Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

**COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES**

Brussels, 04.03.1998
COM(1998) 121 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

**The follow-up to the Green paper on Commercial Communications**

**in the Internal Market**

**Table of** **('ontents**

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.**

**INTRODUCTION.** ' **1**

Objective. 1
The Green paper's proposals. 2
Response to consultation. 2

**SECTION I. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE GREEN PAPER ON COMMERCIAL**

**COMMUNICATIONS.** **4**

The European Parliament **4**

The Economic and Social Committee 4

Member States 4

Interested parties 5

**SECTION** **II.** **THE** **COMMISSION'S** **RESPONSE** **7**

**1.** **Objective** **7**
**2.** **Scope** **7**

**3.** **Actions** 8

1 ) Applying a transparent assessment methodology. 8
2) Setting up a Commercial Communications' Expert Group. 10
3) Making available a Commercial Communications' contact point and

information network. 12

4) Establishing a Commercial Communications' Database. 13
5) Accelerating complaint resolution 13
6) Setting up an Expert network. 13
7) Promoting International co-operation. 13
8) Clarifying electronic commerce aspects. 14
9) Keeping the Parliament informed. 14
4. **Priority areas for the Expert Group's consideration.** 14
1 ) The protection of minors. 14
2) Unfair competition laws and associated matters. 15
3) Sponsorship. 15
4) Claims and misleading advertising. 16
5) Redress systems. 16
6) Application of the proportionality assessment methodology at national level. 17

**Annex 1.** A summary of the proposals made in the Green paper on Commercial
Communications in the Internal Market.

**Annex 2.** Summary of responses to the Green paper on Commercial Communications in the
Internal Market.

_**<**_ _**c\**_

**E X E C U T I V E** **S U M M A R Y .**

The May 1996 Green paper on Commercial Communications in the Internal Market
recognised the importance of the sector in terms of employment and growth potential and its
key role in helping European businesses and non-profit making associations to market their
goods and services throughout the Union. These services affect a number of important public
interest objectives such as the protection of consumers and public health and are therefore
subject to a variety of different national regulations. The Green paper noted that the
divergence of these national regulations together with the development of cross-border
commercial communications was leading to obstacles to the proper functioning of the Internal
Market. At the same time, the increase in cross-border commercial communications, in
particular in the area of new Information Society services and electronic commerce, could
adversely affect the efficient protection of public interest objectives.

The very high level of response confirmed this sector's importance. In addition to the
European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and ten Member States, 433
interested parties responded to the call for comment over the past 18 months. In general, there
was strong support for the Commission's proposals. Indeed, suggestions were made both to
strengthen and add to them.

The Commission has therefore decided to adopt a range of actions in this sector with the
objective of facilitating the cross-border provision of commercial communication services
through the establishment of an efficient and transparent framework which will also ensure an
appropriate protection of public interest objectives concerned. These actions represent a tool
to assist relevant authorities in their analysis of problems in this field. This approach is fully
consistent with, and complementary to, the Single Market Action Plan's Strategic target I of
making rules more effective.

More specifically, the Commission proposes:

1) _The_ _application of a_ _transparent,_ _assessment_ _methodology._ In many cases, the examination
of the compatibility of a restriction to cross-border commercial communications with Internal
Market principles raises the issue of its proportionality with the public interest objective
pursued. The Commission will apply, where appropriate, the proportionality assessment
methodology described in the Green paper. This will increase the speed and efficiency with
which infringements are processed and also improve the quality of any harmonisation
initiatives the Commission will propose in the field of commercial communications.

2) _Setting up_ _a_ _Commercial Communication Expert Group._ The Commission will set up a
Commercial Communications Expert Group to establish transparent and efficient
administrative co-operation between itself and the Member States and a dialogue with
interested third parties. In response to the calls of the Parliament and the Member States, the
Commission will ensure that any possible duplication with Commission Committees'
activities will be avoided. It will also ensure that the Expert Group acts rapidly in the relevant
areas. The Expert group will not cover issues that are already dealt with by Commission
committees.

3) _Making available a Commercial_ _Communications '_ _contact point and information network._
The Commission will establish a central contact point in the Directorate General for the
Internal Market and Financial services (DGXV) for interested third parties which will work
closely with the other Directorates General involved with policy in this field. It will also
establish a Web site to facilitate information flows and transparency.

_4) Establishing_ _a_ _Commercial_ _Communications_ _Database._ The Commission will establish an
information database on national and Community regulations and self-regulatory codes.

_**1b**_

_5) Accelerating complaint processing._ The Commission will continue its general efforts to
speed up the handling of complaints. In this field, it will make efforts to reduce delays by
using, where appropriate, the proportionality assessment methodology.

_6) Setting up a network of academic experts._ The Commission will establish a "
representative group of academic experts " interested in the various aspects of the
commercial communication field in order to assist its work and that of the Expert Group of
Member States' representatives. The network of academic experts will be invited by the
Commission to provide opinions on specific issues.

_7)_ _Promoting International_ _co-operation._ The Commission will promote the principles of this
approach in international negotiations.

_S) Clarifying electronic commerce issues._ The Commission will take account of restrictions
concerning commercial communication services in its current examination of the specific
legal issues relating to the development of cross-border services in the Information Society.
In certain areas where there is legal insecurity it will propose clarification in the context of a
proposal relating to electronic commerce and associated Information Society services.

_9) Keeping the European Parliament informed._ The Commission will inform the European
Parliament on the application of this approach including an evaluation of the work carried
and an update of the work programme.

The Commission _will apply this approach to four key areas_ where commercial
communication regulations at the national level diverge significantly and therefore potentially
give rise to both Internal Market barriers and to a lack of effective protection across borders
within the Community. The four areas are (i) the _protection of minors,_ (ii) _unfair_ _competition,_
(iii) _sponsorship and_ (iv) _misleading claims._

m

##### **_-ic_**

**INTRODUCTION.**

**Objective.**

The European Commercial Communications sector plays a key role in the European
Community. It employs in excess of 1 million Europeans and it is growing thanks to the
development of new communications technologies and demand. Examples of this growth are
well reported. In the specialised area of telemarketing the current number of 193,500
employees in Europe is forecast to grow to 669,500 in the year 2001. Growth of internet
related commercial communications is similarly expected to increase. For France, Germany,
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom alone it is forecast that these new commercial
communication services could amount to 1.3 billion Ecus in 2002. This is reflected in the

development of new specialised on-line agencies and internet audience measurement
specialists. Its importance for employment is further emphasised by the fact that many users
of commercial communications have marketing and marketing research personnel that must
be added to the total employed directly by the sector. It should be emphasised that the
creative parts of this sector depend on new young talent and the sector is therefore important
in terms of youth employment in Europe.

The sector also plays a key role in promoting the competitiveness of European business.
Without cost-effective marketing campaigns, businesses cannot develop markets or indeed
are unable to render viable investments in new products or services. Furthermore, commercial
communication services are critically important for the realisation of the Internal Market
given that if businesses cannot communicate their presence, products and services across
borders, they will not be able to engage in cross-border trade. Finally, these services also help
finance all media. It is recognised internationally that the development of information society
services and electronic commerce are, and will continue to be, largely financed by revenues
earned from carriage of these services.

The Commission acknowledges that an Internal Market approach was required in this area
given that there existed no co-ordinated framework for the sector even though it is: (i)
regulated for a wide variety of public interest objectives and (ii) increasingly offering services
across borders, thanks to the development of new communications channels.

The Commission's approach to the area of commercial communications has to take account
of the importance and sensitivity of the various public interest objectives - such as health,
safety, environmental and consumer protection- which may be pursued by Member State
measures giving rise to difficulties for cross-border commercial communications. Article
100a of the Treaty makes it clear that Internal Market measures which affect such public
interest objectives must take as a base a high level of protection. The importance accorded to
these public interest objectives by Community law is reflected also in Article 129, 129a and
130r of the Treaty.

It follows that a certain balance must be struck between Internal Market concerns and other

objectives validly pursued by Member States. In determining what action the Commission
should take in this area, a certain sensitivity must be shown towards the different social and
cultural situations in the various Member States.

This Communication summarises the responses to the Green paper on Commercial
Communications in the Internal Market (COM(96) 192 final) and presents the Commission's
approach aiming at establishing a European policy framework for commercial
communication services. Commercial communications means:

_"All forms of communication seeking_ _to_ _promote either_ _products,_ _services_ _or the image of a_
_company or organisation to final_ _consumers_ _and/or distributors"_

##### **_d_**

The Green paper's proposals.

On 8 May 1995, the Commission adopted a Green paper on Commercial Communications in
the Internal Market. The Green paper followed an extensive survey exercise to which over
1,000 interested parties responded.

The Green paper stressed that the sector of commercial communications was of significant
importance to the functioning of the European economy; cross-border commercial
communications were a growing phenomenon in the Internal Market; differences in national
regulations gave rise to regulatory problems for users, suppliers and carriers of such services
as well as their recipients and these problems were likely to become more manifest as
communications possibilities improved with the advent of the Information Society. These
problems are witnessed by the increasing number of complaints in this field. The number of
these complaints and the calls for European action from interested parties will multiply as a
consequence of the technical ease with which commercial communication services can now
cross-borders thanks to the development of electronic commerce.

Given these concerns and since these services are used to promote cross-border trade of all
goods and services circulating within the Internal Market, the Green paper proposed (see
Annex !) a review of existing restrictions to ensure that there exists a qualitative Community
framework allowing for cross-border provision of such services together with effective crossborder protection of public interest objectives and redress against abuses.

Two key proposals were made to ensure, in view of the expected growth in cross-border
commercial communication services, that this review would lead to the establishment of a
high quality, appropriate and coherent European framework:

- the application by the Commission's services of an assessment methodology aiming to
facilitate and render transparent the assessment of the compatibility with the Treaty of
restrictions on cross-border commercial communications;

.• two inter-related tools to improve co-ordination and information exchange between the
Commission, the Member States and interested parties:

!. An Expert Group of Member Slates representatives whose aim would be, on the basis
of the proposed assessment methodology, to help find constructive solutions to
problems for cross-border commercial communications, to safeguard the coherence
of national initiatives and to improve the cross-border protection of public interest
objectives in this field.

