Annex
62 Dutch reduction proposals for the EU action programme
to reduce administrative burdens for businesses
March 2009

PRIORITY AREA
1. Accountability for receiving
government grants (additional area)
2. Agriculture and agricultural
subsidies
3. Cohesion policy
4. Company law
5. Environment
6. Financial services
7. Fisheries
8. Food safety
9. Pharmaceutical legislation
10. Privacy (additional area)
11. Public procurement
12. Statistics
13. Transport
14. Working environment and
employment relations

TOTAL

NUMBER OF PROPOSALS
1
9
10
1
5
12
2
4
2
3
2
1
8
2

62

1. Accountability for receiving government grants (additional area)
Reference to legislation

Regulation 1998/2006 on de minimis aid

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Reduction proposal

Proportional accountability requirements for small
government grants

What should be done?
For small grants (of up to € 50,000) it should be possible for
Member States to disperse these grants on a lump sum
basis instead of on the basis of real costs and with explicit
reference to non-interference with the internal market
(i.e. state aid).
This would imply that expenditure is dispersed on the basis
of a budget approved by an institution issuing the funding.
Afterwards no financial accountability from beneficiaries is
required. Instead, performance-based sample checks (on
the basis of risk analyses) are carried out so as to control
whether funded activities are in fact accomplished.
Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Under the current practice the accountability requirements
for all grants are the same, regardless of the amount
involved. Especially for smaller beneficiaries these
requirements, even though the risk involved is lower,
excessively raise administrative costs making them
reluctant to apply for these grants. Recent studies have
shown that by allowing lump sum payments as proposed,
the administrative costs could be reduced up to 30% and
the compliance costs up to 20% of the grant.
In our view these requirements, especially in times of
economic decline, seriously hinder proper accessibility to
grants for smaller beneficiaries. In addition, the proposal in
question seems to be in line with the Commission’s key
pillars of its Economic Recovery Plan which stresses the
need to open up new finance, cut administrative burdens
and kick-start investment.

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Administrative burden reduction
€ 45,000,000 to € 62,000,000 (30%- 40%)
•

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Research has been conducted to the governmentwide grant framework in the Netherlands. In the
study by EIM on the savings potential of the grants
framework in the Netherlands, the administrative
burden imposed on businesses is calculated upon
€ 195,000,000. That is 7% of the grant amount
(€ 2,8 billion).

2/65

•

This recent study on the effects of the integrated
framework for government funding has shown that a
yearly reduction of 30% - 40% of administrative
burdens could be achieved. The grants up to
€ 50,000 are estimated at 80% of the total. By this
calculation, the administrative savings are between
€ 45,000,000 and € 62,000,000.

3/65

2. AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES
Reference to
legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Regulation 795/2004 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in
Council Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 establishing common rules
for direct support schemes under the common agricultural
policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers
Article 3: calculation of the unit value of the payment
entitlements

Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Allow Member States to recalculate the value of the payment
entitlements in case the farmer owns various fractions of an
entitlement of the same origin. Change article 3(3) of Regulation
795/2004 to:
3. Where the size of a parcel which is transferred with an
entitlement in accordance with Article 46(2) of Regulation (EC) No
1782/2003 amounts to a fraction of a hectare, the farmer may
transfer the part of the entitlement concerned with the land at a
value calculated to the extent of the same fraction. The remaining
part of the entitlement shall remain at the disposal of the farmer at a
value calculated correspondingly. If the receiving farmer already
owns a fraction of an entitlement of the same nature and same
usage history, these fractions will be merged by adding up the
corresponding values of the fractions and by dividing the sum by
the fractions of these values. Fractions of entitlements of the same
nature, but with a different usage history may be merged in the
same way, but only on application of the receiving farmer and on
the condition that for the merged entitlement the usage history of
the least used fraction will be taken into consideration for the total of
the merged entitlement.

Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?
Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses

Due to the existing trade in payment entitlements many fractions of
an entitlement come to life. The total amount of payment
entitlements will grow (is growing) fast. This causes unnecessarily
high administrative burden on both farmers and national authorities.
Administrative burden reduction between € 10,407 - € 21,390
•

What is the impact of
the reduction proposal?
•

If the coherence between the farmers who own various
fractions of the entitlement and the payment of entitlements
would be improved as suggested, the potential
administrative burden reduction would be estimated
between € 10,407 - € 21,390.
Whenever a farmer buys grant rights, he can only receive a
portion of the grants (196 on the yearly basis). The
administrative burdens of controls related to the grant and
their execution cost a farmer between 1 - 2 minutes.

4/65

Reference to
legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Regulation 796/2004 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the
integrated administration and control system provided for in
Council Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 establishing common rules
for direct support schemes under the common agricultural
policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers
Article 11(1): single application

Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Grant exemption from the obligation to submit a single application
to farmers who use less than 1 hectare or less than the adjusted
threshold referred to in article 28, first paragraph, second
subparagraph, of the new Regulation on direct payments. Change
Article 11(1) of Regulation 796/2004 to:
1. A farmer applying for aid under any of the area-related aid
schemes may only submit one single application per year.
A farmer who does not apply for aid under any of the area related
aid schemes but applies for aid under another aid scheme listed in
Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, shall submit a single
application form if he has agricultural area as defined in Article 2(a)
of Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 at his disposal in which he shall list
these areas in accordance with Article 14 of this Regulation.
However, Member States may exempt farmers from this
obligation where the information concerned is made available to the
competent authorities in the framework of other administration and
control systems that guarantee compatibility with the integrated
system in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No
1782/2003.
Moreover, Member States may exempt farmers from this obligation
in the case of farmers who use less than a minimum amount of
hectares, to be fixed by the Member State, but not higher than 1
hectare or than the adjusted threshold after applying article 28, first
paragraph, second subparagraph, of the new Regulation on direct
payments.

Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of
the reduction proposal?

The obligation to submit a single application is disproportionate for
farmers who use less than 1 hectare. Moreover, according to Article
28, first paragraph, of the (new) Regulation establishing common
rules for direct support schemes, Member States can choose not to
grant direct payments to a farmer if the eligible area of the holding
for which direct payments are claimed is less than one hectare.
Therefore, a farmer holding less than one hectare should be
exempted from submitting a single application.
Administrative burden reduction between
€ 1,987,920 - € 6,686,640 or 80% of the time spent
•

If the coherence between the farmers who use less than 1
hectare and the obligation to submit a single application
would be improved as suggested, the potential
administrative burden reduction would be estimated
between €1,987,920 - € 6,686,640. A consequence is that
businesses might anticipate to this change by buying or
selling parcels.
5/65

•

Reference to
legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

The main gain lies in the fact that businesses are expected
to spend about 80% less time (6.1 hours spent on the
request plus 13.9 hours spent on controls and control
compliance).

Regulation 796/2004 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the
integrated administration and control system provided for in
Council Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 establishing common rules
for direct support schemes under the common agricultural
policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers
Article 13 and 14: single application

Reduction proposal
What should be done?

The obligation to submit the abovementioned documents with the
application can be withdrawn. For example, change Article 13 of
Regulation 796/2004 to:
1. In the case where a farmer intends to produce hemp in
accordance with Article 52 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 or
hemp grown for fibre as referred to in Article 106 of that Regulation,
the farmer keeps at the disposal of the control officials
(a) all information required for the identification of the parcels sown
in hemp, indicating the varieties of seed used;
(b) an indication as to the quantities of the seeds used (kg per
hectare);
(c) the official labels used on the packaging of the seeds in
accordance with Council Directive 2002/57/EC (2), and in particular
Article 12 thereof.
This is only an example. A similar approach could be used for all
supporting documents mentioned in these articles.

Justification of the
proposal

Certain supporting documents (as specified in Article 13) are only
necessary in case of physical checks. It therefore suffices that the
farmer keeps those documents available for the control officials.

Why should it be done?

Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of
the reduction proposal?

Administrative burden reduction of € 41,330 or 3,5%
If the coherence between the farmers who are involved in producing
the above items and the obligation to submit documents with the
application would be improved as suggested, the potential
administrative burdens reduction would be estimated at 3,5%.
Impact on annoyance reduction
•

It is expected that the reduction of annoyance caused by the
time spent on submitting documentation to control offcials,

6/65

•

Reference to
legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

will have a much larger impact on the perception of Dutch
farmers than the reduction of real costs in euros.
For instance it may occur that authorities cause (additional)
annoyance by rejecting a farmer’s application. In that
scenario the farmer has to start the procedure of submitting
the application all over again.

Regulation 796/2004 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the
integrated administration and control system provided for in
Council Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 establishing common rules
for direct support schemes under the common agricultural
policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers
Article 30(1): determination of areas

Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Allow Member States to apply the measurement tolerance as
referred to in article 30(1) of Regulation 796/2004 also with respect
to administrative checks based on the GIS as referred to in article
6(1) of that Regulation.
Add the following to Article 30(1) of Regulation 796/2004:
The measurement tolerance can also be applied to parcels as
established by the GIS as referred to in Article 6(1) of this
Regulation in the performance of the administrative checks
according to Article 24(1) of this Regulation.

Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of
the reduction proposal?

The tools that are used to establish the system as referred to in
Article 6(1) of Regulation 796/2004 are the same tools that are used
to perform the physical checks. The measurement tolerance that is
allowed while determining agricultural parcel areas is however not
allowed to be used while performing the administrative checks
based on the GIS, as meant in Article 24(1) of the Regulation. This
means there is a lack of uniformity in the execution of checks.
High impact on annoyance reduction
•
•

It is expected that the reduction of annoyance caused by the
time spent on submitting documentation to control officials,
will have a large impact on the perception of Dutch farmers.
For instance it may occur that authorities cause (additional)
annoyance by requiring extra documents.

7/65

Reference to
legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Regulation 1975/2006 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) 1698/2005, as
regards the implementation of control procedures as well as
cross-compliance in respect of rural development support
measures
and
Regulation 796/2004: Regulation 796/2004 laying down detailed
rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation
and the integrated administration and control system provided
for in Council Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 establishing common
rules for direct support schemes under the common
agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes
for farmers

Reduction proposal

Integrate both regulations into one.

What should be done?
Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?

At present two regulations deal with more or less the same matter.
Yet differences exist in the details, for example in definitions. The
aim of the IACS is to function as a single automatic system. It is
more efficient to lay down the corresponding rules in one regulation.
The administrative burden stemming from regulation 1975/2006 is
estimated to be € 31,249,890 - € 39,062,353.

Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of
the reduction proposal?

Administrative burden reduction between € 1,000 - € 2,000
If the coherence between integrating both regulations and the
obligation of controls would be improved as suggested, the potential
administrative burden reduction would be estimated between
€ 1,000 - € 2,000.
Positive impact on annoyance reduction
•

•

It is expected that the reduction of annoyance caused by the
time spent on inspection of extra controls, will have a much
larger impact on the perception of Dutch farmers than the
reduction of real costs in euros.
For instance, clear and integrated definitions will be better
understood and will reduce the flow of questions asked by
farmers and hereby the time spent.

Cost and time reduction expected for national authorities and
EC
•

•

It is expected that the reduction proposal will result in cost
reduction for the national authorities. For instance paying
agencies will be able to cut ICT costs in case of a single
IACS.
Differences between first pillar and second pillar applications
for aid cease to exist.

8/65

•

Reference to
legislation

The EC will have only one regulation to manage instead of
two.

Regulation 382/2005 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EC) 1786/2003 on the
common organisation of the market in dried fodder

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Article 27: on the spot checks

Reduction proposal

Allow an annual check instead of regular additional checks.

What should be done?

Change Article 27 of Regulation 382/2005 to:
1. The competent authorities shall undertake regular additional
checks on suppliers of raw materials and on operators to whom
dried fodder has been supplied.

Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses

The costs of the controls as required by Article 27 are no longer
proportional to the total amount of aid granted. Moreover, the risk of
non-compliance is very low. The Article 27 checks are te be done to
make sure the goods reach their final state. In the case of dried
fodder, there’s no financial incentive to change to another
destination than fodder.
The administrative burden reduction is estimated
approximately at € 43,734
•

What is the impact of
the reduction proposal?
•

When annual checks are considered to be sufficient and the
regular additional checks would be abolished, the
administrative burden reduction for Dutch businesses would
be € 43,734 (costs of 1,182 checks a year).
In fact, the checks are related to a subsidy measure that will
end on 31 March 2012. Checks will no longer be needed
after that date and an administrative burden reduction of
€ 43,734 will be achieved.

Considerable annoyance reduction
Since the checks are considered to be disproportional, abolishing
them will reduce the perceived effects in a substantial way.

9/65

Reference to
legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Regulation 796/2004 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the
integrated administration and control system provided for in
Council Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 establishing common rules
for direct support schemes under the common agricultural
policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers
Article 10(1): single payment

Reduction proposal
What should be done?

If the margins within which the total possible amount of aid lies have
been established by the national authorities, an advanced payment
is justified.
In Article 10(1) of Regulation 796/2004, replace “not be made
before” by “only be made in so far”:
1. Without prejudice to to the time period provided for in Article
28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 or any rules providing for
the payment of advances in accordance with paragraph 3 of that
Article, direct payments falling within the scope of this Regulation
shall only be made in so far the checks with regard to eligibility
criteria, to be carried out by the Member State pursuant to this
Regulation, have been finalised.

Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of
the reduction proposal?

Reference to
legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Aid applications frequently cause problems because of parcel
overlapping. The total amount of possible aid in those cases is most
often clear. The only thing that has to be sorted out is how the
overlap must be solved, which causes delay in the payments. The
farmer who submitted a right application should not be the victim of
this situation, especially as it often relates to a relatively small part
of the aid.
Significant impact on annoyance reduction
•
•

It is expected that the reduction of annoyance caused by the
time spent on submitting documentation to control officials,
will have a large impact on the perception of Dutch farmers.
For instance it may occur that authorities cause (additional)
annoyance by rejecting a farmer’s application. In that
scenario the farmer has to start the procedure of submitting
the application all over again.

Regulation 796/2004 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the
integrated administration and control system provided for in
Council Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 establishing common rules
for direct support schemes under the common agricultural
policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers
Article 21(1): single application

10/65

Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Replace the second subparagraph of Article 21(1) of Regulation
796/2004 by a new paragraph 1a, while at the same time changing
the title of the article from ‘Late submission’ to ‘Late or incomplete
submission’:
1a. If the application is not accompanied by documents, contracts
or declarations to be submitted to the competent authority in
accordance with Articles 12 and 13, or documents, contracts or
declarations are not complete, the competent authority requests the
applicant to submit or complete the documents, contracts or
declarations concerned within a time limit to be set by the
competent authority. If the applicant fails to do so, the application
shall be considered inadmissible for the aid for which the
documents, contracts or declarations are constitutive for the
eligibility.

Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of
the reduction proposal?

As many applications are lodged in the final days of an application
period, not all of the applications can be checked on their
completeness immediately after receipt. However, the current
article does not leave any other possibility than denying the
application if one or more of the accompanying documents is
missing or incomplete.
Significant impact on annoyance reduction
It is expected that the reduction of annoyance caused by the time
spent on the aid application will have a large impact on the
perception of Dutch farmers.
Costs and time reduction for national authorities
It is expected that the flexibility of deadlines will have a large impact
on national authorities by lowering high season work.

Reference to
legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Regulation 796/2004 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the
integrated administration and control system provided for in
Council Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 establishing common rules
for direct support schemes under the common agricultural
policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers
Article 41: the Integrated Administration and Control System
(IACS)

Reduction proposal

Change the definition of ‘repeated non-compliance’ in Article 41 of
Regulation 796/2004:

What should be done?
(a) A ‘repeated’ non-compliance shall mean the non-compliance
with
the same requirement, standard or obligation referred to in Article 4
determined more than once within a consecutive period of three
calendar years, provided the farmer has been informed of a
previous non-compliance and, as the case may be, has had the
11/65

possibility to take the necessary measures to terminate that
previous non-compliance.
Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?

Article 41 of Regulation 796/2004 states that “a ‘repeated’ noncompliance shall mean the non-compliance with the same
requirement, standard or obligation referred to in Article 4
determined more than once within a consecutive period of three
years.
Applying periods measured in ‘calendar years’ is substantially
easier to administer than periods measured in ‘years’ or ‘days’.

Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of
the reduction proposal?

Significant impact on annoyance reduction
•
•
•

It is expected that the reduction of annoyance caused by the
time spent on submitting documentation to control officials,
will have a large impact on the perception of Dutch farmers.
For instance it will create clarity for farmers and a facilitated
administrative process for national authorities.
Clarity for farmers means it will simplify their system of data
administration.

ð SUPPORT FOR THE FOLLOWING DANISH PROPOSAL

Article 24.2 in Commission Regulation (EC) 796/2004 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration
and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 establishing
common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and
establishing certain support schemes for farmers
Introduction of a triviality limit regarding deviation between the agricultural parcels as
declared in the single application and the reference parcels as contained in the identification
system for agricultural parcels.
In 2008 approximately 4,000 cases were reopened due to a lacking correspondence on 0.1
ha.

12/65

3. COHESION POLICY
Introductory horizontal and cross-cutting issues, in light of the complexity of
current rules and regulations for structural funds
Implementation
1. Programmes of each programming period should be assessed and implemented
exclusively on the basis of the rules applicable in this period. Other or extra rules and
standards dating from subsequent programming periods should not be applied to
cases of prior periods. Also, within one programming period, new rules and standards
should only apply to future occurrences.
2. The time and effort necessary for implementation must be proportionate to the size of
the programme. In particular the documentation required – e.g. in connection with the
audit strategy – should be less extensive and frequent for smaller programmes than
for large ones.
3. In cases where small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the final beneficiary,
the duty to deposit all supporting documents up until 2020 should be abolished.
These SMEs should be able to send this information to the Managing Authority which
files it, with the aim to close the accounts for a specific project at a later stage.
4. In the structural funds regulation it is explicitly mentioned that national rules are to be
taken into account when considering the legality and regularity of transactions. As a
result control burden increases. The increase is the result of an assessment, which is
required to determine the applicable and relevant national rules in addition to the
European rules. Taking into account at least 27 different assessments on top of
European rules will also increase the complexity of regulation and the risk of error.
The Commission is requested to put forward a proposal to strike this obligation.
Guidance
1. The Commission should confine its guidance regarding implementation to aspects of
unitized handling which is indispensable to reach the common objectives (including
the correct use of funds). Where these objectives can be met by different means,
Commission should grant Member States the freedom to choose the solution which is
most compatible to their national systems.
2. Each legal framework applicable to specific Structural Funds should actively and
specifically indicate which rules and regulations fall under its implementation
mechanism in order to avoid discussions on the interpretation and scope of other
rules regulations. This is without prejudice to the fact that projects financed by the
Funds must comply with the provisions of the Treaty and acts adopted under it.
3. The Commission should take more account of the principle of proportionality when
implementing the Structural Funds Regulations. Every implemented rule should be
subject to a cost-benefit ratio comparing compliance costs and administrative
burdens to gains in terms of reduced risk of error in the area of management, audit
and control.

13/65

4. To ensure uniform and comprehensive information, the Commission could also set up
an electronic information system, which contains her interpretations of legal questions
as well as the underlying legal texts.

Reference to legislation

Article 72, regulation (EC) 1083/2006

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

“1. The Commission shall satisfy itself in accordance with
the procedure laid down in Article 71 that the Member
States have set up management and control systems that
comply with Articles 58 to 62 and, on the basis of the
annual control reports and annual opinion of the audit
authority and its own audits, that the systems function
effectively during the periods of implementation of
operational programmes.
2. Without prejudice to audits carried out by Member
States, Commission officials or authorised Commission
representatives may carry out on-the-spot audits to verify
the effective functioning of the management and control
systems, which may include audits on operations included
in operational programmes, with a minimum of 10 working
days' notice, except in urgent cases. Officials or authorised
representatives of the Member State may take part in such
audits. The implementing rules of this Regulation
concerning the use of data collected during audits shall be
adopted by the Commission in accordance with the
procedure referred to in Article 103(3). Commission officials
or authorised Commission representatives, duly
empowered to carry out on-the-spot audits, shall have
access to the books and all other documents, including
documents and metadata drawn up or received and
recorded on an electronic medium, relating to expenditure
financed by the Funds. The aforementioned powers of audit
shall not affect the application of national provisions which
reserve certain acts for agents specifically designated by
national legislation. Authorised Commission representatives
shall not take part, inter alia, in home visits or the formal
questioning of persons within the framework of the national
legislation of the Member State concerned. However, they
shall have access to information thus obtained.
3. The Commission may require a Member State to carry
out an on-the-spot audit to verify the effective functioning of
systems or the correctness of one or more transactions.
Commission officials or authorised Commission
representatives may take part in such audits.”

Reduction proposal
What should be done?

The Commission should refrain from undertaking standard
audits on the level of projects when the compliance
assessment is accepted by the Commission. Audits by the
Commission should only be executed in specific and duly
motivated cases.

14/65

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

The audit structure in article 72 is based on audits on
different levels. After the first level audits and the second
level audits the Commission can audit on the level of the
project. Is it really necessary that the Commission audits on
the level of the project as well? The proposal to refrain from
undertaking audits on the level of the project can be
justified firstly because it is consistent with the Sisa system
(Single Audit approach). Secondly because of the fact that
the Commission gives a judgement of the management and
control system in line with article 71 of the regulation.
Administrative burden reduction € 100,000 to € 200,000
•

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?
•

Based on the Dutch administrative burden baseline
measurement 2007, total burdens are calculated at
€ 2,400,000 for EFRO. Accountability and control
are calculated at € 800,000. The savings stemming
from this proposal should be sought here.
After the first level and second level audits, there is
the possibility that the EU can monitor at the level of
projects. It is estimated that administrative burden
savings can amount to € 100,000 to € 200,000, in
sight of the probably low frequency control of the
EU.

Positive impact on annoyance reduction
Canceling the control of the EU at the level of projects for
the relevant businesses will have a substantial positive
impact in qualitative terms.

Reference to legislation

Article 17, Regulation (EC) 1083/2006

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal
What should be done?
Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Compliance of environmental legislation should not be
made part of the eligibility rules of the European Regional
Development Fund.
Compliance of environmental legislation is being enforced
by the competent bodies. Managing authorities lack
expertise in this field.
This proposal does not question the importance of
environmental legislation, but intends to reduce the
administrative burden for applicants.

15/65

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Administrative burden reduction for Dutch businesses
€ 36,210 to € 72,420
•

•

If compliance of environmental legislation will not be
part of the eligibility rules of the European Regional
Development Fund, the potential administrative
burden reduction is estimated between € 36,210 to
€ 72,420 (EFRO).
The main benefit lies in the fact that businesses are
expected to spend between 10% - 20% less time for
a subsidy request. Obligations because of
environmental legislation are no longer part of the
subsidy request.

Reference to legislation

Article 90, Regulation (EC) 1083/2006

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

“1. Without prejudice to the rules governing State aid under
Article 87 of the Treaty, the managing authority shall ensure
that all the supporting documents regarding expenditure
and audits on the operational programme concerned are
kept available for the Commission and the Court of Auditors
for:
(a) a period of three years following the closure of an
operational programme as defined in Article 89(3);
(b) a period of three years following the year in which partial
closure took place, in the case of documents regarding
expenditure and audits on operations referred to in
paragraph
2. These periods shall be interrupted either in the case of
legal proceedings or at the duly motivated request of the
Commission.”

Reduction proposal

A) The proposal is to set a fixed time for the storage of
documents, for example 31-12-2015.

What should be done?
B) The proposal is to bring the legal obligation to keep
records in line with the national obligation to keep records
for 5 years. T
C) The proposal is to allow SMEs to send their records to
the managing authority and pass on the obligation to them.
Justification of the proposal

A) This will lead to a decline in storage costs for
organisations.

