Report on the future of the Single Market

"Tous ceux qui ont essayé de régler les problèmes économiques que posait le
traité de Rome en oubliant le coté politique de la chose sont allés à un échec et
aussi longtemps qu'on examinera [ces] problèmes uniquement sur le plan
économique et sans penser à la politique, je le crains, nous irons à des échecs
répétés."

"All those who, in trying to meet the economic challenges set out by the treaty
of Rome, neglected the political dimension have failed. As long as [those]
challenges will be addressed exclusively in an economic perspective,
disregarding their political angle, we will run – I am afraid – into repeated
failures."

Paul-Henri Spaak

Discours à la Chambre des Représentants

14 June 1961

"Europe stands at the crossroads. We either go ahead – with resolution and
determination – or we drop back into mediocrity. We can now either resolve to
complete the integration of the economies of Europe; or, through a lack of
political will to face the immense problems involved, we can simply allow
Europe to develop into no more than a free trade area."

European Commission

"Completing the internal market"

White Paper for the European Council

(Milan, 28-29 June 1985)

"What we need are strengths which we can only find together. […] We must
have the full benefit of a single large market"

Margaret Thatcher
1986

Mission letter from the President of the European Commission

Bruxelles, 20 October 2009

Pres(2009)D/2250

Dear Professor,

The Single Market has been, and remains, the cornerstone of Europe's integration

and sustainable growth. But this major European project requires renewed

political determination so that it can fulfill all its potential. As I have indicated

in my political guidelines, the Commission intends to lead this process, fully

engaging the Member States, the European Parliament and all stakeholders.

As we approach the twentieth anniversary of the symbolic date of 1992 which laid the

ground for today's Single Market, the EU is confronted with three urgent

challenges:

- The recent crisis has shown that there remains a strong temptation, particularly

when times are hard, to roll back the Single Market and seek refuge informs

of economic nationalism. The Commission has been, and will continue to

be, a determined defender of the Single Market through the full use of its

enforcement powers, particularly in the areas of the Internal Market and

Competition policy, including State-aid control. But there is a need for a new

awareness, in the public opinion as well as in political circles, of the

dramatic consequences that would derive from undermining the Single

Market. That would erode the basis for economic integration and growth and

employment throughout the EU, at a time when the emergence of new global

powers and of severe environmental challenges make a cohesive EU more

necessary than ever, in the interest of European citizens as well as of an

effective global governance.

The full potential of the Single Market has not yet been delivered. In many

areas the Single Market is far from being completely in place. In addition,

there are missing links· which prevent a still fragmented market from acting

as a powerful engine for growth and delivering the full benefits to consumers.

The Commission intends to take a more systematic and integrated approach,

with a view to both achieving a fully-fledged Single Market and monitoring

it effectively.

Professor Mario MONTI

Presidente

Università Commerciale L. Bocconi

ViaSarfatti25

IT-20100 Milano

The crisis has induced some critical reconsideration of the functioning of

markets. It has also enhanced concerns about the social dimension. The Treaty

of Lisbon, soon to enter into force, make it explicit for the first time - though the

principle was already clearly set out in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome -

that "the Union [...] shall work [...]for a highly competitive social market

economy". All this calls for afresh look at how the market and the social

dimensions of an integrated European economy can be mutually strengthened.

In view of obtaining helpful and valuable inputs for an initiative to relaunch the

Single Market as a key strategic objective of the new Commission, I would UL· to

entrust you with the mission of preparing a report containing options and

recommendations. Should you accept this mission, you will conduct it under your

sole responsibility and you will report directly to me on progress and conclusions.

You will be able to rely on the Commission's expertise and support. You may hold

consultations, as appropriate, with the European Parliament, with the relevant

Commissioners, with the competent authorities of Members States and with other

stakeholders.

Yours sincerely,

José Manuel BARROSO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MISSION LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A NEW STRATEGY FOR THE SINGLE MARKET

CHAPTER 1. A MARKET IN SEARCH OF A STRATEGY

1.1. Turning "yesterday's business into a key political priority

………………………………12

1.2. The single market as a strategic objective: 1985 and 2010 …………………………………

1.3. Listening to Europeans …………………………………………………………………………

1.4. Less popular than ever, more needed than ever ………………………………………

…

1.5. Does the single market really need consensus? …………………………………………

…

1.6. Identifying the concerns …………………………………………………………………………

1.7. Addressing the concerns …………………………………………………………………………

1.8. A new strategy ……………………………………………………………………………………

CHAPTER 2. BUILDING A STRONGER SINGLE MARKET

2.1. Bottlenecks, missing links and new frontiers

2.2. Making the single market work for citizens, consumers and SMEs

2.3. Shaping Europe's digital single market

2.4. The single market and green growth: energy, climate change, environment…

2.5. The single market for goods: reaping the full benefits

2.6. The single market for services: the powerhouse of European economy

2.7. Workers in the single market: old problems and new challenges

2.8. The single market for capital and financial services ………………………………………

…61

2.9. The physical infrastructure of the single market: meeting the investment challenge

CHAPTER 3. BUILDING CONSENSUS ON A STRONGER SINGLE MARKET

3.1. A single market for a "highly competitive social market economy"

3.2. Economic freedms and workers' rights after Viking and Laval

3.3. Social services and the single market

3.4. Harnessing public procurement for Europe's policy goals

3.5. The tax dimension of the single market: working together to safeguard tax sovereignity

3.6. Competitiveness and cohesion: the regional dimension of the single market

3.7. The single market and industrial policy

3.8. Open, but not disarmed: the external dimension of the single market

CHAPTER 4. DELIVERING A STRONG SINGLE MARKET

4.1.

Regulating the single market, "ma non troppo"

…………………...………………..... 93

4.2

Reinforcing enforcement

CHAPTER 5. A POLITICAL INITIATIVE TO STRENGTHEN THE SINGLE
MARKET (AND ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION)

…………………………..104

5.1. New political initiative………………………………………………………………………

….105

5.2. Refocusing EU institutions on the single market……………………………………………

.105

5.3. The place of the single market in EU policy making………………

…………...………...107

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A new Strategy for the single market

In his "Political guidelines for the new Commission" President Barroso
identified the single market as a key strategic objective for Europe, to be
pursued with renewed political determination. Based on the mandate received
from President Barroso, this report examines the challenges that an initiative to
relaunch the single market faces today and outlines a comprehensive strategy to
make such a relaunch politically successful and economically and socially
viable.

The report highlights that today the single market is at a critical juncture, as it
faces three challenges (chapter 1). The first challenge comes from the erosion of
the political and social support for market integration in Europe. The single
market is seen by many Europeans – citizens as well as political leaders – with
suspicion, fear and sometimes open hostility. Two mutually reinforcing trends
are at work: an "integration fatigue", eroding the appetite for more Europe and
for a

single

market; and more recently, a "market fatigue", with a reduced

confidence in the role of the

market

. The single market today is less popular

than ever, while Europe needs it more than ever.

The second challenge comes from uneven policy attention given to the
development of the various components of an effective and sustainable single
market. Some of the difficulties encountered by the single market in recent years
can be traced back not only to the incomplete "welding together" of the national
markets into one European market, but also to the unfinished business on two
other fronts: the expansion to new sectors to accompany a fast changing
economy and the effort to ensure that the single market is a space of freedom
and opportunity that works for all, citizens, consumers and SMEs.

A third challenge comes from a sense of complacency that gained strength in the
past decade, as if the single market had been really completed and could thus be
put to rest as a political priority. The single market was felt to be "yesterday's
business", in need of regular maintenance but not of active promotion. The shift
of attention away from the single market was further strengthened by the need to
concentrate the EU's political energy on other challenging building blocks of the
European construction: monetary union, enlargement and institutional reforms.
With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in January 2010, all the three
major priorities have been achieved, and there is no reason to deflect attention
away from the single market. On the contrary, the correct functioning of the
monetary union and of enlargement call the single market back on stage.

There is now a window of opportunity to bring back the political focus on the
single market. Exploiting such a window of opportunity requires awareness that
both the objective and subjective conditions for a political initiative on the single
market are much more complex than at the time of Jacques Delors' initiative of
1985.

The single market itself is today part of a context, which has dramatically
changed. In turn, the actors to be involved in the initiative – Europe's policy
makers and stakeholders – are more diverse and present a wider range of
preferences and interests.

Based on a very extensive consultation process, the report draws a map of the
expectations and concerns surrounding the single market. It identifies different
concerns over time (before the economic crisis, during the crisis, following the
crisis and in the long term), by areas of concern (consumers', citizens', social,
environmental and business concerns) and by Member States. In this respect, the
report describes the different approaches to the single market that can be
identified in four clusters of Member States: continental social-market economy
countries, Anglo-Saxon countries, Central and Eastern European countries,
Nordic countries.

Reconciling these widespread and diverse positions around an agenda for the
relaunch of the single market is both necessary and possible. It is necessary
because achieving a deep and efficient single market is a key factor determining
the EU's overall macroeconomic performance. It is particularly crucial for the
solidity of the euro and for monetary union to deliver the promised economic
benefits. It is possible, provided a substantial and proactive political investment
is made, based on a carefully defined new strategy.

The report thus proposes a new strategy to safeguard the single market from the
risk of economic nationalism, to extend it into new areas key for Europe's
growth and to build an adequate degree of consensus around it.

Such a new strategy has to be comprehensive. Many policies traditionally not
regarded as policies for the single market have to be integrated into a single
market strategic objective. The comprehensive approach consists of three broad
sets of initiatives:

1. Initiatives to build a

stronger

single market;

2. Initiatives to build

consensus

on a stronger single market;

3. Initiatives to

deliver

a stronger single market.

If consensus is not generated, it is unlikely that the initiatives to build a stronger
single market could ever be adopted and implemented. Even if they were, their
sustainability over time and their ability to withstand "bad weather" in economic
or political conditions affecting the EU would be in doubt.

In turn, a stronger single market – which openly seeks the consensus necessary
for its construction and rules out the option of acquiescing to discontent by
softening enforcement – does need strengthened delivery, enforcement and
governance.

Several initiatives to build a stronger single market are presented in chapter 2.
These initiatives aim at removing the remaining bottlenecks and plugging the
gaps and missing links that hamper innovation and dampen growth potential in
the single market. They are grouped in clusters of recommendations concerning:

- ensuring better functioning of the single market in the perspective of citizens,
consumers and SMEs;

- creating a digital single market;

- exploiting the potential of the single market to support green growth and
Europe's transition to a low-carbon, resource efficient economy;

- reaping the full benefits of the single market for goods;

- fully exploiting the potential of the single market for services;

- ensuring geographical labour mobility in the single market.

- establishing the "physical" infrastructure for the single market;

Pointing to new initiatives is key to generate new momentum, but may be not
sufficient to create the political climate for sustainable action. Chapter 3 presents
the initiatives to address the concerns identified through the consultation and
thus build consensus on a stronger single market. They are cast in the context of
the reference in the Lisbon Treaty to "a highly competitive social market
economy". These initiatives deal in particular with the following problems:

- the conciliation between economic freedoms in the single market and workers'
rights, following the Viking, Laval and other rulings of the European Court of
Justice;

- the place of social services within the single market;

- the integration of EU's policy goals in public procurement policy;

- how to use tax coordination to safeguard national tax sovereignty as market
integration proceeds;

- the balancing of competitiveness and cohesion within the single market
through regional development policies;

- the potential for an active industrial policy based on sound competition and
state aid policies;

- how to ensure that the single market remains open, but not disarmed, vis-à-vis
competitors at a global level.

In chapter 4, several recommendations are formulated to step up the tools
needed to deliver the relaunch of the single market. Two aspects are discussed:

- ensuring light but effective regulation in the single market;

- reinforcing enforcement, by establishing a coherent system in which
infringement actions, informal problem solving mechanisms and private
enforcement form a seamless web of remedies against breaches of EU law.

The new comprehensive strategy outlined above should be seen as a "package
deal", in which Member States with the different cultural traditions, concerns
and political preferences could each find elements of appeal important enough to
justify some concessions, relative to their past positions.

In particular, Member States with a tradition as social market economies could
be more prepared to a new commitment on fully embracing competition and the
single market, including a plan with deadlines on putting in place the single
market in areas where it is still lacking, if Member States in the Anglo-saxon
tradition show readiness to address some social concerns through targeted
measures, including forms of tax coordination and cooperation, while there is no
need to pursue tax harmonisation as such.

The new Member States, who definitely support a serious programme to
strengthen the single market, including in the areas of infrastructure and
cohesion, might in turn become more open on forms of tax coordination.

The report underlines that the economic, fiscal and social legacy of the crisis
enhances the rationale for reinforcing the single market. Given the very limited

1.1. Turning "yesterday's business" into a key political priority

"Nobody can fall in love with the single market", used to say Jacques Delors.
That the single market is not loved, is normal and even reassuring. A market is
an instrument, not an end in itself. When the market is regarded as a superior
entity, as if it were always able to deliver efficiently and did not need
appropriate regulation and rigorous supervision, dangers are likely to lie ahead,
as shown by the financial crisis. It was forgotten by many that the market "is a
good servant but a bad master".

Yet the single market is a crucial servant for the European Union. First, it is a
necessary – though not sufficient - condition for a good performance of the
European

economy

, just as well-functioning domestic markets are for national

economies. Secondly, and even more importantly, a robust single market is key
to the overall health of the European

Union

, because it represents the very

foundation of the integration project.

But today the single market not only is not loved. It is seen by many Europeans
– citizens as well as political leaders – with suspicion, fear and sometimes open
hostility.

Two trends have been visible for a number of years: an "integration fatigue",
eroding the appetite for a

single

market; and, more recently, a "market fatigue",

with a reduced confidence in the role of the

market

. Reinforcing each other,

these trends have been undermining the acceptance, in each of its two
components, of the single market.

As this drift in public opinion was taking place, European and national policy-
makers focused on other important priorities, such as institutional reform and the
Lisbon strategy. "The internal market programme – warned Wim Kok in 2005 –
is felt to be yesterday's business and does not receive the priority it should. This
is a fatal policy error".

When the financial and then economic crisis erupted, the Barroso I Commission
was able, withstanding considerable pressures, to ensure enforcement of the
rules and to prevent fragmentation of the single market, while allowing a degree
of flexibility in coping with emergency situations.

This proved once again, under unprecedented strains, the merits of an
enforcement system which is solidly rooted in the community method and
entrusted to the Commission as the guardian of the Treaties, under the control of
the European Court of Justice. The enforcement system of the Stability and
Growth Pact, more intergovernmental by nature, has not proven equally

effective, not only during the crisis – when some leeway may well have had
acceptable macroeconomic justifications – but even before, in the "good" years.

After having made use of the Commission's single market enforcement powers
to counter the risks of disintegration brought about by the crisis, President
Barroso decided to go one step further. In his "Political guidelines for the new
Commission" of September 2009, he identified the single market as a key
strategic objective to be pursued with renewed political determination. He also
stated his intention that the Commission should lead this process, fully engaging
the Member States, the European Parliament and all stakeholders.

In view of obtaining inputs for such initiative, in October 2009 he commissioned
this report. The report aims at identifying whether, and how, the single market
may be turned from a perception of being "yesterday's business" into a key
political priority, to meet the growing challenges of European integration.

1.2. The single market as a strategic objective: 1985 and 2010

Exactly 25 years ago Jacques Delors, then President of the Commission,
launched with Lord Cockfield, Vice President and Commissioner for the internal
market, the single market project with the White Paper on

"Completing the

Internal Market" for the European Council of June 1985, held in Milan.

The

Commission asked "the European Council to pledge itself to completion of a
fully unified internal market by 1992 and to approve the necessary programme
together with a realistic and binding timetable". The European Council did so.

A major effort was then undertaken by European institutions, Member States,
economic agents and, by the end of 1992, much of what had been planned was
actually adopted and to a large extent, though by no means completely,
implemented. Getting ready for the advent of the single market proved a key
driver for investment, restructuring and legislative modernization. More deeply,
there was a change in attitude. Policy makers and economic agents alike felt the
pressure to think and act in a wider framework, as regards both

time

(in 1985

they started to make plans for "1992", as the project was called) and

space

(they

wanted to get ready for Europe-wide competition). They reacted to this

This report uses the expression "single market", except when quoting documents, which refer to the "internal

market". From a conceptual and communication point of view, "single" seems more appropriate than "internal".
Firstly, citizens of any EU country are likely to understand the term "internal market" as referring to their own
domestic market, rather than the EU-wide market. Secondly, when used with non-European interlocutors, the
expression European "internal market" may convey a flavour of closure, of "fortress Europe", that in general is
far from reality and that it is not in the EU's interest to nurture. Thirdly, "single" is a more committing
description. In fact, the market for any particular good or service within the EU is "internal" by definition, but
requires actions by policy makers and market participants, if it is to be really "single", rather than fragmented.

challenge with enthusiasm. This helped the European economy to recover from
the "eurosclerosis" of the previous years.

After 1992, the single market has certainly not been left unattended. In addition
to a great number of specific initiatives to consolidate the achievements of
"1992", and to apply the principles of the single market to newly emerging
activities in different industries, there have been two broader policy initiatives,
the "Single Market Action Plan", launched in June 1997, and the "Financial
Services Action Plan", launched in May 1999. There has also been a continuous
commitment of competition policy, to ensure that the market in the EU be not
only single, but also working under conditions of vigorous competition.

Yet, towards the end of the Nineties the focus on the single market was not as
strong as before. Two requirements for an effective and sustainable single
market did not receive the attention they deserved.

First, the 1985 White Paper itself had clearly indicated that "the objective of
completing the internal market has three aspects: […] the welding together of
the […] markets of the Member States into one

single

market; […] ensuring that

this single market is also an

expanding

market; […] ensuring that the market is

flexible."

The White Paper admitted that it was directed primarily to the first of

the three objectives, but that achieving the other two was equally crucial.
Indeed, some of the difficulties encountered by the single market in recent years
can be traced not only to the still incomplete "welding together" of the national
markets, but also to the unfinished business on the other two fronts of the
"completion" in the full sense. In spite of some progress achieved, for example,
as regards Trans-European Networks and the Lisbon strategy, substantial efforts
remain to be done on these accompanying policies, which in reality are integral
parts of putting in place a satisfactory single market.