2. In response to both the call for improved information flow and the need to provide
the data required for the application of the assessment methodology, the Commission
will establish a central information contact point which would co-ordinate an
information and communications network between itself, the Member States and all
interested parties.

These proposals meet the objective of ensuring effective regulation as set out in the
Commission's Single Market Action Plan which was adopted in June 1997 (CSE(97)1 final).
More specifically, they represent a framework for enforcement and problem solving in order
to improve the Community legal framework for commercial communications.

Response to consultation.

_European Parliament._
The European Parliament adopted its resolution on the Commission Green paper on
Commercial Communications in the Internal Market ((COM(96)0192 - C4-0365/96). PE
260.946) at its Plenary meeting on 15.7.97.

_Economie_ _and Social_ C _'ommiUec._

On the 27 November 1996 the Economic and Social Committee adopted its opinion on ihe
Green paper from the Commission on Commercial Communications in the Internal Market.
(O.J.N0C66/II of3.3.97).

_Member States._

To date, the Commission has received responses from ten Member States. These are Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the
United Kingdom.

_Interested parties._

The Commission received 433 replies from the five groups of interested parties
demonstrating the wide interest in this field of Community policy. These can be broken down
as follows: 127 suppliers of commercial communication services (e.g. advertising agencies
and of which 30 were European or national trade associations), 44 receiver associations (e.g.
consumer associations or public health bodies), 197 users (e.g. advertisers, of which 70
associations) 52 carriers (e.g. media, of which 18 associations) and 13 self-regulatory bodies.

:ECTIOM I. SUMMARY OF REACTIONS TO THE GREEN PAPER ON COMMERCIAL

:OMMUNICATIONS.

Given the purposefully broad questions that were set at the end of each section of the Green
paper, responses have tended to comment on the entire text and all its proposals. The detailed
summary in Annex 2 of .this Communication covers those points that received the most
comments. The key positions of the Institutions and interested parties were as follows.

The European Parliament.

The European Parliament in its resolution dated 15.07.97 gave strong support to the proposals
made in the Green paper. The Parliament wished for the scope of the definition of
commercial communications to be extended to include on-pack commercial communications
such as on-pack price promotions, coupons, free-gifts etc.

Regarding the two key proposals the Parliament's position was as follows:

On the proposed assessment methodology, the Parliament gave its full support and indeed,
demanded for it to be strengthened by making it mandatory for the Commission's work,
adding strict time limits for Commission decisions and requiring that it be applied to all
national restrictions whether they be in law or self-regulatory codes.

As regards the Expert Group, contact point and the information network, again the Parliament
voted with a strong majority in favour of these proposals.

On the Expert Group, the Parliament called for it to be as open and transparent as possible. In
order to ensure transparency and efficiency it also called for the Expert Group to meet
regularly and reach opinions on specific issues raised to it within short and strict time limits.
It requested that the Expert Group should prepare a regular report for the Parliament to allow
the latter to monitor its progress. Finally, it felt that the contact point should also provide a
centra! data bank on regulations and self-regulatory codes in the European Community.

The Parliament also identified the areas of regulations that it felt should be the first to be
examined under the new approach. These were regulations on commercial communications
for children, the regulatory framework for unfair marketing methods and differing national
restrictions on brand diversification, on-pack commercial communications, events and
television sponsorship.

Finally, it added to the proposals. It called for a system of appeal against the Commission's
decision to proceed with or close infringement cases and added that all efforts should be
made to ensure that self-regulatory systems be strengthened as well as operated according to
the principle of country of origin control.

The Economic and Social Committee.

In its opinion, the Economic and Social Committee strongly supported all of the proposals
made in the Green paper. Unlike the Parliament, it did not indicate a priority on which areas
of regulations should first be subject to the proposed approach.

The Economic and Social Committee was particularly supportive of the proposed assessment
methodology and especially the economic chain reactions which it felt accurately mirrored
how the market for commercial communications operated in the real world. It applauded the
establishment of the Expert Group and suggested that Member States should copy the
Commission's lead by establishing national central contact points for policy in the field of
commercial communications.

Member States.

A large majority of the ten Member States who responded was supportive of the proposals.
Only one of the ten felt that the assessment methodology was not acceptable in principle. The

others were supportive with a few suggesting that the consumer impacts should be more fully
integrated in the economic chain reaction.

Likewise, all the Member States who responded on the proposal to establish an Expert Group
were favourable. Two stated that consumer associations should be involved as well as seif
regulatory bodies and another two insisted that it should not duplicate the work of other
committees or in any way add further delay to the Commission's already long infringements'
procedure.

Seven of the ten Member States commented on the contact point and information network.
They all agreed to these but two made the point that consumer associations should be able to
have full access to these and should be given sufficient resources to be effective.

Finally, the Member States went through the priority areas listed in the Green paper in detail
(see Annex 2) pointing out where they thought the new approach should first be applied.
They also made a number of further proposals including the need for further work on crossborder dispute settlement systems and the need to accelerate the existing infringement
procedure which was considered to be too slow.

Interested parties.

A large number of interested parties (both from consumer associations and industry) agreed
with the Parliament that the definition of commercial communications should include on-pack
forms of such services. A large majority of interested parties favoured the assessment
methodology and a number of differing suggestions were made to strengthen this. This
majority called for mandatory application of the methodology. A number also felt that new
legislative proposals should be assessed with the proposed methodology to ensure that they
would not create new barriers in the Internal Market. Self-regulatory codes should also be
subject to it. Finally, the majority believed that the Commission should make a commitment
to process infringement cases in this field more rapidly given that the assessment
methodology should allow the Commission to be more efficient in its future work. Certain
consumer associations had doubts that the methodology would work without improvement. In
particular, they felt that the economic chain reaction should give more emphasis to impacts on
consumers. A few respondents from all the responding groups stated that subsidiarity was
more important than proportionality and finally a few respondents suggested that the
economic chain reaction was far too complex to evaluate and should therefore be dropped.

On the Expert Group the vast majority of respondents from all five interest groups welcomed
this proposal. However, most called for the Expert Group not to add to add further delays
either to the processing of infringement cases or to the launching of required harmonisation
initiatives. Various suggestions were made as to how the Expert Group should be composed
and operate ranging from the use of opinions from accompanying industry or consumer
groups which would bring together national associations representing interested parties to its
dependence on public hearings. Consumer associations opposed the continual presence of
self-regulatory bodies and felt that this should be balanced with a representation of
themselves. Many respondents from the five consulted groups called for the Expert Group to
draw conclusions on a specific point within a fixed time frame and requested that these
conclusions be made public. There was broad support for the contact point and information
network.

Given the very large number of respondents and their different concerns it is not possible to
summarise the priority areas that were mentioned by them all. However, it is important to
note that all the problems raised _In_ the Green paper were referred to across the responses that
were received.

Finally, a number of consumer associations and public health bodies called for easier access
to national and Community regulations in this field for their members. They also called on the

Commission to enforce its efforts on effective enforcement, particularly in cross-border
cases. They felt that the Commission should examine and develop new systems for crossborder dispute settlement systems given the increase in cross-border commercial
communications that was expected. Industry was critical of the existing infringements'
procedure and called for improvements. In particular, it was felt that this should be made
more transparent and timely. Some respondents called for the Commission to commit itself to
strict processing time limits and to decisions that should be subject to appeal by all interested
parties concerned.

**S E C T I O N** **H .** **T H E** **C O M M I S S I O N ' S** **RESPONSE-**

**/.** _**Objective.**_

_The approach seeks to facilitate the cross-border provision of commercial communication_
_services within the Internal Market through the establishment of an efficient and_ _transparent_
_framework. This will promote the growth of the European commercial communications'_
_sector and allow for the development_ _of_ _efficient cross-border marketing strategies by_
_European industry._

This approach will at the same time ensure the efficient protection of public interest
objectives. The Commission considers consumer protection and the protection of other public
interest objectives as being essential for the development of the European Community and the
proposed approach in the field of Commercial Communications intends to meet these
objectives. The Commission considers that an efficient protection of such public interest
objectives across the entire Community also ensures the efficient functioning of the Internal
Market. There is therefore a balance to be found between the objective of promoting the
growth of cross-border commercial communication services and that of ensuring consumer
protection.

_2._ _Scope._

_The_ _C 'ommission_ _approach will he applicable to all forms of communication seeking to_
_promote either products, services or the image of_ _a_ _company or organisation to final_
_consumers and/or distributors. This includes all forms of advertising, direct marketing,_
_sponsorship, sales_ _promotions,_ _public relations and those services_ _ttsed_ _in the design of_
_packaging excluding labelling._

The 'Commission has extended the scope of the definition proposed in the Green paper to
include _on-pack communications_ which are not covered by labelling regulations following, in
particular, comments from consumer bodies and advertisers.

These services fall within the scope of Articles 59 and 60 such as interpreted by the
jurisprudence of the Court. Indeed, such services are remunerated and can be, or are,
provided on a cross-border basis. The fact that these services (be they to an individual or
other business) are not paid for by the final consumer cannot be invoked to contest the service
nature of these activities.

In certain circumstances commercial communication activities could, according to the case
Law of the European Court of Justice benefit from the application of Article 30 of the EC
Treaty relating to the free movement of goods. The Court's recognition of the indirect
economic link between commercial communication services and the sale of goods is clearly
explained in a number of cases that were referred to in the Green paper.

.?. _Actions._

1) Applying a traii^purenlt assessment methodology.

The Commission's services will, in future decisions taken in this field, apply, where
appropriate, the following assessment methodology which builds on that described in the
Green paper (see Annex 1) but adds two further criteria in recognition of cultural and social
differences in the Member States and the need to ensure coherence across public interest
objectives. The methodology consists of two steps.