Why should it be done?
B) Harmonisation of legislation on this topic will lead to a
reduction of administrative burdens for applicants.
C) The main benefit lies in the fact that SMEs don’t need to
keep documents regarding expenditure and audits on the
operational programme available for the Court of Auditors.
16/65

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Proposal A: administrative burden reduction:
€ 162,000 to € 324,000
•

•

•

If the fixed time for the storage of documents would
be decreased, the potential (administrative) burdens
reduction is estimated between € 162,000 to
324,000 for the involved Dutch businesses.
Dutch businesses still need to archive and storage
their supporting documents regarding expenditure
and audits on the operational programme. The main
benefit lies in the fact that businesses don’t need to
storage their documentation for a period longer than
2 years following the closure of an operational
program or following the year in which partial
closure took place.
Reduction range 10% - 20% = € 162,000 to €
324,000.

Proposal B:
This proposal refers to a qualitative aspect for keeping
records for a maximum of 5 years for every legislation.
Proposal C: administrative burden reduction:
€ 48,594 to € 72,891
•

•

Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

If SMEs would be allowed to send their records to
the managing authority, the potential administrative
burden reduction is estimated between € 48,594 to
€ 72,891 for the Dutch businesses (10%-15%
reduction range).
SMEs don’t need to cooperate with auditors
anymore, because the managing authority is
responsible for this obligation.

Articles 88 and 90, Regulation (EC) 1083/2006: partial
closure
“1. Partial closure of operational programmes may be made
at periods to be determined by the Member State.
Partial closure shall relate to operations completed during
the period up to 31 December of the previous year. For the
purposes of this Regulation, an operation shall be deemed
completed where the activities under it have been actually
carried out and for which all expenditure by the
beneficiaries and the corresponding public contribution
have been paid.
2. Partial closure shall be made on the condition that the
Member State sends the following to the Commission by 31
17/65

December of a given year:
(a) a statement of expenditure relating to the operations
referred to in paragraph 1;
(b) a declaration for partial closure in accordance with
Article 62(1)(d)(iii).
3. Any financial corrections made in accordance with
Articles 98 and 99 concerning operations subject to partial
closure shall be net financial corrections.”
Reduction proposal

A) Diminish the executing time of a partial closure
procedure to one year.

What should be done?
B) Strike the third paragraph of article 88.
C) Add the following to article 90, 1, (b): “These periods
shall be interrupted or curtailed under specific
circumstances either in the case of legal proceedings or at
the duly request of the Commission or the Member State.”
Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Article 88 allows Member States to close part of a Structural
Funds Programme during the programming period.
However, partial closure can take several years, making it
an unattractive tool (article 90). Furthermore partial closure
brings a financial risk for Member States. Where normally
financial corrections on projects can be re-used for other
projects, financial corrections in the partial closure
procedure are net corrections (the money involved will be
pulled out of the programme).
Swift execution of partial closures would identify
irregularities and necessary corrective actions on a regular
and timely basis, considerably reducing the financial risk for
the whole financial period and opening up possibilities for
improved financial management by Member States and
supervision by the Commission. Risk of error and
administrative burdens would also be diminished, since all
documentation for closed projects does not have to be
actively kept and stored anymore up until three years after
the programming period.
Partial closure will not be an attractive instrument when
money is lost for the programme. There is no logic to make
financial corrections net corrections. It is absolutely clear
that:
1. Expenditure in projects offered for partial closure should
be free from irregularities.
2. Financial corrections should be made where necessary.
3. All expenditure in the partial closure projects should be
regular and legal.
4. Projects which are in the partial closure are closed.
There is no logic that the financial correction should be net
and the money is lost for the programme.

18/65

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Proposal C: administrative burden reduction
€ 162,000 to € 324,000
•

•

If the phrase “These periods shall be interrupted or
curtailed under specific circumstances either in the
case of legal proceedings or at the duly request of
the Commission or the Member State” would be
added to article 90,1, (b), the potential
administrative burdens reduction would be
estimated between € 162,000 to € 324,000
(reduction range 10% - 20%).
The main benefit lies in the fact that organizations
don’t need to keep documents regarding
expenditure and audits on the operational
programme available for the Court of Auditors.

Proposal A: positive effect on annoyance reduction
•

•

The proposal indicates that within a period of one
year (on a regular and timely basis) Member States
gain insight in the potential identified irregularities
and necessary corrective actions. The Commission
can’t control the documentation after the partial
closure procedure of one year.
It is expected this will have a positive effect on the
perception of the Member States as normally partial
closure can take several years.

Proposal B: impact on Member States
This proposal is only relevant for Member States. Normally
financial corrections on projects can be re-used for other
projects, but financial corrections during the partial closure
are net corrections. This means that Member States
experience a financial risk due to partial closure, because
money is lost for the programme.

Reference to legislation

Article 17 Sampling, Regulation (EC) 1828/2006

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

“1. The sample of operations to be audited each year shall
in the first instance be based on a random statistical
sampling method as set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.
Additional operations may be selected as a complementary
sample as set out in
paragraphs 5 and 6.”

Reduction proposal

Following this article the audit should be based on a
statistical sampling method. The proposal is to make an
exception in article 17 for the smaller programmes and to

What should be done?

19/65

allow the use of a non-statistical sampling method, based
on international audit standards for programmes that have
less than 800 projects a year.
Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

The second level checks will increase substantially for
smaller programmes in the new programming period
because of this new obligation to apply a statistical
sampling method. The Commission is advised to give
Member States the possibility to use their own method
based on international standards. This idea is already
proposed by the Commission in the “draft guidance note on
sampling methods for audit authorities”.
The total administrative burden stemming from regulation
1828/2006/EC is estimated to be € 19,300,000.

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Administrative burden reduction € 400,000 to € 800,000
•

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

•

Based on the Dutch administrative burden baseline
measurement of 2008, total burdens are calculated
at € 19,300,000. In the same measurement the
accountability and control are calculated at €
3,200,000. The savings stemming from this proposal
must be sought partly within those costs.
Assuming that small programmes and programmes
with less than 800 projects are half of the total, the
administrative burdens on the second level can be
saved. The first level is maintained as a control.
Therefore, the net savings are estimated at
€ 400,000 to 800,000.

Positive impact on annoyance reduction
No more controls on the second level to the involved
organizations will have a substantial positive impact in
qualitative terms.

Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Pending amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006
on the European Social Fund to extend the types of
costs eligible for a contribution from the ESF
Regulation 1081/2006 is in the process of being amended.
Paragraph 3 of Article 11of Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006
will be amended as follows:
(1) Point (b) is replaced by the following:
"(b)
in the case of grants:
(i) indirect costs declared on a flat-rate basis, up to
20 % of the direct costs of an operation;
(ii) flat-rate costs calculated by application of

20/65

standard scales of unit cost as defined by the
Member State;
(iii) lump sums to cover all or part of the costs of an
operation. "
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

The introduction of lump sum and flat-rate costs calculated
by application of standard scales of unit have the potential
of greatly reducing administrative burdens for both the
beneficiaries and the managing and audit authorities.
These proposals will greatly reduce the administrative
burdens on the condition that the Commission keeps the
interpretation of these two instruments as simple as
possible. Flat rate and lump sum will only be effective when
rules are simple and easily applicable for Member States.
The total administrative burden stemming from regulation
1081/2006/EC is estimated to be € 15,673,098 € 20,897,466.

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Administrative burden reduction
(based on the sum of the two categories)
€ 187,003 - € 385,396
•

•

•

•

If lump sum and flat-rate costs would be
implemented in Regulation 1081/2006, the potential
administrative burden reduction for subsidy requests
would be estimated between € 141,444 to
€ 282,888.
The main benefit lies in the fact that the use of lump
sum and flat-rate costs are expected to require
between 3% - 6% less time in determining the
budget (subsidy request).
If the introduction of lump sum and flat-rate costs
would be implemented in Regulation 1081/2006, the
potential administrative burden reduction for subsidy
justification would be estimated between € 45,559 to
€ 102,508.
The main benefit lies in the fact that the use of lump
sum and flat-rate costs are expected to require
between 4% - 9% less time in determining the final
declaration (subsidy justification).

Effect on Member States
It is expected that the implementation of lump sum and flatrate costs will have impact on the administrative burden
reduction of Member States. The main gain lies in the fact
that Member States are expected to spend less time in
judging and verifying the budget and final declaration.

21/65

ð SUPPORT FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL BY EUROCHAMBRES/
SME UNION
•

Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing
Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999; Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund and
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999; Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on a European grouping
of territorial cooperation (EGTC); Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11
July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional
Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999; Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006
of 11 July 2006 establishing a Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No
1164/94; Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)
The need to prevent the misuse of EU funds requires a certain level of information
relating to the administration of EU funds. However, this does not excuse
unnecessary bureaucracy.
Highly complex administrative and control systems on national levels have been
designed for the management of EU structural funds, compliance with which is often
difficult even for national and regional public bodies. The bureaucratic management of
EU funds represents a serious obstacle to meeting the policy objectives of the
programmes. As a result, smaller projects are often not cofinanced using EU funds,
because administrative burdens impact too heavily on the responsible authority.
Companies supported by structural funds often have to comply with exaggerated
documentation requirements. In addition, audits and ex-post controls of smaller
projects are often very time-consuming.
The administrative burdens connected to the participation in co-financed EU projects
are often very time-consuming. In some cases, the involvement of accountants (e.g.
for the “first-level-control” in Objective 3 projects) or of external consultants is
necessary. The complicated documentation requirements imply an increased risk of
delays in the payment of EU funds or, in the worst case, denial or repayment of the
funds even when the idea behind the project is a very good one and in line with the
programme’s objective.
The Structural Funds are increasingly targeted towards the objectives of the Lisbon
Strategy for Jobs and Growth, yet their procedures prohibit the involvement of SMEs,
key stakeholders in the strategy. An ex-post audit of a project can be time consuming
and labour intensive, especially for a small company. Therefore important for the
Commission to review its procedures for the management of the Structural Funds.
Taking into account the need to engage SMEs, the proportionality principle could be
applied: the smaller the project funded or co-financed by the EU, the less
administrative burdens should be involved.

22/65

4. COMPANY LAW
Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Second Council Directive of 13 December 1976 on
coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of
the interests of members and others, are required by
Member States of companies (77/91/EEC) (2006/68/EC)

The creditor protection system in the Second Company Law
directive should be revised fundamentally on the basis of
the KPMG research performed by Commission order. The
Commission should develop proposals for an alternative
system without a mandatory minimum capital.
Companies have been arguing since quite some time that
rules related to the Second Company Law directive implying a mandatory minimum capital - should be
modernised, as they lead to redundant administrative
burdens. This is as well one of the main conclusions of the
abovementioned extensive KPMG research: companies
and creditors pay most attention to financial indicators such
as cash-flow and liquidity, instead of the presence of a
minimum capital.
Administrative burden reduction
€ 17,400 - € 900,000
•

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?
•

•

The main gain is that companies need less capital at
the start of business as well as the fact that the
proposal reflects the usage of other indicators (cashflow, etc.) rather than (minimum) subscribed capital
by companies in their operations.
If no minimum subscribed capital of € 45,000 is
required to incorporate a company or to obtain an
authorization to start a business, it is no longer
necessary to make costs for obtaining that capital.
Moreover, other burdensome formalities in the
directive, like the expert valuation and the rules on
financial assistance, reduction of capital and
mandatory reserves, can be abolished. The
potential administrative burden reduction is
estimated between € 17,400 and € 900,000.
This reduction depends on the decisions by
individual entities on their capitalization. Many will
have a larger subscribed capital (for example
multinationals, financial institutions, etc).

Impact on annoyance reduction
•
•

The main impact of the proposal is that it reflects
current business practices.
Secondary gain is a further harmonization in Dutch
company law because it reflects changes proposed

23/65

in pending legislation for other types of company.

