even establish, especially since the exchanges between Member 
States and with third countries are affected by various factors, linked in particular to 
sharing a common language, as well as in certain cases to the use of technology 
(interoperability of formats and metadata) (115) (see above, section 4.1.1.5). 

To conclude, the option in Article 3(6) of the Marrakesh Directive has been used by six 
Member States, which have introduced schemes to compensate rightholders for uses 
undertaken by authorised entities under the Marrakesh Directive. The schemes differ 
among these Member States in terms of sectors and formats covered. It is not possible to 
draw conclusions on the quantitative impacts of the compensation schemes either on 
production or on exchange. Based on qualitative data, it appears that the impact is 
perceived differently by authorised entities and beneficiaries, depending on the design 
and financing of the scheme. Certain unclarities on the application of the scheme in some 
Member States may create reluctance for cross-border exchange. 

(111) Contribution submitted to the Commission services by Literar Mechana on 6 September 2023 in 

reaction to the call for evidence. The input was sent after the deadline to respond to the call for 
evidence and thus was not published online. 

(112) The study, p. 72. 
(113) The study, p. 72. 
(114) The study, p. 72. 
(115) The study, p. 72. 

32 

 
 
4.1.1.7.  Possible unexpected and unintended consequences – considerations of 

potential impact on commercial market 

As explained in Section 3, in order to ensure legal certainty, the Marrakesh Directive 
clarifies that authorised entities are not required to check the commercial availability of a 
work before deciding to produce an accessible format copy (recital 14). The question as 
to whether the Marrakesh framework can have unintended consequences on the 
commercial market has led to the specific provision in Article 10(3) of the Marrakesh 
Directive, according to which Member States may alert the Commission, by providing all 
the relevant elements, if they have valid reasons to consider that the implementation of 
the Directive has had a significant negative impact on the commercial availability of 
works or other subject matter in accessible formats for beneficiaries. The Commission is 
required to take such evidence into account when drawing up the evaluation report. 

At the time of drafting of this report, no Member State has submitted such evidence to 
the Commission. Furthermore, the data gathered for the study did not allow conclusions 
to be drawn on the impact of the Marrakesh instruments on the commercial market in 
terms of commercial availability of born accessible works, due in particular to a lack of 
comprehensive data on the accessible publishing market (116). 

During the targeted consultation, most stakeholders consulted did not identify an impact 
of the Marrakesh rules on the incentives for commercial production. Rightholders 
generally considered that there was no impact (56% of respondents), with the rest divided 
among those considering that it had and that it had not impacted the incentives for 
commercial production (Figure 12). Certain stakeholders view a positive indirect impact 
of the framework on the publishing market across Member States, as they consider that it 
has led to increased coordination and exchange between publishers and authorised 
entities via new initiatives, companies or mediators (117). Finally, almost half the replies 
from national authorities considered that there was no impact on commercial incentives, 
with none of them considering that incentives have been decreased. 

(116) The study, p. 67. 
(117) Response to the call for evidence by European Writers Council, available at 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-
blind-and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-
Regulation/F3414802_en. 

33 

 
 
Figure 12. Perceived impact of the Framework on commercial incentives (n=33) 

Rightsholders

13%

56%

19%

13%

National authorities

6%

47%

47%

Increased the incentives

Had no impact

Decreased the incentives

I don’t know / no opinion

Source: The Study 

On the basis of the available information, it cannot be concluded that the rules on the 
copyright exception in favour of people with visual and reading impairments and print-
related disabilities have had a significant negative impact on the commercial availability 
of works in accessible format which would warrant a revision of the current approach. 

4.1.1.8.  Potential impact on broader social goals 

Several stakeholders indicated positive impacts of the Marrakesh framework on areas 
such as social inclusion and equality in general (118), developing opportunities to learn for 
children and adults (119); and work, culture and community participation (120).However, it 
is difficult to determine on the basis of the data available for this evaluation the extent to 
which the Marrakesh framework might have impacted these broader social goals. 

Stakeholders also mentioned persisting difficulties, going beyond the Marrakesh 
framework, that might affect these goals, such as the insufficient availability of textbooks 
in accessible format, the insufficient accessibility of digital learning platforms, and the 
need for adequate training of teachers and librarians (121). 

Stakeholders in several Member States have noted the positive impact of the framework 
on people with disabilities who come from ethnic minorities, diasporas or refugee 
populations (122). The cross-border exchange facilitated by the Marrakesh framework 
makes it possible to send works in accessible formats to people that emigrated to other 

(118) Responses to the call for evidence from an EU citizen and Nota, 2023, available at EU copyright law 
for blind and visually impaired people – evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation 
(europa.eu). 

(119) Response to the call for evidence from Nota, 2023; available at EU copyright law for blind and 
visually impaired people – evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation (europa.eu); 
interviews by the study team with the European Blind Union and Eureka Leuven, 2023. 
(120) Response to the call for evidence from Nota, 2023, available at EU copyright law for blind and 
visually impaired people – evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation (europa.eu). 

(121) Interview by the study team with the European Disability Forum, European Writers’ Council, German 

Federation of the Blind and Partially Sighted, Accessibility Library Celia and Eureka Leuven 

(122) The study, p. 67. 

34 

 
 
 
Member States or to serve the needs of minority populations or refugees by exchanging 
works with countries that share their language. 

The framework could be seen as having contributed to awareness, in particular among 
publishers, of the challenges faced by people with disabilities (123). 

4.1.2.  Efficiency 

The analysis of efficiency presented important limitations, as there was insufficient 
available data to quantify costs and benefits arising from the application of the Marrakesh 
framework. Much of the identified quantitative data contained limited details on the 
authorised entities’ budget and their allocations, pertained only to a specific authorised 
entity, or was not accessible to the researchers in charge of the study. 

Therefore, to assess if the intervention was efficient, the analysis mostly relies on a 
consideration of qualitative data. This Section is divided in two parts: impacts on various 
categories of stakeholders, and factors that may affect the efficiency. 

4.1.2.1.  Analysis of the impact of the Marrakesh framework 

The analysis of the impact of the framework considers the categories of authorised 
entities, beneficiaries, rightholders and national authorities. 

As mentioned in Section 3, even before the adoption of the Marrakesh Directive and 
Regulation, the EU framework provided Member States with the option to introduce an 
exception from copyright to benefit people with disabilities. While Member States have 
used this option to implement exceptions and limitations in their national legislation prior 
to the adoption of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation, there were variations in the 
scope of application at national level, which in turn impacted the cross-border exchange 
of accessible format copies (124). The Marrakesh framework clarifies the exclusive rights 
and beneficiaries covered by the exception, increasing legal certainty and facilitating 
cross-border exchange. 

As shown under the Section 4.1.1. above, the definition of beneficiaries in the Directive 
led in certain cases to an expansion of the categories of beneficiaries covered at national 
level (e.g. if the initial scope of national legislation was more limited than what the 
Marrakesh framework covers). Overall, based on data from a sample of authorised 
entities, it appears that in the reference period there was an increase of approximately 

(123) Interviews conducted by the study team with the German Centre for Accessible Reading, the 
European Blind Union, the European Writers’ Council, and Luisterpuntbibliotheek, 2023. 
(124) European Commission, Directorate-General for the Internal Market and Services, Francquen, A., 
Dusollier, S., Triaille, J. et al., study on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and 
related rights in the information society (the ‘InfoSoc Directive’), European Commission, 2013, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2780/90141, pp. 420-437. 

35 

 
 
39% in the number of registered users (see Figure 3 in Section 4.1.1.1). In the reference 
period, there was also an increase in the number of titles available in the catalogue of the 
authorised entities as well as increased access to catalogues of authorised entities (Figure 
4 in Section 4.1.1.1) . As reflected also in the perception of stakeholders (see Figure 6 in 
Section 4.1.1.2), the framework appears to bring benefits to people with disabilities 
through improved access to accessible format copies. 

Authorised entities deploy administrative, monetary and human resources for the 
production and exchange of accessible format copies. These costs are not generated by 
the Marrakesh framework, which only aims to facilitate their activities through increased 
legal certainty. According to data gathered by the study, the production of an accessible 
format copy can vary between EUR 250 and EUR 1600 for a DAISY version, and 
between EUR 200 and EUR 3000 for an eBraille edition. Most authorised entities 
interviewed by the study reported that there have not been major changes to the 
production costs since the implementation of the framework (125). 

As discussed also in the Section on effectiveness, the adoption of the Marrakesh 
framework meant that accessible format copies could be sourced more easily through 
cross-border exchange (see Figure 7 above). Authorised entities engaging in cross-
border exchanges set up, coordinate and keep channels of exchange between authorised 
entities established in the EU, as well as in third countries, or through the participation in 
the ABC platform (126). While no comprehensive data was shared by the authorised 
entities on the impact on their resources as a result of the new rules facilitating the cross-
border exchange, certain authorised entities interviewed in the study (127) highlighted that 
the framework offers them the possibility to avoid duplication of efforts and improves the 
availability of works to their users. For example, the Spanish authorised entity indicated 
that the cross-border exchange (within and outside the EU) lead to savings of 
approximately EUR 133 000 over a span of three and a half years  (128). Furthermore, the 
increased legal certainty resulting from a harmonised exception, and the express 
recognition of the possibility of cross-border exchange alleviates the need for extensive 
checks to ensure compliance with the national copyright rules valid in the country of 
destination. The resources deployed by authorised entities that have access to 
international initiatives (ABC) have as a corollary an improved efficiency through a 
streamline of the exchange processes and easier access to a large pool of works (129). 

Authorised entities are required to prevent and discourage unauthorised uses (see 
Article 5(1) of the Directive). As mentioned in Section 3, authorised entities employ 

(125) The study, p. 79. 
(126) Approximately one fifth of the authorised entities consulted during the targeted consultation identified 
changes in this type of costs, making it the most frequently mentioned type of changes in cost in the 
consultation (see the study, p. 80). 

(127) The study, p. 203. 
(128) The study, p. 213. 
(129) The study, p. 207. 

36 

 
 
different practices to determine eligibility of the beneficiaries: they may require proof of 
disability, membership of organisations for the blind, declaration of honour, or – even if 
they do not require any proof – they register users after an interview which establishes 
their needs (130). Practices differ also on the methods applied to prevent further 
dissemination - authorised entities may use technical protection measures, in particular 
watermarking, limit the number of loans, or inform about the consequences of breaches 
varying from exclusion from the user base to criminal liability (131). In addition, 
authorised entities are required to provide information to beneficiaries, other authorised 
entities or rightsholders on the list of works in an accessible format copy held by the 
authorised entity, and on the authorised entities it has exchanged copies with (in line with 
Article 5(2) of the Directive). Authorised entities also provide user service to 
beneficiaries, such as maintaining and updating catalogues, and providing customer 
service. In light of the increase of the user base by 40%, as indicated above, there might 
be some marginal increase in the impact on authorised entities for user service compared 
to the period prior to the intervention. However, no concrete data was available to 
determine if or to what extent this could be the case. In the targeted consultation, 10 
authorised entities reported that they had incurred no expenses following the 
implementation of the Marrakesh framework, while seven indicated that they had 
expenses associated with the human resources required to establish and oversee the 
necessary information systems (such as preparing metadata, downloading copies and 
incorporating new entries into their catalogues). 

As mentioned in Section 3, with the aim of providing legal certainty for beneficiaries, the 
Directive clarifies that authorised entities should not be required to perform prior checks 
of the commercial availability of works in accessible formats. The framework therefore 
does not impose obligations on authorised entities that might inhibit the production of 
and access to accessible format copies due to a lack of clarity on whether a work can be 
adapted by the authorised entity or not. As explained in Section 3, with few exceptions, 
the Member States refrained from introducing a requirement on authorised entities to 
check the commercial availability of works in accessible formats. 

Furthermore, the Marrakesh framework prevents introducing specific authorisation 
conditions on authorised entities for the taking up of activities under the framework. 
While Member States can have in place authorisation or recognition requirements, 
applicable for instance for the provision of services of a general nature to beneficiaries, 
the Marrakesh Directive clarifies that this should not have the effect of preventing the 
authorised entities, which are confined to the categories defined in Article 2(4) of the 
Directive, from undertaking the uses allowed under the framework. Representatives of 
beneficiaries stated that in certain Member States authorised entities need to be on an 

(130) The study, p. 44. 
(131) The study, p. 45. 

37 

 
 
approved list in order to benefit from the Marrakesh provisions (132). On the other hand, 
certain stakeholders consulted during the study argued that the lack of an obligation for 
authorised entities to notify to the national authorities makes it difficult to track the 
number and identity of authorised entities operating. As mentioned in Section 3, the 
systems in place at national level vary, with certain Member States requiring some form 
of notification to the competent authority of their names, legal status, contact details, and 
some information on the activities of the authorised entity. However, sufficient data was 
not available to establish the possible impact on resources on the national systems in 
place. Furthermore, the framework encourages authorised entities which engaged in 
cross-border exchange to communicate their names and contact details to be made 
publicly available by the Commission in a centralised place (133). While this might entail 
some marginal use of resources for the authorised entities, it should also provide benefits 
for them by facilitating the mutual identification of authorised entities with which to 
cooperate, and more generally helps increase transparency. 

As concerns rightholders, the rules were expected to have a limited impact on their 
copyright as property right (recognised by Article 17 of the Charter), since the Marrakesh 
Directive and Regulation are limited to fully harmonising the different copyright 
exceptions or limitations already existing at national level prior to their adoption and to 
facilitating the cross-border exchange of accessible formats. While no data is available on 
this impact, variations compared to the pre-Marrakesh period might have appeared from 
the increase in the availability of the accessible format copies, as well as from the 
increase in the number of beneficiaries. The Marrakesh Directive recognises the 
possibility of maintaining or introducing compensation scheme to address possible harm 
to rightholders, under certain conditions, as detailed further below. As discussed in the 
effectiveness Section 4.1.1.7, the evaluation did not find evidence that the adoption of the 
Directive and Regulation has had a negative impact on the commercial availability of 
accessible works in the EU. 

Certain rightholders have raised concerns about the extent of unauthorised use (134). The 
evidence available during the evaluation was not sufficient to determine the impact of the 
practices applied by authorised entities to prevent unauthorised uses. Specialised formats 
(e.g Braille, or formats requiring hardware not used by non-beneficiaries) are generally 
by their nature limited to people falling within the scope of the framework, as they have 
the skills or equipment to use them (135). Issues might arise in cases where an authorised 

(132) See input from the EBU to the call for evidence, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-

regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-blind-and-visually-impaired-people-
evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-Regulation/F3414790_en. 

(133) The list is available at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/marrakesh-

treaty#:~:text=The%20term%20’authorised%20entity’%20in,on%20a%20non%2Dprofit%20basis. 

(134) See in particular the response to the call for evidence of Danske Forlag, available at 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-
blind-and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-
Regulation/F3414254_en. 

(135) The study, p. 90. 

38 

 
 
entity provides high quality formats that can be equally enjoyed by non-beneficiaries 
(e.g. streamed audiobooks). In such cases, the measures under Article 5(1) of the 
Directive imposed on authorised entities to prevent and discourage unauthorised uses are 
likely to carry increased weight. 

The framework does not engage with the financing of authorised entities. To varying 
extent, in most Member States the authorised entities, which are non-profit entities, are 
financed from public funds. Since copyright exceptions for people with disabilities were 
in place also prior to the Marrakesh framework, arguably the impact on national 
authorities stemming from such funding is not new. There is no data available in the 
study regarding possible changes in the public financing of the authorised entities across 
Member States after the adoption of the Marrakesh framework. 

National authorities bear the costs generally linked to the enforcement of the rules. They 
are also required to transmit to the Commission for publication the names voluntarily 
notified to them by the authorised entities engaged in cross-border exchange, however 
such costs are likely to be negligible. 

As concerns compensation schemes, the framework clarifies that the level of 
compensation of rightholders should take account of the non-profit nature of the 
activities of authorised entities, of the public interest objectives pursued, of the interests 
of beneficiaries of the exception, of the possible harm to rightholders and of the need to 
ensure cross-border dissemination of accessible format copies. Account should also be 
taken of the particular circumstances of each case resulting from the making of a 
particular accessible format copy. Where the harm to a rightholder is minimal, no 
obligation for payment of compensation should arise. 

The compensation is paid by authorised entities, however, as mentioned previously, the 
schemes are in most cases funded partially or totally by the Member State (136). The costs 
(per year) vary significantly among Member States: e.g. approximately EUR 27 000 in 
Germany, EUR 159 000 in Finland, 1 million in Sweden and EUR 1.7 million in 
Denmark (137). 

Stakeholders representing people with disabilities argue that the compensation paid by 
authorised entities in Germany affects their production capacity. In this context, they 
argued (138) that beneficiaries indirectly support the compensation scheme through 
donations, while the framework does not intend to impose on them such costs. These 
concerns could be linked to the scope of the compensation scheme (which in Germany 
applies to all uses by authorised entities under the copyright exception) and more 
particularly to the funds at the disposal of the authorised entities in that Member State. To 
the extent that Member States had a compensation scheme in place before the 

(136) The study, p. 80. For more details on the funding sources, see supra p. 25. 
(137) The study, p. 224. 
(138) The study, p. 84. 

39 

 
 
implementation of the Marrakesh framework (as is the case in Germany), these impacts 
are likely not new. During consultation activities, stakeholders mentioned that the 
transposition in Germany had not brought about substantial changes to the existing 
system, however they mention that the compensation scheme had caused administrative 
burdens(139). Stakeholders indicated that the amount of funding available from public 
resources in that Member State would not be sufficient for the authorised entities, which 
often seek donations from the beneficiaries to continue their work(140). 

In the case of Denmark, the transposition led to the introduction of the compensation 
scheme, after removing the obligation on authorised entities to perform prior checks of 
the commercial availability of accessible formats. The Danish stakeholders reported that 
there had been prolonged negotiations over the compensation scheme between 
rightsholders and authorised entities to address various related administrative and legal 
issues. 

The resources used by authorised entities for calculating and paying the compensation, 
according to the authorised entities consulted, could be negligeable in case the process is 
automatised, but could be higher where there is no or incomplete automatisation of data 
processing and transmission (141). Administrative costs in relation to compensation 
schemes may also arise for the authorised entities in countries having such schemes when 
they engage in cross-border exchange (see the discussions in the Section 4.1.1 on 
effectiveness). 

