PURPOSE: to launch a consultation on the integrated\nparcel delivery market for the growth of e-commerce in the EU\n(Commission Green Paper).
\nBACKGROUND: according to estimations, the EU parcel\nmarket was estimated to be worth €42.4 billion in\n2008.
\nOver the last 5 years, and due to the growth of\ne-commerce, the business to consumer segment of the parcel and\npacket markets has grown rapidly. Estimates of today's volumes\nindicate that this segment now represents between 20 % and 40% of\ntotal volumes in more mature e-commerce markets such as the United\nKingdom. In the EU-27, only 9% of EU consumers and 18% of EU\nretailers use cross-border e-commerce. Cross-border delivery is\nconsidered to be an obstacle by 57% of retailers10, while 46.7% of\nconsumers declare they worry about the delivery in cross-border\ntransactions.
\nThe Commission's Communication on ecommerce and\nonline services identifies the delivery of goods\npurchased online as one of the top five priorities to boost\ne-commerce by 2015 and its importance has been reiterated by the\nCouncil of the European Union and the European Parliament in its\nresolution of 21 September\n2010. Delivery is indeed critical as it has a substantial impact\non facilitating e-commerce trade and is a key element for\nbuilding trust between sellers and buyers.
\nA more appropriate design of the delivery chain for\ne-commerce in the EU would also have positive implications for a\nnumber of policy areas such as cohesion, employment,\ninnovation, environment, competitiveness of European industry to\npromote investment in a European delivery network which faces\nintense competition in the international environment.
\nCONTENT: this Green Paper examines how the e-commerce\nand delivery markets in Europe are evolving, explores what is\nrequired for the creation of a Single Market for delivery, analyses\nthe key challenges for the different actors, and highlights the\nopportunities for improving the delivery process to the benefits of\ncitizens and businesses, in particular SMEs.
\nBased on an analysis of the existing regulatory and\ninstitutional framework, three main issues are considered\ninstrumental in creating an integrated EU parcel delivery\nmarket :
\n(1) Convenience: greater convenience and transparency\nfor consumers. In this context, the\nGreen Paper focuses on the following points:
\n(2) Controlling costs:\nconsumers and e-retailers consider generally current price levels\nto be too high. By contrast, operators argue that they already work\nwith low margins and that sustainable prices are necessary to\nensure their long-term economic viability. There is a need to\nidentify solutions to limit the impact on delivery prices of\ncrossing border and to close the existing gap between the\ndomestic and the cross-border price, where it is not objectively\njustified.
\nConsumers often perceive the choice of delivery\nsolutions to be very limited due to the lack of transparency of the\nmarket, and the actual state – or perceived state – of\ncompetition on the market. Specific ex ante regulatory solutions\ncould be envisaged to the benefit of consumers by making\ndelivery markets competitive on a sustainable basis.
\n(3) Improving interoperability along the delivery\nchain: more transparency and\nbetter partnerships are required in order to address the need of\neretailers, to better understand what constitutes best logistic and\ndelivery practices and to effectively communicate the delivery\noptions that are available to consumers. Successful\npartnership within and between these two sectors will be\ndecisive for the future of ecommerce.
\nThe Commission services have already launched a\nnumber of demonstration actions aiming to improve the\ncompetitiveness of the transport and logistics sector in Europe,\nthrough the smart use of information technologies and connect, in\nparticular smaller enterprises to digital transport and logistics\nvalue chains.
\nAll interested parties are invited to submit their\nviews in response to the consultation at the latest by 15\nFebruary 2013. As a follow up to this Green Paper and on the\nbasis of the responses received, the Commission will identify, in\nspring 2013, the set of actions to be taken to complete the single\nmarket for parcels.
\nPURPOSE: to launch a consultation on the integrated\nparcel delivery market for the growth of e-commerce in the EU\n(Commission Green Paper).
\nBACKGROUND: according to estimations, the EU parcel\nmarket was estimated to be worth €42.4 billion in\n2008.
\nOver the last 5 years, and due to the growth of\ne-commerce, the business to consumer segment of the parcel and\npacket markets has grown rapidly. Estimates of today's volumes\nindicate that this segment now represents between 20 % and 40% of\ntotal volumes in more mature e-commerce markets such as the United\nKingdom. In the EU-27, only 9% of EU consumers and 18% of EU\nretailers use cross-border e-commerce. Cross-border delivery is\nconsidered to be an obstacle by 57% of retailers10, while 46.7% of\nconsumers declare they worry about the delivery in cross-border\ntransactions.
\nThe Commission's Communication on ecommerce and\nonline services identifies the delivery of goods\npurchased online as one of the top five priorities to boost\ne-commerce by 2015 and its importance has been reiterated by the\nCouncil of the European Union and the European Parliament in its\nresolution of 21 September\n2010. Delivery is indeed critical as it has a substantial impact\non facilitating e-commerce trade and is a key element for\nbuilding trust between sellers and buyers.
\nA more appropriate design of the delivery chain for\ne-commerce in the EU would also have positive implications for a\nnumber of policy areas such as cohesion, employment,\ninnovation, environment, competitiveness of European industry to\npromote investment in a European delivery network which faces\nintense competition in the international environment.
\nCONTENT: this Green Paper examines how the e-commerce\nand delivery markets in Europe are evolving, explores what is\nrequired for the creation of a Single Market for delivery, analyses\nthe key challenges for the different actors, and highlights the\nopportunities for improving the delivery process to the benefits of\ncitizens and businesses, in particular SMEs.
\nBased on an analysis of the existing regulatory and\ninstitutional framework, three main issues are considered\ninstrumental in creating an integrated EU parcel delivery\nmarket :
\n(1) Convenience: greater convenience and transparency\nfor consumers. In this context, the\nGreen Paper focuses on the following points:
\n(2) Controlling costs:\nconsumers and e-retailers consider generally current price levels\nto be too high. By contrast, operators argue that they already work\nwith low margins and that sustainable prices are necessary to\nensure their long-term economic viability. There is a need to\nidentify solutions to limit the impact on delivery prices of\ncrossing border and to close the existing gap between the\ndomestic and the cross-border price, where it is not objectively\njustified.
\nConsumers often perceive the choice of delivery\nsolutions to be very limited due to the lack of transparency of the\nmarket, and the actual state – or perceived state – of\ncompetition on the market. Specific ex ante regulatory solutions\ncould be envisaged to the benefit of consumers by making\ndelivery markets competitive on a sustainable basis.
\n(3) Improving interoperability along the delivery\nchain: more transparency and\nbetter partnerships are required in order to address the need of\neretailers, to better understand what constitutes best logistic and\ndelivery practices and to effectively communicate the delivery\noptions that are available to consumers. Successful\npartnership within and between these two sectors will be\ndecisive for the future of ecommerce.
\nThe Commission services have already launched a\nnumber of demonstration actions aiming to improve the\ncompetitiveness of the transport and logistics sector in Europe,\nthrough the smart use of information technologies and connect, in\nparticular smaller enterprises to digital transport and logistics\nvalue chains.
\nAll interested parties are invited to submit their\nviews in response to the consultation at the latest by 15\nFebruary 2013. As a follow up to this Green Paper and on the\nbasis of the responses received, the Commission will identify, in\nspring 2013, the set of actions to be taken to complete the single\nmarket for parcels.
\nPURPOSE: to create a harmonised market for the\naccessibility of public sector bodies’ websites.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nthe Council.
\nBACKGROUND: in 2009, the website-developer market\nconsisted of some 175 000 enterprises in the 27 EU Member States.\nIt employed some 1 million people and the generated turnover was\nEUR 144 billion. The European market for web-accessibility related\nproducts and services is estimated at EUR 2 billion. It could grow\nsignificantly, as less than 10% of websites are\naccessible.
\nThe number of websites providing e-government services\n(about 380 500 in the EU) and public sector websites (over 761 000\nin the EU) is growing rapidly. Most Member States have already\neither enacted legislation, or taken other measures on web\naccessibility. However, significant differences exist between these\nlaws and measures.
\nThe non-harmonised national approaches to\nweb-accessibility create barriers in the Internal\nMarket. Harmonisation of national\nmeasures for the public sector at EU level is being proposed as a\nnecessary condition to put an end to this fragmentation and lack of\nconfidence in the web accessibility market.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the proposal is accompanied by an\nimpact\nassessment. An Impact Assessment Steering Group, led by the\nDirectorate General for the Information Society and Media, was\nestablished with a wide representation of services and departments\nof the Commission.
\nThe Commission believes that harmonisation will\nlead to better market conditions, more jobs, cheaper\nweb-accessibility and more accessible websites: a triple win\nfor governments, businesses, and citizens.
\nIn addition, the Directive would support Member States\nin achieving their national commitments regarding web\naccessibility, as well as their commitment to the United Nations\nConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities\nregarding websites of public sector bodies.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the Directive aims at approximating the laws,\nregulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on\nthe accessibility of public sector bodies' websites, by defining\nharmonised requirements.
\nPurpose and scope: the\nproposal lays down the technical provisions whereby Member States\nshall make accessible the content of certain types of websites of\npublic sector bodies which provide information and services that\nare essential for citizens' participation in economy and\nsociety (e.g. income tax, employment services, social security,\npersonal documents, vehicle registration, police statements,\nuniversity or higher education enrolment).
\nRequirements for web-accessibility: the requirements for\nweb-accessibility are defined along two dimensions: (i) user\norientation; and (ii) market orientation and\ninteroperability.
\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt\ndelegated acts to specify further, where appropriate, the\nharmonised requirements necessary to ensure the accessibility of\nthe websites concerned.
\nIn order to ensure that current political commitments\nare promptly achieved, the above provisions are to be implemented\nby 31 December 2015.
\nHarmonised standards and presumption of\nconformity: this Directive is in line\nwith Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of\nthe Council on European Standardisation which sets the legal basis\nfor the Commission to request European standardisation\norganisations to develop harmonised standards to assist\nstakeholders in providing presumption of conformity.
\nIn one of the Directive’s recitals, it is\nindicated that the Success Criteria and Requirements for Level AA\nconformance specified in the version 2.0 of the Web Content\nAccessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) issued by World Wide Web\nConsortium (W3C), are expected to be taken into account in the\nEuropean standard resulting from Mandate 376 and subsequently\nin the harmonised standard that should be built upon the outcome of\nthis work.. These technology neutral specifications provide the\nbasis for the requirements for web-accessibility.
\nEuropean and international standards and presumption\nof conformity: in the absence of\nharmonised standards, the Directive provides a solution for\npresumption of conformity with the web-accessibility requirements\nto the websites concerned which meet European standards or parts\nthereof that have been determined by the Commission by delegated\nacts. Mandate 376 is preparing a European Standard that includes\nweb accessibility.
\nIn the absence of such European standard, the\nDirective also provides a solution for presumption of conformity\nwith the web-accessibility requirements to the websites concerned\nwhich meet the parts of the ISO/IEC 40500:2012 covering the Success\nCriteria and Conformance Requirements for Level AA\nconformance.
\nReports: the accessibility of a website should be\ncontinuously monitored, in the light of regular updates of web\ncontent. Member States are requested to monitor the public sector bodies'\nwebsites concerned, using the methodology established by Commission\nin accordance with the procedure laid down in the\nDirective.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: there are no implications for\nthe budget of the Union.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the proposal contains the provisions\nfor the exercise of delegated acts in line with Article 290 of the\nTFEU.
\nPURPOSE: to create a harmonised market for the\naccessibility of public sector bodies’ websites.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nthe Council.
\nBACKGROUND: in 2009, the website-developer market\nconsisted of some 175 000 enterprises in the 27 EU Member States.\nIt employed some 1 million people and the generated turnover was\nEUR 144 billion. The European market for web-accessibility related\nproducts and services is estimated at EUR 2 billion. It could grow\nsignificantly, as less than 10% of websites are\naccessible.
\nThe number of websites providing e-government services\n(about 380 500 in the EU) and public sector websites (over 761 000\nin the EU) is growing rapidly. Most Member States have already\neither enacted legislation, or taken other measures on web\naccessibility. However, significant differences exist between these\nlaws and measures.
\nThe non-harmonised national approaches to\nweb-accessibility create barriers in the Internal\nMarket. Harmonisation of national\nmeasures for the public sector at EU level is being proposed as a\nnecessary condition to put an end to this fragmentation and lack of\nconfidence in the web accessibility market.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the proposal is accompanied by an\nimpact\nassessment. An Impact Assessment Steering Group, led by the\nDirectorate General for the Information Society and Media, was\nestablished with a wide representation of services and departments\nof the Commission.
\nThe Commission believes that harmonisation will\nlead to better market conditions, more jobs, cheaper\nweb-accessibility and more accessible websites: a triple win\nfor governments, businesses, and citizens.
\nIn addition, the Directive would support Member States\nin achieving their national commitments regarding web\naccessibility, as well as their commitment to the United Nations\nConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities\nregarding websites of public sector bodies.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the Directive aims at approximating the laws,\nregulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on\nthe accessibility of public sector bodies' websites, by defining\nharmonised requirements.
\nPurpose and scope: the\nproposal lays down the technical provisions whereby Member States\nshall make accessible the content of certain types of websites of\npublic sector bodies which provide information and services that\nare essential for citizens' participation in economy and\nsociety (e.g. income tax, employment services, social security,\npersonal documents, vehicle registration, police statements,\nuniversity or higher education enrolment).
\nRequirements for web-accessibility: the requirements for\nweb-accessibility are defined along two dimensions: (i) user\norientation; and (ii) market orientation and\ninteroperability.
\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt\ndelegated acts to specify further, where appropriate, the\nharmonised requirements necessary to ensure the accessibility of\nthe websites concerned.
\nIn order to ensure that current political commitments\nare promptly achieved, the above provisions are to be implemented\nby 31 December 2015.
\nHarmonised standards and presumption of\nconformity: this Directive is in line\nwith Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of\nthe Council on European Standardisation which sets the legal basis\nfor the Commission to request European standardisation\norganisations to develop harmonised standards to assist\nstakeholders in providing presumption of conformity.
\nIn one of the Directive’s recitals, it is\nindicated that the Success Criteria and Requirements for Level AA\nconformance specified in the version 2.0 of the Web Content\nAccessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) issued by World Wide Web\nConsortium (W3C), are expected to be taken into account in the\nEuropean standard resulting from Mandate 376 and subsequently\nin the harmonised standard that should be built upon the outcome of\nthis work.. These technology neutral specifications provide the\nbasis for the requirements for web-accessibility.
\nEuropean and international standards and presumption\nof conformity: in the absence of\nharmonised standards, the Directive provides a solution for\npresumption of conformity with the web-accessibility requirements\nto the websites concerned which meet European standards or parts\nthereof that have been determined by the Commission by delegated\nacts. Mandate 376 is preparing a European Standard that includes\nweb accessibility.
\nIn the absence of such European standard, the\nDirective also provides a solution for presumption of conformity\nwith the web-accessibility requirements to the websites concerned\nwhich meet the parts of the ISO/IEC 40500:2012 covering the Success\nCriteria and Conformance Requirements for Level AA\nconformance.
\nReports: the accessibility of a website should be\ncontinuously monitored, in the light of regular updates of web\ncontent. Member States are requested to monitor the public sector bodies'\nwebsites concerned, using the methodology established by Commission\nin accordance with the procedure laid down in the\nDirective.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: there are no implications for\nthe budget of the Union.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the proposal contains the provisions\nfor the exercise of delegated acts in line with Article 290 of the\nTFEU.
\nPURPOSE: to create a harmonised market for the\naccessibility of public sector bodies’ websites.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nthe Council.
\nBACKGROUND: in 2009, the website-developer market\nconsisted of some 175 000 enterprises in the 27 EU Member States.\nIt employed some 1 million people and the generated turnover was\nEUR 144 billion. The European market for web-accessibility related\nproducts and services is estimated at EUR 2 billion. It could grow\nsignificantly, as less than 10% of websites are\naccessible.
\nThe number of websites providing e-government services\n(about 380 500 in the EU) and public sector websites (over 761 000\nin the EU) is growing rapidly. Most Member States have already\neither enacted legislation, or taken other measures on web\naccessibility. However, significant differences exist between these\nlaws and measures.