ð SUPPORT FOR THE FOLLOWING DANISH PROPOSALS

2nd Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13th December 1976
If a company, within a time limit laid down by national law of at least two years from the time
the company is incorporated or is authorized to commence business, acquires any asset
belonging to a founder of the company etc. for a consideration of not less than one-tenth of
the subscribed capital, Art. 11 of the 2nd Directive requires, that the acquisition shall be
examined and details of it published and it shall be submitted for the approval of the general
meeting.
The paragraph should be repealed.
The paragraph creates administrative burdens which are not sufficiently justifiable compared
to the low degree of protection offered by the paragraph (to creditors and minority
shareholders).
Anyone who can control a company’s acquisition of an asset on terms that are not fair for the
company can do so regardless of the protection offered by the paragraph. For example they
could make arrangements so to acquire the asset from a person or company or firm different
from those referred to in Article 3 (i), or they could make the acquisition through a shell
company older than two years.
Moreover, in any case the board of directors and others involved in the transaction will be
responsible, if the company incur losses due to the terms of the acquisition. The degree of
protection added by the obligations in the paragraph is doubtful.
Finally, surprisingly few examinations are received by the authority for publication. It is
assumed that some companies, who generally want to comply with the law, do not comply
with this provision, because it is complicated to understand the obligations in the provision.
3rd Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9th October 1978 and 6th Council Directive
82/891/EEC of 17th December 1982
Denmark does not support that the directives shall be repealed, but supports additional
simplifications to these directives. Harmonisation of this area to a certain level, increases
transparency and is thereby facilitating companies’ decision making process.

24/65

5. ENVIRONMENT
Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Directive 2008/1/EC on the Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control (IPPC Directive)
Proposal for a Directive on Industrial Emissions,
COM (2007) 843

The Netherlands identifies two ways in which the Directive’s
administrative and regulatory burden could be reduced and
its practical feasibility improved without diminishing the level
of environmental protection.
A. Reporting requirements should be risk-based in order to
prevent unnecessary bureaucracy.
The proposed obligation to report on compliance (articles 8
and 24) would have a disproportionate impact on the
administrative and regulatory burden. The burden could
easily be reduced by introducing a risk-based requirement.
For instance, obligatory reporting could be limited to
operators who are also subject to a reporting requirement
under the European Pollutant Release and Transfer
Register Regulation (E-PRTR). This would place the
emphasis on major emitters, reduce the reporting
frequency, and promote the development and use of ICT
based reporting tools. The administrative burden could be
further reduced by replacing environmental permitting with
generally binding rules wherever possible. The permitting
process poses a heavy administrative and regulatory
burden on fairly simple and uniform industrial activities in
particular and also generates unnecessary uncertainty. This
could be resolved by replacing permits with generally
binding rules, provided they ensure an integrated approach
and offer the same level of environmental protection.
B. The emphasis in Annex I, which identifies categories of
industrial activities covered by the Directive, should be on
activities with the largest environmental impact where
implementation of the Directive is most likely to have
greatest effect.
In the proposal for the new Directive on industrial
emissions, annex I, which identifies categories of industrial
activities covered by this Directive, has been expanded to
include, for instance, smaller combustion installations of 2050 MW, intensive poultry rearing on a smaller scale and
certain waste management activities. This further limits
Member States’ scope to reduce emissions using other
instruments (such as voluntary agreements, emissions
trading, and generally binding rules) which could have more
direct environmental benefits than integral permits.
Furthermore, some of the activities identified in the new
Annex I have a low environmental impact (e.g. waste
storage, treatment of scrap metal, and biological waste

25/65

treatment). Finally, we believe the current wording of the
proposal on the intensive rearing of poultry and pigs and
the spreading of manure presents practical problems.
Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

The Netherlands welcomes the new proposal for a Directive
on Industrial Emissions. The Netherlands supports the
proposal to streamline the IPPC Directive with sectoral
directives on industrial emissions and introduce generally
binding rules. The proposal will clarify and simplify
European legislation on industrial emissions.
The Netherlands, however, expresses its concerns as
regards the proposal’s scope and the proposed reporting
requirements.
The Netherlands is concerned that the proposal will
increase the administrative burden for the involved
businesses (SMEs in particular) in a disproportional way
and may at the same time prove to be impracticable on
some points, without convincing environmental benefits.
The proposal for a Directive on Industrial Emissions has
been identified in the context of the Commission’s ‘Better
Regulation’ programme, but the underlying principles have
not been fully implemented.
The total administrative burden stemming from the current
IPPC Directive is estimated to be € 30,000,000 or on
average € 12,500 per installation per year. The proposal for
a Directive on Industrial Emission adds around 10%. The
simplification proposals of the Netherlands would prevent
most of this increase.

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Through this proposal an increase in administrative
burdens is prevented
•

•

The proposal by the Commission to further decrease
the threshold values as mentioned in Annex I of the
IPPC directive in combination with new monitoring
and reporting obligations will increase the
administrative burden for all businesses in a
disproportional way. Because of this the
Netherlands proposes to limit these obligations to
the E-PRTR companies.
The main reason for this is that these companies
have the highest environmental impact. When new
monitoring and reporting obligations are to be
streamlined and / or to be implemented in
accordance with E-PRTR, then both the real and the
perceived increase of administrative burdens for
businesses will be zero.

26/65

Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Directive 2004/42/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of
emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the
use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes
and vehicle refinishing products and amending
Directive 1999/13/EC (OJ L 143) (VOC Directive)
A ‘not applicable’ statement will suffice for historical
vehicles (more than 25 years old) because the VOC
emissions in this category are negligible and limiting them
would do little or nothing to reduce overall VOC emissions.
The VOC Directive lays down several very detailed and
particularly burdensome obligations.
The abovementioned exemption is unnecessary because in
practice the paints and varnishes referred to in the directive
are used.
The total administrative burden stemming from directive
1999/13/EC is estimated to be € 22,208,500 € 25,112,800.

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Administrative burden reduction
During 1 year, 14 end-users (in theory, suppliers need to
ask for exemptions) of paints and varnishes of historical
vehicles have applied for an exemption. Replacing the
exemption by a ‘not applicable’ statement will reduce the
administrative burden for those companies needing to ask
for an exemption.

Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on
shipments of waste (Waste Shipment Regulation)

Reduction proposal

A) Simplification of the notification procedure in the short
term, by means of a corresponding directive. In anticipation
of the possible amendment of WSR (will take some time), a
corresponding directive could be adopted to reduce the
administrative burden (informally) in the meantime. The
Netherlands is of the opinion that WSR paperwork could,
and should, be simplified.

What should be done?

B) Fast completion of the list containing mixed cargo
qualified for a short procedure.
Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

A) The WSR lays out procedures for the shipment of waste.
These procedures increase companies’ administrative
burden. For example, the notification procedure for
businesses involves filling in a detailed notification

27/65

document and appending several documents (e.g. copy of
the contract, financial guarantee (article 6 WSR),
description of (recovery or disposal) treatment processes.
Companies are also expected to ensure that their waste
shipments are accompanied by movement documents.
If a (written) consent (article 9 WSR) is issued, various
documents must be drawn up: a notification of shipment,
movement document (three working days prior to transport
the completed movement document shall be send to the
competent authorities), written confirmation of receipt
and certification (confirmation) that the waste has
been recovered or disposed (processed ) (Article 16 WSR).
B) Cross the border cargo of mixed harmless waste has to
follow the heavy procedure. In the new regulation there is a
list containing mixed cargo, qualified for a shorter
procedure. Nevertheless the list is almost empty and should
be completed on the short term. In January 2009 Member
States reached an agreement on 4 mixed cargos which are
to be placed on the list (Annex IIIA).
Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Administrative burden reduction between
€ 520,000 - € 725,000
Proposal A: estimated administrative burden reduction
€ 120,000 to € 225,000.
•
•

•

The implementing body, SenterNovem, issues
written consents on approximately 3,000
notifications a year.
Businesses spend most time on work prior to filling
out the notification document. This work includes
gathering and producing copies of appending
documentation.
By simplifying the notification procedure concerning
the detailed notification document and appending
documents, businesses are expected to spend
between 10 - 15% less time in gathering and
producing relevant documentation. Or a range of
€ 120,000 to € 225,000.

Proposal B: estimated administrative burden reduction
€ 400,000 to € 500,000.
•

A movement document applies to the intended total
number of shipments indicated in advance for which
consent has been given. Each shipment must be
notified three working days in advance.
Approximately 150,000 shipments are carried out
each year. Every shipment of green listed waste
(usually non hazardous and with a positive value)
must be accompanied by a document contained in
Annex VII WSR containing sensitive business
information. There are tens of thousands of
28/65

•

Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

shipments a year (Article 18 WSR). Expected
benefit: € 400,000 - € 500,000.
Potential massive administrative burden reduction,
dependent on the number of mixed cargos on the
list. It is expected to reduce the amount of cross the
border cargo of mixed harmless waste that has to
follow the heavy procedure between 20 - 25%.

Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their
trailers and changed through Directive 2005/64
The obligation to prove that cars are re-usable and/or
recoverable to a minimum of 95% by weight per vehicle can
be omitted from the Directive for type-approval [It was
introduced via Directive 2005/64/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the
type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their
reusability, recyclability and recoverability and amending
Council Directive 70/156/EEC. It includes the obligation in
question, which also applies to 70/156 via the annex
thereto]. Conformity with Directive 2000/53 on end-of-life
vehicles is unnecessary and leads to an increase in the
administrative burden.
Article 7, paragraph 4 of Directive 2000/53 states that
Directive 70/156/EEC must be amended and brought in into
line with the Directive 2000/53. This has been done and the
effect is that in the procedure for type-approval the
manufacturer must prove that vehicles are re-usable and/or
recyclable to a minimum of 85% by weight per vehicle and
are re-usable and/or recoverable to a minimum of 95% by
weight per vehicle. Those are the targets for 2015 in
Directive 2000/53.
The Road Transport Agency (RDW), the type-approval
organisation, does not have the expertise to judge the
statements of the manufacturers. And it is difficult for
manufacturers to prove that they can achieve the
percentages (the technology needed to achieve the 2015
targets is not available). The cars will be dismantled after
14-15 years and by then technology will have advanced.
Directive 2000/53 also has targets.
So there are rules applying before the car is put on the
market and afterwards. The rules that apply afterwards are
more important because end-of-life vehicles are hazardous
waste.

29/65

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Administrative burden reduction € 400,000 - € 600,000
The number of type approvals per year is considerable
(+/- 30,000 per year, based on annual report RDW). During
the type approval, recyclability (must be > 95%) is checked.
If the obligation to prove that 95% of motor vehicles
material is recyclable will be omitted the type approval will
take less time, which decreases the administrative burden
for the involved businesses.

30/65

6. FINANCIAL SERVICES
Reference to legislation

MiFID Level 1 Directive 2004/39 art 25(2)

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

MiFID Level 2 Directive 2006/73 art 51(1) (1st)
25(2) Member States shall require investment firms to keep
at the disposal of the competent authority, for at least five
years, the relevant data relating to all transactions in
financial instruments which they have carried out, whether
on own account or on behalf of a client. In the case of
transactions carried out on behalf of clients, the records
shall contain all the information and details of the identity of
the client, and the information required under Council
Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the
use of the financial system for the purpose of money.
51 (1) (1st) Member States shall require investment firms to
retain all the records required under Directive 2004/39/EC
and its implementing measures for a period of at least five
years.

Reduction proposal

Replace five years by three years.

What should be done?
Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Recordkeeping: term can be shortened from five years to
three years without negatively affecting the quality of
supervision. It should be made exactly clear which data
need to be kept.
Administrative burden reduction
€ 1,200,000 - € 3,500,000
•

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

•

•

•

The proposed provision would lead to a decrease in
regulatory costs for investment firms.
The administrative burden reduction is estimated to
be between €1,200,000 and €3,500,000. This is a
reduction of 10-30% of the costs of retaining records
(€ 11,700,000).
This estimated range is based on the following
factors: less volume of data kept, less transition
costs (in case of new software) and less
maintenance costs.
Other factors, like fiscal legislation, might also
temper the administrative burden reduction. On the
basis of fiscal legislation businesses are required to
retain data of their administration for 7 years.

31/65

Reference to legislation

MiFID Level 2 Directive 2006/73 art 51(1) (3rd)

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

However, competent authorities may, in exceptional
circumstances, require investment firms to retain any or all
of those records for such longer period as is justified by the
nature of the instrument or transaction, if that is necessary
to enable the authority to exercise its supervisory functions
under Directive 2004/39/EC.