As detailed above, to a large extent, the benefits and obligations under the framework are 
not new, as copyright exceptions or limitations for people with disabilities were also in 
place before its adoption. Changes compared to the situation prior to the adoption of the 
framework are linked to the improvement of access for people with disabilities (increase 
in the number of beneficiaries and in the number of accessible format copies, and the 
facilitation of cross-border exchange). The increase in legal certainty through the 
introduction of a harmonised exception alleviated the efforts of authorised entities (e.g. 
by limiting duplications of efforts and reducing the need of detailed checking of the legal 
framework in the target state). 

While the available information does not permit drawing firm conclusions grounded in 
quantitative data, the framework does not seem to impose disproportionate or 
unnecessary burdens in light of the benefit of improving access for beneficiaries. The 
administrative requirements are limited to what is necessary to ensure the availability of 
accessible format copies, prevent unauthorised uses and facilitate transparency. The 
Marrakesh Directive and Regulation do not impose a specific authorisation procedure on 
authorised entities and do not include mandatory reporting obligations for authorised 

139   The study, pp. 199-200. 
(140)  The study, p. 200. 
(141) The study, p. 199. 

40 

 
 
entities to national authorities. Member States need to report to the Commission only on 
information transmitted voluntarily to them on contact details of authorised entities 
engaged in cross-border exchange. Therefore, no need for simplification and streamlining 
was identified. 

4.1.2.2.  Factors influencing the framework’s efficiency 

The consultations undertaken within the framework of the study explored certain 
horizontal factors or practices which might increase the efficiency of EU intervention. 
However, quantitative data to support the analysis of their impact on efficiency is not 
available. 

At national level, the centralisation or central coordination of the authorised entities 
may simplify the access for beneficiaries and facilitate economies of scale. Depending on 
the national specificities, this may occur as an effect of having one main authorised entity 
(as is the case in Denmark, Finland, Spain, and Sweden), or through good coordination of 
the various authorised entities functioning at national level. For instance, in France, 
where there are more than 200 authorised entities, the introduction of the Platon platform 
appears helpful to provide improved access to beneficiaries and to help authorised 
entities coordinate activities. However, it was also reported that some duplication of tasks 
might still arise, as the authorised entities need to maintain their own catalogue and 
coordinate exchange through ABC142. 

More generally, cooperation between authorised entities, both in the production of 
accessible format copies and in sharing titles, can improve efficiency by preventing the 
duplication of efforts. This can take place at national level or more widely. For instance, 
in Belgium, certain authorised entities developed common apps or catalogues, which can 
be used by libraries and schools to order accessible files (143).Authorised entities in 
Finland, Sweden and Norway interviewed by the study team reported that they 
coordinate production and share costs to provide works in languages for an ethnic 
minority. In Germany, authorised entities developed a network allowing them to share 
catalogues and announce production plans; the network is also available to Austrian and 
Swiss authorised entities. Authorised entities can also access the WIPO ABC’s library 
application, which offers a single catalogue of accessible format copies by pooling the 
catalogue of other participating authorised entities. One authorised entity reported for 
example that they check availability of copies through ABC to avoid duplication of 
efforts, noting also that the efficiency of cooperation depended on the frequency with 
which authorised entities update the information on ABC (with some taking several 
months to update) (144). Furthermore, authorised entities in certain Member States do not 
use the ABC, or only some of the authorised entities in a country are part of the ABC 

142   The study, p. 86 
(143) The study, p. 217. 
(144) The study, p. 209. 

41 

 
 
network. As explained by one French authorised entity, this could be because smaller 
entities in particular might not employ the standardised methods that facilitate the access 
to ABC and, e.g. in the case of France, prefer the available national platform (145). 
Finally, depending on existing partnerships and issues of software compatibility, some 
authorised entities may opt for multilateral or bilateral agreements, or case-by-case 
arrangements, which can potentially increase costs. 

Different types of cooperation between authorised entities and publishers can 
contribute to increase synergies and therefore improve efficiency of the framework. For 
example, in Lithuania, where the market is small, it is possible for the authorised entity to 
contact publishers in order to voluntarily check commercial availability and avoid 
duplications. In Denmark, where there is a compensation scheme in place, a higher level 
of compensation is offered to rightholders for born accessible works which are used by 
the authorised entities, thus incentivising commercial production. Publishers also have to 
provide the authorised entity with the copy in a digital format, which minimises the risk 
of duplication of work (146). In Finland, authorised entities and publishers share the costs 
of production of audiobooks, especially for human narration, to improve efficiency and 
to provide access through various channels (the work is initially published commercially, 
and after a certain period of approximately 8 weeks, becomes available to users 
registered with Celia) (147). Cooperation also exists for textbooks (e.g. in Italy and 
Belgium) where authorised entities cooperate with national and international publishers 
who provide them with digital files in a timely manner148. Case-by-case cooperation 
depends on the incentives or the willingness to cooperate of the parties, which might be 
more challenging in larger markets (149). In France, systematic cooperation set up through 
legislation connects rightsholders with the authorised entities through the Platon platform 
where they can share digital files of e-books and audiobooks to facilitate the production 
of accessible copies. 

The level of digitalisation and technological readiness among authorised entities can 
also enhance efficiency. For instance, automatic reporting can improve efficiency by 
minimising the administrative costs for the operation of authorised entities (such as 
reporting of data, or the calculation and payment of compensation in Member States 
where compensation schemes are in place). 

Furthermore, interoperability of formats avoids the need for additional conversion work 
in the context of cross-border exchange and can thus improve efficiency (150). Initiatives 
have been taken by some authorised entities to ensure interoperability in certain contexts 
(for instance, the Lithuanian authorised entity adjusted metadata of certain titles shared 

(145) The study, p. 218. 
(146) The study, p. 87 and 201. 
(147) The study, p. 201. 
(148)  The study, p. 87 
(149) The study, p. 220. 
(150)  The study, pp. 59 and 88. 

42 

 
 
by Ukrainian authorised entities to make them compatible with the metadata practices in 
most EU Member States). 

Some good practices concerning transparency and access to information can be found 
across the Member States. 

In some Member States, beneficiaries have access to online catalogues through which 
they can request works or directly stream or download. For instance, in France, 
beneficiaries have access to the Platon catalogue through which they can request works, 
while in Finland they can download or stream from the catalogues of the authorised 
entity the available copies in accessible format. The ABC beneficiary application also 
ensures that information on available copies is accessible in a centralised manner for the 
use of beneficiaries, however it is not yet available to beneficiaries in all Member States. 

Nevertheless, not all beneficiaries have the know-how or the access to the technology to 
allow them access via an online catalogue. Practices in certain authorised entities respond 
to the diverse needs by training beneficiaries to use the catalogues, or allowing them to 
request CDs or print Braille copies via different means (email, phone). In some Member 
States, like Germany, in addition to providing online access, authorised entities 
collaborate with library networks, which provide consultation and assistance to 
beneficiaries (151). Furthermore, the know-how of teachers and librarians in guiding 
beneficiaries was also indicated as an area of possible improvement, with some 
authorised entities reporting that they have taken measures to address this issue152. 

Beyond information on available copies, some authorised entities (e.g. from Lithuania) 
voluntarily publish basic statistics on the use of accessible format copies, registered 
users, and cross-border exchanges with third countries, increasing the transparency of 
their services. 

As concerns the practices to prevent unauthorised dissemination of accessible format 
copies, while no precise information is available to assess the impact of the methods used 
by authorised entities, interviews with stakeholders suggest that password protection and 
two factor authentication reduce accessibility for beneficiaries and are avoided by 
authorised entities. On the other hand, watermarking appears to provide a good cost-
benefit ratio in preventing the unauthorised dissemination of downloadable copies in 
non-specialised formats153. 

(151) The study, p. 219. 
(152)  The study, p. 75. 
(153) The study, p. 91. 

43 

 
 
4.1.3.  Coherence 

To assess if the intervention is coherent, both internal and external coherence are being 
considered. Therefore, it is relevant to assess whether the Marrakesh Directive and 
Regulation are coherent in relation to international instruments, EU policies and 
legislation, as well as if the instruments are coherent internally (i.e. that there are no 
contradictory provisions in light of their aims). 

4.1.3.1.  International rules 

As indicated in Section 3, the implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty into EU law was 
part of the observations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities on the initial report of the European Union, in relation to Article 30 of the 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRDP) (154).The UNCRPD, to 
which the European Union is party, calls for the laws protecting intellectual property 
rights not to constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by people with 
disabilities to cultural materials (Article 30(3)). The Marrakesh Directive and Regulation, 
which aim to ensure that beneficiaries have access to books and other printed material in 
accessible format copies in the internal market, as well as beyond through exchanges 
with third parties which are parties to the Marrakesh Treaty, contribute to improving 
access to cultural works, educational material as well as information for people with 
disabilities. 

The Marrakesh Directive and Regulation are also coherent with the Marrakesh Treaty, in 
terms of objectives, personal and material scope. In the responses to the call for evidence, 
certain stakeholders argued that the compensation schemes allowed by the Marrakesh 
Directive are against the spirit of the Marrakesh Treaty (155). However, the Marrakesh 
Treaty allows contracting parties to decide whether to provide remuneration to 
rightholders for uses under the copyright exception introduced by the Marrakesh Treaty. 
The option in Article 3(6) of the Marrakesh Directive, which provides the possibility for 
its Member States to set out such compensation schemes under certain limits, is coherent 
with this option recognised by the Treaty. 

At the same time, as mentioned in the previous sections, the EU legislator decided not to 
implement another option set out in the Marrakesh Treaty, namely to require prior checks 
of commercial availability of works in accessible format. It was considered that imposing 
such an obligation on authorised entities would be detrimental to the legal certainty and 
thus ultimately affect the availability of works for beneficiaries (156). As reported in 
Section 4.1.2.2., forms of cooperation have developed between authorised entities and 

(154) https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/812354?ln=en&v=pdf. 
(155) See input from EDF and EBU to the call for evidence available at EU copyright law for blind and 
visually impaired people – evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation (europa.eu). 

(156) See recital 14 of the Directive, first sentence. 

44 

 
 
publishers at national level, including as part of compensation schemes, minimising the 
risk of duplication between the production of accessible format copies by authorised 
entities and the born accessible works on the commercial market. 

4.1.3.2.  EU copyright rules 

At EU level, the Marrakesh instruments are coherent with other relevant EU copyright 
legislation. 

As indicated in Section 3, prior to the adoption of the Marrakesh Directive and 
Regulation, the EU copyright framework provided Member States with the possibility to 
adopt a copyright exception for the benefit of people with disabilities (Article 5(3)(b) of 
the InfoSoc Directive). These provisions remain in place, permitting Member States to 
cover other disabilities or types of works than those within the scope of the Marrakesh 
Directive. Member States need to ensure the coherence between such additional 
provisions which they keep or introduce in national law and the mandatory exception 
harmonised by the Marrakesh Directive. This is clarified in Article 8 of that Directive 
(which amends Article 5(3)(b) of the InfoSoc Directive) by stating that the latter 
provision is ‘without prejudice to the obligations of Member States under Directive (EU) 
2017/1564 of the European Parliament and of the Council’. In 2022 the Commission 
services published a report which, in accordance with Article 9 of the Marrakesh 
Directive assessed the availability of works and other subject matter for people with 
disabilities other than those covered by the Marrakesh Directive (157). 

4.1.3.3.  EU disability legislation 

The Marrakesh Directive is also coherent with EU disability rules. 

The specific copyright exception in this Directive is coherent with the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights, which prohibits all forms of discrimination, including on grounds of 
disability, and provides that the right of people with disabilities to benefit from measures 
designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and 
participation in the life of the community is recognised and respected by the EU. 

(157) See SWD(2022) 109 final, Report on the availability of certain copyright protected works for persons 

with disabilities within the internal market, available at https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/report-availability-copyright-protected-works-persons-disabilities. 

45 

 
 
Other relevant pieces of EU legislation addressing disability in the digital environment 
are the Web Accessibility Directive(158), the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 
(AVMSD)159 and the European Accessibility Act (EAA). 

The Web Accessibility Directive  in force since 22 December 2016, provides people with 
disabilities with better access to websites and mobile apps of public services. 

The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) facilitates the cross-border 
circulation of audiovisual media services while ensuring a minimum level of harmonised 
rules in areas falling under the Directive, including the accessibility of these services by 
people with disabilities. Article 7 of this Directive requires traditional broadcasters and 
video-on-demand providers to make their services ‘continuously and progressively more 
accessible to persons with disabilities’. It also requires Member States to report on the 
implementation of this obligation on a regular basis and to encourage the development of 
accessibility action plans by those media service providers. 

The Marrakesh Directive complements these two EU pieces of legislation, which concern 
different sectors from written works (public sector websites, audiovisual) and which 
address the accessibility of these services with different legal tools than copyright 
legislation. 

The most relevant disability legislation is the European Accessibility Act (EAA). 

The EAA aims to improve the functioning of the internal market for accessible products 
and services, by introducing common rules on accessibility and thus removing barriers 
created by divergent rules in Member States. Article 2(2)(e) covers e-books and 
dedicated software. Under Article 4 of EAA, Member States need to ensure that 
economic operators only place on the market products and only provide services that 
comply with the accessibility requirements set out by this Act. Member States had to 
transpose the Directive by 28 June 2022, and the measures apply from 28 June 2025. 
Article 2(5) of the EAA states that it is without prejudice to copyright rules of the 
Marrakesh Directive and Regulation (EU) 2017/1563. In any case, the two EU pieces of 
legislation will apply side by side, with EAA ensuring the increased availability of born 
accessible e-books, while the Marrakesh instruments would continue to allow 
beneficiaries and authorised entities to adapt written works into accessible format copies 
for people with visual and reading impairments or print-related disabilities. 

(158) Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the 
accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies OJ L 327, 2.12.2016, pp. 
1–15 

(159) Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the 

coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member 
States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) 
OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, pp. 1–24  

46 

 
 
The coherence of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation with the EAA could be 
questioned regarding the potential duplication of efforts between the commercial and 
non-profit sectors (authorised entities), considering also that the Marrakesh instruments 
prevent prior verification measures of the commercial availability of works in accessible 
formats. According to rightholders’ representatives, the implementation of the EAA 
would elevate the need to ensure that the Marrakesh rules do not interfere with the 
normal exploitation of the work. In the replies to the call for evidence for this evaluation, 
certain rightholders representatives argued that authorised entities should check whether 
accessible copies exist in the market so as to focus on books for which it is too difficult 
for publishers to provide a digital accessible version (160). On the other hand, authorised 
entities consider that such a condition should not be imposed as an obligation, especially 
since there is no central source of information to allow the authorised entity to 
comprehensively verify the commercial availability of the accessible version of the 
work (161). Where the circumstances allow (in particular because the market is small), 
authorised entities might voluntarily verify the commercial availability of works in 
accessible format, for reasons of efficiency (162). At the same time, the e-books produced 
by the market in line with EAA requirements are not necessarily ‘assistive’ printed books 
or books in Braille that respond to specific needs. It is likely that authorised entities will 
adapt to the practicalities of the new context and steer their behaviour accordingly. For 
instance, one such entity reported that most likely their focus will shift from the needs of 
visually impaired people to people with print disabilities who have cognitive issues (163). 

Furthermore, rightholders’ representatives and authorised entities have stressed the 
importance of synergies and cooperation in the implementation of the EAA as well as in 
ensuring the complementarity between the Marrakesh rules and the EAA. The study 
mentioned the examples of Sweden and Finland, where the governments proposed that 
authorised entities operate as ‘national accessibility authorities’ supervising the 
compliance with accessibility requirements for e-books under the EAA, as well as the 
possible interest of publishers to contract authorised entities to advise on accessible 
production aspects (164). 

In the context of the EU legislation detailed above, the Marrakesh instruments constitute 
one of the tools to enhance accessibility of printed material. Ultimately, access to 

(160) See in particular contributions from FEP, SNE, IFFRO available at EU copyright law for blind and 
visually impaired people – evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation (europa.eu). 

(161) See in particular contributions from Association Valentin Haüy (France) and from Association for the 

Visual Disabled (FI), available at EU copyright law for blind and visually impaired people – 
evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation (europa.eu). 

(162) See reply to the call for evidence of the Lithuanian audiosensory library, available at EU copyright 
law for blind and visually impaired people – evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation 
(europa.eu). 

(163) The study, p. 96; for further discussion of the EAA impact, see also Section 4.3. 
(164) The study, p. 96. 

47 

 
 
information, education and culture for people with disabilities are influenced by the 
combined effect of all EU legislative instruments on accessibility. 

Therefore, as also indicated in the academic literature, ‘on the whole, as the EU awaits 
the full implementation of the EAA, the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation have an 
important role to play in ensuring accessibility, but they remain only one piece – albeit 
an important one – of the accessibility ‘jigsaw’’ (165). 

4.1.3.4.  Internal coherence 

The Marrakesh instruments are coherent with the key goal of increasing availability of 
works in accessible formats, including by increased cross-border exchanges within EU 
and with third countries parties to the Marrakesh Treaty. This aim is achieved by 
introducing a mandatory exception to copyright and related rights for the benefit of blind, 
visually impaired and otherwise print disabled people at the EU level. To further facilitate 
the cross-border exchange, the Directive encourages authorised entities to notify their 
contact details, which are published by the Commission. In turn, the increased cross-
border availability is meant to reduce duplication of production of accessible format 
copies to ensure saving and efficiency gains. 

The provisions of the Marrakesh instruments are also coherent with the objective of 
safeguarding the balance of rights and interests between rightholders and users. In order 
to protect the interests of rightholders, certain obligations are put in place on the 
authorised entities to prevent unauthorised use. Authorised entities are also required to 
provide information (to rightholders and beneficiaries, upon request) on the list of works 
and the available formats they hold, as well as on the name and contact details of the 
authorised entities with which they have engaged in the exchange of accessible format 
copies. Furthermore, Member States are permitted to introduce or maintain compensation 
schemes for the benefit of rightholders, under certain conditions. 

Rightsholders would favour closer scrutiny by national authorities of how the obligations 
are discharged by authorised entities, in particular to prevent unauthorised dissemination. 
Certain rightholders mention that the lack of comprehensive information regarding the 
authorised entities functioning in a Member State might affect the possibility of 
cooperation (for instance the sharing of files by rightholders) (166). At the same time, 

(165) The Implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty in the European Union: An Important Piece in the 

Accessibility Jigsaw?Delia Ferri, Katie Donnellan, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Volume 49, 
Issue 3 (2022) p. 292 

https://kluwerlawonline.com/api/Product/CitationPDFURL?file=Journals\LEIE\LEIE2022013.pdf. 
(166) The study, p. 89. 