Secondly, excessive reliance by some Member States on the self-regulating
abilities of financial markets resulted in delays and inadequacies in designing
and putting in place the appropriate regulatory and supervisory frameworks to
accompany effectively the process of financial liberalization and of creation of
the single market for financial services. This contributed to the fragility of this
important component of the single market.

While the consequences of neglecting the two requirements above would have
become visible only a few years later, there was, at the turn of the century, a
sense of complacency, as if the single market had really been "completed" and
could thus be put to rest, as a political priority. In addition, there was
undoubtedly the need to concentrate the EU's political energy on other

challenging building blocks of the European construction: monetary union,
enlargement, institutional reform.

With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in January 2010, all three building
blocks are finally in place. There is no reason that they should continue to
deflect an overwhelming proportion of political attention away from the single
market. In fact, two of them – monetary union and enlargement – seem rather to
be calling the single market back on the stage.

The weaknesses in monetary union, exposed by the Greek crisis, have their
immediate manifestations in the reactions of financial markets to public finance
disequilibria. However, if we look at the underlying causes of such disequilibria,
one of them is certainly the inadequate competitiveness of the real economy. In
turn this is largely due to the fact that corporatism and rent-seeking, both in the
public and private sectors, still keep the domestic economy partly sheltered from
the full play of the single market and competition, thus preventing the needed
improvements in overall productivity. This situation, by no means exclusive of
Greece, calls for more single market, i.e. a strengthening of the economic leg of
Economic and Monetary Union, if monetary union and the euro are to be solid
and deliver the expected economic benefits.

Enlargement, too, calls – and, at the same time, allows – for a renewed focus on
the single market.

First, both the new Member States and the EU as a whole have benefited from
enlargement, also in economic terms. But should there be a widespread tendency
towards renationalization of policies and business strategies, as was seen during
the crisis, the economies of new Member States would be the first ones to suffer.

Secondly, an effort must be made to regain full confidence in an enlarged single
market by the public opinions of old Member States, which had been
inadequately prepared to cope with this major change.

Thirdly, most new Member States have a political orientation, which appears to
be more strongly in favour of the single market and competition than it now
seems to be the case for some of the Member States that had been at the
forefront of economic integration in the past decades. For a strategy to relaunch
the single market, it is crucial to make the most of the support and impulsion
that can be provided by the newer members of the EU.

In view of the above circumstances, it might now become more possible than in
the last twenty years to focus the minds and will of European policy makers on
the challenges confronting the single market. But this will require awareness that

both the objective and subjective conditions for a strategic initiative on the
single market are more complex than at the time of Jacques Delors' initiative of
1985.

The object of the initiative – the single market – is today part of a context, which
has dramatically changed. In turn, the subjects to be involved in the initiative –
Europe's policy makers and stakeholders – are themselves a vastly more
articulated set of agents. No initiative could reasonably be launched without
previously consulting them in depth, against the background of the new context.

The changes in the context are individually well known, but it is sometimes
neglected how profoundly their combined action has changed the way of
operating of the single market and what citizens and business expect from it. It
will be sufficient to list the key changes, all of which intervened in the 25 years
since the White Paper.

Some changes took place well beyond Europe:

- Globalization and the emergence of new economic powers;
- The technological revolution, triggered in particular by Information and
Communication Technology;
- The growing importance of services in the economy;
- The growing awareness of environmental and climate-change challenges.

Besides having to respond to these global changes, Europe's single market has
had to cope with a number of deep transformations, which were specific to
Europe:

- The collapse of the Soviet block, hence of a threat that had been a key driver of
integration;
- Enlargement, from 10 to 27 Member States;
- Much greater economic diversity, also linked to enlargement;
- Introduction of a single currency, now shared by 16 Member States;
- Increase in migrations and in cultural diversity;
- Open rejection of further (or even existing) EU integration, through referenda
in several Member States;
- Explicit clarification of the limits of acceptability, by one Member State, of
further EU integration in the future (ruling of the German Federal Constitutional
Court of July 2009);
- Lisbon Treaty: "The Union […] shall work for […] sustainable development
[and] a highly competitive social market economy" (article 3, Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union).

Each of these changes, let alone their combined play, has important institutional,
economic and political implications on the nature and the functioning of the
single market. No systematic review of policies for the single market, in the
light of all these changes, has yet been undertaken. This report, while having
policy objectives rather than analytical ambitions, will try to take these
transformational changes well into consideration. If this were not done, there
would be the risk of coming up with recommendations that might be appropriate
for the single market of the past, not for the challenges of the future.

1.3. Listening to Europeans

Before launching the single market project with the 1985 White Paper, Jacques
Delors had prepared the initiative through a "tour des capitales" of the then 10
Member States, plus Spain and Portugal who were soon to join. Today the
European Union is not only larger and more diverse, with its 27 Member States,
but also more complex in its articulation, with a much broader involvement of
stakeholders and civil society.

In line with the new landscape, the drafting of this report was preceded by a very
extensive process of formal and informal consultations. Therefore, the analysis
and recommendations herewith submitted to the President of the European
Commission, while engaging the sole responsibility of the author, reflect the
outcome of what can be considered an exploratory mission that he conducted at
the request of the President.

The exploration, carried out between November 2009 and April 2010, has dealt
with the perceptions on the single market, its strengths and shortcomings, the
measures that could improve and deepen the single market while addressing the
concerns surrounding it, the policy strategies that might facilitate the adoption of
such measures. It has involved extensively the various stakeholders of the single
market and groups in civil society, as well as representatives of political
institutions.

At the top of EU institutions, the author had the privilege to draw on the views
of the Presidents of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek and of the European
Council, Herman Van Rompuy In addition, he had of course the benefit of
several discussions with the President of the European Commission, José
Manuel Barroso. He also benefitted from exchanges of views with the President
of the European Central Bank Jean-Claude Trichet, the President of the
European Investment Bank Philippe Maystadt and the European Ombudsman
Nikiforos Diamandouros.

At the European Parliament, the consultation has involved separately the
following political groups: European People's Party, Progressive Alliance of
Socialists and Democrats, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats, Greens/European
Free Alliance, European Conservatives and Reformists, European United Left-
Nordic Green Left. There have also been hearings and debates with the Internal
Market and Consumer Protection Committee, the Economic and Monetary
Affairs Committee on the occasion of its meeting with National Parliaments, and
the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis. The
Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee has prepared an own-
initiative report, intended as the Parliament's contribution to the present report.
This initiative has been much appreciated and has contributed significantly to
the preparation of the present report. A specific joint consultation was also held
with all the rapporteurs of the Parliament on the package on financial
supervision currently undergoing the legislative process.

With the Council, the consultation has taken the form of exchanges of views
first, at the initiative of the Swedish Presidency, with the Ambassadors at the
Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper); then, at the initiative of the
Spanish Presidency, with the Ministers at the Ecofin Council and at the
Competitiveness Council. A dialogue has been opened with the current Spanish
Presidency as well as, in view of future initiatives on the single market, with the
Presidencies that will follow in the next two years.

As regards Member States, the dialogue has involved all of them in the context
of the Council, as described above. In addition there have been bilateral
consultations, at their request, with governments of most Member States, either
in their respective capitals or in Brussels. The interlocutors have been typically
the Ministers who participate in the Ecofin and the Competitiveness Council. In
a few cases, there were meetings also with Heads of States and Governments.

The author also had the benefit of exchanges of views with Felipe Gonzalez,
Chairman, and the other fellow members of the Reflection group on the future of
Europe, on which he served at the request of the European Council

. He also

consulted a small number of personalities who, although currently not holding
official positions in EU institutions or Member States, contributed significantly
to the advancement of the European construction and in particular of economic
integration, such as Giuliano Amato, Georges Berthoin

, Leon Brittan, Etienne

Davignon, Jacques Delors, Joschka Fischer, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Wim
Kok, Karl Lamers, Pascal Lamy, Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Chris Patten,
Romano Prodi, Peter Sutherland and Antonio Vitorino.

There is full coherence between the approach taken on the single market in the Gonzalez Report and the one

developed more extensively in the present report.

Georges Berthoin held, amongst others, the position of Head of cabinet of Jean Monnet.

Great attention has been devoted to the consultation of the wide variety of
stakeholders of the single market and groups in civil society which take an
interest in the single market and more broadly in European integration. This has
been done at the level of their respective European bodies in Brussels and at the
national level on the occasion of visits to Member States.

In this context, numerous exchanges of views have taken place in particular with
consumers associations, business organizations, trade-union bodies. In an effort
to understand the converging positions, as well as the remaining divergences
between the social partners on some critical issues, a joint meeting has also been
organized with Business Europe and the European Trade Union Confederation.

Numerous submissions have been received. Many of them deal with sectoral
issues, sometimes highly specific. It is in the nature of the single market to be
the playing field for a great multitude of industries and activities. Each has its
own problems and warrants specific policy attention. It is important that the
European institutions should listen to, and work on, all the relevant sectoral
dimensions. This report, however, aims at capturing the broad picture of the
single market today and to suggest a comprehensive strategy for its relaunch. To
do so, it was necessary to focus on a relatively small number of key issues.
While some stakeholders may not see their submissions explicitly followed up,
each has contributed to shaping the positions presented in this report. Similarly,
each stakeholder stands to benefit if the single market at large is fortified and
developed.

Other stakeholders that have been consulted include environmental groups,
providers of services of general interest, organizations of regions and
municipalities, associations working in the social field, family organizations and
networks of non-governmental organizations.

Particular attention has been devoted to drawing on the expertise of think-tanks
working on European policy issues, both in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe,
and of individual academics. This has been done through bilateral meetings and
through participation in conferences and workshops, some of them especially
organized to elicit views on the topic of this report.

Although it is unlikely that any institution or person consulted would fully
identify with each component of the strategy recommended in this report, the
author is confident that the exploratory mission carried out at the request of
President Barroso may have paved the way for a rather wide basis of consensus
on a number of key points. It is hoped that such platform might facilitate the
Commission's task of launching a promising strategic initiative.

1.4. Less popular than ever, more needed than ever

An uncomfortable feature of the single market today emerges prominently from
the consultations, although it is seldom brought out explicitly: the single market
is less popular than ever, yet it is more needed than ever. Highlighting this
contrast will perhaps be considered political incorrect. But only by addressing it
openly will it be possible to work for a genuine and sustainable relaunch of the
single market.

In the extremely diverse prism of positions, three different groups may be
identified.

a. Radical critics

Some interlocutors confine themselves to the expression of concerns: they see
the single market as a source of tensions, dislocations and fears. They do not
want a relaunch of the single market. They would rather see less economic
integration and perhaps a lesser role for markets in general in our societies.

b. Conditional supporters

A vast majority of Member States, political groups and stakeholders, on the
contrary, do regard – to different degrees - the single market as an important
ingredient for the economic advancement of Europe. At the same time, they do
have concerns, for one or both of the following reasons. They themselves
consider the single market to be insufficiently mindful of other objectives (for
example, social or environmental) and would support a relaunch only if
accompanied by some reorientation. Even when they do not share those
concerns, they recognize that they are widespread across Europe. Therefore,
they believe that a relaunch of the single market is likely to meet serious
opposition unless it addresses such concerns.

c. Unwavering supporters

Finally, both among the Member States and the stakeholders, there is a small
core of strong and unwavering advocates of the single market. They of course
fully support the idea of a relaunch. Their support is a precious ingredient for a
political initiative. At the same time, their advocacy risks being less effective
than they would like, because they do not seem to be fully aware of the concerns
that, in many other countries or contexts, have reduced the acceptance of the
single market

In constructing, and then promoting, a new strategy for the single market it will
be necessary to engage with each of these three positions.

The case for the single market needs to be made afresh, in a context that is
profoundly different from the one in which the project was launched 25 years
ago. Globalization was not created by the European single market. But the single
market, if it is strengthened to resist nationalism and adjourned to be more
consistent with other concerns and policy objectives, is the best response to
globalization. With Economic Union, the economic, social and environmental
welfare of European citizens can be defended better than with economic
disintegration and purely national measures. This does not exclude that the
external dimension of the single market – to keep it open, but not disarmed –
may warrant further consideration, as will be done in this report.

Making the case for the single market in an updated and non-dogmatic way
might induce some of the "radical critics" to a partial reconsideration. It should
also reinforce the conviction in the "conditional supporters". Member States,
political groups and stakeholders in the latter category – which is the largest,
though considerably heterogeneous – are likely to enhance their support for a
relaunch of the single market if they see it address their concerns.

The key political consideration will then be how to address these concerns in an
explicit and focused way in order to make a relaunch of the single market more
widely accepted, while not softening or diluting it.

Strategically, the question will be how to gain the support of the "conditional
supporters" and yet retain the support of the "unwavering supporters". This
requires that the latter be, first, made fully aware of the threats confronting the
single market today, let alone its relaunch; then, persuaded that the
"concessions" included in a comprehensive strategy to allow a relaunch to go
through, are not such as to undermine the efficiency of the single market in
support of a competitive European economy.

1.5. Does the single market really need consensus?

Before proceeding, a legitimate question may be raised: is it really necessary to
have consensus, and if so to what extent, in order to have a strong single market
and to further develop it? Is not the single market an area of clear Community
competence, with the Commission entrusted with the function of enforcing the
rules and the powers to do it?

A distinction must be made between the enforcement of existing rules and the
adoption of new rules or, more broadly, policy initiatives to relaunch and
develop the single market.

As regards enforcement, the Commission is indeed entrusted with a set of
instruments that it has the right, and the duty, to use as guardian of the Treaties,
under the sole control of the European Court of Justice and with no need for
consensus by anybody else.

It is important, however, that enforcement policies, as well as specific
enforcement decisions, be conducted and presented in such a way as to generate
wide understanding and even consensus. The more vigorous is enforcement, as
is needed to ensure a competitive single market, the more it is necessary to
explain it persuasively, so as to avoid backlashes against the EU generally and
the single market specifically.

As for the adoption of new rules or other policy initiatives to relaunch the single
market – including perhaps the granting of further and more effective
enforcement powers – consensus will obviously be required. The degree of
consensus necessary will depend on the decision-making rules foreseen by the
Treaties for the different policy areas. Support by the European Parliament and
by the Council will be essential. As far as the Council is concerned, unanimity
may be required in some areas, while in others qualified majority will be
sufficient.

Consensus building – fully engaging the European Parliament, Member States,
the Council, stakeholders - will thus be a crucial component of a new strategy
for the single market. The effort to generate consensus will have to show full
awareness of the main concerns surrounding the single market today. These
concerns are often shared, to some extent, even by those Member States,
political groups and stakeholders who regard the single market as a key asset of
Europe and would like to see it strengthened.

1.6. Identifying the concerns

The concerns surrounding the single market may be examined under three
different perspectives: over time, by areas of concern and across Member States.
The analysis below, though by no means exhaustive, can be helpful in
designing a politically realistic strategy for the single market.

a. Concerns over time

a.1. Before the crisis

Well before the crisis erupted in 2008, a certain "integration fatigue" had
become visible. On one hand, economic and political establishments became
reluctant to see the logic of the single market go deeper into the heart of
economic power at the national level. Hence, for example, the difficult process -
and modest result - as regards the introduction of the take-over directive; the
resistance opposed to the enforcement of free movement of capital in the area of
"golden shares" and other special rights; some attempts to block cross-border
acquisitions.

On the other hand, in different segments of society, concerns emerged on some
even more basic aspects of the single market, such as free movement of people
or services. It was as if, all of a sudden, principles that had been introduced half
a century before by the Treaty of Rome, and had been largely practiced ever
since, had become sources of tensions and anxieties, in particular in the context
of the accession of 12 new Member States in 2004 and 2007. In fact, that
enlargement was prepared very effectively in all respects, except for the public
opinions in the old Member States. The perception of an imminent new reality -
a single market having within itself an unprecedented degree of diversity -
created fears that had a role in alienating portions of public opinion, as shown
most vividly by the outcome of the French and Dutch referenda of 2005.

a.2. During the crisis

During the crisis, the single market came under risk for a different reason, the
tendency to seek emergency solutions at the national level, which characterized
many governments but also parts of the business community and, in particular,
of the financial services industry under stress. The determined enforcement
policy of the Commission, mentioned in paragraph 1 above, and a shared sense
of responsibility among Member States allowed the single market to survive
virtually unscathed. Yet, the years 2008 and 2009, provided a worrying reminder
of the very serious problems into which the single market may run, in case of a
severe and prolonged crisis. Although very solidly planted in the legal system
and in the economy, the single market is not yet as rooted in mindsets – and as
endowed with powers and mechanisms for crisis-management – as it would be
necessary for it to be fully resilient and safely beyond the "point of no return"
even in a worst-case scenario.

a.3. Following the crisis

Following the crisis, a certain "market fatigue" has intervened. Support for the
market economy has become less broad and less deep than it had been since the
Eighties. The limits to what the market can deliver have become more visible.
The market is now seen by many as unfair, having generated unacceptable
inequalities; and inefficient, having attracted massive resources into financial
activities whose contribution to the economy is questioned. This "market
fatigue" adds to the "integration fatigue" noted above. At the time of the 1985
White Paper, and for the following twenty years, it was those

opposing

the

advances of the market, of competition, of integration, who were forced on the
defensive. Now, and presumably for a number of years to come, it is rather those
who want to

promote

more market, more competition, more integration, who

will have to bear the "burden of the proof" in the public opinion and policy
arenas. The "product" which is promoted – for example more single market, as
in this report – will have to be more genuinely responsive to the concerns that
the crisis has amplified. Equally, the way of promoting it will have to become
much more convincing, as the advocacy has now to lean against the wind, not
with the wind as until recently.