First step: (Analytical overview).The objective of the first step is not to undertake the
proportionality test as such but to set out a complete "picture" of the impacts of the measure.
The aim is not to identify restrictions but to provide a factual overview of all possible effects
of a measure in particular on activities that the measure is meant to regulate and also on the
public interest objectives such as consumer protection and public health. The first step
characterises either (i) the relevant national measure restricting the free movement of
commercial communication services or (ii) the harmonisation measure proposed by the
Commission.

Seven criteria arc proposed for this characterisation; (i) What is the potential economic chain
reaction and the resulting impact on consumers caused by the measure? (ii) What are the
public interest objectives motivating the measure?; (iii) Is the measure linked to the invoked
public interest objective?; (iv) Does the measure affect other public interest objectives? (v)
How efficient is the measure in achieving the invoked public interest objective? (vi) Does the
measure reflect cultural or social specificity? (vii> Is the measure coherent across all relevant
public interest objectives and notably those of consumer protection and public health?

Second step: (Legal assessment).On the basis of this overview and the factual information
that it provides, the second step consists of an overall legal assessment of whether, for a
national measure, it could be considered to be proportional or, in the case of Community
measure, it would be proportional and also coherent with other Community measures. By
knowing the key characteristics of the measure, the above mentioned seven criteria will help
the relevant authority to be in a better position to assess its proportionality and coherence.

The methodology will thus take particular account of the impact of commercial
communications on the public interest objectives of the protection of consumers and public
health. This methodology is not an automatic test for assessing proportionality which is left to
the decision of the relevant authority. Nor is it a cost-benefit or a mathematical analysis
seeking to quantify the value of public interest objectives. It is only a means of ensuring that
such evaluations are based on a complete overview of the effects of the measure concerned.
In this respect this methodology does not substitute the criteria developed by the Court but
rather assists in their application. Even if the application of this methodology is not rendered
mandatory, as was explicitly requested by the parliament, the Commission's services will,
where appropriate, apply it when:

 - (i) considering infringement cases in the field of commercial communication services
raising the issue of proportionality.

 - (ii) providing analysis and discussing issues within the Commercial Communications Expert
Group (see below). The Commission plans that discussions on the regulatory problems for
cross-border commercial communications brought to the attention of the Expert Group will
be oriented on the basis of this methods, ;ogy.

The Commission's services will, where appropriate, apply the assessment methodology
when designing the Commission's own initiatives which are directly linked to the provision

of commercial communication services. This will further help to ensure the transparency and
coherence of such proposals across the Community's policy competencies.

The assessment methodology will provide the following benefits;

(i) Facilitate the required application of the Treaty.

As the guardian of the Treaty, the Commission, taking account of all the objectives of the
Treaty, should assess the compatibility with the principle of free movement of services of
restrictions arising from the application of differing national regulations to cross-border
commercial communication services. As demonstrated in the Green paper, many of these
cases give rise to problems of proportionality of the relevant measures and, in any case, the
Commission has to assess proportionality in conformity with the jurisprudence of the Court.
The Commission is obliged to undertake this task to ensure that it is not possible to remove
barriers that have been identified by application of the Treaty. This has to be assessed before
proceeding with Internal Market harmonisation. It is worth noting that in the opposite case
where measures are considered as being disproportionate this does not mean that Member
States cannot take measures to protect the public interest objectives concerned. They would
rather be required to adopt other measures which meet these objectives in a more
proportionate way.

(ii) Achieve greater transparency and legal security.

Some legal uncertainty in the field of commercial communications could follow from the lack
of transparency and differing interpretations of the principle of proportionality in Article 3B
of the Treaty and in the jurisprudence of the Court on the principles of free movement. In
presenting how it intends to proceed when assessing the proportionality of national
restrictions or Community initiatives in the field of commercial communications, the
Commission seeks to achieve greater transparency and legal security vis à vis the European
Institutions, Member States and interested parties. This legal security is crucial for
entrepreneurs considering investing in Europe in electronic commerce.

(iii) Improve the protection of public interest objectives.

It is important that in line with existing Community directives or proposals for such
directives, the Community and Member States should efficiently protect public interest
objectives such as the protection of consumers and public health. However, it is also
important to avoid these objectives being unjustifiably invoked so as to protect their own
national market and thus fragment the Internal Market. The only way to achieve these
requirements within the area without frontiers is to promote an approach which focuses on the
quality and the substance of the protection aimed for by the measure. The recognised
intention to protect should be apparent from an assessment of the concrete content of the
measure. Furthermore, a more systematic analysis of the effects of measures would help
detect where existing measures are not sufficient for protecting the public interest objectives
and, therefore, where supplementary measures are necessary. In this respect it is worth noting
that through assessing the reactions in the market, the methodology identifies the overall
impact on consumer protection or other public interest objectives such as public health.

In this context the application of a transparent assessment methodology would have positive
impacts on consumer protection and the protection of public health since:

    - It would, in particular, help identify national legislation in terms of consumer
protection or other public interest objectives which offers best practice in the Community.
Given that any citizen could expect to benefit from a high level of protection, such a common
methodology will facilitate the assessment of the differing levels of consumer protection.

     - It will contribute to the design of efficient initiatives in this field. For example,
through the economic chain reaction assessment one can evaluate how market players react to

the specific regulation in order to see whether the final outcome is positive or, indeed,
counterproductive for the consumer.

      - It will facilitate the explanation to interested parties of Community initiatives
seeking to promote public interest objectives which affect commercial communications.

     - It will incite an improvement in information gathering relating to, for example,
research and factual evidence on the risks to and the behaviour of consumers.

(iv) Facilitate assessment.

The assessment methodology is not difficult to apply since it relies on the analysis of concrete
and real situations. In particular, the economic chain reaction analysis of the market that
drives these services is based on factual information which can easily be made available.

(v) Allow the use of a tool that is both efficient and flexible.

The Commission will apply the transparent proportionality assessment methodology where
appropriate. It recommends that national authorities should also apply such a methodology.
However the Commission considers, at this stage, that it is not necessary to propose a binding
instrument. The Commission will monitor the efficiency of this approach and according to its
result could make additional proposals in the future.

This tool can also be applied by and to self-regulatory bodies which are present in certain
Member States in this field. The Commission recognises the efforts that the national selfregulatory bodies have made in establishing a cross-border complaint system that works on
the basis of the country of origin control principle in the European Advertising Standards
Alliance (EASA). The Commission believes that self-regulation is only effective when its
codes are adhered to in a comprehensive fashion by all parties, its sanctions are effective and,
at the European level, it works on the basis of mutual recognition. The Commission identifies
the lack of mutual recognition in certain self-regulatory regimes as a clear indicator that the
proportionality assessment methodology should be applied to codes and that certain national
systems are still requiring development. In any event, the codes should be compatible with
the Treaty in order to avoid the introduction of Internal Market barriers through selfregulation.

**2)** Setting **up a** **Commercial Communication Expert Group.**

The Commission will establish a Commercial Communications Expert Group. It will have
four functions:

     - Facilitate the exchange of views between the Commission and the Member States.

    - Help the Commission to identify solutions to problems in the field of cross-border
commercial communication services which will either: (i) allow for the application of mutual
recognition or (ii) identify precise harmonisation needs.

    - Provide data and facilitate information exchange on national measures in the field of
cross-border commercial communication services in order to assist the Commission to: (i)
establish and run a database; (ii) collect information on its specific request; (iii) collect
information on the Member States' regulatory problems with services emanating from third
countries.

- Provide information for the work of committees established by secondary Community law
in the field of cross-border commercial communication services. The Expert Group will be
chaired by an official of the Commission. Its members will consist of two representatives
appointed by each Member State. The Commission will invite groups, where they exist,
made up of national representatives of interested parties (from all areas including consumer
associations) to present their positions on the issues being considered. The Expert Group will

10

meet on a regular basis. The Commission will decide on its agenda in view of the information
it receives from the information network (see below) and the problems raised by the Member
States themselves. Furthermore:

- The agenda of Expert Group meetings will be made public via the information network
where appropriate.

- The Expert Group should seek to reach an opinion on a specific point within six months.

- Its opinion, where appropriate, will be made public by the Commission's central contact
point (see below) to interested parties.

- The work _oi'_ the Expert Group will be without prejudice to the Commission's power of
initiative and its discretion to propose legislation or to begin infringement proceedings
accorded by Article 169 of the Treaty. Furthermore, complaints made to the Commission
under Article 169 will not be forwarded to the Expert Group.

- The work of the Expert Group will obviously not cover national measures which transpose
existing directives nor will it overlap with work of committees established under such
directives (e.g. the contact committee of the TVWF directive (Directive 89/552 EEC as
amended by Directive 97/36 EC)).

- The Commission will keep the Parliament informed of the work and conclusions of the
Expert Group.

The Expert Group represents a new tool for implementing Commission policy in this field
and will offer the following advantages:

(i) Increased problem resolution efficiency.

The Expert Group would improve the possibility of solving problems concerning crossborder commercial communication services by:

- Providing an easily accessible forum for the Commission and Member States to hold
constructive discussions.

- Facilitating the awareness of national authorities to potential problems of a Community
dimension.

- Facilitating informal information flows between national authorities and the Commission.

- Allowing the Commission services to have greater information for assessing the possibilities
for applying mutual recognition or, where this proves not to be possible, for preparing
targeted harmonisation initiatives.

The work of the Expert Group will not overlap with the Commission's power in the field of
Article 169 infringements. The Commission's powers will be fully maintained to initiate an
infringement procedure or to decide whether or not to proceed with a complaint.

(ii) Increased transparency of the policy-making process.

The Expert Group will clearly reinforce transparency through:

- The publication of its agendas and opinions.

- Allowing interested parties to participate in the policy process.

11

 - Ensuring that the Parliament is kept fully informed and aware of policy developments.