Reduction proposal

Delete this obligation.

What should be done?
Justification of the proposal

Three years is long enough for the competent authorities to
properly perform their tasks.

Why should it be done?
Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Positive contribution to level playing field across
Europe

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

This proposal will contribute to a level playing field
throughout Europe for investment firms and will prevent
future administrative burdens.

Reference to legislation

MiFID Level 2 Directive 2006/73 art 51(1) (4th)

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Following the termination of the authorisation of an
investment firm, Member States or competent authorities
may require the firm to retain records for the outstanding
term of the five year period required under the first
subparagraph.

Reduction proposal

Delete this obligation.

What should be done?
Justification of the proposal

Even if an investment firm looses its authorisation, it is
under a duty to keep records.

Why should it be done?
Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

This proposal must be seen in the context of the
abovementioned first and second proposals.

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

32/65

Reference to legislation

MiFID Level 2 Directive 2006/73 art 51(4)

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Record-keeping obligations under Directive 2004/39/EC
and in this Directive are without prejudice to the right of
Member States to impose obligations on investment firms
relating to the recording of telephone conversations or
electronic communications involving client orders.

Reduction proposal

Delete this obligation.

What should be done?
Justification of the proposal

An obligation to record telephone and email conversations
is not necessary.

Why should it be done?
Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Possibly high administrative burden impact in Europe

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

The expectation is that this proposal will lead to a level
playing field and significant less administrative burdens on
an European level. It also will prevent future administrative
burdens.

Reference to legislation

Prospectus Directive 2003/71 art 10(1)

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a
regulated market shall at least annually provide a document
that contains or refers to all information that they have
published or made available to the public over the
preceding 12 months in one or more Member States and in
third countries in compliance with their obligations under
Community and national laws and rules dealing with the
regulation of securities, issuers of securities and securities
markets. Issuers shall refer at least to the information
required pursuant to company law directives, Directive
2001/34/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on
the application of international accounting standards.

Reduction proposal

Delete the not strictly necessary obligations to provide
documents and information on paper.

What should be done?

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

The abovementioned obligations have no added value.
Electronic provision of information is sufficient for effective
supervision.
The total administrative burden stemming from this directive
is estimated at € 18,000,000.

33/65

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Administrative burden reduction
€ 3,000,000 to € 5,000,000
The estimated costs of making this document public via
newspaper are between € 3,000,000 and € 5,000,000 in
total for around 120 businesses.
High impact on annoyance reduction
Removing this obligation will have a positive impact in
terms of annoyance reduction.

Reference to legislation

Prospectus Directive 2003/71 art 14(7)

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Where the prospectus is made available by publication in
electronic form, a paper copy must nevertheless be
delivered to the investor, upon his request and free of
charge, by the issuer, the offeror, the person asking for
admission to trading or the financial intermediaries placing
or selling the securities.

Reduction proposal

Delete obligations to provide documents and information on
paper.

What should be done?
The total administrative burden stemming from this directive
is estimated at € 18,000,000.
Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?
Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

The abovementioned obligations have no added value.
Electronic provision of information is sufficient for effective
supervision.
Administrative burden reduction € 100,000
Due to a limited annual number of prospectuses and a
relative low percentage of investors asking for paper copies
in practice the costs of this obligation are relatively low
(€ 100,000).
Positive impact on annoyance reduction
Nevertheless the obligation produces uncertainty and high
irritation for issuers. Removing this obligation will have a
positive impact in terms of annoyance reduction.

34/65

Reference to legislation

Prospectus Directive 2003/71 art 18

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

1. The competent authority of the home Member State
shall, at the request of the issuer or the person responsible
for drawing up the prospectus and within three working
days following that request or, if the request is submitted
together with the draft prospectus, within one working day
after the approval of the prospectus provide the competent
authority of the host Member State with a certificate of
approval attesting that the prospectus has been drawn up in
accordance with this Directive and with a copy of the said
prospectus. If applicable, this notification shall be
accompanied by a translation of the summary produced
under the responsibility of the issuer or person responsible
for drawing up the prospectus. The same procedure shall
be followed for any supplement to the prospectus.
2. The application of the provisions of Article 8(2) and (3)
shall be stated in the certificate, as well as its justification.

Reduction proposal
What should be done?

These obligations should be deleted, including the
prospectus summary translation. Language regime should
be harmonised for the whole internal market.

Justification of the proposal

The abovementioned obligations are unnecessary.

Why should it be done?

The total administrative burden stemming from this directive
is estimated at € 18,000,000.

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Administrative burden reduction € 100,000

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Due to a limited annual number of prospectuses the costs
of this obligation are relatively low in practice (€ 100,000).
Positive impact on annoyance reduction
Nevertheless the obligation produces high irritation for
issuers. Removing this obligation will have a positive impact
in terms of annoyance reduction.

35/65

Reference to legislation

Reinsurance 2005/68 art 12,19

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

12. Shareholders and members with qualifying holdings
The competent authorities of the home Member State shall
not grant to an undertaking an authorisation to take up the
business of reinsurance before they have been informed of
the identities of the shareholders or members, direct or
indirect, whether natural or legal persons, who have
qualifying holdings in that undertaking and of the amounts
of those holdings.
The same authorities shall refuse authorisation if, taking
into account the need to ensure the sound and prudent
management of a reinsurance undertaking, they are not
satisfied as to the qualifications of the shareholders or
members.
19. Acquisitions
Member States shall require any natural or legal person
who proposes to hold, directly or indirectly, a qualifying
holding in a reinsurance undertaking first to inform the
competent authorities of the home Member State, indicating
the size of his intended holding. That person must likewise
inform the competent authorities of the home Member State
if he proposes to increase his qualifying holding so that the
proportion of the voting rights or of the capital he holds
would reach or exceed 20 %, 33 % or 50 % or so that the
reinsurance undertaking would become his subsidiary.
The competent authorities of the home Member State shall
have up to three months from the date of the notification
provided for in the first paragraph to oppose such a plan if,
in view of the need to ensure sound and prudent
management of the reinsurance undertaking in question,
they are not satisfied as to the qualifications of the person
referred to in the first paragraph. If they do not oppose the
plan in question, they may fix a maximum period for its
implementation.

Reduction proposal

Exclude captives from the scope of articles 12 and 19.

What should be done?
Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Shareholders and holders of a qualifying holding in
reinsurance companies must be sound and prudent. The
definition of ‘reinsurance company’ includes ‘captive’. The
consequence of that is that articles 12 and 19 apply to
captives as well. However, in case of captives, persons who
are insured and the shareholders/holders of a qualifying
holding are often the same persons. There is no good
reason to apply articles 12 and 19 to captives.

36/65

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Positive impact on annoyance reduction
This obligation leads to a lot of irritation for the shareholders
of the captive. Removing this obligation will have a positive
impact in terms of annoyance reduction.

Third money laundering directive 2005/60 art 13(4)(c)(d)

In respect of transactions or business relationships with
politically exposed persons residing in another Member
State or in a third country, Member States shall require
those institutions and persons covered by this Directive to:
(a) (…);
(b) (…);
(c) take adequate measures to establish the source of
wealth and source of funds that are involved in the business
relationship or transaction;
(d) conduct enhanced ongoing monitoring of the business
relationship.

Reduction proposal

Make these obligations more risk based.

What should be done?
Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Not every PEP poses the same risk (they request different
services, come from different countries etc). The EU could
specify in the directive that institutions should be able to
determine whether a customer is a politically exposed
person in situations where there is an enhanced risk of
corruption.
Administrative burden reduction
€ 36,000,000 - € 75,000,000 (35 - 72%)
•

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

•

The PEP check leads to high administrative burdens
and compliance costs for financial institutions. In the
Netherlands the identity (including PEP) check is
performed 350,000 times every year by financial
institutions for new clients; furthermore institutions
monitor whether existing clients have become a
PEP.
Estimated costs of the performed checks (check,
procedures, education, registers) amount to
€104,000,000. A substantial part of these costs are
specific related to the PEP check.

37/65

•

Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

It is estimated that with a more risk based (product)
approach and exclusion of for example EU PEPs,
these costs could be reduced by € 36,000,000 € 75,000,000 (35 - 72%).

Pre-contractual information to consumers/retail
investors/policy holders: information on essential
characteristics of financial services or products (nature
of the service or the product, costs, risks, possible
revenues) should always be offered to
consumers/investors/policyholders before the
conclusion of a contract, other relevant information
should be available (for example through the internet)
and offered on request of the retail client.

•
•
•
•
•
•

Payment services directive (2007/64)
Distance marketing of financial services directive
(2002/65)
Ucits-directive (2001/107)
Insurance mediation directive (2002/92)
Markets in financial instruments directive
(2004/39) & (2006/73)
Draft consumer credit directive

And two directives that do not explicitly mention the
provision of information by electronic means:
• Life assurance directive (2002/83)
• Third - non life insurance directive (1992/49)

Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Information requirements in the above mentioned directives
should be divided into two categories. The essential
information should be offered and other relevant information
should only be made available to the consumer/retail
investor/ policy holder. This requires amendments to the
directives whereby two articles are introduced regarding the
dissemination of information. Information on the essential
characteristics should be disseminated according to the
following article:
‘The information referred to in articles … , shall be offered
to consumers.
The non-essential information should be disseminated
according to the following article’:
‘The information referred to in articles … , shall be available
to consumers and offered to the retail client upon request’.

38/65

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Financial services directives contain many requirements
regarding the provision of information to retail clients. The
fulfilment of all these requirements constitutes high
administrative burdens for financial institutions. This,
combined with the knowledge that retail clients are better
served with a limited amount of essential information, leads
to the proposal to limit the amount of information offered to
the retail client.
The total administrative burden stemming from directive
1992/49 in particular is estimated at € 24,000,000.

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Administrative burden reduction
€ 3,000,000 to € 5,000,000
•

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

•

The total structural administrative burdens in 2007
are approximately € 10,000,000.
Under the assumption that 1/3 to ½ of the
information is “non-essential” and could be
abolished a reduction of € 3,000,000 to € 5,000,000
could be achieved.

Positive effect on annoyance reduction
Abolishing the provision of "non-essential" information will
have a substantial positive impact on the involved
businesses in qualitative terms.

Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Transfer of portfolio:
•
•

•
•

to facilitate a portfolio transfer between credit
institutions and investment firms
to create a level playing field between insurance
companies, credit institutions and investment
firms
Directive 2006/48/EC relating to the taking up and
pursuit of the business of credit institutions (recast)
Directive 2004/39/EC on markets in financial
instruments amending Council Directives
85/611/EEC and 93/6EEC and Directive
2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC.

Reduction proposal

Replace the obligations in the above articles by

What should be done?

Article X
Transfer of portfolio
Under the conditions laid down by national law, each

39/65

Member State shall authorise credit institutions and
investment firms with head offices within its territory to
transfer all or part of their portfolios of contracts, including
those concluded either under the right of establishment or
the freedom to provide services, to an accepting office
established within the Community, if the competent
authorities of the home Member State of the accepting
office certify that, after taking the transfer into account, the
latter possesses the necessary own funds referred to in
Chapter 2 of Title IV.

Justification of the proposal

Credit institutions and investment firms would no longer be
required to ask permission from every retail client.

Why should it be done?

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Positive contribution to level playing field across
Europe
The proposal will lead to a level playing field between
insurance companies on the one hand and credit
institutions and investment firms on the other hand. The
expectation is that portfolios can be managed more
efficiently.