\nThe non-harmonised national approaches to\nweb-accessibility create barriers in the Internal\nMarket. Harmonisation of national\nmeasures for the public sector at EU level is being proposed as a\nnecessary condition to put an end to this fragmentation and lack of\nconfidence in the web accessibility market.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the proposal is accompanied by an\nimpact\nassessment. An Impact Assessment Steering Group, led by the\nDirectorate General for the Information Society and Media, was\nestablished with a wide representation of services and departments\nof the Commission.
\nThe Commission believes that harmonisation will\nlead to better market conditions, more jobs, cheaper\nweb-accessibility and more accessible websites: a triple win\nfor governments, businesses, and citizens.
\nIn addition, the Directive would support Member States\nin achieving their national commitments regarding web\naccessibility, as well as their commitment to the United Nations\nConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities\nregarding websites of public sector bodies.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the Directive aims at approximating the laws,\nregulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on\nthe accessibility of public sector bodies' websites, by defining\nharmonised requirements.
\nPurpose and scope: the\nproposal lays down the technical provisions whereby Member States\nshall make accessible the content of certain types of websites of\npublic sector bodies which provide information and services that\nare essential for citizens' participation in economy and\nsociety (e.g. income tax, employment services, social security,\npersonal documents, vehicle registration, police statements,\nuniversity or higher education enrolment).
\nRequirements for web-accessibility: the requirements for\nweb-accessibility are defined along two dimensions: (i) user\norientation; and (ii) market orientation and\ninteroperability.
\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt\ndelegated acts to specify further, where appropriate, the\nharmonised requirements necessary to ensure the accessibility of\nthe websites concerned.
\nIn order to ensure that current political commitments\nare promptly achieved, the above provisions are to be implemented\nby 31 December 2015.
\nHarmonised standards and presumption of\nconformity: this Directive is in line\nwith Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of\nthe Council on European Standardisation which sets the legal basis\nfor the Commission to request European standardisation\norganisations to develop harmonised standards to assist\nstakeholders in providing presumption of conformity.
\nIn one of the Directive’s recitals, it is\nindicated that the Success Criteria and Requirements for Level AA\nconformance specified in the version 2.0 of the Web Content\nAccessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) issued by World Wide Web\nConsortium (W3C), are expected to be taken into account in the\nEuropean standard resulting from Mandate 376 and subsequently\nin the harmonised standard that should be built upon the outcome of\nthis work.. These technology neutral specifications provide the\nbasis for the requirements for web-accessibility.
\nEuropean and international standards and presumption\nof conformity: in the absence of\nharmonised standards, the Directive provides a solution for\npresumption of conformity with the web-accessibility requirements\nto the websites concerned which meet European standards or parts\nthereof that have been determined by the Commission by delegated\nacts. Mandate 376 is preparing a European Standard that includes\nweb accessibility.
\nIn the absence of such European standard, the\nDirective also provides a solution for presumption of conformity\nwith the web-accessibility requirements to the websites concerned\nwhich meet the parts of the ISO/IEC 40500:2012 covering the Success\nCriteria and Conformance Requirements for Level AA\nconformance.
\nReports: the accessibility of a website should be\ncontinuously monitored, in the light of regular updates of web\ncontent. Member States are requested to monitor the public sector bodies'\nwebsites concerned, using the methodology established by Commission\nin accordance with the procedure laid down in the\nDirective.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: there are no implications for\nthe budget of the Union.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the proposal contains the provisions\nfor the exercise of delegated acts in line with Article 290 of the\nTFEU.
\nPURPOSE: to create a harmonised market for the\naccessibility of public sector bodies’ websites.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nthe Council.
\nBACKGROUND: in 2009, the website-developer market\nconsisted of some 175 000 enterprises in the 27 EU Member States.\nIt employed some 1 million people and the generated turnover was\nEUR 144 billion. The European market for web-accessibility related\nproducts and services is estimated at EUR 2 billion. It could grow\nsignificantly, as less than 10% of websites are\naccessible.
\nThe number of websites providing e-government services\n(about 380 500 in the EU) and public sector websites (over 761 000\nin the EU) is growing rapidly. Most Member States have already\neither enacted legislation, or taken other measures on web\naccessibility. However, significant differences exist between these\nlaws and measures.
\nThe non-harmonised national approaches to\nweb-accessibility create barriers in the Internal\nMarket. Harmonisation of national\nmeasures for the public sector at EU level is being proposed as a\nnecessary condition to put an end to this fragmentation and lack of\nconfidence in the web accessibility market.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the proposal is accompanied by an\nimpact\nassessment. An Impact Assessment Steering Group, led by the\nDirectorate General for the Information Society and Media, was\nestablished with a wide representation of services and departments\nof the Commission.
\nThe Commission believes that harmonisation will\nlead to better market conditions, more jobs, cheaper\nweb-accessibility and more accessible websites: a triple win\nfor governments, businesses, and citizens.
\nIn addition, the Directive would support Member States\nin achieving their national commitments regarding web\naccessibility, as well as their commitment to the United Nations\nConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities\nregarding websites of public sector bodies.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the Directive aims at approximating the laws,\nregulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on\nthe accessibility of public sector bodies' websites, by defining\nharmonised requirements.
\nPurpose and scope: the\nproposal lays down the technical provisions whereby Member States\nshall make accessible the content of certain types of websites of\npublic sector bodies which provide information and services that\nare essential for citizens' participation in economy and\nsociety (e.g. income tax, employment services, social security,\npersonal documents, vehicle registration, police statements,\nuniversity or higher education enrolment).
\nRequirements for web-accessibility: the requirements for\nweb-accessibility are defined along two dimensions: (i) user\norientation; and (ii) market orientation and\ninteroperability.
\nThe Commission shall be empowered to adopt\ndelegated acts to specify further, where appropriate, the\nharmonised requirements necessary to ensure the accessibility of\nthe websites concerned.
\nIn order to ensure that current political commitments\nare promptly achieved, the above provisions are to be implemented\nby 31 December 2015.
\nHarmonised standards and presumption of\nconformity: this Directive is in line\nwith Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of\nthe Council on European Standardisation which sets the legal basis\nfor the Commission to request European standardisation\norganisations to develop harmonised standards to assist\nstakeholders in providing presumption of conformity.
\nIn one of the Directive’s recitals, it is\nindicated that the Success Criteria and Requirements for Level AA\nconformance specified in the version 2.0 of the Web Content\nAccessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) issued by World Wide Web\nConsortium (W3C), are expected to be taken into account in the\nEuropean standard resulting from Mandate 376 and subsequently\nin the harmonised standard that should be built upon the outcome of\nthis work.. These technology neutral specifications provide the\nbasis for the requirements for web-accessibility.
\nEuropean and international standards and presumption\nof conformity: in the absence of\nharmonised standards, the Directive provides a solution for\npresumption of conformity with the web-accessibility requirements\nto the websites concerned which meet European standards or parts\nthereof that have been determined by the Commission by delegated\nacts. Mandate 376 is preparing a European Standard that includes\nweb accessibility.
\nIn the absence of such European standard, the\nDirective also provides a solution for presumption of conformity\nwith the web-accessibility requirements to the websites concerned\nwhich meet the parts of the ISO/IEC 40500:2012 covering the Success\nCriteria and Conformance Requirements for Level AA\nconformance.
\nReports: the accessibility of a website should be\ncontinuously monitored, in the light of regular updates of web\ncontent. Member States are requested to monitor the public sector bodies'\nwebsites concerned, using the methodology established by Commission\nin accordance with the procedure laid down in the\nDirective.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: there are no implications for\nthe budget of the Union.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the proposal contains the provisions\nfor the exercise of delegated acts in line with Article 290 of the\nTFEU.
\nPURPOSE: to carry out a recast of Regulation (EC)\nn° 450/2008 ((Modernised Customs Code)) before the current date\nof application.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: Regulation No 450/2008\nentered into force on 24 June 2008, but it is not yet applicable.\nIt shall be applicable once its implementing provisions are in\nforce and on 24 June 2013 at the latest. The Commission proposes to\namend Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 (‘MCC’) before it\nbecomes applicable for the following reasons:
\n\n· \nthe implementation most of the\nprocesses to be introduced depends on\nthe definition and the development, by the Commission, the national\ncustoms administrations and the economic operators, of a wide range\nof electronic systems. This requires important investments in new\nEU wide IT systems and supporting activities as well as an\nunprecedented effort from the business community to operate\naccording to new business models. It is now apparent that only a\nvery limited number or even no new customs IT systems may be\nintroduced in June 2013, the latest legal date for the\nimplementation of the MCC;
\n\n· \nfollowing the entry into force of the Lisbon\nTreaty, the Commission must propose\namendments so that implementing provisions of the MCC which have to\nbe \"split\" between delegated acts and implementing acts in\naccordance with new provisions in line with Articles 290 and 291\nTFEU. Moreover, the \"Community\" Customs Code (Modernised Customs\nCode) has now to be renamed the \"Union\" Customs Code\n(UCC);
\n\n· \nthere is a need to adjust some provisions of\nthe MCC which are no longer in line\nwith changes introduced since 2008 to current customs legislation\nor have proved difficult to implement through sound measures and\nworkable business processes (such as the temporary storage of goods\nor a customs declaration through an entry of data in the\ndeclarant's records).
\nConsequently the Commission found it was appropriate\nto proceed to a recast of Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 before its\ncurrently scheduled application. Policy objectives remain those of\nthe Regulation to be recast.
\nThe proposal preserves the objectives of Regulation\n(EC) No 450/2008, which were fully in line with existing policies\nand objectives relevant to the trade of goods brought into and out\nof the customs territory of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: a full recast of the MCC before its\ncurrently scheduled application is the only comprehensive solution\nwhich will avoid changing Regulation (EC) N° 450/2008 twice at\na very short notice and would also allow the introduction of the\nadjustments necessary for a sound implementation of that new legal\nand procedural framework.
\nAs the proposal for Regulation (EC) N° 450/2008 to\nbe recast has already gone through an impact assessment and the\nproposed changes introduced by this Regulation are justified by\ntechnical and procedural considerations, there is no need for an\nImpact Assessment.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 33, 114 and 207 of the Treaty on\nthe Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the proposed action is to replace\nRegulation (EC) No 450/2008 (Modernised Customs Code) with a recast\nRegulation which: (i) postpones the date of application of the\nModernised Customs Code, (ii) aligns it to the Treaty of Lisbon,\n(iii) adjusts it to the practical aspects and developments in\ncustoms legislation and in other policy fields relevant to the\nmovement of goods between the EU and third countries and (iv)\nallows sufficient time for the development of supporting IT\nsystems.
\nMost of the provisions of the Regulation to be recast\nare affected by changes, either due to the need to align provisions\nwith the Lisbon Treaty or to the need for adjustments because of\nthe further evolution of relevant EU legislation. The overall\nstructure of the Regulation remains the same
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the budgetary implications are\nthe same as those relating to Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 being\nrecast. The Commission, Member States and traders will have to\ninvest in accessible, inter- operable customs clearance systems.\nThe financial implications concerning the EU share of IT\ndevelopments for that purpose are set out in the proposal for the\nFISCUS programme.
\nPURPOSE: to carry out a recast of Regulation (EC)\nn° 450/2008 ((Modernised Customs Code)) before the current date\nof application.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: Regulation No 450/2008\nentered into force on 24 June 2008, but it is not yet applicable.\nIt shall be applicable once its implementing provisions are in\nforce and on 24 June 2013 at the latest. The Commission proposes to\namend Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 (‘MCC’) before it\nbecomes applicable for the following reasons:
\n\n· \nthe implementation most of the\nprocesses to be introduced depends on\nthe definition and the development, by the Commission, the national\ncustoms administrations and the economic operators, of a wide range\nof electronic systems. This requires important investments in new\nEU wide IT systems and supporting activities as well as an\nunprecedented effort from the business community to operate\naccording to new business models. It is now apparent that only a\nvery limited number or even no new customs IT systems may be\nintroduced in June 2013, the latest legal date for the\nimplementation of the MCC;
\n\n· \nfollowing the entry into force of the Lisbon\nTreaty, the Commission must propose\namendments so that implementing provisions of the MCC which have to\nbe \"split\" between delegated acts and implementing acts in\naccordance with new provisions in line with Articles 290 and 291\nTFEU. Moreover, the \"Community\" Customs Code (Modernised Customs\nCode) has now to be renamed the \"Union\" Customs Code\n(UCC);
\n\n· \nthere is a need to adjust some provisions of\nthe MCC which are no longer in line\nwith changes introduced since 2008 to current customs legislation\nor have proved difficult to implement through sound measures and\nworkable business processes (such as the temporary storage of goods\nor a customs declaration through an entry of data in the\ndeclarant's records).
\nConsequently the Commission found it was appropriate\nto proceed to a recast of Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 before its\ncurrently scheduled application. Policy objectives remain those of\nthe Regulation to be recast.
\nThe proposal preserves the objectives of Regulation\n(EC) No 450/2008, which were fully in line with existing policies\nand objectives relevant to the trade of goods brought into and out\nof the customs territory of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: a full recast of the MCC before its\ncurrently scheduled application is the only comprehensive solution\nwhich will avoid changing Regulation (EC) N° 450/2008 twice at\na very short notice and would also allow the introduction of the\nadjustments necessary for a sound implementation of that new legal\nand procedural framework.
\nAs the proposal for Regulation (EC) N° 450/2008 to\nbe recast has already gone through an impact assessment and the\nproposed changes introduced by this Regulation are justified by\ntechnical and procedural considerations, there is no need for an\nImpact Assessment.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 33, 114 and 207 of the Treaty on\nthe Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the proposed action is to replace\nRegulation (EC) No 450/2008 (Modernised Customs Code) with a recast\nRegulation which: (i) postpones the date of application of the\nModernised Customs Code, (ii) aligns it to the Treaty of Lisbon,\n(iii) adjusts it to the practical aspects and developments in\ncustoms legislation and in other policy fields relevant to the\nmovement of goods between the EU and third countries and (iv)\nallows sufficient time for the development of supporting IT\nsystems.
\nMost of the provisions of the Regulation to be recast\nare affected by changes, either due to the need to align provisions\nwith the Lisbon Treaty or to the need for adjustments because of\nthe further evolution of relevant EU legislation. The overall\nstructure of the Regulation remains the same
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the budgetary implications are\nthe same as those relating to Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 being\nrecast. The Commission, Member States and traders will have to\ninvest in accessible, inter- operable customs clearance systems.\nThe financial implications concerning the EU share of IT\ndevelopments for that purpose are set out in the proposal for the\nFISCUS programme.
\nPURPOSE: to carry out a recast of Regulation (EC)\nn° 450/2008 ((Modernised Customs Code)) before the current date\nof application.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: Regulation No 450/2008\nentered into force on 24 June 2008, but it is not yet applicable.\nIt shall be applicable once its implementing provisions are in\nforce and on 24 June 2013 at the latest. The Commission proposes to\namend Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 (‘MCC’) before it\nbecomes applicable for the following reasons:
\n\n· \nthe implementation most of the\nprocesses to be introduced depends on\nthe definition and the development, by the Commission, the national\ncustoms administrations and the economic operators, of a wide range\nof electronic systems. This requires important investments in new\nEU wide IT systems and supporting activities as well as an\nunprecedented effort from the business community to operate\naccording to new business models. It is now apparent that only a\nvery limited number or even no new customs IT systems may be\nintroduced in June 2013, the latest legal date for the\nimplementation of the MCC;
\n\n· \nfollowing the entry into force of the Lisbon\nTreaty, the Commission must propose\namendments so that implementing provisions of the MCC which have to\nbe \"split\" between delegated acts and implementing acts in\naccordance with new provisions in line with Articles 290 and 291\nTFEU. Moreover, the \"Community\" Customs Code (Modernised Customs\nCode) has now to be renamed the \"Union\" Customs Code\n(UCC);
\n\n· \nthere is a need to adjust some provisions of\nthe MCC which are no longer in line\nwith changes introduced since 2008 to current customs legislation\nor have proved difficult to implement through sound measures and\nworkable business processes (such as the temporary storage of goods\nor a customs declaration through an entry of data in the\ndeclarant's records).
\nConsequently the Commission found it was appropriate\nto proceed to a recast of Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 before its\ncurrently scheduled application. Policy objectives remain those of\nthe Regulation to be recast.