In conformity with the Parliament's resolution it will be kept closely informed of the work of
the Expert Group. By keeping the Parliament informed directly it will be possible to involve
the Parliament in this approach. The latter will therefore be able to plan and inform its debates
on future proposals in a more efficient manner

 - Keeping interested parties involved in the policy debate.

Interested parties, in particular consumer associations, will benefit from the Expert Group
because:

     - They will have far easier access to information in this field.

     - They can submit written representations.

    - They will be incited to co-ordinate, where possible, their opinions at Community
level.

- Avoiding polarisation of the policy debate.

Polarisation of policy debates will be avoided by allowing a wide variety of interested parties
to have access to the Expert Group's findings.

**3) Making available a Commercial** **Communications'** **contact point and information**
**network.**

The Commission will establish a central contact point in the Directorate General for the
Internal Market and Financial services which will work closely with the other relevant
Directorates General. Its role will be:

- To respond to request for information regarding the Commission's policy in this field.

- To collect information especially about problems regarding the efficient operation of the
Internal Market in this domain. Obviously, formal complaints (Article 169 proceedings) will
be sent to the Secretariat General of the Commission for registration. Complaints with respect
to existing directives will be passed to those services of the Commission responsible for their
transposition and management.

- To maintain communications between the Commission, the Parliament and the Member

States.

Other Commission services will be closely associated with and be kept fully involved by the
central contact point to ensure a better flow of information.

As a complement to the existing _Commercial Communications_ newsletter, the Commission
will establish a Web site. It will:

- Make available information on the Expert Group's work (work programme, opinions,
follow-up etc.)

- Give access to the database on European commercial communication regulations (see
below).

These actions will bring a number of advantages:

- Interested parties will benefit from the Web site since they will have the possibility of letting
their views be known directly to the Commission and the Member States.

- Unlike the organisation of formal public hearings which restrict participation in debates to a
select number of participants, the network will allow for a far larger number of interested
parties to be reached and likewise allow them to provide comprehensive information to the
policy process.

12

- I he Web site and network will allow the Commission to disseminate policy information **to a**
very large number of interested parties;

- The contact point will facilitate information collection as well as assist co-ordination of
policy in this field.

**4)** **Establishing** **a Commercial Communications Database.**

The Commission will establish a database on national and Community regulations and selfregulatory codes in this field.

This initiative responds to the call for easier access to national and European regulations. The
Commission believes that this database should be constructed on the basis of information

exchanged between the Commission, national authorities and self-regulatory bodies. The
database will be accessible via the Commercial Communications Web site. This would ensure

that interested parties receive the most up to date regulatory information available from those
competent for applying the relevant rules.

**5) Accelerating complaint resolution.**

In line with its general policy which seeks to improve its handling of infringements, the
Commission will also seek to accelerate complaint resolution in this field.

The Commission considers that the contact point, the information network and the
proportionality assessment methodology should result in faster processing of complaints and
thus greatly help the sector and its users as well as the consumers who are the receivers of
such services. Indeed, all these measures will increase the transparency of the proceedings
and therefore the plaintiffs, the responding national regulatory authorities and the
Commission services involved will all be able to work in a more efficient and rapid manner.
This is, of course, without prejudice to the confidentiality of procedures between the
Commission and the relevant Member State concerning possible solutions to an infringement
proceeding. The analysis of measures requires as much precise and factual information as
possible and this should be more forthcoming under this approach.

6) **Setting up an** Expert **network.**

'Hie Commission will encourage the establishment of a network of independent experts
interested in the various aspects of the commercial communication field in order to assist its
work and that of the Expert Group. The network of academic experts will give views at the
Commission services' request.

In view of the need to assess proportionality vis à vis the relevant public interest objectives, it
could be necessary on a case by case basis to benefit from the assistance of recognised
experts which represent all the differing interests concerned. In order not to limit the number
of experts, the Commission will use the new possibilities offered by the internet as a basis for
organising the work and communication within this network.

7) Promoting **International** co-operation.

The Commission will ensure that EU policy in this field will be promoted in internationalfora
and, in order to facilitate cross-border commercial communication services at the global level,
will promote the principles of this approach in international discussions.

The principles of this approach, in particular the objective of further improving the analysis
of proportionality and coherence of regulation in this field, have already been welcomed by
our major trading partners as well as many operators. Given that the advent of the
Information Society leads to the globalisation of commercial communication services, cross

13

border problems with such services from third countries are likely to increase. Therefore,
there is a need to find international solutions to achieve more efficient protection of public
interest objectives in an increasingly cross-border trading environment. The Internal Market
regulatory framework represents a good starting point for reaching such solutions and
therefore the Community should be involved in international discussions on these issues.

**8)** **(iarilying electronic commerce** **issues.**

The Commission is examining the specific legal issues relating to the use of cross-border
commercial communication services in the Information Society and will propose possible
clarification in the context of a proposal relating to electronic commerce and associated
Information Society services.

Revenues generated from commercial communication services represent one of the major
sources of funding for Information Society services. This form of funding needs to be
promoted in order to ensure that the distribution of high quality information will increase and
remain accessible free of charge. There are already indications that cross-border commercial
communication services on the internet are subject to legal insecurity and barriers. Examples
include whether or not Web sites are to be considered as advertising or points of sale,
transparency provisions for sponsorship which vary between Member States and differing
national restrictions on advertising for the liberal professions that could undermine the
development of their on-line information services. Other complex issues such as those
relating to intellectual property rights and branded domain names also need to be addressed.
Moreover, as regards new national proposals for regulations pertaining to on-line commercial
communication services, the compatibility of these with the Treaty will be evaluated via the
application of the currently proposed third amendment of Directive 83/189/EEC concerning
regulatory transparency in the internal market for information society services. A common
position was reached on this proposal in the Council on 26 January 1998.

9) **Keeping the Parliament informed.**

The Commission will inform the Parliament on the application of this approach including an
evaluation of the work carried out and update the work programme.

In its resolution, the Parliament explicitly asked to be kept informed by calling on the
Commission to ensure that the Expert Group would work in a transparent manner and would
have its results reported to the European Parliament. The Parliament sought, through this
proposal, to express its willingness for this approach to lead to rapid results and, where
necessary, to propose to adapt the approach in the light of this monitoring. Given the
significant number of important public interest objectives (e.g. consumer protection and the
protection of public health) pursued in this field, it is crucial to keep the Parliament actively
involved in the development of this approach.

_4. Priority areas for the Expert Group_ \v _consideration._

According to information and responses received during the consultation on the Green Paper,
and, in order to ensure rapid and efficient results of its policy, the Commission will prioritise
its work. During the two years following the adoption of this Communication, the
Commission will call on the Expert Group to examine problems arising from cross-border
commercial communications and the objectives, levels and means of protection ofpublic
interest objectives of differing national regulations pertaining to them in the following areas:

**1) The protection of minors.**

In the field of television advertising the Commission has already undertaken minimal
harmonisation regarding advertising to minors (Directive 89/552 EEC as amended by
Directive 97/36/EC). However, further problems have been raised in the context of minors'

14

advertising. The _European Parliament_ in its resolution has requested for a more detailed

assessment of the effects of commercial communications on children. This issue has also

been raised in a number of positions on the Green paper.

_Consumer associations_ and public health bodies have called for harmonisation of regulations
and in some areas for strengthening of protection concerning commercial communications

aimed at minors.

_Operators_ complained about certain national restrictions causing barriers to cross-border
services that were invoking the protection of minors.

The key problem areas that were highlighted and that will need to be addressed are:

- Differing national regulations on sponsorship for educational programmes,

- Differing national regulations on direct marketing targeted at minors,

- Differing national regulations on television advertising aimed at minors (toys, snack foods,
confectionery) in so far as these are not already covered by Directive 89/552 EEC as
amended by Directive 97/36/EC or by work of its contact committee.

- Differing national regulations on the sponsorship of sports events by brands that are
associated with products aimed at children or that can have harmful effects on public health.

2) Unfair competition laws and associated matters.

This issue was raised by the _European Parliament_ who called for a framework of rules on
dishonest marketing methods.

Certain _consumer_ _associations_ also felt that harmonisation of laws preventing unfair
marketing practices was necessary. This is a particularly important point in view of the
development of electronic commerce. Consumer associations also wished to ensure that
fraudulent schemes and pyramid selling techniques are outlawed across the Community.

_Operators_ pointed to the significant variations in national regulations concerning discounts,
gifts and competitions, which effectively impeded the development of cross-border
promotional campaigns. They also noted that multi-level marketing techniques (i.e.
promotion and selling of products through networks of independent (non-salaried)
distributors) could develop as a consequence of the possibility of networking independent
agents globally.

More specifically, the following problem areas will be addressed:

- Differing national regulations on discounts

- Differing national regulations on couponing

- Differing national regulations on free offers and gifts

- Differing national regulations on prize competitions, commercial lotteries and sweepstakes.

- Differing national regulations on multi-level marketing and pyramid selling.

3) Sponsorship.

Whilst recognising that certain aspects of TV sponsorship had already been subject to
harmonisation by Directive 89/552 EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC the _European_
_Parliament_ called for the different national regulations relating to sponsorship which are not
harmonised by this directive and patronage to be examined.

A _number of interested parties_ noted the differences in definitions of sponsorship or even
their absence (whereby sponsorship is treated as identical to advertising) for regulatory
purposes across the Member States. They complained of the legal uncertainty that arose as a

**15**

consequence. Likewise, certain parties also noted that TV sponsorship regulations vary
significantly between countries.

The following problems will be addressed:

Differing national regulations on sponsorship services related to particular products.

Differing definitions in national regulations of sponsorship and patronage which restrict the
development of cross-border services in this area.

Differing national regulations on TV sponsorship insofar as they concern aspects which are
not covered by Directive 89/552 EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC or the work of its
contact committee.

