Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

```
T '" [ ! [ ]

```

##### `COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES`

```
                         C0M(94) 29 final

                         Brussels, 16.02.1994

         COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

               AMD THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

###### **ON THE DEVELOPMENT** **OF ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION** **IN THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT** **OF COMMUNITY LEGISLATION** **IN THE INTERNAL MARKET**

```

**This communication has been drawn up**
**in the context of the Strategic Programme for the Internal Market**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**I. Introduction** **1**

**II.** **Administrative** **Cooperation:** **the** **Elements** **of** **a** **Community** **3**
**Framework**

A. The obligation to provide mutual assistance 3

B. The obligation of transparency 4

C. Two underlying principles 4

     - _Proportionality_ _4_

_•_ _Confidentiality_ _5_

**III.** **Administrative cooperation - a Programme of Discussions** **6**

**IV. Conclusions** **8**

**Annexes** **i**

**1.** **Administrative Cooperation - State of Play** **i**

**What are the roles ?** **i**

A. The role of the Member States i

B. The role of the Commission iii

**What are the needs ?** **v**

**What is current practice ?** **viii**

     - _The_ _variety_ _of cooperation mechanisms_ _ix_

_•_ _A balance between Informal and formal cooperation_ _x_

     - _Unequal participation in Community cooperation systems_ _xi_

**2.** **Programme of discussions concerning administrative cooperation** **xii**

_**A**_ _**CL**_

**I.** **INTRODUCTION**

**1.** This communication considers the current state of administrative cooperation
across the Community in the Internal Market field and proposes that steps should be
taken to ensure its effectiveness and further development.

2. Around the end of 1992 the Council [1], the Parliament [2], and the Economic and
Social Committee [3] all expressed their support for the need to ensure the effective
operation of the Internal Market, including a satisfactory degree of administrative
cooperation.

In its initial response to the Sutherland Report the Commission indicated that, as
regards administrative cooperation, it would proceed on a two-part basis. The first part,
an examination of the Community's urgency procedures which exist for handling urgent
situations in the fields of animal and plant health, safety etc. has been the subject of
another communication. [4] The present communication is the second part. It
complements the work on urgency procedures by developing the approach put forward
in the Sutherland Report to the partnership with Member States. It was announced in
the Strategic Programme for the Single Market. [5 ]

3. Administrative cooperation between Member States, and between them and the
Commission, is a requirement which flows from Treaty-based obligations, particularly
Article 5. It is an essential working tool for the even and effective operation of the
Community, and this communication concentrates on identifying the need and scope
for practical action in ensuring that an effective degree of cooperation between
Member States and between them and the Commission, is achieved.

4. Although a pattern of administrative cooperation has developed in recent years
which, for the most part, appears to be operating satisfactorily, there are considerable
differences between the degree of cooperation which is practised in the many fields
covered by Internal Market legislation.

While many of these differences appear to reflect the varying needs of particular
sectors, the Commission considers that it is timely to re-examine administrative
cooperation in the Internal Market field, given the very large volume of Community
legislation which has recently been adopted to create the Internal Market.

5. It is for this reason that the Commission proposes that, in fields where there has
been little experience of cooperation, the need to develop specific mechanisms should
be assessed. The operation of existing systems should also be examined to see where
they could be improved, where they fall within the ambit of the Internal Market. This
work should be carried out within an overall framework, established by the Community,
setting out the basic principles of administrative cooperation. In the light of this

Council Resolution of 7 December 1992 (OJ C 334, 18.12.1992, p.1)

Resolution of the Parliament A3-0401/92 (OJ C 21, 25.1.93, p. 513)

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee CES 602/93 (OJ C 201, 26.7.93, p. 59)

Commission communication on the handling of urgent situations in the context of implementation of Community
rules - Follow-up to the Sutherland Report (COM(93) 430 final).

Commission communication to the Council "Making the most of the Internal Market" : Strategic Programme
(COM(93) 632 final)

**7/.**

**- 2 -**

**examination,** **specific Community provisions may be drafted for those sectors which**
**need them.**

**6.** **But mechanisms should only be set up where there is a need for them, and then**
**only on the basis that they operate in the simplest possible manner. The Commission**
**shares the concerns of Member States that systems of administrative cooperation**
**must be clear, non-bureaucratic and provide tangible benefits.**

**7.** **Implementation and enforcement is primarily a responsibility which is exercised**
**on the ground. It follows that Community systems for administrative cooperation should**
**aim at facilitating the ability of Member State administrations to make contacts, in a**
**decentralized manner wherever possible. To this end, an adequate communication and**
**data exchange infrastructure is required. Each system must, however, make provision**
**for information to be shared with the Commission and other Member States wherever**
**national authorities feel that there is a need for action at Community level.**

**8.** **It appears to the Commission that better contacts will not only benefit the**
**execution of Community legislation but also help resolve problems in** **unharmonized**
**fields,** **and help to better protect the financial interests of the Community against**
**fraudulent conduct.** **The ready exchange of information where difficulties arise**
**concerning the free movement of goods and services in fields for which no Community**
**legislation exists should assist in avoiding the recourse to restrictive measures, or at**
**least clarify the situation for the authorities concerned. It may even dispense with the**
**need for Community legislation in such fields by promoting the mutual recognition of**
**national legislations.**

**9.** **The Commission believes that the development of administrative cooperation**
**would best be advanced on an explicit basis. This communication therefore sets out a**
**framework for Community administrative cooperation which provides the guidelines**
**necessary for detailed application where needed. The Commission is setting up a**
**programme of discussions in a Community context in order to examine the ways in**
**which administrative cooperation should operate to suit each area of activity in**
**question.**

**-3**

**II.** **ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION: THE ELEMENTS**

**OF A COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK**

**10.** On the basis of information that has been gathered on the present state of
administrative cooperation and its assessment of the roles of the Member States and
the Commission, the needs felt and current practice (cf. Annex 1), the Commission
considers that a more coherent and transparent approach to administrative
cooperation for the implementation and enforcement of Internal Market legislation is
desirable. In some fields the practice of administrative cooperation is already well
advanced; in others, however, an explicit Community framework for the development
of administrative cooperation would help both in examining the need for establishing
mechanisms and in identifying where existing mechanisms could be improved.

11. . The framework for administrative cooperation would comprise the following
elements.

(a) A rule : the fundamental requirement of mutual assistance;

(b) A tool : the obligation of transparency, by means of a network of clearly
identified correspondents;

(c) Two principles :

      - proportionality

      - confidentiality

**A.** **THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MUTUAL ASSISTANCE**

**12.** In certain fields, Community measures have already been taken to ensure some
degree of mutual assistance. A recent example of this is the foodstuffs sector. In
addition, the Court of Justice has clarified several features of the obligation for
administrations to cooperate which is implicit in Community legislation (cf. Mateucci v.
Communauté française de Belgique, case 235/87, judgment of 27.9.88). Now it is
essential to ensure that the principle of mutual assistance is progressively extended to
apply to all aspects of Internal Market legislation.

The objective is to establish, on the basis of mutual confidence, the practical tools
required to facilitate cooperation between Member States in such a way as to reflect
both the differing organizational structures within Member States and the Community
perspective. In some cases where Community financial or economic interests are
involved (such as customs or agriculture), mutual assistance mechanisms are already
well defined, involving, for example, exchanges of evidential documentation, and even
joint investigation missions. In other cases, the practice of mutual assistance often
involves nothing more than direct bilateral contact between the authorities in Member
States responsible for applying the legislation. This may be the concern of central
authorities in Member States (as in the banking field or on competition); where the
responsibility for enforcement is decentralized (as in the case of the market inspection
of product safety), cooperation may be easier where a central contact point for a
particular sector can be used (see paragraph 15 below).

