PURPOSE: to foster innovation and economic growth by\nmaking trade mark registration systems all over the EU more\naccessible.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council (recast of Directive 2008/95/EC).
\nROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European\nParliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative\nprocedure and on an equal footing with the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: in an increasingly competitive\nenvironment, the growing number of trade mark applications at both\nnational and EU levels, and the growing number of trade mark users\ndemonstrates the crucial role of trade marks in terms of\nmarket success and commercial value. This development has been\naccompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for\nmore streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration\nsystems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and\ntechnologically up-to-date.
\nIn its ‘Small Business\nAct’ of 2008, the\nCommission pledged to make the Community trademark system more\naccessible to SMEs. Furthermore, in its 2008 Communication on an\nIndustrial Property Rights Strategy for\nEurope the Commission underlined its commitment\nto effective and efficient trademark protection and to a trademark\nsystem of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an\noverall evaluation, which could form the basis for a future\nreview of the trademark system in Europe and for the further\nimprovement of cooperation between the Office for Harmonisation in\nthe Internal Market (OHIM) and National Offices.
\nLastly, in its 2011 Intellectual Property Rights Strategy for\nEurope, the Commission announced a review of the\ntrade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system,\nboth at EU and at national level, by making it more effective,\nefficient and consistent overall. The Council has also called on\nthe Commission to present proposals for the revision of Regulation\n(EC) No 207/2009 and Directive 2008/95/EC.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the impact assessment carried out\nfor both the review of the Regulation and of the Directive\nidentified two main problems: (i) the divergent provisions of the\nexisting regulatory framework, and (ii) the low level of\ncooperation between trade mark offices in the Union. Four\noptions were envisaged.
\n\n· \nOption 1: no further approximation of trade mark laws and\nprocedures;
\n\n· \nOption 2: Partial expansion of the approximation of national\nlaws and their consistency with the Community trade mark\nsystem;
\n\n· \nOption 3: full approximation of national trade mark laws and\nprocedures;
\n\n· \nOption 4: a single trademark rulebook, which would replace\nMember States' trade mark laws in their entirety, by setting\nuniform rules across the Union.
\nThe impact assessment concluded that option 2\nwould be proportionate and would best serve to achieve the\nobjectives pursued.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 (1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the EU (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main common objective of this proposal\nfor recasting and of the parallel proposal for the amendment of the Regulation\nis to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark\nregistration systems all over the EU more accessible and\nefficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and\ncomplexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal\nsecurity.
\nSpecifically, the initiative to recast the Directive\nis driven by the following objectives:
\n1) Modernising and improving the existing provisions\nof the Directive. This will be\nachieved by amending outdated provisions, increasing legal\ncertainty and clarifying trade mark rights in terms of their scope\nand limitations:
\n\n· \nthe proposed new definition does not restrict\nthe permissible means of representation to graphic or visual\nrepresentation but leaves the door open to register matter that can\nbe represented by technological means offering satisfactory\nguarantees;
\n\n· \nthe proposal makes it clear that infringement\nclaims are without prejudice to earlier rights;
\n\n· \nit is clarified that in cases of both double\nidentity and similarity, it is only the origin function which\nmatters;
\n\n· \nin accordance with the rulings of the Court of\nJustice, it is appropriate to treat trade name use of a protected\ntrade mark as an infringing act, if the requirements of use for\ngoods or services are met;
\n\n· \nthe trade mark owner may prevent the use of his\ntrade mark in comparative advertising where such comparative\nadvertising does not satisfy the requirements of Directive\n2006/114/EC;
\n\n· \nit is made clear that the importing of goods\ninto the Union is also prohibited where it is only the consignor\nwho acts for commercial purposes;
\n\n· \nbearing in mind the outcome of the Philips/Nokia\njudgment, the proposal entitles right holders to stop third parties\nfrom bringing goods, from third countries, bearing an\nunauthorised trade mark which is essentially identical to the\ntrade mark registered in respect of those goods, into the customs\nterritory of the Union, regardless of whether they are released for\nfree circulation;
\n\n· \nthere are provisions allowing proceedings\nagainst the distribution and sale of labels and packaging and\nsimilar items which may subsequently be combined with illicit\nproducts.
\n2) Achieve greater approximation of national trade\nmark laws and procedures with the aim\nof making them more consistent with the Community trade mark\nsystem, by (a) adding further substantive rules and (b) introducing\nprincipal procedural rules into the Directive in accordance with\nprovisions contained in the Regulation. In this regard, it is\nproposed, inter alia:
\n\n· \nto insert provisions relating to geographical\nindications, traditional terms for wine and traditional\nspecialities guaranteed in the Directive;
\n\n· \nto ensure that, in all Member States, national\ntrade marks with reputation enjoy the same level of protection as\nthat afforded to Community trade marks;
\n\n· \nto complement the Directive with a corresponding\nbody of rules addressing trade marks as objects of property as\ncontained in the Regulation;
\n\n· \nto provide for a set of specific provisions for\nthe registration and protection of collective marks.
\n3) Facilitate cooperation between the offices of\nthe Member States and OHIM for the purpose of promoting\nconvergence of practices and the development of common tools, by\nputting in place a legal basis for this cooperation.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to foster innovation and economic growth by\nmaking trade mark registration systems all over the EU more\naccessible.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council (recast of Directive 2008/95/EC).
\nROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European\nParliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative\nprocedure and on an equal footing with the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: in an increasingly competitive\nenvironment, the growing number of trade mark applications at both\nnational and EU levels, and the growing number of trade mark users\ndemonstrates the crucial role of trade marks in terms of\nmarket success and commercial value. This development has been\naccompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for\nmore streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration\nsystems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and\ntechnologically up-to-date.
\nIn its ‘Small Business\nAct’ of 2008, the\nCommission pledged to make the Community trademark system more\naccessible to SMEs. Furthermore, in its 2008 Communication on an\nIndustrial Property Rights Strategy for\nEurope the Commission underlined its commitment\nto effective and efficient trademark protection and to a trademark\nsystem of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an\noverall evaluation, which could form the basis for a future\nreview of the trademark system in Europe and for the further\nimprovement of cooperation between the Office for Harmonisation in\nthe Internal Market (OHIM) and National Offices.
\nLastly, in its 2011 Intellectual Property Rights Strategy for\nEurope, the Commission announced a review of the\ntrade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system,\nboth at EU and at national level, by making it more effective,\nefficient and consistent overall. The Council has also called on\nthe Commission to present proposals for the revision of Regulation\n(EC) No 207/2009 and Directive 2008/95/EC.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the impact assessment carried out\nfor both the review of the Regulation and of the Directive\nidentified two main problems: (i) the divergent provisions of the\nexisting regulatory framework, and (ii) the low level of\ncooperation between trade mark offices in the Union. Four\noptions were envisaged.
\n\n· \nOption 1: no further approximation of trade mark laws and\nprocedures;
\n\n· \nOption 2: Partial expansion of the approximation of national\nlaws and their consistency with the Community trade mark\nsystem;
\n\n· \nOption 3: full approximation of national trade mark laws and\nprocedures;
\n\n· \nOption 4: a single trademark rulebook, which would replace\nMember States' trade mark laws in their entirety, by setting\nuniform rules across the Union.
\nThe impact assessment concluded that option 2\nwould be proportionate and would best serve to achieve the\nobjectives pursued.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 (1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the EU (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main common objective of this proposal\nfor recasting and of the parallel proposal for the amendment of the Regulation\nis to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark\nregistration systems all over the EU more accessible and\nefficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and\ncomplexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal\nsecurity.
\nSpecifically, the initiative to recast the Directive\nis driven by the following objectives:
\n1) Modernising and improving the existing provisions\nof the Directive. This will be\nachieved by amending outdated provisions, increasing legal\ncertainty and clarifying trade mark rights in terms of their scope\nand limitations:
\n\n· \nthe proposed new definition does not restrict\nthe permissible means of representation to graphic or visual\nrepresentation but leaves the door open to register matter that can\nbe represented by technological means offering satisfactory\nguarantees;
\n\n· \nthe proposal makes it clear that infringement\nclaims are without prejudice to earlier rights;
\n\n· \nit is clarified that in cases of both double\nidentity and similarity, it is only the origin function which\nmatters;
\n\n· \nin accordance with the rulings of the Court of\nJustice, it is appropriate to treat trade name use of a protected\ntrade mark as an infringing act, if the requirements of use for\ngoods or services are met;
\n\n· \nthe trade mark owner may prevent the use of his\ntrade mark in comparative advertising where such comparative\nadvertising does not satisfy the requirements of Directive\n2006/114/EC;
\n\n· \nit is made clear that the importing of goods\ninto the Union is also prohibited where it is only the consignor\nwho acts for commercial purposes;
\n\n· \nbearing in mind the outcome of the Philips/Nokia\njudgment, the proposal entitles right holders to stop third parties\nfrom bringing goods, from third countries, bearing an\nunauthorised trade mark which is essentially identical to the\ntrade mark registered in respect of those goods, into the customs\nterritory of the Union, regardless of whether they are released for\nfree circulation;
\n\n· \nthere are provisions allowing proceedings\nagainst the distribution and sale of labels and packaging and\nsimilar items which may subsequently be combined with illicit\nproducts.
\n2) Achieve greater approximation of national trade\nmark laws and procedures with the aim\nof making them more consistent with the Community trade mark\nsystem, by (a) adding further substantive rules and (b) introducing\nprincipal procedural rules into the Directive in accordance with\nprovisions contained in the Regulation. In this regard, it is\nproposed, inter alia:
\n\n· \nto insert provisions relating to geographical\nindications, traditional terms for wine and traditional\nspecialities guaranteed in the Directive;
\n\n· \nto ensure that, in all Member States, national\ntrade marks with reputation enjoy the same level of protection as\nthat afforded to Community trade marks;
\n\n· \nto complement the Directive with a corresponding\nbody of rules addressing trade marks as objects of property as\ncontained in the Regulation;
\n\n· \nto provide for a set of specific provisions for\nthe registration and protection of collective marks.
\n3) Facilitate cooperation between the offices of\nthe Member States and OHIM for the purpose of promoting\nconvergence of practices and the development of common tools, by\nputting in place a legal basis for this cooperation.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to foster innovation and economic growth by\nmaking trade mark registration systems all over the EU more\naccessible.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council (amending Council Regulation No (EC)\n207/2009).
\nROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European\nParliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative\nprocedure and on an equal footing with the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: in an increasingly competitive\nenvironment, the growing number of trade mark applications at both\nnational and EU levels, and the growing number of trade mark users\ndemonstrates the crucial role of trade marks in terms of\nmarket success and commercial value. This development has been\naccompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for\nmore streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration\nsystems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and\ntechnologically up-to-date.
\nIn its ‘Small Business\nAct’ of 2008, the\nCommission pledged to make the Community trademark system more\naccessible to SMEs. Furthermore, in its 2008 Communication on an\nIndustrial Property Rights Strategy for\nEurope the Commission underlined its commitment\nto effective and efficient trademark protection and to a trademark\nsystem of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an\noverall evaluation, which could form the basis for a future\nreview of the trademark system in Europe and for the further\nimprovement of cooperation between the Office for Harmonisation in\nthe Internal Market (OHIM) and National Offices.
\nLastly, in its 2011 Intellectual Property Rights Strategy for\nEurope, the Commission announced a review of the\ntrade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system,\nboth at EU and at national level, by making it more effective,\nefficient and consistent overall. The Council has also called on\nthe Commission to present proposals for the revision of Regulation\n(EC) No 207/2009 and Directive 2008/95/EC.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the impact assessment identified\none main problem that the revised Regulation needs to\naddress: the low level of cooperation among trade mark offices\nin Europe. The following options were considered to solve the\nproblems and to achieve three corresponding objectives.
\n\n· \nProviding an adequate legal basis for\ncooperation: Option 1: no\nspecific legal basis; Option 2: legal basis allowing\noptional cooperation; Option 3: legal basis obliging\nmandatory cooperation.
\n\n· \nTechnical capacity building at National\nOffices: Option 1: each\noffice to procure and develop the required facilities and tools;\nOption 2: optional access to tools; Option 3:\nmandatory access to tools.
\n\n· \nSecuring long-term financing for\ncooperation activities: Option\n1: from Member States; Option 2: from EU budget;\nOption 3: from OHIM budget.
\nThe impact assessment concluded that option 3\n(legal basis obliging mandatory cooperation, mandatory access to\ntools, and financing from OHIM budget) would in all cases be\nproportionate and best suited to achieving the objectives\npursued.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 118 (1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main common objective of this initiative\nand of the parallel proposal for the recast of Directive\n2008/95/EC is to foster innovation and economic\ngrowth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU\nmore accessible and efficient in terms of lower costs and\ncomplexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal\nsecurity.
\nAs regards this proposal to revise the\nRegulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but\nwell-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with the\nmain aims being:
\n1) Adapting the terminology in the Regulation to the\nLisbon Treaty and adapting provisions to the Common Approach on\ndecentralised agencies: throughout\nthe Regulation, the term ‘Community trade mark’ is\nreplaced by ‘European trade mark’. The term\n“Office”, insofar as it refers to the Office for\nHarmonisation in the Internal Market, is replaced by the term\n‘Agency’.
\n2) Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a\nEuropean trade mark:
\n\n· \nsince National Offices hardly ever receive\napplications for European trade marks any more, the option for\nfiling these at National Offices should be abolished;
\n\n· \nwith regard to the filing date, it is proposed\nto abolish the one-month period and to link the\n‘obligation’ to pay with the filing of the application,\nso that applicants will have to provide evidence that they\nsubmitted or authorised their payment when they filed their\napplication;
\n\n· \ncurrent search regimes are abolished, in view of\nthe fact that they do not provide a reliable trade mark clearance\ntool;
\n\n· \nthe current one-month period between the Agency\nnotifying the applicant of search reports and publication of the\napplication is abolished, which will speed up the registration\nprocedure.
\n3) Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions\nand removing ambiguities:
\n\n· \nthe proposed new definition of a European\ntrademark leaves the door open to registering matter that can be\nrepresented by technological means offering satisfactory\nguarantees;
\n\n· \nthe absolute grounds for refusal are fully\naligned with the EU law on geographical indications;
\n\n· \nit is clarified that infringement claims are\nwithout prejudice to earlier rights;
\n\n· \nin cases of both double identity and similarity,\nit is only the origin function which matters;
\n\n· \nin accordance with the rulings of the Court of\nJustice, it is appropriate to treat trade name use of a protected\ntrade mark as an infringing act, if the requirements of use for\ngoods or services are met;
\n\n· \nthe trade mark owner may prevent the use of his\ntrade mark in comparative advertising where such comparative\nadvertising does not satisfy the requirements of Directive\n2006/114/EC;
\n\n· \nit is clarified that goods may not be imported\ninto the EU even if only the consignor is acting for commercial\npurposes.
\n\n· \nbearing in mind the outcome of the Philips/Nokia\njudgment, the proposal entitles right holders to stop third parties\nfrom bringing goods, from third countries, bearing an\nunauthorised trade mark which is essentially identical to the\ntrade mark registered in respect of those goods, into the customs\nterritory of the Union, regardless of whether they are released for\nfree circulation;
\nOther amendments concern the following provisions:\nlimitation of the effects of a European trademark; designation and\nclassification of goods and services; European certification marks,\nand tasks of the Agency, which are defined in one new\nArticle.