\nThe proposal preserves the objectives of Regulation\n(EC) No 450/2008, which were fully in line with existing policies\nand objectives relevant to the trade of goods brought into and out\nof the customs territory of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: a full recast of the MCC before its\ncurrently scheduled application is the only comprehensive solution\nwhich will avoid changing Regulation (EC) N° 450/2008 twice at\na very short notice and would also allow the introduction of the\nadjustments necessary for a sound implementation of that new legal\nand procedural framework.
\nAs the proposal for Regulation (EC) N° 450/2008 to\nbe recast has already gone through an impact assessment and the\nproposed changes introduced by this Regulation are justified by\ntechnical and procedural considerations, there is no need for an\nImpact Assessment.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 33, 114 and 207 of the Treaty on\nthe Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the proposed action is to replace\nRegulation (EC) No 450/2008 (Modernised Customs Code) with a recast\nRegulation which: (i) postpones the date of application of the\nModernised Customs Code, (ii) aligns it to the Treaty of Lisbon,\n(iii) adjusts it to the practical aspects and developments in\ncustoms legislation and in other policy fields relevant to the\nmovement of goods between the EU and third countries and (iv)\nallows sufficient time for the development of supporting IT\nsystems.
\nMost of the provisions of the Regulation to be recast\nare affected by changes, either due to the need to align provisions\nwith the Lisbon Treaty or to the need for adjustments because of\nthe further evolution of relevant EU legislation. The overall\nstructure of the Regulation remains the same
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the budgetary implications are\nthe same as those relating to Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 being\nrecast. The Commission, Member States and traders will have to\ninvest in accessible, inter- operable customs clearance systems.\nThe financial implications concerning the EU share of IT\ndevelopments for that purpose are set out in the proposal for the\nFISCUS programme.
\nPURPOSE: to carry out a recast of Regulation (EC)\nn° 450/2008 ((Modernised Customs Code)) before the current date\nof application.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: Regulation No 450/2008\nentered into force on 24 June 2008, but it is not yet applicable.\nIt shall be applicable once its implementing provisions are in\nforce and on 24 June 2013 at the latest. The Commission proposes to\namend Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 (‘MCC’) before it\nbecomes applicable for the following reasons:
\n\n· \nthe implementation most of the\nprocesses to be introduced depends on\nthe definition and the development, by the Commission, the national\ncustoms administrations and the economic operators, of a wide range\nof electronic systems. This requires important investments in new\nEU wide IT systems and supporting activities as well as an\nunprecedented effort from the business community to operate\naccording to new business models. It is now apparent that only a\nvery limited number or even no new customs IT systems may be\nintroduced in June 2013, the latest legal date for the\nimplementation of the MCC;
\n\n· \nfollowing the entry into force of the Lisbon\nTreaty, the Commission must propose\namendments so that implementing provisions of the MCC which have to\nbe \"split\" between delegated acts and implementing acts in\naccordance with new provisions in line with Articles 290 and 291\nTFEU. Moreover, the \"Community\" Customs Code (Modernised Customs\nCode) has now to be renamed the \"Union\" Customs Code\n(UCC);
\n\n· \nthere is a need to adjust some provisions of\nthe MCC which are no longer in line\nwith changes introduced since 2008 to current customs legislation\nor have proved difficult to implement through sound measures and\nworkable business processes (such as the temporary storage of goods\nor a customs declaration through an entry of data in the\ndeclarant's records).
\nConsequently the Commission found it was appropriate\nto proceed to a recast of Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 before its\ncurrently scheduled application. Policy objectives remain those of\nthe Regulation to be recast.
\nThe proposal preserves the objectives of Regulation\n(EC) No 450/2008, which were fully in line with existing policies\nand objectives relevant to the trade of goods brought into and out\nof the customs territory of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: a full recast of the MCC before its\ncurrently scheduled application is the only comprehensive solution\nwhich will avoid changing Regulation (EC) N° 450/2008 twice at\na very short notice and would also allow the introduction of the\nadjustments necessary for a sound implementation of that new legal\nand procedural framework.
\nAs the proposal for Regulation (EC) N° 450/2008 to\nbe recast has already gone through an impact assessment and the\nproposed changes introduced by this Regulation are justified by\ntechnical and procedural considerations, there is no need for an\nImpact Assessment.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 33, 114 and 207 of the Treaty on\nthe Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the proposed action is to replace\nRegulation (EC) No 450/2008 (Modernised Customs Code) with a recast\nRegulation which: (i) postpones the date of application of the\nModernised Customs Code, (ii) aligns it to the Treaty of Lisbon,\n(iii) adjusts it to the practical aspects and developments in\ncustoms legislation and in other policy fields relevant to the\nmovement of goods between the EU and third countries and (iv)\nallows sufficient time for the development of supporting IT\nsystems.
\nMost of the provisions of the Regulation to be recast\nare affected by changes, either due to the need to align provisions\nwith the Lisbon Treaty or to the need for adjustments because of\nthe further evolution of relevant EU legislation. The overall\nstructure of the Regulation remains the same
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the budgetary implications are\nthe same as those relating to Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 being\nrecast. The Commission, Member States and traders will have to\ninvest in accessible, inter- operable customs clearance systems.\nThe financial implications concerning the EU share of IT\ndevelopments for that purpose are set out in the proposal for the\nFISCUS programme.
\nThe Committee on Internal\nMarket and Consumer Protection adopted an own-initiative report by\nSimon BUSUTTIL (EPP, MT) on the Internal Market\nScoreboard.
\nThe report notes that the\npublication of the Internal Market Scoreboard has consistently\nhelped enhance the transposition of single market legislation by\nproviding objective and substantive data on transposition and\nimplementation of these rules by the Member States. Members\nconsider, nevertheless, that some Member States are still failing\nfully to meet their objectives of correct and timely transposition\nof European legislation into national law. In\nthis context, the Committee makes the following\nrecommendations:
\n1) Building the\nregulatory framework of the internal market: the report\nwelcomes the Internal Market Scoreboard and SOLVIT as important\ntools to monitor and identify problems in the transposition and\nimplementation of EU law, but also to identify gaps and bottlenecks\nin the single market.
\nMembers affirm that\nthe timely and correct transposition and implementation of\ninternal market legislation is a crucial prerequisite for the\nsuccess of the internal market. They call for the Council to commit\nto reducing the transposition deficit further and to set\ntougher more realistic transposition and implementation\ngoals for all Member States to fulfil.
\nThe report notes\nthat almost 50% of pending Internal Market infringement proceedings\nrelate to areas of taxation and environment. It calls\non the Member States to dedicate particular attention to better and\ntimelier transposition and implementation of EU rules in these two\nareas.
\nIt calls on the\nCommission, among other things, to:
\nThe report stresses that\nMember States should continue to further reduce transposition\ndelays in order to meet the 1% target. It insists that\nMember States formally accept a reduction in numerical targets\nlimiting the transposition and compliance deficit for national\nlegislation to 0.5% for the transposition deficit and 0.5% for\nthe compliance deficit respectively, and to ensure more\neffective application of infringement proceedings by means of\nnumerical targets relating to the stages of the procedure.
\nMembers consider that\nspecial attention and priority should be given to directives whose\ndeadline for transposition into national law has expired by more\nthan a year. They call on Member States to systematically\nprovide proper correlation tables setting out how internal\nmarket directives are applied in national regulations.
\n2) Delivering the internal market to businesses and\ncitizens: the report calls\non the Commission to find ways to increase\ncoordination and improve practical cooperation between existing\ntools such as SOLVIT, Your Europe Advice, the Enterprise Europe\nNetwork, European Consumer Centres, the European Employment\nService, IMI, the Europe Direct information network and the points\nof single contact to avoid duplication of efforts and resources and\nhence achieve more effective management. It calls on the\nCommission to propose ways of better integrating tools such as\nSOLVIT with the petitions process of the European Parliament.
\nEmphasising that the SOLVIT\nnetwork remains largely fragmented and underused, it calls on the\nMember States to ensure that SOLVIT centres are appropriately\nstaffed and that there is the necessary degree of coordination\nand communication with all levels of the national administrations,\nas well as with the different Commission services, to ensure that\ndecisions are implemented. It also calls on the Commission\nto report on the feasibility of providing Commission staff for the\nsingle live points of contact in each Member State, as well as to\nconsider the feasibility of giving SOLVIT a specific legal\nbasis.
\nThe report calls on SOLVIT,\nYour Europe Advice, the Enterprise Europe Network, European\nConsumer Centres and the European Employment Service to take note\nof the main concerns of citizens and businesses as articulated in\nthe Commission Staff Working Paper ‘The\nSingle Market through the lens of the people: a snapshot of\ncitizens and businesses’ 20 main concerns‘,\nand to prioritise their work accordingly.
\nMembers also recommend further coordination between SOLVIT and the EU\nPilot in order to achieve better\ncoordination and exchange of good practices.
\nThe Commission is invited\nto:
\nLastly, Members call on the Commission and the Member\nStates to continue to engage and empower\nstakeholders by conducting regular Single Market Forums,\nsupplementing these with frequent visits to assess and promote the\nsingle market in the individual Member States.
\nThe Committee on Internal\nMarket and Consumer Protection adopted an own-initiative report by\nSimon BUSUTTIL (EPP, MT) on the Internal Market\nScoreboard.
\nThe report notes that the\npublication of the Internal Market Scoreboard has consistently\nhelped enhance the transposition of single market legislation by\nproviding objective and substantive data on transposition and\nimplementation of these rules by the Member States. Members\nconsider, nevertheless, that some Member States are still failing\nfully to meet their objectives of correct and timely transposition\nof European legislation into national law. In\nthis context, the Committee makes the following\nrecommendations:
\n1) Building the\nregulatory framework of the internal market: the report\nwelcomes the Internal Market Scoreboard and SOLVIT as important\ntools to monitor and identify problems in the transposition and\nimplementation of EU law, but also to identify gaps and bottlenecks\nin the single market.
\nMembers affirm that\nthe timely and correct transposition and implementation of\ninternal market legislation is a crucial prerequisite for the\nsuccess of the internal market. They call for the Council to commit\nto reducing the transposition deficit further and to set\ntougher more realistic transposition and implementation\ngoals for all Member States to fulfil.
\nThe report notes\nthat almost 50% of pending Internal Market infringement proceedings\nrelate to areas of taxation and environment. It calls\non the Member States to dedicate particular attention to better and\ntimelier transposition and implementation of EU rules in these two\nareas.
\nIt calls on the\nCommission, among other things, to:
\nThe report stresses that\nMember States should continue to further reduce transposition\ndelays in order to meet the 1% target. It insists that\nMember States formally accept a reduction in numerical targets\nlimiting the transposition and compliance deficit for national\nlegislation to 0.5% for the transposition deficit and 0.5% for\nthe compliance deficit respectively, and to ensure more\neffective application of infringement proceedings by means of\nnumerical targets relating to the stages of the procedure.
\nMembers consider that\nspecial attention and priority should be given to directives whose\ndeadline for transposition into national law has expired by more\nthan a year. They call on Member States to systematically\nprovide proper correlation tables setting out how internal\nmarket directives are applied in national regulations.
\n2) Delivering the internal market to businesses and\ncitizens: the report calls\non the Commission to find ways to increase\ncoordination and improve practical cooperation between existing\ntools such as SOLVIT, Your Europe Advice, the Enterprise Europe\nNetwork, European Consumer Centres, the European Employment\nService, IMI, the Europe Direct information network and the points\nof single contact to avoid duplication of efforts and resources and\nhence achieve more effective management. It calls on the\nCommission to propose ways of better integrating tools such as\nSOLVIT with the petitions process of the European Parliament.
\nEmphasising that the SOLVIT\nnetwork remains largely fragmented and underused, it calls on the\nMember States to ensure that SOLVIT centres are appropriately\nstaffed and that there is the necessary degree of coordination\nand communication with all levels of the national administrations,\nas well as with the different Commission services, to ensure that\ndecisions are implemented. It also calls on the Commission\nto report on the feasibility of providing Commission staff for the\nsingle live points of contact in each Member State, as well as to\nconsider the feasibility of giving SOLVIT a specific legal\nbasis.
\nThe report calls on SOLVIT,\nYour Europe Advice, the Enterprise Europe Network, European\nConsumer Centres and the European Employment Service to take note\nof the main concerns of citizens and businesses as articulated in\nthe Commission Staff Working Paper ‘The\nSingle Market through the lens of the people: a snapshot of\ncitizens and businesses’ 20 main concerns‘,\nand to prioritise their work accordingly.
\nMembers also recommend further coordination between SOLVIT and the EU\nPilot in order to achieve better\ncoordination and exchange of good practices.
\nThe Commission is invited\nto:
\nLastly, Members call on the Commission and the Member\nStates to continue to engage and empower\nstakeholders by conducting regular Single Market Forums,\nsupplementing these with frequent visits to assess and promote the\nsingle market in the individual Member States.
\nPURPOSE: to lay down rules\non the use of the Internal Market Information System (IMI) for\nadministrative cooperation, including the processing and exchange\nof personal data of EU citizens between the competent authorities\nof the Member States and the Commission.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: to support\ncooperation between the national public administrations responsible\nfor the application of Union law, the European Commission has\ndeveloped the Internal Market Information System (IMI) which is a\ngeneric, customisable administrative cooperation\nplatform.
\nFreely available for use by\nthe Member States since 2008, this system
\nprovides more than 6 000\nregistered authorities in the 27 Member States and three EEA\ncountries with a fast and secure communication channel for\ncross-border information exchange with their counterparts,\neffectively overcoming barriers due to different languages and\nadministrative structures. IMI is currently used for the exchange\nof information pursuant to Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition\nof professional qualificationsand\nDirective 2006/123/EC on services in the internal\nmarket.
\nCross-border administrative\ncooperation frequently involves processing and exchanging personal\ndata of EU citizens. From a legal point of view, IMI operates on\nthe basis of a Commission decision, a 'comitology' decision, and a\nCommission recommendation. The lack of a single legal instrument\nadopted by the European Parliament and the Council underlying its\noperations came to be seen as an obstacle to further expansion of\nIMI.
\nAccording to the Commission\nCommunication \"Towards a Single Market Act\",\nextending IMI to other sectors 'with a view to creating a genuine\nface-to-face electronic network for European administrations' is\none of the keys to promoting better governance of the single\nmarket. The Commission's communication on expanding and developing\nthe IMI' (the IMI Strategy Communication)\nadopted on 21 February 2011 set out plans for future expansion of\nIMI to other areas of EU law. The Commission Communication \"A Single Market Act\" stressed\nthe importance of IMI for strengthening cooperation among the\nactors involved, including at local level, thus contributing to\nbetter governance of the single market.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: this\nproposal consolidates the current rules governing IMI within a\nsingle horizontal legally binding instrument. Consequently, no\nalternative policy options need to be considered at this stage. For\nthis reason, no impact analysis was undertaken. Any subsequent\ndecisions concerning the expansion of the use of IMI beyond the\nareas of Union law for which it is currently used will require\nproportionate impact assessments.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 of\nthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal aims\nat improving the conditions for the functioning of the internal\nmarket by providing an effective and user-friendly tool\nfacilitating the practical implementation of provisions of Union\nlaw mandating administrative cooperation and information\nexchange.
\nThe proposal for a\nRegulation:
\nThe list of areas of Union\nacts currently supported by IMI is set out in Annex I, while areas\nof possible future expansion are listed in Annex II. The procedural\nand budgetary aspects aimed at facilitating future expansion of IMI\nare in line with the IMI Strategy Communication.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: as the\nuse of IMI is mandatory for Member States under the Services\nDirective and the recently adopted Directive on the application of\npatients' rights in cross-border healthcare, it is necessary to\nensure that IMI can continue to operate on a permanent basis. For\nthis reason, it is proposed that the expenditure related to IMI be\nregrouped by bringing all costs under the same budget line managed\nby DG Internal Market and Services (budget line 12.02.01\nImplementation and development of the Internal Market).
\nThis proposal does not have a budgetary impact over\nand above what is already foreseen in the years to come in the\nofficial programming of the Commission and it is without prejudice\nto the decisions on the post-2013 multi-annual financial\nframework.
\nIn 2010, the financing of\nIMI was covered by the following sources: i) ISA programme (EUR 500\n000 - budget line 26.03.01.01) and ii) internal market budget lines\n(EUR 925 000).
\nFor 2011-2012, the planned\nfinancing from ISA will amount to ca. EUR 1.15 million per\nyear.