13. In practice, each cooperation system will be used by a Member State when it
needs information from another but the system will also provide for information to be
made generally available if the problem involves several Member States or is shown to
be of Community-wide interest. This is not a bureaucratic complication: while in most
cases bilateral cooperation is sufficient, the benefits of the Internal Market will not be
maximized unless solutions to problems are shared and applied throughout the
Community.

**B.** **THE OBLIGATION OF TRANSPARENCY**

**14.** Each cooperation system requires that Member States and the Commission are
aware of the responsible authorities throughout the Community. The Commission
proposes that the necessary transparency of national implementation and enforcement
mechanisms requires Member States to transmit basic information to the Commission
and the other Member States concerning the bodies which undertake the enforcement
of the legislation concerned. This will include practical details on the identity of the
officials in these bodies who are responsible for organizing mutual assistance for the
application of Internal Market legislation. This information is essential for improving the
interface between those responsible in the Member States for enforcement, the
definition of needs and modes of mutual cooperation, and the identification of priority
sectors for Community supportive measures.

15. An essential part of this transparency is the notification, for each sector, of a
central contact point in each Member State who will act as _correspondent_ with his or
her counterparts in other Member States and the Commission for enforcement of
Community rules. The function of each correspondent is to ensure that the flow of
information between Member States and between his Member State and the
Commission takes place rapidly and effectively, which may involve coordinating the
information flowing to and from the relevant bodies within the Member State.
Coordination across sectors within each Member State should continue to be a
function of the members of the Internal Market Advisory Committee.

16. With respect to existing legislation, the Commission proposes that this
information should be notified by Member States as soon as possible, and at all events
by the end of 1994. For future legislation, this information should become a normal
part of the process of national implementation of Community law, to be communicated
to the Commission along with the transposition text.

**C.** **TWO UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES**

**17.** Two underlying principles on which the effective operation of mutual assistance
depends reflect both the rulings of the Court and the views of Member States in recent
discussions.

**Proportionality**

The principle of proportionality implies that the practice of administrative cooperation
should be tailored to what is reasonable, that is, that authorities limit their demands on
each other to what is essential to the task in hand.

**Regarding requests for information between administrations, enforcement experts** **«.ï**
**each sector will be best placed to judge how proportionality is applied in practice,**
**particularly as they will be suppliers as well as requesters of information. Measures**
**such as standardization of forms or automated processing of information can reduce**
**the burden of their procedures.**

**The same principle applies to the obligations that these administrations place on**
**business and citizens. Successful administrative cooperation can lighten the load on**
**enterprises and the individual.**

**Cooperation efforts should also guarantee value for money by ensuring that the**
**benefits are in keeping with the resources deployed.**

**Confidentiality**

**In** **certain areas, rules in respect of confidentiality are indispensable, for example** **on**
**the exchange of** **commercially-sensitive** **information. Member States sometimes**
**appear to be less concerned about confidentiality in respect of non-national products**
**than about national ones.** **In** **a single market it is clear that the same standards should**
**apply in respect of** **all** **products on the market.**

**The exchange of classified information in general and via telematic networks in**
**particular requires common** **security** **rules and procedures as well as technical enabling**
**measures such as the making available of data protection tools.**

**Where personal data are concerned, exchanges of information must respect legislation**
**in force on data security.**

**- 6 -**

**III.** **ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION : A PROGRAMME OF DISCUSSIONS**

**18.** The Community framework for administrative cooperation discussed above
should be applied on a sectoral basis. The Commission does not underestimate the
challenge this presents. Although the framework is not a radical departure from
existing good practice needed for enforcing Community legislation, Member States
may in some sectors need to consider the allocation of responsibilities between
departments and enforcement bodies, and between national, regional and local levels
of administration.

19. The Commission proposes that the Community framework should be used in
continuing the discussions of the need for and type of administrative cooperation.
These discussions should be focused on those fields with little practical experience of
administrative cooperation, and on those where the quality of current practice might be
improved, taking account also of the timing of the entry into force of legislation or the
sensitivity of the particular risk which is regulated. In the light of these criteria, the
Commission intends to organize sectoral discussions in the fields indicated in Annex 2.
The Community framework set up in accordance with this communication, and its
principles, will be the common thread running through these discussions.

The aims of each sectoral discussion would be:

   - in areas of activity for which there is only limited experience of administrative
cooperation, and which have no specific mechanism for it, to examine the
need for administrative cooperation, especially with respect to information
exchange and decision-making [6], and to agree on the practical mechanisms
required. Depending on the sector, cooperation systems may be required for
scientific or technical cooperation, evaluations and assessments (of a product
or service), inspections, or market surveillance;

   - in fields where cooperation is starting, such as scientific cooperation in the
food sector or administrative cooperation between official food control
services, to examine and identify the measures needed to make these
cooperation systems start to work as effectively as possible;

   - in other fields, to examine the efficiency of existing mechanisms of
administrative cooperation and consider changes that may be necessary,
while leaving in place systems which already work satisfactorily;

   - to identify the supportive measures to be taken by the Commission in the
short and longer term. As explained in the last section of annex 2, the
Commission is already engaged in activities designed to support
administrative cooperation for the Internal Market. It may be necessary,
however, in the light of the possible development of cooperation in some
sectors, to enlarge the scope of such supportive activities, particularly in
respect of informative publications and of assistance with making
communication between national enforcement authorities easier. As the
different needs are identified, the Commission will come forward with a
suitable programme of such measures;

**6** **While in principle administrative cooperation does not affect the competence of Member States in enforcing**
**Community legislation, it may nonetheless, in the cases provided for in the legislation** **(eg** **the Directive on**
**consumer product safety) result in decision-making on a Community** **level**

                              - 7 

   - where appropriate, to introduce a Planning Process for Telematic Networks
between Administrations (TNA-PP), providing a pragmatic and transparent
approach to the identification of needs, bottlenecks and missing networks as
well as to performance evaluation and priority-setting, and to implement it
through the TNA/IDA programme;

   - to examine any malfunctions of the system and their origins on the basis, in
particular, of the views of economic operators, over an observation period in
1994.

20. Some of these sectoral discussions may result in more detailed provisions on
implementation of Community legislation being established, wherever possible through
informal methods (for example, in guidelines, or by the establishment of working
groups of enforcement experts). In cases where this proves to be essential, these
provisions will take the form of Community legislation. The Commission will monitor the
progress being made in the sectoral discussions and come forward with proposals to
overcome difficulties where necessary. The end of 1994 will serve as a useful
benchmark by which to judge progress as it is the date proposed (in paragraph 16) for
the notification of the bodies responsible for enforcement. The Commission will also
assess progress in the development of administrative cooperation in its annual reports
on the operation of the Internal Market.

21. Although the objective of this communication is to ensure that the application of
Internal Market legislation is supported by effective mechanisms for administrative
cooperation, the Commission notes that the Court's rulings have often been made in
the context of matters not subject to harmonization. An effective mechanism for
facilitating bilateral and other contacts between administrations would materially assist
the resolution of difficulties concerning the trade in products and services in the nonharmonized field. It would, in general, help the development of mutual recognition of
national rules through the rapid exchange of information between the authorities
concerned and, in particular, might avoid the recourse to restrictive measures by the
**Member** States.