\n4) Establishing an appropriate framework for\ncooperation between OHIM and national offices to promote convergence of practices and developing\ncommon tools: the proposal contains provisions for mandatory\ncooperation between the Agency and Member States, and stipulates\nthe main areas for cooperation and specific common projects of\nUnion interest which the Agency will coordinate. It further sets up\na funding mechanism enabling the Agency to finance those common\nprojects by means of grants.
\n5) Aligning the framework to Article 290\nof the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the proposal contains provisions\nempowering the Commission to adopt delegated acts in accordance\nwith Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion.
\nPURPOSE: to foster innovation and economic growth by\nmaking trade mark registration systems all over the EU more\naccessible.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council (amending Council Regulation No (EC)\n207/2009).
\nROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European\nParliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative\nprocedure and on an equal footing with the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: in an increasingly competitive\nenvironment, the growing number of trade mark applications at both\nnational and EU levels, and the growing number of trade mark users\ndemonstrates the crucial role of trade marks in terms of\nmarket success and commercial value. This development has been\naccompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for\nmore streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration\nsystems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and\ntechnologically up-to-date.
\nIn its ‘Small Business\nAct’ of 2008, the\nCommission pledged to make the Community trademark system more\naccessible to SMEs. Furthermore, in its 2008 Communication on an\nIndustrial Property Rights Strategy for\nEurope the Commission underlined its commitment\nto effective and efficient trademark protection and to a trademark\nsystem of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an\noverall evaluation, which could form the basis for a future\nreview of the trademark system in Europe and for the further\nimprovement of cooperation between the Office for Harmonisation in\nthe Internal Market (OHIM) and National Offices.
\nLastly, in its 2011 Intellectual Property Rights Strategy for\nEurope, the Commission announced a review of the\ntrade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system,\nboth at EU and at national level, by making it more effective,\nefficient and consistent overall. The Council has also called on\nthe Commission to present proposals for the revision of Regulation\n(EC) No 207/2009 and Directive 2008/95/EC.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the impact assessment identified\none main problem that the revised Regulation needs to\naddress: the low level of cooperation among trade mark offices\nin Europe. The following options were considered to solve the\nproblems and to achieve three corresponding objectives.
\n\n· \nProviding an adequate legal basis for\ncooperation: Option 1: no\nspecific legal basis; Option 2: legal basis allowing\noptional cooperation; Option 3: legal basis obliging\nmandatory cooperation.
\n\n· \nTechnical capacity building at National\nOffices: Option 1: each\noffice to procure and develop the required facilities and tools;\nOption 2: optional access to tools; Option 3:\nmandatory access to tools.
\n\n· \nSecuring long-term financing for\ncooperation activities: Option\n1: from Member States; Option 2: from EU budget;\nOption 3: from OHIM budget.
\nThe impact assessment concluded that option 3\n(legal basis obliging mandatory cooperation, mandatory access to\ntools, and financing from OHIM budget) would in all cases be\nproportionate and best suited to achieving the objectives\npursued.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 118 (1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main common objective of this initiative\nand of the parallel proposal for the recast of Directive\n2008/95/EC is to foster innovation and economic\ngrowth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU\nmore accessible and efficient in terms of lower costs and\ncomplexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal\nsecurity.
\nAs regards this proposal to revise the\nRegulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but\nwell-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with the\nmain aims being:
\n1) Adapting the terminology in the Regulation to the\nLisbon Treaty and adapting provisions to the Common Approach on\ndecentralised agencies: throughout\nthe Regulation, the term ‘Community trade mark’ is\nreplaced by ‘European trade mark’. The term\n“Office”, insofar as it refers to the Office for\nHarmonisation in the Internal Market, is replaced by the term\n‘Agency’.
\n2) Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a\nEuropean trade mark:
\n\n· \nsince National Offices hardly ever receive\napplications for European trade marks any more, the option for\nfiling these at National Offices should be abolished;
\n\n· \nwith regard to the filing date, it is proposed\nto abolish the one-month period and to link the\n‘obligation’ to pay with the filing of the application,\nso that applicants will have to provide evidence that they\nsubmitted or authorised their payment when they filed their\napplication;
\n\n· \ncurrent search regimes are abolished, in view of\nthe fact that they do not provide a reliable trade mark clearance\ntool;
\n\n· \nthe current one-month period between the Agency\nnotifying the applicant of search reports and publication of the\napplication is abolished, which will speed up the registration\nprocedure.
\n3) Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions\nand removing ambiguities:
\n\n· \nthe proposed new definition of a European\ntrademark leaves the door open to registering matter that can be\nrepresented by technological means offering satisfactory\nguarantees;
\n\n· \nthe absolute grounds for refusal are fully\naligned with the EU law on geographical indications;
\n\n· \nit is clarified that infringement claims are\nwithout prejudice to earlier rights;
\n\n· \nin cases of both double identity and similarity,\nit is only the origin function which matters;
\n\n· \nin accordance with the rulings of the Court of\nJustice, it is appropriate to treat trade name use of a protected\ntrade mark as an infringing act, if the requirements of use for\ngoods or services are met;
\n\n· \nthe trade mark owner may prevent the use of his\ntrade mark in comparative advertising where such comparative\nadvertising does not satisfy the requirements of Directive\n2006/114/EC;
\n\n· \nit is clarified that goods may not be imported\ninto the EU even if only the consignor is acting for commercial\npurposes.
\n\n· \nbearing in mind the outcome of the Philips/Nokia\njudgment, the proposal entitles right holders to stop third parties\nfrom bringing goods, from third countries, bearing an\nunauthorised trade mark which is essentially identical to the\ntrade mark registered in respect of those goods, into the customs\nterritory of the Union, regardless of whether they are released for\nfree circulation;
\nOther amendments concern the following provisions:\nlimitation of the effects of a European trademark; designation and\nclassification of goods and services; European certification marks,\nand tasks of the Agency, which are defined in one new\nArticle.
\n4) Establishing an appropriate framework for\ncooperation between OHIM and national offices to promote convergence of practices and developing\ncommon tools: the proposal contains provisions for mandatory\ncooperation between the Agency and Member States, and stipulates\nthe main areas for cooperation and specific common projects of\nUnion interest which the Agency will coordinate. It further sets up\na funding mechanism enabling the Agency to finance those common\nprojects by means of grants.
\n5) Aligning the framework to Article 290\nof the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the proposal contains provisions\nempowering the Commission to adopt delegated acts in accordance\nwith Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion.
\nPURPOSE: ensure a high common level of network and\ninformation security (NIS) across the Union.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nPARLIAMENT’S ROLE: Parliament decides in\naccordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal\nfooting with the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: network and information systems and\nservices play a vital role in in facilitating the cross-border\nmovement of goods, services and people. Substantial disruption of\nthese systems in one Member State can affect other Member States\nand the EU as a whole.
\nThe resilience and stability of network and\ninformation systems is therefore essential to the smooth\nfunctioning of the internal market.
\nThe extent and frequency of security incidents, caused\nby human error or malicious attacks is increasing: the Commission’s public consultation\nfound that 57 % of respondents had experienced NIS incidents over\nthe previous year that had a serious impact on their activities. A\n2012 Eurobarometer survey found that 38% of EU internet users are\nconcerned about the safety of online payments.
\nThere is currently no effective mechanism at EU\nlevel for effective cooperation and\ncollaboration and for secure information sharing on NIS incidents\nand risks among the Member States.
\nHowever, the Digital Agenda for Europe and\nthe related Council conclusions highlighted the shared\nunderstanding that trust and security are fundamental\npre-conditions for the wide uptake of information and communication\ntechnologies (ICT).
\nThis proposal is presented in connection with the\njoint Communication of the Commission and High Representative of\nthe Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on a European\nCybersecurity Strategy.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission analysed three\ndifferent options.
\n\n· \nOption 1: status quo: maintain the current\napproach.
\n\n· \nOption 2: regulatory approach, consisting of a\nlegislative proposal establishing a common EU legal framework for\nNIS regarding Member State capabilities, mechanisms for EU-level\ncooperation, and requirements for key private players and public\nadministrations.
\n\n· \nOption 3: mixed approach, combining voluntary initiatives\nfor Member State NIS capabilities and mechanisms for EU-level\ncooperation with regulatory requirements for key private players\nand public administrations.
\nThe Commission concluded that Option 2 would\nhave the strongest positive impacts. The quantitative assessment\nshowed that this option would not impose a disproportionate burden\non Member States. The costs for the private sector would also be\nlimited since many of the entities concerned are already supposed\nto comply with existing security requirements.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to effect a fundamental\nchange in the way NIS is dealt with in the EU. It\nprovides for regulatory obligations to create a level playing\nfield and close existing legislative loopholes. The objectives\nof the proposed Directive are as follows:
\n(1) To require all Member States to have in place a\nminimum level of national capabilities by establishing competent\nauthorities for NIS, setting up Computer Emergency Response\nTeams (CERTs), and adopting national NIS strategies and\nnational NIS cooperation plans.
\n(2) To ensure that the national competent authorities\ncooperate within a network enabling secure and effective\ncoordination, including coordinated information exchange as well as\ndetection and response at EU level. Through this network, Member\nStates will exchange information and cooperate, through the\nEuropean Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) to counter\nNIS threats and incidents and facilitate a uniform application of\nthe directive throughout the EU.
\n(3) To ensure that a culture of risk management\ndevelops and that information is shared between the private and\npublic sectors. Companies in the specific critical\nsectors – banking, stock exchanges, energy generation,\ntransmission and distribution, transport (air, rail, maritime),\nhealth, internet services as well as public administrations will be\nrequired to:
\n\n· \nassess the risks they face and adopt appropriate and proportionate\nmeasures to ensure NIS;
\n\n· \nreport to the competent\nauthorities any incidents seriously\ncompromising their networks and information systems and\nsignificantly affecting the continuity of critical services and\nsupply of goods.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: cooperation and exchange of\ninformation between Member States should be supported by a\nsecure infrastructure. The proposal will have EU budgetary\nimplications only if Member States choose to adapt an existing\ninfrastructure (e.g. sTESTA) and task the Commission to implement\nthis under the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020. The\none-off cost is estimated to be EUR 1 250 000 on condition\nthat sufficient funds are available under the Connecting Europe Facility\n(CEF).
\nAlternatively, Member States can either share the\none-off cost of adapting an existing infrastructure or decide to\nset up a new infrastructure and bear the costs, which are estimated\nto be approximately EUR 10 million per year.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the proposal contains provisions\nempowering the Commission to adopt delegated acts in accordance\nwith Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEU.
\nPURPOSE: ensure a high common level of network and\ninformation security (NIS) across the Union.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nPARLIAMENT’S ROLE: Parliament decides in\naccordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal\nfooting with the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: network and information systems and\nservices play a vital role in in facilitating the cross-border\nmovement of goods, services and people. Substantial disruption of\nthese systems in one Member State can affect other Member States\nand the EU as a whole.
\nThe resilience and stability of network and\ninformation systems is therefore essential to the smooth\nfunctioning of the internal market.
\nThe extent and frequency of security incidents, caused\nby human error or malicious attacks is increasing: the Commission’s public consultation\nfound that 57 % of respondents had experienced NIS incidents over\nthe previous year that had a serious impact on their activities. A\n2012 Eurobarometer survey found that 38% of EU internet users are\nconcerned about the safety of online payments.
\nThere is currently no effective mechanism at EU\nlevel for effective cooperation and\ncollaboration and for secure information sharing on NIS incidents\nand risks among the Member States.
\nHowever, the Digital Agenda for Europe and\nthe related Council conclusions highlighted the shared\nunderstanding that trust and security are fundamental\npre-conditions for the wide uptake of information and communication\ntechnologies (ICT).
\nThis proposal is presented in connection with the\njoint Communication of the Commission and High Representative of\nthe Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on a European\nCybersecurity Strategy.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission analysed three\ndifferent options.
\n\n· \nOption 1: status quo: maintain the current\napproach.
\n\n· \nOption 2: regulatory approach, consisting of a\nlegislative proposal establishing a common EU legal framework for\nNIS regarding Member State capabilities, mechanisms for EU-level\ncooperation, and requirements for key private players and public\nadministrations.
\n\n· \nOption 3: mixed approach, combining voluntary initiatives\nfor Member State NIS capabilities and mechanisms for EU-level\ncooperation with regulatory requirements for key private players\nand public administrations.
\nThe Commission concluded that Option 2 would\nhave the strongest positive impacts. The quantitative assessment\nshowed that this option would not impose a disproportionate burden\non Member States. The costs for the private sector would also be\nlimited since many of the entities concerned are already supposed\nto comply with existing security requirements.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to effect a fundamental\nchange in the way NIS is dealt with in the EU. It\nprovides for regulatory obligations to create a level playing\nfield and close existing legislative loopholes. The objectives\nof the proposed Directive are as follows:
\n(1) To require all Member States to have in place a\nminimum level of national capabilities by establishing competent\nauthorities for NIS, setting up Computer Emergency Response\nTeams (CERTs), and adopting national NIS strategies and\nnational NIS cooperation plans.
\n(2) To ensure that the national competent authorities\ncooperate within a network enabling secure and effective\ncoordination, including coordinated information exchange as well as\ndetection and response at EU level. Through this network, Member\nStates will exchange information and cooperate, through the\nEuropean Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) to counter\nNIS threats and incidents and facilitate a uniform application of\nthe directive throughout the EU.
\n(3) To ensure that a culture of risk management\ndevelops and that information is shared between the private and\npublic sectors. Companies in the specific critical\nsectors – banking, stock exchanges, energy generation,\ntransmission and distribution, transport (air, rail, maritime),\nhealth, internet services as well as public administrations will be\nrequired to:
\n\n· \nassess the risks they face and adopt appropriate and proportionate\nmeasures to ensure NIS;
\n\n· \nreport to the competent\nauthorities any incidents seriously\ncompromising their networks and information systems and\nsignificantly affecting the continuity of critical services and\nsupply of goods.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: cooperation and exchange of\ninformation between Member States should be supported by a\nsecure infrastructure. The proposal will have EU budgetary\nimplications only if Member States choose to adapt an existing\ninfrastructure (e.g. sTESTA) and task the Commission to implement\nthis under the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020. The\none-off cost is estimated to be EUR 1 250 000 on condition\nthat sufficient funds are available under the Connecting Europe Facility\n(CEF).
\nAlternatively, Member States can either share the\none-off cost of adapting an existing infrastructure or decide to\nset up a new infrastructure and bear the costs, which are estimated\nto be approximately EUR 10 million per year.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: the proposal contains provisions\nempowering the Commission to adopt delegated acts in accordance\nwith Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEU.
\nPURPOSE: to define a coherent framework for building\ntrust in the Digital Single Market.
\nBACKGROUND: a genuine Digital Single Market would\ngenerate new types of growth. The hitherto unrealised potential is\nenormous and would benefit all the territories and economic sectors\nof the European Union. In the G8 countries, South Korea and Sweden,\nthe internet economy has brought about 21% of the growth in GDP in\nthe last five years.