Good-faith cooperation between Member States and European institutions will
be particularly important, so as to avoid that a third fatigue which has emerged
since several years - the "reform fatigue" generated by structural reforms - is
also imputed by public opinions to the EU and its single market, whereas the
reforms are first and foremost in each country's interest.

a.4. In the longer-term

Also in the longer-term, even when the crisis and its cultural impact will have
been absorbed, it is likely that the ground for more market-based integration will
be less fertile than it has been since the beginning of European integration. This
topic goes well beyond the scope of the present report. But the future of the
single market, and of integration more broadly, will have to reckon with the
trend – visible in many old and new Member States alike – of more fragmented
electoral landscapes, with a relative decline of the larger parties that have been
traditionally supporting European integration, the emergence on the right as well
as on the left of the political spectrum of smaller but growing parties which have
in common a very critical stance on integration, be it global or European. Even
the larger pro-EU parties find it increasingly difficult, in competing for the
electorates, to stick to their vision and often are induced to take less forwarding
positions on the benefits of integration.

The single market can be the first victim of this upcoming political scenario, if it
is seen as the "blind aggressor" of localism and its traditional values. But it can
also become - if properly reconfigured so as to bring real, visible, material and
non-material benefits to citizens, while addressing the concerns and fears that
they often associate with the market – a key component in a broader political
project aimed at reconciling citizens with Europe.

b. Concerns by area

b.1. Rent-seekers' concerns

To the extent that the single market brings openness and competition, it
obviously raises the concern, and often the vigorous opposition, of those who
see their situation of rent eroded by it. This is inevitable and even an indication
that the process is helpful for economic growth, through greater efficiency, and
often for social progress as well. Elimination of protections for insiders allows
the rest of society not to be "taxed" by the rent-seekers and permits outsiders,
often the younger and the less privileged, to get better chances economically and
socially. There is, however, the question of how to minimize the hijacking of
public opinion and politicians by these special-interests groups against the single
market and, more broadly, the EU as a vector of competition and change.

b.2 Consumers' concerns

Consumers are great beneficiaries of the single market. There are, however,
many cases where benefits are late to materialize because the single market has
been introduced but there is still insufficient competition, or because access to
the single market is precluded or difficult, or because there is inadequate
consumer protection. Like for other concerns listed below, in this paragraph the
concerns are mentioned concisely, so as to allow the overall picture to emerge.
They will be examined more closely in subsequent chapters, where proposals are
made to tackle them.

b.3. Citizens' concerns

The freedoms that are brought, in principle, by the single market have also non-
economic dimensions, that citizens of the EU want to be able to enjoy. But the
exercise of these rights is often very problematic, sometimes simply precluded.
Besides causing justified frustration, these situations put the single market in a
bad light. Citizens may see here a confirmation of their often held – no matter
whether unfounded – conviction that the single market cannot really be actively
used by them, whereas they feel that they are passively subject to the threats it
brings with it.

b.4. Social concerns

This is a very diverse set of concerns. Some have to do specifically with labour
issues, others with dissatisfaction concerning inequalities. Although the single
market has significantly contributed over time both to job-creation and to
improving the absolute and relative conditions of the less advanced Member
States and regions, there is a widespread – though normally misplaced -
perception that restructurings and delocalisation of companies are in some way
related to insufficient protection granted by the EU vis-à-vis the rest of the
world or to the actual inducement to intra-EU relocations as an effect of the
single market.

Also, some fear that others – in an enlarged EU with still vastly diverging
standards of living – may, through free movement of labour or services or
through posted workers, threaten their own position in the labour market and
even some fundamental workers' rights.

Finally, it is undeniable that the single market, by fostering economic
integration, does contribute to creating, at least temporarily, winners and losers,
in the context of a positive overall process of growth and job-creation. Member
States, through their social policies, try in various ways to compensate the losers
financially and to retrain them for active participation in the process. But the
budgetary means to enact redistribution policies may be eroded by some
pronounced forms of tax competition, which in addition tilt the tax burden to the
advantage of the more mobile tax bases, like capital income or very high
professional incomes, and to the disadvantage of less mobile bases, like labour
income, unskilled labour income in particular.

Hence some tensions between market integration and social objectives. These
are even more vividly exposed, now that the Lisbon Treaty has introduced, even
formally, the objective of achieving a "highly competitive social market
economy". If the

market

and the

social

components do not find an appropriate

reconciliation, something has to give in. Following the crisis, with the declining
appetite for the market and the increasing concern about inequalities, it is by no
means clear that it would be the market, i.e. the single market, to prevail.

A distinct category of social concerns has to do with services of general
economic interest and the real or perceived threats posed to them by the single
market.

b.5. Environmental concerns

These concerns pertain to the broad question of whether the single market, as
currently legislated and implemented, can provide adequate responses to the
policy objectives of the EU in terms of environment, fight against climate
change and resource efficiency. This is again an interface, between sustainability
and the single market, that is highlighted by the Lisbon Treaty. Relative to the
social concerns surrounding the single market, environmental concerns are of
course more recent but are making rapid inroads in the policy debate. While the
objective of green growth involves a wide spectrum of EU and Member States'
policies, there is certainly a specific dimension regarding the structure and way
of functioning of the single market. Intellectually and politically, this is a
relatively new ground, warranting serious investment.

b.6. Business concerns

Business, which has always tended to be the strongest promoter and engine of
the single market, still keeps a keen interest in its further development. But also
the business community has its concerns. Naturally enough, they tend to differ
by industry and size of companies. The consultation preparing this report has
allowed consideration of numerous different perspectives, many of which have
to some extent informed the views presented in the subsequent chapters (as has
been the case for the consultations held with other stakeholders). For the
purpose of mapping the concerns at this big-picture level, three broad concerns
can be singled out.

Across industry lines, business is unhappy with the many remaining obstacles in
terms of fragmentation and bottlenecks. There is a strong demand for more
effective level playing field, for prompter enforcement, for resolute advances in
areas, like the digital economy, where the single market does not yet exist.

There is also, in particular with the SMEs but not only, a demand for
simplification and less burdensome regulation, although the progress made in
these respects is not denied.

At the other end of the spectrum, among large companies acting globally there
tends to be a concern about the external dimension of the single market, with the
EU being seen as not sufficiently forceful in pressing for market access in some
key countries and to some extent penalizing its own companies as a consequence
of a heavier regulatory environment – including state aid control – than is
common elsewhere.

It is also worth mentioning that the main business organizations, although of
course promoting the business community's vision of the single market, show
increasing awareness of the need to address the concerns of other stakeholders,
as summarized above, if the single market is to be able to withstand the
temptations of economic nationalism and to sustainably achieve the strong
advances that are deemed necessary.

c. Concerns across Member States

The concerns outlined above, though rather widespread, are not uniformly
distributed across Member States. In view of identifying a space for a potential
forward-looking deal, it may be interesting to see how the perspectives diverge
among groups of Member States which to some extent have a shared vision of
the single market, resulting from their cultural traditions, even more than from
the political majority currently in power. Needless to say, this exercise must be
taken for what it is, i.e. a first - but perhaps not unhelpful - approximation.

c.1

Continental social-market economy countries

In these countries there tends to be a less central role attributed to the consumer
as the intended primary beneficiary of the single market, than is the case for
example in the Anglo-saxon countries. The position of the worker and of the
entrepreneur tend to be seen as deserving a perhaps higher priority.
Manufacturing, more than services, is regarded as a particularly important
component of the productive structure. Greater attention is given to social
concerns in relation to the effects of market processes. Services of general
economic interest are considered to be a key sphere for broad social policy, at
the national, regional and local level.

Competition policy and particularly state-aid control have often been viewed
more critically than in Member States attributable to the other groups. Similarly,
enforcement of single market rules has not always been welcomed.

Whereas these Member States had long been the engines of market integration
in Europe, that role was subsequently taken by the Anglo-saxon countries. The
less enthusiastic stance on the single market and competition by the social-
market economy countries has been determined to some extent by their social
concerns. Attempts to temper the social effects of single market integration, for
example through some coordination of tax policies, met with the resistance in
particular of the Anglo-saxon countries.

c.2. Anglo-saxon countries

The approach of the Anglo-saxon Member States has traditionally been rather
specular to the one described above for the continental social market economies.
Consumer welfare as guiding principle of economic policy; strong favour for
market opening and vigorous competition policy; acceptance of market-driven
changes in the structure of the economy without concern for the shift from
manufacturing to services, financial services in particular; indifference, in most
cases, for the transfer of control of companies in foreign hands, have been
features observed over the last two decades in Anglo-saxon countries. Social
concerns have of course not been absent, but have been catered to a large extent
via policies aimed at enhancing employability coupled with reliance on market-
based growth.

Consistently with this approach, when it comes to shaping EU policies the
Anglo-saxon Member States have been a driving force for the single market,
competition policy, encouragement of economic reforms at Member States'
level, light regulation; while they have not been sympathetic to the idea that the
EU might become more active in terms of social policies, tax coordination,
industrial policy or protection of services of general economic interest.

c.3. New Member States

The political culture prevailing in the new Member States and the need to make
up for decades of inefficient management of the economy tend to make them
strong advocates of the market and competition, giving priority to growth over
heavy social protection. Being new and, in most cases, not large Member States,
they greatly value the vigorous enforcement of single market and competition
rules done by the European Commission, as a guarantee of equal treatment
relative to the larger and economically more powerful old Member States. Their
appetite for all the above makes of the new Member States a remarkable
potential political engine of further development of the single market, at a time
when, on the one hand, some of the Continental social market economies have
become less enthusiastic about it and, on the other hand, the financial crisis has
made the Anglo-saxon countries less persuasive, at least for a while,

in their

market advocacy.

The new Member States have their own specific priorities for the improvement
of the single market, as in the areas of free movement of labour and of services,
infrastructures for a genuine "physical" single market, cohesion policies. They
have also practiced, in many cases, bold policies of tax competition. While
insisting on their merits in early stages of membership of the EU, some of them
seem to be open to now view those policies in a broader perspective. The current

budgetary difficulties following the crisis and the possibility of obtaining a more
satisfactory single market and cohesion context if some moderation is exercised
in the tax area, may offer ground for some policy reorientation.

c.4. Nordic countries

Nordic countries, in recent years, have seen their economic and social model
often praised by observers from other countries and international organizations.
In fact, they combine rather effectively market opening and competition, on one
hand, and social protection based more on safety nets for individual workers
than on the preservation of specific jobs made obsolete by technological and
economic change (

flexi-curity

), on the other.

At the same time, they provide an illustration that, while tax consideration
obviously play a role in determining an economy's competitiveness and ability
to attract investments, they are by no means the exclusive or indeed the main
factor. What the public sector does with tax revenues, especially in terms of
providing good education and supporting research and development, plays an
equally, if not more important, role.

If the single market – through the new strategy that this report aims at
developing – is at the same time strengthened in terms of openness and
competition and made more reassuring as regards the social and environmental
dimensions, then the gap between the Nordic countries and other parts of the EU
would be somewhat reduced.

1.7. Addressing the concerns

Given the widespread and diverse concerns surrounding the single market –
which are more likely to increase rather than decrease in the longer term - two
alternative responses can be conceived, a defensive option and a proactive
option.

a. Defensive option

The defensive option would consist in, first of all, not discussing the concerns
too openly, for fear that this might itself contribute to eroding confidence in the
single market.

Secondly, enforcement of the existing rules should of course go on. To the
extent that highly sensitive cases arise, enforcement policies should try to
balance the required vigour with the need to avoid too harsh confrontations with
Member States.

Thirdly, bold initiatives to relaunch and extend the single market would be
viewed with some caution, in view of the likely oppositions fed by the
widespread concerns identified above and in order not to exacerbate them.

b. Proactive option

The proactive option would seek to achieve a substantial strengthening of the
single market, through: an even more robust enforcement system to cope with
threats of economic nationalism that are unlikely to disappear and with
distortions of competition caused by governments and companies; an extension
of the single market to areas where it is insufficiently developed; a deeper
leveraging on the single market as a key condition for Economic and Monetary
Union to be sustainable and deliver the promised benefits.

The pursuit of such a proactive option would require substantial political
investment, in particular in terms of relentless advocacy of the merits of market
integration and vigorous competition, as well as a number of focused policy
initiatives to address the most serious concerns and points of tension between
the single market and other policy objectives.

This report recommends the proactive option, which seems to be fully in line
with the political initiative undertaken by President Barroso.

1.8. A new strategy

The rest of the report tries to develop a new strategy for the single market. Such
strategy appears necessary, if the proactive option recommended above is to
have any chance of success. The challenge is nothing less than bringing forward
European integration – overcoming visible risks of disintegration - in a society
that appears to be less disposed to integration than was the case in 1957, at the
time of the Rome Treaty, or in 1985, at the time of the Delors White Paper.

a. A comprehensive approach

The new strategy has to be comprehensive. Many policies traditionally not
regarded as policies for the single market have to be integrated into a single
market strategic objective. They include not only competition policy,
traditionally seen as a powerful instrument to integrate markets and to make
them competitive, but also, amongst others, industrial, consumer, energy,
transport, digital, social, environment, climate change, trade, tax and regional
policies, but also policies that seem more remote from economic aspects, such as
justice and citizenship. In turn, achieving a deep and efficient single market is a
key factor determining the EU's overall macroeconomic performance. It is

particularly crucial for the solidity of the euro and for monetary union to deliver
the promised economic benefits.

The comprehensive approach, deploying the range of policies mentioned above,
needs to consist of three broad sets of initiatives:

1. Initiatives to build a stronger single market;

2. Initiatives to build consensus on a stronger single market;

3. Initiatives to deliver a stronger single market.

If consensus is not built, it is unlikely that the initiatives to build a stronger
single market could ever be adopted and implemented. Even if they were, their
sustainability over time and their ability to withstand "bad weather" in economic
or political conditions affecting the EU, would be in doubt.

In turn, a stronger single market – which openly seeks the consensus necessary
for its construction and rules out the option of acquiescing to discontent by
softening enforcement – does need strengthened delivery, enforcement and
governance.

b. Building a stronger single market

The initiatives to build a stronger single market are presented in chapter 2.

These initiatives - which also address the call by President Barroso, endorsed by
the European Council, to tackle the issues of bottlenecks and missing links in the
single market (paragraph 2.1) - are grouped in clusters of recommendations
concerning:

- a better functioning of the single market in the perspective of citizens,
consumers and SMEs ( 2.2);

- the digital single market (2.3);

- the single market and green growth: energy, climate change and environment
(2.4);

- the single market for goods (2.5);

- the single market for services (2.6);

- workers in the single market (2.7);

- the single market for capital and financial services (2.8);

- The physical infrastructure of the single market: meeting the investment
challenge (2.9).

c. Building consensus on a stronger single market

The initiatives to build consensus on a stronger single market are presented in
chapter 3. They are cast in the context of the reference in the Lisbon Treaty to "a
highly competitive social market economy" (paragraph 3.1). They seek to
address the concerns identified through the consultation and described above in
paragraph 1.6. At the same time, they are mindful of the need of not
undermining the central objective of strengthening the single market.

These initiatives deal in particular with the following problems:

- the conciliation between economic freedoms in the single market and workers'
rights, a sensitive issue following the Viking, Laval and other rulings of the
European Court of Justice (3.2);

- social services and the single market (3.3);

- harnessing public procurement for the EU's policy goals (3.4);

- the tax dimension of the single market: tax coordination to safeguard tax
sovereignty as market integration proceeds (3.5);

- competitiveness and cohesion: the regional dimension of the single market
(3.6);

- industrial policy in the single market (3.7);

- the external dimension of the single market: open, but not disarmed (3.8).

d. Delivering a stronger single market

The initiatives to deliver a stronger single market are presented in chapter 4.

Several recommendations are formulated, dealing with two key aspects:

- regulation in the single market (4.1);

- reinforcing enforcement (4.2).

e. A package deal

The new comprehensive strategy outlined above should be substantiated in a
package deal, in which Member States with the different cultural traditions,
political preferences and concerns analysed above could each find elements of
appeal important enough to justify some concessions, relative to their past
positions.

In particular, Member States with a tradition as social market economies could
be more prepared to a new commitment on fully embracing competition and the
single market, including a plan with deadlines on putting in place the single
market in areas where it is still lacking, if Member States in the Anglo-saxon
tradition show readiness to address some social concerns through targeted
measures, including limited forms of tax coordination.

The Member States of Central and Eastern Europe, who would be happy to see a
serious programme to strengthen the single market, including in the areas of
infrastructure and cohesion, might in turn become more open on forms of tax
coordination.

A fresh approach to these sensitive topics should be pursued, leveraging on
circumstances that have occurred recently and should facilitate a greater sense of
belonging to a common project, leaving behind entrenched positions of the past.
One such circumstance is certainly the economic, fiscal and social legacy of the
crisis, which should allow everyone to see the value, greater than ever before, of
extracting more growth and job creation from making the single market more
efficient, given the very limited margins available for budgetary stimuli.
Similarly, the need to cope with the growing priority assigned by public opinion
to the issue of inequalities, in a context of fiscal crisis for many countries, may
lead to more favour for a more cooperative approach as regard tax policies.

More profoundly, the crisis has upset many consolidated views on hierarchies of
economic models and brought about a more pragmatic and modest attitude, as
well as some more predisposition to economic policy coordination.

Finally, tensions which have occurred recently in the Eurozone provide for
greater evidence than ever before of the need to make full use of the single
market as a vector to enhance total factor productivity and competitiveness in
Eurozone economies.

2.1. Bottlenecks, missing links and new frontiers

The Single Market is Europe's original idea and unfinished business. In his
Political guidelines for this Commission, President Barroso pointed to the gaps
and "missing links" that hamper the functioning of the Single Market. Echoing
this orientation, the European Council of 26 March 2010 has agreed that the new
Europe2020 strategy should address "the main bottlenecks…related to the
working of the internal market and infrastructure".