**8-**

**IV.** **CONCLUSIONS**

**22.** The Commission considers that a policy framework is required for cooperation
between the Member States' administrations, and between them and the Commission,
for the enforcement of Community law in the Internal Market, with the following guiding
principles:

   - all administrative services in the Member States responsible for the
enforcement of Community law must, taking into account Article 5 of the
Treaty, provide one another with mutual assistance in the exercise of their
functions, and in particular reply as soon as possible to requests for
cooperation originating from one of them, and exchange the information
required for this purpose;

   - these exchanges of information should be performed under conditions of:

      _confidentiality,_ i.e. they should be covered by professional secrecy and the
requirements of the services from which the information originates;

      _proportionality_ between the nature of information requested and the
objective of the check to be carried out;

   - to this effect, each Member State needs to take appropriate measures for
providing the most effective possible interface between its own services and
those of the other Member States and the Commission;

   - each Member State should ensure the transparency of these measures and of
its control mechanisms and their modalities of operation, in particular by
notifying them to the Commission and the other Member States. This
notification should be made by the end of 1994 for the areas of activity
mentioned in Annex 2.

23. The Commission, for its part, in close collaboration with the authorities of the
Member States, in particular in those areas where Community legislation does not
already provide details on the enforcement of its provisions, will examine, in particular
through a programme of discussions by area of activity :

   - cooperation systems which might be set up or strengthened in order to
implement these principles;

   - the form that these cooperation systems should take, on the principle that any
solution must aim at maximum effectiveness at minimum cost, using the
simplest possible procedures;

   - such Community support measures as may be envisaged for developing and
strengthening these cooperation systems, such as the publication of
guidelines for implementation, the setting up and subsequent operation of
telematic networks, the collection and analysis of data, the promotion of
exchanges of civil servants, training activities, and so on.

On the basis of this examination, to be completed by the end of 1994, the Commission
will identify the appropriate measures and formulate such proposals as may prove to
be necessary. The results of these discussions will be assessed in the Commission's
Annual Report of the Internal Market.

**ANNEX 1**

**ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION: STATE OF PLAY**

**1.** The October 1992 Report to the Commission by the High Level Group on the
Operation of the Internal Market chaired by Mr. Peter Sutherland, entitled "The Internal
Market after 1992: meeting the Challenge", contained an important section on
"Enforcing the Rules through Partnership". The recommendations made under this
heading aimed at the development of a cooperative approach to enforcement of
Internal Market legislation through, inter alia, the establishment of a permanent
framework for administrative partnership between Member States and the
Commission, an analysis of the exercise of Community powers to handle urgent and
serious consumer problems, including the possibility of a coordination unit within the
Commission to ensure effective communication at Community and national level, and
the drawing up of enforcement guides for groups of directives.

2. In its response to the Sutherland Report of 2 December 1992, the Commission
said that implementation of the Report's recommendations would "reinforce the
economic effects of the Internal Market, as well as its political dimension", and
welcomed the main lines of the strategy for the management of Internal Market
presented in the Report, "based on transparency, cooperation and decentralization of
application". The Commission announced its intention to present to the Council
proposals on guidelines for the development of administrative cooperation in the
different fields covered by the Internal Market in its communication of 22 December
1993 "Making the most of the Internal Market": Strategic Programme [7] .

3. The following sections assess the state of play on administrative cooperation by
considering the roles of the Commission and the Member States, the needs for and the
current practice of administrative cooperation.

**WHAT ARE THE ROLES ?**

**4.** The roles of the Member States and the Commission described here are those
which they should adopt for the purposes of administrative cooperation, without
prejudice to the Commission's permanent obligation to ensure that Community law is
implemented.

**A. The Role of the Member States:**

**5.** Under the Treaties the Member States retain responsibility for the
implementation and enforcement of Community law within their jurisdiction. The
development of administrative cooperation within the Community for the more effective

For references, see footnotes at page 1.

**enforcement of the law does not alter that fundamental responsibility. Nevertheless,**
**Member States exercise that responsibility within the framework of Community law and**
**are bound by both general and specific obligations with respect to enforcement of that**
**law. At the general level, Article 5 of the Treaty requires Member States to take all**
**appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from the Treaty**
**and to abstain from any measure which could jeopardize the objectives of the Treaty.**
**More specifically, the Council has in some fields (for example, customs, indirect**
**taxation,** **agriculture, foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals) adopted detailed secondary**
**legislation in respect of the enforcement of Community law which requires Member**
**States to take specific measures.**

**6.** **It should be recalled that the Court of Justice has in various rulings, notably in**
**respect of infringement cases based on Article 30 et seq. of the Treaty, made clear**
**that the Member States, when exercising their right to enforce national law (including**
**non-harmonized provisions), are required to take account of certain principles inherent**
**in Community law, in particular:**

**(a) Proportionality**

**In the absence of Community legislation, controls by the Member States**
**must be reasonable and respect the fundamental requirement of free**
**movement laid down in the Treaty (Henn and Darby, case 34/79, judgment**
**of** **14.12.1979;** **Casati, case 203/80, judgment of 11.11.1981);**

**(b) Mutual confidence**

**National authorities may not** **reimpose** **unnecessary testing, certification or**
**inspection requirements if these have already been carried out by the**
**national authorities of other Member States or competent organizations**
**recognized by them (Biologische Producten, case 72/80, judgment of**
**17.12.1981;** **United Foods and Abeele, case 132/80, judgment of** **7.4.1981;**
**Woodworking Machines, case 188/84, judgment of 28.1.1986; Bouchara,**
**case 25/85, judgment of 11.5.1989).**

**(c) Cooperation in the exercise of controls**

**Cooperation between different national authorities should take place in order**
**to alleviate as far as possible the burden of administrative controls for**
**economic operators, through, for instance, the exchange of information**
**between authorities regarding the conformity of products to requirements, or**
**by giving notice of control requirements and changes to them (De Peijper,**
**case 104/75, judgment of 20.5.1976;** **Denkavit,** **case 251/78, judgment of**
**8.11.1979;** **Italian wine, case 42/82, judgment of** **22.3.1983).**

**In summary, the Court has ruled that enforcement of the law should be proportional**
**and non-discriminatory, directed at the simplification and alleviation of controls and**
**reliant on mutual confidence and mutual recognition.**

**7.** **The Commission considers that the "obligation to cooperate" is implicit in Articles**
**5 and 30 of the Treaty and in Community case law, but, for the reasons indicated in**
**paragraph 12 below, the need for cooperation has been reinforced by the removal of**
**frontier controls.**

**Bilateral cooperation between the Member States is a necessary part of cooperation**
**within the Community framework. Nevertheless, in a Community without internal**

_**4**_ _**so**_

**Ill**

frontiers defective products manufactured in one country will find their way to another
by an infinite number of routes, often passing through other Member States. Only if
information concerning such products is made available to all authorities can effective
action be taken to protect the interests of all Community citizens. Similarly, the
conclusions arrived at by two or more Member States in relation to interpretation or
application of Community legislation will be of interest to all Member States.

In addition, the obligation to cooperate may well help to reduce bilateral difficulties
caused by different national rules in non-harmonized fields, and perhaps to accelerate
their mutual recognition Community-wide.

**B.** **The Role of the Commission**

**8.** The role of the Commission in the implementation and enforcement process is to
provide common services to the Member States which will assist them in their
implementation and enforcement of Community law. These services may be of
different kinds, according to the needs of the system.

   - publication of interpretations of existing Community rules as a basis for
common enforcement;

   - the organization of meetings, seminars and conferences on enforcement
issues to improve mutual understanding;

   - the promotion of the progressive introduction of efficient, reliable and userfriendly communication and data exchange systems, combined with a high
degree of co-ordination between the thirteen administrations involved;

   - the development of common systems for presentation of requests for
cooperation or of relevant data;

   - the promotion of exchanges of national officials and joint training programmes
for enforcement;

   - the collection, translation and circulation of information on national
enforcement structures and practice.

   - in the case of Member States with less developed administrative
infrastructures, financial contributions to strengthening these, including staff
training.

   - using the publication by the Commission of a new periodical presenting its
documentation and its databases as a means of contact with the national

administrations.