\nNevertheless, the share of the internet economy in\nEuropean GDP remains small. It was no more than 3% in 2010.\nAlthough the growth rate of e-commerce at national level is high,\nthis new vector remains marginal at only 3.4% of European retail\ntrade. It is less advanced than in the United States or\nAsia-Pacific and tends not to go beyond national borders;\ncross-border activity remains low.
\nThe Digital Single Market is far from achieving its\nfull potential; the cost of the\nfailure to complete it is expected to be at least 4.1% of GDP\nbetween now and 2020, i.e. EUR 500 billion or EUR 1000 per citizen.\nThe European Union cannot just resign itself to bearing the costs\nof a fragmented digital market after having set ambitious\nobjectives for renewed, sustainable, smart and inclusive growth by\n2020. Instead, it must set objectives that match the growth\npotential of online commerce and services, which could reach 15\nto 20% of GDP growth by 2015 in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,\nfor example.
\nBoosting online commerce and services at European\nlevel requires firm and concerted action in line with the Digital Agenda for\nEurope.
\nCONTENT: this Communication constitutes a new\ncontribution to the implementation of the Digital Agenda, since it\nestablishes an action plan for the development of online services\nand, through the Annual Growth Survey, offers a response to the\nrequest from the European Council to submit a roadmap to achieve a\nDigital Single Market by 2015.
\nFive obstacles: this\nCommunication identifies five main obstacles to the Digital Single\nMarket and proposes an action plan to remove them:
\nFive priorities for an action plan: the solutions proposed in the action plan are not an\nexhaustive list. The plan places emphasis on strengthening a\nsingle harmonised framework for e-commerce and other\ncommercial online services. It opens a new chapter on this subject\nin the digital approach for Europe, continuing the logic, of the\nSingle Market Act, and is\npart of a wider commitment from the European Union aimed at\nboosting the economy and the information society, ranging from\npromoting online administration and digital literacy to\nstandardisation and online security.
\nThe five priorities of the action plan are as\nfollows:
\nDevelop the legal and cross-border offer of online\nproducts and services: in order to\nbenefit fully from a Single Market for online services, consumers\nin all Member States must have legal access to a wide range of\nproducts and services, offered over the largest possible\ngeographical area. To this end, the Commission will undertake the\nfollowing key actions:
\n2) Improve operator information and consumer\nprotection: both providers and users\nof online services must be able to access or receive sufficiently\ncomplete and reliable information on their activities. In\nparticular, consumers must have their rights protected and be\nassured that their personal data will be used appropriately. The\nCommission will engage in the following key actions:
\n3) Reliable and\nefficient payment and delivery systems: too often, a lack of\nconfidence and a limited choice of payment method prevent or\ndiscourage consumers from paying online and therefore from fully\nbenefiting from e-commerce. Almost 35% of internet users do not\nbuy online because they have doubts concerning security of\npayment
\nAs regards the delivery of online purchases, consumers\nmust trust that they will receive their order easily and at a\nreasonable cost, without excessive delay and in satisfactory\ncondition. Yet 10% of people currently do not buy online because\nthey are concerned about the cost of delivery services, in\nparticular cross-border delivery, and about service\nquality.
\nThe Commission intends to:
\n4) Combating abuse and resolving disputes more\neffectively: in general it is still\ntoo rare for illegal activities to be effectively stopped and for\nillegal content to be removed or removed promptly\nenough.
\n5) Deploy high-speed networks and advanced\ntechnological solutions: the\ndeployment of high-speed communication networks is a sine qua\nnon for the development of online services. However, compared\nwith its competitors, the EU, which set itself ambitious objectives\nin the digital agenda, is lagging behind in terms of investment in\nthe new generation telecommunications infrastructure which it\nurgently needs. The Commission will undertake the following\nactions:
\nThe European Commission\nwill follow developments in online services closely and will report\non the progress achieved with the implementation of this action\nplan by publishing annual reports. It will organise a\nstakeholder conference in 2013.
\nThe Committee on Internal Market and Consumer\nProtection adopted an own-initiative report by Pablo ARIAS\nECHEVERRÍA (EPP, ES) on completing\nthe Digital Single Market.
\nThe report stresses that in\ntimes of economic and financial crisis it is essential to take\nmeasures to stimulate growth and create employment, and emphasises\nthat completing the Digital Single Market would be a crucial\nstep forward in terms of achieving this goal. Although Members\nwelcome the five priority actions outlined in the Commission’s\ncommunication ‘A\nCoherent framework for building trust in the Digital Single Market\nfor e-commerce and online services’, they wish to put forward recommendations on the\nfollowing points:
\n1) Small- and medium-sized enterprises\n(SMEs): noting that SMEs form the\nbackbone of the European economy, the report calls on the\nCommission and the Member States to develop an action plan to\npromote the integration of SMEs into the digital value chains. It\nstresses the importance of developing a strategy to boost digital\nentrepreneurship in Europe, promote training for online traders and\nencourage SME development programmes focusing on innovative and\ndynamic SMEs from all sectors.
\nThe Commission and Member States are called upon\nto:
\n\n· \nimplement the existing legislation\nin order to tackle barriers which hinder the\ngrowth of SMEs, such as high market entry costs, cost of building\nbrand awareness in multiple countries, and IT system\nlimitations;
\n\n· \nintroduce measures aimed at offering\nfinancial support to innovative SMEs,\nthrough existing programmes such as the Competitiveness and\nInnovation Programme (CIP), the new Programme for the\nCompetitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (COSME), and the Research\nand Innovation Programme ‘Horizon 2020’,\nor through the creation of specific programmes, as well as the\nproposed regulation on venture capital funds.
\n2) Overcoming the remaining barriers in the Digital\nSingle Market: the report\nunderlines that fragmentation and lack\nof legal certainty are primary concerns in the Digital Single\nMarket, and that inconsistent enforcement of rules in Member States\nneeds to be dealt with in order to increase choice for consumers.\nAccording to Members, fragmentation is also partly due to the\npoor or late transposition of directives by Member States, a\nfactor which should be subject to more rigorous scrutiny by the EU\ninstitutions.
\nIn this context, the report\nformulates the following recommendations:
\n\n· \nthe rapid deployment of ultra-fast\nbroadband is crucial for Europe’s global competitiveness, the development of European\nproductivity and the emergence of new and small enterprises that\ncan be leaders in different sectors, for example healthcare,\nmanufacturing and the services industry;
\n\n· \nspecific measures to be taken to ensure that SMEs can fully enjoy the\npotential of broadband in the fields of e-commerce and\ne-procurement;
\n\n· \nidentify the existing barriers\nto cross-border delivery services, and to take\nappropriate actions to address them;
\n\n· \nreduce administrative burdens\nby making it possible to use the system either\nof the country of the seller or the country of the buyer, in order\nto avoid duplication of procedures and confusion as to which rules\napply, for both online retailers and online consumers;
\n\n· \nfind solutions to the difficulties experienced\nby SMEs in relation to handling returns and shipping\ninfrastructure problems, and to reduce the costs involved in\nthe cross-border resolution of complaints and conflicts;
\n\n· \nexamine the possibilities of simplifying and\nstandardising VAT rules in the context of cross-border online\ntransactions;
\n\n· \npropose a revision of Directive 2006/112 in\norder to introduce a new category of electronically provided\ncultural content services which would benefit from a reduced\nrate of VAT;
\n\n· \nadapt the existing data protection\nlegislation to new challenges and innovations in the area of\npresent and future technological developments, e.g. cloud\ncomputing;
\n\n· \nensure that internet service providers\nare required respect EU law concerning data protection and\ncompetition with intellectual property rights protection,\nirrespective of where these data are stored and/or\nprocessed;
\n\n· \npropose and rapidly implement the European\nStrategy for Intellectual Property Rights with a view to\nadaptation to the online reality of the 21st century.
\n3) Building confidence and trust in the Digital Single\nMarket: Members recall that\ne-commerce allows consumers to benefit from\nlower prices and a wider choice, but 60 % of websites are\ncurrently unsuitable for cross-border online shoppers, and\nconsumer and business confidence in the digital environment is\nstill low. They consider that access to reliable information and\ntransparency should be enhanced, allowing consumers to compare not\nonly prices but also quality and sustainability of goods and\nservices online.
\nIn this perspective, they formulate the following\nrecommendations:
\n\n· \ndevelop and give adequate resources to effective\ninstruments such as the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC)\nnetwork, in order to ensure that online traders apply the EU\nrules on transparency and unfair commercial practices, thus\naffording a high level of consumer protection;
\n\n· \nthe need for initiatives in the Member States to\nimprove e-skills among the general public;
\n\n· \ninclude a consumer accessibility element\nin terms of implementing a barrier-free environment and a full\nrange of accessible services for people with disabilities in all\nDigital Single Market policies;
\n\n· \ndraw up a European charter of\nusers’ rights that would clarify the rights and obligations\nof citizens in the information society;
\n\n· \ncreate a European Trustmark, which would\nguarantee that a business operating online fully respects EU\nlaw;
\n\n· \nthe simplification of licensing systems\nand the creation of an efficient framework for\ncopyright;
\n\n· \ncontribute to the settlement of cross-border\ncomplaints and disputes by the adoption of the\nCommission’s legislative proposals for Regulations on the extra-judicial\nsettlement and the online\nsettlement of disputes;
\n\n· \npromote the use of new technological\ndevelopments for education and for the protection for\nminors, and to cooperate closely and efficiently in order to\ndeliver a safe internet for minors;
\n\n· \nthe further expansion of the broadband network\nand, in particular, the connection of rural, isolated and\noutermost areas to electronic communication\nnetworks.
\n4) Setting up the basis for a more competitive\nEurope: the report stresses the importance for the development of the\nEuropean Digital Single Market of continuing efforts aimed at\nproviding ubiquitous and high-speed access for all consumers,\nthrough the promotion of fixed and mobile internet access and the\ndeployment of next generation infrastructures. It calls on the\nCommission and the Member States to provide new impetus to the\nEuropean fast and ultra-fast broadband strategy by updating the\nrelevant targets. It also emphasises the potential value for\nconsumers and businesses of the digital switchover of public\nservices, and calls on Member States to develop national plans to\nthat effect.
\nThe report regrets that the EU is lagging behind with\nregard to fibre-based internet connections and calls on the\nMember States and the Commission, therefore, to accelerate the\nspread and adoption of ultra-high-speed broadband, and calls for a\nEuropean strategy for the large-scale deployment of FTTx\n(‘fibre to the x’).
\nLastly, the report recalls that Parliament in its resolution\nof 20 April 2012 entitled “Competitive digital single\nmarket – eGoverment as a spearhead” underlined\nthe importance for the facilitation of mass\nadoption of factors including legal certainty, a clear\ntechnical environment, and open and interoperable e-invoicing\nsolutions based on common legal requirements, business processes\nand technical standards. The Commission is invited to assess the\nneed for uniform, open Union-wide standards for e-identification\nand e-signatures.
\nPURPOSE: to define a coherent framework for building\ntrust in the Digital Single Market.
\nBACKGROUND: a genuine Digital Single Market would\ngenerate new types of growth. The hitherto unrealised potential is\nenormous and would benefit all the territories and economic sectors\nof the European Union. In the G8 countries, South Korea and Sweden,\nthe internet economy has brought about 21% of the growth in GDP in\nthe last five years.
\nNevertheless, the share of the internet economy in\nEuropean GDP remains small. It was no more than 3% in 2010.\nAlthough the growth rate of e-commerce at national level is high,\nthis new vector remains marginal at only 3.4% of European retail\ntrade. It is less advanced than in the United States or\nAsia-Pacific and tends not to go beyond national borders;\ncross-border activity remains low.
\nThe Digital Single Market is far from achieving its\nfull potential; the cost of the\nfailure to complete it is expected to be at least 4.1% of GDP\nbetween now and 2020, i.e. EUR 500 billion or EUR 1000 per citizen.\nThe European Union cannot just resign itself to bearing the costs\nof a fragmented digital market after having set ambitious\nobjectives for renewed, sustainable, smart and inclusive growth by\n2020. Instead, it must set objectives that match the growth\npotential of online commerce and services, which could reach 15\nto 20% of GDP growth by 2015 in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,\nfor example.
\nBoosting online commerce and services at European\nlevel requires firm and concerted action in line with the Digital Agenda for\nEurope.
\nCONTENT: this Communication constitutes a new\ncontribution to the implementation of the Digital Agenda, since it\nestablishes an action plan for the development of online services\nand, through the Annual Growth Survey, offers a response to the\nrequest from the European Council to submit a roadmap to achieve a\nDigital Single Market by 2015.
\nFive obstacles: this\nCommunication identifies five main obstacles to the Digital Single\nMarket and proposes an action plan to remove them:
\nFive priorities for an action plan: the solutions proposed in the action plan are not an\nexhaustive list. The plan places emphasis on strengthening a\nsingle harmonised framework for e-commerce and other\ncommercial online services. It opens a new chapter on this subject\nin the digital approach for Europe, continuing the logic, of the\nSingle Market Act, and is\npart of a wider commitment from the European Union aimed at\nboosting the economy and the information society, ranging from\npromoting online administration and digital literacy to\nstandardisation and online security.
\nThe five priorities of the action plan are as\nfollows:
\nDevelop the legal and cross-border offer of online\nproducts and services: in order to\nbenefit fully from a Single Market for online services, consumers\nin all Member States must have legal access to a wide range of\nproducts and services, offered over the largest possible\ngeographical area. To this end, the Commission will undertake the\nfollowing key actions:
\n2) Improve operator information and consumer\nprotection: both providers and users\nof online services must be able to access or receive sufficiently\ncomplete and reliable information on their activities. In\nparticular, consumers must have their rights protected and be\nassured that their personal data will be used appropriately. The\nCommission will engage in the following key actions:
\n3) Reliable and\nefficient payment and delivery systems: too often, a lack of\nconfidence and a limited choice of payment method prevent or\ndiscourage consumers from paying online and therefore from fully\nbenefiting from e-commerce. Almost 35% of internet users do not\nbuy online because they have doubts concerning security of\npayment
\nAs regards the delivery of online purchases, consumers\nmust trust that they will receive their order easily and at a\nreasonable cost, without excessive delay and in satisfactory\ncondition. Yet 10% of people currently do not buy online because\nthey are concerned about the cost of delivery services, in\nparticular cross-border delivery, and about service\nquality.
\nThe Commission intends to:
\n4) Combating abuse and resolving disputes more\neffectively: in general it is still\ntoo rare for illegal activities to be effectively stopped and for\nillegal content to be removed or removed promptly\nenough.
\n5) Deploy high-speed networks and advanced\ntechnological solutions: the\ndeployment of high-speed communication networks is a sine qua\nnon for the development of online services. However, compared\nwith its competitors, the EU, which set itself ambitious objectives\nin the digital agenda, is lagging behind in terms of investment in\nthe new generation telecommunications infrastructure which it\nurgently needs. The Commission will undertake the following\nactions:
\nThe European Commission\nwill follow developments in online services closely and will report\non the progress achieved with the implementation of this action\nplan by publishing annual reports. It will organise a\nstakeholder conference in 2013.
\nPURPOSE: to define a coherent framework for building\ntrust in the Digital Single Market.
\nBACKGROUND: a genuine Digital Single Market would\ngenerate new types of growth. The hitherto unrealised potential is\nenormous and would benefit all the territories and economic sectors\nof the European Union. In the G8 countries, South Korea and Sweden,\nthe internet economy has brought about 21% of the growth in GDP in\nthe last five years.