48 

 
 
beneficiaries warned that requirements in certain Member States that authorised entities 
be included on an approved list are contrary to the Marrakesh Treaty (167). 

As mentioned in Section 3 and the Section on efficiency, the Directive does not introduce 
a specific authorisation procedure for authorised entities (which are confined to specific 
categories, as defined in Article 2(2)). In some Member States authorised entities need to 
notify the national authorities of their contact details and submit information on their 
services, however data was not available for all Member States. Furthermore, the 
framework encourages the voluntary notification to national authorities of contact details 
of authorised entities engaged in cross-border exchange. Such voluntary notifications are 
particularly useful to provide transparency to facilitate cross-border exchange and 
cooperation. 

4.2.  How did EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

4.2.1.  EU added value 

To assess the EU added value of the intervention, the evaluation aims to determine what 
the Directive and Regulation achieved compared to what was likely to have been 
achieved in the absence of intervention, and to determine how the EU intervention made 
a difference and to whom. 

As seen above, the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation implement into EU law the 
obligations stemming from the Marrakesh Treaty. The CJEU concluded that the 
obligations laid down by the Marrakesh Treaty fall within an area already covered to a 
large extent by common EU rules, and as a consequence the European Union had 
‘exclusive competence’ to conclude the Marrakesh Treaty (168). Therefore, an EU 
intervention was needed to fulfil the EU’s international obligation under the Treaty, 
which Member States could not ratify otherwise. 

Before the conclusion of the Marrakesh Treaty, all Member States had already 
implemented copyright exceptions for the benefit of visually impaired people, on the 
basis of the provisions of the InfoSoc Directive. As indicated in Section 3, there were 
divergences in the scope of beneficiaries and uses covered by the national 
legislation (169), which in turn affected the cross-border exchange of accessible format 

(167) See input to the call for evidence from EDF and EBU, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-blind-and-visually-impaired-people-
evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-Regulation/F3414879_en. 

(168) Opinion 3/15 of 14 February 2017 of the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
(169)  Study on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information 

society (the ‘InfoSoc Directive’), 2013, p. 428, available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/9ebb5084-ea89-4b3e-bda2-33816f11425b. 

49 

 
 
copies (170). The lack of EU intervention to adopt the Marrakesh Directive and 
Regulation would have meant the maintenance of that status quo. 

The introduction of rules at EU level, in addition to being needed to fulfil the EU’s 
international obligations, made the exception mandatory, harmonised the scope of the 
copyright exception, setting out the beneficiaries and types of works covered, as well as 
the permitted uses that can be undertaken under the copyright exception by authorised 
entities and beneficiaries. 

The harmonised rules ensure that beneficiaries across the whole European Union benefit 
from the same set of rules guaranteeing access to accessible format copies within the 
scope of the Marrakesh framework. Furthermore, the EU harmonised rules ensure also 
that authorised entities enjoy increased legal certainty when distributing or exchanging 
accessible format copies created under the framework with other Member States and with 
third countries party to the Marrakesh Treaty. The possibility of cross-border exchange of 
accessible format copies (supported also by the sharing of voluntary information, 
consolidated at EU level, on the authorised entities that are involved in such exchanges) 
facilitates cooperation between authorised entities and increases the overall efficiency at 
EU level, creating economies of scale (171). 

Therefore, the Marrakesh intervention especially aided the beneficiaries and authorised 
entities by ensuring increased legal certainty, in particular for the cross-border exchange 
of accessible format copies. 

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

4.3.1.  Relevance 

In order to assess the relevance of the Marrakesh instruments, the evaluation aims in 
particular to establish to what extent the Directive and Regulation continue to be relevant 
in addressing the needs of beneficiaries, including older people, to have access to 
accessible formats considering the evolving policy context (including other accessibility 
related European legislation) and the market and technological developments that might 
affect the availability of such formats. 

(170)  Idem, p. 437. 
(171) See also analysis in Section 4.1.2 Efficiency. 

50 

 
 
4.3.1.1.  Market developments 

As explained in Section 2, the adoption of the Marrakesh instruments aimed to address 
the book famine which negatively impacted the access to information of beneficiaries 
and their participation in cultural, economic and social life. 

The qualitative data gathered by the study through the targeted consultation shows that 
for beneficiaries and relevant institutions the insufficient availability of born accessible 
works (provided directly by the market) is perceived as the main obstacle to the 
availability of works in accessible formats (see Figure 13). 

Figure 13. Perceived obstacles to the availability of works in accessible formats, 
according to beneficiaries, educational institutions, cultural heritage institutions 
and other respondents (n=40) 

Insufficient commercial availability of born-accessible works

38%

34%

17%

7%

3%

Insufficient availability of accessible format copies provided by
organisations acting on behalf of persons with disabilities

7%

45%

31%

7%

10%

Very important

Important

Somewhat important

Rather unimportant

Not important at all / has not happened

I don't know / no opinion

Source: The Study 

Interviews conducted by the study with stakeholders indicate furthermore that the market 
of born accessible works is almost non-existent in most Member States (172), with some 
exceptions, as is the case for instance in Spain where publishers have been producing 
large format books for older people (173). The main obstacle to the production of born 
accessible works, invoked by publishers in the targeted consultation, is the high cost of 
production combined with insufficient demand. 

(172) The study, p. 53. 
(173) The study, p. 53, footnote 124. 

51 

 
 
 
Figure 14. Perceived obstacles for production of born accessible works, according to 
the rightsholders (n=15) 

High cost of producing accessible formats

47%

7%

33%

7%

7%

Insufficient demand from beneficiaries for accessible formats

20%

33%

20%

7%

20%

Limited know-how in the publishing industry regarding the
production of accessible formats

40%

7%

33%

13%

7%

Very important

Important

Somewhat important

Rather unimportant

Not important at all / has not happened

I don't know / no opinion

Source: The Study 

At the same time, the study points to an increase in the market for ‘unintentional 
accessible works’. These formats, such as e-books and audiobooks (possibly incentivised 
by COVID-19, digitalisation and preparation for the implementation of the EAA) provide 
a degree of accessibility, without necessarily covering the different needs of beneficiaries 
under the framework (174). Beneficiaries indicate also that such formats might not always 
be accompanied by an accessible navigation through their content and are likely to be 
accessible for some categories of beneficiaries (partially sighted) rather than others (e.g 
blind users) (175). Further accessibility barriers might be raised by the commercial 
platforms or library sites where these works are available, if no accessibility features are 
in place to allow access to the work. In addition, certain stakeholders interviewed for the 
study also mentioned the possibility that certain of the streaming services do not allow 
downloads and the proprietary readers could prevent uses of screen magnification tools 
or screen reader software (176). 

The study notes that, according to the Federation of European Publishers, around six 
million e-books were available on the EU market. Nevertheless, digital formats only 
made up 12.6% of European publishers’ turnover in 2021, while audio formats 
constituted 2.5% of the turnover. The study also points out that the development of these 
digital formats appears to be uneven among the Member States, with smaller markets less 
inducive to production of such formats, given that the costs could be high compared to 
the expected revenues, especially for professionally recorded audiobooks (177). 

(174) The study, p. 201; see also the Section 4.3.1.1. 
(175) The study, p. 55. 
(176) The study, p. 55. 
(177) The study, p. 54. 

52 

 
 
 
Against this background, the responses to the targeted consultation showed that 
stakeholders perceive that there has been an increase in the market for born accessible 
works since 2018. 

Figure 15. Perceived change in the availability of born accessible works between 
2018 and 2023 (n=82) 

Other respondents

Rightsholders

17%

17%

Authorised entities

9%

Beneficiaries

National authorities

50%

44%

57%

25%

8%

22%

17%

22%

13%

45%

45%

9%

33%

11%

56%

Increased a lot

Increased somewhat

Remained the same

Decreased somewhat

Decreased a lot

I don't know / no opinion

Source: The Study (The category ‘other respondents’ includes educational institutions, 
cultural heritage institutions, and respondents who did not indicate that they belonged to 
any major stakeholder group). 

Rightholders are the most optimistic in assessing the progress of the availability of born 
accessible works. Beneficiaries perceive that there has been some moderate increase in 
the born accessible market (see figure above) and estimate that around half the works in 
accessible format are born accessible (see figure below). Authorised entities, as well as 
national authorities, perceive that more of the accessible formats available are produced 
by authorised entities rather than coming from the market. 

Figure 16. Perceived proportion of born accessible works and accessible format 
copies available in 2018 and 2023, where 0 indicates that all available works were 
born accessible and 10 indicates all were accessible format copies (n=49) 

Beneficiaries

Other respondents

Authorised entities

National authorities

5,00

4,56

5,50

5,63

2023

2018

7,06
7,11

7,22

7,00

53 

 
 
 
Source: The Study (the category ‘other respondents’ includes educational institutions, 
cultural heritage institutions and respondents who did not indicate that they belonged to 
any major stakeholder group). 

Therefore, while the market for born accessible works is perceived as having increased 
(potentially due to the ‘unintentionally’ accessible works such as e-books or audiobooks 
for the general public), insufficient commercial availability of born accessible works 
continues to be perceived as an obstacle by beneficiaries, who also point out that in most 
Member States the market for ‘intentionally’ accessible formats, with few exceptions, 
was highly limited. The copyright exception, allowing the authorised entities and 
beneficiaries to produce accessible format copies, appears to remain relevant to facilitate 
access to written works for people with disabilities covered by the framework. 

4.3.1.2.  Policy developments – EAA 

The market for born accessible e-books is expected to change with the implementation of 
the EAA. The EAA ensures that from June 2025 e-books and dedicated software, as well 
as e-readers placed on the market, comply with the accessibility requirements set out by 
this Act. 

Annex I of the Act details the accessibility requirements that need to be addressed by the 
products and services covered. As concerns e-books, in addition to the general 
requirements (Section II of the Annex I), the following additional requirements are also 
applicable (178): 

–  ensuring that when an e-book contains audio in addition to text, it then provides 

synchronised text and audio; 

–  ensuring that e-book digital files do not prevent assistive technology from 

operating properly; 

–  ensuring access to the content, the navigation of the file content and layout 

including dynamic layout, the provision of the structure, flexibility and choice in 
the presentation of the content; 

–  allowing alternative renditions of the content and its interoperability with a 

variety of assistive technologies, in such a way that it is perceivable, 
understandable, operable and robust; 

–  making them discoverable by providing information through metadata about their 

accessibility features; 

–  ensuring that digital rights management measures do not block accessibility 

features. 

(178) See Annex I, Section 4, point f) in the EAA. 

54 

 
 
In addition, the e-readers have to provide for speech to text technology. 

Therefore, e-books delivered on the market from June 2025 are available in accessible 
formats that facilitate access for people with disabilities. However, microenterprises 
delivering services are not obliged to comply with the EAA requirements (Article 4(5) of 
EAA). In addition, economic operators have to comply with the accessibility 
requirements of the EAA to the extent that they do not result in disproportionate burdens 
or require a significant change in a product or service that results in the fundamental 
alteration of its basic nature (Article 14 of EAA). Rightholders interviewed for the study 
argued that comic books might require fundamental alteration to be accessible. More 
generally, they argued that high costs for making a work accessible (in case it contains, 
for instance, a large number of graphics or charts), combined with low sales expectations, 
could be a justification for claiming that it leads to disproportionate burdens (179). To this 
end, the EAA requires carrying out an assessment of whether compliance with the 
accessibility requirements would introduce a fundamental alteration or, based on the 
relevant criteria set out in Annex VI, impose a disproportionate burden (180). 

Overall, the EAA is expected to have an important impact on the commercial market for 
e-books, both in making available e-books in accessible format as well as in addressing 
certain shortcomings in the accessibility of gateways (181). 

While it is a very positive development that more accessible e-books will be provided 
directly by the market, the EAA does not exhaust the needs of people with disabilities 
covered by the Marrakesh instruments. It might rather free up resources for more 
specialised production of accessible format copies (182). 

The EAA ensures accessibility of e-books, whereas other assistive formats might be 
better suited for different disabilities. For instance, certain people might not have the 
skills or hardware to use e-books and they will more comfortably use Braille or large 
prints formats. Even in the case of e-books, it is not clear that the particular format of 
accessible e-books available on the market under EAA will be appropriate for all print-
related disabilities. For example, while certain rightholders consider that the EPUB3 
format of e-books can be used by dyslexic readers, other stakeholders argue that specific 
types of adaptation such as additional enhancements might be required to make the work 

(179) The study, p. 56. 
(180) Economic operators have to document the assessment and keep all relevant results for a period of 5 

years to be calculated from the last making available of a product on the market or after a service was 
last provided, as applicable. Upon a request the economic operators have to provide the authorities 
with a copy of the assessment. 

(181) The study, p. 56. 
(182) See response to the call for evidence by DAISY Consortium available at 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-
blind-and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-
Regulation/feedback_en?p_id=31995115. 

55 

 
 
accessible for certain people with disabilities (183). In addition, it is claimed that the 
quality of the text-to-speech voices may not be good enough for people with learning 
disabilities and thus human narration might be needed (184). Furthermore, the exceptions 
of microenterprises providing services and the safeguards in the EAA may lead to the 
unavailability of certain titles in born accessible e-book format, in particular in small 
markets where publishers are more likely to qualify as micro enterprises, making the 
offer of born accessible books more limited (185). 

To summarise, while the policy context has evolved since the adoption of the Marrakesh 
framework, with the introduction of the EAA which ensures the accessibility of e-books, 
the Marrakesh framework remains relevant. The EAA does not exhaust the needs of the 
people with disability covered by the Marrakesh Directive to have available accessible 
format copies. This is for instance because EAA covers one type of accessible format (e-
books) and other formats might be more appropriate for certain categories of 
beneficiaries, as well as because e-books might require more specialised adaptation for 
certain disabilities. In addition, micro enterprises providing services are exempted to 
comply with the accessibility requirements of the EAA. 

4.3.1.3.  Technological developments 

Since the adoption of the Marrakesh instruments, technologies have become more widely 
available to facilitate the accessibility of printed works and a wider availability of 
accessible formats, marking a shift from analogue to digital formats and from physical 
distribution to online access (186). 

The types of accessible formats that are usually held by authorised entities in the EU 
(Figure 17 below) shows that by far the most widespread format is the DAISY digital 
talking book, followed by Braille (including eBraille) and e-book formats (including 
EPUB). 

(183) The study, p. 57; see also the reply of DAISY consortium to the call for evidence, available at 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-
blind-and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-
Regulation/feedback_en?p_id=31995115. 

(184) Celia’s reply to the call for evidence, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-

your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-blind-and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-
the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-Regulation/feedback_en?p_id=31995115. 

(185) The study, p. 96. 
(186) The study, p. 57 and 59. 

56 

 
 
Figure 17. Accessible formats held by a sample of EU-based AEs, by format (n=26) 

Braille Music
3%

Other
5%

MP3 audio
5%

PDF
5%

EPUB/e-book
6%

(e)Braille
15%

DAISY
61%

Source: The Study 

In terms of relevant technologies, the study highlights several developments, such as file 
conversion, availability of new hardware and software, 3D printing and machine 
learning (187). For example, the file conversion tools enable conversion of text into audio, 
or allow conversion between various text formats (e.g. word into EPUB). Furthermore, 
beneficiaries may use new hardware and software such as refreshable Braille displays, 
screen readers, screen magnifiers, e-readers, which facilitate their access to printed 
works. In addition, 3D printing is expected to replace the predominantly manual process 
of printing tactile materials, which is quite costly and complicated, and thus improve the 
availability of Braille books as well as facilitate the reading of elements (such as 
mathematical figures and maps) that are difficult to cover with other formats. Finally, 
machine learning could have a positive impact in improving text-to-speech technologies 
and the quality of synthetic speech. 

While technological development helps progress in the accessibility of printed works, the 
study identified several challenges that persist in the use of these technologies, ranging 
from access barriers to limits of the technology itself (188). In particular, the study 
highlights that the cost of certain specialised hardware can be quite high, reaching for 
instance several thousand euros for refreshable Braille devices. Furthermore, some 
mainstream readers are not compatible with accessible formats such as EPUB3 or 
DAISY. Besides cost or interoperability issues, not all beneficiaries have the technical 
skills to use the specialised hardware and may still prefer older devices. As concerns the 
technology itself, despite recent progress, works containing images, mathematical 
formulas or graphics usually require a more individualised approach and remain more 
resource intensive. Limitations were also flagged for text-to-speech technology, which 
may still contain many errors, and for which quality is lower in smaller language areas. 
As concerns accessible formats themselves, it is still possible that content provided e.g. 

(187) The study, p. 58. 
(188) The study, p. 59. 

57 

 
 
 
in accessible pdf format, or as audiobooks or e-books, might not be fully accessible if for 
instance it lacks image descriptions, or the navigation is not accessible. Furthermore, the 
diversity of formats used could lead to difficulties of interoperability, especially in case 
of cross-border exchange, with additional conversion work needed to make the format 
compatible. 

The study also flags that parts may be lost with the advancement of technology (189), such 
as the decrease of users of Braille in Member States, a technology which has been 
considered important in the learning process and cognitive development of children, and 
might be a better medium for messages in scientific areas. 

Overall, despite limitations, the technology facilitates the production of accessible works 
by publishers and authorised entities and makes it more efficient. It also provides 
additional tools to beneficiaries, which improve access to printed works. The new 
technologies do not make the Marrakesh instruments redundant: as shown by the study, 
these rules remain a prerequisite to take advantage of the technological 
developments (190). 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

The main objective of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation is to improve the 
availability of books and other printed material in formats that are accessible to 
beneficiaries, and to improve their circulation across borders, in line with the EUʼs 
international commitments under the Marrakesh Treaty. 

To this end, these instruments brought the necessary adaptations to EU law in order for 
the EU to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty. They introduce a mandatory harmonised exception 
with effect throughout the internal market and enable cross-border exchange within the 
EU and with the third countries party to the Marrakesh Treaty. The increased cross-
border access aims to generate savings and efficiency gains by reducing duplication of 
efforts in producing accessible format copies. Furthermore, the harmonisation of the 
copyright exception aims to increase the legal certainty when beneficiaries and 
authorised entities undertake activities covered by the Marrakesh rules. More generally, 
the objective of the Marrakesh instruments is to contribute to better integration of people 
with disabilities and to their participation in the life of the community. 

(189) The study, p. 60. 
(190) The study, p. 60. 