   - on competition, a communication is to be issued towards the end of 1994 on
cooperation between the Commission and the national competition
authorities.

The extent of the services provided by the Commission will be determined case-bycase, and will depend on the degree of cooperation required by the national
authorities. It is also clear that because of constraints on Community resources there
will be limits on the services which the Commission can offer, and some priority-setting
will be necessary.

**IV**

**9.** **Recent examples of the work now carried out by the Commission to support**
**administrative cooperation systems include:**

**• the development and updating of Guides to Community legislation (such as**
**New Approach and Public Procurement Directives) and interpretative**
**communications;**

**• the work under the** **INSIS,** **CADDIA and** **pre-IDA** **programmes on setting up**
**communication and data exchange networks linking administrations in priority**
**areas (as for example indirect taxation, customs, veterinary and plant-health**
**checks, and statistics) with a view to meeting the challenge of the abolition of**
**checks at internal borders;**

**•** **the ongoing MATTHAEUS programme (adopted in 1991) for the training of**
**customs officials through exchanges, seminars and common training modules**
**and the similar MATTHAEUS Tax programme (adopted in October** **1993);**

**• the five-year KAROLUS programme agreed in September 1992 for the**
**exchange between Member State administrations of 1900 national officials**
**engaged in the implementation of Community legislation in the area of the**
**Internal Market, which will promote mutual confidence between national**
**administrations;**

**• the work done under the SOSENET project which, as part of the ENS R&D**
**programme, defined the architecture of** **telematic** **services for the coordination**
**of social security schemes with a view to improving and simplifying current**
**procedures, facilitating the access of the citizen to his rights and creating new**
**services;**

**• an example of the type of result to which discussions on administrative**
**cooperation can lead is the drafting of simple forms which eliminate a**
**multiplicity of forms from different administrations and assist with language**
**problems. Such forms are currently being considered by market surveillance**
**authorities in the industrial and consumer product field as a means of**
**requesting information from and responding to each other easily and quickly**
**to assist their investigations into product safety and conformity;**

**• in the field of indirect taxation, the Commission was able to work closely with**
**the Member States to set up all the mechanisms required to enable fiscal**
**frontier controls to be abolished in time for the abolition of frontier controls on**
**1 January 1993. These included a telematic VAT Information Exchange**
**System (VIES), detailed procedures for the control of movements of goods**
**liable to excise duty, a network of Central Liaison Offices together with a**
**common directory of their structures and personnel, standard forms for**
**information requests and replies, training seminars and exchange visits for**
**national officials, and arrangements for monitoring and improving the system.**
**This shows what can be achieved by close collaboration within a clear legal**
**and institutional framework;**

**• on customs and agriculture, the Commission has sent the Council a proposal**
**to improve the existing mechanisms for mutual assistance in order to take into**
**account the changed conditions of the Internal Market** **[8]** **. This provides, inter**

**Amended proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of**
**the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the**
**law on customs or agricultural matters** **(COM(93)** **350 final - SYN 450, 1 September 1993). (OJ C** **262,** **28.9.93, p.**
**8).**

##### **a**

alia, a framework for the computerized Customs Information System (CIS),
which has been operating since October 1992.

    - Directive 93/99/EC on the subject of additional measures concerning the
official control of foodstuffs [9] and Regulation (EC) 793/93 on the evaluation
and control of the risks of existing substances [10] both provide a framework for
scientific cooperation;

    - the creation of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
Products [11] also provides coordination on the enforcement of Community law.

    - the maintenance and development of SIGL (System for the Management of
Import and Export Licences). This system allows Member States, and the
Commission, to be informed about the import and export licences issued or
denied, and thus manage or monitor the external fence. The agreement by
the Council on 8 February 1994 on a common import regime will provide a
spur to administrative cooperation on imports, and will facilitate the
Commission's management of the external dimension of the single market.

10. In resource terms, it should be emphasised that while it will be possible to
redirect some resources from legislative activity to administrative cooperation, the
implications of these Commission-led supportive measures should be taken into
account. They can be expected to increase as Community legislation already adopted
comes into force. The Commission intends, in the light of the more precise definition of
needs for all sectors that will take place in the coming months, to come forward with
appropriate proposals.

**WHAT ARE THE NEEDS?**

**11.** In its effort to establish a single market over the past nine years the Community
has adopted harmonized legislation in a wide variety of sectors in order to achieve
such common objectives as a high level of protection of health and safety for its
citizens and equal conditions of competition for its enterprises. In parallel, measures
have been adopted to check distortions to competition, such as Regulation 4064/89 on
concentrations between undertakings, adding to the rules on abuse of dominant
positions, cartels and state aids, which are contained in the Treaty and are also
essential to ensuring the development of the Internal Market. The Commission now
has to ensure that this legal framework is applied in a coherent and consistent way
throughout the Community. This task is not new - it follows in particular from Article 5
of the Treaty and has been clarified in the case law of the Court of Justice - but it
demands a degree of coordination between authorities which are organized and
operate differently in each Member State. Uneven or incomplete application of
Community law will not only reduce the overall benefits of the Internal Market and
affect the interests of the citizens or enterprises concerned, it will also jeopardize the
mutual confidence which underlies the whole Internal Market structure.

3 OJL290, 24.11.1993, p. 14.

10
OJL84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorization and
supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the
Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ L 214, 24.8.1993, p 1).

_i'i_

**VI**

**12.** **The need for administrative cooperation between the Member States has been**
**reinforced by the abolition of internal frontiers within the Community. The right to move**
**goods across the Community without any form of frontier checks has extended to**
**Community level the situation that previously only existed within each individual**
**Member State. The administrative structures and procedures, both formal and**
**informal,** **that exist at national level in order to ensure that regulations are properly**
**applied throughout the national territory may now have to be developed at Community**
**level.** **All measures which can render enforcement of this legislation as homogeneous**
**as possible should be considered, and first among these should be cooperation**
**between administrations responsible for enforcing the legislation.**

**13.** **In harmonized areas, the Community has already established certain**
**mechanisms for cooperation between national authorities (and between those**
**authorities and the Commission) in respect of the implementation and enforcement of**
**some Internal Market legislation. This is particularly the case for administrations**
**directly involved in the operational consequences of dismantling customs and tax**
**controls at internal frontiers, in managing the external frontier and also in sectors which**
**have an immediate link with public health, such as animal and plant health controls,**
**foodstuffs or pharmaceutical products.** **In** **other fields, however, such as that of**
**Community harmonized legislation for industrial products, no such detailed**
**mechanisms have been established. The question before the Community is whether**
**mechanisms are necessary in such** **fields,** **and if** **so,** **what form they should take.**

**14.** **In non-harmonized areas, it may also be worth considering the case for**
**establishing some appropriate mechanisms for administrative cooperation to help**
**resolve practical difficulties which can arise from those aspects of the four freedoms of**
**movement which are not subject to harmonization. As is explained above, the Court**
**has already made it clear that certain basic obligations on Member States to cooperate**
**apply equally to harmonized and non-harmonized fields, and the Commission therefore**
**believes there is scope to explore possibilities for administrative cooperation in the**
**non-harmonized area.**

**15.** **Based on existing Community experience, it is possible to identify the kinds of**
**problems or needs which give rise to closer administrative cooperation. These needs**
**reflect the expectation that Community rules will be applied fairly and effectively.**

**(a) Needs arising from innovation**

**Although the interpretation of the law rests with the courts, effective**
**application of the law requires that rules are understood in a similar way by**
**all those who must apply them. Even after detailed guidelines for**
**interpretation of legislation have been drawn up, there is a need for all**
**bodies concerned to take account of new circumstances or new**
**technological developments. There is, consequently, a need for exchange of**
**information between Member States and the Commission in respect of**
**these issues in order to ensure as far as possible a common interpretation**
**of the regulations in question.**