\nThe impact on operational\nexpenditure is estimated at EUR 1.44 million in commitment\nappropriations for the year 2013.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the\nproposal contains provisions conferring on the Commission the right\nto adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the EU.
\n\nOpinion of the European Data\nProtection Supervisor on the Commission proposal for a Regulation\nof the European Parliament and of the Council on administrative\ncooperation through the Internal Market Information System\n(‘IMI’).
\nThe EDPS welcomes the fact\nthat the Commission formally consulted him and that a reference to\nthis Opinion is included in the preamble of the\nproposal.
\nThe overall views of the\nEDPS on IMI are positive. The EDPS\nsupports the aims of the Commission in establishing an electronic\nsystem for the exchange of information and regulating its data\nprotection aspects. The EDPS also welcomes the fact that the\nCommission proposes a horizontal legal instrument for IMI in the\nform of a Council and Parliament Regulation. He is pleased that the\nproposal comprehensively highlights the most relevant data\nprotection issues for IMI.
\nNevertheless, the EDPS cautions that\nestablishment of a single centralised electronic system for\nmultiple areas of administrative cooperation also creates\nrisks. These include, most importantly, that more data might be\nshared, and more broadly than strictly necessary for the purposes\nof efficient cooperation, and that data, including potentially\noutdated and inaccurate data, might remain in the electronic system\nlonger than necessary.
\nThe security of the information system\naccessible in 27 Member States is also a sensitive issue, as the\nwhole system will be only as secure as the weakest link in the\nchain permits it to be.
\nThe EDPS makes the following\nrecommendations:
\nLegal framework: with regard to the legal\nframework for IMI to be established in the proposed Regulation, the\nEDPS calls attention to two key challenges: (i) the need to ensure\nconsistency, while respecting diversity, and (ii) the need to\nbalance flexibility and legal certainty:
\nRetention periods:
\nRisk assessment: the Regulation should require a\nrisk assessment and a review of the security plan before each\nexpansion of IMI to a new policy area or before adding a new\nfunctionality with an impact on personal data.
\nInformation and access\nrights: the\nprovisions on information to data subjects and access rights should\nbe strengthened and should encourage a more consistent\napproach.
\nSupervision: the EDPS would strengthen the\nprovisions on coordinated supervision at certain points and would\nfor that purpose support similar provisions as those in place for\nexample in the context of the Visa Information System, Schengen II\nand envisaged for Eurodac. With regard to the frequency of meetings\nand audits, the EDPS supports the proposal in its flexible approach\naimed to ensure that the Regulation provides the necessary minimal\nrules to ensure effective cooperation without creating unnecessary\nadministrative burdens.
\nThird countries: the Regulation should ensure\nthat competent authorities or other external actors in a third\ncountry that does not afford adequate protection should not be able\nto have direct access to IMI unless there are appropriate\ncontractual clauses in place. These clauses should be negotiated at\nthe EU level.
\nInternal control: the Regulation should establish\na clear framework for adequate internal control mechanisms that\nensures data protection compliance and provides evidence thereof,\nincluding privacy assessments (also including a security risk\nanalysis), a data protection policy (including a security plan)\nadopted based on the results of these, as well as periodic reviews\nand auditing.
\nLastly, the Regulation should also introduce\nspecific privacy by design safeguards.
\nThe Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer\nProtection adopted the report by Adam BIELAN (ECR, PL) on the\nproposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the\nCouncil on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market\nInformation System (‘the IMI Regulation’).
\nThe committee recommends that the European\nParliament’s position in first reading following the ordinary\nlegislative procedure should amend the Commission proposal as\nfollows:
\nTreatment of personal data: the report states that all personal data and\ninformation circulated among the different competent\nauthorities must be collected, processed and used for\nstrictly legitimate purposes which are in line with data protection\nrules. Furthermore, all relevant safeguards against abuse of the\nsystem shall be firmly put in place.
\nMembers inserted the following amendments:
\n\n· \npersonal data processed in IMI shall be\nblocked in the system after a period\nof no longer than eighteen months after the formal\nclosure of an administrative cooperation procedure;
\n\n· \nthe storage of personal data included in the\nrepository shall comply with the provisions of data protection set\nout in Union legislation on protection of personal data;
\n\n· \ndata submitted by data subjects to\nIMI shall only be used for the purposes for which the data\nwere submitted. Data subjects' consent shall also be\nrequired for extension of the use of those data to new areas or\nworkflows.
\n\n· \nIMI actors shall ensure that data subjects are\ninformed about processing of their personal data in IMI within\n30 days of such processing. The correction and deletion shall be\ncarried out as soon as possible, and at the latest\n30 days after the request of data subject is\nreceived.
\nDevelopment of IMI and its extension to other\nareas of Union law: Members\noppose the Commission’s provisions on amending the scope of\nthe Regulation through delegated acts. They suggest that the\nCommission may propose an amendment to the Annex to this\nRegulation if it decides that IMI is to be\nused for new legal acts of\nthe Union.
\n\n· \nBefore submitting a proposal, the\nCommission may carry out pilot projects of\na limited duration or impact assessment, including data\nprotection, in order to assess whether IMI would be an\neffective tool for the implementation of provisions\non administrative cooperation of internal market acts not\nyet listed in the Annex.
\n\n· \nThe Commission shall submit the\nresults of the pilot project or of the impact\nassessment to the European Parliament and to the\nCouncil, and where appropriate, accompany them with a\nlegislative proposal to amend the Annex for the expansion\nof IMI.
\nCompetent authorities:\nan amendment states that Member States shall take all necessary\nmeasures to ensure effective application of this Regulation by the\ncompetent authorities. The latter shall fulfil their obligations\nunder the Regulation in the same way as they would if acting\nat the request of another competent authority within their\nown Member State.
\nCommission’s role:\nthe report stipulates that the Commission shall monitor the\napplication of this Regulation and report back to the European\nParliament, the Council and the European Data Protection\nSupervisor.
\nIt also wants the Commission to play a consultative\nrole in the process of designating the IMI coordinators and\ncompetent authorities.
\nAccess rights of IMI actors and users:\nthe committee considers that external actors\nshould only have access to a public interface, which is\ntechnically separate from the IMI application and does not provide\naccess to personal data exchange between competent\nauthorities.
\nLastly, Members want the Commission's internal control\nmechanisms to include data privacy assessments, including a\nsecurity risk analysis, on the basis of which a data protection\npolicy (including a security plan) will be adopted, as well as\nperiodic reviews and auditing.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 623 votes to 25,\nwith 35 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a\nregulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on\nadministrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information\nSystem (‘the IMI Regulation’).
\nParliament adopted its position on first reading\nfollowing the ordinary legislative procedure. The agreement was the\nresult of a compromise negotiated between Parliament and Council.\nThe main amendments to the proposal are as follows:
\nScope: it is stipulated\nthat IMI shall be used for administrative cooperation between\ncompetent authorities of the Member States and between competent\nauthorities of the Member States and the Commission necessary for\nthe implementation of Union acts in the field of the internal\nmarket, within the meaning of Article 26(2) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU). Those Union acts are\nlisted in the Annex.
\nNothing in this Regulation shall have the effect of\nrendering mandatory the provisions of Union acts which have no\nbinding force.
\nExpansion of IMI: the\nCommission may carry out pilot projects in order to assess\nwhether IMI would be an effective tool to implement provisions for\nadministrative cooperation of Union acts not listed in the\nAnnex.
\nThe Commission shall adopt an implementing act to\ndetermine which provisions of Union acts shall be subject to a\npilot project and to set out the modalities of each project, in\nparticular the basic technical functionality and procedural\narrangements required to implement the relevant administrative\ncooperation provisions.
\nThe Commission shall submit an evaluation of the\noutcome of the pilot project, including data protection issues and\neffective translation functionalities, to the European Parliament\nand the Council. Where appropriate, that evaluation may be\naccompanied by a legislative proposal to amend the Annex to expand\nthe use of IMI to the relevant provisions of Union acts.
\nPractical arrangements to enable information exchange\nvia IMI: these arrangements should be\nadopted by the Commission in the form of a separate implementing\nact for each Union act listed in the Annex or for each type of\nadministrative cooperation procedure and should cover the essential\ntechnical functionality and procedural arrangements required to\nimplement the relevant administrative cooperation procedures via\nIMI. The Commission should ensure the maintenance and development\nof the software and IT infrastructure for IMI.
\nProcessing of personal data: IMI actors shall exchange and process personal data\nonly for the purposes defined in the relevant provisions of the\nUnion acts listed in the Annex. Data submitted to IMI by data\nsubjects shall only be used for the purposes for which the\ndata were submitted.
\nPersonal data processed in IMI shall be blocked in IMI\nas soon as they are no longer necessary for the purpose for which\nthey were collected, depending on the specificities of each type of\nadministrative cooperation and, as a general rule, no later than\nsix months after the formal closure of the administrative\ncooperation procedure.
\nThe Commission :
\nNational IMI coordinators shall act as the main contact point for IMI actors of\nthe Member States for issues relating to IMI, including providing\ninformation on aspects relating to the protection of personal data\nin accordance with this Regulation.
\nInformation exchange with third countries:\nwhere international agreements are concluded\nbetween the Union and third countries that also cover the\napplication of provisions of Union acts listed in the Annex to this\nRegulation, it should be possible to include the counterparts of\nIMI actors in such third countries in the administrative\ncooperation procedures supported by IMI, provided that it has been\nestablished that the third country concerned offers an adequate\nlevel of protection of personal data in accordance with Directive\n95/46/EC.
\nSOLVIT: the use of IMI\nfor the technical support of the SOLVIT network shall be without\nprejudice to the informal character of the SOLVIT procedure which\nis based on a voluntary commitment of the Member States.
\nTo continue the functioning of the SOLVIT network on\nthe basis of existing work arrangements, one or more tasks of the\nnational IMI coordinator may be assigned to SOLVIT centres within\nthe remit of their work, so that they can function independently\nfrom the national IMI coordinator.
\nPURPOSE: to lay down rules\non the use of the Internal Market Information System (IMI) for\nadministrative cooperation, including the processing and exchange\nof personal data of EU citizens between the competent authorities\nof the Member States and the Commission.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: to support\ncooperation between the national public administrations responsible\nfor the application of Union law, the European Commission has\ndeveloped the Internal Market Information System (IMI) which is a\ngeneric, customisable administrative cooperation\nplatform.
\nFreely available for use by\nthe Member States since 2008, this system
\nprovides more than 6 000\nregistered authorities in the 27 Member States and three EEA\ncountries with a fast and secure communication channel for\ncross-border information exchange with their counterparts,\neffectively overcoming barriers due to different languages and\nadministrative structures. IMI is currently used for the exchange\nof information pursuant to Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition\nof professional qualificationsand\nDirective 2006/123/EC on services in the internal\nmarket.
\nCross-border administrative\ncooperation frequently involves processing and exchanging personal\ndata of EU citizens. From a legal point of view, IMI operates on\nthe basis of a Commission decision, a 'comitology' decision, and a\nCommission recommendation. The lack of a single legal instrument\nadopted by the European Parliament and the Council underlying its\noperations came to be seen as an obstacle to further expansion of\nIMI.
\nAccording to the Commission\nCommunication \"Towards a Single Market Act\",\nextending IMI to other sectors 'with a view to creating a genuine\nface-to-face electronic network for European administrations' is\none of the keys to promoting better governance of the single\nmarket. The Commission's communication on expanding and developing\nthe IMI' (the IMI Strategy Communication)\nadopted on 21 February 2011 set out plans for future expansion of\nIMI to other areas of EU law. The Commission Communication \"A Single Market Act\" stressed\nthe importance of IMI for strengthening cooperation among the\nactors involved, including at local level, thus contributing to\nbetter governance of the single market.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: this\nproposal consolidates the current rules governing IMI within a\nsingle horizontal legally binding instrument. Consequently, no\nalternative policy options need to be considered at this stage. For\nthis reason, no impact analysis was undertaken. Any subsequent\ndecisions concerning the expansion of the use of IMI beyond the\nareas of Union law for which it is currently used will require\nproportionate impact assessments.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 of\nthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal aims\nat improving the conditions for the functioning of the internal\nmarket by providing an effective and user-friendly tool\nfacilitating the practical implementation of provisions of Union\nlaw mandating administrative cooperation and information\nexchange.
\nThe proposal for a\nRegulation:
\nThe list of areas of Union\nacts currently supported by IMI is set out in Annex I, while areas\nof possible future expansion are listed in Annex II. The procedural\nand budgetary aspects aimed at facilitating future expansion of IMI\nare in line with the IMI Strategy Communication.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: as the\nuse of IMI is mandatory for Member States under the Services\nDirective and the recently adopted Directive on the application of\npatients' rights in cross-border healthcare, it is necessary to\nensure that IMI can continue to operate on a permanent basis. For\nthis reason, it is proposed that the expenditure related to IMI be\nregrouped by bringing all costs under the same budget line managed\nby DG Internal Market and Services (budget line 12.02.01\nImplementation and development of the Internal Market).
\nThis proposal does not have a budgetary impact over\nand above what is already foreseen in the years to come in the\nofficial programming of the Commission and it is without prejudice\nto the decisions on the post-2013 multi-annual financial\nframework.
\nIn 2010, the financing of\nIMI was covered by the following sources: i) ISA programme (EUR 500\n000 - budget line 26.03.01.01) and ii) internal market budget lines\n(EUR 925 000).
\nFor 2011-2012, the planned\nfinancing from ISA will amount to ca. EUR 1.15 million per\nyear.
\nThe impact on operational\nexpenditure is estimated at EUR 1.44 million in commitment\nappropriations for the year 2013.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the\nproposal contains provisions conferring on the Commission the right\nto adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the EU.
\nPURPOSE: to lay down rules\non the use of the Internal Market Information System (IMI) for\nadministrative cooperation, including the processing and exchange\nof personal data of EU citizens between the competent authorities\nof the Member States and the Commission.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: to support\ncooperation between the national public administrations responsible\nfor the application of Union law, the European Commission has\ndeveloped the Internal Market Information System (IMI) which is a\ngeneric, customisable administrative cooperation\nplatform.
\nFreely available for use by\nthe Member States since 2008, this system
\nprovides more than 6 000\nregistered authorities in the 27 Member States and three EEA\ncountries with a fast and secure communication channel for\ncross-border information exchange with their counterparts,\neffectively overcoming barriers due to different languages and\nadministrative structures. IMI is currently used for the exchange\nof information pursuant to Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition\nof professional qualificationsand\nDirective 2006/123/EC on services in the internal\nmarket.
\nCross-border administrative\ncooperation frequently involves processing and exchanging personal\ndata of EU citizens. From a legal point of view, IMI operates on\nthe basis of a Commission decision, a 'comitology' decision, and a\nCommission recommendation. The lack of a single legal instrument\nadopted by the European Parliament and the Council underlying its\noperations came to be seen as an obstacle to further expansion of\nIMI.
\nAccording to the Commission\nCommunication \"Towards a Single Market Act\",\nextending IMI to other sectors 'with a view to creating a genuine\nface-to-face electronic network for European administrations' is\none of the keys to promoting better governance of the single\nmarket. The Commission's communication on expanding and developing\nthe IMI' (the IMI Strategy Communication)\nadopted on 21 February 2011 set out plans for future expansion of\nIMI to other areas of EU law. The Commission Communication \"A Single Market Act\" stressed\nthe importance of IMI for strengthening cooperation among the\nactors involved, including at local level, thus contributing to\nbetter governance of the single market.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: this\nproposal consolidates the current rules governing IMI within a\nsingle horizontal legally binding instrument. Consequently, no\nalternative policy options need to be considered at this stage. For\nthis reason, no impact analysis was undertaken. Any subsequent\ndecisions concerning the expansion of the use of IMI beyond the\nareas of Union law for which it is currently used will require\nproportionate impact assessments.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 of\nthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal aims\nat improving the conditions for the functioning of the internal\nmarket by providing an effective and user-friendly tool\nfacilitating the practical implementation of provisions of Union\nlaw mandating administrative cooperation and information\nexchange.