Reference to legislation

Outsourcing in financial services:

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

to allow outsourcing (‘delegation’) in financial services
if the criteria in the commonly applied definition of
outsourcing are met.
•
•

Payment services directive (2007/64)
Markets in financial instruments directive
(2004/39) & (2006/73)

And directives that do not explicitly mention the provision of
outsourcing:
• Life assurance directive (2002/83)
• Third - non life insurance directive (1992/49)
• Insurance mediation directive (2002/92)
• Distance marketing of financial services directive
(2002/65)
• Ucits-directive (2001/107)
• Coordinated banking directive (recast) (2006/48)
• Reinsurance directive (2005/68)
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

In the above mentioned directives it should be stipulated
that firms are allowed to outsource activities that would
normally be undertaken by the authorized entity now or in
the future if the outsourcing arrangements established by
the firm comply with the general - fully harmonized and

40/65

principle based - conditions for outsourcing in a directive
and without detriment to the continuity and quality of the
provision of services. Member states and the competent
authorities should not impose any additional outsourcing
arrangements requirements other than the general
conditions for outsourcing laid down in a directive.
Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Outsourcing provides companies with the flexibility to
customize a solution that helps to optimize their conduct of
business with regard to operational functions or any other
services or activities.
Administrative burden reduction
A commonly applied definition of outsourcing would
substantially reduce regulatory costs of financial institutions
and supervisors.
Positive contribution to a level playing field across
Europe
The proposal will contribute to a European level playing
field for financial services suppliers.

41/65

7. FISHERIES
Reference to
legislation

New Control Regulation to replace Regulation (EEC) 2847/93
establishing a control system applicable to the common
fisheries policy

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of
the reduction proposal?

Integrate all control measures from different regulations (e.g.
multiannual management and recovery plans) in the new Control
Regulation.

Several multiannual management and recovery plans concerning
different fish species contain paragraphs about controls. Control
measures are spread over different regulations and differ from each
other.
The present control regime provides fishermen and their trade
associations with substantial administrative burdens: keeping a
logbook, quota registration, reporting for control when bringing the
fish on shore, registration of percentages of other fish caught and
other reporting obligations. The new EC proposal to the Council
might even increase the burden, according to legal experts.
Administrative burden reduction
Harmonizing control measures is expected to produce
administrative burden reductions provided the burden of the
underlying regulations with respect to different species is reduced
as well.
Impact on annoyance reduction
Reducing the number of controls will have effect on the perceived
burden reduction by Dutch fishermen.

42/65

Reference to
legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses

Multiannual recovery or management plans concerning certain
fish stocks, e.g. Regulation (EC) 676/2007 establishing a
multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and
sole in the North Sea

Develop one effort management regime which contains all the effort
regimes for the different species, which are now spread over
different management and recovery plans.

Several multiannual recovery or management plans concerning
certain fish stocks (e.g. the management plan for plaice and sole
and the cod recovery plan) contain regimes for the management of
fishing effort. These plans together create a very complex basis for
a complete effort management.
Impact on annoyance reduction
A major irritation factor to Dutch fishermen is the lack of flexibility in
present legislation on management and recovery plans.

What is the impact of
the reduction proposal?

ð SUPPORT FOR THE FOLLOWING DANISH PROPOSAL

Commission Regulation (EEC) 2807/83 laying down detailed rules for recording
information on Member States' catches of fish, Council Regulation (EC) 423/2004
establishing measures for the recovery of cod stocks, Council Regulation (EC)
1098/2007 establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the
fisheries exploiting those stocks Council Regulation (EC) 676/2007 establishing a
multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea –
and other multiannual plans.
Harmonisation of rules about margin of tolerance in the logbook, for example Article 5(2) in
Commission Regulation, Article 11, in Council Regulation 676/2007, etc.
It would ease administrative burdens, if the same rule about margin of tolerance applied in all
situations, and it would be easier to control one single rule than many different rules.

43/65

8. FOOD SAFETY
Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws
of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation
and advertising of foodstuffs

Simplification proposal

The requirements in the directive should be made less detailed.

What should be done?

A) Introduction of Common Commencement dates once a year.
Any changes should be co-ordinated and take place at few
occasions to allow producers to change all their labelling at
once and there should be a suitable transition period.
B) Digitalise the information on ingredients and track of the
products in shops.

Justification of the proposal

A) By this means the food industry does not have to change its
labels every time regulation changes.

Why should it be done?
B) Labelling on the packaging of foodstuffs is one of the most
important ways that producers communicate with their
customers. However, the current legislation is detailed and
requires producers to provide more information than is
necessary on food labels. The information that producers are
required to provide on packaging should be limited to what is
necessary for the majority of consumers. Producers who sell
prepacked products for direct sale, should be able to provide
additional information through other channels, for example
through their website and costumer contact points. By creating
the possibility of providing information in shops (f.i. computer
screen) the information on the product itself can be
minimalized.
Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Administrative burden reduction
€ 74,000,000 – € 111,000,000
The total administrative burden concerning labelling amounts to
approximately € 370,000,000. The abovementioned proposals
would mean a significant administrative burden reduction for
the involved businesses. Rough estimates are in the range of
20% to 30%.
High impact on annoyance reduction
It is expected that the reduction of annoyance caused by the
present requirements regarding the labelling of prepacked
products will even have a higher impact than the reduction of
costs. A recent Dutch study from 2007 among traditional
businesses shows that the obligations to apply and change
labelling bear heavily on this kind of businesses. The amount of
specific ingredients of products changes frequently and is not

44/65

standard due to the fact that traditional businesses are
associated with original and creative selection of products. With
alternative options (e.g. digitalized) to present the product
information a company is much more flexible and can still
deliver the same level of information regarding its consumers
without re-labelling all of their products.

Reference to
legislation

Regulation 21/2004 establishing a system for the identification
and registration of ovine and caprine animals

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Article 7(2), second sentence: If the keeper keeps animals
permanently, he shall make an inventory of the animals kept at
regular intervals fixed by the competent authority of the Member State
and in any case at least annually.
Annex D(1): The computer database must contain at least for each
holding:
- the result of the inventory of animals mentioned in Article 7(2), and
the date when the inventory was carried out.

Reduction proposal
What should be done?
Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?

The obligation to count the animals and to inform the central
government (computer database) is irrelevant if all animals are
individually in the database and can be counted there.
The obligation should be made optional in any Member State in which
this information can be extracted automatically and at any time from
the national database. Comparable situations are to be found in
Article 5(4) and Article 6(4), in which the farm register and the
movement document are made optional in case this information is
part of the central computer database.

Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses

Administrative burden reduction € 250,000 to € 350,000

What is the impact of
the reduction proposal?

Reduction potential for national administrations

The keepers of sheep and goats no longer have to send in
information already available in their computer database.

A reduction potential is expected for the national administration
between € 100.000 and € 200.000
Considerable impact on annoyance reduction
The chance of irritation among the target group will decrease
considerably.

45/65

Reference to
legislation

Regulation 1/2005 on the protection of animals during
transport and related operations

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Article 4(1): No person shall transport animals without carrying
documentation in the means of transport stating: (a) their origin and
their ownership; (b) their place of departure; (c) the date and time of
departure; (d) their intended place of destination; (e) the expected
duration of the intended journey.
Council Regulation (EC) 21/2004 on the identification and
registration of sheep and goats
Article 6(1): As from 9 July 2005 whenever an animal is moved
within the national territory between two separate holdings, it shall
be accompanied by a movement document.
Article 6(4): By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the movement
document shall be optional in any Member State where a
centralised computer database containing at least the information
required by Section C of the Annex, except for the keeper's
signature, is operational.

Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses

Both regulations require more or less the same information. The
exception in Article 6(4) of Regulation 21/2005 is meant as a
reduction of administrative burden. If then Article 4(1) of Regulation
1/2005 still requires a paper document, this reduction of
administrative burden is undone.
Regulation 1/2005 requires the transport documentation to be
carried in the means of transport during the transport. Regulation
21/2004 allows the transport information to be optional if the
information is available in a central computer database. Allow that
information, available in an electronic reader or available in a
central computer database from the start of the transport, is
sufficient to fulfil the requirements of Regulation 1/2005 in case of
movements within the national territory.
Positive impact on annoyance reduction
•
•

What is impact of the
reduction proposal?

Making use of the electronic database instead of paper
journey logs will reduce irritation.
Information concerning the transportation of animals can be
viewed electronically by the national authority. They can
keep track of all transports and for example identify the
origin of animal diseases more easily.

46/65

Reference to
legislation

Regulation 1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning
animal by-products not intended for human consumption

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Annex II, chapter X: commercial document

Reduction proposal

One of the shared goals of the European Commission and the
Netherlands is the reduction of administrative burden for operators.
We feel that a reduction of the size of the trade document to one
page only would be a major step. This would mean a huge
advantage for all companies involved in the trade of animal byproducts. Of course, it should also become possible to use an
electronic version of this document in TRACES.

What should be done?

Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected
results/benefits for the
involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of
the reduction proposal?

In our letter VD 08.2697/SVW of 22 December 2008, we have
presented an amendment of the trade document. This is an
amendment to the draft implementing regulation on animal byproducts (rev 1). This includes removal of ‘declaration of the
transporter’, which is already a requirement that transporters have
to fulfil. We feel that this amended document contains all necessary
information with regard to identification and traceability. The
amendment has the support of a large part of the Dutch industry.
Administrative burden reduction € 1,250,000 to € 6,000,000
•
•

Reducing the size of the trade document is expected to lead
to a reduction of the average handling time by 25%.
The number of trade documents is enormous (1,000,000 to
5,000,000 a year).

Positive impact on annoyance reduction
The perceived burden is high, because the form has to be filled up
for every transport of animal by-products not intended for human
consumption. Reducing the length of the document will reduce the
irritation considerably.

47/65

9. PHARMACEUTICAL LEGISLATION
Reference to legislation

Directive 2001/83 (Pharmaceuticals) and Directive 93/42
as amended by Directive 2007/47 (Medical Devices)

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

A. The coherence between the definition of medical
devices and of medicinal products should be
improved.
B. The coherence between the requirements for
quality, safety and efficacy/functionality of medicinal
products and medical devices should be improved.
A. Because of the complex definitions of medicinal
product and medical device, there is an increasing
amount of products of which it isn’t clear whether it
is a medical device or a medicinal product. For
these products, it can take a lot of time and effort to
reach a decision which legislation should be
applicable to a particular product.
B. The underlying and preliminary issue is the
technological and scientific developments, which
lead to a growing convergence and coherence
between medical devices and medicinal products.
The legislation for the 2 types of products, and
consequently the data that have to be generated in
those legal frameworks are quite different.
The legislation should contain the best of both
worlds. There should be more coherence between
these requirements. Additionally, these
requirements for both medical devices and
medicinal products could be based more on an
extensive risk analysis of the product. This would
lead to a less labour-intensive market access for
new products while maintaining the same level of
quality and safety.
Proposal A: administrative burden reduction range:
25% - 50% = € 237,563 to € 475,127
•

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?
•

If the coherence between the definition of medical
devices and of medicinal products would be
improved as suggested, the potential administrative
burdens reduction is estimated between € 237,563
to € 475,127.
The main gain lies in the fact that businesses are
expected to spend between 25- 50% less time in
determining which obligations they need to fulfill.

48/65

Proposal B: administrative burden reduction range
(medicinal products): 5% - 10% =
€ 1,547,304 to € 3,094,606
Administrative burden reduction range (medical
devices): € 1,018,063 to € 2,036,127
•

•
•

If the legislation concerning medical devices and
medicinal products was harmonized to achieve more
coherence between requirements and the legislation
was to be applied based on a risk analysis of the
product, the expected gain for Dutch businesses
would be expected to be around 5- 10 % of total
administrative burdens.
For medicinal products this would lead to a
reduction between € 1,547,304 to € 3,094,606.
For medical devices this would lead to a reduction
between € 1,018,063 to € 2,036,127.

High impact on annoyance reduction (proposals A and
B)
•

•

It is expected that the reduction of annoyance
caused by the time spent on deciding which
legislation is applicable, will have a much larger
impact on the perception of the Dutch
pharmaceutical and medical technical industry than
the reduction of real costs in euros.
For instance it may occur that authorities cause
(additional) annoyance by rejecting a company’s
application. In that scenario the manufacturer has to
start the procedure of submitting the application all
over again.

49/65

10. PRIVACY (additional area)
Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Directive 95/46/EC: reporting the elaboration of
personal data by inspection authorities in several
Member States (article 19)

Reduction proposal

A) Harmonisation of data that need to be reported.

What should be done?