**(b) Needs arising from assessment of individual cases**

**A second need relates to the assessment which each administrative unit**
**makes on particular cases on a day-to-day basis before it applies the rules.**
**Thus the market control authorities in one region may from time to time**
**require technical information held in another region (such as records of the**

_**c**_

**VII**

**original approval of a product or inspection of a factory) before they can**
**decide on the conformity of the product to regulations. Such information has**
**to be received quickly if it is to be useful to the authorities concerned.**

**Exchange of information is also necessary to ensure free movement of**
**goods.** **For instance, when a product from one Member State is found not to**
**be in conformity by another Member State measures may be taken to**
**modify or withdraw the product. These measures of control have to be**
**proportionate according to the Court of Justice and administrative**
**cooperation is necessary to ensure that they are limited to what is strictly**
**necessary (for instance, by checking only the product batch that is not in**
**conformity rather than the entire production run).**

**(c) Needs arising from the implementation and enforcement of decisions**

**Administrative cooperation is needed to ensure effective implementation and**
**enforcement of a decision whenever the responsibilities of the authority**
**taking the decision do not cover the entire territory in which the regulations**
**are in force. Cooperation between two or more authorities may be**
**necessary, for instance, in order to ensure that a product found to be unsafe**
**in one area is no longer manufactured in another area or marketed in a third.**
**Cooperation is also necessary to ensure that effective remedies have been**
**found in a Member State from which a non-conforming product or service**
**originates, in order to achieve equal conditions of competition in the Internal**
**Market.**

**(d) Needs related to the adequacy of legislation**

**The information obtained through the enforcement of existing legislation**
**may provide the technical evidence that legislation is inadequate by, for**
**example, identifying problems that can only be satisfactorily resolved by an**
**extension or revision of the legislation itself. The successful development or**
**adaptation of legislation may thus depend to some extent on the**
**effectiveness of feedback from enforcement authorities, in addition to such**
**feedback as the Commission can obtain for itself, for example through its**
**network of Euro Info Centres.**

**16.** **Mechanisms to facilitate common interpretation, informed assessment and**
**effective enforcement of controls already exist at Community level in a few sectors**
**where harmonized legislation is of long standing; the challenge before the Community**
**today is to examine the effectiveness of these mechanisms and extend the**
**commitment to administrative cooperation that characterizes those sectors to a wider**
**area,** **while bearing in mind that the needs of each sector in terms of the degree of**
**cooperation required will vary. The needs of each mechanism will in any case have to**
**be defined at the operational level in each sector, in a decentralized manner.**

**17.** **In contrast to the relative homogeneity of administrative practice within each**
**Member State, the organization of administrative cooperation in the Community**
**context must take account of significant differences between the Member States in the**
**manner in which public authorities enforce regulations, which are reflected in different**
**organizational structures, operational practice and the overall level of resources**
**devoted to enforcement. Unfortunately, in many areas of Community legislation**
**precise information is not available about the administrative means by which the**
**Member States enforce Community law, although such information is important for**

**VIII**

**developing the mutual confidence necessary to promote effective cooperation across**
**the Community.**

**18.** **To ensure good communication, the Commission considers that the first priority**
**is that the bodies concerned must be identified, together with the way in which they will**
**interface with corresponding bodies in other Member States.**

**Secondly, a greater transparency of national enforcement systems, on a sectoral**
**basis,** **would materially assist all those in the Community involved in administrative**
**cooperation in this field. Indeed, where there are weaknesses in enforcement**
**structures, it might be possible to envisage supportive measures at Community level,**
**e.g.** **training programmes, exchanges of officials.**

**19.** **Thirdly, another argument for administrative cooperation is the need to overcome**
**communication problems deriving from differences of language and communication**
**and data exchange infrastructure. If administrative cooperation across the Community**
**is to achieve comparable levels of efficiency to the best national systems, major efforts**
**will have to be made to overcome these cultural and structural obstacles through**
**supportive measures, using where appropriate data communication networks.**

**The growing need for administrative cooperation may in some cases require the**
**establishment of an efficient, reliable and user-friendly system of communication and**
**data exchange between administrations, in particular electronic mail. At the same**
**time,** **it is necessary to take account of the particular needs of public administrations,**
**especially in terms of data security, confidentiality and certification, if electronic data is**
**to take the place of traditional media.**

**Modalities for organizing the interface between members of an administrative**
**cooperation network must also take into account how essential it is to ensure effective**
**communication by using the simplest and most appropriate means (such as standard**
**forms,** **the provision of a central contact point with suitable communications and**
**interpretation, so as so facilitate decentralized relationships where necessary).**

```
WHAT IS CURRENT PRACTICE ?

```

**20.** **This section provides a short review of the present state of administrative**
**cooperation within the Community.** **It** **reflects a two-part exercise which the**
**Commission has undertaken to obtain a broad perspective, as part of its follow-up to**
**the Sutherland Report:**

**• a survey of the management of urgent cases as provided for in Community**
**legislation;**

**• discussions with the Member States in a series of sectoral meetings of the**
**less well known problems related to enforcement of Community legislation**
**and the identification of "contact points" to deal with enforcement problems.**

**21.** **With respect to the management of urgent cases, the Commission has recently**
**issued a separate communication which reviews existing urgency procedures for**
**consumer goods (food and non-food), medicines, medical devices, radioactive**

_**U**_

**IX**

**contamination and veterinary and phytosanitary controls** **[12]** **. These procedures, which**
**by definition involve the rapid transmission of information between Member State**
**authorities and the Commission, exemplify some of the issues to be resolved through**
**administrative cooperation in an acute form. Although the operation of these**
**procedures is largely judged to be satisfactory, the Commission suggests a number of**
**improvements in the procedures which should be further discussed with the Member**
**States,** **such as:**

**• improvement of the communication and data exchange systems used;**

**• restriction of the use of procedures to genuine emergencies;**

**• more precise information to be supplied in order to facilitate reactions from**
**other authorities;**

**• wider participation in these procedures by all Member States;**

**• the development of common rules for confidentiality/publicity in respect of**
**urgent cases.**

**22.** **The sectoral meetings on administrative cooperation outside the framework of**
**urgent cases have been organized in collaboration with the Member State**
**representatives on the Advisory Committee for the Internal Market. Rather than**
**concentrate attention on those** **fields** **where mechanisms for administrative cooperation**
**are of long standing (e.g. customs or pharmaceuticals), they have covered a variety of**
**fields such as the "New Approach" to technical harmonization, dangerous substances,**
**foodstuffs, the recognition of diplomas, veterinary controls, and human and veterinary**
**medicines.** **Following these meetings, some important points have emerged, as**
**follows:**

**The variety of cooperation mechanisms**

**23.** **The examination so far of cooperation mechanisms between the Commission**
**and the Member States for the implementation and enforcement of Community law**
**now in place has shown that these take various forms. Some of them have been tried**
**and tested over a long period of** **time,** **others are still embryonic. Some are formalized**
**and detailed, with binding procedural rules, while others are informal and** **voluntarist,**
**essentially based on ad hoc bilateral contacts between the Member States with little**
**Community-level activity.**

**24.** **Although the range of solutions chosen is very wide, there are nevertheless a**
**number of criteria against which it is possible to measure the relative stage of**
**development of each cooperation system, such as:**

**• Are there detailed Community rules with respect to enforcement ?**

**• What is the scope of such rules ? (Are they limited to codification of**
**information exchange, for example, or do they indicate the powers of control**
**and intervention which Member States must exercise ?)**

**12** **SOT** **reference** **at page** **1.**

_**IÏ**_

**• Is there Community-level decision-taking with respect to the information**
**provided by national enforcement authorities ?**