\nNevertheless, the share of the internet economy in\nEuropean GDP remains small. It was no more than 3% in 2010.\nAlthough the growth rate of e-commerce at national level is high,\nthis new vector remains marginal at only 3.4% of European retail\ntrade. It is less advanced than in the United States or\nAsia-Pacific and tends not to go beyond national borders;\ncross-border activity remains low.
\nThe Digital Single Market is far from achieving its\nfull potential; the cost of the\nfailure to complete it is expected to be at least 4.1% of GDP\nbetween now and 2020, i.e. EUR 500 billion or EUR 1000 per citizen.\nThe European Union cannot just resign itself to bearing the costs\nof a fragmented digital market after having set ambitious\nobjectives for renewed, sustainable, smart and inclusive growth by\n2020. Instead, it must set objectives that match the growth\npotential of online commerce and services, which could reach 15\nto 20% of GDP growth by 2015 in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,\nfor example.
\nBoosting online commerce and services at European\nlevel requires firm and concerted action in line with the Digital Agenda for\nEurope.
\nCONTENT: this Communication constitutes a new\ncontribution to the implementation of the Digital Agenda, since it\nestablishes an action plan for the development of online services\nand, through the Annual Growth Survey, offers a response to the\nrequest from the European Council to submit a roadmap to achieve a\nDigital Single Market by 2015.
\nFive obstacles: this\nCommunication identifies five main obstacles to the Digital Single\nMarket and proposes an action plan to remove them:
\nFive priorities for an action plan: the solutions proposed in the action plan are not an\nexhaustive list. The plan places emphasis on strengthening a\nsingle harmonised framework for e-commerce and other\ncommercial online services. It opens a new chapter on this subject\nin the digital approach for Europe, continuing the logic, of the\nSingle Market Act, and is\npart of a wider commitment from the European Union aimed at\nboosting the economy and the information society, ranging from\npromoting online administration and digital literacy to\nstandardisation and online security.
\nThe five priorities of the action plan are as\nfollows:
\nDevelop the legal and cross-border offer of online\nproducts and services: in order to\nbenefit fully from a Single Market for online services, consumers\nin all Member States must have legal access to a wide range of\nproducts and services, offered over the largest possible\ngeographical area. To this end, the Commission will undertake the\nfollowing key actions:
\n2) Improve operator information and consumer\nprotection: both providers and users\nof online services must be able to access or receive sufficiently\ncomplete and reliable information on their activities. In\nparticular, consumers must have their rights protected and be\nassured that their personal data will be used appropriately. The\nCommission will engage in the following key actions:
\n3) Reliable and\nefficient payment and delivery systems: too often, a lack of\nconfidence and a limited choice of payment method prevent or\ndiscourage consumers from paying online and therefore from fully\nbenefiting from e-commerce. Almost 35% of internet users do not\nbuy online because they have doubts concerning security of\npayment
\nAs regards the delivery of online purchases, consumers\nmust trust that they will receive their order easily and at a\nreasonable cost, without excessive delay and in satisfactory\ncondition. Yet 10% of people currently do not buy online because\nthey are concerned about the cost of delivery services, in\nparticular cross-border delivery, and about service\nquality.
\nThe Commission intends to:
\n4) Combating abuse and resolving disputes more\neffectively: in general it is still\ntoo rare for illegal activities to be effectively stopped and for\nillegal content to be removed or removed promptly\nenough.
\n5) Deploy high-speed networks and advanced\ntechnological solutions: the\ndeployment of high-speed communication networks is a sine qua\nnon for the development of online services. However, compared\nwith its competitors, the EU, which set itself ambitious objectives\nin the digital agenda, is lagging behind in terms of investment in\nthe new generation telecommunications infrastructure which it\nurgently needs. The Commission will undertake the following\nactions:
\nThe European Commission\nwill follow developments in online services closely and will report\non the progress achieved with the implementation of this action\nplan by publishing annual reports. It will organise a\nstakeholder conference in 2013.
\nThe Committee on Internal Market and Consumer\nProtection adopted an own-initiative report by Pablo ARIAS\nECHEVERRÍA (EPP, ES) on completing\nthe Digital Single Market.
\nThe report stresses that in\ntimes of economic and financial crisis it is essential to take\nmeasures to stimulate growth and create employment, and emphasises\nthat completing the Digital Single Market would be a crucial\nstep forward in terms of achieving this goal. Although Members\nwelcome the five priority actions outlined in the Commission’s\ncommunication ‘A\nCoherent framework for building trust in the Digital Single Market\nfor e-commerce and online services’, they wish to put forward recommendations on the\nfollowing points:
\n1) Small- and medium-sized enterprises\n(SMEs): noting that SMEs form the\nbackbone of the European economy, the report calls on the\nCommission and the Member States to develop an action plan to\npromote the integration of SMEs into the digital value chains. It\nstresses the importance of developing a strategy to boost digital\nentrepreneurship in Europe, promote training for online traders and\nencourage SME development programmes focusing on innovative and\ndynamic SMEs from all sectors.
\nThe Commission and Member States are called upon\nto:
\n\n· \nimplement the existing legislation\nin order to tackle barriers which hinder the\ngrowth of SMEs, such as high market entry costs, cost of building\nbrand awareness in multiple countries, and IT system\nlimitations;
\n\n· \nintroduce measures aimed at offering\nfinancial support to innovative SMEs,\nthrough existing programmes such as the Competitiveness and\nInnovation Programme (CIP), the new Programme for the\nCompetitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (COSME), and the Research\nand Innovation Programme ‘Horizon 2020’,\nor through the creation of specific programmes, as well as the\nproposed regulation on venture capital funds.
\n2) Overcoming the remaining barriers in the Digital\nSingle Market: the report\nunderlines that fragmentation and lack\nof legal certainty are primary concerns in the Digital Single\nMarket, and that inconsistent enforcement of rules in Member States\nneeds to be dealt with in order to increase choice for consumers.\nAccording to Members, fragmentation is also partly due to the\npoor or late transposition of directives by Member States, a\nfactor which should be subject to more rigorous scrutiny by the EU\ninstitutions.
\nIn this context, the report\nformulates the following recommendations:
\n\n· \nthe rapid deployment of ultra-fast\nbroadband is crucial for Europe’s global competitiveness, the development of European\nproductivity and the emergence of new and small enterprises that\ncan be leaders in different sectors, for example healthcare,\nmanufacturing and the services industry;
\n\n· \nspecific measures to be taken to ensure that SMEs can fully enjoy the\npotential of broadband in the fields of e-commerce and\ne-procurement;
\n\n· \nidentify the existing barriers\nto cross-border delivery services, and to take\nappropriate actions to address them;
\n\n· \nreduce administrative burdens\nby making it possible to use the system either\nof the country of the seller or the country of the buyer, in order\nto avoid duplication of procedures and confusion as to which rules\napply, for both online retailers and online consumers;
\n\n· \nfind solutions to the difficulties experienced\nby SMEs in relation to handling returns and shipping\ninfrastructure problems, and to reduce the costs involved in\nthe cross-border resolution of complaints and conflicts;
\n\n· \nexamine the possibilities of simplifying and\nstandardising VAT rules in the context of cross-border online\ntransactions;
\n\n· \npropose a revision of Directive 2006/112 in\norder to introduce a new category of electronically provided\ncultural content services which would benefit from a reduced\nrate of VAT;
\n\n· \nadapt the existing data protection\nlegislation to new challenges and innovations in the area of\npresent and future technological developments, e.g. cloud\ncomputing;
\n\n· \nensure that internet service providers\nare required respect EU law concerning data protection and\ncompetition with intellectual property rights protection,\nirrespective of where these data are stored and/or\nprocessed;
\n\n· \npropose and rapidly implement the European\nStrategy for Intellectual Property Rights with a view to\nadaptation to the online reality of the 21st century.
\n3) Building confidence and trust in the Digital Single\nMarket: Members recall that\ne-commerce allows consumers to benefit from\nlower prices and a wider choice, but 60 % of websites are\ncurrently unsuitable for cross-border online shoppers, and\nconsumer and business confidence in the digital environment is\nstill low. They consider that access to reliable information and\ntransparency should be enhanced, allowing consumers to compare not\nonly prices but also quality and sustainability of goods and\nservices online.
\nIn this perspective, they formulate the following\nrecommendations:
\n\n· \ndevelop and give adequate resources to effective\ninstruments such as the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC)\nnetwork, in order to ensure that online traders apply the EU\nrules on transparency and unfair commercial practices, thus\naffording a high level of consumer protection;
\n\n· \nthe need for initiatives in the Member States to\nimprove e-skills among the general public;
\n\n· \ninclude a consumer accessibility element\nin terms of implementing a barrier-free environment and a full\nrange of accessible services for people with disabilities in all\nDigital Single Market policies;
\n\n· \ndraw up a European charter of\nusers’ rights that would clarify the rights and obligations\nof citizens in the information society;
\n\n· \ncreate a European Trustmark, which would\nguarantee that a business operating online fully respects EU\nlaw;
\n\n· \nthe simplification of licensing systems\nand the creation of an efficient framework for\ncopyright;
\n\n· \ncontribute to the settlement of cross-border\ncomplaints and disputes by the adoption of the\nCommission’s legislative proposals for Regulations on the extra-judicial\nsettlement and the online\nsettlement of disputes;
\n\n· \npromote the use of new technological\ndevelopments for education and for the protection for\nminors, and to cooperate closely and efficiently in order to\ndeliver a safe internet for minors;
\n\n· \nthe further expansion of the broadband network\nand, in particular, the connection of rural, isolated and\noutermost areas to electronic communication\nnetworks.
\n4) Setting up the basis for a more competitive\nEurope: the report stresses the importance for the development of the\nEuropean Digital Single Market of continuing efforts aimed at\nproviding ubiquitous and high-speed access for all consumers,\nthrough the promotion of fixed and mobile internet access and the\ndeployment of next generation infrastructures. It calls on the\nCommission and the Member States to provide new impetus to the\nEuropean fast and ultra-fast broadband strategy by updating the\nrelevant targets. It also emphasises the potential value for\nconsumers and businesses of the digital switchover of public\nservices, and calls on Member States to develop national plans to\nthat effect.
\nThe report regrets that the EU is lagging behind with\nregard to fibre-based internet connections and calls on the\nMember States and the Commission, therefore, to accelerate the\nspread and adoption of ultra-high-speed broadband, and calls for a\nEuropean strategy for the large-scale deployment of FTTx\n(‘fibre to the x’).
\nLastly, the report recalls that Parliament in its resolution\nof 20 April 2012 entitled “Competitive digital single\nmarket – eGoverment as a spearhead” underlined\nthe importance for the facilitation of mass\nadoption of factors including legal certainty, a clear\ntechnical environment, and open and interoperable e-invoicing\nsolutions based on common legal requirements, business processes\nand technical standards. The Commission is invited to assess the\nneed for uniform, open Union-wide standards for e-identification\nand e-signatures.
\nPURPOSE: to define a coherent framework for building\ntrust in the Digital Single Market.
\nBACKGROUND: a genuine Digital Single Market would\ngenerate new types of growth. The hitherto unrealised potential is\nenormous and would benefit all the territories and economic sectors\nof the European Union. In the G8 countries, South Korea and Sweden,\nthe internet economy has brought about 21% of the growth in GDP in\nthe last five years.
\nNevertheless, the share of the internet economy in\nEuropean GDP remains small. It was no more than 3% in 2010.\nAlthough the growth rate of e-commerce at national level is high,\nthis new vector remains marginal at only 3.4% of European retail\ntrade. It is less advanced than in the United States or\nAsia-Pacific and tends not to go beyond national borders;\ncross-border activity remains low.
\nThe Digital Single Market is far from achieving its\nfull potential; the cost of the\nfailure to complete it is expected to be at least 4.1% of GDP\nbetween now and 2020, i.e. EUR 500 billion or EUR 1000 per citizen.\nThe European Union cannot just resign itself to bearing the costs\nof a fragmented digital market after having set ambitious\nobjectives for renewed, sustainable, smart and inclusive growth by\n2020. Instead, it must set objectives that match the growth\npotential of online commerce and services, which could reach 15\nto 20% of GDP growth by 2015 in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,\nfor example.
\nBoosting online commerce and services at European\nlevel requires firm and concerted action in line with the Digital Agenda for\nEurope.
\nCONTENT: this Communication constitutes a new\ncontribution to the implementation of the Digital Agenda, since it\nestablishes an action plan for the development of online services\nand, through the Annual Growth Survey, offers a response to the\nrequest from the European Council to submit a roadmap to achieve a\nDigital Single Market by 2015.
\nFive obstacles: this\nCommunication identifies five main obstacles to the Digital Single\nMarket and proposes an action plan to remove them:
\nFive priorities for an action plan: the solutions proposed in the action plan are not an\nexhaustive list. The plan places emphasis on strengthening a\nsingle harmonised framework for e-commerce and other\ncommercial online services. It opens a new chapter on this subject\nin the digital approach for Europe, continuing the logic, of the\nSingle Market Act, and is\npart of a wider commitment from the European Union aimed at\nboosting the economy and the information society, ranging from\npromoting online administration and digital literacy to\nstandardisation and online security.
\nThe five priorities of the action plan are as\nfollows:
\nDevelop the legal and cross-border offer of online\nproducts and services: in order to\nbenefit fully from a Single Market for online services, consumers\nin all Member States must have legal access to a wide range of\nproducts and services, offered over the largest possible\ngeographical area. To this end, the Commission will undertake the\nfollowing key actions:
\n2) Improve operator information and consumer\nprotection: both providers and users\nof online services must be able to access or receive sufficiently\ncomplete and reliable information on their activities. In\nparticular, consumers must have their rights protected and be\nassured that their personal data will be used appropriately. The\nCommission will engage in the following key actions:
\n3) Reliable and\nefficient payment and delivery systems: too often, a lack of\nconfidence and a limited choice of payment method prevent or\ndiscourage consumers from paying online and therefore from fully\nbenefiting from e-commerce. Almost 35% of internet users do not\nbuy online because they have doubts concerning security of\npayment
\nAs regards the delivery of online purchases, consumers\nmust trust that they will receive their order easily and at a\nreasonable cost, without excessive delay and in satisfactory\ncondition. Yet 10% of people currently do not buy online because\nthey are concerned about the cost of delivery services, in\nparticular cross-border delivery, and about service\nquality.
\nThe Commission intends to:
\n4) Combating abuse and resolving disputes more\neffectively: in general it is still\ntoo rare for illegal activities to be effectively stopped and for\nillegal content to be removed or removed promptly\nenough.
\n5) Deploy high-speed networks and advanced\ntechnological solutions: the\ndeployment of high-speed communication networks is a sine qua\nnon for the development of online services. However, compared\nwith its competitors, the EU, which set itself ambitious objectives\nin the digital agenda, is lagging behind in terms of investment in\nthe new generation telecommunications infrastructure which it\nurgently needs. The Commission will undertake the following\nactions:
\nThe European Commission\nwill follow developments in online services closely and will report\non the progress achieved with the implementation of this action\nplan by publishing annual reports. It will organise a\nstakeholder conference in 2013.
\nPURPOSE: to define a coherent framework for building\ntrust in the Digital Single Market.