**4) Claims and misleading advertising.**

The Green paper noted that Directive 84/450 EEC has already harmonised misleading
advertising and more recently comparative advertising. Flowever, additional calls for action
were made in this field as regarded claims.

( _'onsumer_ _associations_ _and_ _public health bodies_ wished to see stricter harmonised rules at the
European level controlling the use of certain health and nutritional claims. Consumer
organisations noted that differences remain in the interpretation of what is misleading
advertising between the Member States. They pointed out that this leads to great difficulties
in the processing of cross-border complaints.

_Operators_ criticised differing national restrictions on requirements of packaging which went
beyond the prescribed requirements of labelling legislation. These not only covered "product
information" (i.e. claims) but also use of brand names (certain Member States have
restrictions on brand diversification for brands associated with particular product categories),
and the use of licensed graphics.

The following problems will be addressed:

- Specific areas where differing national regulations are giving rise to divergent
interpretations of "misleading". This is giving rise to evident legal uncertainty for crossborder commercial communication services and their recipients.

- Differing national regulations on product or service "claims" that have not been covered by
legislation on labelling requirements.

- Differing national regulations on brand diversification relating to particular products or
services.

**5) Redress systems.**

The Commission has already proposed to improve access to justice with its modified proposal
for a directive on injunctions for consumers interests (Council Common position CE n°
48/97).

Whilst welcoming this action, _consumer_ _associations_ called for improvements in both judicial
and extra-judicial cross-border redress systems against misleading and fraudulent commercial
communication services.

The following issue will be addressed:

- The Expert Group will examine how existing redress and dispute settlement systems
(including those operated by self-regulatory bodies) can be improved in a cross-border
environment.

**6) Application of the proportionality assessment methodology at national level.**

Some _national authorities_ have indicated to the Commission their support for the application
of the assessment methodology. The Commission would recommend its assessment
methodology to be applied at national level by relevant national authorities.

In this context the members of the Expert Group will be invited to indicate:

- how they apply the principle of proportionality (organisational aspects),

- to what extent they are applying the Commission's methodology and, if not,

- whether they would be prepared to adopt this methodology.

17

Annex î. A summary of the proposals made **in the** Green **paper on Commercial**

**Communications in** **the** **Internal Market.**

**1.** **Definitions and scope.**

The Green Paper defined commercial communications as: _"All forms of communication_
_seeking to promote either products, services or the image of a company or organisation to_
_final consumers and/or distributors.''''_ This covers all forms of advertising, direct marketing,
sponsorship, sales promotions and public relations. It encompasses the use of such services
by all goods and service industries as well as public and semi-public bodies.

**2.** **The proposed** assessment methodology.

The Green paper explained the implications, in terms of Community action, that could follow
the expected increase in cross-border commercial communication services. It was likely that
restrictions to cross-border services would appear as well as problems for the efficient
protection of public interest objectives as a consequence of Member States applying their
differing laws' provisions to incoming services. This problem is particularly relevant to
commercial communications given the disparity of public interest objectives pursued by
Member States regulations.

This view resulted from the analysis of existing laws in the Green paper. This not only
highlighted that national rules differed significantly across Community borders but also that
the compatibility of any resulting cross-border restrictions with EC law would depend, for the
most part, on whether or not they met the principle of proportionality i.e. if the measure is
proportional to the pursued public interest objective. Applicable national legislation on
commercial communications pursues important public interest objectives such as the
protection of consumers, the protection of minors, the protection of public health, the
protection of pluralism etc. For Community measures in this field, the Green paper examined
how a measure pursuing one public interest objective might impact on a number of other
public interest objectives and therefore how there was a need to ensure coherence of the
Community framework. A careful assessment of proportionality was therefore considered to

be essential in this field.

The methodology is not an automatic test for assessing proportionality which is left to the
decision of the relevant authority. Nor is it a cost-benefit or a mathematical analysis seeking
to quantify the value of public interest objectives. It is only a means of ensuring that such
evaluations are based on a complete overview of the effects of the measure concerned. In this
respect this methodology does not substitute the criteria developed by the Court but rather
assists in their application.

As specified in the Green paper, according to the case law of the Court, the assessment of
proportionality requires: first the verification of the appropriateness of the national restrictive
measure'vis à vis the pursued objective i.e. _it must be such as to guarantee the achievement of_
_the intended aim;_ and secondly, testing that the national restrictive measure _does not go_
_beyond that which is necessary in order to achieve that objective_ or in other words that _the_
_same result cannot be obtained by less restrictive rules._

Since the jurisprudence of the Court has not, as yet, provided precisely defined elements that
would allow for the assessment of the proportionality of national or Community measures,
the Commission proposed a methodology in the Greer, paper which would help, where
necessary, to further improve a systematic and well informed analysis. The Commission
suggested that this methodology would help appreciate the proportionality and coherence of
national or Community measures in this field.

_**If**_

The methodology drew on the jurisprudence of the Court and an analysis of the Community
market for commercial communication services in particular, in terms of how these services
impact on public interest objectives, such as the protection of consumers and public health.

It consisted of a two step procedure:

First step: (Analytical overview).

The objective of the first step was not to undertake the proportionality test as such but to set
out a complete "picture" of the impacts of the measure. The aim was not to identify
restrictions but to provide a factual overview of all possible effects of a measure in particular
on activities that the measure is meant to regulate and on the public interest objectives also.
The first step was to characterise either (i) the relevant national measure restricting the free
movement of services or (ii) the harmonisation measure proposed by the Commission. Five
criteria were proposed for this characterisation; _Assessment_ _criterion A._ What is the potential
economic chain reaction caused by the measure? This consisted of assessing how the business
strategies of the economic players involved would alter in response to the measure being
examined or proposed in order to assess the overall impact of that measure or proposal on the
consumers that it seeks to protect; _Assessment criterion_ _B:_ What are the public interest
objectives motivating the measure?; _Assessment criterion_ _C:_ Is the measure linked to the
invoked public interest objective?; _Assessment criterion D:_ Does the measure affect other
public interest objectives? And _Assessment criterion E:_ How efficient is the measure in
achieving the invoked public interest objective?

Second step: (Legal assessment).

On the basis of this overview and the factual information that it provides, the second step
would consists of an overall legal assessment of whether, for a national measure, it could be
considered to be proportional or, in the case of Community measure, it would be proportional
as possible taking into account the overall objectives of the Treaty and also coherent with
other Community measures. By knowing the key characteristics of the measure, the above
mentioned _l~i\c_ criteria will help the relevant authority to be in a better position to assess its
proportionality and coherence.

**3.** **Improved co-ordination and information at the European level.**

The Commission proposed in the Green paper to establish _a Expert Group_ to consider
commercial communications' issues. This Expert Group's discussions would be based on the
assessment methodology. It would seek to establish a constructive dialogue between the
Commission, Member States and interested parties. It would allow for agreement on
application of mutual recognition by permitting the Commission and Member States to reach
consensual solutions and thus avoid excessive reliance on the conflictive infringements'
procedure. Where mutual recognition would prove not to be possible, it would represent a
new, rapid and precise manner to detect specific problems requiring harmonisation. It would
therefore avoid broad, all-embracing harmonisation initiatives.

The Expert Group was also to act as a forum for administrative co-operation, in particular, to
allow for an exchange of information on new Information Society developments in this field.
It was proposed that it would therefore consider how the Community approach to commercial
communications could be promoted at the international level which is essential given the
global nature of the Information Society.

As regards the format of the Expert Group, the Commission proposed that it should be an
Expert Group which would be called when problems arose. The problems to be discussed
would be tabled by the Commission. The Expert Group would be composed of
representatives of the Member States. These could be accompanied by national selfregulators when the issue discussed entered their fields of competence.

_**tf**_

For the Commission's work to be well targeted and informed, and in order to ensure that the
Expert Group focussed its attention on key issues affecting "receivers", "suppliers", "users"
and "carriers" _aï_ commercial communications, the Commission made two proposals to
improve information provision and communication with interested parties. Hie first was a
central information _contact_ _point_ which could both give and collate information on regulatory
issues affecting these services. The second was an on-line _information network_ that would
enable interested parties to have direct access to the Commission's and Expert Group's work
and would complement the existing, commercial communications newsletter [1] .

**4.** **Areas of commercial communications regulations requiring priority attention.**

Parts I, **II** and **III** of the Green paper called on respondents to comment on the Community's
objectives in this field and also to comment on the problem areas that the Commission had
identified thanks to the survey exercise that it had conducted prior to the drafting of the text.

1 _Commercial Communications_ is a bi-monthly publication circulated to 5,000 interested parties in this
field including members of the European Parliament and national administrations. Enquiries on this
newsletter should be made to the Editor (Fax(00 44) 1 [273 772727 and e-mail:asi@dial.pipex.com).](mailto:asi@dial.pipex.com)

**^o**

**Annex 2. Summary of responses to the Green paper on Commercial Communications in**

**the Internal Market.**

**1.** **Definitions and scope.**

_European_ _Parliament._

In its resolution the Parliament called for the scope of commercial communications to be
delimited in terms of the service providers covered. It also suggests that this scope should be
extended to cover packaging by calling on the Commission to study the obstacles of using
commercial communications on packaging [1] .

_Economic and Social Committee._

The Committee did not contest the scope of the Green Paper but insisted that commercial
communication services used or supplied by charities and non profit organisations should be
included in the scope of the definition given the important role that these services have for the
operations of these organisations.

_Member States._

No Member State contested the definition of commercial communications set out in the

Green paper.

_Interested parties_ _[1]_ _._

Certain users of commercial communications (e.g. advertisers) and consumer associations
criticised the definition for not including on-pack commercial communications which were
closely associated with the other communication services listed in the definition. It was noted
that on-pack commercial communications were directly associated to branding strategies.
Consumer associations pointed out that claims and promotions made on pack attract
consumers' awareness and therefore should be regulated accordingly.