"Missing links" and "bottlenecks" mean that, in many areas, the Single Market
exists in the books, but, in practice, multiple barriers and regulatory obstacles
fragment intra-EU trade and hamper economic initiative and innovation. In
others, the potential for greater economic gains is frustrated by lack of physical
and legal infrastructure or by absence of dialogue between administrative
systems. TheITC revolution and rapid technological development add a third
category to the list of missing pieces in the single market : sectors that did not
exist when the single market was initially conceived, such as e-commerce,
innovative services and eco-industries. These are the sectors which hold the
largest growth and employment dividends for the future. They represent the new
frontiers of the single market.

Relaunching the single market requires tackling the different challenges posed
by missing links, bottlenecks and new frontiers. In some sectors, such as in the
single market for goods, market integration reached a mature stage. Policy
action can focus on "market maintenance" through market monitoring, targeted
regulatory intervention, simplification and reduction of compliance costs. In
others, as in the case of services, Europe is still in a phase of "market
construction" that requires breaking down barriers to cross-border activity,
cutting the dead wood of national administrative and technical barriers and
overcoming corporatist resistances. In the new frontiers, Europe should harness
the full range of single market tools to drive forward the construction of a digital
and low-carbon resource efficient economy. The marginal gains from action in
this area are the greatest. Turning the attention to the new frontiers is key to
generate new momentum for and confidence in the single market as a priority
for tomorrow's Europe.

However, no project to relaunch the single market will have the necessary
political energy to succeed, if it fails to show citizens, consumers and SMEs that
it works first and foremost for them. The Report thus will start from there.

2.2.

Making the single market work for citizens, consumers and SMEs

The single market and its four freedoms embodies an ideal: that of a space
across national boundaries within which citizens can move, work, do research or
start up a business without any discrimination. As the single market grew in
scope and size, it was felt that this was not always the case. Market opening
would widen the horizons for big business, but would not work for the many and
the small : citizens, consumers, or SMEs.

Surveys show that attitudes towards the single market today range from lack of
interest to open rejection. In part, economic integration and its benefits have
become business as usual and thus undervalued. Much of the disillusionment
however comes from frustration with remaining barriers or the feeling of
disempowerment that citizens experience when dealing with the single market.
Relaunching the single market serves to re-activate Europe's engine of growth
and employment, and ultimately serves to expand opportunities for citizens. The
first challenge is thus to empower citizens, whether consumers or entrepreneurs,
to become full actors within the single market. There are many ways in which
the single market benefits them horizontally across policy areas, through
widening the choice of providers, services and products or expanding mobility
options and ensuring safety of traded products. Some specific actions should
nevertheless be undertaken to enable citizens, consumers and SMEs to actively
exploit this widened range of opportunities.

The citizen in the single market

The 2008 Lamassoure report on "The citizen and the application of Community
law" brought into sharp relief the link between mobility and citizens' rights
within the single market. The pace at which this citizen dimension of the single
market progressed has fallen behind the evolution of social and economic trends.
Whereas intra-EU mobility may still be limited when benchmarked against the
USA, it concerns more than 11.3 million Europeans. Around 350 000 Europeans
per year engage in an international marriage with a national of another Member
State. Every year 180 000 European students move to another Member State for
the Erasmus programme or to attend a post graduate degree. Often, they stay on
seeking employment.

Yet, the single market is not an easy playing field for them. There is a
significant gap between what is in the law books and what happens in practice.
The patchwork of barriers and hurdles to overcome is such that in his Report
Alain Lamassoure concluded that "creating a single space for citizens is still at
the stage before the Single European Act of 1986: the barriers may have been
abolished, the countless regulatory obstacles still make it difficult to achieve an

harmonious life inside this common space"

Progress in this area has been slow. The measures required fall under civil,
commercial and even family law, areas close to the sovereignty of Member
States. Moreover, national legal systems often present divergent solutions. The
unanimity requirement for measures linked to the establishment of an area of
justice, security and freedom has also been a factor in slowing down change.

There are several areas where policy action should be taken to untangle citizens'
mobility from red tape and regulatory hurdles. The new provisions in the Lisbon
Treaty now offer a concrete opportunity to move forward in all those dimensions
of citizenship linked to the establishment of an area of justice, security and
freedom.

Improving access to the right to move and reside in another Member States

The right of citizens to move and reside freely in another Member State should
be made as easy as possible. In this context, the regime set out by the Directive
2004/38/EC is now starting to function after a slow and somewhat difficult start.
In order to go even further, steps should be taken to ensure the free circulation of
official documents. Too many citizens' complaints concern requests to produce a
translation of documents or new certificates made by national administrators
reluctant to recognise EU rights. A system providing for mutual recognition of
official documents, such as authentic acts or civil status documents issued by
national administrations, would greatly facilitate mobility. In the same vein, a
step change in favour of mobility would come from the creation of a European
Free Movement Card that would contain in a single document all the
information a European citizen may require in another Member State in addition
to identity and nationality: work permit status, social status and right to social
security. This would extend to all the information needed for communicating
with national administrations the model that already exists for health and social
security information included in the European Health Card.

The recent initiative to launch an enhanced cooperation on a regulation on the
applicable law, jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments covering matrimonial
property regimes provides a solution to the some 145 000 cases of international
divorce every year. Progress would also be important in the equally critical area
of cross border wills and successions.

Alain Lamassoure, Report on "The citizen and the application of Community Law", 2008, page 12.

Facilitating the solution of cross-border of commercial and civil law disputes

The rising number of cross-border commercial and civil disputes calls for a
serious assessment of ways and means to facilitate the circulation of judgments
and the recovery of cross border debts. This implies the abolition of the
exequatur process. This procedural requirement imposes the assistance of a
lawyer and results in a cost that can reach 2000 euro for what is often a pure
formality. At a time in which SMEs and service providers struggle to keep their
books in order, it is important to remove obstacles to cross-border debt recovery.
This means prohibiting debtors' from moving funds from a bank account in one
Member State to an account in another Member State simply to avoid paying a
bill. To reduce to a minimum the number of unrecovered debts - today standing
at 37% of cross border debts - a targeted legislative initiative would be
warranted. A wider use of the recently introduced European Small Claims
procedure - which applies to claims below 2000 euro and allow for a treatment
of cases in a standard user-friendly format that does not require lawyers
assistance - would also increase citizens and business trust in cross-border
transactions. In the context of the current crisis, the possibility of reviewing the
regulation on cross-border insolvency should be examined. More efficient and
faster insolvency proceedings - notably when cross-border groups of companies
are involved - would be in the interest of both debtors and creditors. Enhancing
administrative cooperation through the support of the E-justice portal could also
bring practical benefits in the short term.

A single market for car drivers…

Finally, administrative obstacles and legal uncertainty characterise the
experience of Europeans that move with their cars throughout the single market.
It is not possible for instance to move a car from one country to another without
having to re-register the car and paying the relevant tax. This exposes citizens to
double taxation, complicated administrative procedures, extra costs and time
waste but is also a problem for business. Car rental companies, in fact lack the
flexibility needed to manage their fleets across Member States depending on the
seasonal variation of demand. Likewise, this fragmentation prevents the car
industry from fully exploiting economies of scale, as they have to adjust
technical specifications to the requirements of various national markets. Past
attempts to regulate this area have not produced results, but there is some scope
to reassess the issue in the light of its cost for citizens and business. Legal
uncertainty affects the citizens that are victim of one of the 500 000 cross-border
accidents that happen every year in Europe.

While the rules on the applicable law have been clarified, the terms and time
limits to file insurance claims still give cause for confusion. An initiative to
harmonise the terms and conditions for file insurance claims could give both
insurances and citizens greater legal certainty.

Key Recommendations:

⇒

Ensure the free circulation and recognition of official acts;

⇒

Introduce a European Free Movement Card ;

⇒

Make progress in the mutual recognition of civil acts relating to
international marriages and to successions and wills;

⇒

Ensure easier cross-border debt recovery, including a wider use of
the European Small Claim portal;

⇒

Abolish double taxation of registration for cars.

Empowering consumers

Consumers and consumer welfare should be at the centre of the next stage of the
single market. A stronger consumer focus would mean a renewed attention to
market integration and competition, an enhanced corpus of rights, protections
and means of redress and a greater access to basic services.

A number of actions discussed elsewhere in this Report contributes to consumer
welfare in the single market, such as access to services of general interest,
energy consumption through smart metering, integration of consumers concern
in market monitoring exercises, enhanced ADR and better enforcement.
Consumer protection should be a horizontal concern when developing the single
market in new areas, such as the digital economy or e-commerce. As a starting
point, the legislator should find without delay an agreement on the draft
directive on consumer rights, in order to ensure a high level of protection for
consumers in an integrated retail market.

The wider choice of products and services and sharper competition that the
single market provides should work for consumers through improved market
transparency and comparability. Progress should be made in the regulation of
independent intermediaries, such as price comparison websites and products
test, to ensure that consumers identify the best quality and prices across the EU
from among a vast choice of products and providers. Informed consumer choice
is a vehicle for rewarding and promoting the most innovative and efficient
companies.

An EU mechanism for collective redress

As mass consumer markets are expanding cross-border, groups of consumers are
increasingly harmed by the same illegal behaviour of a trader who is often
located in a different Member State. Today, cross-border claims represents 20%
of mass claims and they are likely to increase even more in the future.
Traditional litigation is not practical or cost-efficient for consumers and
businesses in these cases. Bundling similar individual cases in a single
procedure would allow savings through economies of scales for both consumers
and businesses and increase the efficiency of national courts. Europe should thus
move forward in the creation of its own model of collective redress mechanism,
while at the same time avoiding the US style class action model Action at EU
level to promote both in-court and out-of court resolution (ADR) of mass
claims, would increase the confidence of consumers in the single market,
increase cross-border transactions and stimulate competition between
businesses. This should be introduced as a priority for electronic commerce.

Greater integration in the retail banking sector

Further action to accelerate integration of retail banking services would allow
consumers to reap the full benefits of the integration of the European financial
sector. Measures should be taken to improve the transparency of bank fees, to
ensure the availability of standardised and comparable information for retail
financial products and to facilitate customer mobility. Ultimately, switching
bank accounts should be no more cumbersome than switching between mobile
telephone operators.

Key recommendations:

⇒

Adopt EU legislation on collective redress

⇒

Improve the transparency of bank fees, ensure the availability of
standardised and comparable information for retail financial products and
facilitate bank customer mobility.

Creating a favourable business environment for SMEs

The typical European firm is an SME, nine times out of ten consisting of a
micro-enterprise with less than 10 employees. The 20 million EU medium, small
and micro-enterprises are the backbone of the European economy, generating an
increasing share of value added and giving a crucial contribution to employment
generation. The single market is an important factor for their growth but,
unfortunately, it is not always a friendly environment for them.

Only 8% of

SMEs engage in cross-border trade and only about 5% have set up subsidiaries
or joint ventures abroad.

There a number areas in which this Report recommends action in order to create
a business environment which is more tailored to SMEs needs: facilitating e-
commerce, extending the new Approach to other goods areas, better enforcing
EU rules, providing clearer and more effective information on opportunities
provided by EU law and faster problem solving structures, greater access to
public procurement, simpler e-invoicing rules, better regulation and
simplification, simpler and faster standardisation processes.

This does not require changing current policies, as the Small Business Act
(SBA) adopted by the Commission in 2008 is the best avenue to promote SMEs
competitiveness within the Single Market and beyond. The pace of progress in
implementing it and the approaches chosen by Member States are still
considerably different. To ensure a level playing field for all SMEs operating in
the single market, Member States should do more to fully implement the
principles and actions set out in the SBA. Measures should be taken to ensure
that SMEs are able to fully take part in the development of standards and have
adequate access to them. More efforts should be made to simplify and speed up
bankruptcy procedures in case of non-fraudulent bankruptcy.

A Statute for a European Private Company

Greater progress should be made towards the adoption of the Statute for a
European Private Company, which would allow entrepreneurs to set up their
company in the same form, irrespective of whether they do business in their own
Member State or in another.

Key recommendations:

⇒

Speed up implementation of the Small Business Act;

⇒

Adopt the Statute for a European Private Company.

2.3. Shaping Europe's digital single market

Digital technologies are radically transforming the way we live, work and
interact. The propagation of digital technology is a spontaneous process of
innovation and transformation. Yet, regulatory and social conditions influence
the speed and extent of the uptake of new technologies and the spread of the
benefits of a digital economy. Europe is moving at a slower speed than the US.
A number of obstacles reduce the capacity of industry in Europe to innovate and
generate value added in the digital sphere: the fragmentation of online markets,
ill-adapted intellectual property legislation, the lack of trust and interoperability,
the lack of high-speed transmission infrastructure and the lack of digital skills.
Many of these obstacles point to a simple cause: a lack of a Digital single
market.

The cost of non-digital Europe is significant: According to a recent study

the

EU could gain 4 % of GDP by stimulating the fast development of the digital
single market by 2020. This corresponds to a gain of almost € 500 billion and
means that the digital single market alone could have an impact similar to the
1992 internal market programme.

In its Europe2020 strategy the Commission has recognised the huge
opportunities of digital Europe. Urgent action is necessary to remove a number
of bottlenecks that are currently still hampering the rapid development of the
digital single market. The online single market must become the main driver of a
European digital agenda and of Europe's transformation into a digital economy.

A seamless regulatory space for telecommunications services and
infrastructures

Telecommunications services and infrastructures in the EU are currently still
highly fragmented along national borders. The existing regulatory framework at
EU level has been instrumental in market opening but has not yet created a
single regulatory space for electronic communications. Market fragmentation
leads to numerous negative effects: it facilitates the creation of market power, it
prevents operators from achieving economies of scale, it slows down investment
in new infrastructures and services, it reduces growth potential and hinders the
emergence of European champions to the detriment of Europe's global
competitiveness.

The swift and full implementation of the new EU regulatory framework and the
vigorous application of the competition and state aid rules remain a priority in

Copenhagen Economics, The Economic Impact of a European Digital Single Market, Final Report, March

2010.

the immediate term. However, more needs to be done to overcome market
fragmentation and to remove regulatory barriers in the internal market. In order
to create a seamless regulatory space for telecommunications services and
infrastructures a more coherent framework is required which includes:
strengthening the regulatory oversight at European level, the introduction of a
pan-European licensing system and the management and allocation of
radiofrequencies at European level. The Commission should launch a
comprehensive review of the telecommunications sector with a view to
presenting the proposals required for creating an integrated European-wide
market for electronic communications.

E-commerce: a pan European online retail market

The importance of E-commerce is rapidly increasing as the number of
individuals in the EU27 who order goods or services over the Internet is steadily
rising. The percentage of consumers in the EU who had been buying goods or
services via the Internet during the previous 12 months has increased from 20%
in 2004 to 37% in 2009.

Nevertheless, an important potential remains untapped

because the markets are fragmented and a number of obstacles for cross border
e-commerce persist.

In many cases, consumers make the experience that online traders refuse to
accept orders from consumers from another country. Consumers are also
uncertain about the confidentiality of their data, the security of the transaction
and their rights in case of a problem. For retailers, the main regulatory barriers
to cross-border e-commerce result from differences in consumer protection rules
and other rules, such as rules on VAT, recycling fees and levies. These
differences create a complex and unpredictable environment for businesses and
lead to a reluctance of traders, in particular SMEs, to consider selling cross-
border. The EU should urgently address the remaining obstacles to create a pan
European online retail market by 2012.

A single market for online digital content

The European markets for online digital content are still underdeveloped as the
complexity and lack of transparency of the copyright regime creates an
unfavourable business environment. It is urgent to simplify copyright clearance
and management by facilitating pan-European content licensing, by developing
EU-wide copy-right rules, including a framework for digital rights management.
The regulatory regime should also ensure the conditions for developing the
digital content and broadcasting markets by addressing licensing and copyright

European Commission, Consumer Market Scoreboard, SEC(2010) 385, 29.3.2010

levies. A clear and predictable EU framework for orphan works would unleash
an important untapped potential.

To maintain the trust of right-holders and users and facilitate cross-border
licensing, the governance and transparency of collective rights management
needs to improve and adapt to technological progress. Easier, more uniform and
technologically neutral solutions for cross-border and pan-European licensing in
the audiovisual sector will stimulate creativity and help the content producers
and broadcasters, to the benefit of European citizens. Such solutions should
preserve the contractual freedom of right holders to restrict their licenses to
certain territories and to contractually set the level of licenses fees.

Additional measures should also be examined to take into account the
specificities of all the different forms of on-line content, such as further
harmonisation of copyright, creation of an EU copyright title, considering that
cross-border online transactions take place at the location of supply and
extended collective licensing.

Key recommendations

Telecommunications services and infrastructures

⇒

Review of the sector to prepare proposals for creating a seamless regulatory
space for electronic communications, including proposals to reinforce EU
level regulatory oversight, to introduce pan-European licensing and EU level
frequency allocation and administration.

E-commerce

⇒

Present proposals to end the fragmentation of EU consumer legislation and
introduce in particular harmonised rules for delivery, warranty and dispute
resolution.

⇒

Present proposals to simplify the business environment for cross-border retail
transactions, including VAT rules, the cross border management of recycling
rules and of copyright levies on blank media and equipment.

Online digital Content

⇒

proposals for an EU copyright law, including an EU framework for copyright
clearance and management

⇒

proposals for a legal framework for EU-wide online broadcasting.

2.4. The single market and green growth: energy, climate change,
environment

The energy sector is one of the late arrivals in the single market. At the same
time, it is the sector on which the highest expectations are placed today. 2012
will not be the 20

anniversary of the single market for energy. Rather it will

just mark the beginning of the consolidation of a common energy market. There
is no time to waste, however. For electricity and gas, Europe needs the new
regulatory architecture created under the third Internal Energy Market Package
(Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), European Network
of Transmission System Operator organisations (ENTSOs), framework
guidelines and network codes, 10 Years Network Development Plans, etc.) fully
in place by that date. The single market sits at the nexus of all Europe's energy
policy objectives: competitiveness, security of supply, and sustainability. Europe
needs a functioning single market for energy to ensure secure and affordable
supplies for its consumers and business. It has to harness its potential to turn its
political leadership on climate change in a concrete chance for its innovative
industries.