58 

 
 
Effectiveness 

This evaluation found that the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation have been effective in 
improving the availability of accessible format copies within the EU as well as their 
cross-border exchanges within the EU and with third countries which are party to the 
Marrakesh Treaty. 

The sample data available indicates a significant increase in the number of users in the 
reference period by 39%, which could be linked to the fact that the adoption of the 
Marrakesh Directive led to an expansion of the scope of beneficiaries in certain Member 
States to also cover cognitive and physical print-related disabilities. 

The data from the authorised entities sampled in the study showed that, in the reference 
period, there was an increase by about 50% in the number of accessible format copies 
available in their collections. While data to correlate the increase with the impact of 
framework are not available, the stakeholders consulted by the study are of the opinion 
that the Marrakesh rules have had a positive impact on the availability of accessible 
format copies. 

As regards the cross-border exchange of accessible format copies, the evaluation 
identified that the Marrakesh instruments opened up the possibility of exchanges with 
Member States and with third countries, as well as providing access to international 
platforms facilitating international exchanges. 

Qualitative data gathered through the targeted consultation showed that certain factors 
going beyond the Marrakesh instruments may continue to affect progress towards the 
increased availability of accessible format copies. Such factors include available funds 
for the authorised entities, the level of awareness of beneficiaries, as well as access to 
technology and know-how. 

The evaluation also considered the impact of the compensation schemes allowed by the 
Marrakesh Directive on the availability and cross-border exchange of accessible format 
copies. In the reference period, six Member States applied compensation schemes, four 
of them limiting the schemes to certain type of sectors or of formats, while the other two 
apply to all types of formats covered by the framework. Due to the limitations in data, it 
is not possible to draw conclusions about possible quantitative impacts of the 
compensation schemes on the production or on the exchange of accessible format works. 
Based on qualitative data, it appears that the impact is perceived differently depending on 
the design and financing of the scheme. Certain uncertainties about the application of the 
scheme in a few Member States might create difficulties for cross-border exchange. 

Finally, the evaluation did not uncover possible unintended effects of the implementation 
of the Marrakesh instruments, in particular concerning the impact on the commercial 
availability of works in accessible format. 

59 

 
Efficiency 

In the absence of sufficient available data to quantify costs and benefits arising from the 
application of the Marrakesh rules, the efficiency analysis focuses to a large extent on a 
qualitative analysis of the impact of the framework. Against the background of existing 
copyright exceptions for people with disabilities applicable in Member States also before 
its adoption, the framework increased legal certainty for beneficiaries and authorised 
entities. The harmonisation of the copyright exception and the facilitation of cross-border 
exchanges helped achieve the goal of improved access for beneficiaries in a more 
efficient manner. 

The framework did not impact production costs for accessible format copies, which 
authorised entities reported as remaining stable compared to the period before the 
intervention. The increase in the number of beneficiaries and in the number of cross-
border exchanges suggest that authorised entities serve a larger user base and organise 
more exchanges. While no comprehensive data was available to quantify the impact of 
the framework on their resources used for cross-border exchange, it appears that the 
intervention contributed to savings for authorised entities since more copies could be 
sourced through exchanges, and also reduced the administrative costs linked to ensuring 
compliance with the national copyright rules valid in the country of destination. 

The impact on rightholders is also not newly generated by the framework, since the 
intervention is limited to harmonising existing copyright exceptions. The intervention 
allowed Member States, under certain conditions, to maintain or introduce schemes to 
compensate the harm to rightholders. 

The impact of the compensation scheme on the efficiency of the framework appears to 
depend in particular on the fundings available to the authorised entities, as well as on 
their level of digitalisation. In certain cases the compensation scheme is perceived as 
impacting the beneficiaries when funds are considered insufficient and they are asked to 
contribute through donations to the overall funds of authorised entities. 

The framework does not engage with the financing of authorised entities. To varying 
extents, in most Member States the authorised entities are financed from public funds, 
however the impact on national authorities stemming from such funding is not new 
considering the already existing copyright exceptions. National authorities bear the costs 
linked to the enforcement of the rules in general, though no specific monitoring 
obligations are set out in the framework. 

In general, while the available information does not allow firm conclusions grounded in 
quantitative data to be drawn, the evaluation did not uncover unnecessary burdens 
introduced by the framework and there does not seem to be a need for simplification and 
streamlining. On the contrary, the framework pays attention to avoid imposing burdens 
on the authorised entities which could inhibit the availability of accessible format copies. 

60 

 
Similar to the analysis of effectiveness, qualitative data showed that certain other factors 
going beyond the Marrakesh framework may impact the efficiency. For instance, 
exchange of information and cooperation among authorised entities, as well as between 
authorised entities and publishers can produce synergies by coordinating efforts. The 
level of digitalisation among authorised entities can have an impact on the provision of 
accessible copies, the organisation of exchanges, and the managing of administrative 
tasks by authorised entities. In addition, ensuring easy access to information can 
contribute to the enjoyment of the framework by beneficiaries and overall improve the 
transparency of the system. 

Coherence 

The evaluation has not identified any relevant inconsistencies or overlaps as concerns the 
coherence of the Marrakesh instruments with other legislative interventions in the area of 
copyright, accessibility and inclusion at the international, EU or national level. 

In particular, the Marrakesh instruments are complementary with the EAA, a piece of EU 
legislation which requires a wide range of everyday products and services to be 
accessible for people with disabilities including e-books. The EAA ensures the 
availability of born accessible e-books placed on the market after June 2025. 
Stakeholders raised the issue of possible impact on the synergies between the Marrakesh 
Directive and EAA, because the Marrakesh Directive does not oblige authorised entities 
to verify if a work they intend to adapt is already available on the market in an accessible 
format. The approach taken by the Marrakesh rules to avoid such an obligation on the 
authorised entities aims to provide legal certainty for authorised entities and to prevent a 
negative impact on the availability of accessible format copies for beneficiaries. This also 
remains a valid objective in the context of the EAA. At the same time, increased 
cooperation between rightholders and authorised entities should facilitate the interplay 
with EAA, as authorised entities might want to steer their resources to cater to needs that 
are unmet by the market. 

The evaluation found that the Marrakesh provisions are also coherent internally, being 
suited to address the key goal of increasing availability of works in accessible formats 
copies while also safeguarding a fair balance between the rights and interests of 
rightholders and users. 

EU added value 

The EU intervention was essential to fulfil the EU’s international obligation as a 
signatory of the Marrakesh Treaty, given that the subject matter falls within an area of 
exclusive EU competence. The EU intervention led to a harmonisation of the copyright 
exception for people with print-related disabilities, addressing the existing divergences in 
the scope of the existing national exceptions, and facilitated the cross-border exchange of 

61 

 
accessible format copies. It aided the beneficiaries and authorised entities by ensuring 
increased legal certainty and limiting duplication of efforts, and led to increased overall 
efficiency and increased availability of copies in accessible formats. 

Relevance 

The evaluation found that the Marrakesh instruments remain relevant in light of the 
policy, market and technological developments in the reference period. 

The market for born accessible books does not appear to have increased in the reference 
period. While the market for e-books and audiobooks for the general public has 
increased, it remains still a rather small proportion of the offer and it does not address all 
the various needs of the people with disabilities covered by the Marrakesh instruments. 
Therefore, the copyright exception introduced by the Marrakesh framework remains 
relevant to improve access for beneficiaries to accessible format copies. 

The European Accessibility Act is expected to have an important impact on the 
commercial market for accessible e-books. The EAA is likely to free up the resources of 
authorised entities for the more specialised production of accessible formats, however it 
does not exhaust the needs of the people with disability under the Marrakesh Directive 
for accessible copies. This is, for instance, because EAA only covers one type of 
accessible format (e-books) and other formats might be more appropriate for certain 
categories of beneficiaries covered by the Marrakesh framework, and because e-books 
might require more specialised adaptation for certain disabilities. In addition, micro 
enterprises providing services are exempted from complying with the accessibility 
requirements of the EAA. 

Technology has become more widely available in the reference period, facilitating and 
making more efficient the production of born accessible works and accessible format 
copies. It has also ensured better tools for beneficiaries to access print-related works. 
However, the technologies are not making the intervention redundant, as the Marrakesh 
rules remain a prerequisite to take advantage of the technologies. 

5.2.  Lessons learned 

Overall, the performance of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation matched the 
expectations: against a background of existing but varied national copyright exceptions 
for the benefit of people with disabilities, the EU instruments improved legal certainty by 
clarifying the uses and beneficiaries covered by the exception, while safeguarding the 
balance of rights and interests. The available data suggest that EU measures helped 
improve availability of accessible format copies made under the exception and in 
particular facilitated the cross-border exchange of these copies. 

62 

 
At the same time, the framework did not impose burdens on the authorised entities that 
could inhibit the availability of accessible format copies. There is also no obligation 
imposed on the authorised entities to provide data to national authorities on the uses or 
works covered by the framework or to publish such data. (Information on works and 
subject matter available in accessible format copies is provided, upon request, to 
beneficiaries, rightholders and other authorised entities). Some authorised entities 
voluntarily publish data, while certain national authorities might ask authorised entities 
for data as part of monitoring activities. In this context, there is limited data available on 
the uses under the framework. 

While no comprehensive data is available, in general, the evaluation did not uncover 
unintended effects of the intervention. At the same time, the impact of the measures may 
vary across Member States due to different factors, in particular due to funding or 
resources, as well as access to technology, awareness, and level of cooperation. The main 
lessons learned arising from the evaluation are the following: 

The insufficient funding or other insufficient resources (human resources, know-how, 
technology) for the authorised entities are perceived as the main obstacles to providing 
more accessible format copies. Cross-border exchanges may help bring savings by 
removing duplication of efforts, since copies can be sourced from other authorised 
entities. Nevertheless, it appears that in house production remains a significant source of 
accessible format copies, also because users favour works in their own language, which 
could be available through exchanges only in countries with shared languages. In this 
context, a stable and sufficient level of funding of the authorised entities seems relevant 
for the effectiveness of the measures. 

The level of digitalisation and technological readiness among authorised entities can 
also have an impact. Technology can facilitate and make more efficient the production of 
accessible works as well as provide additional tools to beneficiaries which improve 
access to printed works. In addition, automatisation of reporting can improve efficiency 
by minimising the administrative costs for the operation of authorised entities. 
Interoperability of formats (especially in exchanges with third countries) can mitigate 
costs linked to additional work for the format conversion (191). 

Increased awareness of the services offered by the authorised entities and increased 
transparency allowing beneficiaries to locate the titles offered are likely to further benefit 
the utilisation of the framework. Certain online tools are available to facilitate access to 
information about available titles (192). At the same time, not all beneficiaries have the 
know-how or the access to the technology to allow them to use the available catalogues 
or tools efficiently. Practices in certain authorised entities respond to the diverse needs by 
training beneficiaries, or by allowing them to request formats (including analogues) by 

(191)  The study, pp. 59 and 88. 
(192) The study, p. 218. 

63 

 
 
different means (email, phone). In some Member States, authorised entities also 
collaborate with library networks, which provide consultation and assistance to 
beneficiaries, while some also take measures to improve the know-how of teachers and 
librarians in guiding beneficiaries. Overall, services catering to diverse needs of support 
of beneficiaries appear useful in improving access and use of the accessible format 
copies. 

In the absence of specific monitoring and authorisation procedure, the evaluation found 
that the situation at national level differs. Certain Member States require some form of 
notification from authorised entities, and might require them to transmit information as 
part of the monitoring activities, or perform spot checks. On the other hand, in one 
Member State the national authority was not aware of the authorised entities in that 
country and could not provide information on the functioning of the framework in that 
State. Authorised entities are confined to certain types of entities (e.g. those authorised or 
recognised by a Member State to provide education, instructional training, adaptive 
reading or information access to beneficiary, public institution or non-profit organisation 
dedicated to providing such services to beneficiaries). Furthermore, the voluntary 
notification by authorised entities to their national authorities, encouraged by the 
Directive for those that engage in cross-border exchanges, can contribute to increased 
transparency for all relevant parties and could be more widely applied. 

While no precise information is available to assess the impact of the methods used by 
authorised entities to prevent unauthorised dissemination of accessible format copies, 
interviews with stakeholders suggest that password protection and two factor 
authentication reduce accessibility for beneficiaries and are avoided by authorised 
entities. On the other hand, watermarking appears to provide a good cost-benefit ratio in 
preventing the unauthorised dissemination of downloadable copies in non-specialised 
formats. The measures to prevent uses not covered by the framework are likely to carry 
increased weight when authorised entities provides high quality formats that can be 
equally enjoyed by non-beneficiaries (e.g. streamed audiobooks). 

Cooperation between authorised entities, in both the production of accessible format 
copies as well as the sharing of titles, is helpful to improve efficiency. In addition to the 
international ABC platform, certain initiatives are in place to connect authorised entities 
at national level, or in same language areas, or to coordinate production and share costs 
to provide works in languages for an ethnic minority. 

Finally, cooperation between authorised entities and publishers is useful to increase 
synergies and is likely to become even more relevant in the context of the application of 
the EAA. Reported cooperation takes different forms, such as: in small markets, where 
contacts are more easily possible, authorised entities voluntarily contact publishers in 
order to check commercial availability and avoid duplications; availability of platforms 
or incentives for publishers to provide authorised entities a copy in a digital format, so as 

64 

 
to minimise the risk of duplication of work; sharing costs of production of certain 
formats to improve efficiency and to provide access through various channels. 

65 

 
 
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1. Lead DG, Decide Planning references 

This evaluation was led by Directorate-General Communication Networks, Content and 
Technology (DG CNECT), Unit I2 ‘Copyright’. 

The DECIDE reference is: PLAN/2022/1998. 

2. Organisation and timing 

On 29 July 2022, an Interservice Steering Group (ISG) involving services with an 
interest in the measure under evaluation (193), was consulted on the draft terms of 
reference (ToRs) for a study supporting the evaluation of the ‘Marrakesh’ Directive ((EU) 
2017/1564) and Regulation ((EU) 2017/1563). 

On 13 January 2023, the ISG was consulted on the call for evidence and on the 
consultation strategy. 

In November 2022, DG CNECT issued a request for services and terms of reference for a 
tender on external study supporting the evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and 
Regulation. 

The study contract was signed on 13 March 2023, with task duration of 9 months. It 
began with a kick-off meeting on 29 March 2023 and ended in January 2024 (see 
Annex II). 

The ISG has been consulted via email on the different draft reports submitted by the 
contractor. In particular, the ISG has been consulted on 21 June 2023 on the First Interim 
report, on 20 September on the Second Interim report, and on 9 November on the draft 
final report. 

In April 2023, DG CNECT published the call for evidence for the initiative on the ‘Have 
your say’ portal, describing purpose and scope of the evaluation. The call for evidence 
was open to public feedback for 4 weeks (until 11 May 2023). 

On 8 May 2023 the ISG has been consulted via email on the targeted consultation and on 
the Member States questionnaire conducted in the framework of the study. 

In February 2025, the ISG was consulted on this draft staff working document. 

(193) The ISG included representatives of the following DGs: SG, SJ, GROW, EMPL, JRC, EAC, RTD, 

JUST, TRADE, CNECT. 

66 

 
 
3. Exceptions from the Better Regulation Guidelines 

No exceptions from the usual procedural requirements of the ‘better regulation’ 
guidelines were required or applied to this evaluation. 

4. Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Not applicable. 

5. External expertise 

The evaluation was supported by an external consortium composed of Kantar, Visionary 
Analytics (VA) and Olsson & Koskinen Consulting. The consortium collected the 
evidence, performed the study tasks, and submitted deliverables in accordance with the 
terms of reference. 

The draft final report of the ‘study to support the evaluation of the Directive (EU) 
2017/1564 and of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1563, which implement into EU law the 
Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, 
Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled’ was submitted by the consortium on 
7 November 2023. The final meeting took place on 22 November 2023. 

6. Evidence, sources and quality 

Most of the evidence was collected with the support of an external contractor (see the 
‘study to support the evaluation of the Directive (EU) 2017/1564 and of the Regulation 
(EU) 2017/1563, which implement into EU law the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate 
Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise 
Print Disabled’ Final Report, Kantar, Visionary Analytics, Olsson & Koskinen 
Consulting, December 2023) (hereinafter referred to as: the study). 

The study relies on the results from several data collection activities: literature review 
and desk research, mapping activities, country fiches for all EU27 Member States, 
compensation scheme fiches, technology mapping table, quantitative data from 26 AEs 
based in 18 Member States (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, 
Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, 
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden), in-depth interviews, interviews with national-
level stakeholders including authorised entities and representatives of beneficiaries and 
rightsholders. 

In addition, the study supported the Commission in the organisation of targeted 
consultation with stakeholders, and consultation with Member States. 

67 

 
a)  The Targeted stakeholders’ consultation ran from 22 June until 11 August 2023. It 
has served to gather evidence, assessments, and opinions from key stakeholders 
(including AEs, beneficiaries, and rightsholders) on the relevance, efficiency and 
effectiveness of the Marrakesh Framework; 

b)  The consultation with Member States ran from 19 June until 6 October 2023. It 

has targeted national authorities responsible for the transposition of the Directive 
and the implementation of corresponding laws and has fed the mapping activities 
on the systems and procedures in place, as well as contributed to answering the 
evaluation questions related in particular to the evaluation criteria of effectiveness 
and efficiency. 

The study also took into account the responses to the call for evidence, which contained 
open answers and position papers of stakeholders. 

A Synopsis Report, containing the summary of all consultation activities is included in 
Annex IX to the study (Annex V to the current report). 

Finally, the study involves six thematic case studies, collating in-depth insights from 
eight selected EU Member States. Case studies are based on in-depth interviews with 
AEs and representatives of beneficiaries and rightsholders and other sources, such as 
desk research, survey, replies to the call for evidence, and exploratory interviews. The 
case studies are compiled in Annex X to the study. 

The quantification was in some cases difficult, due to unavailability of data in Member 
States. The analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency criteria was thus limited, as 
described in Annex II. 

Nonetheless, it was possible to draw conclusions based on available data from authorised 
entities, as well as consultation activities with stakeholders (Annex V). 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

The evaluation has been mainly based on a supporting study provided by an external 
contractor. The methodology for the evaluation activities combined desk with 
consultation activities involving relevant stakeholders (targeted consultation and in-depth 
interviews) and Member States (questionnaire-based) aiming to collect, analyse, interpret 
and triangulate the quantitative and qualitative data. The evaluation activities also took 
into account official legal and policy documents, such as EU legislation in the field of 
disability and accessibility (e.g. the European Accessibility Act). 