\nBACKGROUND: a genuine Digital Single Market would\ngenerate new types of growth. The hitherto unrealised potential is\nenormous and would benefit all the territories and economic sectors\nof the European Union. In the G8 countries, South Korea and Sweden,\nthe internet economy has brought about 21% of the growth in GDP in\nthe last five years.
\nNevertheless, the share of the internet economy in\nEuropean GDP remains small. It was no more than 3% in 2010.\nAlthough the growth rate of e-commerce at national level is high,\nthis new vector remains marginal at only 3.4% of European retail\ntrade. It is less advanced than in the United States or\nAsia-Pacific and tends not to go beyond national borders;\ncross-border activity remains low.
\nThe Digital Single Market is far from achieving its\nfull potential; the cost of the\nfailure to complete it is expected to be at least 4.1% of GDP\nbetween now and 2020, i.e. EUR 500 billion or EUR 1000 per citizen.\nThe European Union cannot just resign itself to bearing the costs\nof a fragmented digital market after having set ambitious\nobjectives for renewed, sustainable, smart and inclusive growth by\n2020. Instead, it must set objectives that match the growth\npotential of online commerce and services, which could reach 15\nto 20% of GDP growth by 2015 in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,\nfor example.
\nBoosting online commerce and services at European\nlevel requires firm and concerted action in line with the Digital Agenda for\nEurope.
\nCONTENT: this Communication constitutes a new\ncontribution to the implementation of the Digital Agenda, since it\nestablishes an action plan for the development of online services\nand, through the Annual Growth Survey, offers a response to the\nrequest from the European Council to submit a roadmap to achieve a\nDigital Single Market by 2015.
\nFive obstacles: this\nCommunication identifies five main obstacles to the Digital Single\nMarket and proposes an action plan to remove them:
\nFive priorities for an action plan: the solutions proposed in the action plan are not an\nexhaustive list. The plan places emphasis on strengthening a\nsingle harmonised framework for e-commerce and other\ncommercial online services. It opens a new chapter on this subject\nin the digital approach for Europe, continuing the logic, of the\nSingle Market Act, and is\npart of a wider commitment from the European Union aimed at\nboosting the economy and the information society, ranging from\npromoting online administration and digital literacy to\nstandardisation and online security.
\nThe five priorities of the action plan are as\nfollows:
\nDevelop the legal and cross-border offer of online\nproducts and services: in order to\nbenefit fully from a Single Market for online services, consumers\nin all Member States must have legal access to a wide range of\nproducts and services, offered over the largest possible\ngeographical area. To this end, the Commission will undertake the\nfollowing key actions:
\n2) Improve operator information and consumer\nprotection: both providers and users\nof online services must be able to access or receive sufficiently\ncomplete and reliable information on their activities. In\nparticular, consumers must have their rights protected and be\nassured that their personal data will be used appropriately. The\nCommission will engage in the following key actions:
\n3) Reliable and\nefficient payment and delivery systems: too often, a lack of\nconfidence and a limited choice of payment method prevent or\ndiscourage consumers from paying online and therefore from fully\nbenefiting from e-commerce. Almost 35% of internet users do not\nbuy online because they have doubts concerning security of\npayment
\nAs regards the delivery of online purchases, consumers\nmust trust that they will receive their order easily and at a\nreasonable cost, without excessive delay and in satisfactory\ncondition. Yet 10% of people currently do not buy online because\nthey are concerned about the cost of delivery services, in\nparticular cross-border delivery, and about service\nquality.
\nThe Commission intends to:
\n4) Combating abuse and resolving disputes more\neffectively: in general it is still\ntoo rare for illegal activities to be effectively stopped and for\nillegal content to be removed or removed promptly\nenough.
\n5) Deploy high-speed networks and advanced\ntechnological solutions: the\ndeployment of high-speed communication networks is a sine qua\nnon for the development of online services. However, compared\nwith its competitors, the EU, which set itself ambitious objectives\nin the digital agenda, is lagging behind in terms of investment in\nthe new generation telecommunications infrastructure which it\nurgently needs. The Commission will undertake the following\nactions:
\nThe European Commission\nwill follow developments in online services closely and will report\non the progress achieved with the implementation of this action\nplan by publishing annual reports. It will organise a\nstakeholder conference in 2013.
\nPURPOSE: to define a coherent framework for building\ntrust in the Digital Single Market.
\nBACKGROUND: a genuine Digital Single Market would\ngenerate new types of growth. The hitherto unrealised potential is\nenormous and would benefit all the territories and economic sectors\nof the European Union. In the G8 countries, South Korea and Sweden,\nthe internet economy has brought about 21% of the growth in GDP in\nthe last five years.
\nNevertheless, the share of the internet economy in\nEuropean GDP remains small. It was no more than 3% in 2010.\nAlthough the growth rate of e-commerce at national level is high,\nthis new vector remains marginal at only 3.4% of European retail\ntrade. It is less advanced than in the United States or\nAsia-Pacific and tends not to go beyond national borders;\ncross-border activity remains low.
\nThe Digital Single Market is far from achieving its\nfull potential; the cost of the\nfailure to complete it is expected to be at least 4.1% of GDP\nbetween now and 2020, i.e. EUR 500 billion or EUR 1000 per citizen.\nThe European Union cannot just resign itself to bearing the costs\nof a fragmented digital market after having set ambitious\nobjectives for renewed, sustainable, smart and inclusive growth by\n2020. Instead, it must set objectives that match the growth\npotential of online commerce and services, which could reach 15\nto 20% of GDP growth by 2015 in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,\nfor example.
\nBoosting online commerce and services at European\nlevel requires firm and concerted action in line with the Digital Agenda for\nEurope.
\nCONTENT: this Communication constitutes a new\ncontribution to the implementation of the Digital Agenda, since it\nestablishes an action plan for the development of online services\nand, through the Annual Growth Survey, offers a response to the\nrequest from the European Council to submit a roadmap to achieve a\nDigital Single Market by 2015.
\nFive obstacles: this\nCommunication identifies five main obstacles to the Digital Single\nMarket and proposes an action plan to remove them:
\nFive priorities for an action plan: the solutions proposed in the action plan are not an\nexhaustive list. The plan places emphasis on strengthening a\nsingle harmonised framework for e-commerce and other\ncommercial online services. It opens a new chapter on this subject\nin the digital approach for Europe, continuing the logic, of the\nSingle Market Act, and is\npart of a wider commitment from the European Union aimed at\nboosting the economy and the information society, ranging from\npromoting online administration and digital literacy to\nstandardisation and online security.
\nThe five priorities of the action plan are as\nfollows:
\nDevelop the legal and cross-border offer of online\nproducts and services: in order to\nbenefit fully from a Single Market for online services, consumers\nin all Member States must have legal access to a wide range of\nproducts and services, offered over the largest possible\ngeographical area. To this end, the Commission will undertake the\nfollowing key actions:
\n2) Improve operator information and consumer\nprotection: both providers and users\nof online services must be able to access or receive sufficiently\ncomplete and reliable information on their activities. In\nparticular, consumers must have their rights protected and be\nassured that their personal data will be used appropriately. The\nCommission will engage in the following key actions:
\n3) Reliable and\nefficient payment and delivery systems: too often, a lack of\nconfidence and a limited choice of payment method prevent or\ndiscourage consumers from paying online and therefore from fully\nbenefiting from e-commerce. Almost 35% of internet users do not\nbuy online because they have doubts concerning security of\npayment
\nAs regards the delivery of online purchases, consumers\nmust trust that they will receive their order easily and at a\nreasonable cost, without excessive delay and in satisfactory\ncondition. Yet 10% of people currently do not buy online because\nthey are concerned about the cost of delivery services, in\nparticular cross-border delivery, and about service\nquality.
\nThe Commission intends to:
\n4) Combating abuse and resolving disputes more\neffectively: in general it is still\ntoo rare for illegal activities to be effectively stopped and for\nillegal content to be removed or removed promptly\nenough.
\n5) Deploy high-speed networks and advanced\ntechnological solutions: the\ndeployment of high-speed communication networks is a sine qua\nnon for the development of online services. However, compared\nwith its competitors, the EU, which set itself ambitious objectives\nin the digital agenda, is lagging behind in terms of investment in\nthe new generation telecommunications infrastructure which it\nurgently needs. The Commission will undertake the following\nactions:
\nThe European Commission\nwill follow developments in online services closely and will report\non the progress achieved with the implementation of this action\nplan by publishing annual reports. It will organise a\nstakeholder conference in 2013.
\nPURPOSE: to define a coherent framework for building\ntrust in the Digital Single Market.
\nBACKGROUND: a genuine Digital Single Market would\ngenerate new types of growth. The hitherto unrealised potential is\nenormous and would benefit all the territories and economic sectors\nof the European Union. In the G8 countries, South Korea and Sweden,\nthe internet economy has brought about 21% of the growth in GDP in\nthe last five years.
\nNevertheless, the share of the internet economy in\nEuropean GDP remains small. It was no more than 3% in 2010.\nAlthough the growth rate of e-commerce at national level is high,\nthis new vector remains marginal at only 3.4% of European retail\ntrade. It is less advanced than in the United States or\nAsia-Pacific and tends not to go beyond national borders;\ncross-border activity remains low.
\nThe Digital Single Market is far from achieving its\nfull potential; the cost of the\nfailure to complete it is expected to be at least 4.1% of GDP\nbetween now and 2020, i.e. EUR 500 billion or EUR 1000 per citizen.\nThe European Union cannot just resign itself to bearing the costs\nof a fragmented digital market after having set ambitious\nobjectives for renewed, sustainable, smart and inclusive growth by\n2020. Instead, it must set objectives that match the growth\npotential of online commerce and services, which could reach 15\nto 20% of GDP growth by 2015 in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,\nfor example.
\nBoosting online commerce and services at European\nlevel requires firm and concerted action in line with the Digital Agenda for\nEurope.
\nCONTENT: this Communication constitutes a new\ncontribution to the implementation of the Digital Agenda, since it\nestablishes an action plan for the development of online services\nand, through the Annual Growth Survey, offers a response to the\nrequest from the European Council to submit a roadmap to achieve a\nDigital Single Market by 2015.
\nFive obstacles: this\nCommunication identifies five main obstacles to the Digital Single\nMarket and proposes an action plan to remove them:
\nFive priorities for an action plan: the solutions proposed in the action plan are not an\nexhaustive list. The plan places emphasis on strengthening a\nsingle harmonised framework for e-commerce and other\ncommercial online services. It opens a new chapter on this subject\nin the digital approach for Europe, continuing the logic, of the\nSingle Market Act, and is\npart of a wider commitment from the European Union aimed at\nboosting the economy and the information society, ranging from\npromoting online administration and digital literacy to\nstandardisation and online security.
\nThe five priorities of the action plan are as\nfollows:
\nDevelop the legal and cross-border offer of online\nproducts and services: in order to\nbenefit fully from a Single Market for online services, consumers\nin all Member States must have legal access to a wide range of\nproducts and services, offered over the largest possible\ngeographical area. To this end, the Commission will undertake the\nfollowing key actions:
\n2) Improve operator information and consumer\nprotection: both providers and users\nof online services must be able to access or receive sufficiently\ncomplete and reliable information on their activities. In\nparticular, consumers must have their rights protected and be\nassured that their personal data will be used appropriately. The\nCommission will engage in the following key actions:
\n3) Reliable and\nefficient payment and delivery systems: too often, a lack of\nconfidence and a limited choice of payment method prevent or\ndiscourage consumers from paying online and therefore from fully\nbenefiting from e-commerce. Almost 35% of internet users do not\nbuy online because they have doubts concerning security of\npayment
\nAs regards the delivery of online purchases, consumers\nmust trust that they will receive their order easily and at a\nreasonable cost, without excessive delay and in satisfactory\ncondition. Yet 10% of people currently do not buy online because\nthey are concerned about the cost of delivery services, in\nparticular cross-border delivery, and about service\nquality.
\nThe Commission intends to:
\n4) Combating abuse and resolving disputes more\neffectively: in general it is still\ntoo rare for illegal activities to be effectively stopped and for\nillegal content to be removed or removed promptly\nenough.
\n5) Deploy high-speed networks and advanced\ntechnological solutions: the\ndeployment of high-speed communication networks is a sine qua\nnon for the development of online services. However, compared\nwith its competitors, the EU, which set itself ambitious objectives\nin the digital agenda, is lagging behind in terms of investment in\nthe new generation telecommunications infrastructure which it\nurgently needs. The Commission will undertake the following\nactions:
\nThe European Commission\nwill follow developments in online services closely and will report\non the progress achieved with the implementation of this action\nplan by publishing annual reports. It will organise a\nstakeholder conference in 2013.
\nThe Committee on Internal Market and Consumer\nProtection adopted an own-initiative report by Pablo ARIAS\nECHEVERRÍA (EPP, ES) on completing\nthe Digital Single Market.
\nThe report stresses that in\ntimes of economic and financial crisis it is essential to take\nmeasures to stimulate growth and create employment, and emphasises\nthat completing the Digital Single Market would be a crucial\nstep forward in terms of achieving this goal. Although Members\nwelcome the five priority actions outlined in the Commission’s\ncommunication ‘A\nCoherent framework for building trust in the Digital Single Market\nfor e-commerce and online services’, they wish to put forward recommendations on the\nfollowing points:
\n1) Small- and medium-sized enterprises\n(SMEs): noting that SMEs form the\nbackbone of the European economy, the report calls on the\nCommission and the Member States to develop an action plan to\npromote the integration of SMEs into the digital value chains. It\nstresses the importance of developing a strategy to boost digital\nentrepreneurship in Europe, promote training for online traders and\nencourage SME development programmes focusing on innovative and\ndynamic SMEs from all sectors.
\nThe Commission and Member States are called upon\nto:
\n\n· \nimplement the existing legislation\nin order to tackle barriers which hinder the\ngrowth of SMEs, such as high market entry costs, cost of building\nbrand awareness in multiple countries, and IT system\nlimitations;
\n\n· \nintroduce measures aimed at offering\nfinancial support to innovative SMEs,\nthrough existing programmes such as the Competitiveness and\nInnovation Programme (CIP), the new Programme for the\nCompetitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (COSME), and the Research\nand Innovation Programme ‘Horizon 2020’,\nor through the creation of specific programmes, as well as the\nproposed regulation on venture capital funds.
\n2) Overcoming the remaining barriers in the Digital\nSingle Market: the report\nunderlines that fragmentation and lack\nof legal certainty are primary concerns in the Digital Single\nMarket, and that inconsistent enforcement of rules in Member States\nneeds to be dealt with in order to increase choice for consumers.\nAccording to Members, fragmentation is also partly due to the\npoor or late transposition of directives by Member States, a\nfactor which should be subject to more rigorous scrutiny by the EU\ninstitutions.