**•** **Is** **there a Community-level body that is clearly responsible for monitoring**
**enforcement and is enforcement data collected or exchanged at Community**
**level ?**

**• Are there Community-level measures aimed at improving coordination**
**between enforcement officials (meetings, seminars, newsletters, exchange**
**visits,** **joint training, joint inspections) ?**

**• Are there systems in existence or under development which go beyond the**
**Community scale (under the OECD, the UN etc.) ?**

**25.** **A consensus has emerged from the Commission's consultations so far** **with** **those**
**responsible for enforcement of legislation that the choice of modalities for cooperation**
**should be left to those responsible for the legislation concerned. Differences in**
**structures and procedures reflect different needs. It is not necessary to establish**
**similar degrees of cooperation for issues which present different kinds of risk. More**
**important than a homogeneous or "standardized" approach is the need for a clear**
**definition of each system and, as is discussed below, the need for all participants to be**
**equally bound by the rules of that system.**

**A balance between informal and formal cooperation**

**26.** **In those areas where the Community has not yet agreed on detailed rules for the**
**enforcement of Community law, national enforcement authorities are sometimes**
**reluctant to contemplate the establishment of such rules. A widely-held assumption is**
**that cooperation between enforcement authorities in different Member States will occur**
**wherever necessary as a matter of course, that such cooperation is normal practice in**
**any efficient administration, and that cooperation can be left to the discretion of the**
**authorities concerned.**

**27.** **Although the development of such an informal ("voluntary") approach to**
**administration cooperation at Community level may be a helpful first step and shows**
**that Member States recognize the need to establish regular contacts between national**
**authorities, it may not always be a sufficient basis for the effective operation of a single**
**market. The Commission notes that within the Member States enforcement activity is**
**usually the subject of detailed administrative arrangements for internal coordination,**
**even where enforcement of legislation is highly decentralized. (The area of public**
**procurement is a notable exception.) Information is usually exchanged on a systematic**
**basis between local or regional authorities; sometimes it is kept in a centralized or**
**widely-accessible database.**

**If Member States organize cooperation within their own borders, it seems paradoxical**
**that they should be reluctant to do so in the Community context, where the practical**
**difficulties in the way of cooperation, such as language barriers and diversity of**
**national organizational structures, are obviously greater. Given that the Community**
**market will now have to be managed with the same degree of efficiency as national**
**markets hitherto, the development of some minimal rules for the enforcement of**
**Community law must be a high priority.**

_**Ci**_

**XI**

**Unequal participation in Community cooperation systems**

28. In its review of existing cooperation systems, and particularly those dealing with
urgent cases, the Commission has noted that the participation of Member States in the
system is often unequal. For instance, some Member States never notify problems or
emergencies under the systems in place or, where the system provides for Member
States to react to the information circulated, never react or do so with considerable
delay. This is not a question of deliberate infringement of Community law. It may
reflect structural problems in the organization of enforcement in the Member State
concerned.

29. It is not possible to assess the causes for apparent failures of cooperation
systems without further knowledge of the national administrative systems in place.
Because of the high degree of mutual interdependence which characterizes the
management of the single market, the Member States have a responsibility to assist
the Commission in efforts to achieve greater transparency of national systems. If
genuine structural problems are identified in enforcement at national level, it may be
necessary to provide for the possibility of Community support to certain Member States
in order to assist them to put into place the infrastructure necessary for the effective
enforcement of Community law. Without the assurance that, broadly speaking,
Community law is being enforced in a comparable way in all Member States, it is
unlikely that the objectives of Article 7 A of the Treaty will be realized.

30. The Commission concludes from this examination that mutual confidence will be
increased, and Community law applied more effectively, where there are explicit rules
for administrative cooperation. It considers that it is important to examine the need to
establish mechanisms for administrative cooperation in fields where none exist, and
that such an examination should be based on a policy framework for administrative
cooperation derived from experience already gained in some areas.

The Commission suggests that, in all cases where Community legislation does not
already contain detailed provisions relating to cooperation in respect of enforcement:

    - all systems of administrative cooperation should be based on a Community
framework of guidelines; and

    - the modes of cooperation appropriate for the sector concerned should be
agreed at Community level, in discussions between **the** Commission and
**national authorities.**

## **_i_**

**XII**

**ANNEX 2**

**Programme of discussions**
**concerning administrative cooperation**
**in the implementation and enforcement of Community law**

**Areas to be covered**

Discussions will be organized in the context of a Community framework for
administrative cooperation. Discussions should take place first in those fields where
there has been little or no experience of administrative cooperation, and particularly on
those which involve consumer products and services or are known to pose problems
for enforcement authorities. Where mechanisms already exist and are largely
satisfactory, it is more a matter of identifying possible improvements, and discussions
can be undertaken in the medium to longer term.

Further areas of activity will be included in these discussions as Community legislation
develops.

Technical harmonization: directives to remove barriers to trade

Public procurement
Firearms.

Dual use goods
General Product Safety Directive
Telecommunications

Foodstuffs, animal and plant health, veterinary medicines
Notification of technical regulations
Customs

Taxation

Drug precursors
Cultural goods
Right of establishment
Company law
Insurance, banking, securities
Intellectual property
Broadcasting
Transport

Unharmonized fields.

_**to**_

FICHE FINANCIERE

COOPERATION ADMINISTRATIVE

DANS LE CADRE DU MARCHE INTERIEUR

crédits

autorisés en

1993

Engagements

1

64.597.000

variation en

%

Engagements

5

-19.76%

Paiements

6

Paiements

2

crédits

demandés en

1994

Engagements

3

51.830.000

Paiements

4

**1.** **Intitulé de Taction**

Développement de la coopération administrative pour la mise en oeuvre et l'application
de la législation communautaire dans le cadre du marché intérieur (qui est aussi cité dans
le programme stratégique pour le marché intérieur). (La majorité de ces dépenses
figurent également dans la fiche financière pour ce programme).

2. **Lignes budgétaires concernées**

voir point 7.2 ci-dessous.

**3.** **Base légale**

Traité instituant la Communauté européenne et notamment ses articles 5, 7A, 30 à 36,
52 à 66, 100, 100A, 100B, 129B àD.

4. Description de l'action

4.1 Objectif général de l'action

-Mettre en place un système de coopération administrative cohérent entre les Etats
membres, et entre ceux-ci et la Commission, pour l'application effective de la législation
communautaire;

**- Faciliter le développement des réseaux télématiques entre administrations nationales et**
**entre celles-ci et les instances européennes.**

**Les actions proposées se fondent notamment sur les communications et résolutions**

**suivantes:**

**a)** **Communications**

**Communication de la** **Commission,** **du 7 octobre 1991, sur** **"Les** **besoins**
**d'échanges d'informations entre administrations pour assurer le fonctionnement du**
**marché** **intérieur"** **- (SEC(91) 1752 final).**

**Communication de la** **Commission,** **du 2 décembre** **1992,** **[M]** **Le fonctionnement du**
**marché intérieur de la Communauté après 1992** **-** **Suivi du Rapport Sutherland"**
**(SEC(92) 2277 final).**

**Communication de la** **Commission,** **du 12 mars 1993, sur les réseaux**
**télématiques transeuropéens entre administrations - (COM (93) 69 final).**

**Communication de la** **Commission,** **du 2 juin** **1993,** **"Renforcer l'efficacité du**
**marché intérieur - Pour un programme stratégique sur le marché intérieur"** **(COM(93)**
**256 final).**

**Communication de la Commission, du 22 décembre 1993, " Tirer le meilleur**
**parti du marché intérieur : Programme stratégique" (COM (93) 632 final).**

**b)** **Résolutions :**

**- Résolution du Conseil, du 7 décembre 1992, sur les moyens d'assurer le bon**
**fonctionnement du marché intérieur (JO n° C 334 du 18.12.1992,** **p.l).**