In addition a few consumer associations contested the entire policy by constructing two lines
of reasoning. First, they claimed that since consumers did not demand commercial
communication services they could not be considered as services under the provisions of the
Treaty. Secondly, they claimed that the recent jurisprudence of the Court suggested that
restrictions on "sales methods" could not be analysed under the EC Treaty's provisions on
free movement unless their application was discriminatory

**2.** **The assessment methodology.**

_European Parliament._

The Parliament's resolution was clearly supportive of the proposed methodology. To quote
the resolution, the Parliament:

_"Supports the approach proposed in the Green paper of assessing whether_ _restrictive_
_measures are proportionate to their intended purpose, as this will make it possible to ensure_
_that the area without frontiers_ _operates effectively and provides better protection_ _for_

1 For example, promotions such as vouchers or competitions placed on the packaging of the product.
2 The five interest groups are "receivers" (i.e. all forms of consumer and public health associations),
"users" (e.g. advertisers), "suppliers" (e.g. advertising or direct marketing agencies), "carriers" (e.g.
media or sports events organisers) and "self-regulators" who were the five target groups of the initial
surveys run by the Commission prior to the preparation of the Green Paper.

_**d(**_

_objectives of public interest, such as consumer protection, public health protection, the_
_protection of intellectual and commercial property and the protection of privacy"_

The Parliament made a number of suggestions as to its implementation. More specifically, it:

 - _"Asks the Commission_ _to publish_ [in this Communication] _the definition_ _of the_
_proportionality_ _assessment methodology, which_ _.includes_ _strict time limits for decisions, is_
_based on existing jurisprudence_ _and explains how it is applicable to existing legislation at_
_national and Community level, self-regulatory codes and new legislative proposals"_

_-_
calls for the approach _"to be based on (a) the need to combine market opening objectives_
_with the maintenance and improvement of high standards; (b) the need for an appropriate_
_blend of legislation and self-regulation which reflects the cultural differences in the Member_

_States."_

_Economic and Social Committee._

The Committee commended the examination of potential economic chain reactions (Criterion
A) as an important part of the overview process proposed. It gave a favourable opinion on the
usefulness of the proposed methodology and the analysis on which it was based, as provided
in the Working document that was distributed with the Green Paper. [3 ]

More generally in its conclusions the Committee noted that:

_"..the_ _introduction of this type of methodology would offer the prospect of_ _a_ _comprehensible_
_and agreed assessment procedure which would reduce the ambiguity and/or_ _uncertainty_
_which prevails in its absence."_

Whilst noting that any reduction in consumer protection must be avoided as should the
provision of an unfair advantage to multi-national enterprises, the Committee considered that;

_"...the methodology may offer the prospect of combining enhanced consumer protection with_
_the opportunity for harmonisation of the practices used in commercial communications. As a_
_result, this should also help to create more open competition between enterprises creating_
_and supplying commercial_ _communications."_

_Member States._

Nine Member States made comments on this proposal. They can be broadly divided into two
camps. Those who supported it and one that was completely against the methodology in

substance.

Of the eight in support two gave their full backing to the methodology .To quote one:

_"The .. Government has no objections to the methodology proposed by the Commission for_ _a_
_uniform assessment of measures, including Community measures. The methodology gives_
_tangible expression, in the area of commercial communications, to the principles that also_
_underlie [its]_ _legislation."_

The third was supportive but felt that more consultation would be required to make it as
transparent and efficient as possible. The fourth suggested that it should be less focussed on
the Internal Market policy objective. The fifth and sixth thought that the methodology would
be useful but suggested that the economic chain reaction should include more detail on the
impact on consumers. The next felt that the methodology could not be legally binding since
only the Court's jurisprudence could be referred to, whereas the eighth believed that although

3 ".. _confirms, in analytical_ _form,_ _the experience of_ _members_ _of the Committee who have experience of_
_the_ _production and_ _marketing_ _of goods and_ _services_ _and_ _also_ _those_ _who_ _have examined_ _the_ _prospects_
_from_ _a consumer_ _viewpoint."_

**o»**

it did not object in principle, the infringements' system was sufficiently effective and the
( ouil's jurisprudence could he relied upon to deal with the highlighted problems.

Only one Member State was opposed to the proportionality assessment methodology in
principle. It believed the proposed methodology to be vague and unpractical to apply. [ 4 ]

Furthermore, it did not agree that country of origin control is required in this area.

_Interested parties._

Four types of views were received regarding the proposed proportionality assessment
methodology. These can be summarised as follows:

_The proportionality_ _assessment_ _methodology_ _needs to be strengthened_ _and_ _rendered_
_mandatory since in its application its results are neither politically nor legally binding._

Respondents across the spectrum of interested parlies who were generally positive about the
methodology wished to strengthen its application and legal standing. In particular, fouisuggestions were made:

- The _proportionality assessment methodology should be applied in_ _a_ _mandatory fashion_ to
all decisions made by the Commission in this field (i.e. when examining national restrictions
and when preparing harmonisation initiatives).

_Member States should be obliged to notify any new measures affecting these services and_
_these should be subjected to the proportionality_ _assessment methodology_ prior to being
adopted.

_Self-regulatory codes should be promoted by the Commission and also be subjected to the_
_proportionality_ _assessment_ _methodology_ .

- The _proportionality_ _assessment methodology should be applied efficiently_ so as not to add
further delays to the existing lengthy infringements' procedure. In particular, it was suggested
that the Commission should, in view of the adoption of this agreed methodology, make a
commitment to process 169 infringement complaints (under Article 169 of the Treaty) in a
more timely fashion.

_The assessment methodology is market driven and fails to account for the interests of the_
_receivers of commercial communication services._

This criticism was made by the vast majority of the responding consumer associations and
public health lobbies. In essence, these suggested that criterion A on economic chain
reactions is supply-led and therefore fails to account for the needs of receivers of commercial
communications in their various forms. It was further suggested that in proposing this
assessment the Commission intended to ignore the evidence showing how recipients can
suffer from certain forms or types of commercial communication services.

_The assessment methodology is not relevant since the emphasis should be on subsidiarity_
_rather than proportionality._

Proportionality of a restriction was not considered to be important by certain interested
parties. These suggested that, because commercial communications were culturally sensitive,
they could not be treated the same as other services but rather had to account for national
sensitivities as reflected in existing national rules. This view was received from certain
consumer interest groups., certain advertisers (largely nationally based ones) and self

4 It stated that:

" // _will not be possible to produce a summary of all the possible effects of a measure on the market. It_
_is doubtful whether the chain reaction analysis will be realistic, capable of being implemented, or of_
_any help._ _It_ _will be very difficult to identify and define the specific objective of_ _the_ _measure_ _. It_ _will also_
_be_ _difficult to identify and evaluate_ _the_ _negative side-effects of the measure."_

###### **_M_**

regulatory bodies. The suggestion made was that before considering proportionality, the
principle of subsidiarity should be used to, in a sense, "cut out" commercial communications
from the remit of the Commission's existing and future action. Depending on replies, the
scope of this exclusion varied. The most extreme being the total exclusion suggested by a few
consumer organisations. Areas such as the portrayal of women, the use of nudity in
advertising etc were often cited.

_The proportionality assessment methodology is impossible to apply and it would therefore be_
_far wiser for the Commission to propose general guidelines and harmonise on this basis._

A minority of respondents across all the interest groups suggested that the chain reaction was
far too complex to evaluate and apply and that it would be far simpler to lay down some
common guidelines*.

**3.** **Improved co-ordination and information at the European level.**

_Euro/wan Parliament_

The Parliament voted to support the Expert Group with a large majority and insisted that it
should be strengthened. It called for the establishment of a tripartite Committee made up of
equal numbers of representatives of the Member States, industry and consumer organisations,
and asked to be consulted on its rules of procedure.

The Parliament also called on the Commission to make its procedures fully transparent and

insisted that the Commission ensure that:

_"..the_ _Committee consults thoroughly with the complaining parties, meets regularly, operates_
_according to strict time limits, publishes its results, considers all complaints lodged with the_
_Commission and reports to the European Parliament."_

As regards the _contact point_ and _information_ _network,_ the Parliament requested that the
contact point should, as a priority, establish a central databank on regulations and selfregulatory codes in this area and report back to the Parliament on the latter.

_Economic and Social (_ _'ommitlee._

The Economic and Social Committee welcomed the Expert Group proposal. It also welcomed
the notion of bringing together, within a designated Directorate General, responsibility for
giving an overall lead for the Commission on Commercial Communications. It felt that such a
_central contact point_ should ensure: _"a_ _common and consistent approach to this complex_
_topic."_

It finally added that:

_"The Governments_ _of the Member States might also consider parallel arrangements for_
_subjects falling within national regulatory authorities."_

_Member States._

Nine Member States commented on the proposal to set up _a_ _Expert Group._ A majority of
Member States supported the idea of a Expert Group. Two agreed that it would be useful and
noted that it should not undermine the Commission's power of initiative nor prolong the time
taken by the Commission to deal with cases. One questioned whether the self-regulatory
bodies should be admitted to the Expert Group. A further two insisted that consumer
associations be more involved. Another noted its support and suggested that the Expert Group
should maintain a core membership at successive meetings to ensure consistency. Two

5 Typically, "users", "suppliers" and "carriers" who called for such an alternative wished to sec nonbinding European guidelines whereas consumer groups in particular felt that these guidelines should be
the basis of European harmonisation.

## **_n_**

Member States did not object in principle to the proposal but felt that care should **be taken**
such that it would not duplicate certain other committees work and that further evaluation of

how it would work would be useful.

One Member State was opposed on the grounds that the on-line information network and
contact point would be sufficient to exchange information between Member States.

As regards the central _contact point_ and _information_ _network,_ seven Member States
commented on this proposal and agreed with it in principle. Five gave their support. Two
other Member States agreed with this proposal but insisted that particular attention should be
given to ensure that consumer associations had adequate resources to play their part in such a

network.