Article 19 of directive 95/46/EC lays down that Member
States determine which information has to be included in
the registration. Apart from certain data, Member States are
free to determine what needs to be reported.
By using a limitative list with compulsory information, it
would be possible for companies to report in all Member
States in the same way.
This proposal implies an amendment of directive 95/46/EC.
B) Mutual recognition of reports in another Member State.
If a company carries out the same handling of data in
several Member States, it would not be necessary to report
this elaboration in all Member States. Under certain
conditions reporting in one Member State would do.
This proposal implies an amendment of directive 95/46/EC.

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

A company with offices in several Member States is
confronted with the obligation to report handling of data in
all these Member States. The requirements related to the
content of the report can differ per Member State.
The total administrative burden stemming from this directive
is estimated to be € 4,353,478.

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Administrative burden reduction
€ 147,285 - € 3,976,695
•

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

•

If Member States recognize / accept notification
requirements in a single Member State, the potential
administrative burden reduction is estimated
between € 147,285 (notification in 1 additional
Member State) and € 3,976,695 (notification in all
Member States).
The main gain lies in the fact that organizations with
operations in multiple Member States are expected
to spend less time and effort in the notification
process in each Member State.

50/65

Positive impact on annoyance reduction
It is expected that the reduction of annoyance caused by
the time and effort spent towards determining notification
requirements in each Member State as well as the need for
multiple notifications in different Member States will have a
significant impact on organizations operating in more than
one Member State.

Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Directive 95/46/EC: providing data to the person
concerned on the initiative of the person concerned
(article 12)

A limitation of cases in which the person concerned has to
be informed.
The data provision can be left undone if it appears to be
impossible or disproportionally burdensome for the person
responsible to inform the person concerned.
This proposal implies an amendment of directive 95/46/EC.
If personal data are being processed, the person
responsible has to inform the person concerned at his/her
request. In some cases this can produce disproportional
administrative burdens.
The total administrative burden stemming from this directive
is estimated to be € 4,353,478.

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Administrative burden reduction
€ 118,242 to € 591,210
•

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?
•

•

The percentage of requests with high costs / large
efforts related to the interests of individual data will
and should be low. The potential administrative
burden reduction is estimated between € 118,242
and € 591,210.
The main gain lies in the fact that organizations are
expected to focus more on rights of access to
individual data in general terms and will spend less
time in determining how to fulfil complex requests.
The monetary effects are limited and are
proportional to the number of cases where
(legitimate) requests cannot be (easily) met.

Positive impact on annoyance reduction
The proposal is directed towards limiting annoyance effects
(requests with high costs in relation to fulfilling rights of
access to individual data).

51/65

11. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT
Reference to legislation

Directive 2004/18/EC, article 33

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Removal of the obligation for contracting authorities, to
publish a simplified contract notice before they can issue an
invitation to tender, inviting all interested economic
operators to submit an indicative tender within a time limit
that may not be less than 15 days from the date on which
the simplified notice was sent.
The dynamic purchasing system is an ideal system to
reduce costs and time for economic operators to tender for
a contract. However, this system is barely used by
contracting authorities because there is hardly an
advantage compared to other procedures.
Removing the abovementioned obligation will increase the
use of the dynamic purchasing system and by that will lower
the costs for economic operators to tender for a contract.

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Administrative burden reduction (based on the sum of
the ranges of the three categories)
€ 3,657,500 to € 6,038,000

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

The reduction is divided into three categories:
• Construction 1% - 5% = € 60,000 tot € 300,500
• Services 5% - 10% = € 682,000 to € 1,364,000
• Delivery 50% - 75% = € 2,915,500 to € 4,373,500
By using a dynamic purchasing system the average
administrative burdens can be reduced by € 9,900 per
procedure.
Impact on contracting authorities
It is expected that this reduction proposal is also relevant for
contracting authorities, because the tender procedure will
be shortened by 15 days. A contracting authority does not
need to invite all the interested economic operators to
submit an indicative tender.

52/65

Reference to legislation

Directive 2004/18/EC, article 28

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Insert an option into the restricted procedure to allow
contracting authorities to let the procedure be conducted in
successive phases, on the basis of previously indicated
contract award criteria, in order to gradually reduce the limit
the number of candidates to a minimum of three. This
option will only be possible on the basis of the most
economically advantageous tender.
The time and costs for an economic operator to tender for a
contract can be very high. Especially when the contracting
authority uses functional requirements the cost for a tender
can be extremely high. Gradual reduction of the number of
suitable candidates will reduce the costs and time for
economic operators to make a tender.
This option can (also) be used for tenders for which the
competitive dialogue or a negotiated procedure gives no
solace, because they are not considered as particularly
complex contracts.

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Regulatory burden reduction
€ 1,000,000 to € 1,700,000
The main benefit lies in the fact that due to the successive
phases, the number of candidates having to submit full
proposals is reduced by 50%.

ð SUPPORT FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL BY BUSINESS EUROPE
Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004
coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,
transport and postal services sectors
Article 67 of this directive sets out statistical obligations that bring along considerable survey
expenses for companies.
Either the elimination of the above-mentioned article or at least a significant simplification
should be the required action.

53/65

12. STATISTICS
Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Regulation (EC) No 638/2004 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on Community
statistics relating to the trading of goods between
Member States and repealing Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3330/91, in particular article 10 paragraph 3
Simplification within the Intrastat system
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
amending Regulation (EC) No 638/2004 on Community
statistics relating to the trading of goods between
Member States1 (not yet published in the Official Journal)

Reduction proposal
What should be done?

The Netherlands proposes a reduction of the compulsory
minimum coverage rates of total dispatches and total arrivals
to 90%.
In addition - for the long term efficiency - the Netherlands
supports the possible future introduction of a single flow
system.
Other possibilities, like a reform of the statistics on foreign
trade, need to be investigated at the same time.

Justification of the
proposal
Why should it be done?

In order to reduce the administrative burden in the short run,
the Netherlands proposes a further reduction of the
compulsory minimum coverage rates of total dispatches and
total arrivals of goods to 90%.
The minimum trade coverage rate can be lowered further, in
order to exempt additional small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) from the obligation to report to Intrastat.
Coverage

97%

95%

93%

90%

NL

0%

-22%

-35%

-47%

EU 25

0%

-31%

-47%

-60%

# Companies

97%

95%

93%

90%

NL

23.000

17.940

14.950

12.190

EU 25
539.309 372.123
97% reflects the current situation.

285.833

215.723

In general the Netherlands supports the proposal to simplify
Intrastat. However, further study is necessary because it is
not yet clear what the net effects of the introduction of single
1

In this proposal the Commission puts forward a revision of the minimum coverage rate for arrivals of
goods from 97% to 95%. The minimum coverage rate for dispatches of goods remains unchanged
(97%).
54/65

flow system are on the reduction of the response burden for
the companies involved. Nor is it clear what the effects are
on the quality of the statistical information in the short and
medium term. The single flow approach is therefore seen as
a possible option for the long term.
Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Administrative burdens reduction
€ 3,000,000 to € 6,000,000
•

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?
•

Thanks to this proposal the number of businesses
receiving the Intrastat survey of the Netherlands
Statistical Office (CBS) can be decreased by
approximately 47%.
By lowering the minimum threshold a saving in
administrative expenses of € 3,000,000 to
€ 6,000,000 can be expected.

Positive impact on annoyance reduction
Various measurements have shown that businesses are
annoyed by surveys. The policy of CBS is to diminish surveys
imposed on businesses to a minimum. Increasingly,
information is derived from and recycled by existing material.
A reduction of the population of firms with about a half for
Intrastat (as aimed for in this proposal) will have a very
positive impact on the way the involved businesses perceive
CBS.

55/65

ð SUPPORT FOR THE FOLLOWING DANISH PROPOSALS
•

Council Regulation (EEC) No 530/1999 of 9th March 1999

The proposal is to cut back on the analysis of coherence to a much more aggregated level.
There is definitely a need to control coherence between statistics produced in different
domains. A number of the differences are due to the definitions and concepts of the
statistical products. It is burdensome for Member States to explain these differences, which
occur in each country and in many cases they are similar. When analysis of coherence is
needed, our proposal is that Eurostat conducts it and Member States only comment on
substantial differences not related to definitions or concepts.
The quality reports are based on a common template with six quality dimensions where one
of the quality dimensions is coherence with other statistical areas with identical or similar
variables. Documentation regarding Structural Statistics on Earnings and Labour Costs for
coherence in data related to: The Labour Force Survey (LFS), Structure of Business
Statistics (SBS), Labour Cost Index (LCI) and National Accounts (NA) have to be delivered
on NACE sections and reasons have to be indicated if differences occur.

•

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91 and Commission Regulation (EC) No
1901/2000 laying down certain provisions for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91 (Intrastat)

Denmark supports the work that has been done to introduce a single-flow system, but
several conditions have to be fulfilled:
- The quality of the resulting statistics for each individual Member State (i.e. both flows) must
be maintained.
- Timeliness in connection with the collection and dissemination of data has to be guaranteed
and for some Member States must be improved significantly compared with the situation
today.
- The inclusion of new Member States in the European Union must be taken into account in
respect of the above-mentioned conditions.
Danish studies have revealed that Intrastat statistics accounts for 3/4 of the total statistical
burden on companies (AMVAB, sep. 2004). The total burden caused by Intrastat on Danish
companies has been estimated to 17 mill. Euro/year. Especially Intrastat Import is
burdensome, accounting for totally 2/3 of the total statistic burdens in Denmark.

56/65

13. TRANSPORT
Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the
harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to
road transport and amending Council Regulations
(EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (digital
tachograph)

Reduction proposal

Reduce the number of requirements.

What should be done?

1. Restrict the monitoring period en route to 7 days. So only
check whether the driver has observed the driving and rest
periods en route for the previous week. Check the two
weekly driving time and compensation for weekly rest
periods at the company. This eases the pressure of the
administrative burden for drivers en route and avoids
administrative fines.
2. A) Design a new digital tachograph that is more userfriendly for companies and in doing so avoid companies
have to acquire all sorts of peripheral equipment in order to
be able to work with the tachograph. Allow remote reading
of the tachograph and driver card. Change the current EU
means legislation (with detailed technical specifications)
into goal legislation. This will foster more innovation and a
more user-friendly digital tachograph.
B) Eliminate the compulsory EU form to prove (private)
activities.
3. Finally, give Member States more freedom to exempt
national transport from these rules, provided it is not
competitive-sensitive and does not pose a danger to road
safety.

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

The European Council decided that with effect from 1 May
2006 all new buses and new heavy goods vehicles have to
be equipped with a digital tachograph. The object of this
decision is to harmonise enforcement and to promote safety
and working conditions. The introduction of this has
however, resulted in a number of bottlenecks:
1. In addition to driver cards and company cards,
companies also have to acquire reading devices and
software programmes totalling a cost of some thousands of
euros. The system is, however, very outdated and
extremely user-unfriendly.
2. A) This means that the driver has to be able to prove
what he has done en route for 21 days (later 28 days) on
penalty of high fines if information is lacking. The monitoring
period was always 7 days. This means that the driver is
encumbered en route with a considerable administrative
burden that does not contribute to road safety.

57/65

B) Drivers have to prove (private) activities through a fixed
EU form. This costs a lot of time and efforts, whereas a
properly filled form does not provide any guarantee for the
fact that violations have not taken place. In other words: a
paper reality. Moreover, the digital tachograph already
registers working times.
3. In addition to this extra obligation, a number of exemption
categories have been restricted or deleted whereby
branches that had been previously exempted are still bound
by the tachograph obligation. And that requires an
investment of thousands of euros for the acquisition and
installation of tachographs and the auxiliary equipment.
Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

+/- 10% reduction in administrative burdens
The proposal has a considerable effect on the time spent on
different information obligations. For example ‘request
replacement tachograph card’, ‘applications workshop card’,
‘keeping certificate data’, ‘submitting tachograph card’, etc.
It is estimated that the proposal will lead to a decrease in
administrative burdens with approximately 10%. If individual
Member States get the opportunity to increase the amount
of branches excluded from using the digital tachograph, the
decrease in administrative burdens will be higher.
+/- 20% compliance cost reduction of almost
€ 20,000,000 a year
At the moment the Dutch transport sector estimates they
have to spend approximately €100,000,000 on reading
devices and software programmes to use the digital
tachograph. With a new more user-friendly tachograph they
estimate that handling costs could be reduced by € 250 per
vehicle. For the total Dutch transport sector this would
mean a compliance cost reduction of almost € 20,000,000 a
year.
Huge impact on annoyance reduction
The proposal has a significant impact on the reduction of
annoyance in the sector. A couple of transport
representatives have described this as the no.1 annoyance
in the transport sector, especially the following aspects: the
reading speed of tachograph is poor, link to on-board
computer is not possible, speed of sending data to the
office is limited, available hardware and software is not
standardized, short distances or many stop times lead to
data loss, registration driving time differs from reality.