Enhancing consumers' welfare

A fully functioning single market for energy benefits consumers with wider
choice and lower prices. Since 2007, in almost all Member States, consumers
have had the right freely to choose their electricity and gas supplier, while the
third Internal Energy Market package recognises the existing public service
requirements. More should be done to enable all consumers, especially
vulnerable ones to benefit fully from competition and fair prices, starting by
strengthening the common minimum standards. The ongoing work on improving
the provision of information and ease of contact to consumers must also be
actively pursued. The development of smart metering - enabling energy
consumers to be completely aware of their consumption patterns and the
associated costs- requires further regulatory action to ensure the quick uptake of
new technologies and greater efficiency through competition in energy services.
In order to ensure transparent pricing, a European regulatory framework needs
to be developed for energy wholesale markets, avoiding the riskof diverging
national regulatory initiatives.

Interconnecting Europe's energy markets, guaranteeing security of supply

Well integrated markets are crucially important for Europe's security of supply.
They allow Member States to share resources, getting the most out of the
diversity of national energy supplies, flexibility of demand and spare capacity.
Interconnections and network flexibility make Europe better equipped to

withstand supply crises and add leverage to the EU position towards its
international partners. There is still much work to do to interconnect Member
States capacity and construct new infrastructure, particularly across borders. All
the EU's new regulatory and investment planning tools should be used to
mobilise the highest level of private investments. One way to speed up work on
major cross-border infrastructure projects - which are often delayed by complex
and controversial authorisation procedures - would be to explore the possibility
for an EU level consensus building/arbitration mechanism to facilitate the
process. Innovative solutions for incentive setting and facilitation at the EU level
would help break deadlocks and accelerate the implementation of projects.

Greater uptake of low carbon products and technologies

Global markets for eco-friendly and low-carbon products, services and
technologies are growing at a rate unparalleled by any other markets. The global
market is currently estimated at €1 trillion annually and is projected to reach €3
trillion world-wide by 2020. The EU industry is one of the most competitive–
with market shares ranging from 30% to 50% - and is fast growing. It generates
already a turnover of €300 billion and provides nearly 3.5 million jobs

However, competitors are moving fast and Europe's prime mover advantage
could be rapidly lost. A single energy market is Europe's best asset to promote
the shift to the low carbon, resource efficient growth outlined by the
Europe2020 Strategy and reap the benefits of the expected growth in eco-
industries. Only a single market for energy offers the scale necessary for
accelerating the uptake of new and young low carbon technologies along the
whole energy value chain. There is a need to use the full potential of the single
market for energy to lower the costs and speed up the roll-out of such
technologies in the EU. This requires delivering a stable regulatory framework
for large scale infrastructure products and proactive use of standardisation to
promote innovative green products and technologies, exploring the application
of the New Approach model in this area. Competition policy should also be used
proactively to create the right environment for new technologies to mature and
enter the market.

Lead markets must be single markets from the outset.

There is a risk that the

effort sharing approach on renewable energy, which leaves the choice of policy
instruments up to Member States results in the "renationalisation" of energy
policy. Renewables support policies will have to become an integral part of the
internal energy market in order to avoid market distortion which can lead to
wrong pricing signals to investors. Requirements for other low-carbon related
technologies and products should continue to be defined at EU level, avoiding

European Commission, EU Manufacturing Industry: What are the Challenges and Opportunities for the

Coming Years?, paper presented at the 2

High level Conference on Industrial Competitiveness, 26 April 2010.

proliferation of national approaches. Likewise, the introduction at national level
of "green" product labels should be avoided, as this risks fragmenting the
market.

Meeting a €50 billion investment challenge: stepping up EU funding

€50 billion in additional public and private investment is needed over the next
ten years to implement the necessary energy technologies that will enhance
energy security and tackle climate change. As the energy sector is one that
requires long lead times for investments and substantial capital investment to
ensure returns in the medium to long term, for future investment decisions the
competitive energy market needs to send reliable price signals at the wholesale
level. At the same time, there is a case for considering the contribution that EU
level funding could bring in addition to what the market is already providing.

Consistent and targeted EU funding can make the difference in terms of
accelerating the build-up of critical interconnection capacity, realising critical
back-up capacities for security of supply reasons and shortening lead times for
bringing new low carbon technologies into the market. Part of the discussion on
investment should cover the issue of support measures for renewable energy
technologies across the Member States.

Key recommendations:

⇒

Establish new EU regulatory frameworks for the large scale deployment
of renewable sources, smart metering, smart grids and transparent
wholesale energy markets;

⇒

Establish a single market for green products, by developing EU-wide
standards for measuring and auditing carbon footprints and for energy
efficient products, including trade certificates for renewable energy
products;

⇒

Step up targeted EU funding for energy infrastructure.

2.5. The single market for goods: reaping the full benefits

The single market for goods is today a mature construction. The 2007 single
market review concluded that all technical barriers for goods had been lifted.
For many citizens, single market means first of all a wide variety of choice in
the products available in their domestic markets. The trade in goods is a major
driver of growth in EU manufacturing industries. Some 25% of the EU-27 GDP
is generated by the goods sector. Intra-EU trade of goods represents 75% of
intra-EU trade flows. It has increased at an annual rate of 7.6% between 1999
and 2007.

It would be a mistake to conclude that the job is done. Firstly, goods
manufacture is an ever-changing business, as it responds to innovation, changing
consumer tastes and new technologies. Policies and regulatory frameworks need
to be regularly updated if they are to remain relevant, based, where appropriate,
on market monitoring exercises. There are creeping obstacles constantly
generated by licensing practices and new technical and administrative rules at
national level. The stakeholders' submissions during the consultation phase
revealed a long list of small scale bottlenecks. Third, when benchmarked against
the US, the Single Market for goods reveals a substantial untapped potential.
The ratio of intra-US exports to GDP, is still around 70% higher than the ratio of
intra-EU 15 exports to GDP. Fourth, new challenges emerge, as not only goods
but also markets evolve. Examples of this are the acceleration of products cycles
or the globalisation of supply chains. Fifth, e-commerce is on the rise and
presents its own set of challenges, that are examined in the Report's section on
the digital Single Market.

Maintaining a dynamic and expanding single market for goods requires building
on the full implementation of the goods package approved in 2008, particularly
with regard to the mutual recognition principle and market surveillance. The
application of the principles of the New legislative framework should also be
extended to other areas of product legislation and the new Approach should be
expanded to new areas across the board.

The full potential of the single market for goods cannot be released without the
support of a modern standardisation process, a seamless and efficient logistics
and transport system and an effective and accessible regime for the protection of
intellectual property.

Reforming the standardisation process

Standardisation is key for the governance of the single market. Europe needs
today faster and more efficient setting of interoperable and market-relevant

standards, based on internationally accepted models. It is necessary to review
the European standards process, maintaining the benefits of the current system
while striking the right balance between European and national dimension.
Special attention should be paid to enhancing private sector access to the
standardisation process and to making standards cheaper and easier to use for
SMEs.

A seamless, flexible and efficient logistics and transport system

Reaping the full benefits of a single market for goods depends on the existence
of a seamless, flexible and efficient logistics and transport system. Yet, EU
transport policy took off late compared to its initial recognition in the Treaty and
has developed unevenly across transport modes. The resulting fragmentation is
increasingly perceived as an obstacle to free movement. Administrative and
technical barriers results in "bottlenecks" to mobility within Europe. There is
simply no single market for maritime transport, as customs formalities for ships
travelling between two European ports remain subject to custom formalities
identical to the ones foreseen for international maritime transport. In the rail
sector, track gauges, energy supply and signalling systems differ from one
Member State to another as an inheritance from the times in which railways
were still national monopolies. This hinders cross-border circulation of trains
and increases the cost of rolling stock used in international operations, which
has to be equipped with multiple systems. Furthermore, the market for rail
freight services is still not yet functioning due to incorrect or incomplete
transposition of Community law by Member States. In road transport, national
markets have only recently opened to "cabotage". Europe needs a step change
towards multi-modal transport, but legal, administrative and technical barriers
are multiplied. There is no single transport document, but different modes of
transport require different documentation. Liability rules also differ. A single
transport document (hopefully electronic) and a single liability system would
increase legal certainty and decrease significantly costs for business and
citizens. The creation of a modern single market requires tackling the lack of
interoperability and the infrastructure gaps that reduce the efficiency and
weaken the global competitiveness of the EU logistics industry.

Breaking the deadlock on the European Patent

Failure to agree on EU patent is one the most serious missing links in the single
market. The legal basis now offered by Art 118 of the Lisbon Treaty and the
Europe2020 strategy bring new momentum to the search for an agreement. It is
key to capitalise on this momentum and break the deadlock on the issue of the
translation regime applicable to an EU patent. A European patent is the test
ground on which to measure the seriousness of the commitment to a re-launch of

the single market. Business and innovators need a single patent regime – and a
single jurisdiction system – across Europe, which is attractive and cost effective
for users. For SMEs low-cost and legally secure protection of intellectual
property rights is of great importance. The Commission should not reduce its
level of ambition in this area.

Key recommendations:

⇒

Assess the effects of the 2008 package on the functioning of the internal
market for goods and identify possible further steps

⇒

Review the EU standard setting system striking the right balance between
EU and national levels;

⇒

Adopt new measures to deal with remaining technical and administrative
barriers which prevent the establishment of a single market for rail;

⇒

Establish a single transport document and liability regime for multimodal
transport;

⇒

Adopt the EU patent and a single patent jurisdiction as a matter of
urgency.

2.6. The single market for services: the powerhouse of the European
economy

The services sectors are crucially important for our economies. They account for
70% of GDP, they are the most important source of foreign direct investment,
and they are the only sector of net job creation in the EU. Nevertheless, services
markets remain strongly fragmented with only 20% of the services provided in
the EU having a cross-border dimension. As a result, the productivity gap
between the US and the Euro area remains much wider than acceptable (about
30%).

The Services Directive brings significant improvements for the functioning of
the single market for services. Administration and supervision by national
authorities are made simpler and more modern. The rights of users and
consumers are strengthened. It has been estimated that the potential economic
gains from the implementation of the services directive range between €60bn
and 140bn, which represents a growth potential of between 0,6 and 1,5 % GDP.

Committing to a rapid implementation of the Services Directive

The implementation of the Services Directive requires an unprecedented effort
from Member States. They have to make important administrative and
legislative changes, which include a thorough review of the regulatory
framework applicable to a wide range of economic activities at national,
regional and local level.

The results so far are encouraging but there is no reason to be complacent.
Member States must fully implement the Services Directive as soon as possible.
Priority should be given to the following areas: The Member States that have not
finalised the screening of legislation should do so as a matter of urgency; The
adoption of the remaining implementing legislation should be given a high
political priority in all Member states concerned; The Member States that risk to
incurring significant delays in completing all required changes should make an
utmost effort to speed up the process; Member States that have not yet set up
points of single contacts or have established points of single contacts that are
insufficient should rapidly take the necessary steps to comply with the relevant
requirements of the Directive. Furthermore, Member States should ensure that
national authorities make effective use of the Internal Market Information
System (IMI) to comply with their cooperation obligations.

The Commission should take all the necessary enforcement measures and
maintain the pressure on Member States that are lagging behind to ensure a
rapid full implementation of the Directive. The Commission should also keep
the European Parliament, the Council and stakeholders informed of the state of
implementation of the Directive. At the same time, the Commission should

continue to work with the Member States in order to further improve the
administrative procedures and administrative cooperation mechanisms. The
points of single contact should ultimately develop into comprehensive e-
government centres which could extend to areas and procedures not covered by
the directive such as taxation.

In addition, the Member States and the Commission should take an ambitious
approach to the mutual evaluation process foreseen by the Directive for 2010.
The results of this evaluation should be used to steer further and targeted action.

Industrial services

European industry must move further into the provision of services in order to
remain competitive at the global level. Companies operating in industry sectors
and manufacturing need to develop new business opportunities by spurring
related services such as maintenance, support, training and financing. In general,
the growth potential of these services is much higher than that of the product
business itself. The EU should strengthen the single market for industrial and
business services by removing the remaining obstacles to the free movement of
such services, by improving the EU-level framework for service standardization
and by promoting innovative services

Removing barriers to cross-border health-care provision

Services markets extend beyond the sectors covered by the Directive. In this
context the Commission should in particular consider further steps to be taken
regarding the numerous types of services that are currently not, or not fully,
covered by the Directive.

An area not covered by the Services Directive that should be given particular
attention is the health care sector. The proposed directive on cross-border
healthcare aims at ensuring a clear and transparent framework for the provision
of safe, high quality and efficient cross-border healthcare within the EU, for
those occasions where patients seek care in a Member State other than in their
home country. According to the proposed rules, patients would be reimbursed
up to the amount that would have been paid had they obtained that treatment at
home, but they bear the financial risk of any additional costs arising. The
proposal dating from 2008 should now urgently be adopted.

In addition, a number of supporting actions should be taken in order to foster
market integration in the health sector. The Commission should launch, together
with the Member States a detailed benchmarking of health systems across the
European Union. It should develop and spread knowledge on best technologies
in the health care sector, building on the health technology pilot project. The use
of e-health technologies to support decision-making within health systems
should be encouraged in order to systematise the uptake of identified best

2.7.

Workers in the single market: old problems and new challenges

Transnational labour mobility matters for Europe. It underpins the broader
mobility, occupational – between jobs and sectors, and social – between social
groups, that is widely seen as the pre-condition for Europe's success in the
economy that will emerge from the global recession. Closed national labour
markets or job sectors shielded from competition, will deliver neither greater
employment nor faster growth. Labour mobility is also key to absorb
asymmetric shocks and respond to local restructuring processes within the euro-
area, where exchange rate and monetary policy are tools no longer available to
national authorities. Yet, Europe still lacks the labour mobility it needs to
enhance labour markets efficiency and to ensure a correct functioning of its
monetary union.

Labour mobility between Member States is made harder by a number of de facto
barriers created by linguistic or cultural factors, family patterns and housing
market structure. A number of legal and administrative barriers still remain, but
overall freedom of movement of workers is a success from a legal point of view.
However, from an economic and political angle, it is still fraught by two
paradoxes.

First, freedom of movement of workers is the most contested and at the same
time the least used of the four freedoms. A large proportion of the European
public - as shown by the debates on enlargement and on the ratification of the
Constitutional and Lisbon Treaties - are concerned that labour migration drives
down wages, takes jobs away from local workers and becomes a burden on the
social security system. In stark contrast, Europe is an area of low mobility.
Today only 2,3% of Europeans live in a Member State different from that of
their nationality. In a federal system and a unified economy as the United States,
the proportion of US citizens changing States in the same year is about three
times higher. The stock of people working in another Member State remained
stable over time. Since 2001, the number of EU-citizens living in another
Member State has increased by around 4 million. Migration from non-EU
countries is by comparison a much more significant phenomenon for the
Member States' labour markets. The number of non-EU nationals in the EU
amounted in 2008 to 19.5 million, or 3.9% of the overall population. Moreover,
Eurobarometer surveys show that the majority of Europeans are not interested or
see too many obstacles in working elsewhere in the EU. This cold attitude to
mobility does not vary substantially between old and new Member States.

The second paradox is that freedom of movement of workers faces a lower
number of legal obstacles than the other three economic freedoms, but these
obstacles are the most momentous and the hardest to overcome. Updating the

regulations on coordination of social security systems required 11 years of
negotiation.

The economic downturn has shown that even in times of crisis there are jobs
which are unfulfilled in the EU. Achieving Europe 2020 objectives require
Europe to face these paradoxes and encourage more mobility and more use of
free movement rights. Rising unemployment levels, persisting income and wage
differentials between various European regions will not automatically deliver
greater mobility and certainly do not deliver the type of mobility from which
Europe can gain.

Europe can reap the greatest benefits from mobility of highly skilled workers in
new and innovative sectors, through adapting to new dynamic types of mobility
and by encouraging forms of intra-EU circular mobility that compensates brain
drains with brain gains. This does not mean re-thinking settled policies. Rather,
it is necessary to hit harder at some well-identified old legal and administrative
obstacles and explore how to address the new challenges posed by new and
more diversified types of mobile workers.

Ensuring the coordination of social security rights and the portability of
pensions rights for all

A key pre-condition for the free movement of workers is that the person moving
within the EU does not see his/her social security status adversely affected. The
package on coordination of social security systems adopted in July 2009, after
lengthy negotiations, modernised Community provisions dating back to the
fifties. It marks a significant progress but things have already moved forward
since then. The existing rules are designed to address the problems and needs of
the type of labour migration that characterised labour markets in the past. There
is scope to further adapt them to the situation of new and more diversified type
of mobile workers and to take into account the specific situations of commuting
workers and of workers not insured in their home country.

A specific problem is posed by the portability of supplementary pensions and
health insurance rights. The current regulatory framework does cover social
security entitlements but cannot avoid losses for non-statutory forms of social
protections. This puts highly mobile workers in a particular disadvantage, as
they will often change system several times in their life careers while also
changing employment status and type of assignment. A Commission proposal in
this area has been stuck in Council since 2008 despite strong support from the
European Parliament.

The Commission should prioritise the issue of obstacles to transnational labour
mobility in its forthcoming consultation on the pensions systems in Europe. In
this context, an option to explore would be to develop a 28

regime for

supplementary pension rights. This would be a regime entirely set by EU rules
but existing in parallel to national rules, and thus optional for companies and
workers. A worker opting for this regime would be subject to the same rules for
its non statutory benefits wherever it goes in Europe. To makes things easier, a
sub-option would be to limit the possibility to opt in this regime only to workers
taking up their first work contract. This would serve as an incentive for the
mobility of certain young workers, who are the keenest on international
mobility.

Some attention should also be given to removing tax obstacles to cross-border
work. Differences in tax rates between Member States makes it impossible to
achieve a fully neutral treatment of cross-border economic activities. This is an
area where progress was left to ECJ case law. There is scope perhaps for policy
action in order to ensure tax neutrality for instance on the taxes levied on the
parts of the income that depends from expatriation allowances.