\nThe proposal for a\nRegulation:
\nThe list of areas of Union\nacts currently supported by IMI is set out in Annex I, while areas\nof possible future expansion are listed in Annex II. The procedural\nand budgetary aspects aimed at facilitating future expansion of IMI\nare in line with the IMI Strategy Communication.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: as the\nuse of IMI is mandatory for Member States under the Services\nDirective and the recently adopted Directive on the application of\npatients' rights in cross-border healthcare, it is necessary to\nensure that IMI can continue to operate on a permanent basis. For\nthis reason, it is proposed that the expenditure related to IMI be\nregrouped by bringing all costs under the same budget line managed\nby DG Internal Market and Services (budget line 12.02.01\nImplementation and development of the Internal Market).
\nThis proposal does not have a budgetary impact over\nand above what is already foreseen in the years to come in the\nofficial programming of the Commission and it is without prejudice\nto the decisions on the post-2013 multi-annual financial\nframework.
\nIn 2010, the financing of\nIMI was covered by the following sources: i) ISA programme (EUR 500\n000 - budget line 26.03.01.01) and ii) internal market budget lines\n(EUR 925 000).
\nFor 2011-2012, the planned\nfinancing from ISA will amount to ca. EUR 1.15 million per\nyear.
\nThe impact on operational\nexpenditure is estimated at EUR 1.44 million in commitment\nappropriations for the year 2013.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the\nproposal contains provisions conferring on the Commission the right\nto adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the EU.
\nPURPOSE: to lay down rules\non the use of the Internal Market Information System (IMI) for\nadministrative cooperation, including the processing and exchange\nof personal data of EU citizens between the competent authorities\nof the Member States and the Commission.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: to support\ncooperation between the national public administrations responsible\nfor the application of Union law, the European Commission has\ndeveloped the Internal Market Information System (IMI) which is a\ngeneric, customisable administrative cooperation\nplatform.
\nFreely available for use by\nthe Member States since 2008, this system
\nprovides more than 6 000\nregistered authorities in the 27 Member States and three EEA\ncountries with a fast and secure communication channel for\ncross-border information exchange with their counterparts,\neffectively overcoming barriers due to different languages and\nadministrative structures. IMI is currently used for the exchange\nof information pursuant to Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition\nof professional qualificationsand\nDirective 2006/123/EC on services in the internal\nmarket.
\nCross-border administrative\ncooperation frequently involves processing and exchanging personal\ndata of EU citizens. From a legal point of view, IMI operates on\nthe basis of a Commission decision, a 'comitology' decision, and a\nCommission recommendation. The lack of a single legal instrument\nadopted by the European Parliament and the Council underlying its\noperations came to be seen as an obstacle to further expansion of\nIMI.
\nAccording to the Commission\nCommunication \"Towards a Single Market Act\",\nextending IMI to other sectors 'with a view to creating a genuine\nface-to-face electronic network for European administrations' is\none of the keys to promoting better governance of the single\nmarket. The Commission's communication on expanding and developing\nthe IMI' (the IMI Strategy Communication)\nadopted on 21 February 2011 set out plans for future expansion of\nIMI to other areas of EU law. The Commission Communication \"A Single Market Act\" stressed\nthe importance of IMI for strengthening cooperation among the\nactors involved, including at local level, thus contributing to\nbetter governance of the single market.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: this\nproposal consolidates the current rules governing IMI within a\nsingle horizontal legally binding instrument. Consequently, no\nalternative policy options need to be considered at this stage. For\nthis reason, no impact analysis was undertaken. Any subsequent\ndecisions concerning the expansion of the use of IMI beyond the\nareas of Union law for which it is currently used will require\nproportionate impact assessments.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 of\nthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal aims\nat improving the conditions for the functioning of the internal\nmarket by providing an effective and user-friendly tool\nfacilitating the practical implementation of provisions of Union\nlaw mandating administrative cooperation and information\nexchange.
\nThe proposal for a\nRegulation:
\nThe list of areas of Union\nacts currently supported by IMI is set out in Annex I, while areas\nof possible future expansion are listed in Annex II. The procedural\nand budgetary aspects aimed at facilitating future expansion of IMI\nare in line with the IMI Strategy Communication.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: as the\nuse of IMI is mandatory for Member States under the Services\nDirective and the recently adopted Directive on the application of\npatients' rights in cross-border healthcare, it is necessary to\nensure that IMI can continue to operate on a permanent basis. For\nthis reason, it is proposed that the expenditure related to IMI be\nregrouped by bringing all costs under the same budget line managed\nby DG Internal Market and Services (budget line 12.02.01\nImplementation and development of the Internal Market).
\nThis proposal does not have a budgetary impact over\nand above what is already foreseen in the years to come in the\nofficial programming of the Commission and it is without prejudice\nto the decisions on the post-2013 multi-annual financial\nframework.
\nIn 2010, the financing of\nIMI was covered by the following sources: i) ISA programme (EUR 500\n000 - budget line 26.03.01.01) and ii) internal market budget lines\n(EUR 925 000).
\nFor 2011-2012, the planned\nfinancing from ISA will amount to ca. EUR 1.15 million per\nyear.
\nThe impact on operational\nexpenditure is estimated at EUR 1.44 million in commitment\nappropriations for the year 2013.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the\nproposal contains provisions conferring on the Commission the right\nto adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the EU.
\n\nOpinion of the European Data\nProtection Supervisor on the Commission proposal for a Regulation\nof the European Parliament and of the Council on administrative\ncooperation through the Internal Market Information System\n(‘IMI’).
\nThe EDPS welcomes the fact\nthat the Commission formally consulted him and that a reference to\nthis Opinion is included in the preamble of the\nproposal.
\nThe overall views of the\nEDPS on IMI are positive. The EDPS\nsupports the aims of the Commission in establishing an electronic\nsystem for the exchange of information and regulating its data\nprotection aspects. The EDPS also welcomes the fact that the\nCommission proposes a horizontal legal instrument for IMI in the\nform of a Council and Parliament Regulation. He is pleased that the\nproposal comprehensively highlights the most relevant data\nprotection issues for IMI.
\nNevertheless, the EDPS cautions that\nestablishment of a single centralised electronic system for\nmultiple areas of administrative cooperation also creates\nrisks. These include, most importantly, that more data might be\nshared, and more broadly than strictly necessary for the purposes\nof efficient cooperation, and that data, including potentially\noutdated and inaccurate data, might remain in the electronic system\nlonger than necessary.
\nThe security of the information system\naccessible in 27 Member States is also a sensitive issue, as the\nwhole system will be only as secure as the weakest link in the\nchain permits it to be.
\nThe EDPS makes the following\nrecommendations:
\nLegal framework: with regard to the legal\nframework for IMI to be established in the proposed Regulation, the\nEDPS calls attention to two key challenges: (i) the need to ensure\nconsistency, while respecting diversity, and (ii) the need to\nbalance flexibility and legal certainty:
\nRetention periods:
\nRisk assessment: the Regulation should require a\nrisk assessment and a review of the security plan before each\nexpansion of IMI to a new policy area or before adding a new\nfunctionality with an impact on personal data.
\nInformation and access\nrights: the\nprovisions on information to data subjects and access rights should\nbe strengthened and should encourage a more consistent\napproach.
\nSupervision: the EDPS would strengthen the\nprovisions on coordinated supervision at certain points and would\nfor that purpose support similar provisions as those in place for\nexample in the context of the Visa Information System, Schengen II\nand envisaged for Eurodac. With regard to the frequency of meetings\nand audits, the EDPS supports the proposal in its flexible approach\naimed to ensure that the Regulation provides the necessary minimal\nrules to ensure effective cooperation without creating unnecessary\nadministrative burdens.
\nThird countries: the Regulation should ensure\nthat competent authorities or other external actors in a third\ncountry that does not afford adequate protection should not be able\nto have direct access to IMI unless there are appropriate\ncontractual clauses in place. These clauses should be negotiated at\nthe EU level.
\nInternal control: the Regulation should establish\na clear framework for adequate internal control mechanisms that\nensures data protection compliance and provides evidence thereof,\nincluding privacy assessments (also including a security risk\nanalysis), a data protection policy (including a security plan)\nadopted based on the results of these, as well as periodic reviews\nand auditing.
\nLastly, the Regulation should also introduce\nspecific privacy by design safeguards.
\nThe Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer\nProtection adopted the report by Adam BIELAN (ECR, PL) on the\nproposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the\nCouncil on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market\nInformation System (‘the IMI Regulation’).
\nThe committee recommends that the European\nParliament’s position in first reading following the ordinary\nlegislative procedure should amend the Commission proposal as\nfollows:
\nTreatment of personal data: the report states that all personal data and\ninformation circulated among the different competent\nauthorities must be collected, processed and used for\nstrictly legitimate purposes which are in line with data protection\nrules. Furthermore, all relevant safeguards against abuse of the\nsystem shall be firmly put in place.
\nMembers inserted the following amendments:
\n\n· \npersonal data processed in IMI shall be\nblocked in the system after a period\nof no longer than eighteen months after the formal\nclosure of an administrative cooperation procedure;
\n\n· \nthe storage of personal data included in the\nrepository shall comply with the provisions of data protection set\nout in Union legislation on protection of personal data;
\n\n· \ndata submitted by data subjects to\nIMI shall only be used for the purposes for which the data\nwere submitted. Data subjects' consent shall also be\nrequired for extension of the use of those data to new areas or\nworkflows.
\n\n· \nIMI actors shall ensure that data subjects are\ninformed about processing of their personal data in IMI within\n30 days of such processing. The correction and deletion shall be\ncarried out as soon as possible, and at the latest\n30 days after the request of data subject is\nreceived.
\nDevelopment of IMI and its extension to other\nareas of Union law: Members\noppose the Commission’s provisions on amending the scope of\nthe Regulation through delegated acts. They suggest that the\nCommission may propose an amendment to the Annex to this\nRegulation if it decides that IMI is to be\nused for new legal acts of\nthe Union.
\n\n· \nBefore submitting a proposal, the\nCommission may carry out pilot projects of\na limited duration or impact assessment, including data\nprotection, in order to assess whether IMI would be an\neffective tool for the implementation of provisions\non administrative cooperation of internal market acts not\nyet listed in the Annex.
\n\n· \nThe Commission shall submit the\nresults of the pilot project or of the impact\nassessment to the European Parliament and to the\nCouncil, and where appropriate, accompany them with a\nlegislative proposal to amend the Annex for the expansion\nof IMI.
\nCompetent authorities:\nan amendment states that Member States shall take all necessary\nmeasures to ensure effective application of this Regulation by the\ncompetent authorities. The latter shall fulfil their obligations\nunder the Regulation in the same way as they would if acting\nat the request of another competent authority within their\nown Member State.
\nCommission’s role:\nthe report stipulates that the Commission shall monitor the\napplication of this Regulation and report back to the European\nParliament, the Council and the European Data Protection\nSupervisor.
\nIt also wants the Commission to play a consultative\nrole in the process of designating the IMI coordinators and\ncompetent authorities.
\nAccess rights of IMI actors and users:\nthe committee considers that external actors\nshould only have access to a public interface, which is\ntechnically separate from the IMI application and does not provide\naccess to personal data exchange between competent\nauthorities.
\nLastly, Members want the Commission's internal control\nmechanisms to include data privacy assessments, including a\nsecurity risk analysis, on the basis of which a data protection\npolicy (including a security plan) will be adopted, as well as\nperiodic reviews and auditing.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 623 votes to 25,\nwith 35 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a\nregulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on\nadministrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information\nSystem (‘the IMI Regulation’).
\nParliament adopted its position on first reading\nfollowing the ordinary legislative procedure. The agreement was the\nresult of a compromise negotiated between Parliament and Council.\nThe main amendments to the proposal are as follows:
\nScope: it is stipulated\nthat IMI shall be used for administrative cooperation between\ncompetent authorities of the Member States and between competent\nauthorities of the Member States and the Commission necessary for\nthe implementation of Union acts in the field of the internal\nmarket, within the meaning of Article 26(2) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU). Those Union acts are\nlisted in the Annex.
\nNothing in this Regulation shall have the effect of\nrendering mandatory the provisions of Union acts which have no\nbinding force.
\nExpansion of IMI: the\nCommission may carry out pilot projects in order to assess\nwhether IMI would be an effective tool to implement provisions for\nadministrative cooperation of Union acts not listed in the\nAnnex.
\nThe Commission shall adopt an implementing act to\ndetermine which provisions of Union acts shall be subject to a\npilot project and to set out the modalities of each project, in\nparticular the basic technical functionality and procedural\narrangements required to implement the relevant administrative\ncooperation provisions.
\nThe Commission shall submit an evaluation of the\noutcome of the pilot project, including data protection issues and\neffective translation functionalities, to the European Parliament\nand the Council. Where appropriate, that evaluation may be\naccompanied by a legislative proposal to amend the Annex to expand\nthe use of IMI to the relevant provisions of Union acts.
\nPractical arrangements to enable information exchange\nvia IMI: these arrangements should be\nadopted by the Commission in the form of a separate implementing\nact for each Union act listed in the Annex or for each type of\nadministrative cooperation procedure and should cover the essential\ntechnical functionality and procedural arrangements required to\nimplement the relevant administrative cooperation procedures via\nIMI. The Commission should ensure the maintenance and development\nof the software and IT infrastructure for IMI.
\nProcessing of personal data: IMI actors shall exchange and process personal data\nonly for the purposes defined in the relevant provisions of the\nUnion acts listed in the Annex. Data submitted to IMI by data\nsubjects shall only be used for the purposes for which the\ndata were submitted.
\nPersonal data processed in IMI shall be blocked in IMI\nas soon as they are no longer necessary for the purpose for which\nthey were collected, depending on the specificities of each type of\nadministrative cooperation and, as a general rule, no later than\nsix months after the formal closure of the administrative\ncooperation procedure.
\nThe Commission :
\nNational IMI coordinators shall act as the main contact point for IMI actors of\nthe Member States for issues relating to IMI, including providing\ninformation on aspects relating to the protection of personal data\nin accordance with this Regulation.
\nInformation exchange with third countries:\nwhere international agreements are concluded\nbetween the Union and third countries that also cover the\napplication of provisions of Union acts listed in the Annex to this\nRegulation, it should be possible to include the counterparts of\nIMI actors in such third countries in the administrative\ncooperation procedures supported by IMI, provided that it has been\nestablished that the third country concerned offers an adequate\nlevel of protection of personal data in accordance with Directive\n95/46/EC.
\nSOLVIT: the use of IMI\nfor the technical support of the SOLVIT network shall be without\nprejudice to the informal character of the SOLVIT procedure which\nis based on a voluntary commitment of the Member States.
\nTo continue the functioning of the SOLVIT network on\nthe basis of existing work arrangements, one or more tasks of the\nnational IMI coordinator may be assigned to SOLVIT centres within\nthe remit of their work, so that they can function independently\nfrom the national IMI coordinator.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 623 votes to 25,\nwith 35 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a\nregulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on\nadministrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information\nSystem (‘the IMI Regulation’).
\nParliament adopted its position on first reading\nfollowing the ordinary legislative procedure. The agreement was the\nresult of a compromise negotiated between Parliament and Council.\nThe main amendments to the proposal are as follows:
\nScope: it is stipulated\nthat IMI shall be used for administrative cooperation between\ncompetent authorities of the Member States and between competent\nauthorities of the Member States and the Commission necessary for\nthe implementation of Union acts in the field of the internal\nmarket, within the meaning of Article 26(2) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU). Those Union acts are\nlisted in the Annex.
\nNothing in this Regulation shall have the effect of\nrendering mandatory the provisions of Union acts which have no\nbinding force.
\nExpansion of IMI: the\nCommission may carry out pilot projects in order to assess\nwhether IMI would be an effective tool to implement provisions for\nadministrative cooperation of Union acts not listed in the\nAnnex.
\nThe Commission shall adopt an implementing act to\ndetermine which provisions of Union acts shall be subject to a\npilot project and to set out the modalities of each project, in\nparticular the basic technical functionality and procedural\narrangements required to implement the relevant administrative\ncooperation provisions.
\nThe Commission shall submit an evaluation of the\noutcome of the pilot project, including data protection issues and\neffective translation functionalities, to the European Parliament\nand the Council. Where appropriate, that evaluation may be\naccompanied by a legislative proposal to amend the Annex to expand\nthe use of IMI to the relevant provisions of Union acts.