\nIn this context, the report\nformulates the following recommendations:
\n\n· \nthe rapid deployment of ultra-fast\nbroadband is crucial for Europe’s global competitiveness, the development of European\nproductivity and the emergence of new and small enterprises that\ncan be leaders in different sectors, for example healthcare,\nmanufacturing and the services industry;
\n\n· \nspecific measures to be taken to ensure that SMEs can fully enjoy the\npotential of broadband in the fields of e-commerce and\ne-procurement;
\n\n· \nidentify the existing barriers\nto cross-border delivery services, and to take\nappropriate actions to address them;
\n\n· \nreduce administrative burdens\nby making it possible to use the system either\nof the country of the seller or the country of the buyer, in order\nto avoid duplication of procedures and confusion as to which rules\napply, for both online retailers and online consumers;
\n\n· \nfind solutions to the difficulties experienced\nby SMEs in relation to handling returns and shipping\ninfrastructure problems, and to reduce the costs involved in\nthe cross-border resolution of complaints and conflicts;
\n\n· \nexamine the possibilities of simplifying and\nstandardising VAT rules in the context of cross-border online\ntransactions;
\n\n· \npropose a revision of Directive 2006/112 in\norder to introduce a new category of electronically provided\ncultural content services which would benefit from a reduced\nrate of VAT;
\n\n· \nadapt the existing data protection\nlegislation to new challenges and innovations in the area of\npresent and future technological developments, e.g. cloud\ncomputing;
\n\n· \nensure that internet service providers\nare required respect EU law concerning data protection and\ncompetition with intellectual property rights protection,\nirrespective of where these data are stored and/or\nprocessed;
\n\n· \npropose and rapidly implement the European\nStrategy for Intellectual Property Rights with a view to\nadaptation to the online reality of the 21st century.
\n3) Building confidence and trust in the Digital Single\nMarket: Members recall that\ne-commerce allows consumers to benefit from\nlower prices and a wider choice, but 60 % of websites are\ncurrently unsuitable for cross-border online shoppers, and\nconsumer and business confidence in the digital environment is\nstill low. They consider that access to reliable information and\ntransparency should be enhanced, allowing consumers to compare not\nonly prices but also quality and sustainability of goods and\nservices online.
\nIn this perspective, they formulate the following\nrecommendations:
\n\n· \ndevelop and give adequate resources to effective\ninstruments such as the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC)\nnetwork, in order to ensure that online traders apply the EU\nrules on transparency and unfair commercial practices, thus\naffording a high level of consumer protection;
\n\n· \nthe need for initiatives in the Member States to\nimprove e-skills among the general public;
\n\n· \ninclude a consumer accessibility element\nin terms of implementing a barrier-free environment and a full\nrange of accessible services for people with disabilities in all\nDigital Single Market policies;
\n\n· \ndraw up a European charter of\nusers’ rights that would clarify the rights and obligations\nof citizens in the information society;
\n\n· \ncreate a European Trustmark, which would\nguarantee that a business operating online fully respects EU\nlaw;
\n\n· \nthe simplification of licensing systems\nand the creation of an efficient framework for\ncopyright;
\n\n· \ncontribute to the settlement of cross-border\ncomplaints and disputes by the adoption of the\nCommission’s legislative proposals for Regulations on the extra-judicial\nsettlement and the online\nsettlement of disputes;
\n\n· \npromote the use of new technological\ndevelopments for education and for the protection for\nminors, and to cooperate closely and efficiently in order to\ndeliver a safe internet for minors;
\n\n· \nthe further expansion of the broadband network\nand, in particular, the connection of rural, isolated and\noutermost areas to electronic communication\nnetworks.
\n4) Setting up the basis for a more competitive\nEurope: the report stresses the importance for the development of the\nEuropean Digital Single Market of continuing efforts aimed at\nproviding ubiquitous and high-speed access for all consumers,\nthrough the promotion of fixed and mobile internet access and the\ndeployment of next generation infrastructures. It calls on the\nCommission and the Member States to provide new impetus to the\nEuropean fast and ultra-fast broadband strategy by updating the\nrelevant targets. It also emphasises the potential value for\nconsumers and businesses of the digital switchover of public\nservices, and calls on Member States to develop national plans to\nthat effect.
\nThe report regrets that the EU is lagging behind with\nregard to fibre-based internet connections and calls on the\nMember States and the Commission, therefore, to accelerate the\nspread and adoption of ultra-high-speed broadband, and calls for a\nEuropean strategy for the large-scale deployment of FTTx\n(‘fibre to the x’).
\nLastly, the report recalls that Parliament in its resolution\nof 20 April 2012 entitled “Competitive digital single\nmarket – eGoverment as a spearhead” underlined\nthe importance for the facilitation of mass\nadoption of factors including legal certainty, a clear\ntechnical environment, and open and interoperable e-invoicing\nsolutions based on common legal requirements, business processes\nand technical standards. The Commission is invited to assess the\nneed for uniform, open Union-wide standards for e-identification\nand e-signatures.
\nPURPOSE: to define a coherent framework for building\ntrust in the Digital Single Market.
\nBACKGROUND: a genuine Digital Single Market would\ngenerate new types of growth. The hitherto unrealised potential is\nenormous and would benefit all the territories and economic sectors\nof the European Union. In the G8 countries, South Korea and Sweden,\nthe internet economy has brought about 21% of the growth in GDP in\nthe last five years.
\nNevertheless, the share of the internet economy in\nEuropean GDP remains small. It was no more than 3% in 2010.\nAlthough the growth rate of e-commerce at national level is high,\nthis new vector remains marginal at only 3.4% of European retail\ntrade. It is less advanced than in the United States or\nAsia-Pacific and tends not to go beyond national borders;\ncross-border activity remains low.
\nThe Digital Single Market is far from achieving its\nfull potential; the cost of the\nfailure to complete it is expected to be at least 4.1% of GDP\nbetween now and 2020, i.e. EUR 500 billion or EUR 1000 per citizen.\nThe European Union cannot just resign itself to bearing the costs\nof a fragmented digital market after having set ambitious\nobjectives for renewed, sustainable, smart and inclusive growth by\n2020. Instead, it must set objectives that match the growth\npotential of online commerce and services, which could reach 15\nto 20% of GDP growth by 2015 in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,\nfor example.
\nBoosting online commerce and services at European\nlevel requires firm and concerted action in line with the Digital Agenda for\nEurope.
\nCONTENT: this Communication constitutes a new\ncontribution to the implementation of the Digital Agenda, since it\nestablishes an action plan for the development of online services\nand, through the Annual Growth Survey, offers a response to the\nrequest from the European Council to submit a roadmap to achieve a\nDigital Single Market by 2015.
\nFive obstacles: this\nCommunication identifies five main obstacles to the Digital Single\nMarket and proposes an action plan to remove them:
\nFive priorities for an action plan: the solutions proposed in the action plan are not an\nexhaustive list. The plan places emphasis on strengthening a\nsingle harmonised framework for e-commerce and other\ncommercial online services. It opens a new chapter on this subject\nin the digital approach for Europe, continuing the logic, of the\nSingle Market Act, and is\npart of a wider commitment from the European Union aimed at\nboosting the economy and the information society, ranging from\npromoting online administration and digital literacy to\nstandardisation and online security.
\nThe five priorities of the action plan are as\nfollows:
\nDevelop the legal and cross-border offer of online\nproducts and services: in order to\nbenefit fully from a Single Market for online services, consumers\nin all Member States must have legal access to a wide range of\nproducts and services, offered over the largest possible\ngeographical area. To this end, the Commission will undertake the\nfollowing key actions:
\n2) Improve operator information and consumer\nprotection: both providers and users\nof online services must be able to access or receive sufficiently\ncomplete and reliable information on their activities. In\nparticular, consumers must have their rights protected and be\nassured that their personal data will be used appropriately. The\nCommission will engage in the following key actions:
\n3) Reliable and\nefficient payment and delivery systems: too often, a lack of\nconfidence and a limited choice of payment method prevent or\ndiscourage consumers from paying online and therefore from fully\nbenefiting from e-commerce. Almost 35% of internet users do not\nbuy online because they have doubts concerning security of\npayment
\nAs regards the delivery of online purchases, consumers\nmust trust that they will receive their order easily and at a\nreasonable cost, without excessive delay and in satisfactory\ncondition. Yet 10% of people currently do not buy online because\nthey are concerned about the cost of delivery services, in\nparticular cross-border delivery, and about service\nquality.
\nThe Commission intends to:
\n4) Combating abuse and resolving disputes more\neffectively: in general it is still\ntoo rare for illegal activities to be effectively stopped and for\nillegal content to be removed or removed promptly\nenough.
\n5) Deploy high-speed networks and advanced\ntechnological solutions: the\ndeployment of high-speed communication networks is a sine qua\nnon for the development of online services. However, compared\nwith its competitors, the EU, which set itself ambitious objectives\nin the digital agenda, is lagging behind in terms of investment in\nthe new generation telecommunications infrastructure which it\nurgently needs. The Commission will undertake the following\nactions:
\nThe European Commission\nwill follow developments in online services closely and will report\non the progress achieved with the implementation of this action\nplan by publishing annual reports. It will organise a\nstakeholder conference in 2013.
\nThe Committee on Internal Market and Consumer\nProtection adopted an own-initiative report by Pablo ARIAS\nECHEVERRÍA (EPP, ES) on completing\nthe Digital Single Market.
\nThe report stresses that in\ntimes of economic and financial crisis it is essential to take\nmeasures to stimulate growth and create employment, and emphasises\nthat completing the Digital Single Market would be a crucial\nstep forward in terms of achieving this goal. Although Members\nwelcome the five priority actions outlined in the Commission’s\ncommunication ‘A\nCoherent framework for building trust in the Digital Single Market\nfor e-commerce and online services’, they wish to put forward recommendations on the\nfollowing points:
\n1) Small- and medium-sized enterprises\n(SMEs): noting that SMEs form the\nbackbone of the European economy, the report calls on the\nCommission and the Member States to develop an action plan to\npromote the integration of SMEs into the digital value chains. It\nstresses the importance of developing a strategy to boost digital\nentrepreneurship in Europe, promote training for online traders and\nencourage SME development programmes focusing on innovative and\ndynamic SMEs from all sectors.
\nThe Commission and Member States are called upon\nto:
\n\n· \nimplement the existing legislation\nin order to tackle barriers which hinder the\ngrowth of SMEs, such as high market entry costs, cost of building\nbrand awareness in multiple countries, and IT system\nlimitations;
\n\n· \nintroduce measures aimed at offering\nfinancial support to innovative SMEs,\nthrough existing programmes such as the Competitiveness and\nInnovation Programme (CIP), the new Programme for the\nCompetitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (COSME), and the Research\nand Innovation Programme ‘Horizon 2020’,\nor through the creation of specific programmes, as well as the\nproposed regulation on venture capital funds.
\n2) Overcoming the remaining barriers in the Digital\nSingle Market: the report\nunderlines that fragmentation and lack\nof legal certainty are primary concerns in the Digital Single\nMarket, and that inconsistent enforcement of rules in Member States\nneeds to be dealt with in order to increase choice for consumers.\nAccording to Members, fragmentation is also partly due to the\npoor or late transposition of directives by Member States, a\nfactor which should be subject to more rigorous scrutiny by the EU\ninstitutions.
\nIn this context, the report\nformulates the following recommendations:
\n\n· \nthe rapid deployment of ultra-fast\nbroadband is crucial for Europe’s global competitiveness, the development of European\nproductivity and the emergence of new and small enterprises that\ncan be leaders in different sectors, for example healthcare,\nmanufacturing and the services industry;
\n\n· \nspecific measures to be taken to ensure that SMEs can fully enjoy the\npotential of broadband in the fields of e-commerce and\ne-procurement;
\n\n· \nidentify the existing barriers\nto cross-border delivery services, and to take\nappropriate actions to address them;
\n\n· \nreduce administrative burdens\nby making it possible to use the system either\nof the country of the seller or the country of the buyer, in order\nto avoid duplication of procedures and confusion as to which rules\napply, for both online retailers and online consumers;
\n\n· \nfind solutions to the difficulties experienced\nby SMEs in relation to handling returns and shipping\ninfrastructure problems, and to reduce the costs involved in\nthe cross-border resolution of complaints and conflicts;
\n\n· \nexamine the possibilities of simplifying and\nstandardising VAT rules in the context of cross-border online\ntransactions;
\n\n· \npropose a revision of Directive 2006/112 in\norder to introduce a new category of electronically provided\ncultural content services which would benefit from a reduced\nrate of VAT;
\n\n· \nadapt the existing data protection\nlegislation to new challenges and innovations in the area of\npresent and future technological developments, e.g. cloud\ncomputing;
\n\n· \nensure that internet service providers\nare required respect EU law concerning data protection and\ncompetition with intellectual property rights protection,\nirrespective of where these data are stored and/or\nprocessed;
\n\n· \npropose and rapidly implement the European\nStrategy for Intellectual Property Rights with a view to\nadaptation to the online reality of the 21st century.
\n3) Building confidence and trust in the Digital Single\nMarket: Members recall that\ne-commerce allows consumers to benefit from\nlower prices and a wider choice, but 60 % of websites are\ncurrently unsuitable for cross-border online shoppers, and\nconsumer and business confidence in the digital environment is\nstill low. They consider that access to reliable information and\ntransparency should be enhanced, allowing consumers to compare not\nonly prices but also quality and sustainability of goods and\nservices online.
\nIn this perspective, they formulate the following\nrecommendations:
\n\n· \ndevelop and give adequate resources to effective\ninstruments such as the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC)\nnetwork, in order to ensure that online traders apply the EU\nrules on transparency and unfair commercial practices, thus\naffording a high level of consumer protection;
\n\n· \nthe need for initiatives in the Member States to\nimprove e-skills among the general public;
\n\n· \ninclude a consumer accessibility element\nin terms of implementing a barrier-free environment and a full\nrange of accessible services for people with disabilities in all\nDigital Single Market policies;
\n\n· \ndraw up a European charter of\nusers’ rights that would clarify the rights and obligations\nof citizens in the information society;
\n\n· \ncreate a European Trustmark, which would\nguarantee that a business operating online fully respects EU\nlaw;
\n\n· \nthe simplification of licensing systems\nand the creation of an efficient framework for\ncopyright;
\n\n· \ncontribute to the settlement of cross-border\ncomplaints and disputes by the adoption of the\nCommission’s legislative proposals for Regulations on the extra-judicial\nsettlement and the online\nsettlement of disputes;
\n\n· \npromote the use of new technological\ndevelopments for education and for the protection for\nminors, and to cooperate closely and efficiently in order to\ndeliver a safe internet for minors;
\n\n· \nthe further expansion of the broadband network\nand, in particular, the connection of rural, isolated and\noutermost areas to electronic communication\nnetworks.
\n4) Setting up the basis for a more competitive\nEurope: the report stresses the importance for the development of the\nEuropean Digital Single Market of continuing efforts aimed at\nproviding ubiquitous and high-speed access for all consumers,\nthrough the promotion of fixed and mobile internet access and the\ndeployment of next generation infrastructures. It calls on the\nCommission and the Member States to provide new impetus to the\nEuropean fast and ultra-fast broadband strategy by updating the\nrelevant targets. It also emphasises the potential value for\nconsumers and businesses of the digital switchover of public\nservices, and calls on Member States to develop national plans to\nthat effect.
\nThe report regrets that the EU is lagging behind with\nregard to fibre-based internet connections and calls on the\nMember States and the Commission, therefore, to accelerate the\nspread and adoption of ultra-high-speed broadband, and calls for a\nEuropean strategy for the large-scale deployment of FTTx\n(‘fibre to the x’).
