1. Single Market Information Tool seen from a business perspective
27/05/2018
27/05/2018
Single Market Information Tool seen from a business perspective
Brussels, 23 June 2017
Presentation by Erwan Bertrand, Policy EUROCHAMBRES 1

2. EUROCHAMBRES

3. Selected elements of the proposal
Investigative ultima ratio instrument (option 4 the IA); But also complement to information received from MS and complainants.
It is supposed to be a enforcement mechanism, limiting the number of infringement proceedings.
The Regulatory Scrutiny Board had questions about:
The SMIT as a source of information for SM related policy purposes that do not stem from specific enforcement deficiencies;
Lack of clarity on safeguards and conditions which might trigger investigations.
The views of MS and businesses not reflected sufficiently.
Scope: micro’s are out, SMEs are in;
Areas covered: IM, agri, transport, environment and energy areas.

4. Our initial position We favour initiatives that foster the SM;
Enforcement of existing rules is key. There are too many « regulatory failures »;
The main problems are not due to companies not respecting rules, but MS not implementing SM laws; More should be done through infringement proceedings;
Segmentation is because of regulatory failures, companies have to work in this imperfect environment (eg geoblocking practices).

5. Is there a need for a new tool?
Principles of proportionality and necessity;
Not clear why existing toolbox is not sufficient;
Costs? (less than 1000 € per enquiry?)
Real ultima ratio?
SMEs could be more targeted than suggested;
Simple requests vs decisions? (art. 6)
What is a “serious difficulty” with the application of SM law undermining ability to achieve policy aims (art. 4)?
Type of information asked; identification of companies (art. 8: passing of info to other entities);
Questions regarding periodic penalty payments and fines by Decisions.
High fines (art. 9)

6. Consultation and consultation results
Limited number of responses (# = 71):
44 from firms, 16 from citizens, 11 from authorities;
Firms: issue with statistics and representativity.
The Commission’s interpretation of the responses is quite liberal and optimistic, eg:
Respondents stressed the need for a strong legal framework for any tool allowing the Commission to request market information from firms. Such tool would need to guarantee at least confidentiality, proportionality, neutrality, non-discrimination, a level playing field and a possible right of appeal.
“Were the above conditions secured, firms would be willing to provide all kinds of information to authorities, with most positive answers concerning information on: turnover, volumes, profits, geographical distribution, ownership, employment and cross-border business.”

7. Alternatives?
Compliance promoting tools: guidelines and expert group meetings (eg new GDPR group);
Better regulation guidelines;
Better partnerships with MS to share information (Policy option 2);
Compliance dialogues;
Solve infringement proceedings more quickly, make them less political.

8. Other priorities of the Estonian Presidency (1/2)
The Single Digital Gateway
Would reply to information need of businesses and citizens going abroad;
Is a sympton of a lack of single market;
Positive elements: MS would be asked to make certain business procedures online; creation of level playing field.
Crucial that MS cooperate and provide enough information.

9. Other priorities of the Estonian Presidency (2/2)
The services E-Card
The proposals should be seen as a first step in reaching the objectives stated by the Commission;
Trust between MS is crucial;
We welcome:
The standardised document approach;
The default approval mechanism which should prompt the host member state, to process applications quickly;
The voluntary nature of the tool.

10. Thank you for your attention!
Questions?