The Commission has launched a call for evidence in the period 13 April and 11 May 
2023, gathering input from 34 stakeholders (see Annex V for more details). The call for 
evidence detailed the consultation strategy planned for the evaluation, which included a 
targeted stakeholder consultation with relevant stakeholders, gathering information from 

68 

 
Member States, in accordance with Article 10(2) of the Marrakesh Directive and 
Article 7 of the Marrakesh Regulation; as well as in-depth interviews with relevant 
stakeholders, in particular to verify the initial findings. 

The external contractor designed the methodology for the study with due account to the 
consultation strategy mentioned above. The methodology employed by the study 
involved the assessment of results from several data collection activities, namely194: 

–  Literature review, covering evidence from the academic literature, research and 
policy reports, position papers and web resources, as well as the availability of 
print materials in accessible formats (the list or sources used is detailed in Annex 
I of the study). 

–  Mapping activities done on the basis of desk research and survey results, which 
aimed to systematise the state of play in the implementation of the Marrakesh 
Directive and Regulation as well as technological developments. On this basis, 
the contractor prepared country fiches for all the Member States covering in 
particular the systems and procedures put in place to enact the framework; in 
addition the study includes fiches of compensation schemes for the Member 
States were these are in place, as well as a table mapping the relevant technology 
(Annex IV, V and VI of the study). 

–  Quantitative data collection from authorised entities (a sample of 26 authorised 
entities from 18 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, 
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, 
Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden). The data covers the availability 
of titles in accessible formats over time, and serves to inform the analysis of the 
progress made towards the framework objectives (Annex VII of the study). 

–  Consultation activities - the following activities were undertaken in the context of 

the study: 

• 

• 

supporting the Commission by undertaking the targeted consultation with 
stakeholders. The targeted consultation ran from 22 June to 11 August 2023. 
The aim was to gather evidence and opinions from key stakeholders (in 
particular AEs, beneficiaries and rightsholders) on the relevance, efficiency 
and effectiveness of the Marrakesh framework. It gathered replies from 63 
stakeholders. 

supporting the Commission to collect information from the Member States in 
accordance with Article 10(2) of Marrakesh Directive and Article 7 of 
Marrakesh Regulation. The consultation took place from 19 June to 6 October 
2023. The data collected was used in particular for the mapping activities 
regarding the systems and procedures in place, as well as contributing to 

(194) Information developed as part of the study, p. 49-50 

69 

 
 
• 

answering the evaluation questions that relate in particular to effectiveness 
and efficiency. 

In addition, in depths interviews were conducted in an exploratory phase, as 
well as to complement and cross-check the data collected. More precisely, at 
the beginning of the study, the contractor conducted six in depths interviews 
with EU and international stakeholders, as well as with academic and legal 
experts, to get information on key issues, trends and challenges, and thus to 
help design the design the data collection. At the stage of study finalisation, 
four in depths interviews were conducted to cross-check the preliminary 
research results and fill in information gaps (Annex VIII of the Study; the 
interviewees are mentioned in Table 45 and 46 of the study). Further 
interviews were conducted with 20 stakeholders (national-level stakeholders, 
including authorised entities and representatives of beneficiaries and 
rightsholders) to discuss in more details the implementation of the framework 
in the specific Member State (Annex VIII of the study; the interviewees are 
mentioned in Table 47 of the study). 

–  Case studies: The contractor conducted six case studies, covering eight Member 
States. The case studies analyse in more depths the impact of the Marrakesh 
instruments, in Member States with or without a compensation scheme, cross-
border exchanges within the EU and third countries, the impact of the framework 
in small markets, and the coordination of stakeholders. The case studies were 
developed using data collected from the in-depth interviews with, desk research, 
responses to the call for evidence (Annex X of the study). 

Methodological limitations 

The methodology is confronted by the following limitations (195): 

•  Limited availability of data: The adoption of the Marrakesh instruments was not 
preceded by an impact assessment, and thus quantitative data was lacking on the 
state of play preceding the adoption. Furthermore, data is not widely or easily 
accessible on the current state play. The study aimed to overcome some of the 
limitations by gathering data, through individual data requests addressed to 
authorised entities, in particular concerning the availability and use of the 
accessible formats. However, as flagged by the study, the response rate has been 
moderate, and this reduced the representativeness of the data gathered. In 
addition, there were limitations on data to quantify the costs and benefits of the 
intervention. 

•  Limited evidence on the causal impacts of the Marrakesh instruments: due to the 
legal framework existing prior to Marrakesh, which allowed Member States to 

(195) The study, p. 50-51. 

70 

 
 
provide a (non-harmonised) exception for people with disability, as well as the 
impact of other factors such as technology and budgets, the causal link between 
the adoption of the Marrakesh instruments and the availability of titles in 
accessible formats over time, cannot be authoritatively established, since any 
attempts to separate the causal impacts from other factors creates the risk of error. 

•  Uneven geographical distribution of data: Overall, the amount of evidence 

collected in some countries is considerably higher compared to other countries. 
Despite the efforts made by external supporting study team, the response rates for 
the different stakeholder consultation activities are uneven across countries. 

•  Limitations in the stakeholder representativeness: (1) the consultation strategy 

was not based on sample design techniques, since the pool of stakeholders to be 
consulted was explicitly provided in the Directive; and (2) some stakeholders 
engaged through dissemination did not reply to the questionnaires or surveys. 
Therefore the results of the consultation activities cannot be considered 
statistically representative of each stakeholder group. 

The issues listed above may limit the analysis especially in relation to the effectiveness 
and efficiency evaluation criteria, and these limitations have also been highlighted in the 
respective sections of the evaluation. Nevertheless, certain conclusions were possible to 
be drawn based on the triangulation of findings from the literature review and the 
consultation activities with stakeholders. 

Furthermore, for the analysis of efficiency, most of the categories of costs and benefits 
were not possible to quantify, given the lack of data on the relevant issues; instead, 
qualitative explanations are provided on who bears what costs, and why. Two tables 
summarising these factors are available in Annex IV. 

71 

 
 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON 
ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) (196) 

Below we provide Evaluation Matrix tables for each evaluation criterion and the 
baseline. All tables consist of the following variables: 

•  Evaluation questions: the core research problems to be answered by evaluators; 

•  Sub-questions: detailed questions, which facilitate the operationalisation of the 

research problems; 

•  Judgement criteria: statements that need to be confirmed or disconfirmed by the 

analysis; 

•  Examples of indicators: quantitative or qualitative measures supporting the 

analysis; 

•  Methods & activities: quantitative and qualitative, primary and secondary sources 

used or obtained to answer the evaluation questions. 

Baseline 

Setting the baseline for the evaluation of the Marrakesh framework is particularly 
challenging because of several key factors: 

•  No impact assessment: Following the Better Regulation Guidelines, where there 

is a prior impact assessment, the impact assessment baseline would have been the 
preferred comparison point. 

•  Scarce and fragmented data: the evaluation can build its own evaluation baseline 
from scratch. However, as the exploratory research has revealed, there is no 
aggregated and reliable data on any key change markers available at the EU or 
Member State level. 

To address these challenges, we deploy two main approaches to setting the baseline: 

•  Constructing a quantitative baseline in the course of evaluation: First, the current 
state-of-play can be compared to the situation at the start of an intervention, based 
on data (including historical data) gathered from the EU-based authorised entities. 
Secondly, the pace of progress could be also compared to the global benchmark 
(based on the ABC data). This provides a picture (albeit incomplete and covering 
a limited set of variables) of the progress towards the framework’s objectives. 

•  Qualitative description: The framework can be evaluated against scenarios based 
on clearly stated assumptions, for example, the situation where the EU does not 
act. Stakeholders can help evaluate the perceived impact of the framework against 

(196) This Annex was developed as part of the study supporting the evaluation and corresponds to Annex III 

of that study (p. 112 – 123). 

72 

 
 
such constructed scenarios. Stakeholder sentiment can be also analysed against 
the consultation outcomes on similar topics in 2014 and 2022 consultations. 

Table 1. Baseline: Points of comparison for different evaluation criteria 

Criterion 

Baseline/points of comparison 

Relevance 

• Economic and societal needs at the time of the 

adoption of the Framework 

• Policy context and needs at the time of adoption 
of the Framework and in a reconstructed future 
scenario – particularly considering the adoption of 
the EAA. 

• State of the market (market failure) at the time of 
adoption of the Framework and in a reconstructed 
future scenario – particularly considering the 
market response to the EAA. 

Methods to 
estimate the 
baseline 

• Desk research 
and previous 
consultation 
activities 

• Exploratory 
interviews 

Effectiveness  • Historical data from AEs at the time of the 

• Desk research 

adoption of the Framework 

• Global trends in achieving the objectives of the 
Marrakesh Treaty (e.g. the number of works in 
accessible formats according to ABC) 

• Qualitative assessments by key stakeholders (e.g. 

from the 2014 consultation). 

Efficiency 

Expected costs and benefits 

Coherence 

Changes in coherence between the start and end of 
the evaluation period 

EU added 
value 

Estimation of the cost of the Union not acting - ‘the 
cost of non-Europe’. 

Source: The Study 

• Consultation 
activities 

• Analysis of 
quantitative 
data from AEs 

• Exploratory 
interviews 

• Overarching 

analysis 

73 

 
Relevance 

Relevance looks at the design of an intervention, namely the relationship between the 
needs and problems in society and the objectives of the intervention. The key underlying 
question under this criterion is: 

Does the Framework remain relevant considering the evolving context? In 
particular, does the market failure (commercial unavailability of works in 
accessible formats) persist? 

Our analysis focuses particularly on three areas that are likely to have undergone 
significant changes since the adoption of the framework: 

•  The evolving beneficiaries’ needs: First, we explore how the needs of 

beneficiaries have evolved since the implementation of the framework, and 
whether the framework has addresses these needs adequately. 

•  The evolving policy context: The EU policy framework has considerably 

developed since the adoption of the framework, the impact of which needs to be 
evaluated. Particularly, the EAA alters the policy status quo, providing legal 
obligation on publishers to provide born accessible e-books under the EAA (albeit 
with exceptions). 

•  The evolving market context: It is important to analyse to what extent the market 

failure, identified as one of the key underlying problems and triggers for 
intervention, persists. The market response needs to be analysed to assess the 
current (and future, considering the EAA) level of access to born accessible 
formats. 

•  Technological developments: Technological advancements can potentially alter 

the market context – for example, a (hypothetical) significant decrease in cost of 
production of accessible formats (due to technological advancements), could 
render the market failure obsolete as the production of such formats becomes 
commercially feasible. 

The relevance evaluation is done primarily through exploratory desk research and 
interviews (to identify key trends and needs), technology mapping (to identify the 
technological developments), and targeted consultation (to assess the importance and 
impact of these (new) trends, needs, and technologies). 

74 

 
Table 2. Evaluation Matrix for the relevance criteria 

Evaluation 
question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria 

Examples of 
indicators 

Methods & 
activities 

To what extent 
have the 
Framework 
(and their 
objectives) been 
instrumental, 
and do they 
continue to be 
relevant, in 
addressing the 
evolving needs 
of beneficiaries 
(including older 
people), 
considering the 
evolving policy 
context 
(including other 
accessibility 
related 
European 
legislation) and 
market 
developments? 

How have the 
needs of 
beneficiaries 
changed since the 
framework was 
implemented? 

To what extent has 
the framework 
remained relevant 
considering these 
evolving needs? 

How has the policy 
context developed 
since the 
framework was 
implemented? 

To what extent has 
the framework 
remained relevant 
considering the 
evolving policy 
context? 

How has the 
market developed 
since the 
framework was 
implemented? 

To what extent has 
the framework 
remained relevant 
considering the 
evolving market 
responses? 

Comparison 
of 
stakeholder 
needs at the 
time of 
implementati
on and at 
present 

Assessment 
of framework 
relevance 

Comparison 
of policy 
context at the 
time of 
implementati
on and at 
present 

Assessment 
of framework 
relevance 

Comparison 
of the state of 
the market at 
the time of 
implementati
on and at 
present 

Assessment 
of framework 
relevance 

The framework has 
fulfilled the needs of 
beneficiaries during 
the evaluation period. 

New identified needs 
are addressed by the 
framework. 

The framework has 
fulfilled the EU policy 
priorities during the 
evaluation period. 

The framework 
remains relevant 
considering the 
evolving policy 
context. 

The framework has 
addressed the market 
failure (insufficient 
access to born 
accessible copies) 
during the evaluation 
period. 

Market failure remains 
a significant obstacle 
in the availability of 
works in accessible 
formats for 
beneficiaries.  

75 

Desk 
research and 
exploratory 
interviews 
(to identify 
key trends 
and needs), 
targeted 
consultation 
(to assess 
relevance in 
the light of 
these (new) 
needs) 

 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria 

What relevant 
technologies 
(software and 
hardware) are 
available? 

N/A 

Examples of 
indicators 

Methods & 
activities 

Comprehensi
ve mapping 
of 
technologies 

Technology 
mapping 

Positive impact of 
technological 
developments can be 
identified (e.g. 
decreasing cost of 
making accessible 
format copies, the 
emergence of new 
kinds of accessible 
formats, new file 
transfer options, or 
hardware). 

Negative impact of 
technological 
developments can be 
identified (e.g. lack of 
interoperability 
between different 
formats or prohibitive 
cost of hardware). 

What is the 
positive impact? 

Do the 
technological 
developments 
impact the 
relevance of the 
Framework? 

What is the 
negative impact? 

Source: The Study. 

Effectiveness 

Description 
of the key 
impacts of 
technological 
developments 
compared to 
the baseline 

Technology 
mapping; 
targeted 
consultation 

Following the Better Regulation Guidelines, effectiveness analysis considers how the 
Marrakesh framework has achieved or progressed towards its objectives. In line with the 
reconstruction of the Intervention Logic, we distinguish between general and specific 
objectives, resulting in tangible first-level effects (outputs), resulting change to the status 
quo (results), and wider effects involving more complex causalities but logically linked 
to the intended objectives (impacts). 

First, we set to analyse the results – the two core questions (that provide the backbone of 
the evaluation overall) are: 

76 

 
To what extent has the Framework improved the availability of works in 
accessible format copies in the EU? 

To what extent has the Framework facilitated the cross-border exchanges of 
accessible format copies within the EU and with third countries (parties of the 
Marrakesh Treaty)? 

These questions are evaluated against the initial mapping of implementation and nuanced 
considering how different implementation approaches have led to different outcomes. 
Furthermore, we dive deeper into the results by asking questions on: 

•  Difficulties and obstacles that limit the progress towards achieving the intended 

results (including availability and cross-border exchange of works). 

•  Any other unintended consequences of the implementation of the framework (e.g. 
possible impact on the commercial market, or excessive strain on the capacity of 
AEs to fulfil their mission). 

Finally, we move to assessing the broader impacts of the framework, posing a question 
on the contribution of the framework to the progress towards the social and digital 
inclusion of people with disabilities as well as awareness about the issues at stake. 

Table 3. Evaluation Matrix for the effectiveness criterion 

Evaluation 
question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria 

Examples of 
indicators 

Methods & 
activities 

How successful 
has the 
Framework been 
in increasing the 
availability of 
books and other 
printed material 
in accessible 
format copies, 
and improving 
their circulation 
in the internal 
market and with 
third countries? 

How successful 
has the framework 
been in increasing 
the availability of 
books and other 
printed material in 
accessible format 
copies? 

The availability of 
books and other 
printed materials 
has increased since 
the transposition of 
the Directive. 

The increase can be 
(partially) attributed 
to the application of 
the framework. 

The change in 
the number of 
books and 
other printed 
material in 
accessible 
format copies 

Evaluation of 
the 
framework’s 
contribution 
to the 
increase as 
assessed by 
the key 
stakeholders  

Quantitative 
data from 
AEs and 
other 
stakeholders; 
targeted 
consultation; 
case studies 

77 

 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria 

Examples of 
indicators 

Methods & 
activities 

How successful 
has the framework 
been in improving 
their circulation in 
the internal 
market? 

How successful 
has the framework 
been in improving 
their circulation 
with third 
countries? 

The change in 
the number of 
books and 
other printed 
material in 
accessible 
format copies 
exchanged in 
the internal 
market 

Evaluation of 
the 
framework’s 
contribution 
to the 
increase as 
assessed by 
the key 
stakeholders  

The change in 
the number of 
books and 
other printed 
material in 
accessible 
format copies 
exchanged 
with third 
countries 

Evaluation of 
the 
framework’s 
contribution 
to the 
increase as 
assessed by 
the key 
stakeholders  

The circulation of 
books and other 
printed material in 
accessible format 
copies between the 
EU Member States 
(in the internal 
market) has 
increased since the 
transposition of the 
Directive. 

The increase can be 
(partially) attributed 
to the application of 
the framework. 

The cross-border 
exchange of books 
and other printed 
material in 
accessible format 
copies between the 
EU and third 
countries has 
increased since the 
application of the 
Regulation. 

The increase can be 
(partially) attributed 
to the application of 
the framework. 

78 

 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria 

Examples of 
indicators 

Methods & 
activities 

What external 
factors, if any, 
affected the 
progress towards 
the objectives 
and, where 
expectations have 
not been met, 
what obstacles 
hindered their 
achievement? 

What difficulties, 
if any, still exist 
for the production 
of accessible 
format copies? 

What difficulties, 
if any, still exist 
for cross-border 
exchanges in the 
internal market? 

What difficulties, 
if any, still exist 
for cross-border 
exchanges 
between EU 
Member States 
and third 
countries?  

Obstacles that 
hinder the 
production of 
accessible format 
copies can be 
identified (e.g. the 
capacity of 
authorised entities, 
including 
infrastructure, 
financial capacity, 
and human 
resources). 

Obstacles that 
hinder the exchange 
of accessible format 
copies in the 
internal market can 
be identified (e.g. 
insufficient access 
to data or lack of 
efficient 
communication 
channels between 
AEs). 

Obstacles that 
hinder the exchange 
of accessible format 
copies with third 
countries can be 
identified (e.g. 
insufficient access 
to data or lack of 
efficient 
communication 
channels between 
AEs). 

79 

Description 
of the key 
obstacles that 
hinder 
achieving the 
objectives of 
the 
framework 

Desk 
research and 
exploratory 
interviews to 
identify key 
obstacles; 
targeted 
consultation 
to assess their 
impact; case 
studies 

 
Evaluation 
question 

Are there any 
unexpected or 
unintended 
effects? 