\nLastly, the report recalls that Parliament in its resolution\nof 20 April 2012 entitled “Competitive digital single\nmarket – eGoverment as a spearhead” underlined\nthe importance for the facilitation of mass\nadoption of factors including legal certainty, a clear\ntechnical environment, and open and interoperable e-invoicing\nsolutions based on common legal requirements, business processes\nand technical standards. The Commission is invited to assess the\nneed for uniform, open Union-wide standards for e-identification\nand e-signatures.
\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 protect the interests of the members,\nrightholders and users and to set minimum quality standards for the\nexercise by collecting societies of their freedom to provide\nmulti-territorial licensing services for online uses of musical\nworks in the internal market.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the dissemination of content which is\nprotected by copyright and related rights and the linked services,\nincluding books, audiovisual productions and recorded music require\nthe licensing of rights by different holders of copyright and\nrelated rights, such as authors, performers, producers and\npublishers. Such services may be provided offline, such as showing\na film in a cinema or playing music in a concert hall, but also\nincreasingly online.
\nIn some sectors, licences are most often granted\ndirectly by individual rightholders (e.g. film producers). In other\nsectors, the collective management of rights plays a very important\nrole, in particular of authors' rights in musical works.
\nCollecting societies enable rightholders to be\nremunerated for uses which they would not be in a position to\ncontrol or enforce themselves, including in non-domestic markets.\nMoreover, they have an important social and cultural role as\npromoters of the diversity of cultural expressions by enabling the\nsmallest and less popular repertoires to access the\nmarket.
\nThe Commission recommends action in two\nareas.
\n\n· \nFirstly, there are significant differences in\nthe national rules governing the functioning of collecting\nsocieties, in particular as regards their transparency and\naccountability towards their members and rightholders. Collective\nrights' management in all sectors needs to adapt in terms of the\nservice provided to members and users as regards efficiency,\naccuracy, transparency and accountability.
\n\n· \nSecondly, in the licensing of the rights of\nauthors in musical works, online music service providers face\ndifficulties in acquiring licences with an aggregated repertoire\nfor the territory of more than one Member State. This situation\nleads to fragmentation of the EU market for these services, thereby\nlimiting the provision of online music services by online service\nproviders.
\nThis proposal is presented in the context of the Digital Agenda for Europe and\nthe Europe 2020 Strategy. In its \"Single Market Act\" the\nCommission underlined that, in the internet age, collective\nmanagement must be able to evolve towards more transnational,\npossibly EU-wide models of licensing. In its Communication \"A Single Market for Intellectual Property\nRights\" the Commission announced that it would be\nproposing a legal framework for the collective management of\ncopyright and related rights. The importance of this legislative\nproposal was also highlighted in the Commission's \"European Consumer\nAgenda\".
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT : the impact assessment examines two\ngroups of options to deal with:
\n(1) options pertaining to governance and transparency\nstandards in collecting societies are\nas follows:
\n\n· \nretaining the status quo (A1);
\n\n· \nbetter enforcement (A2) of existing EU\nlaw;
\n\n· \nthe codification of existing principles\n(A3) reflecting in legislation the\nprinciples that have emerged from the case-law of the Court of\nJustice, the Commission's antitrust decisions and Recommendation\n2005/737/EC;
\n\n· \na governance and transparency framework\n(A4) which would codify the existing\nprinciples and provide a more elaborate framework of rules on\ngovernance and transparency, increasing the possibilities of\ncontrol over collecting societies.
\n(2) The following\npolicy options were examined to address the complexities of the\ncollective licensing of authors' rights in musical works for online\nuses:
\n\n· \nretaining the status quo (B1);
\n\n· \nthe European Licensing Passport\n(B2): this would foster the voluntary\nrepertoire aggregation for online uses of musical works at EU level\nand the licensing of rights through multi-territorial licensing\ninfrastructures. It would lay down common rules for all collective\nlicensors throughout the EU and would create competitive pressure\non societies to develop more efficient licensing\npractices;
\n\n· \nparallel direct licensing\n(B3);
\n\n· \nextended collective licensing and country of\norigin principle (B4);
\n\n· \na centralised portal\n(B5).
\nAfter carefully weighing up the advantages and\ndisadvantages of each of the approaches, options A4 (governance\nand transparency framework) and B2 (European Licensing\nPassport) were retained.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 50(2)(g), 53 and 62 of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
\nCONTENT: the proposal for a directive aims to put in\nplace an appropriate legal framework for the collective management\nof rights that are administered by collecting societies on behalf\nof rightholders. It aims to:
\n\n· \nimprove the standards of governance and\ntransparency of collecting societies so that rightholders can\nexercise more effective control over them and help improve their\nmanagement efficiency;
\n\n· \nfacilitate the multi-territorial licensing by\ncollecting societies of authors' rights in musical works for the\nprovision of online services.
\n(1) Collecting societies: the proposal establishes organisational and\ntransparency rules which apply to all types of collecting\nsocieties. It provides, inter alia:
\n\n· \nrules governing the membership organisation of\ncollecting societies;
\n\n· \nrules on collecting societies’ financial\nmanagement: a collecting society must: (i) specify the applicable\ndeductions in its agreements with rightholders; (ii) assure members\nand rightholders fair access to any social, cultural or educational\nservices, if funded by deductions; (iii) pay the amounts due to\nrightholders accurately and without undue delay and make efforts to\nidentify rightholders.
\n\n· \nrules on levels of disclosure: (i) information\nto rightholders on amounts collected and paid, management fees\ncharged and other deductions made; (ii) information to other\ncollecting societies on the management of rights under\nrepresentation agreements; (iii) information to rightholders, other\nsocieties and users on request; (iv) annual publication of a\ntransparency report.
\n(2) Multi-territorial\nlicensing by authors' collecting societies of online rights in\nmusical works: the proposal establishes the conditions that an\nauthors' collecting society must respect when providing\nmulti-territorial licensing services for online rights in musical\nworks, namely:
\n\n· \nbeing able to process efficiently and\ntransparently the data needed for the exploitation of such licences\nby using a time-sensitive, authoritative database containing the\nnecessary data;
\n\n· \nbeing transparent as regards the online music\nrepertoire it represents;
\n\n· \noffering rightholders and other societies the\npossibility to correct the relevant data and to ensure their\naccuracy;
\n\n· \nmonitoring the actual usage of the works covered\nby the licences, being capable of processing usage reports and\ninvoicing;
\n\n· \npaying rightholders and other collecting\nsocieties without delay and provide them with information on works\nused and financial data related to their rights (e.g. amounts\ncollected, deductions made).
\nIn order to ensure that repertoires can be easily\naggregated for the benefit of music service providers who want to\noffer a service as complete as possible across Europe and for the\nbenefit of cultural diversity and consumers at large, specific\nsafeguards will apply to ensure that the repertoire of all\nsocieties have access to multi-territorial\nlicensing.
\nThe proposal also ensures that collecting societies\nput in place complaint handling and dispute resolution\nprocedures so that these are available for members and\nrightholders.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE : to protect the interests of the members,\nrightholders and users and to set minimum quality standards for the\nexercise by collecting societies of their freedom to provide\nmulti-territorial licensing services for online uses of musical\nworks in the internal market.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the dissemination of content which is\nprotected by copyright and related rights and the linked services,\nincluding books, audiovisual productions and recorded music require\nthe licensing of rights by different holders of copyright and\nrelated rights, such as authors, performers, producers and\npublishers. Such services may be provided offline, such as showing\na film in a cinema or playing music in a concert hall, but also\nincreasingly online.
\nIn some sectors, licences are most often granted\ndirectly by individual rightholders (e.g. film producers). In other\nsectors, the collective management of rights plays a very important\nrole, in particular of authors' rights in musical works.
\nCollecting societies enable rightholders to be\nremunerated for uses which they would not be in a position to\ncontrol or enforce themselves, including in non-domestic markets.\nMoreover, they have an important social and cultural role as\npromoters of the diversity of cultural expressions by enabling the\nsmallest and less popular repertoires to access the\nmarket.
\nThe Commission recommends action in two\nareas.
\n\n· \nFirstly, there are significant differences in\nthe national rules governing the functioning of collecting\nsocieties, in particular as regards their transparency and\naccountability towards their members and rightholders. Collective\nrights' management in all sectors needs to adapt in terms of the\nservice provided to members and users as regards efficiency,\naccuracy, transparency and accountability.
\n\n· \nSecondly, in the licensing of the rights of\nauthors in musical works, online music service providers face\ndifficulties in acquiring licences with an aggregated repertoire\nfor the territory of more than one Member State. This situation\nleads to fragmentation of the EU market for these services, thereby\nlimiting the provision of online music services by online service\nproviders.
\nThis proposal is presented in the context of the Digital Agenda for Europe and\nthe Europe 2020 Strategy. In its \"Single Market Act\" the\nCommission underlined that, in the internet age, collective\nmanagement must be able to evolve towards more transnational,\npossibly EU-wide models of licensing. In its Communication \"A Single Market for Intellectual Property\nRights\" the Commission announced that it would be\nproposing a legal framework for the collective management of\ncopyright and related rights. The importance of this legislative\nproposal was also highlighted in the Commission's \"European Consumer\nAgenda\".
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT : the impact assessment examines two\ngroups of options to deal with:
\n(1) options pertaining to governance and transparency\nstandards in collecting societies are\nas follows:
\n\n· \nretaining the status quo (A1);
\n\n· \nbetter enforcement (A2) of existing EU\nlaw;
\n\n· \nthe codification of existing principles\n(A3) reflecting in legislation the\nprinciples that have emerged from the case-law of the Court of\nJustice, the Commission's antitrust decisions and Recommendation\n2005/737/EC;
\n\n· \na governance and transparency framework\n(A4) which would codify the existing\nprinciples and provide a more elaborate framework of rules on\ngovernance and transparency, increasing the possibilities of\ncontrol over collecting societies.
\n(2) The following\npolicy options were examined to address the complexities of the\ncollective licensing of authors' rights in musical works for online\nuses:
\n\n· \nretaining the status quo (B1);
\n\n· \nthe European Licensing Passport\n(B2): this would foster the voluntary\nrepertoire aggregation for online uses of musical works at EU level\nand the licensing of rights through multi-territorial licensing\ninfrastructures. It would lay down common rules for all collective\nlicensors throughout the EU and would create competitive pressure\non societies to develop more efficient licensing\npractices;
\n\n· \nparallel direct licensing\n(B3);
\n\n· \nextended collective licensing and country of\norigin principle (B4);
\n\n· \na centralised portal\n(B5).
\nAfter carefully weighing up the advantages and\ndisadvantages of each of the approaches, options A4 (governance\nand transparency framework) and B2 (European Licensing\nPassport) were retained.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 50(2)(g), 53 and 62 of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
\nCONTENT: the proposal for a directive aims to put in\nplace an appropriate legal framework for the collective management\nof rights that are administered by collecting societies on behalf\nof rightholders. It aims to:
\n\n· \nimprove the standards of governance and\ntransparency of collecting societies so that rightholders can\nexercise more effective control over them and help improve their\nmanagement efficiency;
\n\n· \nfacilitate the multi-territorial licensing by\ncollecting societies of authors' rights in musical works for the\nprovision of online services.
\n(1) Collecting societies: the proposal establishes organisational and\ntransparency rules which apply to all types of collecting\nsocieties. It provides, inter alia:
\n\n· \nrules governing the membership organisation of\ncollecting societies;
\n\n· \nrules on collecting societies’ financial\nmanagement: a collecting society must: (i) specify the applicable\ndeductions in its agreements with rightholders; (ii) assure members\nand rightholders fair access to any social, cultural or educational\nservices, if funded by deductions; (iii) pay the amounts due to\nrightholders accurately and without undue delay and make efforts to\nidentify rightholders.
\n\n· \nrules on levels of disclosure: (i) information\nto rightholders on amounts collected and paid, management fees\ncharged and other deductions made; (ii) information to other\ncollecting societies on the management of rights under\nrepresentation agreements; (iii) information to rightholders, other\nsocieties and users on request; (iv) annual publication of a\ntransparency report.
\n(2) Multi-territorial\nlicensing by authors' collecting societies of online rights in\nmusical works: the proposal establishes the conditions that an\nauthors' collecting society must respect when providing\nmulti-territorial licensing services for online rights in musical\nworks, namely:
\n\n· \nbeing able to process efficiently and\ntransparently the data needed for the exploitation of such licences\nby using a time-sensitive, authoritative database containing the\nnecessary data;
\n\n· \nbeing transparent as regards the online music\nrepertoire it represents;
\n\n· \noffering rightholders and other societies the\npossibility to correct the relevant data and to ensure their\naccuracy;
\n\n· \nmonitoring the actual usage of the works covered\nby the licences, being capable of processing usage reports and\ninvoicing;
\n\n· \npaying rightholders and other collecting\nsocieties without delay and provide them with information on works\nused and financial data related to their rights (e.g. amounts\ncollected, deductions made).
\nIn order to ensure that repertoires can be easily\naggregated for the benefit of music service providers who want to\noffer a service as complete as possible across Europe and for the\nbenefit of cultural diversity and consumers at large, specific\nsafeguards will apply to ensure that the repertoire of all\nsocieties have access to multi-territorial\nlicensing.
\nThe proposal also ensures that collecting societies\nput in place complaint handling and dispute resolution\nprocedures so that these are available for members and\nrightholders.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE : to protect the interests of the members,\nrightholders and users and to set minimum quality standards for the\nexercise by collecting societies of their freedom to provide\nmulti-territorial licensing services for online uses of musical\nworks in the internal market.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the dissemination of content which is\nprotected by copyright and related rights and the linked services,\nincluding books, audiovisual productions and recorded music require\nthe licensing of rights by different holders of copyright and\nrelated rights, such as authors, performers, producers and\npublishers. Such services may be provided offline, such as showing\na film in a cinema or playing music in a concert hall, but also\nincreasingly online.
\nIn some sectors, licences are most often granted\ndirectly by individual rightholders (e.g. film producers). In other\nsectors, the collective management of rights plays a very important\nrole, in particular of authors' rights in musical works.
\nCollecting societies enable rightholders to be\nremunerated for uses which they would not be in a position to\ncontrol or enforce themselves, including in non-domestic markets.\nMoreover, they have an important social and cultural role as\npromoters of the diversity of cultural expressions by enabling the\nsmallest and less popular repertoires to access the\nmarket.
\nThe Commission recommends action in two\nareas.
\n\n· \nFirstly, there are significant differences in\nthe national rules governing the functioning of collecting\nsocieties, in particular as regards their transparency and\naccountability towards their members and rightholders. Collective\nrights' management in all sectors needs to adapt in terms of the\nservice provided to members and users as regards efficiency,\naccuracy, transparency and accountability.
\n\n· \nSecondly, in the licensing of the rights of\nauthors in musical works, online music service providers face\ndifficulties in acquiring licences with an aggregated repertoire\nfor the territory of more than one Member State. This situation\nleads to fragmentation of the EU market for these services, thereby\nlimiting the provision of online music services by online service\nproviders.
\nThis proposal is presented in the context of the Digital Agenda for Europe and\nthe Europe 2020 Strategy. In its \"Single Market Act\" the\nCommission underlined that, in the internet age, collective\nmanagement must be able to evolve towards more transnational,\npossibly EU-wide models of licensing. In its Communication \"A Single Market for Intellectual Property\nRights\" the Commission announced that it would be\nproposing a legal framework for the collective management of\ncopyright and related rights. The importance of this legislative\nproposal was also highlighted in the Commission's \"European Consumer\nAgenda\".