Making recognition of professional qualifications faster and easier

A second major obstacle standing in the way of enhanced cross-border labour
mobility is the complexity of international recognition of professional
qualifications. Automatic recognition of qualifications applies only to seven out
of more than 800 professions. In the other cases, administrative (mal)practices,
delays in recognition processes and corporatist resistances at national level add
to the cost and difficulty of exercising abroad and effectively increase barriers to
entry into regulated professions. The current legal framework set out in the
Directive 2005/36/EC to facilitate mutual recognition of professional
qualifications between Member States should therefore be clarified and
strengthened. There is now scope to raise the bar in this area. The Treaty for
European Union replaces unanimity in the Council of Ministers by qualified
majority. Moreover, there is a greater awareness that despite the Bologna
process training contents across Member States are not converging to a degree
that makes further action superfluous. To make recognition of professional
qualifications easier, the

acquis

in this area, should be modernised. The scope

for automatic recognition of qualifications to new professions should be
expanded to new sectors in addition to the seven professions today, targeting in
particular new professions required for green and digital industries to facilitate
the mobility of highly skilled workers.

It is of equally fundamental importance to develop the European Skills and
Competences Taxonomy. This system will ensure that skills and competences of

job seekers or the requirement of a job formulated in a job vacancy are
understood in the same way everywhere in Europe and are easily transferable.

Better matching skills with vacancies across the single market

A third order of obstacles to free movement of workers concerns the efficient
matching of skills with cross-border vacancies. Action is necessary both at EU
and national level, on various fronts. The EURES network is a success story. It
manages today 1 000 000 job vacancies and plays a key role in giving
comprehensive advice to cross border job seekers and companies looking to
recruit, linking together the public employment services of all Member States.
Over time, it has expanded its tasks, graduating from a simple EU-wide database
into a platform for international job placement in Europe. This process should be
continued by developing EURES links with Public employment services, social
partners and private employment agencies and strengthening its skills matching
capacity and coverage of all phases of mobility. It should also develop links with
information and problem solving networks, such as SOLVIT, to respond to all
concerns and issues raised by citizens when using their mobility rights. Greater
attention should be devoted also to the provision of information, advice and
incentives to workers who want to return to their home countries after a work
experience abroad. Return to the country of origin falls under the free movement
of workers and cooperation between EU institutions and national PES should
ensure that mobility brings value added to home countries as well.

National public employment services and national policies, together with social
partners at national level, also have a key contribution to make in order to shape
a more mobile- friendly environment in Europe and to monitor the correct
implementation of rights and obligations of workers and companies. The EU
structural funds, and in particular the European Social Fund, should support and
facilitate actions to encourage intra-EU mobility and strengthen information and
advisory services on mobility-related rights.

Key recommendations:

⇒

Coordinate social security systems for highly mobile individuals, and in
particular for researchers;

⇒

Introduce a 28

regime for supplementary pension rights for cross-border

workers;

⇒

Remove tax obstacles to cross-border work;

⇒

Extend automatic recognition of qualifications;

⇒

Strengthen the transparency and recognition of qualifications and skills,
developing national qualifications systems and establishing the ESCT
system;

⇒

Strengthen the EURES system transforming it into a fully fledged
platform on placement within the single market.

2.8. The single market for capital and financial services

Supervision for a single market, not fragmentation of the market through
supervision

The single market for capital and the closely interrelated single market for
financial services are critical for the efficient allocation of resources – a key
driver of growth and employment – and for the stability of the economy. In the
Seventies and Eighties, particularly in Europe, a tight system of restrictions to
competition and constraints on allocation in the financial services industry, often
designed to favour the financing of public sector deficits, had negative
implications for investments and growth. The subsequent phase of financial
liberalization since the Nineties, not accompanied – particularly in the United
States - by corresponding improvements in prudential regulation and
supervision, was a key determinant of the financial crisis.

The European Union, also in the context of the G20, is currently engaged in an
ambitious programme with the objective of putting in place an adequate
supervisory system. The programme was triggered by the De Larosière Report,
commissioned by the European Commission.

In this area, the policy process is being pursued as a matter of priority by the EU
institutions. It does not appear necessary for the present report to review such
ongoing work (1).

What does appear necessary, however, is to stress the critical importance that, in
the forthcoming legislative decisions to be made by Parliament and Council, the
implications on the single market for financial services be given central
consideration. The supervisory structures that will be put in place following
those decisions are likely to mark the EU’s financial landscape for a long time.
It would be a serious strategic mistake if the Council, under the pressure of
Member States giving priority to a natural tendency to protect national
supervisory competences, were to favour timid solutions. These would present
the risk of leading to a fragmented and more vulnerable single market.

Supporting the single market and financial integration, through the issuance of
E-bonds

The EU needs a modern and developed financial system, built around a liquid
risk-free asset class, which - being the benchmark for pricing other assets -
would provide the basis for efficiently performing the essential functions of
allocating resources, intermediating savings to investment, supporting better risk

sharing and ensuring a more uniform transmission of the single monetary policy
across the euro area. This would reinforce the strengths of the Single Market,
underpin the euro as a global currency and support the smooth functioning of the
EU economies, during normal times but also in the face of external shocks and
financial crises, ultimately amplifying the growth and jobs dividend for Member
States.
The government bond market has acted as a catalyst in fostering the integration
of European financial markets since the creation of the euro, supported by the
emergence of a larger and diversified investor base, reducing transaction and
financing costs for governments, and in turn spurring the development of
markets for other related asset classes (such as corporate bonds, covered bonds,
asset-backed securities and a range of derivative instruments).
Nevertheless, the government bond market is still fragmented, as debt issuance
remains at the national level and no step has been taken to date – besides some
more transparency and coordination of issuances - to achieve the economies of
scale allowed by the euro. Fragmentation means that the European bond market
is less liquid than the corresponding US and Japanese markets,

resulting in

costs for investors, issuers, other debtors and, ultimately, European citizens. For
example, households are unnecessarily paying higher interest rates for their
mortgages, which are priced using government bonds as a benchmark.

Companies, in particular smaller ones, can hardly get bond financing, which
exposes them to risks in terms of corporate governance associated to equity
financing. Major public infrastructure in Europe, such as the TENs, is
transnational, unfit for the currently fragmented national schemes, and their
funding suffers from the absence of a liquid bond market for very long
maturities, while long-term investors such as Pension funds cannot find a supply
of bonds matching their investment needs. Financial operations carried out by
EU institutions are also probably more expensive than it could be. The current
fragmentation deters foreign capital from coming to Europe – for example,
sovereign wealth funds are not attracted by small-size issuances – and if it
comes, it asks for a premium to compensate for the illiquidity of the European
bond market, implying a net transfer of wealth to the rest of the world. Finally,
non-functioning financial markets can hamper reforms in other areas.

Overall,

the potential of the euro is inevitably constrained without the underpinning of
adequate financial instruments for portfolio investment within a single financial
market, making the euro area a less attractive location for financial investment,

As witnessed by low turnover in the cash market and the migration of liquidity to the derivatives markets, the

fact that issuances are still relatively small and that there is no efficient and fully representative benchmark
instrument across maturities and typologies - which, despite appearance, the German Bund is not.

For a 100.000€ mortgage over ten years, every basis point of interests reflecting the inefficiency of the

government bond market implies over 50€ of additional interest payments over the period.

By allowing economic agents to bridge short-term income losses and smooth consumption over time,

functioning financial markets bring forward the long-term gains of reforms.

particularly in times of financial crisis, which reduces the capital available to
Europe and hence its potential growth and employment.
In Europe, there is a government bond which is perceived as a liquid and safe
asset: the German Bund. Its strength reflects the relative preference of investors
compared to other government bonds within Europe. But, seen from a global
viewpoint, the Bund is a relatively small entity. The recent fall of the euro
during the Greek crisis reflects a capital outflow from Europe towards US-
Treasuries, which even the quality of the Bund was not able to contain. Europe
clearly loses from its lack of a global asset.
Addressing the fragmentation of the government bond market requires creating a
new, European-wide market, with a global dimension. At the same time,
legitimate concerns need to be taken care of: any solution must ensure that
fiscally-responsible countries cannot be forced to bail-out undisciplined member
states, in one form or another. The simple fear of this would affect their current
favourable market standing, thereby making any proposal immediately
unattractive. Prudent changes in issuance practices need therefore to be pursued,
so that they could at the same time improve the functioning of the single market
and ensure the respect of the no-bail out rule of the Treaty. On top of a more
effective multilateral surveillance, tackling moral hazard would benefit from
stronger market discipline on profligate governments.

This could be achieved

by increasing the sensitivity of markets to national budgetary developments, and
by making the possibility of a default of national debt more manageable by other
EU countries, hence more likely and easier to price by markets.
Against this background, borrowing at large scale through a European body, and
then on-lending to Member States, may represent a balanced solution. On-
lending to Member States should not exceed a given level of a country's GDP
(the same for all Member states) so that, for their financing needs not covered
through this mechanism, governments would continue to issue their own,
national debt for which they would remain individually responsible.
Given that Member States would get access to cheaper funding through this
mechanism, they would consider the European body a preferred creditor,
compared to holders of their debt floating on the market, theoretically increasing
the possibility of a default only on the latter. In turn, this should increase market
pressure (and yields) on the floating debt, creating a stronger incentive for
Member States to quickly reduce such debt through sound fiscal policies.
Such mechanism could include all EU countries, with the non-euro area
countries also getting loans denominated in euro. This would reinforce their
incentives to ensure stability vis-à-vis the euro, consistently with the ERM-II
requirements, supporting the euro area enlargement process. In turn, the larger

Market discipline has been rather ineffective since the start of EMU in preventing the accumulation of

imbalances, ultimately putting at risk the very respect of the no-bail-out rule of the Treaty.

the number of EU countries participating in the mechanism, the larger the
issuances by the European body, and the greater the benefits in terms of liquidity
and depth of the European bond market, and ultimately for the EU Single
Market.
Starting with a smaller set of countries would be interesting, provided it creates
an issuer which is relevant on the global scene. Hence, the mechanism would
already be attractive if EU Member States with smaller and medium size debts
would join it, and the more so with large debt countries taking part. However,
the real benefits for the EU would be reaped in full only if Germany would
willingly participate in this process. For Europe, this would mean a significant
step towards a more efficient financial market and a stronger Single Market,
underpinning the euro as an international currency and the overall European
economy. To Germany, it would provide the possibility to guide a process which
is highly relevant for Europe both politically and economically, and to influence
the design of the mechanism in a way which deals with its concerns of securing
stronger fiscal discipline in the EU and maintaining its favourable financing
conditions.

Key recommendations

Make sure that the structure of financial supervision is such as

not

to lead

to fragmentation of the single market;

Explore the possibility of reinforcing financial integration through the
issuance of E-bonds.

2.9. The physical infrastructure of the single market : meeting the
investment challenge

It is impossible to imagine a single market without the physical infrastructure
connecting its parts: roads and other transport connections, electricity grids,
electronic communications and water networks. Infrastructures are vital for
ensuring the mobility that underpins a functioning integrated market and for
promoting growth and sustainable development. They are key to ensuring
territorial cohesion. Despite the recognition of the importance of the
infrastructure dimension of the single market and the central role played by the
EU in developing Trans-European networks, a range of obstacles still prevent
from "thinking European" in this area.

Planning, financing and management of infrastructure projects take place
predominantly along national lines. As production and distribution are becoming
more integrated across national borders and as sectors such as energy and
electronic communication call for new interconnections, the cross-border
infrastructure gap is becoming more acute in Europe. On the one hand,
bottlenecks still exist within the single market, notably in the new Member
States. On the other hand, new infrastructure must be put in place if Europe
wants to accelerate the transition to a green, knowledge-based economy.

Plugging this infrastructure gap is a technical and coordination challenge, but it
is also a financial challenge. The economic crisis has a major impact on Member
States' capacity to fund new infrastructure projects when priority should be
given to fiscal consolidation. At the same time, the private sector faces severe
constraints in raising funds and needs legal security in terms of clear guidelines
on the implementation of competition policy (anti-trust and state aid) in this
area, as well as incentives to invest in networks in a competitive environment.
Europe needs to have a fresh look at the economics of cross-border investment
and at innovative ways to ensure its financing. The key issue for Europe is how
to raise new resources for medium and long term investments of European
importance. One way to address the problem is to explore all combinations
between public and private funding, including a wider use of innovative source
of financing, such as user charges. The reduced fiscal space available for
governments will naturally enhance the importance of public-private
partnerships as a delivery tool for infrastructure investments. Facilitating the
combination of public-private partnerships with the use of structural funds will
be crucial in this respect.

Another option is to improve the incentives for long term investors (financial
institutions with a public mandate but also private investors, including pension
funds) to direct their resources to long term infrastructure projects. The volume
of funds managed by long-term investors at global level is estimated at € 30 000
billion, but only a fraction of these funds is used for infrastructure investment.
Recent innovative experiences, such as the €1.5 billion Marguerite fund bringing
together the European Investment Bank and the public financial institutions of
six Member States are a good starting point. A reflection should be made on
whether an

ad hoc

European legal framework should be developed for long term

investors, with a view to encouraging their focus on infrastructure investments,
while taking into account their specific characteristics and the variety of actors
within such class of investors.

Finally, relevant resources for infrastructure investments could be freed by the
development in Europe of a liquid bond market for very long maturities. This
could serve to raise funds for major cross-border investments at EU level as well

3.1. A single market for a "highly competitive social market economy"

The central concern of this Report is how to renew the momentum behind the
single market. Plugging gaps and pointing to new frontiers is crucial to generate
new energy and confidence in the single market project. It may not be sufficient
to create the political climate for a sustainable action, when large sectors of the
European public – sometimes including political leaders and even business
leaders - doubt the benefits of market integration and think that the process of
market opening has gone beyond what was required or desirable.

Over time, the EU system has accumulated internal asymmetries between
market integration at supranational level and social protection at national level,
which generate frictions and are a source of disenchantment and hostility
towards market opening. To make the relaunch of the single market sustainable
it is necessary to remove in a targeted way these sources of frictions. In some
cases, this implies adjusting existing single market rules to take account of the
need of social and local contexts. In other cases, it is necessary to introduce
greater coordination of the national regulatory systems, to ensure their
coherence and fit with the EU principles.

In the next pages, the Report reviews policy challenges and possible actions in
the area of free movement of workers, social services of general interest, public
procurement, industrial policy, coordination of taxation policies and regional
policy. These are building blocks for a reconciliation between the single market
and the social and citizens' dimension in the Treaty logic of a "highly
competitive social market economy".

3.2. Economic freedoms and workers' rights after Viking and Laval

Between 2007 and 2008 the European Court of Justice decisions in the Viking,
Laval, Rüffert and Commission vs Luxembourg cases revived an old split that
had never been healed: the divide between advocates of greater market
integration and those who feel that the call for economic freedoms and for
breaking up regulatory barriers is code for dismantling social rights protected at
national level.

The revival of this divide has the potential to alienate from the Single Market
and the EU a segment of public opinion, workers' movements and trade unions,
which has been over time a key supporter of economic integration.

The Court's cases have exposed the fault lines that run between the single
market and the social dimension at national level in two ways.

First, because the cases brought to the surface the strains to which the current
regulatory framework for posting of workers is subject, in a context of divergent
social and employment conditions among Member States and acute sensitivity
about the perceived risks of social dumping and unfair competition. Secondly,
the Court's decisions showed that the reach of the EU law extends to collective
labour disputes. This has brought social partners and collective action straight
into the heart of the economic constitution of the single market. At the same
time, it implied that both national systems of industrial relations and the exercise
of the right to strike might have to adjust to fit with the economic freedoms
established by the Treaty.

Concrete and normative issues are closely intertwined. On a practical ground,
the question is whether the Posting of workers directive still provides an
adequate basis to manage the increasing flow of cross-border temporary
secondment of workers, while protecting workers' rights. On a normative
ground, the question concerns the place of workers' right to take industrial action
within the single market and its status vis-à-vis economic freedoms.

There is a broad awareness among policy makers that a clarification on these
issues should not be left to future occasional litigation before the ECJ or national
courts. Political forces have to engage in a search for a solution, in line with the
Treaty objective of a "social market economy".

President Barroso announced before the European Parliament the intention to
present a regulation to improve the way the Directive on posting of workers is
interpreted and implemented. The gulf between the positions and the requests of
social partners on this issue makes such an exercise highly sensitive.

Given the salience of the issue, in the preparation of this report special attention
was paid to listening to the views and the concerns of the social partners. A joint
consultation was organised with ETUC and BusinessEurope. Social partners had
a chance to discuss their concerns, based on the positionsoutlinedin the "Report
on joint work of the European Social Partners on the ECJ rulings in the Viking,
Laval, Rüffert and Luxembourg cases", adopted by four social partners on 19
March 2010 in response to an invitation addressed by the Commission and the
French Presidency of the EU. The consultation showed that positions are still
distant, but there are areas of shared concern on which one could build to bring
the parties closer. One way to facilitate this convergence would be to address
both the concrete and the normative aspects at stake in the debate. Yet, the two
issues require different strategies of balancing single market and social
requirements.

More clarity in the implementation of the posting of workers directive

Ensuring a fair and balanced legal framework for posted workers requires
reducing the space for ambiguities in the interpretation and implementation of
the posted workers directive. The Member States where the most significant
problems have arisen adapted, sometimes through a difficult political process,
the implementing legislation. Action at European level, however, would be
helpful to dispel the ambiguities that still affect the interpretation of the directive
by facilitating iaccess to information, strengthening the cooperation between
national administrations and better sanctioning abuses. In this context, it is also
of key importance that the fight against "letter box companies" is intensified and
that posted workers' access to legal remedies against abuses of their rights
suffered in the host country is strengthened.

Protecting the rights of workers, rejecting protectionism

The second question is how to respond to the trade unions' concern that the
operation of economic freedoms reduces the protection for the right to strike.

The ECJ rulings pre-date the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which
explicitly sets out the social market economy as an objective for the Union and
makes the European Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding at Treaty
level. These elements should shape a new legal context, in which the issues and
the concerns raised by the trade unions should hopefully find an adequate
response. If this is not the case, however, the scope for further policy action
should be explored.