\nPractical arrangements to enable information exchange\nvia IMI: these arrangements should be\nadopted by the Commission in the form of a separate implementing\nact for each Union act listed in the Annex or for each type of\nadministrative cooperation procedure and should cover the essential\ntechnical functionality and procedural arrangements required to\nimplement the relevant administrative cooperation procedures via\nIMI. The Commission should ensure the maintenance and development\nof the software and IT infrastructure for IMI.
\nProcessing of personal data: IMI actors shall exchange and process personal data\nonly for the purposes defined in the relevant provisions of the\nUnion acts listed in the Annex. Data submitted to IMI by data\nsubjects shall only be used for the purposes for which the\ndata were submitted.
\nPersonal data processed in IMI shall be blocked in IMI\nas soon as they are no longer necessary for the purpose for which\nthey were collected, depending on the specificities of each type of\nadministrative cooperation and, as a general rule, no later than\nsix months after the formal closure of the administrative\ncooperation procedure.
\nThe Commission :
\nNational IMI coordinators shall act as the main contact point for IMI actors of\nthe Member States for issues relating to IMI, including providing\ninformation on aspects relating to the protection of personal data\nin accordance with this Regulation.
\nInformation exchange with third countries:\nwhere international agreements are concluded\nbetween the Union and third countries that also cover the\napplication of provisions of Union acts listed in the Annex to this\nRegulation, it should be possible to include the counterparts of\nIMI actors in such third countries in the administrative\ncooperation procedures supported by IMI, provided that it has been\nestablished that the third country concerned offers an adequate\nlevel of protection of personal data in accordance with Directive\n95/46/EC.
\nSOLVIT: the use of IMI\nfor the technical support of the SOLVIT network shall be without\nprejudice to the informal character of the SOLVIT procedure which\nis based on a voluntary commitment of the Member States.
\nTo continue the functioning of the SOLVIT network on\nthe basis of existing work arrangements, one or more tasks of the\nnational IMI coordinator may be assigned to SOLVIT centres within\nthe remit of their work, so that they can function independently\nfrom the national IMI coordinator.
\nPURPOSE: to lay down rules\non the use of the Internal Market Information System (IMI) for\nadministrative cooperation, including the processing and exchange\nof personal data of EU citizens between the competent authorities\nof the Member States and the Commission.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: to support\ncooperation between the national public administrations responsible\nfor the application of Union law, the European Commission has\ndeveloped the Internal Market Information System (IMI) which is a\ngeneric, customisable administrative cooperation\nplatform.
\nFreely available for use by\nthe Member States since 2008, this system
\nprovides more than 6 000\nregistered authorities in the 27 Member States and three EEA\ncountries with a fast and secure communication channel for\ncross-border information exchange with their counterparts,\neffectively overcoming barriers due to different languages and\nadministrative structures. IMI is currently used for the exchange\nof information pursuant to Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition\nof professional qualificationsand\nDirective 2006/123/EC on services in the internal\nmarket.
\nCross-border administrative\ncooperation frequently involves processing and exchanging personal\ndata of EU citizens. From a legal point of view, IMI operates on\nthe basis of a Commission decision, a 'comitology' decision, and a\nCommission recommendation. The lack of a single legal instrument\nadopted by the European Parliament and the Council underlying its\noperations came to be seen as an obstacle to further expansion of\nIMI.
\nAccording to the Commission\nCommunication \"Towards a Single Market Act\",\nextending IMI to other sectors 'with a view to creating a genuine\nface-to-face electronic network for European administrations' is\none of the keys to promoting better governance of the single\nmarket. The Commission's communication on expanding and developing\nthe IMI' (the IMI Strategy Communication)\nadopted on 21 February 2011 set out plans for future expansion of\nIMI to other areas of EU law. The Commission Communication \"A Single Market Act\" stressed\nthe importance of IMI for strengthening cooperation among the\nactors involved, including at local level, thus contributing to\nbetter governance of the single market.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: this\nproposal consolidates the current rules governing IMI within a\nsingle horizontal legally binding instrument. Consequently, no\nalternative policy options need to be considered at this stage. For\nthis reason, no impact analysis was undertaken. Any subsequent\ndecisions concerning the expansion of the use of IMI beyond the\nareas of Union law for which it is currently used will require\nproportionate impact assessments.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 of\nthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal aims\nat improving the conditions for the functioning of the internal\nmarket by providing an effective and user-friendly tool\nfacilitating the practical implementation of provisions of Union\nlaw mandating administrative cooperation and information\nexchange.
\nThe proposal for a\nRegulation:
\nThe list of areas of Union\nacts currently supported by IMI is set out in Annex I, while areas\nof possible future expansion are listed in Annex II. The procedural\nand budgetary aspects aimed at facilitating future expansion of IMI\nare in line with the IMI Strategy Communication.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: as the\nuse of IMI is mandatory for Member States under the Services\nDirective and the recently adopted Directive on the application of\npatients' rights in cross-border healthcare, it is necessary to\nensure that IMI can continue to operate on a permanent basis. For\nthis reason, it is proposed that the expenditure related to IMI be\nregrouped by bringing all costs under the same budget line managed\nby DG Internal Market and Services (budget line 12.02.01\nImplementation and development of the Internal Market).
\nThis proposal does not have a budgetary impact over\nand above what is already foreseen in the years to come in the\nofficial programming of the Commission and it is without prejudice\nto the decisions on the post-2013 multi-annual financial\nframework.
\nIn 2010, the financing of\nIMI was covered by the following sources: i) ISA programme (EUR 500\n000 - budget line 26.03.01.01) and ii) internal market budget lines\n(EUR 925 000).
\nFor 2011-2012, the planned\nfinancing from ISA will amount to ca. EUR 1.15 million per\nyear.
\nThe impact on operational\nexpenditure is estimated at EUR 1.44 million in commitment\nappropriations for the year 2013.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the\nproposal contains provisions conferring on the Commission the right\nto adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the EU.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 623 votes to 25,\nwith 35 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a\nregulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on\nadministrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information\nSystem (‘the IMI Regulation’).
\nParliament adopted its position on first reading\nfollowing the ordinary legislative procedure. The agreement was the\nresult of a compromise negotiated between Parliament and Council.\nThe main amendments to the proposal are as follows:
\nScope: it is stipulated\nthat IMI shall be used for administrative cooperation between\ncompetent authorities of the Member States and between competent\nauthorities of the Member States and the Commission necessary for\nthe implementation of Union acts in the field of the internal\nmarket, within the meaning of Article 26(2) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU). Those Union acts are\nlisted in the Annex.
\nNothing in this Regulation shall have the effect of\nrendering mandatory the provisions of Union acts which have no\nbinding force.
\nExpansion of IMI: the\nCommission may carry out pilot projects in order to assess\nwhether IMI would be an effective tool to implement provisions for\nadministrative cooperation of Union acts not listed in the\nAnnex.
\nThe Commission shall adopt an implementing act to\ndetermine which provisions of Union acts shall be subject to a\npilot project and to set out the modalities of each project, in\nparticular the basic technical functionality and procedural\narrangements required to implement the relevant administrative\ncooperation provisions.
\nThe Commission shall submit an evaluation of the\noutcome of the pilot project, including data protection issues and\neffective translation functionalities, to the European Parliament\nand the Council. Where appropriate, that evaluation may be\naccompanied by a legislative proposal to amend the Annex to expand\nthe use of IMI to the relevant provisions of Union acts.
\nPractical arrangements to enable information exchange\nvia IMI: these arrangements should be\nadopted by the Commission in the form of a separate implementing\nact for each Union act listed in the Annex or for each type of\nadministrative cooperation procedure and should cover the essential\ntechnical functionality and procedural arrangements required to\nimplement the relevant administrative cooperation procedures via\nIMI. The Commission should ensure the maintenance and development\nof the software and IT infrastructure for IMI.
\nProcessing of personal data: IMI actors shall exchange and process personal data\nonly for the purposes defined in the relevant provisions of the\nUnion acts listed in the Annex. Data submitted to IMI by data\nsubjects shall only be used for the purposes for which the\ndata were submitted.
\nPersonal data processed in IMI shall be blocked in IMI\nas soon as they are no longer necessary for the purpose for which\nthey were collected, depending on the specificities of each type of\nadministrative cooperation and, as a general rule, no later than\nsix months after the formal closure of the administrative\ncooperation procedure.
\nThe Commission :
\nNational IMI coordinators shall act as the main contact point for IMI actors of\nthe Member States for issues relating to IMI, including providing\ninformation on aspects relating to the protection of personal data\nin accordance with this Regulation.
\nInformation exchange with third countries:\nwhere international agreements are concluded\nbetween the Union and third countries that also cover the\napplication of provisions of Union acts listed in the Annex to this\nRegulation, it should be possible to include the counterparts of\nIMI actors in such third countries in the administrative\ncooperation procedures supported by IMI, provided that it has been\nestablished that the third country concerned offers an adequate\nlevel of protection of personal data in accordance with Directive\n95/46/EC.
\nSOLVIT: the use of IMI\nfor the technical support of the SOLVIT network shall be without\nprejudice to the informal character of the SOLVIT procedure which\nis based on a voluntary commitment of the Member States.
\nTo continue the functioning of the SOLVIT network on\nthe basis of existing work arrangements, one or more tasks of the\nnational IMI coordinator may be assigned to SOLVIT centres within\nthe remit of their work, so that they can function independently\nfrom the national IMI coordinator.
\nPURPOSE: to lay down rules\non the use of the Internal Market Information System (IMI) for\nadministrative cooperation, including the processing and exchange\nof personal data of EU citizens between the competent authorities\nof the Member States and the Commission.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: to support\ncooperation between the national public administrations responsible\nfor the application of Union law, the European Commission has\ndeveloped the Internal Market Information System (IMI) which is a\ngeneric, customisable administrative cooperation\nplatform.
\nFreely available for use by\nthe Member States since 2008, this system
\nprovides more than 6 000\nregistered authorities in the 27 Member States and three EEA\ncountries with a fast and secure communication channel for\ncross-border information exchange with their counterparts,\neffectively overcoming barriers due to different languages and\nadministrative structures. IMI is currently used for the exchange\nof information pursuant to Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition\nof professional qualificationsand\nDirective 2006/123/EC on services in the internal\nmarket.
\nCross-border administrative\ncooperation frequently involves processing and exchanging personal\ndata of EU citizens. From a legal point of view, IMI operates on\nthe basis of a Commission decision, a 'comitology' decision, and a\nCommission recommendation. The lack of a single legal instrument\nadopted by the European Parliament and the Council underlying its\noperations came to be seen as an obstacle to further expansion of\nIMI.
\nAccording to the Commission\nCommunication \"Towards a Single Market Act\",\nextending IMI to other sectors 'with a view to creating a genuine\nface-to-face electronic network for European administrations' is\none of the keys to promoting better governance of the single\nmarket. The Commission's communication on expanding and developing\nthe IMI' (the IMI Strategy Communication)\nadopted on 21 February 2011 set out plans for future expansion of\nIMI to other areas of EU law. The Commission Communication \"A Single Market Act\" stressed\nthe importance of IMI for strengthening cooperation among the\nactors involved, including at local level, thus contributing to\nbetter governance of the single market.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: this\nproposal consolidates the current rules governing IMI within a\nsingle horizontal legally binding instrument. Consequently, no\nalternative policy options need to be considered at this stage. For\nthis reason, no impact analysis was undertaken. Any subsequent\ndecisions concerning the expansion of the use of IMI beyond the\nareas of Union law for which it is currently used will require\nproportionate impact assessments.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 of\nthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal aims\nat improving the conditions for the functioning of the internal\nmarket by providing an effective and user-friendly tool\nfacilitating the practical implementation of provisions of Union\nlaw mandating administrative cooperation and information\nexchange.
\nThe proposal for a\nRegulation:
\nThe list of areas of Union\nacts currently supported by IMI is set out in Annex I, while areas\nof possible future expansion are listed in Annex II. The procedural\nand budgetary aspects aimed at facilitating future expansion of IMI\nare in line with the IMI Strategy Communication.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: as the\nuse of IMI is mandatory for Member States under the Services\nDirective and the recently adopted Directive on the application of\npatients' rights in cross-border healthcare, it is necessary to\nensure that IMI can continue to operate on a permanent basis. For\nthis reason, it is proposed that the expenditure related to IMI be\nregrouped by bringing all costs under the same budget line managed\nby DG Internal Market and Services (budget line 12.02.01\nImplementation and development of the Internal Market).
\nThis proposal does not have a budgetary impact over\nand above what is already foreseen in the years to come in the\nofficial programming of the Commission and it is without prejudice\nto the decisions on the post-2013 multi-annual financial\nframework.
\nIn 2010, the financing of\nIMI was covered by the following sources: i) ISA programme (EUR 500\n000 - budget line 26.03.01.01) and ii) internal market budget lines\n(EUR 925 000).
\nFor 2011-2012, the planned\nfinancing from ISA will amount to ca. EUR 1.15 million per\nyear.
\nThe impact on operational\nexpenditure is estimated at EUR 1.44 million in commitment\nappropriations for the year 2013.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the\nproposal contains provisions conferring on the Commission the right\nto adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the EU.
\nPURPOSE: to entrust the\nOffice for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and\nDesigns) with certain tasks related to the protection of\nintellectual property rights, including the assembling of public\nand private sector representatives as a European Observatory on\nCounterfeiting and Piracy in order to avoid significant harm being\ncaused by counterfeiting and piracy to the European economy and to\nthe health and safety of European citizens.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the EU's\neconomic well-being relies on sustained creativity and innovation.\nAccordingly, the Europe 2020\nStrategyhighlights the\nneed to strengthen the EU's research performance, to promote\ninnovation throughout the Member States, ensuring that innovative\nideas can be turned into new products and services that create\ngrowth and quality jobs. Intellectual property rights (IPR) are\nvital business assets, which help to ensure that innovators and\ncreators get a fair return for their work and\ninvestments.
\nOver the last ten years, however, IPR infringements\nhave increased significantly. In 2009, the OECD estimated that\ninternational trade in counterfeit and pirated goods accounted for\nUSD 250 billion in 2007, which is larger than the national GDPs of\n150 economies. Also, figures published by EU customs authorities\nreflect a clear increase in customs activity, with a rise in\nregistered cases from 26 704 in 2005 to 43 572 in 2009, i.e. up by\nabout 60 % in five years.
\nOne of the main initiatives\nto address this threat launched by the Council and the Commission in 2009 was to set\nup a European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy to improve\nunderstanding on intellectual property rights (IPR) infringements\n('the Observatory').
\nIn line with the Council's request of 2008, the\nObservatory in its current form is a centre of expertise with no\nlegal personality managed by the Commission services.
\nThe latest Council\nResolution relating to the Observatory added further\nresponsibilities, by inviting it to assess the needs for\nimplementation of EU-level training programmes for those involved\nin combating counterfeiting and piracy. A September 2010 European Parliament\nResolution additionally called for the\nObservatory to compile scientific research data on counterfeiting\nand IPR regulation.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114\nand 118(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the\nImpact Assessment looked at three different options, each with a\nnumber of sub-options:
\nOption 1: the\nObservatory continues to be administered by DG MARKT, but with\nextra resources:
\nOption 2: tasks are\nperformed by a private body or jointly under a public-private\npartnership:
\nOption 3: the\nObservatory is entrusted to an EU agency:
\nThe Commission concludes that Option 3b\n(entrusting the tasks to an existing EU agency, preferably OHIM) is\nthe preferred option. It would allow the Observatory to have access\nto expertise, resources and financing and to become quickly\noperational. In budgetary terms it would offer a cost-efficient\nsolution and allow costs to be covered by financial resources\noutside of the EU budget.
\nCONTENT: over the last two years, the Observatory's\ninstitutional framework has been set up. This setting up phase of\nthe Observatory having been concluded it shows that, due to a\nlack of funding, human resources, IT and meeting capacities\nand necessary expertise, with its current infrastructure it will\nnot be able to meet its objectives in the future and that\nthe taking on of additional tasks under the current setting would\nbe excluded.
\nIt is proposed to entrust the Office for Harmonisation\nin the Internal Market with the tasks and activities relating to\nthe management of the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and\nPiracy, including those concerning copyright, rights related to\ncopyright and patents.