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT : the impact assessment examines two\ngroups of options to deal with:
\n(1) options pertaining to governance and transparency\nstandards in collecting societies are\nas follows:
\n\n· \nretaining the status quo (A1);
\n\n· \nbetter enforcement (A2) of existing EU\nlaw;
\n\n· \nthe codification of existing principles\n(A3) reflecting in legislation the\nprinciples that have emerged from the case-law of the Court of\nJustice, the Commission's antitrust decisions and Recommendation\n2005/737/EC;
\n\n· \na governance and transparency framework\n(A4) which would codify the existing\nprinciples and provide a more elaborate framework of rules on\ngovernance and transparency, increasing the possibilities of\ncontrol over collecting societies.
\n(2) The following\npolicy options were examined to address the complexities of the\ncollective licensing of authors' rights in musical works for online\nuses:
\n\n· \nretaining the status quo (B1);
\n\n· \nthe European Licensing Passport\n(B2): this would foster the voluntary\nrepertoire aggregation for online uses of musical works at EU level\nand the licensing of rights through multi-territorial licensing\ninfrastructures. It would lay down common rules for all collective\nlicensors throughout the EU and would create competitive pressure\non societies to develop more efficient licensing\npractices;
\n\n· \nparallel direct licensing\n(B3);
\n\n· \nextended collective licensing and country of\norigin principle (B4);
\n\n· \na centralised portal\n(B5).
\nAfter carefully weighing up the advantages and\ndisadvantages of each of the approaches, options A4 (governance\nand transparency framework) and B2 (European Licensing\nPassport) were retained.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 50(2)(g), 53 and 62 of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
\nCONTENT: the proposal for a directive aims to put in\nplace an appropriate legal framework for the collective management\nof rights that are administered by collecting societies on behalf\nof rightholders. It aims to:
\n\n· \nimprove the standards of governance and\ntransparency of collecting societies so that rightholders can\nexercise more effective control over them and help improve their\nmanagement efficiency;
\n\n· \nfacilitate the multi-territorial licensing by\ncollecting societies of authors' rights in musical works for the\nprovision of online services.
\n(1) Collecting societies: the proposal establishes organisational and\ntransparency rules which apply to all types of collecting\nsocieties. It provides, inter alia:
\n\n· \nrules governing the membership organisation of\ncollecting societies;
\n\n· \nrules on collecting societies’ financial\nmanagement: a collecting society must: (i) specify the applicable\ndeductions in its agreements with rightholders; (ii) assure members\nand rightholders fair access to any social, cultural or educational\nservices, if funded by deductions; (iii) pay the amounts due to\nrightholders accurately and without undue delay and make efforts to\nidentify rightholders.
\n\n· \nrules on levels of disclosure: (i) information\nto rightholders on amounts collected and paid, management fees\ncharged and other deductions made; (ii) information to other\ncollecting societies on the management of rights under\nrepresentation agreements; (iii) information to rightholders, other\nsocieties and users on request; (iv) annual publication of a\ntransparency report.
\n(2) Multi-territorial\nlicensing by authors' collecting societies of online rights in\nmusical works: the proposal establishes the conditions that an\nauthors' collecting society must respect when providing\nmulti-territorial licensing services for online rights in musical\nworks, namely:
\n\n· \nbeing able to process efficiently and\ntransparently the data needed for the exploitation of such licences\nby using a time-sensitive, authoritative database containing the\nnecessary data;
\n\n· \nbeing transparent as regards the online music\nrepertoire it represents;
\n\n· \noffering rightholders and other societies the\npossibility to correct the relevant data and to ensure their\naccuracy;
\n\n· \nmonitoring the actual usage of the works covered\nby the licences, being capable of processing usage reports and\ninvoicing;
\n\n· \npaying rightholders and other collecting\nsocieties without delay and provide them with information on works\nused and financial data related to their rights (e.g. amounts\ncollected, deductions made).
\nIn order to ensure that repertoires can be easily\naggregated for the benefit of music service providers who want to\noffer a service as complete as possible across Europe and for the\nbenefit of cultural diversity and consumers at large, specific\nsafeguards will apply to ensure that the repertoire of all\nsocieties have access to multi-territorial\nlicensing.
\nThe proposal also ensures that collecting societies\nput in place complaint handling and dispute resolution\nprocedures so that these are available for members and\nrightholders.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE : to protect the interests of the members,\nrightholders and users and to set minimum quality standards for the\nexercise by collecting societies of their freedom to provide\nmulti-territorial licensing services for online uses of musical\nworks in the internal market.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the dissemination of content which is\nprotected by copyright and related rights and the linked services,\nincluding books, audiovisual productions and recorded music require\nthe licensing of rights by different holders of copyright and\nrelated rights, such as authors, performers, producers and\npublishers. Such services may be provided offline, such as showing\na film in a cinema or playing music in a concert hall, but also\nincreasingly online.
\nIn some sectors, licences are most often granted\ndirectly by individual rightholders (e.g. film producers). In other\nsectors, the collective management of rights plays a very important\nrole, in particular of authors' rights in musical works.
\nCollecting societies enable rightholders to be\nremunerated for uses which they would not be in a position to\ncontrol or enforce themselves, including in non-domestic markets.\nMoreover, they have an important social and cultural role as\npromoters of the diversity of cultural expressions by enabling the\nsmallest and less popular repertoires to access the\nmarket.
\nThe Commission recommends action in two\nareas.
\n\n· \nFirstly, there are significant differences in\nthe national rules governing the functioning of collecting\nsocieties, in particular as regards their transparency and\naccountability towards their members and rightholders. Collective\nrights' management in all sectors needs to adapt in terms of the\nservice provided to members and users as regards efficiency,\naccuracy, transparency and accountability.
\n\n· \nSecondly, in the licensing of the rights of\nauthors in musical works, online music service providers face\ndifficulties in acquiring licences with an aggregated repertoire\nfor the territory of more than one Member State. This situation\nleads to fragmentation of the EU market for these services, thereby\nlimiting the provision of online music services by online service\nproviders.
\nThis proposal is presented in the context of the Digital Agenda for Europe and\nthe Europe 2020 Strategy. In its \"Single Market Act\" the\nCommission underlined that, in the internet age, collective\nmanagement must be able to evolve towards more transnational,\npossibly EU-wide models of licensing. In its Communication \"A Single Market for Intellectual Property\nRights\" the Commission announced that it would be\nproposing a legal framework for the collective management of\ncopyright and related rights. The importance of this legislative\nproposal was also highlighted in the Commission's \"European Consumer\nAgenda\".
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT : the impact assessment examines two\ngroups of options to deal with:
\n(1) options pertaining to governance and transparency\nstandards in collecting societies are\nas follows:
\n\n· \nretaining the status quo (A1);
\n\n· \nbetter enforcement (A2) of existing EU\nlaw;
\n\n· \nthe codification of existing principles\n(A3) reflecting in legislation the\nprinciples that have emerged from the case-law of the Court of\nJustice, the Commission's antitrust decisions and Recommendation\n2005/737/EC;
\n\n· \na governance and transparency framework\n(A4) which would codify the existing\nprinciples and provide a more elaborate framework of rules on\ngovernance and transparency, increasing the possibilities of\ncontrol over collecting societies.
\n(2) The following\npolicy options were examined to address the complexities of the\ncollective licensing of authors' rights in musical works for online\nuses:
\n\n· \nretaining the status quo (B1);
\n\n· \nthe European Licensing Passport\n(B2): this would foster the voluntary\nrepertoire aggregation for online uses of musical works at EU level\nand the licensing of rights through multi-territorial licensing\ninfrastructures. It would lay down common rules for all collective\nlicensors throughout the EU and would create competitive pressure\non societies to develop more efficient licensing\npractices;
\n\n· \nparallel direct licensing\n(B3);
\n\n· \nextended collective licensing and country of\norigin principle (B4);
\n\n· \na centralised portal\n(B5).
\nAfter carefully weighing up the advantages and\ndisadvantages of each of the approaches, options A4 (governance\nand transparency framework) and B2 (European Licensing\nPassport) were retained.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 50(2)(g), 53 and 62 of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
\nCONTENT: the proposal for a directive aims to put in\nplace an appropriate legal framework for the collective management\nof rights that are administered by collecting societies on behalf\nof rightholders. It aims to:
\n\n· \nimprove the standards of governance and\ntransparency of collecting societies so that rightholders can\nexercise more effective control over them and help improve their\nmanagement efficiency;
\n\n· \nfacilitate the multi-territorial licensing by\ncollecting societies of authors' rights in musical works for the\nprovision of online services.
\n(1) Collecting societies: the proposal establishes organisational and\ntransparency rules which apply to all types of collecting\nsocieties. It provides, inter alia:
\n\n· \nrules governing the membership organisation of\ncollecting societies;
\n\n· \nrules on collecting societies’ financial\nmanagement: a collecting society must: (i) specify the applicable\ndeductions in its agreements with rightholders; (ii) assure members\nand rightholders fair access to any social, cultural or educational\nservices, if funded by deductions; (iii) pay the amounts due to\nrightholders accurately and without undue delay and make efforts to\nidentify rightholders.
\n\n· \nrules on levels of disclosure: (i) information\nto rightholders on amounts collected and paid, management fees\ncharged and other deductions made; (ii) information to other\ncollecting societies on the management of rights under\nrepresentation agreements; (iii) information to rightholders, other\nsocieties and users on request; (iv) annual publication of a\ntransparency report.
\n(2) Multi-territorial\nlicensing by authors' collecting societies of online rights in\nmusical works: the proposal establishes the conditions that an\nauthors' collecting society must respect when providing\nmulti-territorial licensing services for online rights in musical\nworks, namely:
\n\n· \nbeing able to process efficiently and\ntransparently the data needed for the exploitation of such licences\nby using a time-sensitive, authoritative database containing the\nnecessary data;
\n\n· \nbeing transparent as regards the online music\nrepertoire it represents;
\n\n· \noffering rightholders and other societies the\npossibility to correct the relevant data and to ensure their\naccuracy;
\n\n· \nmonitoring the actual usage of the works covered\nby the licences, being capable of processing usage reports and\ninvoicing;
\n\n· \npaying rightholders and other collecting\nsocieties without delay and provide them with information on works\nused and financial data related to their rights (e.g. amounts\ncollected, deductions made).
\nIn order to ensure that repertoires can be easily\naggregated for the benefit of music service providers who want to\noffer a service as complete as possible across Europe and for the\nbenefit of cultural diversity and consumers at large, specific\nsafeguards will apply to ensure that the repertoire of all\nsocieties have access to multi-territorial\nlicensing.
\nThe proposal also ensures that collecting societies\nput in place complaint handling and dispute resolution\nprocedures so that these are available for members and\nrightholders.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE : to protect the interests of the members,\nrightholders and users and to set minimum quality standards for the\nexercise by collecting societies of their freedom to provide\nmulti-territorial licensing services for online uses of musical\nworks in the internal market.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the dissemination of content which is\nprotected by copyright and related rights and the linked services,\nincluding books, audiovisual productions and recorded music require\nthe licensing of rights by different holders of copyright and\nrelated rights, such as authors, performers, producers and\npublishers. Such services may be provided offline, such as showing\na film in a cinema or playing music in a concert hall, but also\nincreasingly online.
\nIn some sectors, licences are most often granted\ndirectly by individual rightholders (e.g. film producers). In other\nsectors, the collective management of rights plays a very important\nrole, in particular of authors' rights in musical works.
\nCollecting societies enable rightholders to be\nremunerated for uses which they would not be in a position to\ncontrol or enforce themselves, including in non-domestic markets.\nMoreover, they have an important social and cultural role as\npromoters of the diversity of cultural expressions by enabling the\nsmallest and less popular repertoires to access the\nmarket.
\nThe Commission recommends action in two\nareas.
\n\n· \nFirstly, there are significant differences in\nthe national rules governing the functioning of collecting\nsocieties, in particular as regards their transparency and\naccountability towards their members and rightholders. Collective\nrights' management in all sectors needs to adapt in terms of the\nservice provided to members and users as regards efficiency,\naccuracy, transparency and accountability.
\n\n· \nSecondly, in the licensing of the rights of\nauthors in musical works, online music service providers face\ndifficulties in acquiring licences with an aggregated repertoire\nfor the territory of more than one Member State. This situation\nleads to fragmentation of the EU market for these services, thereby\nlimiting the provision of online music services by online service\nproviders.
\nThis proposal is presented in the context of the Digital Agenda for Europe and\nthe Europe 2020 Strategy. In its \"Single Market Act\" the\nCommission underlined that, in the internet age, collective\nmanagement must be able to evolve towards more transnational,\npossibly EU-wide models of licensing. In its Communication \"A Single Market for Intellectual Property\nRights\" the Commission announced that it would be\nproposing a legal framework for the collective management of\ncopyright and related rights. The importance of this legislative\nproposal was also highlighted in the Commission's \"European Consumer\nAgenda\".
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT : the impact assessment examines two\ngroups of options to deal with:
\n(1) options pertaining to governance and transparency\nstandards in collecting societies are\nas follows:
\n\n· \nretaining the status quo (A1);
\n\n· \nbetter enforcement (A2) of existing EU\nlaw;
\n\n· \nthe codification of existing principles\n(A3) reflecting in legislation the\nprinciples that have emerged from the case-law of the Court of\nJustice, the Commission's antitrust decisions and Recommendation\n2005/737/EC;
\n\n· \na governance and transparency framework\n(A4) which would codify the existing\nprinciples and provide a more elaborate framework of rules on\ngovernance and transparency, increasing the possibilities of\ncontrol over collecting societies.
\n(2) The following\npolicy options were examined to address the complexities of the\ncollective licensing of authors' rights in musical works for online\nuses:
\n\n· \nretaining the status quo (B1);
\n\n· \nthe European Licensing Passport\n(B2): this would foster the voluntary\nrepertoire aggregation for online uses of musical works at EU level\nand the licensing of rights through multi-territorial licensing\ninfrastructures. It would lay down common rules for all collective\nlicensors throughout the EU and would create competitive pressure\non societies to develop more efficient licensing\npractices;
\n\n· \nparallel direct licensing\n(B3);
\n\n· \nextended collective licensing and country of\norigin principle (B4);
\n\n· \na centralised portal\n(B5).
\nAfter carefully weighing up the advantages and\ndisadvantages of each of the approaches, options A4 (governance\nand transparency framework) and B2 (European Licensing\nPassport) were retained.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 50(2)(g), 53 and 62 of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
\nCONTENT: the proposal for a directive aims to put in\nplace an appropriate legal framework for the collective management\nof rights that are administered by collecting societies on behalf\nof rightholders. It aims to:
\n\n· \nimprove the standards of governance and\ntransparency of collecting societies so that rightholders can\nexercise more effective control over them and help improve their\nmanagement efficiency;
\n\n· \nfacilitate the multi-territorial licensing by\ncollecting societies of authors' rights in musical works for the\nprovision of online services.
\n(1) Collecting societies: the proposal establishes organisational and\ntransparency rules which apply to all types of collecting\nsocieties. It provides, inter alia:
\n\n· \nrules governing the membership organisation of\ncollecting societies;
\n\n