**4.2 Période couverte par l'action**

**Action permanente qui va au-delà de l'échéance de 1993 prévue à l'article** **7A** **du Traité**
**CE,** **afin d'assurer le fonctionnement du marché intérieur et le progrès vers l'Union**
**économique et monétaire.**

**5. Classification de la dépense**

**5.1** **DNO**

**5.2** **CD**

**5.3** **sans objet**

_**a'i**_

**6. Type de la dépense**

**Les dépenses opérationnelles, qui vont faire l'objet, ou font déjà l'objet, d'actions**
**séparées, comprennent pour l'essentiel :**

**- des contributions financières et des subventions (notamment celles qui sont destinées**
**aux organismes européens chargés de la coopération administrative dans les secteurs**
**spécifiques);**

**-**
**des obligations financières découlant de contrats d'études préparatoires, de faisabilité**
**ou** **d'évaluation,** **qui contribuent à la coopération entre administrations pour la mise en**
**oeuvre du marché intérieur, (notamment dans le cadre de la mise en place des réseaux**
**télématiques entre administrations) et à la réalisation d'autres objectifs politiques liés à**
**l'achèvement et au fonctionnement du marché unique;**

**-**
**des subventions destinées au soutien de projets d'intérêt communautaire entrepris par**
**des organismes extérieurs;**

**- le** **financement** **d'actions des échanges de fonctionnaires, de** **formation,** **d'information et**
**de programmes de communication.**

**7. Incidence financière**

**7.1 Mode de calcul du coût total de l'action**

**Le passage de l'échéance de 1993, où l'accent était mis sur la réalisation des objectifs**
**législatifs du Livre blanc, a impliqué une révision important des intitulés de la ligne**
**"Marché** **intérieur" en vue du projet de budget pour 1994. Cette révision comportait**
**une modification des actions types correspondant aux orientations politiques contenues**
**dans les communications de la Commission au Conseil et au Parlement, du 2 décembre**
**1992 "Le fonctionnement du marché intérieur de la Communauté après 1992 - Suivi du**
**Rapport Sutherland" (SEC (92) 2277 final) et du 2 juin** **1993** **"Renforcer l'efficacité du**
**marché intérieur - Pour un programme stratégique sur le marché intérieur" (COM (93)**
**256 final). Le programme stratégique (COM (93) 632 final) qui vient d'être adopté, et**
**dont la coopération administrative** est **l'une des composantes prinicipales, vise à**
**approfondir ces actions types modifiées** face **aux changements qualitatifs dans la** mission
**des services pour la surveillance de la** mise **en application de la législation**
**communautaire dans le cadre d'une** coopération administrative **renforcée** avec **les** Etats
membres.

Il **est** évident que **dans** une certaine mesure les ressources existantes peuvent être
redéployées pour faire face au nouveau défi. Ceci pourtant nécessite un examen
approfondi des allocations existantes afin d'identifier les opportunités de redéploiement.
Par ailleurs, il est clair que pour certaines de ces tâches les ressources existantes sont
insuffisantes. Dans d'autres cas, il est aussi clair que les implications en termes de
ressources ne peuvent pas être chiffrées, avant que des travaux complémentaires décrits
dans le programme stratégique soient achevés permettant une évaluation précise dei
besoins.

**<'...** _**y**_

Ceci dit, la présente fiche financière tente, dans un premier temps, de faire le bilan des

_V_ _-ÎXJQS._ budgétaires associées aux politiques marché intérieur et d'établir l'ordre de
grandeur des montants affectés à la coopération adrnini^' aîive dans la poursuite r?s
politiques correspondantes. îl faudrait ajouter que les montants mentionnés ci-dessous
oe seront pas tous utilisés pour la coopération aduiiuîsïr_ûve, la répartition entre les
différents aspects étant impossible de chiffrer à présent.

7.2 Ventilation par éléments **du coût total** de Taction

Les cL'Ptres ci après reprennent la situation telle quelle s'est précisée dans l'Avant Projet
de Budget 1994.

**Budget 1994**

1.000.000

2.130.000

2.900.000

20.000.000

10.000.000

12.900.000

2.000.000

900.000

**51.830.000**

**Budget 1993**

**_ _ _ _ _**

1.000.000

1.420.000

2.427.000

250.000

17.000.000

9.800.000

2.000.000

700.000

**64.597.000**

Ventilation par grandes
lignes du programme

   - (indique que le volet
comporte aussi des actions

nouvelles)

-Coopération administrative *

-Surveillance de la mise en

application*

-KAROLUS:

-MATTHAEUS et

MATTHAEUS-Tax

-Echanges vétérinaires

Réseaux transeuropéens*

TOTAUX

Lignes
budgétaires
concernées (en
tout ou en partie)

B3-4015

B5-108

B5-3000

B5-3051

B2-5101

**B5-7210**

**B5-7211**

B5-7212

B5-7213

B5 **-7214**

*(indique que le volet comporte aussi des actions nouvelles).

**7.3.** **Echéancier indicatif** **des** **crédits**

Les communications spécifiques aux actions particulières donneront tous les éléments
d'appréciation utiles.

**8. Dispositions anti-fraude prévues**

**La** vérification des subventions ou de la réception des prestations et études
préparatoires, de faisabilité ou d'évaluation commandées est effectuée par les services de
la Commission avant paiement, en tenant compte des obligations contractuelles et des
principes d'économie et de la bonne gestion financière ou globale. Des dispositions antifraude (contrôle, remise de rapports, etc.) sont inclus dans tous les accords ou contrats
conclus entre la Commission et les bénéficiaires des paiements.

Le contrat-cadre conclu en 1992 entre la Commission et les organismes européens de
normalisation prévoit, par exemple, une présentation très claire des coûts associés avec
la préparation de normes européennes dans le cadre des mandats qui permettront un
contrôle efficace des dépenses effectuées.

De manière générale, toutes les actions permanentes font l'objet d'un suivi régulier de la
part des services concernées, ainsi que pour les actions ponctuelles, d'une évaluation expost. Des informations, statistiques et autres, fournissent une aide dans l'évaluation du
progrès des actions communautaires et contribuent ainsi à la consolidation du dispositif
anti-fraude.

Dans plusieurs règlements, des dispositions spécifiques sont prévues et les mesures de
contrôle internes se fondent sur la vérification de conformité aux faits par les chefs
d'unités responsables de la gestion de projets et de programmes individuels.

**9. Eléments d'analyse coût-efficacité**

**9.1 Objectifs spécifiques et** **quantifiables,** **population** visée

Les objectifs spécifiques de cette action relative à la coopération administrative dans le
cadre du marché intérieur sont repris ci-après.

Il s'agit de la gestion de la mise en oeuvre de la législation communautaire qui passe parla surveillance du respect des Etats membres de leurs obligations communautaires;

Il faut assurer la qualité de la mise en application à travers un encadrement cohérent de
la coopération administrative avec le soutien technique nécessaire, la surveillance de la
mise en application des règles communautaires et moyens de résoudre des problèmes de
cette mise en application.