In theory, two opposed strategies would be possible to balance economic
freedoms and the right to strike.

On the one hand, trade unions propose to amend the Treaty in order to introduce
a clause that would exclude the right to strike from its scope of application– the
so-called "social progress clause". Such a clause would be modelled on Art. 2 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 on the functioning of the internal market
in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States. A "social
progress clause" would "immunise" the right of strike, as recognised at national
level, from the impact of single market rules. However, seeking Treaty changes
does not seem a realistic option in the short term.

On the other hand, the opposed alternative strategy would be to regulate the
right to strike at EU level. Such a solution is openly prohibited by the Treaty.

The logic of a single market consistent with the "social market economy" now
adopted as a template by the Lisbon Treaty suggests a third strategy: a targeted
intervention to better coordinate the interaction between social rights and
economic freedoms within the EU system. The issue is to guarantee adequate
space of action for trade unions and workers to defend their interests and protect
their rights in industrial actions without feeling unduly constrained by single
market rules. This is the context in which Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98
may offer a reference point in the search for a solution, although it targets
situations very different from labour disputes.

The purpose of the Regulation in fact is to renew the commitment to the free
movement of goods while excluding any negative impact on the exercise of the
right to strike. It sets out a prohibition of actions that "cause grave disruption to
the proper functioning of the internal market and inflict serious losses on the
individuals affected" whilst recognising that the right to strike is unaffected by
that prohibition. A system of early warning about obstacles to free movement of
goods and exchange of information between the concerned Member States is set
up to build mutual confidence. The Commission plays an arbitration role, as it
can request the Member State concerned to remove the identified obstacles to
free movement of goods by a given deadline.

Without the need to touch the posting of workers directive, if measures are
adopted to clarify its application, the Commission and the social partners could
examine in that context whether to look at the model offered by Council
Regulation (EC) No 2679/98. This would require to introduce a provision
ensuring that the posting of workers in the context of the cross-border provision
of services, does not affect the right to take industrial action and the right to
strike as it is protected by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and in
accordance with national law and practices which respect Community law. After
all, a similar provision safeguarding labour law has been introduced in the text
of the services directive, with slightly different terms from those of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2679/98

. Such a provision could be complemented by a

system for the informal solutions of disputes concerning the application of the
posted of workers directive when they risk causing a significant impediment to
the functioning of the single market. In such situations, the social partners
should refer the matter to the host Member State. The Member State should seek
an informal solution , keeping informed the Commission as well as the Member
State of origin of the posted workers and companies involved. If the parties
refuse the solution proposed, they would be free to defend their rights in court.

Art. 1(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market. See also recital

14.

3.3. Social services and the single market

Since the nineties, the place of public services within the single market has been
a persistent irritant in the European public debate. The discussion on the role
assigned to public services within the Treaty should have found its solution with
the Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty's new Protocol and an amended Article 14
TFEU establish a coherent basis allowing competent authorities to ensure that
citizens throughout the EU can benefit from high-quality services of general
interest.

In spite of this renewed commitment made in the Lisbon Treaty the debate on
the exact interaction between EU rules and the discretion of national and local
authorities remains topical. In fact, whilst initially the European debate focused
on the macro-issue posed by the liberalisation of network industries, the focus of
the debate today has shifted to social and local public services. The fundamental
challenge for the provision of these services is to maintain their quality and
scope in the context of increasing pressure on public finances, which sometimes
requires difficult trade-offs to be made. As these services are essentially
financed by the Member States, it is primarily for them and not for the EU to
address this challenge. Nevertheless, there are ways to assist Member States in
modernising these services and adapting them to a changing environment and to
the evolving needs of citizens regarding their scope and quality. At the same
time, the Commission can contribute to ensuring that where EU rules apply to
these services, the rules are predictable and proportionate.

Predictability and flexibility: Ensuring that services of general interest can fulfil
their public service missions

The ongoing discussion and a number of consultations have shown that the
predictability and proportionality of the EU framework, in particular as regards
the application of the state aid rules and the rules related to the selection of the
provider, are key concerns of many stakeholders. Over a number of years, the
Commission therefore has made an effort to clarify the implications of the
applicable EU rules in order to ensure that services of general interest can fulfil
their missions and contribute to a better quality of life for European citizens.
There is room to strengthen the general approach adopted in 2005 in the package
of measures to increase the legal certainty about financial compensation paid for
to a large number of small, often local, public services, which has been
welcomed by a wide range of stakeholders. The Commission should examine,
on the basis of the findings of its ongoing assessment of the package, all
possibilities to further increase the flexibility of the rules applicable to financial
compensation, including through an increase of the thresholds and/or through

expanding the list of activities for which compensation does not have to be
notified irrespective of the amounts involved.
As regards the application of EU rules to the selection of the provider similar
concerns have been expressed concerning the lack of legal certainty and
flexibility and the administrative burden created by the EU public procurement
rules. However, in the area of public procurement the Commission has not yet
taken an initiative similar to the package adopted regarding financial
compensation. Given the very positive overall response to the state aid package,
the Commission should review the procurement rules with a view to aligning
them with the rules on compensation in order to ensure a consistent approach
concerning small services of general economic interest.

Inclusivity: Ensuring that all citizens can benefit from the Single Market

In order to be able to effectively participate in the single market citizens need
access to a number of basic services of general economic interest, in particular
in the area of the network industries, such as postal services, transport services
or telecommunications services. In the network industries, market opening at EU
level has therefore always been accompanied by measures ensuring that a
universal service continued to be provided.

The new Article 14 TFEU reiterates the joint responsibility of the EU and its
Member States for the proper functioning of services of general economic
interest and provide a specific legal base for EU regulations. It has been
proposed to address services of general economic interest in a horizontal
framework regulation. However, the consultation has made clear that a proposal
for a framework regulation would have limited added value, if any, and that its
chances of being adopted would be very small. At this stage, it does therefore
not seem appropriate for the Commission to present such a proposal.

However, a re-launch of the single market should examine any gaps in the
universal service provisions at EU level that could de facto prevent a relevant
number of EU citizens from effectively accessing the single market. In this
context, the Commission should consider proposing, possibly on the basis of
Article 14 TFEU, a regulation ensuring that all citizens are entitled to a number
of basic banking services. Today, having an account has become a pre-condition
for accessing a number of services and for fully benefiting from the single
market. Nevertheless, according to a study conducted for the European
Commission in 2008, 20% of adults in the EU-15 and almost half in EU-10
(47%) still do not have a bank account and policy responses vary widely
between Member States. An EU framework for financial inclusion
complementing the ongoing comprehensive reform of financial services
regulation at EU level would allow an important part of the population, in

particular in the new Member States, to reap more fully the benefits of the single
market.

Similarly, the full benefits of an online single market can only be enjoyed via a
fast broadband internet connection. In the light of the results of the ongoing
public consultation on universal service in electronic communications the
Commission should also examine whether there is a case for using Article 14
TFEU to extend universal service in electronic communications to the provision
of broadband access.

Moreover, the public service obligations in transport should be assessed and the
rights of air passengers be strengthened drawing on the lessons learned from the
consequences of the recent eruption of the Eyjafjallajöekull

volcano in Iceland

Key recommendations:

⇒

Further increase the flexibility of the State aid rules applicable to financial
compensation;

⇒

Review the procurement rules with a view to aligning them with the rules on
compensation;

⇒

Present a proposal, possibly on the basis of Article 14 TFEU, for a regulation
ensuring that all citizens are entitled to a number of basic banking services;

⇒

Examine the case for extending, possibly on the basis of Article 14 TFEU,
universal service in electronic communications to the provision of

broadband access; Strengthen rights of air passengers.

3.4. Harnessing public procurement for Europe's policy goals

Public purchases – the acquisition by public authorities/entities of goods, works
and services on the market – capture a sizeable share of Europe's GDP. In 2008,
EU public procurement amounted to around 2155 billion Euro, equivalent to 17-
18% of EU GDP. Out of this, public procurement tenders worth approximately
389 billion Euro were covered by the rules set out in the EU Directives on
public procurement.

EU public procurement law plays a key role in the creation and maintenance of
the single market. It ensures that suppliers and service providers from other
Member States are not excluded from the market of public purchases and that
public authorities' natural preference for keeping the purchases within their own
country does not partition the EU market. In ensuring non-discriminatory access
to public bids, the EU law intends to achieve also good governance and
efficiency objectives.

There is no doubt that EU public procurement law has been largely a success,
turning into one of the most developed and technically sophisticated areas of the
single market. The number of procurement notices published at EU level is
constantly growing. Procedures are certainly more transparent than in the past.
The score is high also on competitive impact. On average five bidders respond
to each procurement tender published at EU level. The expectations of better
value for money have also been satisfied: estimates set the savings realised by
public authorities between 5 to 8% of the price paid.

There is however a mounting call for a review of public procurement policies,
for different reasons and with different objectives. Two questions are at the heart
of the debate: whether public procurement policy should be reformed and
whether such a review should lead to a greater integration of horizontal policy
objectives into public procurement. The Commission has launched an across-
the-board evaluation of the 2004 public procurement directives, as a basis for
future reform. This sets the scene for reflection on the issue. A re-think of the
policy seems well-warranted, first of all in order to simplify, continue to
modernise and sharpen public procurement rules.

Simplifying and further modernising public procurement rules

There are gains that can be obtained by ensuring a better enforcement of rules
and greater openness to cross-border bidders. Price reductions differ among
sectors of activity and tend to benefit mostly large or centralized contracting
authorities/entities. Direct cross border procurement success is still rather
limited, concerning on average only 2% of contracts. Some categories of

services are also excluded from the full scope of application of the EU Public
Procurement Directives. Whilst for some services, such as certain social
services, more flexibility should be sought, the review should provide an
opportunity to assess for other, currently excluded, categories of services
whether such an exclusion is still valid.

Reforming public procurement should be an opportunity to address teething
problems of complexity, administrative burden and SME-unfriendliness. All
avenues towards simplification should therefore be used. Member States should
also be asked to scrutinize their own national public procurement legislation
which, in many instances, is responsible for the complexity and the
administrative burden on contracting authorities and small businesses.

Member States should make extensive use of the Code of Best Practices,
adopted as part of the Small Business Act to improve SMEs access to public
procurements.

Better integrating horizontal policy concerns

The review of public procurement rules should also address the perceived areas
of "friction" with the policy autonomy of national or local authorities. On the
one hand, in fact, EU procurement rules are perceived as restricting the ability of
municipalities to provide services to citizens in the form they prefer or
traditionally privilege. This is the case for instance, where they would like the
"in-house" provision of services or the establishment of public-public
cooperation. On the other hand, EU rules are perceived as not forthcoming
enough in encouraging or even requiring that public purchases support broader
policy goals, such as climate change, innovation, gender equality employment or
social inclusion goals.

In the first area, some further clarification on the concept of "in-house" would be
beneficial based on recent ECJ case law. All the margins available under the
WTO Government Procurement Agreement should be used to expand the scope
of action for public authorities. Allowing the use of the negotiated procedure
with prior publication as a standard procedure in the "classical sector" could
help greatly. This could also include applying to contracting authorities
(especially local ones) the more flexible regime of the ‘utilities’ directive
relating to qualification lists.

In the second area, there is probably room for a greater use of public
procurement as a tool to achieve policy objectives set out at EU level. Public
purchase can be a boost for innovative products and technologies in the area of
climate change and energy. It may give a push to research and innovation,

3.5. The tax dimension of the single market: working together to safeguard
tax sovereignty

Tax policy is an area that both the supporters of the single market and its radical
critics tend not to like. Paradoxically, there are reasons why both should look
with interest to it.

Cutting tax-related administrative burdens and compliance costs for business
and citizens

Europe has a highly fragmented tax landscape. In many areas, the operation of
27 different set of rules implies significant compliance costs and administrative
burden for citizens and business operating cross-border. When an EU tax
framework exists, it lacks transparency, leads to loopholes and opens the door to
uncertainties as regard the applicable rules or to instances of double taxation or
tax discrimination. In is in the interest of business and citizens, to remove
barriers to intra-EU operations by addressing the issue of cross-border relief for
companies, simplifying and modernising VAT invoicing rules facilitating
electronic invoicing, introducing a binding dispute settlement mechanism
covering double taxation suffered by individuals and extending the savings
directive to close existing loopholes.

Moreover, in some areas, progress on the tax policy side may offer the EU the
possibility to use taxation as a tool to complement regulation to achieve agreed
policy objectives. The lack of agreement on the proposal for VAT for postal
services for instance weakens the prospective liberalisation of postal services in
the single market by 2010. Environmental taxation could provide support for the
policy initiatives to fight climate change.

Tackling the anti-labour bias of tax competition within the EU

However, there is a second important aspect that gives to the taxation issue a
systemic importance for the economic integration process. The functioning of
the single market – coupled with the wider globalisation process - places a
growing challenge for the operation of domestic tax systems and may erode in
the long term their revenue raising capacity, as well as their ability to pursue
social and redistribution policies at the national level. Addressing this
underlying tension between market integration and tax sovereignty is one of the
avenues for reconciling the market and the social dimension of the single
market.

Tax competition is a widely used practice in an integrated market, as national
systems may use the fiscal tool to increase their attractiveness for businesses and

capital. Tax competition, to some extent, serves a healthy purpose of putting
pressure on governments to keep spending under control. However, it presents a
disturbing asymmetry. The liberalisation of financial markets and the expansion
of the single market allow companies to pursue strategies of tax minimisation
and regulatory shopping in search of the most convenient taxation area. In
response to this phenomenon, the burden of taxation within EU Member States
has progressively shifted from more mobile tax basis (capital income and
corporate income) towards a more extensive taxation of less mobile tax bases,
notably labour. Over the past two decades, almost all Member States decreased
their statutory corporate tax rates, competing for internationally mobile capital.
The EU-15 average went from close to 50% in 1985 to slightly less than 30%.
The average for the twelve countries that joined the Union in 2004 and 2007 is
about 10 percentage points lower. At the same time, Member States broadened
the tax bases, to eliminate opportunities for tax avoidance and safeguard their
tax revenues. In 2007, taxes on labour accounted for 46% of total tax revenues
on the arithmetic EU-average, whereas taxes on corporate income accounted for
9.8%. The average implicit tax rate on corporate income in the EU-25 amounted
to 25.5% in 2007, while the average implicit tax rate on labour income
amounted to 34.8%.

According to these elements, the tax burden in Europe over the past decade
tended to concentrate in a higher proportion on the less mobile bases, i.e. on
labour, through personal income taxes and social contributions. This is not a
trend created by the single market. Yet, the operation of the single market
contribute – involuntarily – to accentuate it. Such a phenomenon have
repercussions for the fairness of tax systems and for their long term ability to
collect revenue to fund social programmes, as tax avoidance and elusion opens
gaps. Consequently, it is important to devise solutions that minimise harmful tax
competition and remove the in-built bias towards taxation of less mobile basis.
This does not mean depriving national system of a tool to exploit the full
potential of the single market. Business surveys show that corporate tax levels
are only one of the factors taken into account by business when weighing the
attractiveness of alternative locations for direct investments. Other factors, such
as stability of political and regulatory environment, infrastructure, productivity
and labour costs are considered more important than corporate taxation.

Automatic exchange of tax information and in general cooperation between tax
administrations of the Member States should also be improved in order to make
tax collection more effective and fair.

Thus, there is scope for exploring measures of tax coordination that would
smooth over rough edges - which produce distortions or incentives for tax
avoidance - while respecting tax sovereignty. Bilateral solutions could not reach

the same effect and would not be legally viable. Harmonisation itself should not
be an objective. Tax sovereignty reflects local preferences for different levels of
taxation and is rooted into the democratic process. It has therefore strong
foundations that make any attempts at harmonisation, other than for limited
aspects more closely linked to the functioning of the single market (VAT and
excises in particular), unnecessary and not very realistic.

Fiscal exit strategies from the crisis and tax coordination

An additional argument in favour of some measures of coordination of tax
policy comes from the challenges that Member States tax authorities will have to
face in devising credible fiscal exit strategies. The economic and financial crisis
has led to an explosion of public debt in Europe and at global level. Within the
EU, the massive stimulus packages undertaken by governments at the initiative
and with the coordination of the Commission, generated a surge in government
deficit and debts. Government headline deficits are forecast to reach, on a EU
wide average, 7.5% in 2010 and 6.9% in 2011 while EU level debt will jump to
83.7% in 2011. It is realistic to assume that reduction of huge public debt will
require in several countries not only expenditure cuts and fiscal discipline but
also tax increases. It is also realistic to imagine that consolidation efforts will
entail a shift from income taxation towards indirect taxation and a greater
emphasis on less growth distorting taxes, notably environmental taxes. Under
these conditions, coordination of tax policies could be an important component
of a fiscal consolidation strategy at EU level and improve the effectiveness of
national action. One advantage of coordination is that it would be more effective
in targeting mobile tax bases, plugging the gaps that permit tax arbitrage and
avoidance. A second advantage would come from minimising the impact on
competitiveness when taxation would target products that constitute input for
industrial production, as it would be the case for energy taxation. A third
advantage is that coordinated moves would limit regulatory and tax
fragmentation that would distort competition within the single market and
increase compliance costs for business. They would also reduce the chances of
tax induced asymmetric shocks in the Euro-area, thus facilitating the conduct of
monetary policy by the European Central Bank. In short, some measures of
coordination have the potential to turn a negative sum game within the Single
Market in a game where all actors obtain benefits.

Identifying areas suitable for measures of coordination of tax policies

There are three areas in which the possibility of tax coordination could be
explored.