How does the 
Framework 
contribute to 
broader social 
goals? 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria 

Examples of 
indicators 

Methods & 
activities 

Desk 
research; 
exploratory 
interviews; 
targeted 
consultation 

Description 
of the key 
unintended 
effects of the 
framework 
and their 
effect on the 
intended 
results and 
impacts 

Overarching 
analysis and 
extrapolation 
from the 
evidence on 
the results of 
the 
framework 

N/A 

N/A 

Are there any 
positive 
unintended 
effects? 

Are there any 
negative 
unintended 
effects? 

To what extent 
does access to 
printed works may 
contribute to the 
digital inclusion 
of beneficiaries? 
How has the 
framework 
contributed to this 
goal? 

To what extent 
does access to 
printed works may 
contribute to the 
social inclusion of 
beneficiaries? 
How has the 
framework 

Positive unintended 
effects can be 
identified (e.g. 
market response in 
terms of the 
increased 
commercial 
availability of born 
accessible works). 

Negative 
unintended effects 
can be identified 
(e.g. excessive 
strain on the 
capacity of AEs to 
fulfil their mission 
or the negative 
impact on 
commercial 
availability). 

The framework 
facilitates the digital 
inclusion of 
beneficiaries by 
improving access to 
printed works in 
digital formats and 
via digital 
distribution 
channels. 

The framework 
facilitates the social 
inclusion of 
beneficiaries by 
improving the 
social infrastructure 
(networks of AEs) 
and facilitating high 
quality and 

80 

 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria 

Examples of 
indicators 

Methods & 
activities 

affordable services 
(access to printed 
works). 

The framework has 
contributed to 
increased awareness 
about the social and 
digital exclusion of 
beneficiaries. 

N/A 

contributed to this 
goal? 

To what extent has 
the framework 
contributed to 
increasing 
awareness about 
the social and 
digital exclusion 
of beneficiaries 
among the wider 
population? 

Source: The Study. 

Efficiency 

Following Better Regulation Guidelines, efficiency evaluation addresses the relationship 
between the resources used by an intervention and the positive or negative changes 
generated by the intervention, considering also whether other options could have brought 
similar changes to fewer costs. Therefore, the key questions to be addressed are: 

Has the implementation of the Framework been cost-effective? 

What is the distribution of costs and benefits across different stakeholder groups? 

While implementation costs can, to some extent, be estimated, it is extremely challenging 
to quantify the benefits associated with the framework, especially in monetary terms. 
Conducting a fully-fledged cost-benefit analysis is methodologically unfeasible, as this 
kind of analysis has very high requirements (based on Better Regulation Toolbox, p. 554-
557). Instead, realistically, we focus on a more analytical assessment of costs and 
benefits depending on quantitative and qualitative information obtained. We focus on 
four key issues: 

•  The overall cost efficiency of the framework considering the expected and 

achieved outcomes. 

• 

Identification of regulatory obligations related to the implementation of the 
framework and potential improvements in efficiency, both in terms of simplifying 
rules/procedures where they are found redundant and considering best practices 
that might improve the cost-benefit ratio. 

81 

 
•  The identification of impact on different stakeholder groups 

(rightsholders, users, authorised entities, and national regulators), depending also 
on the national approaches to the transposition of the Directive (particularly by 
the presence or absence of compensation schemes). 

The answers to these questions are collated from various methods, including mapping 
activities (to identify regulatory obligations), exploratory interviews and targeted 
consultation (to identify and assess indirect costs and benefits), and consultation of 
Member States and case studies (to explore the distribution of costs and benefits under 
different transposition approaches and to identify streamlining possibilities). 

Table 4. Evaluation Matrix for the efficiency criterion 

Evaluation 
question 

Sub-question 

Judgement 
criteria 

Examples of 
indicators 

Methods & 
activities 

To what extent 
has the 
application of 
both acts been 
cost-effective?  

Overall, has the 
application of the 
framework been 
cost-effective? 

What factors 
influence the 
efficiency with 
which the results 
were achieved and 
how? 

The application 
of the 
framework has 
led to benefits 
that justify its 
costs. 

There is 
evidence that 
the resources 
were sufficient 
to implement 
the activities 
without impact 
on the quality of 
the results. 

There is 
evidence that in 
some contexts, 
the application 
of the 
framework was 
more cost-
effective than 
others, and 
factors 
contributing to 

82 

Desk research; 
targeted 
consultation; 
consultation 
with Member 
States 

Comparison of 
the identified and 
assessed costs and 
benefits 

Information on 
factors 
influencing (both 
positively and 
negatively) the 
efficiency 

 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-question 

Judgement 
criteria 

Examples of 
indicators 

Methods & 
activities 

this can be 
identified. 

N/A 

What are the 
regulatory 
obligations, 
particularly with 
regards to: 

• implementation 

of the 
compensation 
schemes; 

• prevention of 
unauthorised 
dissemination; 
and 

• gathering and 
monitoring of 
data? 

Are the regulatory 
obligations 
justified given 
their (expected) 
outcomes? How (if 
at all) could the 
existing regulatory 
obligations be 
streamlined? 

The existing 
regulatory 
obligations are 
necessary for 
the efficient 
application of 
the framework. 

The regulatory 
obligations can 
be streamlined. 

What are the 
regulatory 
obligations of 
the 
Framework? 
Can they be 
improved?  

What costs 
and benefits 
have the 
provisions of 
the 
Framework 
produced for 
the different 
stakeholders in 
the EU?  

What costs have 
the provisions of 
the Framework 
produced for 
different 
stakeholder 
groups, 
particularly: 

rightsholders; 

N/A 

83 

Description of 
regulatory 
obligations in 
different contexts 
(e.g. in the 
presence or 
absence of 
compensation 
schemes or the 
obligation to 
monitor data) 

Assessment of the 
value added of 
the regulatory 
provisions in 
different contexts 

Assessment or 
estimation of 
costs for different 
stakeholder 
groups, e.g.: 

• variation due to 

copyright 
exception and 
potential 
unauthorised 

Implementation 
mapping; 
compensation 
scheme 
mapping; 
consultation 
with Member 
States; case 
studies 

Desk research; 
exploratory 
interviews; 
targeted 
consultation; 
case studies 

 
Judgement 
criteria 

Evaluation 
question 

Sub-question 

authorised entities; 
and 

national 
regulators? 

What benefits 
have the 
provisions of the 
Framework 
produced for 
different 
stakeholder groups 
(particularly 
beneficiaries) and 
the society at 
large? 

N/A 

84 

Methods & 
activities 

Examples of 
indicators 

dissemination 
(rightsholders) 

• variation of 

producing and 
distributing 
accessible 
format copies 
(authorised 
entities) 

• variation of 

governance and 
enforcement of 
the national 
framework 
(including 
compensation 
schemes and 
prevention of 
unauthorised 
dissemination) 

Assessment or 
estimation of 
variation in 
benefits for 
different 
stakeholder 
groups, e.g.: 

• compensation 

schemes 
(rightsholders) 

• production of 
accessible 
format copies, 
expanding the 
catalogues and 
social impact 
(authorised 
entities) 

 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-question 

Judgement 
criteria 

Examples of 
indicators 

Methods & 
activities 

• societal benefits 
of increased 
awareness and 
digital and 
social inclusion 
(related to 
effectiveness 
criteria) 

Description of 
key stakeholders’ 
positions on the 
cost and benefit 
distribution 

Targeted 
consultation, 
case studies 

Evaluation of the 
balance between 
the rights of users 
and rightsholders 
in different 
contexts as 
assessed by the 
key stakeholders 

Is the distribution 
of costs and 
benefits is as 
expected by the 
key stakeholders? 

Were the costs 
and benefits 
distributed as 
expected 
among the 
stakeholders? 

How do the 
benefits accrue to 
different 
stakeholders? 

Source: The Study. 

The distribution 
of costs and 
benefits is 
generally as 
expected, as 
assessed by the 
key 
stakeholders. 

Overall, there is 
a balance 
between the 
benefits of users 
(the right to 
social and 
cultural 
participation) 
and the interest 
of 
rightsholders). 

Impact of 
additional 
provisions (esp. 
compensation 
schemes) on the 
balance of 
rights and 
interests,  

85 

 
Coherence 

The evaluation of coherence involves looking at how well, or not, different policy actions 
work together. The key question we pose is: 

Is the Framework coherent, both internally and externally? 

Our analysis focuses on four levels: 

• 

International (external coherence): Given that the framework brought the 
necessary changes to EU legislation stemming from the EU conclusion of the 
Marrakesh Treaty, it is important to consider the framework’s role in meeting the 
EU’s international obligations, including the United Nations Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). 

•  EU (external coherence): We consider the broader EU policy context, particularly 
the advancing policies in the disability and accessibility policy area (the EAA), 
and how the framework fits (or will fit) in. 

• 

Internal coherence: We test the coherence of elements in the Directive and 
Regulation in terms of their goals and provisions. For example, we examine the 
relationship between the obligations imposed on AEs in Article 5 and the lack of 
specific monitoring system and only voluntary sharing of contact information in 
Article 6. 

The main method for evaluating coherence is desk research (particularly a detailed study 
of the framework’s and international treaties’ texts), supported by follow-up in-depth 
interviews and implementation mapping and case studies (for the assessment of national-
level differences in transposition). 

86 

 
Table 5. Evaluation Matrix for the coherence criterion 

Evaluation 
question 

Sub-question 

Judgement 
criteria 

Examples of 
indicators 

Methods 
& 
activities 

The 
framework 
fully fulfils 
the EU’s 
international 
obligations 
under the 
Marrakesh 
Treaty and the 
UN CRPD. 

The 
framework 
goes beyond 
the provisions 
of the 
international 
treaties. 

Comparison of 
the legal 
provisions of 
the framework 
and the 
provisions of 
the Marrakesh 
Treaty and the 
UN CRPD 

Degree of 
external 
coherence of 
the 
Intervention 
Logic as 
assessed by 
evaluators and 
validated by 
the key 
stakeholders 

The 
framework is 
coherent with 
EU policy 
priorities and 
other 
instruments; 
synergies are 
acknowledged 
and there are 
no significant 
overlaps. 

Degree of 
external 
coherence of 
the 
Intervention 
Logic as 
assessed by 
evaluators and 
validated by 
the key 
stakeholders 

Desk 
research; 
follow-up 
in-depth 
interviews 

Desk 
research  

What is the 
impact of 
the 
Framework 
in the 
context of 
the relevant 
international 
framework? 

To what degree does the 
framework fulfil the EU’s 
international obligations under 
the Marrakesh Treaty and the 
UN CRPD? Are there any 
inconsistencies? 

To what 
extent is the 
Framework 
coherent 
with the 
relevant EU 
legal 
framework, 
EU policies 
and 
priorities?  

To what extent is the framework 
coherent with the EU copyright 
legal framework, particularly 
the InfoSoc Directive? 

To what extent is the framework 
coherent with the EU 
accessibility priorities and 
policies, including the EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights, 
the European Pillar of Social 
Rights, the EU Disability 
strategy for 2021-2030, the 
European Accessibility Act, the 
Web Accessibility Directive, 
the Audio-visual Media 
Services Directive? 

87 

 
Evaluation 
question 

To what 
extent is the 
Framework 
coherent 
internally? 

Sub-question 

Judgement 
criteria 

Examples of 
indicators 

Are there any inconsistencies 
between the goals and 
provisions of the Directive and 
the Regulation? 

The Directive 
and the 
Regulation 
are internally 
coherent. 

Degree of 
internal 
coherence of 
the two acts 

Methods 
& 
activities 

Desk 
research 
(detailed 
analysis of 
the 
framework 
texts) 

Source: The Study. 

EU added value 

The EU added value criterion looks for changes which, as it can reasonably be argued, 
are due to the EU intervention, over and above what could reasonably have been 
expected from national actions by the Member States. The key underlying question is: 

Does the EU-level policy intervention make a (positive) difference compared to 
the non-Europe scenario? 

Our analysis brings together the findings of the other criteria, presenting the arguments 
on causality and drawing conclusions, based on the evidence to hand, about the 
performance of the framework and its added value. 

Table 6. Evaluation Matrix for the EU added value criterion. 

Evaluation 
question 

What is the added 
value of the 
Directive and 
Regulation 
compared to what 
is likely to have 
been achieved at 
the international, 
EU (including by 
institutions) and 
Member State 
levels in their 
absence?  

Sub-question 

Judgement 
criteria 

Examples of 
indicators 

Methods & 
activities 

N/A 

The degree 
and nature of 
EU added 
value as 
assessed by 
the evaluators 
and validated 
by the key 
stakeholders 

Follow-up in-
depth 
interviews; 
overarching 
analysis 

Effectiveness: The 
framework had a 
significant impact 
on achieving its 
aims (improving 
access to accessible 
books) in the years 
since its 
implementation. 

Efficiency: The 
framework offers 
better value for 
money, because 

88 

 
externalities can be 
addressed, 
resources or 
expertise can be 
pooled, and the 
action can be better 
coordinated. 

Synergy: The 
framework is 
necessary to 
complement, 
stimulate, and 
leverage action to 
reduce disparities, 
raise standards, and 
create synergies. 

To which groups 
of stakeholders 
has the 
framework made 
a 
positive/negative 
difference? 

The framework has 
created a distinct 
added value across 
different 
stakeholders. 

How did the EU 
intervention make 
a difference and to 
whom?  

What would be 
the most likely 
consequences of 
stopping or 
withdrawing the 
framework? 

Withdrawing the 
framework would 
have net negative 
effects on 
stakeholders. 

Source: The Study. 

Description of 
how the 
framework 
made a 
difference 
across 
different 
stakeholders. 

Description of 
mechanisms 
contributing 
to the effect 
on 
stakeholders 

Evaluation of 
potential 
effects of 
withdrawing 
the 
framework 

Follow-up in-
depth 
interviews; 
overarching 
analysis 

89 

 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF COSTS AND BENEFITS ACROSS THE MAIN 
STAKEHOLDER GROUPS (QUALITATIVE FACTORS) (197) 

Note: This Annex was developed as part of the study supporting the evaluation. As 
indicated therein, most of the categories of costs and benefits were not possible to 
quantify, given the lack of data.; instead, qualitative explanations are provided on 
relevant impacts. 

(197) This Annex was developed as part of the study supporting the evaluation and corresponds to Annex 

XI of that study (p. 222-228). 

90 

 
 
Table 7. Overview of costs across the main stakeholder groups 

Type 

One-off or 
recurrent 

AEs 

Beneficiaries 

Rightsholders 

Governments / Society 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

producing and 
making available 
accessible format 
copies 

Recurrent 

customer service 

Recurrent 

The cost of 
producing a 
DAISY version, as 
estimated by AEs, 
ranges between 
EUR 250 and 
EUR 1 600, while 
an eBraille version 
costs between 
EUR 200 and 
EUR 3 000 to 
produce.  

The administrative 
costs of sustaining 
catalogues and 
customer service 
are difficult to 
estimate. AEs have 
not provided the 
evaluators with the 
relevant cost 
estimates. 

Costs vary, based 
on content type 
(particularly the 
inclusion of charts 
and images, which 
can raise 
production costs) 
as well as the 
existence (or not) 
of a digital file, as 
making an 
accessible format 
from a paper 
version is more 
costly. 

AEs bear day-to-
day costs relating 
to maintaining and 
updating 
catalogues and 
customer service 
(including 
providing 
information, 
sending copies, 
providing technical 
assistance, etc.) 

No comprehensive 
quantitative 
estimations are 
available, as 
neither the AEs nor 
Member States 
revealed AEs’ 
budgets as part of 
the consultation 
activities 
conducted for this 
study. In an 
extreme case, one 
French AE 
reported relying on 
donations for 
94.5% of its total 
budget. 

In some cases, AEs 
rely on donations 
from beneficiaries 
to help sustain their 
operations.  

N/A 

N/A 

Quantitative 
estimates are not 
available, as 
neither AEs nor 
Member States 
revealed the AE 
budgets as part of 
the consultation 
activities 
conducted for this 
study. 

In most Member 
States, AEs’ 
activities are 
sustained mainly or 
solely through 
public funding.  

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

arranging cross-
border exchanges 

Recurrent 

Quantitatively 
measuring such 
costs is difficult, 

Costs include 
uploading and 
downloading files 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

91 

 
Type 

One-off or 
recurrent 

AEs 

Beneficiaries 

Rightsholders 

Governments / Society 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

due to the differing 
exchange 
mechanisms used, 
the scope of 
exchanges and the 
size of AEs 
catalogues. AEs 
have not provided 
the evaluators with 
relevant cost 
estimates. 

Total annual 
compensation 
amounts can vary 
widely, ranging 
from low 
(EUR 27 000 in 
Germany) to mid-
level 
(EUR 159 000 in 
Finland) and high 
(approx. 
EUR 1 million in 
Sweden, and an 
estimated 
EUR 1.7 million in 
Denmark). 

Quantitatively 
measuring these 
costs is difficult, 
due to differing 
notification 
processes and a 
lack of data. AEs 
have not provided 
the evaluators with 

or metadata to and 
from the ABC, as 
well as through 
similar exchange 
mechanisms with 
AEs based on 
bilateral and 
multilateral 
agreements. 

AEs may bear the 
cost of the 
compensation itself 
(if not funded 
separately by the 
government), as 
well as the 
administrative 
costs of compiling 
and reporting data 
to the collecting 
society for the 
purpose of 
calculating the 
compensation. 

In some Member 
States, 
(prospective) AEs 
are required to 
notify a relevant 
public authority of 
their status as an 
AE. This causes 
certain 

implementation of 
compensation 
schemes 

Recurrent 

notification 
obligation 

One-off 

Quantifying these 
costs is 
challenging, due to 
the indirect nature 
of the support, the 
diverse funding 
sources, complex 
allocation methods, 
privacy constraints, 
and variability over 
time. 

In some Member 
States, 
beneficiaries 
provide financial 
support (donations) 
to the activities of 
AEs and, in certain 
scenarios, 
indirectly fund 
compensation 
schemes.  

N/A 

N/A 

Annual 
compensation 
amounts vary 
widely, ranging 
from low 
(EUR 27 000 in 
Germany) to mid-
level 
(EUR 159 000 in 
Finland) and high 
(approx. 
EUR 1 million in 
Sweden and an 
estimated 
EUR 1.7 million in 
Denmark). 

Compensation 
schemes are 
typically covered 
from AEs’ 
budgets. These, in 
turn, are in most 
cases financed 
from public funds. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

92 

 
Type 

One-off or 
recurrent 

AEs 

Beneficiaries 

Rightsholders 

Governments / Society 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

relevant cost 
estimates. 

administrative 
costs for the AE. 