_Interested_ _parties._

_Expert Group must meet strict deadlines and not serve as a manner to add further_
_administrative delay in processing_ _complaints._

Although the vast majority of parties from all five interest groups [6] welcomed the
establishment of the Expert Group and its role, there were concerns expressed that it should
not lead to a further administrative burden for the Commission when dealing with complaints
or calls for harmonisation. Interested parties wished to see the Expert Group working in
parallel to either the infringement procedure or the Commission's existing initiatives to
harmonise certain regulations regarding commercial communications.

_Expert Group must be far more open and transparent in its operation._

"Users", "suppliers" and "carriers" were generally open towards the composition of the
Expert Group although a number of their trade associations called for the right to be present
on the Expert Group or at least to make representations to it. Suggestions varied between full
participation, in which case the Expert Group would work in open and would hold public
hearings, or the composition of shadow committees for each of the five interested parties that
would select representatives who would present at selected Expert Group meetings the
written representation of their respective "constituencies".

Consumer associations did not agree that se If-regulatory bodies should be the only group
other than the Member States who could attend such meetings.

_Expert Group's agenda must be known and its results must be published._

Those in favour of the Expert Group, but concerned that it should operate in as transparent a
manner as possible, called for its agenda to be made public prior to it beginning discussions
on a specific issue. Furthermore, many respondents from the _(\\'c_ consulted groups called for
the Expert Group to draw conclusions on a specific point within a fixed time frame and
requested that these conclusions be published and made available to all interested parties.

4• Areas **of commercial communications regulations requiring priority** attention.

_European_ _Parliament._

The Parliament asked the Commission to list in this Communication a full inventory of
existing barriers to the free circulation of commercial communication services but then went
on to note that it believed the following areas were particularly in need of attention:

 - multi-level marketing restrictions, [7 ]

6 See footnote 2.

7 Multi-level marketing refers to door-step and in the home marketing systems whereby agents
working as freelance salespersons for a particular company market that company's products or services

_**ti**_

 - restrictions on brand diversification,

- restrictions on commercial communications on packaging, and

 - restrictions on both events and television sponsorship.

The Parliament called on the Commission to come forward with a more detailed assessment

of the effects of commercial communications on children as well as their impact on privacy
and the mechanisms through which consumer cross-border complaints should be addressed.

It also called on the Commission to propose a framework of rules on dishonest marketing

methods.

Finally, without making reference to which legislative texts should be reviewed, the
Parliament believed that the Commission should consider a SLIM [8] analysis of the sector.

_Economic and Social_ _I_ _'ommitfee._

The Committee did not comment on this point.

_Member States._

Seven of the Member States who responded to the consultation commented on this point. One
felt that differing national misleading advertising restrictions on _the regulated_ _professions_
should not be reviewed. Whilst noting that it has repealed its ban on price advertising and
discounts, it felt that harmonisation _of_ _''bait"_ _[9]_ _and unfair price undercutting_ is required. It
further called for a harmonised ban on _cold-calling_ without prior consent and similar
_restrictions for_ _e-mail_ _and internet communications. On children,_ it stressed that any future
action must distinguish between information and commercial communications. As for
_financial_ _services_ the lack of advertising harmonisation in this area was considered to

undermine consumer confidence in non-domestic firms.

'The second Member State pointed out that its laws _on sales periods_ could require
modification and that its regulations _on_ _free gifts, promotional offers_ and competitions are
some of the most restrictive in Europe and are being reviewed.

The third suggested that the Green paper should have given more emphasis to protecting and
developing consumer-related regulations. At the European level, in the area of _unfair_
_marketing practices,_ it suggested that the International Chamber of Commerce codes in the
field would serve as a good basis for harmonisation.

The fourth noted that its regulations on pharmaceuticals advertising are compatible with EC
law. It felt that problems remained in the field _of Internet_ _related_ _commercial_
_communications, environmental advertising_ and more generally _commercial_ _communications_
_and public health._

The fifth went through the list of areas highlighted in the Green paper and suggested that it
does not apply any incompatible restrictions to cross-border commercial communications. It
believed that no further harmonisation is required in any of these areas and that any
restrictions elsewhere should be remedied by the Member States themselves and not the
Community.

The sixth believed that there may be further grounds for harmonisation of consumer
protection laws through the application of Article 129a (3) and contested the need for any
lowering of national restrictions whatsoever on the grounds of Internal Market principles.

by advertising their presence at local level and seeking to arrange meetings with particular clients in
their homes or other pre-arranged locations.
8 SLIM stands for Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market
9 "Lockvogelwerbung".

##### **_X_**

The seventh Member State stressed that in the area of pharmaceuticals' advertising Directive
92/28/EEC should be transposed by all the Member States. It also raised the _issue_ _of alcohol_
_sponsorship_ arguing for self-regulatory codes. In the field of public relations services it
questioned restrictions caused _by insistence on detailed requirements for public_ _relations_
_companies_ tendering for public procurement contracts.

_Interested parties._

Given the very diverse range of interested parties that responded to the Green paper and the
fact that some were individuals and others representative bodies, it is not feasible for the
Commission to list priorities simply according to the quantity of references made to one or
other specific problem [10] . However, it should be noted that all the areas identified in the Green
Paper as requiring analysis were confirmed by a number or many respondents.

5. Other actions called lor during the consultation.

Summary of responses received.

_European_ _Parliament._

The Parliament criticised the long delays that the Commission takes in processing
infringement complaints and believed that Commission decisions on whether or not to
proceed with such complaints should be open to appeal, in order to render the Commission

more accountable. It therefore:

_"Asks for the introduction of_ _a_ _Council decision to enable possible infringement_ _proceedings_
_in the Court of First_ _Instance._ _[u]_ _"_

It believed that the Commission should, when restrictions are proportional and harmonisation
is required, study International Chamber of Commerce codes as a model for such
harmonisation particularly in the field of on-line commercial communications.

Finally, the Parliament called on national regulatory bodies to apply the country of origin
control principle and believed that the Commission, consumer organisations and industry
should consider strengthening self-regulatory cross border systems such as that operated by
the I-AS A [12] .

_Economic and Social Committee._

The Committee did not add to the proposals made in the Green paper.

_Member States._

One Member State believed that there should be a more detailed investigation of the need for
EU regulations for the purposes of consumer protection or for the general good.

Another insisted that the removal of trade barriers should be accompanied by the
establishment of a Community network for dispute settlement both through the courts and out
of court, combined with a coherent system for providing legal assistance to Community
citizens not resident in the Member State where the dispute arises.

A third criticised the existing infringement mechanism as being slow and ineffective and
called for improvements to the complaints procedure. It felt that the experience of self
regulators should be drawn on in this field particularly in view of the Information Society.

10 This would lead to a bias against consumer and public health bodies, who,de facto, are less
numerous than the various industry representations.

1 ! This is in line with Parliament's Resolution of 16/9/93 on the role of the Court of Justice in the

development of the European Community's constitutional system (OJ C 268, 4.10.93, pi 56)
I2 European Advertising Standards Alliance.

##### **a?**

_Interested parties._

Consumer organisations and public health bodies representing "receivers" felt that the
Commission should give far more emphasis to the problems caused by cross-border
commercial communications for consumers. In addition to the Commission making publicly
available easy access to all national laws and self-regulatory codes in this domain, they made
two other proposals. On the one hand they called for harmonisation to ensure that national
standards were not undermined and, on the other, they felt the Commission should focus its
efforts on effective enforcement, particularly in cross-border cases. They stressed that it
should be encouraged to establish systems for resolving cross-border disputes and exchange
of information about national regulations and their enforcement.

"Users", "suppliers" and "carriers" argued that the existing infringements procedure should
be improved so that they could become more transparent, timely (some calling for the
application of strict time limits for the processing of cases) and be altered such that
Commission positions to proceed or not with a complaint could be subject to appeal by all
interested parties concerned.

_&_

**Financial Memorandum**

**1.** **INTITULE DE** **L'ACTION**

**Communication on the follow-up to the Green paper** **on** **Commercial Communications**
**in the Internal Market**

**2.** **LIGNE BUDGETAIRE CONCERNEE**

**B5 - 3000 Strategic Programme for Internal Market**

**3.** **BASE LEGALE**

**Communication on the follow-up to the Green paper on Commercial Communications**
**in the Internal Market. (Articles 52-66 and 100a.)**

**4.** **DESCRIPTION DE** **L'ACTION:**

**The May 1996 Green paper on Commercial Communications in the Internal**
**Market recognised the importance of the sector in terms of employment and**
**growth potential and its key role in helping European businesses and** **non-**
**profit associations to** **market** **their goods and services throughout the Union.**
**However, the Green paper also identified a range of obstacles to cross-border**
**commercial communications which hamper the proper** **functioning** **of the**
**Internal Market.**

**The very high level of response confirmed this** **sector's** **importance. In**
**addition to the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and**
**ten Member States, 433 interested parties responded to the call** **for** **comment**
over the past 18 months. **The 433 interested parties can be broken down as**
follows: 127 suppliers of **commercial communications services (e.g.**
advertising agencies of **which** 30 were **European or national trade**
associations), 44 receiver associations (e.g. consumer associations or public
health bodies), 197 **users (e.g. advertisers, of which 70 trade associations)** 52
carriers (e.g. media **companies of which** **18** **trade associations) and** 13 national
and European self-regulatory **bodies. In** general, **there was strong support for**
the **Commission's proposals: indeed, suggestions were made both** to
strengthen and **add** to **them.**

The communication proposes that the Commission **adopt a range of** **actions** in
this sector with the objective of facilitating **the cross-border provision** of
commercial communication services through the **establishment of** **an** **efficient**
and transparent regulatory framework which will also ensure an appropriate
protection of public **interest** objectives **concerned. This approach** is fully
consistent with, and complementary to, the Single Market Action Plan's
Strategic target 1 of making rules more effective.