\nThe specific objectives are:
\nThe operational objectives are to ensure that\nthe Observatory has the necessary infrastructure (in terms of human\nresources, funding, IT and meeting capacities, expertise and\nindependence from vested interests) to perform its tasks\neffectively, as quickly as possible and at minimum cost to the EU\nbudget.
\nThese objectives dovetail with existing EU policies\nand strategies, such as Europe 2020. They also fit in with the\nCommission's main priorities and proposals concerning its IPR strategy for\nEurope.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposal does not create any costs for the EU budget. Instead, it\nwould allow for savings of around EUR 40 000 as certain costs that\nare currently borne by the EU budget would in future be borne by\nthe OHIM's budget.
\nMinisters took note of the progress made on three\nfiles under examination by the Council preparatory bodies in the\nfield of intellectual property:
\n\n· \na\ndraft directive on the protection of orphan works;
\n\n· \na draft regulation for entrusting the Office\nfor Harmonisation in the Internal Market with certain tasks related\nto the protection of intellectual property; and
\n· \na draft\nregulation concerning customs enforcement of intellectual\nproperty rights.
\nThe Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the\nreport drafted by Antonio MASIP HIDALGO (S&D, ES) on the\nproposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the\nCouncil on entrusting the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal\nMarket (Trade Marks and Designs) with certain tasks related to the\nprotection of intellectual property rights, including the\nassembling of public and private sector representatives as a\nEuropean Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy.
\nIt recommended that the European\nParliament’s position, adopted at first reading under the\nordinary legislative procedure, should be to amend the Commission\nproposal as follows:
\nSubject matter and\nscope: Members\nstipulate that the this Regulation entrusts the Office for\nHarmonization in the Internal Market with tasks aimed at\nfacilitating and supporting the activities of national authorities,\nthe private sector and the institutions of the Union in the fight\nagainst infringements of the intellectual property rights covered\nby Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property\nrights.
\nIn carrying out these tasks, the Office shall\norganise, administer and support the gathering of experts,\nauthorities and stakeholders assembled under the name \"European\nObservatory on the infringements of Intellectual Property\nRights\".
\nThe tasks and activities of the Office under\nthis Regulation do not extend to participation in individual\noperations or investigations carried out by the competent\nauthorities.
\nTasks and\nactivities: the\nOffice shall have the following tasks:
\nIn the fulfilment of the tasks, the Office shall carry\nout the following activities:
\nMeetings of the Observatory: in order to carry out the activities, the Office\nshall invite to meetings of the Observatory, at least once a year,\nrepresentatives from public administrations, bodies and\norganisations in the Member States dealing with intellectual\nproperty rights and representatives from the private sector, for\nthe purpose of participating in the Office's work under this\nRegulation. Representatives meeting as the Observatory invited from\nthe private sector shall include a broad, representative and\nbalanced range of Union and national bodies representing the\ndifferent economic sectors, including the creative\nindustries, most concerned by or most experienced in the fight\nagainst infringements of intellectual property rights.
\nMembers or other representatives\nof the European Parliament and representatives from the Commission shall\nbe invited to any of the meetings, either as participants or\nobservers, as appropriate.
\nThe names of the representatives, the agenda\nand the minutes of the meetings shall be published on the Office's\nwebsite.
\nInformation obligations:\nwithout prejudice to the law governing the processing of personal\ndata and to the protection of confidential information, private\nsector representatives meeting as the Observatory shall, when\npossible, at the request of the Office:
\nContent of the work programme and of the management\nreport: the Office shall draw up an\nannual work programme that prioritises the activities appropriately\nunder this Regulation and for the meetings of the Observatory, in\nline with the Union's policies and priorities in the field of\nprotection of intellectual property rights, and in cooperation with\nthe Observatory representatives.
\nThe work programme shall be submitted to the\nOffice’s Administrative Board for information. It shall\ncontain an overall assessment of the fulfilment of the Office's\ntasks as well as observations on the enforcement of intellectual\nproperty rights and potential future policies and strategies,\nincluding on how to enhance an effective cooperation with and\nbetween Member States.
\nThe President of the Office shall consult the\nObservatory representatives on the relevant parts of the management\nreport referred to in this Article before submitting the report to\nthe European Parliament, the Commission and the\nAdministrative Board.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 569 votes to 15\nwith 71 abstentions a legislative resolution on the proposal for a\nregulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on\nentrusting the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market\n(Trade Marks and Designs) with certain tasks related to the\nprotection of intellectual property rights, including the\nassembling of public and private sector representatives as a\nEuropean Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy
\nParliament adopted its position on first reading\nfollowing the ordinary legislative procedure. The amendments\nadopted in plenary are the result of an agreement negotiated\nbetween Parliament and Council. The main amendments are as\nfollows:
\nSubject matter and scope: in accordance with Members’ requirements, it is\nstipulated the Regulation entrusts the Office for Harmonisation in\nthe Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) with tasks aimed at\nfacilitating and supporting the activities of national authorities,\nthe private sector and the Union institutions in the fight against\ninfringements of the intellectual property rights covered by\nDirective 2004/48/EC.
\nIn carrying out these tasks the Office\nshall organise, administer and support the gathering of\nexperts, authorities and stakeholders assembled under the name\n‘European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual\nProperty Rights ’.
\nTasks and activities:\nthe tasks and activities of the Office under the Regulation do not\nextend to participation in individual operations or investigations\ncarried out by the competent authorities.
\nThe Office shall have the following tasks:
\n\n· \nimproving understanding of the value of\nintellectual property;
\n\n· \nimproving understanding of the scope and impact\nof infringements of intellectual property rights;
\n\n· \nassisting in raising citizens' awareness of the\nimpact of infringements of intellectual property rights;
\n\n· \nenhancing knowledge of the technical tools\nneeded to prevent and tackle infringements of intellectual property\nrights, including tracking and tracing systems which help to\ndistinguish genuine products from counterfeit ones
\n\n· \nproviding mechanisms which help to improve the\nonline exchange, between Member States' authorities working in the\nfield of intellectual property rights, of information relating to\nthe enforcement of such rights, and fostering cooperation with and\nbetween those authorities;
\n\n· \nworking, in consultation with Member States, to\nfoster international cooperation with intellectual property offices\nin third countries so as to build strategies and develop techniques\nfor the enforcement of intellectual property rights, skills and\ntools.
\nIn the fulfilment of these tasks, the Office shall\ncarry out the following activities:
\n\n· \nestablishing a transparent methodology for the\ncollection, analysis and reporting of independent, objective,\ncomparable and reliable data relating to infringements of\nintellectual property rights;
\n\n· \nproviding regular assessments and specific\nreports by economic sector, geographic area and type of\nintellectual property right infringed, which evaluate, inter alia,\nthe impact of infringements of intellectual property rights on\nsociety and the economy, including an assessment of the effects on\nsmall and medium-sized enterprises, as well as on health, the\nenvironment, safety and security;
\n\n· \ncollecting, analysing and disseminating\ninformation regarding best practices between the representatives\nmeeting as the Observatory, and, if applicable, making\nrecommendations for strategies based on such practices;
\n\n· \nassisting national and Europe-wide actions,\nincluding online and offline campaigns, principally by providing\ndata and information;
\n\n· \nmonitoring the development of new competitive\nbusiness models which enlarge the legal offer of cultural and\ncreative content, and encouraging the exchange of information and\nraising consumer awareness in this respect;
\n\n· \norganising ad hoc meetings of experts, including\nacademic experts and relevant representatives of civil society, to\nsupport its work under this Regulation;
\n\n· \nidentifying and promoting technical tools for\nprofessionals and benchmark techniques, including tracking and\ntracing systems which help to distinguish genuine products from\ncounterfeit ones;
\n\n· \nworking with national authorities and the\nCommission to develop an online network facilitating the exchange\nof information on infringements of intellectual property rights\nbetween public administrations, bodies and organisations\nin the Member States dealing with the protection and enforcement of\nthose rights.
\nIn carrying out these tasks and activities, the Office\nshall comply with existing provisions of Union law on data\nprotection.
\nMeetings of the Observatory: in order to carry out the activities the Office\nshall at least once per year invite to meetings of the Observatory\nrepresentatives from public administrations, bodies and\norganisations in the Member States dealing with intellectual\nproperty rights and representatives from the private sector.\nRepresentatives meeting as the Observatory invited from the private\nsector shall include a broad, representative and balanced range of\nUnion and national bodies representing the different economic\nsectors, including the creative industries.
\nConsumer organisations, small and medium-sized\nenterprises, authors and other creators shall be properly\nrepresented.
\nIn addition to these meetings, the Office shall\norganise meetings consisting of: (i) representatives from the\npublic administrations, bodies and organisations in the Member\nStates, or (ii) private sector representatives.
\nMembers or other representatives of the European\nParliament and representatives from the Commission shall be invited\nto any of the meetings, either as participants or observers, as\nappropriate.
\nThe names of the representatives attending, the agenda\nand the minutes shall be published on the Office's\nwebsite.
\nInformation obligations:\nwithout prejudice to the law governing the processing of personal\ndata and to the protection of confidential information,\nprivate-sector representatives meeting as the Observatory shall,\nwhen possible, at the request of the Office:
\n\n· \ninform the Office of policies and strategies in\ntheir field of activity on the enforcement of intellectual property\nrights and any changes thereto,
\n\n· \nprovide statistical data on infringements of\nintellectual property rights in their field of activity.
\nContent of the work programme and of the management\nreport: the Office shall draw up an\nannual work programme that appropriately prioritises the activities\nunder this Regulation and for the meetings of the Observatory, in\nline with the Union's policies and priorities in the field of\nprotection of intellectual property rights and in cooperation with\nthe at the Observatory. The activity report shall contain (a)\nobservations on the enforcement of intellectual property rights and\npotential future policies and strategies, including on how to\nenhance effective cooperation with and between Member States; (b)\nan overall assessment of the proper representation in the\nObservatory of all the actors. Lastly, before submitting the\nmanagement report to the European Parliament, the Commission and\nthe Administrative Board, the President of the Office shall consult\nthe on the relevant parts of the report.
\nPURPOSE: to entrust the\nOffice for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and\nDesigns) with certain tasks related to the protection of\nintellectual property rights, including the assembling of public\nand private sector representatives as a European Observatory on\nCounterfeiting and Piracy in order to avoid significant harm being\ncaused by counterfeiting and piracy to the European economy and to\nthe health and safety of European citizens.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the EU's\neconomic well-being relies on sustained creativity and innovation.\nAccordingly, the Europe 2020\nStrategyhighlights the\nneed to strengthen the EU's research performance, to promote\ninnovation throughout the Member States, ensuring that innovative\nideas can be turned into new products and services that create\ngrowth and quality jobs. Intellectual property rights (IPR) are\nvital business assets, which help to ensure that innovators and\ncreators get a fair return for their work and\ninvestments.
\nOver the last ten years, however, IPR infringements\nhave increased significantly. In 2009, the OECD estimated that\ninternational trade in counterfeit and pirated goods accounted for\nUSD 250 billion in 2007, which is larger than the national GDPs of\n150 economies. Also, figures published by EU customs authorities\nreflect a clear increase in customs activity, with a rise in\nregistered cases from 26 704 in 2005 to 43 572 in 2009, i.e. up by\nabout 60 % in five years.
\nOne of the main initiatives\nto address this threat launched by the Council and the Commission in 2009 was to set\nup a European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy to improve\nunderstanding on intellectual property rights (IPR) infringements\n('the Observatory').
\nIn line with the Council's request of 2008, the\nObservatory in its current form is a centre of expertise with no\nlegal personality managed by the Commission services.
\nThe latest Council\nResolution relating to the Observatory added further\nresponsibilities, by inviting it to assess the needs for\nimplementation of EU-level training programmes for those involved\nin combating counterfeiting and piracy. A September 2010 European Parliament\nResolution additionally called for the\nObservatory to compile scientific research data on counterfeiting\nand IPR regulation.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114\nand 118(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the\nImpact Assessment looked at three different options, each with a\nnumber of sub-options:
\nOption 1: the\nObservatory continues to be administered by DG MARKT, but with\nextra resources:
\nOption 2: tasks are\nperformed by a private body or jointly under a public-private\npartnership:
\nOption 3: the\nObservatory is entrusted to an EU agency:
\nThe Commission concludes that Option 3b\n(entrusting the tasks to an existing EU agency, preferably OHIM) is\nthe preferred option. It would allow the Observatory to have access\nto expertise, resources and financing and to become quickly\noperational. In budgetary terms it would offer a cost-efficient\nsolution and allow costs to be covered by financial resources\noutside of the EU budget.
\nCONTENT: over the last two years, the Observatory's\ninstitutional framework has been set up. This setting up phase of\nthe Observatory having been concluded it shows that, due to a\nlack of funding, human resources, IT and meeting capacities\nand necessary expertise, with its current infrastructure it will\nnot be able to meet its objectives in the future and that\nthe taking on of additional tasks under the current setting would\nbe excluded.
\nIt is proposed to entrust the Office for Harmonisation\nin the Internal Market with the tasks and activities relating to\nthe management of the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and\nPiracy, including those concerning copyright, rights related to\ncopyright and patents.
\nThe specific objectives are:
\nThe operational objectives are to ensure that\nthe Observatory has the necessary infrastructure (in terms of human\nresources, funding, IT and meeting capacities, expertise and\nindependence from vested interests) to perform its tasks\neffectively, as quickly as possible and at minimum cost to the EU\nbudget.
\nThese objectives dovetail with existing EU policies\nand strategies, such as Europe 2020. They also fit in with the\nCommission's main priorities and proposals concerning its IPR strategy for\nEurope.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposal does not create any costs for the EU budget. Instead, it\nwould allow for savings of around EUR 40 000 as certain costs that\nare currently borne by the EU budget would in future be borne by\nthe OHIM's budget.
\nPURPOSE: to entrust the\nOffice for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and\nDesigns) with certain tasks related to the protection of\nintellectual property rights, including the assembling of public\nand private sector representatives as a European Observatory on\nCounterfeiting and Piracy in order to avoid significant harm being\ncaused by counterfeiting and piracy to the European economy and to\nthe health and safety of European citizens.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the EU's\neconomic well-being relies on sustained creativity and innovation.\nAccordingly, the Europe 2020\nStrategyhighlights the\nneed to strengthen the EU's research performance, to promote\ninnovation throughout the Member States, ensuring that innovative\nideas can be turned into new products and services that create\ngrowth and quality jobs. Intellectual property rights (IPR) are\nvital business assets, which help to ensure that innovators and\ncreators get a fair return for their work and\ninvestments.
\nOver the last ten years, however, IPR infringements\nhave increased significantly. In 2009, the OECD estimated that\ninternational trade in counterfeit and pirated goods accounted for\nUSD 250 billion in 2007, which is larger than the national GDPs of\n150 economies. Also, figures published by EU customs authorities\nreflect a clear increase in customs activity, with a rise in\nregistered cases from 26 704 in 2005 to 43 572 in 2009, i.e. up by\nabout 60 % in five years.
\nOne of the main initiatives\nto address this threat launched by the Council and the Commission in 2009 was to set\nup a European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy to improve\nunderstanding on intellectual property rights (IPR) infringements\n('the Observatory').
\nIn line with the Council's request of 2008, the\nObservatory in its current form is a centre of expertise with no\nlegal personality managed by the Commission services.
\nThe latest Council\nResolution relating to the Observatory added further\nresponsibilities, by inviting it to assess the needs for\nimplementation of EU-level training programmes for those involved\nin combating counterfeiting and piracy. A September 2010 European Parliament\nResolution additionally called for the\nObservatory to compile scientific research data on counterfeiting\nand IPR regulation.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114\nand 118(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the\nImpact Assessment looked at three different options, each with a\nnumber of sub-options:
\nOption 1: the\nObservatory continues to be administered by DG MARKT, but with\nextra resources:
\nOption 2: tasks are\nperformed by a private body or jointly under a public-private\npartnership:
\nOption 3: the\nObservatory is entrusted to an EU agency:
\nThe Commission concludes that Option 3b\n(entrusting the tasks to an existing EU agency, preferably OHIM) is\nthe preferred option. It would allow the Observatory to have access\nto expertise, resources and financing and to become quickly\noperational. In budgetary terms it would offer a cost-efficient\nsolution and allow costs to be covered by financial resources\noutside of the EU budget.