Quantifying these 
costs is 
challenging, due to 
wide variations in 
the amount of costs 
potentially incurred 
and a lack of data. 

Quantitatively 
measuring these 
costs is difficult, 
due to the differing 
processes 
employed and a 
lack of data. AEs 
have not provided 
the evaluators with 
relevant cost 
estimates.  

Quantifying such 
costs is 
challenging, as it 
varies between 
Member States, 
with some having 
established 
national 
monitoring 
practices, while 
others lack such 

AEs have various 
procedures in place 
with regard to 
checking the 
eligibility of 
beneficiaries, 
ranging from no 
checks to moderate 
checks (verifying a 
proof of disability 
on registration). 

AEs have various 
measures in place 
with regard to 
preventing 
unauthorised uses, 
ranging from no 
measures to 
moderate measures 
(e.g. watermarking 
of copies). 

These costs may 
encompass the 
preparation of 
annual reports on 
the application of 
the copyright 
exception, and 
dissemination 
activities required 
to maintain their 
status as an AE. 

eligibility checks 

Recurrent 

prevention of 
unauthorised 
dissemination 

Recurrent 

Enforcement cost: 
sharing of 
information and 
monitoring 
compliance 

Recurrent 

Quantifying these 
costs is 
challenging, due to 
wide variations in 
the amount of costs 
potentially incurred 
and a lack of data. 

Beneficiaries bear 
(minimal) costs, in 
the form of the 
burden of 
registration. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

93 

Quantifying these 
costs is 
challenging, as 
they vary between 
Member States, 
with some having 
established 
national 
monitoring 
practices, while 
others lack such 

Costs include 
providing lists and 
contact details of 
AEs to the 
Commission, ad 
hoc control of 
compliance by 
AEs, or reviewing 
the annual reports 
submitted by AEs.  

 
Type 

One-off or 
recurrent 

AEs 

Beneficiaries 

Rightsholders 

Governments / Society 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

practices, leading 
to variations in the 
time and effort 
required from 
national 
authorities. 

N/A 

N/A 

Annual 
compensation 
amounts can vary 
widely, ranging 
from low 
(EUR 27 000 in 
Germany) to mid-
level 
(EUR 159 000 in 
Finland) and high 
(approx. 
EUR 1 million in 
Sweden and an 
estimated 
EUR 1.7 million in 
Denmark). 

Where there are no 
compensation 
schemes in place, 
creators and 
copyright holders 
do not receive any 
payment for the 
use of their 
copyrighted work. 
The cost involve is 
the forgone income 
that creators would 
have earned from 
the use of their 
work, had there 
been a mechanism 
in place to 
compensate them 
for its use. 

practices, leading 
to variations in the 
time and effort 
required from AEs. 

impact on 
rightsholders  

Recurrent 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Source: compiled by the authors of the Study.  

Note: ‘N/A’ – not applicable. 

94 

 
 
 
Table 8. Overview of benefits across the main stakeholder groups 

Type 

One-off or 
recurrent 

AEs 

Beneficiaries 

Rightsholders 

Governments / Society 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Increased legal 
certainty 

efficiency 
improvements  

Recurrent 

This benefit is non-
monetary in nature. 
Quantifying it is 
challenging, 
because it involves 
diverse needs, 
complex outcomes, 
interconnected 
factors, individual 
variation and 
subjective elements 
that are difficult to 
measure 
objectively. 

By avoiding 
duplication through 
cross-border 
exchanges, savings 
could amount to 
around EUR 1 000 
per DAISY book or 
EUR 2 000 per 
Braille book. These 
are hypothetical 
scenarios, and 
actual savings 
would depend on 
the scale and 
frequency of cross-
border exchanges. 

This benefit is non-
monetary in nature. 
Quantifying it is 
challenging 
because it involves 
diverse needs, 
complex outcomes, 
interconnected 
factors, individual 
variation and 
subjective elements 
that are difficult to 
measure 
objectively. 

The availability of 
accessible format 
copies and the 
importance of 
cross-border 
exchanges can vary 
greatly across 
Member States. 

Beneficiaries 
benefit from clearer 
rules regarding how 
to access works 
(whether by 
contacting AEs in 
their own country, 
or through AEs in 
any other countries 
party to the 
Marrakesh Treaty, 
or by producing an 
accessible format 
copy themselves). 

The expanded 
availability of 
works in accessible 
formats ensures that 
individuals with 
disabilities can 
access a broader 
range of content, 
thereby fostering 
inclusivity, and 
enriching 
educational and 
cultural 
experiences. 

AEs benefit from 
increased legal 
certainty due to the 
harmonisation of 
the mandatory 
exception and a 
universal definition 
of ‘beneficiary’. 

Cost savings can 
occur as a result of 
reducing the 
unnecessary 
duplication of 
works across 
borders, as cross-
border exchanges 
facilitate the 
sharing of 
accessible content, 
thereby conserving 
resources, time and 
effort. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

increased 
inclusion of the 
print disabled 

Recurrent 

N/A 

N/A 

The benefits are 
non-monetary in 
nature. Quantifying 

The intervention 
facilitates the 
inclusion in society 

N/A 

N/A 

The benefits are 
non-monetary in 
nature. Quantifying 

The intervention 
promotes equality 
and diversity, 

95 

 
 
Type 

One-off or 
recurrent 

AEs 

Beneficiaries 

Rightsholders 

Governments / Society 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

these benefits is 
challenging, 
because they 
involve diverse 
needs, complex 
outcomes, 
interconnected 
factors, individual 
variation and 
subjective elements 
that are difficult to 
measure 
objectively. 

of individuals with 
print disabilities, 
such as the visually 
impaired. 

Access to printed 
materials enables 
individuals with 
print disabilities to 
participate actively 
in education, 
employment and 
community life. 

spill-over effects 

Recurrent 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Source: compiled by the authors of the Study.  

Note: ‘N/A’ – not applicable. 

96 

aligning with many 
governments’ goals 
for a more 
inclusive and 
equitable society. 

these benefits is 
challenging 
because their 
impact is 
multifaceted and 
involves various 
societal factors, 
while the outcomes 
may vary between 
individuals and 
over time. 

The benefits are 
non-monetary in 
nature. Quantifying 
their benefits is 
challenging, due to 
diverse influencing 
factors, the lack of 
a clear baseline, 
and subjective 
evaluation. 

Potentially better 
implementation of 
the EAA, due to 
increased 
cooperation 
between 
rightsholders and 
AEs. 

The benefits are 
non-monetary in 
nature. Quantifying 
these benefits is 
challenging, 
because their 
impact is 
multifaced, and 
because it is 
difficult to measure 
the direct influence 
of AEs on 
improvements in 
cooperation and 
accessibility, while 
the outcomes may 
vary depending on 
specific projects. 

Cooperation with 
AEs to prepare for 
the EAA offers the 
benefit of 
leveraging their 
expertise in 
accessibility 
standards and 
technologies, 
ensuring 
compliance, 
identifying areas 
for improvement, 
and implementing 
accessible solutions 
associated with the 
EAA. 

 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT (198) 

Consultation activities 

Consultation activities carried out within the context of this study (comprising a targeted 
consultation, a consultation with Member States, in-depth interviews, and a call for 
evidence) have aimed to collect the views of relevant stakeholders involved in the 
creation and making available, as well as the use, exchange and any other relevant 
activities related to accessible formats of printed works. By doing so, this study provides 
input into and assists the Commission in the evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and 
Regulation, including the impact of compensation schemes on the availability and cross-
border exchanges of accessible format copies. The consultation activities have provided 
qualitative and quantitative data to allow the Commission to reach solid and reasoned 
conclusions as to the extent to which the Directive and Regulation have achieved their 
objectives. 

Targeted Consultation 

Objectives 

The targeted consultation focused on consulting stakeholders identified in Article 10(1) 
of the Marrakesh Directive, namely authorised entities (AEs); relevant civil society 
actors and non-governmental organisations, including organisations representing people 
with disabilities and those representing older people; as well as rightsholders. 

The consultation addressed the following topics: 

•  The extent to which the copyright exception introduced by the Marrakesh 

Directive has improved the availability of accessible format copies within the EU; 

•  The extent to which the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation have facilitated 

cross-border exchanges within the EU and with third countries that are parties to 
the Marrakesh Treaty, as well as the impact of such exchanges on the availability 
of accessible format copies; 

•  The extent, if any, of the impact the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation has had 

on the commercial availability of works and other subject matter covered by those 
instruments that are protected by copyright and related rights; and 

(198) This Annex was developed as part of the study supporting the evaluation and corresponds to Annex 

IX from the study, p 180-197. 

97 

 
 
•  The possible impact of the compensation schemes that exist in certain Member 
States on the availability and cross-border exchange of accessible format copies 
covered by the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation. 

Process 

The targeted consultation ran from 22 June 2023 until 11 August 2023. In agreement 
with the Commission, the survey was extended twice at the request of stakeholders, due 
to their unavailability to respond during the summer holiday period. 

In total, four blocks of questions were developed and presented to different stakeholder 
groups: 

• 

Introductory and closing questions were presented to all stakeholder groups. 

•  Questions on the availability of printed works in accessible formats were 

presented to beneficiaries and their representatives, as well as to cultural heritage 
institutions, educational institutions and other respondents. 

•  Questions on the production and exchange of accessible format copies were 

presented to AEs. 

•  Questions on the commercial availability of works in accessible formats were 

presented to rightsholders and their representatives. 

The consultation was carried out via the European Commission’s consultation application 
(‘EU Survey’). The consultation and its content were rendered accessible to people with 
disabilities by following the relevant requirements under European Standard EN 301 549 
v3.2.1 (2021-03) ‘Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services’, and by 
providing an easy-to-read version. 

The consultation was conducted in accordance with the five minimum standards outlined 
in the Better Regulation Guidelines (clarity, targeting, outreach, sufficient time for 
participation, and the publication of contributions and results). To meet these standards, 
the questionnaires were clear, concise (requiring no more than 15 minutes to respond) 
and targeted each of the stakeholder categories concerned. Outreach was improved by 
sending out individual invitations and making follow-up calls to non-responding 
stakeholders. Specifically, invitations and two reminders (sent on 4 July 2023, and 
7 August 2023) were dispatched through EU Survey. Participation was also encouraged 
through personalised emails and calls from the study team to non-responsive 
stakeholders. In addition, the collection period for responses was extended twice, as 
requested by the respondents. 

98 

 
Participant statistics 

530 respondents were invited to participate in the targeted consultation. A total of 63 
responses were received. The largest numbers of responses were received from Belgium 
(7), Finland (6) and France (7). Almost all Member States were represented by at least 
one response, with the exception of Bulgaria, Cyprus and Latvia. A more detailed picture 
of the geographical distribution of responses is presented in figure 1 below. 

Figure 1. Geographical distribution of responses 

0

0

0

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

The Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

We are an EU-level organisation.

We are an international organisation.

Source: The Study. 

7

7

6

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

In terms of the coverage of stakeholders by group, the responses were fairly balanced. 
Approximately one third of respondents represented an AE, while the remaining two 
thirds consisted of beneficiaries’ representatives, rightsholders, representatives of cultural 
heritage institutions, and others. The invitation to participate in the targeted consultation 
was also disseminated to organisations representing older people; however, only one such 

99 

 
 
organisation responded (CD&V Senioren, Belgium) (199). A more detailed distribution of 
responses by stakeholder groups is presented in figure 2 below. 

Figure 2. Distribution of responses, by stakeholder group 

Authorised Entity

24

A representative of an organisation acting on behalf of /
representing the interests of persons with disabilities

A representative of an organisation acting on behalf of
copyright and related rights holders (e.g. authors, publishers)

11

16

A representative of a cultural heritage institution (e.g. library)

6

A representative of an educational institution (e.g. school)

1

Other

5

Source: The Study, based on the results of the targeted consultation. 

Note: AEs also had the opportunity to respond to an additional set of questions from the 
perspective of an organisation acting on behalf of / representing the interests of people 
with disabilities – 18 of the 24 AEs took this opportunity (this is not reflected in the 
figures on the chart). 

Results 

Relevance 

In relation to the criterion of relevance, the targeted consultation primarily addressed the 
evolving market conditions, and whether the market failure that the framework seeks to 
address still persists. Significant changes in market incentives for the production of born 
accessible works have not been observed, and rightsholders explained that the primary 
barriers to the growth of the accessible market continue to be the high costs associated 
with producing born accessible works, and the limited demand for such materials. 
However, all stakeholder groups acknowledged the expansion of the audiobook and e-
book market across the EU in recent years, as shown in Figure 3 below. 

(199) CD&V Senioren responded in the capacity of ‘other’ respondent (rather than as a representative of 

beneficiaries), and clarified they are a ‘political organisation for older persons’. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Perceived change in the availability of born accessible works between 2018 
and 2023 (n=82) 

Other respondents

Rightsholders

17%

17%

Authorised entities

9%

Beneficiaries

National authorities

50%

44%

57%

45%

33%

11%

25%

8%

22%

17%

22%

13%

45%

56%

9%

Increased a lot

Increased somewhat

Remained the same

Decreased somewhat

Decreased a lot

I don't know / no opinion

Source: The Study, based on the results of the Targeted Consultation and the Consultation 
with Member States. Note: the category ‘other respondents’ includes educational 
institutions, cultural heritage institutions and respondents that did not indicate themselves 
as belonging to any major stakeholder group. 

Effectiveness 

When assessing the availability of accessible format copies, the majority of respondents 
perceived that the availability of accessible format copies has improved significantly or 
moderately, as presented in Figure 4 below. 

Figure 4. Perceived change in the availability of accessible format copies between 
2018 and 2023 (n=84) 

Authorised entities

Representatives of beneficiaries

National authorities

Other respondents

8%

48%

32%

16%

4%

31%

45%

14%

7%

3%

22%

39%

6%

33%

75%

8%

8%

Increased a lot

Increased somewhat

Remained the same

Decreased somewhat

Decreased a lot

I don't know / no opinion

Source: The Study, based on the results of the Targeted Consultation and the Consultation 
with Member States. 

However, when considering the direct impact of the framework on the increased 
availability of accessible format copies (whether substantial or moderate), AEs gave an 
average score of 4.8 for the perceived impact of the framework on the availability of 

101 

 
 
 
accessible format copies (where 0 indicates no impact of the framework, and 10 indicates 
that all of the increase is attributable to the framework). However, those beneficiaries and 
other groups of respondents to the targeted consultation that indicated that the increase in 
availability was substantial or moderate, were more likely to attribute it to the impact of 
the Marrakesh framework, and gave average scores of 5.71 (beneficiaries) and 6.67 
(other) out of 10. 

Moreover, most respondents from all stakeholder groups gave average scores of 5 and 
above for the impact of the framework on the perceived increase in exchanges of 
accessible format copies (where 0 indicates no impact of the framework on the increase, 
and 10 indicates that all of the increase is attributable to the framework). Nonetheless, 
based on submissions from AEs, it appears they attribute a larger portion of the increase 
in the availability of accessible format copies to increased production rather than to 
international exchanges. It is worth noting that AEs were more inclined to assess the 
impact as closer to a 50/50 distribution between production and international exchanges 
than national authorities. When asked about the primary obstacles to providing more 
accessible format copies, most AEs highlighted insufficient funding for their 
organisations and a lack of other necessary resources as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ 
factors. Limited awareness or access to information about AE services on the part of 
beneficiaries was another important obstacle identified by respondents. 

Lastly, the majority of stakeholders did not recognise the Marrakesh framework as 
having a direct influence on the market incentives for publishers, nor did they clearly 
indicate that the framework had the potential to substantially increase or reduce the 
availability of born accessible works. However, it is noteworthy that nearly one in five 
representatives of rightsholders that participated in the targeted consultation suggested 
that the framework may have diminished market incentives. 

Efficiency 

Respondents were asked to identify the main costs and benefits for their institutions 
resulting from the provisions of the Marrakesh framework. Ten authorised entities (AEs) 
reported that they had incurred no costs. Seven AEs indicated that they had incurred 
expenses associated with the human resources required to establish and oversee the 
necessary information systems. This encompasses tasks such as preparing metadata to 
meet the mandatory requirements, downloading copies and incorporating new entries into 
the catalogue. In addition, two AEs reported increased costs due to compensation 
schemes. Furthermore, one AE reported incurring expenses for legal consultations aimed 
at assisting them in obtaining the status of an authorised entity. However, in response to 
the open questions on benefits in the targeted consultation – namely, ‘What benefits (if 
any) have the provisions of the Marrakesh framework produced for you or the 
stakeholders you represent?’ – AEs did not provide any responses. 

102 

 
Most of the rightsholders did not provide examples of costs they had incurred, with the 
exception of one rightsholders’ organisation in one Member State that mentioned costs 
related to legal disputes, and one rightsholders’ organisation in another Member State 
that indicated it had incurred costs in relation to processing requests to provide digital 
files to the dedicated platform of the national library. However, rightsholders did identify 
the codification of existing practices, such as cross-border exchanges of adapted works 
through the WIPO ABC Global Book Service, and clear rules as the main benefits 
together with the compensation schemes (where applicable). 

In response to the open questions on costs and benefits in the targeted consultation – 
namely, ’What benefits (if any) have the provisions of the Marrakesh framework 
produced for you or the stakeholders you represent?’, and ‘What types of costs have the 
provisions of the Marrakesh framework produced for your institution?’ – representatives 
of beneficiaries did not provide any responses. 

103 

 
 
 
Consultation with Member States 

Objectives 

The consultation with Member States gathered information from Member States, in 
accordance with Article 10(2) of the Marrakesh Directive and Article 7 of the Regulation. 
Specifically, it sought information from the national authorities that were involved in the 
transposition and implementation of the Marrakesh framework. The aim of this 
consultation activity was to assess how the framework has impacted the availability of 
accessible formats and has helped to facilitate the cross-border exchange of accessible 
format copies. It included an assessment of the impact on such availability and exchanges 
of the compensation schemes that exist in certain Member States. The consultation also 
considered the possible impact of the framework on the commercial availability of 
certain works or other subject matter in accessible formats for beneficiaries. 

Process 

The consultation with Member States ran from 19 June 2023 until 6 October 2023. In 
agreement with the Commission, the survey period was extended due to a low response 
rate and the unavailability of stakeholders during the summer holiday period. The 
consultation targeted the national authorities responsible for the transposition of the 
Directive and the implementation of corresponding laws. The results of the consultation 
fed into the mapping of the implementation of the framework (the systems and 
procedures in place in Member States), as well as contributing to answering the 
evaluation questions related to relevance, effectiveness and efficiency. A total of 28 
responses were received (however, not all responses were from national authorities – see 
the next subsection for an overview). 