More specifically, the Commission proposes:

1) _The application of a transparent, proportionality assessment methodology_
_to identify regulatory restrictions to cross-border commercial communication_
_services._

_**&**_

**2)** _**Setting up**_ _**a**_ _**Commercial Communication Expert**_ _**Group.**_

**3)** _**Making available a Commercial**_ _**Communications'**_ _**contact point and**_
_**information**_ _**network**_

_**4)**_ _**Establishing**_ _**a**_ _**Commercial Communications**_ _**Database.**_

_**5)**_ _**Accelerating**_ _**complaint processing**_

_**6)**_ _**Setting up an Expert**_ _**network.**_

_**7)**_ _**Promoting**_ _**International**_ _**co-operation**_

_**8)**_ _**Clarifying electronic commerce**_ _**issues.**_

_**9)**_ _**Presenting**_ _**a report to**_ _**the Parliament**_

**The Commission** _**will apply**_ _**this approach to**_ _**four**_ _**key**_ _**areas**_ **where commercial**
communication regulations at the national level diverge significantly and
therefore potentially give rise to both Internal Market barriers and to a lack of
effective protection across borders within the Community. The four areas are
**(i) the** _**protection of minors,**_ **(ii)** _**unfair**_ _**competition,**_ **(iii)** _**sponsorship and**_ **(iv)**
_**misleading**_ _**claims.**_

**4.1 Objectif général de** **Taction**

_**The establishment**_ _**of an Information Network**_

The Information Network will help to improve co-ordination and information
at the European Level and will support the Commission in assisting the
Member States in making action in this field more transparent. It will also
improve the exchange of data between various organisations and the national
and European regulatory authorities. The financial implications consist of
bringing together the necessary regulatory data, ensuring its timely
dissemination and enabling Member States and other associated parties to
share this and other relevant policy information. This will complement the
existing commercial communications newsletter. Both of these actions have
received unanimous support by all respondents to the Green paper.

4.2 Période **couverte** par **l'action et modalités pour son renouvellement**

_**The Information**_ _**Network**_

The principal means by which the information will be stored, disseminated
and exchanged will be a Web-site. The initial development, testing and
running of this will be entrusted to an outside contractor. This would set down
the necessary channels between the Commission and Member States'
authorities, through which regulatory data would be exchanged.

(inKECU)

1999

135

2000

115

2001

115

Total

523,5

**!**

1 B5-3000

1998

158,5

**36**

**5. CLASSIFICATION DE LA DEPENSE**

**5.1** **Dépenses** **non obligatoires**

**5.2 Crédits non dissocies**

**6. TYPE DE LA DEPENSE**

**6.1 Type de la dépense**

_**The Information Network**_

**Expenses for outside contracts establishing the web-site: bringing together,**
**connecting and loading the regulatory data and developing the information**
**exchange channels and ensuring function of the network over a pilot period of**
**four years.**

**7. INCIDENCE FINANCIERE** **SUR** **LA PARTIE B**

**(inKECU)**
**B5-3000** **1998** **1999** **2000** **2001** **Total**

**Global contracts for establishment of network infrastructure**

Server:

- hardware, **30**

- software, **10**

- Internet access, **15** **30** 30 **30** **30**

- maintenance (hard and soft) **4** **4** **4** **4**
- infrastructure **6** **6** **6** **6** **6** **I**
Personnel*:
LSA, **12,5** **25** 25 **25** 87,5 ;
Web master **25** **50** 50 **50** 175

**-** **-**

Converting legislation:
(4 ECUs/page-20.000 pages) **60** **20** 80
Total **158,5** **135** **115** 115 523,5

**30**

**10**

**15**

**30**

**4**

**6**

30

**4**

**6**

**30**

**4**

**6** **I**

**30**

**4**

**6**

**6**

**12,5**
**25**

**25**

**50**

25

50

**-**

**25**

**50**

**-**

87,5 ;
175

**60**

**20**

ECUs/page-20.000 pages) **60** **20** 80

**158,5** **135** **115** 115 523,5

*) Six months during the first year.

**115**

115

**158,5**

**135**

**8. DISPOSITIONS ANTI-FRAUDE** **PREVUES**

The verification of expenditure comprises checking that **tasks have been correctly**
performed before payment, taking into account **contractual obligations and the**
principles of economy and sound financial management. Anti fraud provisions
(verification, presentation of reports etc.) will be included in **all** contracts concluded
between the Commission and the Contractors.

_**21**_

9. ELEMENTS D'ANALYSE COUT-EFFICACITE

9.1 Objectifs spécifiques quantiilables, population visée

_**The Information**_ _**Network**_

The specific objective is to facilitate trade in commercial communication
services within the Internal Market, in addition to helping the Member States
to ensure integration of the Internal Market. The action seeks to ensure that the
future European regulatory framework will help encourage investments in
these services, which will obviously assist the competitiveness of European
industry as well as incite employment creation within it.

The targeted sector is very wide. In addition to the commercial
communications sectors themselves who employ over 1 million people in the
Community, this approach should also benefit their users (i.e. all firms and
organisations who use such services) and also consumers who should receive
more information on the choice of products and services available to them in
the Internal Market. Finally, and certainly not least, an efficiently operating
commercial communications sector results in more expenditure in the media
and the new media. Hence the media and electronic commerce business would

also benefit from this action.

The Information Network also seeks to make the work of the accompanying
Expert Group as open and transparent as possible and to facilitate the
exchange of regulatory data.

9.2 Justification de Paction

_**The Information**_ _**Network**_

The Community has exclusive competence for the Internal Market objective
and the need is for a dialogue between the Member States based on an agreed
methodology chaired and structured by the Commission so as to help them
make the Internal Market work.

The type of intervention has been chosen because the alternative approach is
to be faced with a heavy wave of infringement complaints and calls for
harmonisation. This approach should help limit such future Commission
involvement and help the Member States to meet their tasks more effectively
with a net saving in Community resources.

The Information Network will build on the foundations already laid by the
existing Newsletter on Commercial Communications, launched prior to the
Communication, as a forum for discussion.

The Network will also meet the demand from consumer associations and
public health bodies to give easier access to national and Community
regulations in this field for their Members.

Derived or multiplicative benefits will flow from this action

### **_n_**

**9.3 Suivi et évaluation de** **Taction**

**Performance indicators will be eventual modifications of national measures**

**which will allow for the principle of mutual recognition to be applied between**
**Member States in this field of the regulation of commercial communication**
**services.**

**Bi-annual monitoring reports will be presented to the European Parliament**

**10.** **DEPENSES ADMINISTRATIVES (PARTIE A DE LA SECTION HI** _**DU**_
**BUDGET GENERAL)**

**Actual mobilization of the necessary administrative resources will depend on the**
**Commission's annual decision on the allocation of resources, taking into account the**
**number of staff and additional amounts authorized by the budget authority.**

**10.1 Incidence sur le nombre** **d'emplois**

**duree**

**Au**

**moins**

**Sans**

**dureede**

**Taction**

**dureede**

**Taction**

**Par** **utilisation**

**de ressources**

**existantesau**

**sein de** **la** **DG**

**ou du service**

**concerne**

**1,5**

**1**

**2,5**

**Types** **d'emplois**

**Fonctionnaires**

ou agents

**Dont**

**Par recours a**

**des ressources**
**supplementaires**

**A**

**B**

**Effectifs** **a affecter a la**
**gestion de** **Faction**
**Emplois** **Emplois**
**permanents** **temporaire**

**1,5**

**1**

**2,5**

temporaires C

Autrcs res sources

Total

**10.2 Incidence financière globale des ressources humaines.**

**By using existing resources being assigned to manage the operation 2.5** **men/year** *****
**108,000** **ECU = 270,000 ECU. (calculation based on chapters** **A-l,** **A-2,** **A-4,** **A-5 and**
**A-7).**

**(inKECU)**
Types d'emplois Effectifs a **affecter** a **la gestion de Taction** **Cout**

Effectifs a **affecter** a **la gestion de Taction**

**Cout**

**Annuel**

**i**

**i**

i

**23**

Fonctionnaires

ou agents

A

B

**Emplois Permanents** - 1 Emplois temporaire
montant annuel !

**1,5*108**

**1*108**

**2,5* 108**

**162**

**108**

**270**

temporaires C

Autres ressources

Total

**10 J Augmentation** **d'autres** **dépenses de fonctionnement découlant de Paction**

**(inKECU)**
**Ligne** **Montants** **Module de** **calcul**
**Budgetaire**
**(no et intitule)** **1998** **1999** **2000** **2001** **2002**

**Montants**

**Module de** **calcul**

**2002**

**2001**

**2000**

**1998**

**1999**

**39**

**11,75**

**50,75**

**39**

**11,75**

**50,75**

**39**

**11,75**

**50,75**

**39**

**11,75**

**50,75**

**A-7030,**
**meetings**
(accompanying
Expert Group)

**A-701**

**Mission**

**expenses**

**Total**

**19,5**

**11,75**

**31,75**

**15 representatives** ***650ECU**

*** 4 meetings** **=** **39, 000**
**ECU/year, first year only**
**two meetings forseen=** **15**
**M.S.*650ECU*2** **=**
**19,500**
**-one day visit of each EU**
**capital=650ECU*** **15**
**capitals=** **9,750** **ECU per**

**year.**

**- 2* one day visits of**
**Geneva=2*l,000ECU=**
**2,000** **ECU**

**=**
**11,750** **ECU/year**

**For** **1998,** **the other expenditures related to the action (appropriations requested on**
**budget line A-7030 and** **A-7010)** **are covered by the appropriations given by the**
**Commission to DG XV (global envelope to be decided by the Commission on the 18**
**February). For the following years effective administrative resources will depend on**
**the annual decision of the Commission concerning the appropriation of resources,**
**taking into account the global amount allocated by the budgetary authorities.**

**3** **e** **?**

**ISSN** **0254-1475**

**COM(98)** **121 final**

# **DOCUMENTS**

EN 10 02 09 04

Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-141-EN-C

ISBN 92-78-31853-1

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

L-2985 Luxembourg

#### **_1<_**