\nCONTENT: over the last two years, the Observatory's\ninstitutional framework has been set up. This setting up phase of\nthe Observatory having been concluded it shows that, due to a\nlack of funding, human resources, IT and meeting capacities\nand necessary expertise, with its current infrastructure it will\nnot be able to meet its objectives in the future and that\nthe taking on of additional tasks under the current setting would\nbe excluded.
\nIt is proposed to entrust the Office for Harmonisation\nin the Internal Market with the tasks and activities relating to\nthe management of the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and\nPiracy, including those concerning copyright, rights related to\ncopyright and patents.
\nThe specific objectives are:
\nThe operational objectives are to ensure that\nthe Observatory has the necessary infrastructure (in terms of human\nresources, funding, IT and meeting capacities, expertise and\nindependence from vested interests) to perform its tasks\neffectively, as quickly as possible and at minimum cost to the EU\nbudget.
\nThese objectives dovetail with existing EU policies\nand strategies, such as Europe 2020. They also fit in with the\nCommission's main priorities and proposals concerning its IPR strategy for\nEurope.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposal does not create any costs for the EU budget. Instead, it\nwould allow for savings of around EUR 40 000 as certain costs that\nare currently borne by the EU budget would in future be borne by\nthe OHIM's budget.
\nPURPOSE: to entrust the\nOffice for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and\nDesigns) with certain tasks related to the protection of\nintellectual property rights, including the assembling of public\nand private sector representatives as a European Observatory on\nCounterfeiting and Piracy in order to avoid significant harm being\ncaused by counterfeiting and piracy to the European economy and to\nthe health and safety of European citizens.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the EU's\neconomic well-being relies on sustained creativity and innovation.\nAccordingly, the Europe 2020\nStrategyhighlights the\nneed to strengthen the EU's research performance, to promote\ninnovation throughout the Member States, ensuring that innovative\nideas can be turned into new products and services that create\ngrowth and quality jobs. Intellectual property rights (IPR) are\nvital business assets, which help to ensure that innovators and\ncreators get a fair return for their work and\ninvestments.
\nOver the last ten years, however, IPR infringements\nhave increased significantly. In 2009, the OECD estimated that\ninternational trade in counterfeit and pirated goods accounted for\nUSD 250 billion in 2007, which is larger than the national GDPs of\n150 economies. Also, figures published by EU customs authorities\nreflect a clear increase in customs activity, with a rise in\nregistered cases from 26 704 in 2005 to 43 572 in 2009, i.e. up by\nabout 60 % in five years.
\nOne of the main initiatives\nto address this threat launched by the Council and the Commission in 2009 was to set\nup a European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy to improve\nunderstanding on intellectual property rights (IPR) infringements\n('the Observatory').
\nIn line with the Council's request of 2008, the\nObservatory in its current form is a centre of expertise with no\nlegal personality managed by the Commission services.
\nThe latest Council\nResolution relating to the Observatory added further\nresponsibilities, by inviting it to assess the needs for\nimplementation of EU-level training programmes for those involved\nin combating counterfeiting and piracy. A September 2010 European Parliament\nResolution additionally called for the\nObservatory to compile scientific research data on counterfeiting\nand IPR regulation.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114\nand 118(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the\nImpact Assessment looked at three different options, each with a\nnumber of sub-options:
\nOption 1: the\nObservatory continues to be administered by DG MARKT, but with\nextra resources:
\nOption 2: tasks are\nperformed by a private body or jointly under a public-private\npartnership:
\nOption 3: the\nObservatory is entrusted to an EU agency:
\nThe Commission concludes that Option 3b\n(entrusting the tasks to an existing EU agency, preferably OHIM) is\nthe preferred option. It would allow the Observatory to have access\nto expertise, resources and financing and to become quickly\noperational. In budgetary terms it would offer a cost-efficient\nsolution and allow costs to be covered by financial resources\noutside of the EU budget.
\nCONTENT: over the last two years, the Observatory's\ninstitutional framework has been set up. This setting up phase of\nthe Observatory having been concluded it shows that, due to a\nlack of funding, human resources, IT and meeting capacities\nand necessary expertise, with its current infrastructure it will\nnot be able to meet its objectives in the future and that\nthe taking on of additional tasks under the current setting would\nbe excluded.
\nIt is proposed to entrust the Office for Harmonisation\nin the Internal Market with the tasks and activities relating to\nthe management of the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and\nPiracy, including those concerning copyright, rights related to\ncopyright and patents.
\nThe specific objectives are:
\nThe operational objectives are to ensure that\nthe Observatory has the necessary infrastructure (in terms of human\nresources, funding, IT and meeting capacities, expertise and\nindependence from vested interests) to perform its tasks\neffectively, as quickly as possible and at minimum cost to the EU\nbudget.
\nThese objectives dovetail with existing EU policies\nand strategies, such as Europe 2020. They also fit in with the\nCommission's main priorities and proposals concerning its IPR strategy for\nEurope.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposal does not create any costs for the EU budget. Instead, it\nwould allow for savings of around EUR 40 000 as certain costs that\nare currently borne by the EU budget would in future be borne by\nthe OHIM's budget.
\nPURPOSE: to entrust the\nOffice for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and\nDesigns) with certain tasks related to the protection of\nintellectual property rights, including the assembling of public\nand private sector representatives as a European Observatory on\nCounterfeiting and Piracy in order to avoid significant harm being\ncaused by counterfeiting and piracy to the European economy and to\nthe health and safety of European citizens.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the EU's\neconomic well-being relies on sustained creativity and innovation.\nAccordingly, the Europe 2020\nStrategyhighlights the\nneed to strengthen the EU's research performance, to promote\ninnovation throughout the Member States, ensuring that innovative\nideas can be turned into new products and services that create\ngrowth and quality jobs. Intellectual property rights (IPR) are\nvital business assets, which help to ensure that innovators and\ncreators get a fair return for their work and\ninvestments.
\nOver the last ten years, however, IPR infringements\nhave increased significantly. In 2009, the OECD estimated that\ninternational trade in counterfeit and pirated goods accounted for\nUSD 250 billion in 2007, which is larger than the national GDPs of\n150 economies. Also, figures published by EU customs authorities\nreflect a clear increase in customs activity, with a rise in\nregistered cases from 26 704 in 2005 to 43 572 in 2009, i.e. up by\nabout 60 % in five years.
\nOne of the main initiatives\nto address this threat launched by the Council and the Commission in 2009 was to set\nup a European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy to improve\nunderstanding on intellectual property rights (IPR) infringements\n('the Observatory').
\nIn line with the Council's request of 2008, the\nObservatory in its current form is a centre of expertise with no\nlegal personality managed by the Commission services.
\nThe latest Council\nResolution relating to the Observatory added further\nresponsibilities, by inviting it to assess the needs for\nimplementation of EU-level training programmes for those involved\nin combating counterfeiting and piracy. A September 2010 European Parliament\nResolution additionally called for the\nObservatory to compile scientific research data on counterfeiting\nand IPR regulation.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114\nand 118(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the\nImpact Assessment looked at three different options, each with a\nnumber of sub-options:
\nOption 1: the\nObservatory continues to be administered by DG MARKT, but with\nextra resources:
\nOption 2: tasks are\nperformed by a private body or jointly under a public-private\npartnership:
\nOption 3: the\nObservatory is entrusted to an EU agency:
\nThe Commission concludes that Option 3b\n(entrusting the tasks to an existing EU agency, preferably OHIM) is\nthe preferred option. It would allow the Observatory to have access\nto expertise, resources and financing and to become quickly\noperational. In budgetary terms it would offer a cost-efficient\nsolution and allow costs to be covered by financial resources\noutside of the EU budget.
\nCONTENT: over the last two years, the Observatory's\ninstitutional framework has been set up. This setting up phase of\nthe Observatory having been concluded it shows that, due to a\nlack of funding, human resources, IT and meeting capacities\nand necessary expertise, with its current infrastructure it will\nnot be able to meet its objectives in the future and that\nthe taking on of additional tasks under the current setting would\nbe excluded.
\nIt is proposed to entrust the Office for Harmonisation\nin the Internal Market with the tasks and activities relating to\nthe management of the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and\nPiracy, including those concerning copyright, rights related to\ncopyright and patents.
\nThe specific objectives are:
\nThe operational objectives are to ensure that\nthe Observatory has the necessary infrastructure (in terms of human\nresources, funding, IT and meeting capacities, expertise and\nindependence from vested interests) to perform its tasks\neffectively, as quickly as possible and at minimum cost to the EU\nbudget.
\nThese objectives dovetail with existing EU policies\nand strategies, such as Europe 2020. They also fit in with the\nCommission's main priorities and proposals concerning its IPR strategy for\nEurope.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposal does not create any costs for the EU budget. Instead, it\nwould allow for savings of around EUR 40 000 as certain costs that\nare currently borne by the EU budget would in future be borne by\nthe OHIM's budget.
\nPURPOSE: to entrust the\nOffice for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and\nDesigns) with certain tasks related to the protection of\nintellectual property rights, including the assembling of public\nand private sector representatives as a European Observatory on\nCounterfeiting and Piracy in order to avoid significant harm being\ncaused by counterfeiting and piracy to the European economy and to\nthe health and safety of European citizens.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the EU's\neconomic well-being relies on sustained creativity and innovation.\nAccordingly, the Europe 2020\nStrategyhighlights the\nneed to strengthen the EU's research performance, to promote\ninnovation throughout the Member States, ensuring that innovative\nideas can be turned into new products and services that create\ngrowth and quality jobs. Intellectual property rights (IPR) are\nvital business assets, which help to ensure that innovators and\ncreators get a fair return for their work and\ninvestments.
\nOver the last ten years, however, IPR infringements\nhave increased significantly. In 2009, the OECD estimated that\ninternational trade in counterfeit and pirated goods accounted for\nUSD 250 billion in 2007, which is larger than the national GDPs of\n150 economies. Also, figures published by EU customs authorities\nreflect a clear increase in customs activity, with a rise in\nregistered cases from 26 704 in 2005 to 43 572 in 2009, i.e. up by\nabout 60 % in five years.
\nOne of the main initiatives\nto address this threat launched by the Council and the Commission in 2009 was to set\nup a European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy to improve\nunderstanding on intellectual property rights (IPR) infringements\n('the Observatory').
\nIn line with the Council's request of 2008, the\nObservatory in its current form is a centre of expertise with no\nlegal personality managed by the Commission services.
\nThe latest Council\nResolution relating to the Observatory added further\nresponsibilities, by inviting it to assess the needs for\nimplementation of EU-level training programmes for those involved\nin combating counterfeiting and piracy. A September 2010 European Parliament\nResolution additionally called for the\nObservatory to compile scientific research data on counterfeiting\nand IPR regulation.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114\nand 118(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the\nImpact Assessment looked at three different options, each with a\nnumber of sub-options:
\nOption 1: the\nObservatory continues to be administered by DG MARKT, but with\nextra resources:
\nOption 2: tasks are\nperformed by a private body or jointly under a public-private\npartnership:
\nOption 3: the\nObservatory is entrusted to an EU agency:
\nThe Commission concludes that Option 3b\n(entrusting the tasks to an existing EU agency, preferably OHIM) is\nthe preferred option. It would allow the Observatory to have access\nto expertise, resources and financing and to become quickly\noperational. In budgetary terms it would offer a cost-efficient\nsolution and allow costs to be covered by financial resources\noutside of the EU budget.
\nCONTENT: over the last two years, the Observatory's\ninstitutional framework has been set up. This setting up phase of\nthe Observatory having been concluded it shows that, due to a\nlack of funding, human resources, IT and meeting capacities\nand necessary expertise, with its current infrastructure it will\nnot be able to meet its objectives in the future and that\nthe taking on of additional tasks under the current setting would\nbe excluded.
\nIt is proposed to entrust the Office for Harmonisation\nin the Internal Market with the tasks and activities relating to\nthe management of the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and\nPiracy, including those concerning copyright, rights related to\ncopyright and patents.
\nThe specific objectives are:
\nThe operational objectives are to ensure that\nthe Observatory has the necessary infrastructure (in terms of human\nresources, funding, IT and meeting capacities, expertise and\nindependence from vested interests) to perform its tasks\neffectively, as quickly as possible and at minimum cost to the EU\nbudget.
\nThese objectives dovetail with existing EU policies\nand strategies, such as Europe 2020. They also fit in with the\nCommission's main priorities and proposals concerning its IPR strategy for\nEurope.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposal does not create any costs for the EU budget. Instead, it\nwould allow for savings of around EUR 40 000 as certain costs that\nare currently borne by the EU budget would in future be borne by\nthe OHIM's budget.
\nPURPOSE: to entrust the\nOffice for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and\nDesigns) with certain tasks related to the protection of\nintellectual property rights, including the assembling of public\nand private sector representatives as a European Observatory on\nCounterfeiting and Piracy in order to avoid significant harm being\ncaused by counterfeiting and piracy to the European economy and to\nthe health and safety of European citizens.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the EU's\neconomic well-being relies on sustained creativity and innovation.\nAccordingly, the Europe 2020\nStrategyhighlights the\nneed to strengthen the EU's research performance, to promote\ninnovation throughout the Member States, ensuring that innovative\nideas can be turned into new products and services that create\ngrowth and quality jobs. Intellectual property rights (IPR) are\nvital business assets, which help to ensure that innovators and\ncreators get a fair return for their work and\ninvestments.
\nOver the last ten years, however, IPR infringements\nhave increased significantly. In 2009, the OECD estimated that\ninternational trade in counterfeit and pirated goods accounted for\nUSD 250 billion in 2007, which is larger than the national GDPs of\n150 economies. Also, figures published by EU customs authorities\nreflect a clear increase in customs activity, with a rise in\nregistered cases from 26 704 in 2005 to 43 572 in 2009, i.e. up by\nabout 60 % in five years.
\nOne of the main initiatives\nto address this threat launched by the Council and the Commission in 2009 was to set\nup a European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy to improve\nunderstanding on intellectual property rights (IPR) infringements\n('the Observatory').
\nIn line with the Council's request of 2008, the\nObservatory in its current form is a centre of expertise with no\nlegal personality managed by the Commission services.
\nThe latest Council\nResolution relating to the Observatory added further\nresponsibilities, by inviting it to assess the needs for\nimplementation of EU-level training programmes for those involved\nin combating counterfeiting and piracy. A September 2010 European Parliament\nResolution additionally called for the\nObservatory to compile scientific research data on counterfeiting\nand IPR regulation.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114\nand 118(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the\nImpact Assessment looked at three different options, each with a\nnumber of sub-options:
\nOption 1: the\nObservatory continues to be administered by DG MARKT, but with\nextra resources:
\nOption 2: tasks are\nperformed by a private body or jointly under a public-private\npartnership:
\nOption 3: the\nObservatory is entrusted to an EU agency:
\nThe Commission concludes that Option 3b\n(entrusting the tasks to an existing EU agency, preferably OHIM) is\nthe preferred option. It would allow the Observatory to have access\nto expertise, resources and financing and to become quickly\noperational. In budgetary terms it would offer a cost-efficient\nsolution and allow costs to be covered by financial resources\noutside of the EU budget.
\nCONTENT: over the last two years, the Observatory's\ninstitutional framework has been set up. This setting up phase of\nthe Observatory having been concluded it shows that, due to a\nlack of funding, human resources, IT and meeting capacities\nand necessary expertise, with its current infrastructure it will\nnot be able to meet its objectives in the future and that\nthe taking on of additional tasks under the current setting would\nbe excluded.
\nIt is proposed to entrust the Office for Harmonisation\nin the Internal Market with the tasks and activities relating to\nthe management of the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and\nPiracy, including those concerning copyright, rights related to\ncopyright and patents.
\nThe specific objectives are:
\nThe operational objectives are to ensure that\nthe Observatory has the necessary infrastructure (in terms of human\nresources, funding, IT and meeting capacities, expertise and\nindependence from vested interests) to perform its tasks\neffectively, as quickly as possible and at minimum cost to the EU\nbudget.
\nThese objectives dovetail with existing EU policies\nand strategies, such as Europe 2020. They also fit in with the\nCommission's main priorities and proposals concerning its IPR strategy for\nEurope.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposal does not create any costs for the EU budget. Instead, it\nwould allow for savings of around EUR 40 000 as certain costs that\nare currently borne by the EU budget would in future be borne by\nthe OHIM's budget.
\n