The questionnaire used for the consultation with Member States included a greater 
number of open questions compared with that for the targeted consultation, due to the 
nature of the information sought in this context. However, this consultation activity also 
included several of the same questions on the impact of the Marrakesh framework from 
the targeted consultation, in order to facilitate the triangulation of responses and ensure 
multiple and comparable perspectives from different stakeholder groups. 

The consultation was carried out via the European Commission’s consultation application 
(‘EU Survey’). The consultation and its content were rendered accessible to people with 
disabilities by following the relevant requirements under European Standard EN 301 549 
v3.2.1 (2021-03) ‘Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services’, and by 
providing an easy-to-read version. 

The consultation was conducted in accordance with the five minimum standards outlined 
in the Better Regulation Guidelines (clarity, targeting, outreach, sufficient time for 
participation, and the publication of contributions and results). To meet these standards, 

104 

 
the questionnaires were clear, concise (requiring no more than 15 minutes to respond) 
and targeted national authorities. Outreach was improved by updating the Commission 
on the progress of the survey and indicating which Member States had not yet submitted 
a response, with the Commission managing follow-ups with the national authorities 
concerned. In addition, the collection period for responses was extended twice, as 
requested by the consultation target group. 

Participant statistics 

All 27 Member States were invited to participate in the consultation with Member States. 
The survey link was disseminated by the European Commission to national authorities. 
The consultation resulted in the following coverage: 

•  22 national authorities provided responses via the EU Survey platform: Ireland, 
Croatia, Hungary, Finland, Poland, Czechia, Netherlands, Spain, Slovakia, 
Belgium, Latvia, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, 
Slovenia, Greece, Bulgaria, Italy and Estonia. 

•  One response from Portugal was submitted via the EU Survey platform by the 

National Library of Portugal (BNP) on behalf of the national competent authority. 
As an exceptional case, the National Library’s submission was taken into account 
as a submission on behalf of a Member State. 

•  Four national authorities did not provide a response: those of Austria (200), 

Cyprus, France and Malta. 

Within the context of the consultation with Member States, three responses were received 
from AEs (from Lithuania, Sweden and Estonia) and four responses were received from 
rightsholders’ representatives (two from Finland, one from Greece and one from Austria), 
as the questionnaire was forwarded to them by the national authorities. To mitigate 
potential biases, these responses (which were not explicitly identified by national 
authorities as being submitted on their behalf) were excluded from the analysis of the 
responses to the consultation with Member States. However, responses to those questions 
that overlapped with the targeted consultation questionnaire were extracted and merged 
with the dataset for the targeted consultation to ensure the incorporation of all relevant 
information into the analysis. 

Results 

The consultation contributed to the analysis in relation to three of the evaluation criteria, 
focusing specifically on relevance, effectiveness and efficiency. In addition, it provided 

(200) An Austrian CMO submitted a response directly to the Commission; however, the CMO’s position 

does not replace or is accepted as a submission on behalf of the national authority. 

105 

 
 
insights into the state of play of the implementation of the framework. The main findings 
from the consultation are summarised below. 

Implementation 

National authorities provided insights into how the implementation of the framework had 
unfolded on the ground. This included information about which institutions or 
organisations are responsible for monitoring and for promoting the exchange of 
information, as well as mechanisms for managing financial flows within compensation 
schemes (where applicable). The responses received have been incorporated into the 
implementation mapping fiches and compensation scheme mapping fiches of the study. 

Relevance 

With regard to questions relating to the relevance of the framework, national authorities 
acknowledged a noticeable (moderate) rise in the availability of born accessible works 
over the past 5 years. National authorities tended to credit a large portion of the works 
available in accessible formats to the efforts of AEs rather than to the commercial market.  

Effectiveness 

When assessing the availability of accessible format copies, the majority of respondents 
perceived that the availability of accessible format copies had either increased a lot, or at 
least somewhat (see Figure 4 above). 

However, when considering the direct impact of the framework on the increased 
availability of accessible format copies (whether substantial or moderate), national 
authorities were more sceptical than other respondents, assigning an average score of 
2.71 out of 10 for the perceived impact of the framework on the availability of accessible 
format copies (where 0 indicates no impact of the framework, and 10 indicates that all of 
the increase is attributable to the framework). Respondents also observed that exchanges 
between AEs – whether domestic, within the EU, or in third countries – have increased 
since the adoption of the framework. 

Efficiency 

In terms of the efficiency of the Marrakesh framework, the questionnaire focused on 
gathering information about the procedures and systems in place for the design and 
implementation of compensation schemes, as well as practices aimed at preventing the 
unauthorised use of works and record-keeping, as well as the systems and procedures 
used to monitor the obligations of AEs. The responses provided insights into the various 
approaches employed at national level. The data have been incorporated directly into the 
mappings of implementation and of compensation schemes published in the study. 

106 

 
When asked about the rationale for introducing a compensation scheme into their 
national context, two respondents explained that it was viewed as a means to address the 
imbalance between the benefits accrued by beneficiaries who use library services and the 
disadvantages faced by rightsholders (i.e. lack of renumeration). Conversely, when asked 
why such a system had not been implemented, seven other Member States noted that they 
did not perceive any significant harm being done to rightsholders. 

In-depth interviews 

Objectives 

In-depth interviews with key stakeholders were conducted at two levels, each with 
specific objectives: 

• 

Interviews with key EU and international stakeholders, as well as academic and 
legal experts were conducted in two strands: 

–  Exploratory interviews (n=6): these interviews were undertaken at the 

beginning of the study to reveal key trends, themes and challenges. The aim 
was for the insights gained from these interviews to inform the design of the 
core data collection tools. 

– 

In-depth follow-up interviews (n=4): these interviews were conducted 
towards the end of the study to cross-check the preliminary research results 
and fill in any information gaps identified during the earlier stages of the 
research. 

• 

Interviews with national stakeholders (accompanied by written communication, 
including clarifications, supplying additional data, etc.), including authorised 
entities and representatives of beneficiaries and rightsholders (n=20), were 
conducted in the context of the case studies to collect in-depth information 
essential for a thorough case study analysis focusing on exploring the impacts of 
the Marrakesh framework. 

Process 

In-depth interviews were carried out between April and November 2023. These began 
with exploratory interviews, followed by in-depth interviews with national-level 
stakeholders, and concluded with in-depth follow-up interviews. In agreement with the 
Commission, the interview period was extended to accommodate stakeholders’ 
unavailability during the summer holiday season. 

The exploratory interviews followed a generally unstructured format, wherein 
interviewees were encouraged to raise the points that were most relevant to them and the 
stakeholders they represent. During the in-depth follow-up interviews, participants were 

107 

 
provided with a summary of the key (draft) conclusions, lessons learned and 
recommendations from the study in advance, allowing them to familiarise themselves 
with the main points. Throughout the interview, interviewees were then prompted to 
provide feedback on these key points, indicating any consistencies or inconsistencies 
with their knowledge and experience. In-depth interviews with national-level 
stakeholders were semi-structured, designed to facilitate a deeper exploration of selected 
themes across various EU Member States and to analyse the impact of the framework 
under different implementation approaches. 

The in-depth interviews were conducted in accordance with the five minimum standards 
outlined in the Better Regulation Guidelines (clarity, targeting, outreach, sufficient time 
for participation, and the publication of contributions and results). To meet these 
standards, the questions were designed to be clear and concise, targeting each of the 
relevant stakeholder categories. Outreach was enhanced through follow-up calls to non-
responding stakeholders. The interview period was extended to accommodate the needs 
and schedules of the interviewees. 

Participant statistics 

Participants in the exploratory interviews included stakeholders at EU and international 
levels, encompassing representatives from beneficiaries, rightsholders and libraries. The 
in-depth follow-up interviews featured EU and international stakeholders, along with 
legal and academic experts with extensive knowledge of the framework and related 
topics such as accessible publishing, inclusion policies and copyright. 

National stakeholders were identified for in-depth interviews following the selection of 
cases and case study countries (Belgium, Denmark, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, 
Lithuania and Spain). For each of these Member States, two or three interviews were 
conducted to ensure a broad range of opinions, with interviews targeting various 
stakeholders such as AEs, beneficiaries’ representatives and rightsholders. Please see 
below for an overview of the interviews and topics in focus. 

108 

 
Table 9. Focus of in-depth interviews 

Member 
State 

Belgium 

Croatia 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Lithuania 

Spain 

Impact of 
Framework 
with/without a 
compensation 
scheme 

Impact of 
Framework on 
cross-border 
exchanges 

Impact of 
Framework 
in small 
markets 

Coordinatio
n between 
stakeholders 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Source: The Study. 

Results 

The information gathered from interviewees was integrated into the main report and 
served as the foundation for the case studies. This information was summarised and 
assembled into four overarching thematic topics that were discussed in all types of in-
depth interviews: the impact of the Marrakesh framework with/without a compensation 
scheme; the impact of the Marrakesh framework on cross-border exchanges within the 
EU/with third countries; the impact of the Marrakesh framework in small markets; and 
coordination between stakeholders. 

Impact of the Marrakesh Framework with/without a compensation scheme 

The information collected during the consultation focused on assessing the impact of the 
Marrakesh framework on the availability of accessible format copies, taking into account 
the presence or absence of a compensation scheme in each Member State. Considering 
the overall impact of the Marrakesh framework in those Member States with a 
compensation scheme, the Finnish system was not reported to create additional 
administrative burdens following the transposition of the Marrakesh Directive. In 
contrast, most interviewees concerned emphasised that while the transposition in 
Germany had not brought about substantial changes to the existing system, the 
accompanying compensation scheme had introduced additional administrative burdens. 
The Danish AE and rightsholders agreed that negotiations over the compensation scheme 

109 

 
between rightsholders and AEs had led to a prolonged legal dispute, necessitating efforts 
to address various related administrative and legal issues. 

With regard to the impact of the compensation scheme on the production of accessible 
format copies, AEs and beneficiaries’ representatives in Finland agreed that its impact 
had been minimal. Meanwhile, one German AE argued that the size and scope of the CS, 
coupled with the absence of government funding, placed a strain on donor-seeking AEs 
and had a negative impact on production. AEs and rightsholders in Denmark shared the 
view that negotiations between the two parties regarding the design of the CS had 
significantly and negatively affected AEs’ production capacities in the short term. 

In connection with the impact of compensation schemes on the exchange of accessible 
format copies, in an in-depth follow-up interview, one anonymous interviewee suggested 
that AEs in Member States with such schemes might engage less in cross-border 
exchanges, including those carried out via the ABC. Such reluctance stems from two 
main factors: (1) legal uncertainty surrounding the application of compensation schemes 
to cross-border dissemination, along with procedural challenges in tracking exported 
copies to enable the accurate calculation of compensation; and (2) the obligation to pay 
compensation for exported works potentially reduced the incentives for AEs to share 
copies. Notably, in-depth follow-up interviews revealed that the German compensation 
scheme has introduced legal uncertainties within the EU. During in-depth interviews at 
national level, AEs outside these agreements argued that the obligations regarding 
payment to the German compensation scheme when importing works are unclear, thus 
significantly limiting their opportunities to import German-language works. 

For Member States without a compensation scheme, national-level interviewees 
generally reported that the transposition of the Marrakesh Directive had not brought 
significant changes to the existing system. An exception to this can be observed in 
France, where French AEs and rightsholders mentioned that the transposition of the 
Marrakesh framework resulted in the creation of a government-run platform for 
cooperation between publishers and AEs. 

National-level interviewees in Member States without compensation schemes, such as 
the AE in Lithuania, the AE in Spain and French AEs, disagreed with the introduction of 
a CS and argued that their current systems without a CS are the most beneficial. Spanish 
rightsholders, on the other hands, indicated that they would be in favour of introducing a 
compensation scheme in the country. In all of the Member States studied – France, 
Lithuania, Spain, Finland, Denmark and Germany – all stakeholders interviewed 
concurred that the implementation of a CS (or lack of one, in countries where there no 
CS is in place) has not had a substantial influence on the development of the commercial 
market for accessible publishing. 

110 

 
Impact of the Marrakesh Framework on cross-border exchanges within the EU and 
with third countries 

In-depth interviews of all types revealed that the framework has exerted a more 
pronounced positive influence on the exchange of accessible format copies, while its 
impact on production has been less significant in comparison. According to interviewees, 
the framework has played an important role in establishing clear rules for the cross-
border exchange of copies – an aspect that had previously lacked international 
harmonisation. Furthermore, the framework grants EU-based authorised entities access to 
international exchange platforms such as the ABC, which are exclusively accessible to 
organisations in countries that are parties to the Marrakesh Treaty. 

All national stakeholders interviewed in Germany, Denmark and France, which that had 
established bilateral or multilateral partnerships for cross-border exchanges prior to the 
Marrakesh framework, did not perceive the impact of the framework as being 
transformative. In these cases, the framework reinforced existing partnerships. However, 
AEs in Belgium, as well as the AE and representatives of beneficiaries’ in Lithuania, 
agreed that the framework had achieved a significant impact on cross-border exchange 
with third countries, by fostering increased coordination between countries, facilitating 
partnerships and streamlining the exchange process, resulting in enriched national 
collections. In Denmark, rightsholders and AEs agreed that the legal dispute over the 
compensation scheme had led to limited cross-border exchanges, with the uncertainty 
surrounding the scheme’s operational procedures hindering AEs’ participation in cross-
border exchanges. 

All of the AEs interviewed in France, Belgium, Lithuania and Spain agreed that cross-
border exchanges have led to a broader selection of titles in both national and foreign 
languages within countries, thereby benefiting users. They also agreed that cross-border 
exchanges have reduced costs by avoiding redundant cooperation and production efforts. 
The Marrakesh framework’s capacity to enhance the availability of accessible format 
copies by facilitating exchanges was also identified as an important factor in both 
exploratory and in-depth follow-up interviews. 

In terms of the processes used to organise such exchanges, various methods have been 
reported. These are summarised in case study 3, and case study 4 in Annex X to the study. 
During the in-depth follow-up interviews, it was reported that the ABC platform, led by 
WIPO, plays a significant role in exchanging information and works among AEs within 
the EU as well as with third countries. Interviewees in all types of in-depth interviews 
argued that the ABC facilitates both business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-
consumer (B2C) interactions. In addition to the ABC, national-level interviewees noted 
the existence of regional networks such as Medibus and NetBiblio, while some AEs still 
arrange exchanges on a case-by-case basis, such as when receiving international requests 
from individuals via email. 

111 

 
Impact of the Marrakesh Framework in small markets 

Representatives of beneficiaries in Denmark, rightsholders in Finland, and the Finnish 
and Lithuanian AEs all highlighted the challenges faced by small language markets with 
respect to cross-border exchanges, mainly due to the limited demand for works in their 
language. The Lithuanian AE also emphasised their need to use human narrators for 99% 
of their production, which increases costs, especially for those in smaller markets that 
may lack access to high quality synthetic voices. The Lithuanian AE reported seeing little 
incentive for the development of commercial accessible publishing in a small market 
with an insufficient number of potential buyers, making it a challenge to cover 
production costs. However, both the Finnish and Lithuanian AEs agreed that smaller 
markets offer the advantage making it easier to engage in personal contacts with 
publishers to avoid the duplication of efforts. 

Coordination between stakeholders 

The AE and rightsholders in Spain reported that the country has a centralised system with 
a single AE, thus eliminating the need for coordination with other entities. Belgian AEs 
reported limited exchange or cooperation between stakeholders in different regions due 
to linguistic differences, as there is little demand for the foreign language titles. AEs in 
France and Germany reported relatively deep cooperation among their national AEs, 
utilising the countries’ respective platforms for the exchange of copies (Platon in France 
and Medibus in Germany). 

Access by beneficiaries to accessible format copies varied from direct online access to 
AEs’ catalogues, to reliance on intermediaries such as libraries in order to access copies. 
In some Member States, beneficiaries are allowed direct access to online catalogues to 
view and download accessible copies. Various communication methods are used to 
provide information about available copies and services for beneficiaries, including 
email, newsletters, phone communication and social media. 

Cooperation between AEs and publishers also varies, from case-by-case agreements as 
reported by AES in Lithuania, Belgium and Spain, to more systematic, government-led 
approaches, as reported by AEs in France. 

Call for evidence 

Objectives 

The call for evidence was open to the public, and aimed to gather feedback from a broad 
range of stakeholders on any issues related to the implementation of the framework (with 
no pre-defined questions). 

112 

 
Process 

The feedback period ran from 13 April to 11 May 2023, and stakeholders were invited to 
submit their written responses and/or position papers through the Commission’s ‘Have 
Your Say’ portal (201). 

Participant statistics 

34 responses were received. According to the ‘Have Your Say’ portal, the following types 
of respondents submitted their feedback: 

•  NGOs (n=12) 

•  Citizens (n=6) 

•  Business associations (n=4) 

•  Public authorities (n=3) 

•  Academic/research institutions (n=1) 

•  Other (n=8) 

Respondents came from the following countries: Belgium, including some EU-level or 
international organisations (n=7); Croatia (n=5); France, Finland and Denmark (three 
responses from each); Sweden, Spain and Czechia (two each); Portugal, Norway, 
Lithuania, Italy, Germany, Switzerland and Austria (one response from each). 

Results 

As there were no pre-defined questions, and respondents were invited to share any 
feedback they deemed most relevant, the topics covered were very wide. Nevertheless, 
some recurring themes can be identified. These include: 

•  Compensation schemes (or lack thereof) and their impact on the balance of rights 
between rightsholders on the one hand, and beneficiaries and AEs on the other; 

•  Practices related to the verification of commercial availability (or lack thereof) 
and their impact on the potential duplication of efforts between the commercial 
and non-profit sector; 

•  Practices related to the monitoring of the implementation of the framework, 
including the obligation in some Member States for AEs to be registered, the 
prevention of unauthorised dissemination, and the sharing of data; and 

(201) See: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-

law-for-blind-and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-
Regulation_en. 

113 

 
 
•  The European Accessibility Act and its coherence and complementarities with the 

Marrakesh framework. 

Use of the responses 

The consultation activities and their results have been fully taken into consideration as 
evidence for the evaluation study, in order to address the evaluation criteria, inform the 
mapping of the framework’s implementation and of compensation schemes, and to serve 
as the foundation for the case studies. This integration considered the positions of all 
stakeholders. 

114