58/65

Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Directive 2000/56 and directive 2003/59 (2006/126/EC in
2011)
(double requirements with regard to driving licences
and professional competence of drivers)

1. Withdraw the supplementary professional competence
requirements for obtaining driving licence C and D the
moment that EC directive 2003/59 is implemented. This
way a logical division will be re-established between
professional competence requirements for professional
drivers and the standard driving training for private
individuals and drivers in the business sector to which no
supplementary professional competence requirements
apply.
2. With regard to the medical examination for extending the
driving licence: this should be replaced by a duty to report.

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Directive 2000/56 concerns the driving licence and is the
most recent revision of this directive. With this revision, the
European Commission has considerably stiffened the
requirements for obtaining driving licence category C and D
by adding additional professional competence
requirements.
Directive 2003/59 will, however, come into force for freight
traffic in 2009. This directive prescribes regulations for the
Member States for setting up a professional competence
certification and five-yearly compulsory refresher training of
professional drivers in goods and passenger transport by
road.
The co-existence of these directives means that drivers
have to deal with double training requirements and the 3rd
driving licence directive results in a considerable curtailment
of the validity period of the C and D driving licences (this is
ten years in the Netherlands, and will therefore be reduced
to five years). This is a substantial increase in driving test
costs, etc.
Administrative burden reduction +/- € 850,000
•

The duplication of the competence requirements in
obtaining the drivers license (category C and D) and
the compulsory professional competence
requirements imply that drivers are trained twice.
Annually, in the Netherlands approximately 17.000
people obtain their drivers license (category C and
D), of whom 9,000 will face the supplementary
professional competence requirements (the
remaining 8.000 will not use their drivers license for
professional purposes). One should take under
consideration that if the regular exams are changed,
because of an integration with the professional
requirements training, it is likely the training and
exams will take approximately 15 minutes longer.
59/65

•

The net reduction will be € 461,475.
At the same time the total costs related to providing
training for people will change. Taking into account
the extra costs for changing the curriculum, the net
reduction will be € 382,500.

Less annoyance
Professional drivers are annoyed by the fact that they are
trained/tested twice on the same subject. This feeling is
reinforced by the fact that this segment of the population is
often practice and not theory oriented. This proposal will
solve this problem. Moreover potential candidates will not
have to face such extended exams to become a
professional driver, which can help to fill up the shortage of
professional drivers in the Netherlands. By combining the
competence requirements with the professional
competence requirements the distribution of new regulation
and safety will be guaranteed.

Reference to legislation

Directive 96/53 phase out transport of 45 feet
containers by road transport

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Change the maximum vehicle length of 16,50 meter to 17,3
meter in directive 96/53. In this way the transport of 45 feet
containers is possible in the EU.

There is an increase of transport with 45 feet containers in
transport with ships these days.
The demand of transport with 45 feet containers by road
transport remains to exist.
The EU forbid cross border transport with these containers
by road transport. Home transport is allowed under certain
circumstances.
In this way road transport of a 45 feet container from the
harbour of Anvers to the Netherlands is not allowed.
Effects: cargo split, more costs and transport miles.
EU directive 96/53 allows a maximum vehicle length of 16,5
meter for international transport of containers by road
transport.
This length is not enough for the transport of 45 feet
containers on a normal chassis and a truck with 2 axles.
Therefore in the Netherlands the maximum vehicle length
for home transport is 17,5 meter now.

60/65

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

Lower transport costs
To comply with the 96/53 directive, goods are transported to
smaller or adjusted containers. This form of transport is
more expensive than regular 45 ft containers. Goods that
do not have to be transferred to different containers can be
moved quicker. The volumes that can be moved in one full
truck load increase and could theoretically require fewer
vehicles to move the goods.
Less annoyance
Business experience annoyance due to the fact that the
containers can be moved within the Netherlands, but not
internationally. The throughput time is decreased when
exemptions have to be requested or cargo unloaded. Many
Dutch businesses have faced high fines and forced
unloading due to failing to comply with the regulations.
Administrative burden reduction
In order to transport 45 ft containers to/through for example
Germany, specific exemptions have to be requested. These
exemptions cost money and take time. The proposal will
lead to a saving of time and money as exemptions will no
longer have to be requested. According to Sira Consulting
and the University of Leuven these cost reductions make
the transport industry more efficient and increase
competition within the EU. Since this example implies a
specific German regulation the associated costs are not
known at this moment in time.

Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned

Reduction proposal
What should be done?

2000/532/EC: Commission Decision of 3 May 2000
replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes
pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC
on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing
a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of
Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste
(European Waste Catalogue)
A. At European and international level, steps should be
taken to harmonize the existing differing EU waste
classification codes. This concerns in particular the
codes for waste shipments pursuant to the Basel
Convention and the European Waste Catalogue.
European legislation should provide for a
harmonized and binding application only of the
European Waste Codes. The European Waste
Catalogue should be reviewed in a more SMEfriendly way.
B. Harmonize registration demands and create a
central EU register. A notification obligation will do
when working with harmless waste.
61/65

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses
What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

A. According to current practice, several waste
classification codes are used at European and
national level. That creates additional burden for the
businesses concerned, e.g. in waste shipment or
other foreign trade related procedures, or in
statistical reporting. The requirement to deliver data
referring to different classification codes concerns
many SMEs.
B. Transporters, collectors, traders and intermediaries,
who are working with waste, have to register
themselves separately in every member state.
Companies working with harmless (“green list”)
waste have to register themselves as well, including
for instance the severe demands regarding
professional ability.
Proposal A: high impact on annoyance reduction
The impact on perceived benefits will be very significant.
Hundred thousands of codes are assigned each year.
Working with only one register would make the process of
assigning much more friendly. Especially because the
nature of the two codes is different.
Proposal B: administrative burden reduction estimated
at € 2,500,000
•

•

The total expected benefits as a result of
harmonizing registration demands and the creation
of a central EU register are estimated at
€ 2,500,000.
About 9,300 Dutch businesses working with waste
are registered in the Netherlands. There are no data
available on how many of these businesses sell or
transport waste in other Member States. Almost
20% of Dutch businesses are expected to have at
least one registration in another Member State. This
would mean about 1,820 businesses in total. An
average of two registrations per business is
assumed, based on an expert opinion (source:
SIRA).

62/65

14. WORKING ENVIRONMENT / EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
Reference to legislation
Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal
What should be done?

Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Framework Directive (89/391/EEC) of 12 June 1989 on
the introduction of measures to encourage
improvements in the safety and health of workers at
work

The European Commission is asked to forward a proposal
to amend the Framework Directive in such a way that
flexibility is (re)introduced (room for Member States to
manoeuvre and formulate their national prevention policies).
This Framework directive sets out a number of principles for
the organisation of Occupational Health and Safety in
Member States.
As in most Member States there were already functioning
Occupational Safety and Health Systems, it was important
that these (functioning) national structures could be
maintained. Additionally the idea was that Member States
would be able to take into account the specific national
context in formulating an effective prevention policy.
In general the Framework directive has had a favourable
impact on the prevention policy in Member States.
However there are also some complications. One of them
relates to the issue that although the Framework directive
does provide some flexibility with respect to its
implementation, in practice this flexibility has been limited
considerably by the European Court (subsequent court
rulings).
Another issue relates to a very strict interpretation with
respect to the documented risk assessment. Although in
general (written) risk assessments and setting up
prevention plans are often useful and desirable, there can
be situations in which the added value will be limited or
absent. In the development of this Framework directive the
notion to exempt certain categories of companies was an
important guideline for implementing it in Member States.

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

Administrative burden reduction
€ 48,000,000 - € 73,000,000 (33% - 50%)
•

The underlying assumption is that all Dutch firms up
to 10 employees are exempted from the obligation
to produce a Risk Assessment and Evaluation
(RAE) in writing.

•

Preparing RAEs and related improvement proposals
remains an obligation, but no longer in writing. The
RAE obligations to small firms account for:
- Preparing RAE: € 54,000,000.
- Preparing RAE plan: € 55,000,000.

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

63/65

-

Reference to legislation

Adjusting RAE: € 36,000,000.

Council directive safety signs (92/58)

Legal act and the
article(s)/paragraph(s)
concerned
Reduction proposal

Obtainance of clarity in the production and use of safety
signs.

What should be done?
This Directive harmonises requirements for safety signs in
the EU with the purpose that safety signs, used throughout
Member States, have the same meaning. Safety signs
include illuminated signs, hand and acoustic signals,
spoken communication and marking of pipe work.
Justification of the proposal
Why should it be done?

Expected results/benefits
for the involved Dutch
businesses

There have been quite a number of complaints by for
instance internationally operating enterprises, airports as
well as manufacturers of safety signs about differences
between the requirements of the directive and the rules of
International standards (ISO) for illuminated signs.
These differences hinder a worldwide harmonisation. They
oblige manufacturers and companies to produce and use
more signs than necessary.
Impact on compliance costs
•

What is the impact of the
reduction proposal?

•

•
•

This directive lays down minimum requirements for
the provision of safety and health signs to be used
at places at work. Requirements from the directive
cause compliance costs like providing safety and/or
health signs (art. 3), informing workers and/or their
representatives and giving suitable instruction (art.
7).
Differences between international standards (ISO)
and Directive 92/58 specifications seem to be the
problem here. The reduction proposal means
worldwide harmonization of safety signs and
obligations related to using them.
Compliance costs are effective in the case of safety
signs legislation, and harmonization will no doubt
effectuate a reduction.
The actual volume of the reduction cannot be
estimated based on desk research, as the field
involved is too large and too complex. This would
require establishing:
- obligations with respect to safety signs in
Directive 92/58 and ISO
- number of firms dealing with these
obligations. Probably these obligations are
mainly relevant for companies in the industry

64/65

-

and the transport sector.
problems with these firms in applying
different standards causing compliance costs
best practice in harmonizing the obligations
involved
the effect of harmonization for compliance
costs.

ð SUPPORT FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPOSALS BY BUSINESS EUROPE
•

Council Directive 90/270/EEC on the minimum safety and health requirements
for work with display screen equipment
The Directive does not reflect current technological standards and the modern work
environment. Some detailed provisions are, for example, based on completely
outdated technical specifications for computer equipment. The Directive should be
brought up-to-date. Any detailed provisions should be replaced with more general
guidelines to avoid the Directive having to be constantly updated to reflect
technological developments. Guidelines would allow companies to make provisions
that are suitable to their sector and size. These guidelines should be accompanied by
clear and concise guidance to assist companies in complying with the rules.

•

Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum
safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites
(eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive
89/391/EEC)
The Directive provides in Art. 6 lit.c) that during the preparation phase the coordinator
has to “prepare a file appropriate to the characteristics of the project containing
relevant safety and health information to be taken into account during
any subsequent works.” According to Art. 6 lit. c) this file has to be updated “to take
account of the progress of the work and any changes which have occurred”. This
provision may help to reduce costs for any other enterprise carrying out future work
on the building, but it places an additional burden on the enterprise currently working
on it.
Many SMEs work on temporary or mobile construction sites as coordinators. These
provisions greatly impact on them.
The provision should be deleted.

•

Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May
1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning
pressure equipment
The Directive imposes large administrative costs on business. The legislation is
extensive and complicated. These factors taken together result in high compliance
costs for companies that generate district heating. The Directive needs to be
simplified and adjusted to match the overall situation for district heating. This would
reduce compliance costs for business and improve general understanding of this
legislation.
65/65