Dans le cadre de la subsidiarité, la Commission n'intervient que là où il s'avère dans les
examens de secteurs prévus dans la communication que les structures existantes ne
garantissent pas une application efficace de la législation pour le marché intérieur dans
tous les Etats membres, pour un secteur spécifique. Pour les secteurs non harmonisées,

**7-;**

**un renforcement de la coopération administrative peut même éviter la nécessité de**
**légiférer.**

**La population visée par l'action est celle des administrations nationales.**

**9.2.** **Justification de** **Taction**

**L'ensemble de cette action relève du principe d'attribution à la Commission des**
**compétences d'exécution de règles établies par le Conseil dans le cadre de la réalisation**
**et le fonctionnement du marché intérieur. Il est à rappeler que le Conseil, par sa**
**résolution du 7 décembre 1992 sur les moyens d'assurer le bon fonctionnement du**
**marché intérieur, a invité les Etats membres et la Commission à examiner la nécessité de**
**renforcer la coopération afin de résoudre tout problème d'ordre pratique qui pourrait se**
**poser. Le Parlement, par sa résolution du** **18** **décembre** **1992** **sur le suivi à donner au**
**programme du marché intérieur de** **1992,** **a également invité la Commission à prendre les**
**mesures nécessaires pour faire face au défi qu'impose le fonctionnement du grand**
**marché. La** **Commission,** **pour répondre à cet** **objectif,** **par sa décision du 23 décembre**
**1992,** **a mis en place un comité consultatif pour la coordination dans le domaine du**
**marché intérieur.**

**Pour les actions en cours il n'y a pas véritablement de solution alternative à une action**
**communautaire, car toute carence de la Commission dans le domaine de l'achèvement et**
**du suivi du fonctionnement du marché intérieur** **risquerait** **d'entraîner la mise en place de**
**politiques nationales divergentes.**

**Toutefois, la Commission examine en permanence les différentes possibilités de réponses**
**aux exigences d'économie et d'efficacité.**

**C'est** **ainsi qu'en matière de normalisation, la stratégie, qui était fondée initialement sur**
**une harmonisation détaillée des législations nationales, se poursuit actuellement sur deux**
**orientations complémentaires:**

**- la reconnaissance mutuelle des règles nationales;**

**- la limitation du rapprochement des législations au niveau communautaire aux seuls cas**
**où les objectifs des législations nationales ne sont pas équivalents.**

**En outre, la Commission, dans le cadre du suivi du Livre vert sur la normalisation, a**
**introduit des changements importants au système de financement de la normalisation**
**européenne.**

**En ce qui concerne le plan d'action pour l'échange de fonctionnaires nationaux entre les**
**administrations des Etats membres (programme** **KAROLUS),** **une participation des**
**administrations concernées a été fixée à hauteur de 50% des indemnités de séjour durant**
**la période d'échange, les autres frais étant à la charge du budget communautaire. Ce**
**programme est complémentaire aux autres programmes d'échanges adoptés par le**
**Conseil dans certaines domaines spécifiques c.à.d. MATTHAEUS, MATTHAEUS-**
**TAX,** **et le domaine vétérinaire.**

_**93**_ **Suivi et évaluation de l'action**

**Indicateurs de performance sélectionnés**

**a) Nombre d'échanges de fonctionnaires effectuée dans le cadre des programmes**
**KAROLUS, MATTHAEUS, MATTHAEUS-TAX et dans le domaine vétérinaire.**

**b) Etablissement et fonctionnement des réseaux télématiques entre les administrations**
**chargées de la surveillance du marché intérieur et entre celles-ci et la Commission.**

**Modalités et périodicité de l'évaluation prévue**

**L'évaluation des travaux relatifs au fonctionnement du marché intérieur se fait sur base**
**annuelle par l'intermédiaire des actions et des interventions du comité chargé de la**
**coordination du marché intérieur. Ce rapport est prévu dans la Communication de la**
**Commission,** **du 2 décembre 1992,** **"Le** **fonctionnement du marché intérieur de la**
**Communauté après 1992 - Suivi du Rapport Sutherland" (SEC(92) 2277 final),**

**Pour le programme KAROLUS, il est prévu à l'article 18 de la décision de la**
**Commission** **(93/10/CEE)** **fixant les dispositions d'application du programme, que la**
**Commission établisse un rapport financier annuel sur l'exécution du programme et que**
**ce dernier soit transmis aux coordinateurs nationaux de manière à permettre le suivi de**
**sa mise en oeuvre.**

**(Eléments pour information interne)**

**10.** **Dépenses administratives (Partie A du Budget)**

**NOTE:** **Il faut rappeler qu'il y a des sommes déjà inscrites en Partie A destinées aux**
**tâches spécifiques de surveillance dans certains secteurs du marché intérieur, et pour les**
**frais de réunions de comités, dont la part qui devra être imputée à la coopération**
**administrative ne peut pas encore être** **estimée**

**10.** **1 L'action proposée** **imptique-t-eRe «ne** **augmentation** **du** **nombre des effectifs**
**de** **la** **Commission? Si oui, combien?**

**Oui. Il est probable que le développement de certaines** **actions** **dans le cadre du volet**
**"coopération** **administrative"** **du** **programme** **stratégique peuvent générer des dépenses**
**de fonctionnement supplémentaires et des demandes** **d'augmentation** **des** **effectifs. Bien**

### **_V_**

que quelques évaluations préliminaires et partielles ont été fournies à la DG XV par
certaines services, à ce stade, et avant d'analyser les besoins en détail, en coordination, le
cas échéant avec les Etats membres, aucune estimation fiable ne s'avère possible. Les
actions spécifiques découlant du programme stratégique feront l'objet des fiches
financières individuelles donnant tous les éléments d'appréciation nécessaires.

Néanmoins, il est possible d'évaluer les effectifs nécessaires au suivi de la coopération
administrative dans 14 des 17 secteurs mentionnés dans l'annexe 2 (en estimant qu'au
moins 3 secteurs ont déjà des systèmes qui n'ont pas besoin de d'avantage de personnel).
Un fonctionnaire A et un fonctionnaire C devraient suffire aux besoins de 2 secteurs, ce
qui impliquerait un total à 7 fonctionnaires 'A' et 7 fonctionnaires 'C.

Une partie de ces effectifs pourrait être trouvée via une réallocation des ressources ou
un redéfinition des tâches du personnel actuellement occupé à organiser des réunions de
comités pour préparer la législation. Ceci particulièrement dans des secteurs où l'effort
législatif a diminué. Aussi, ces effectifs seront nécessaires au fur et à mesure de
l'introduction de nouvelles structures de coopération administrative. Il n'y aura
probablement pas besoin de fonctionnaires supplémentaires pendant l'année 1994, mais il
feront l'objet de demandes pour l'établissement du budget 1995.

Il est clair que des demandes pour des effectifs statutaires doivent être présentées en
tenant compte des perspectives financières et des enveloppes en vigueur pour les
exercices budgétaires concernées.

**10.2 Indiquez le montant des dépenses de fonctionnement et de personnel générées**
**par la proposition d'action. Explicitez le mode de calcul.**

On pourrait envisager un comité pour la coopération administrative par secteur, qui se
réunirait une fois par an. Chiffrées à 15 000 ECU par réunion (ligne A-2510), fois 14
secteurs, ceci donne des dépenses s'élevant à 210 000 ECU par an. Mais celles-ci
pourraient être partiellement compensées par la probabilité qu'il y aura moins de
réunions de comités pour des consultations sur la législation nouvelle.

Pour le personnel statutaire mentionné au point 10.1, on obtient des dépenses de 14 fois
90 000 ECU/an, soit 1 260 000 ECU par an, des titres Al, A2 et A5 du budget..

De nouveau, toutes ces dépenses seront étalées au fur et à mesure que les nouvelles
structures éventuelles seront introduites. La liste des secteurs n'est pas définitive. Lors
des discussions qui vont précéder la mise en place d'un changement de structure
quelconque, il peut s'avérer que certains secteurs n'ont besoin d'aucunes mesures
supplémentaires, ou que d'autres peuvent être ajoutés à la liste.

### **_i_**

**ISSN** **0254-**

#### **COM(94) 29 final**

# **EN 10 06 01**

#### **Catalogué number : CB-CO-94-053-EN-C** **ISBN 92-77-65479-1**

**Office** **for Official Publications of the European Communities**

**L-2985** **Luxembourg**