The first is the area of corporate taxation. Work towards a common definition of
corporate tax bases replacing the plurality of rules existing in each of the
Member States, dates back to 2001. The specific design of the proposal requires
a careful attention, but the time seems mature to move forward. The Code of
Conduct Group on harmful business taxation – set up within the Council under
the ECOFIN resolution of 1

December 1997 - has done valuable work in

identifying and ensuring the removal of harmful tax practices. However, in the
context of a relaunching of the single market the role and status of the code
should be re-examined with a view to ensuring an even greater coordination of
policy in this area, with a wider examination of the effects of harmful regimes,
mismatches and other negative effects of tax competition. The code group could
also extend its coverage to some limited issues of personal income taxation that
are relevant in the context of harmful business tax competition and could look
more closely at agreed definitions of tax abuse.

A second area for potential consideration is the area of consumption taxes.
Variation in VAT rates affect capital and trade movements, at least in the short –
medium term, and are therefore relevant for the functioning of the single market.
In a context of a trend towards increasing consumption taxes, coordination of
policies directed at raising standard VAT rates or limiting the application of
reduced VAT rates may be beneficial.

A third area of relevance for coordination is that of environmental taxation. This
is likely to play a key role in the future. It would be of great help to frame
discussions on environmental taxation in the broader context of tax coordination
so that the benefits in terms of relieving the tax burden on labour would also
emerge clearly.

A Tax Policy Group

A move towards greater cooperation and coordination requires an appropriate
forum for tax policy discussion. As long as tax issues are dealt with in a
fragmented and purely technical way, positions tend to be entrenched, often
resulting in stalemate due to the lack of broader possibilities for compromises.
To break the deadlock, there should be a forum for closer political dialogue
between the Commission and the Member States revenue authorities at the
highest, political, level. A Tax Policy Group, chaired by the Commissioner
responsible for taxation and composed by personal representatives of the
Finance Ministers of the Member States would provide the best format to launch
a strategic dialogue on the possible benefits and limits of tax cooperation and
coordination within the single market. Such Group would be of substantial help
to the Commission in view of exercising its power of initiative in a way that
would benefit from an open and constructive dialogue at the political level, in

which Member States would be encouraged to share their expectations and
concerns. Being an instrument for the Commission to inform its initiatives in
full awareness of Member States' views, the tax policy Group should be chaired
by the Commissioner responsible for taxation. Precedent is provided by the tax
policy group set up in 1996, chaired by the competent Commissioner, that
allowed the agreement at the ECOFIN on the December 1997 resolution.

Key recommendations:

⇒

Further work on the elimination of tax barriers within the single market,
modernising e-invoicing rules, updating rules on cross border relief,
introducing a binding dispute settlement mechanism covering double
taxation suffered by individuals and reviewing the savings directive;

⇒

Work towards a common definition of the corporate tax bases and move
forward with the work of the code of conduct group on business taxation;

⇒

Reform VAT rules in a single market-friendly way;

⇒

Develop the area of environmental taxation in the broader context of tax
policy and their impact on growth and employment;

⇒

Agree on the establishment, at the initiative of the Commission, of a Tax
Policy Group chaired by the Commissioner in charge of taxation and
composed of personal representatives of the Member States Finance
Ministers as a forum for strategic and comprehensive discussion of tax
policy issues.

3.6. Competitiveness and cohesion: the regional dimension of the single

market

The link between greater economic and monetary integration and the
development of regions is a red thread that runs trough the various steps of
European integration, from the Werner Report to the Delors era, when a
reformed Community regional policy became one of the essential components of
the package deal strategy designed for the relaunch of the single market.

In the political vision of Delors, informed by the conclusions of the Padoa
Schioppa Report on Efficiency, Stability and Equity, market integration could be
a win-win process only when complemented by action at EU level to correct
structural imbalances at subnational level. Such action would give a push to
peripheral regions that otherwise would not be able to participate in full to the
single market and would prevent lagging regional economies from seeing their
gap from the most performing increase.

Over time, EU cohesion policy has nuanced its original "structural adjustment"
rationale, to place greater emphasis on the forward looking dimension of
supporting the delivery of the Union's policy objectives and promoting
development. The Commission Europe2020 Strategy confirms that cohesion
policy is anchored into the broader long term policy priorities for the Union and
that the structural funds are one of the main delivery channels for the strategy
goals, including social inclusion. As the debate on the future of EU cohesion
policy is entering into an active phase, it is worth reflecting also an analysis on
the territorial implications of the planned relaunch of the single market.

The transition to a green and digital economy, the reorientation of
manufacturing into high-tech sectors and greater intra-EU labour mobility will
trigger several changes. As a result, all regions of the Union will experience a
mix of opportunities and adjustment needs. In addition, cohesion policy will
continue to play a key role for upgrading the infrastructure of new Member
States, which is essential to ensure the interconnection of the single market.
These elements call for an in-depth analysis of the requirements that an
expanded and dynamic single market places on regional policy. This reflection
should extend to assessing what type of reformed cohesion policy, based on
strong conditionality to ensure its efficiency, would be best suited to give all
regions the opportunity to exploit the single market potential.

Using cohesion policy to promote Member States compliance with single market
rules

If one of the goals of a reformed cohesion policy will be to help all regions and
Member States benefit from the participation to the single market, and if a
greater attention is paid to strengthening conditionality, there is a rationale for
using the leverage of EU financial support also to provide incentives for the
timely transposition of single market rules. One idea would be to set aside at the
start of the programming period of a performance reserve, for example equal to
1% of the cohesion budget for each Member States. This reserve would be
allocated to Member States based on an objective indicator of their transposition
performance, such as the notifications of transposition measures for single
market directives. The Member State would then allocate the funds to its best
performing programmes.

Tightening anti-relocation provisions in the cohesion policy Regulations

There is a wide concern among public opinion that companies decision to
relocate to other Member States are distorted by the possibilities to get subsidies
from the recipient country, which may be co-funded by EU money. In the
current programming period, rules have been introduced to deter fund-shopping.
Such rules have proved effective, but not entirely. In the cohesion policy
regulations for the next programming period, some attention should be given to
tighten up anti-relocation rules, and appropriate channels should also be ensured
to coordinate the use of EU cohesion funding and the authorisation of state aid
support in favour of the same company.

Key recommendations:

⇒

Evaluate the potential impact on EU regions of the relaunch of the single
market;

⇒

Introduce a conditionality clause in Structural Funds to reward the
Member States most disciplined in transposing single market directives;

⇒

Tighten up rules preventing the use of structural funds in support of
company re-location.

3.7. The single market and industrial policy

The word is no longer taboo. Europe's leaders are discussing again the merits,
and limits, of an active industrial policy. The return of interest for industrial
policy goes in parallel with a renewed attention to the importance of
manufacturing for Europe's economy and a wide concern for the profound
transformation of the European industrial base triggered by the crisis.

There is in some quarters the concern that industrial policy and competition
rules are antagonistic terms. In that logic, an industrial policy could only emerge
in Europe through a softer enforcement of competition and a relaxation of state
aid rules. A sound competition and state aid policy is not in contrast with a
sound industrial policy. The opposite is true: competition is necessary to create
the varieties, comparative advantages and productivity gains on which growth
and innovation flourish.

Merger control: not an impediment to industrial activism but needs consistency

Europe needs an industrial policy that does not conflict, rather builds on its
competition rules. Competition rules certainly don't stand in the way of the
European companies search for the best scale and size to compete globally.
European competition rules have not opposed the birth of numerous European
champions, from EADS to AirFrance-KLM to mention only two, and even
national champions. Even if Europe had had a more permissive regime, the deals
would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the competition authorities of the
United States or Japan. They would have been struck down anyway. Europe
needs European champions that are able to grow on their own merits and to run
with their legs in the global race. National policies supporting national
champions would create coalitions of veto actors paralysing the single market
and dampening its potential as a tool to drive industrial innovation and structural
changes. To build European and not national champions, merger control
mechanisms remain indispensable. There is therefore an interest in moving
towards a greater convergence as regards how mergers are assessed on the
substance and the review process at national level. The objectives to ensure a
level playing field – sterilising the impact of national public policy concerns on
cross border cases- and a "one stop shop" treatment of mergers – avoiding
concurrent review from NCAs - would require that NCAs would apply the
substantive EU merger control rules also at national level where a merger has
cross border effects. In parallel, cooperation between NCAs should be
improved, to ensure procedural and substantive convergence between them and
with the EU level. A more radical option would be to revise the mergers
regulation's mechanisms for case allocation and re-allocation. This would mean
abolishing the so called "two-thirds rule", which requires that mergers in

principle eligible for EU review under the merger regulation are nevertheless
left to national competition authorities when more than two thirds of the parties
turn-over is realised in one and the same Member States. The advantage would
be a more consistent treatment of mergers in key areas of the EU economy.

Why state aid control matters

Merger control is a global feature, while rigorous state aid control is rather a
European "unique". Should then Europe become much more relaxed in the way
it looks at public subsidies at national level? The argument goes that as Europe
applies a stricter state aid regime than its main competitors, firms located abroad
have more opportunities to improve their competitiveness while firms located in
the EU are increasingly attracted abroad. The argument is both normatively
weak and short on facts.

Normatively, the rationale for a strict state aid regime is that Europe is not a
state, but a supranational system covering a plurality of national systems. State
aid control is an essential tool that keeps the single market open, integrated and
competitive. If Member States would engage in a race to subsidies for their own
companies, the single market would be disrupted as wealthier Member States
would win the contest against smaller Member States. In the process, lots of
public funds would be absorbed by non-performing investments.

It is also not true that EU state aid rules are a hindrance to financial intervention
by governments

per se

. They set a framework that directs state aid in a direction

that supports general public policy objectives and offsets market failures.
Support for companies is not lower in the EU than in other jurisdictions.
Independent studies show that subsidies aimed at enhancing competitiveness
amount to 0.34% of GDP in France 0.43% in Germany, 0.35% in Japan and
0.24% in the US. Even in the area of R&D&I, public support level are very
similar among Europe, Japan and the US. In any case, the vast majority of
support for R&D&I provided by the US, Japan, China and South Korea would
have been allowed under the current R&D&I framework. The argument that
state aid control makes Europe a less attractive location for foreign capital is
short on facts. The EU has been one of the largest recipient FDI flows for most
of the past two decades. Both the stock of FDI as a share of GDP and the
number of foreign projects submitted to Commission state aid pre-scrutiny under
the multi-sectoral framework and regional aid guidelines show an upward trend.
Finally, investment subsidies have the potential to affect localisation decisions
within the EU, but hardly between the EU and other jurisdictions, such as the
US, Japan China and South Korea. The differential in input prices is such that
relaxing state aid rules would not affect localisation decisions. It would rather
imply opportunity costs.

Moving forward in the definition of a new industrial policy

Europe should thus remain confident that its single market is its first and best
industrial policy. Yet, as all the policy documents since the 2002
Communication on Industrial policy remind, the dynamism of a EU-wide
market is best used when it is accompanied by an industrial policy which looks
at the long term. There are both the rationale and the scope for shaping up an
active, judicious and effective action in support of business and
entrepreneurship. This should exploit all synergies between competition and
industrial policies and use flexibly all regulatory and policy tools. Europe 2020
describes the broad contours of such a modern industrial policy, which combines
horizontal features and support for the competitiveness of sectors, whether they
feel the pinch of globalisation or face the transition to green and digital
economy. There is also a consensus that an EU action should have some vertical
elements, helping national policies to focus on selected highly promising
sectors, such as energy, innovative industries and clean vehicles, without
forgetting the needs of manufacturing industries. The EU should move ahead to
formulate its new conception of an active industrial policy to complement the
relaunch of the single market.

Key recommendations:

⇒

Review merger regulation abolishing the so called "two-thirds rule";

⇒

Develop a new approach to industrial policy which builds on a mutually
reinforcing relation with single market and competition rules.

3.8. Open, but not disarmed: the external dimension of the single market

Openness to global trade and investment is key for Europe's long term
prosperity. The European economy is the world largest "exporter" of foreign
direct investments (FDIs), with 36% of world FDIs in 2006, and the world
largest exporter of goods, with a 16.2% share of global exports. The emergence
of global value chains and the geographical fragmentation of productions
processes mean that EU economies are increasingly interdependent with the rest
of the world, and in particular with emerging economies. 65% of goods
imported by the EU are inputs for the production of other EU products.

Yet, Europe has an ambivalent feeling about the external dimension of its Single
Market. Member States and EU industries are well aware of the huge advantages
an EU-wide Single Market brings to the global scene: it makes the EU a highly
attractive location for foreign investments and gives valuable leverage in
negotiations with trading partners on market access. It creates a competitive
environment that enables EU business to expand abroad.

At the same time, there is a widespread perception that European businesses are
subject to a strict state aid regime whereas competitors in the rest of the world
may benefit from various forms of government's support with less control.
European companies in sectors such as shipbuilding, aerospace and
semiconductor often complain that the restrictions they face at home put them at
a competitive disadvantage in the global race with less constrained competitors.
Unfair competition adds to a perceived discrimination suffered by business
when operating in foreign markets. Grants of subsidies are less transparent and
public procurement more geared to keeping public purchases within the home
market than in Europe. Intellectual property rights are also considered a
problematic area. The rise of state sponsored investments is also fuelling
concerns about an excessive exposure of EU assets to foreign grab in sectors
that have been liberalised.

To reconcile its ambivalent feelings about the impact of the Single Market on
the EU's global position, Europe needs to better match actions to expand the
competitiveness space for its firms and efforts to level the global regulatory
playing field. The common commercial policy gives the EU the power and the
right tools to act effectively on the global stage. Europe should use these tools to
defend and promote its interests in an active, determined way vis-à-vis its
trading partners, to ensure trade access and to foster regulatory convergence.

Promoting regulatory convergence and transparency of subsidy policies at
global level

The 2006 "Global Europe" Communication sets out clearly that rejection of
protectionism within the single market, must be paralleled by an active agenda
to open up markets and ensure a level playing field for trade exchanges.
Achievement on this did not match ambitions. Europe should devote more
resources and more political capital to press for the removal of behind-the-
border obstacles, from technical standards to intellectual property rights,
prioritising the issue of subsidies. More has to be done to promote increased
transparency and strengthen international rules on subsidies, both at multilateral
level and in bilateral and regional agreements. The EU cannot give its business
the impression that it will remain the only area in the world where competition
and state aid rules are applied strictly. The global debate on the exit from the
crisis provides a window of opportunity that should not be missed.

The French Presidency of the G20 in 2011 provides a chance to put the issue on
the agenda and kick off a global debate. Europe should also press for greater
action at WTO level, where the EU trade partners' level of compliance with
notification and transparency obligations is not yet optimal. It should also lead
the debate on subsidies within the OECD, pushing for the development of code
of conducts and shared guidelines. The full potential of the Transatlantic
Economic Forum should be exploited to foster convergence with US and
Canada.

In parallel, Europe should step up its effort to bring subsidies and regulatory
issues to the table of bilateral negotiations. Provisions on subsidies exist in all
free trade agreements (FTAs), but they lack punch and are rarely implemented
in practice. The FTA recently concluded with Korea marks a change of
approach. It contains WTO-plus provisions on subsidies which will ensure
greater safeguards against unfair subsidies based on exchange of information
and regular dialogue to address possible conflicts. The EU should ask for similar
provisions to be included in a certain number of FTAs currently being
negotiated, starting with India, Asean, Central America, Canada and Ukraine.
The EU should also press for greater opening of trading partners' markets in
public procurement, ensuring that commitment taken at international level are
fully followed up. Taking into account the comparatively greater openness of
EU public procurement markets, ways to improve the EU leverage in
international negotiations on government procurement should be explored.

To fight unfair tax competition, the EU should also follow up to the G20 work
on good governance in the tax area seeking on a more consistent basis to include

provision on the three principles of good governance in taxation in international
agreements.

Setting the terms of global competition through anticipatory regulation and
standard-setting

Europe should also pay greater attention to factor in the international dimension
when preparing new regulation, so that convergence at global level is easier and
business finds fewer barriers to entry into foreign markets. Where relevant,
reference to the regulatory solutions adopted in the legal systems of our main
trading partners should be made in the impact assessment analysis underpinning
new legislative proposals.

Finally, Europe should be on the offensive in setting EU-wide standards for
innovative products and technologies, such as in the area of low carbon and ICT
services and technologies. While it may be difficult to export EU-standards,
having them in place enhance Europe's leverage in shaping developments at
international level.

Shaping a new foreign direct investment policy at EU level

Investments are a growing share of global trade. They have taken a prominent
place in the bilateral agreements concluded by Member States. With the Lisbon
Treaty, foreign direct investment becomes a part of the commercial policy,
which is an exclusive policy of the EU. The EU should act fast and develop a
new comprehensive policy on investments, which serves the interest of business
and investors equally.

Key recommendations:

⇒

Promote a pro-active market access agenda in the G20 and other
multilateral fora, with a specific focus on subsidies;

⇒

Press for the introduction in bilateral Foreign Trade Agreements of
provisions on subsidies;

⇒

Press for greater opening of public procurement markets, in particular in
the BRICs.

4.1. Regulating the single market, "ma non troppo"

Today, the

acquis communautaire

comprises 1521 directives and 976

regulations related to the various single market policy areas. An action to deepen
the single market is therefore unlikely to require a new wave of regulations and
directives, as it was the case with the 1985 White Paper. Furthermore, the EU
Better regulation agenda sets out strict requirements on how new legislation
should be designed. However, this does not exempt from addressing the issue of
what modes of regulation and policy making methods are the most appropriate
to regulate the single market.

Currently, 80% of the single market rules are set out through directives. These
have the advantage of allowing for an adjustment of rules to local preferences
and situations. The downsides are the time-lag between adoption at EU level and
implementation on the ground and the risks of non implementation or gold-
plating at national level. The recent debate on regulation in the financial services
area has shown the merits of having a single European rule book. There is thus a
growing case for choosing regulations rather than directives as the preferred
legal technique for regulating the single market. Regulation brings the
advantages of clarity, predictability and effectiveness. It establishes a level
playing field for citizens and business and carries a greater potential for private
enforcement. However, the use of regulation is not a panacea. Regulations are
appropriate instruments only when determined legal and substantial pre-
conditions are satisfied. They may not even result in greater efficiency, if the
discussion that would have taken place at national level at the time of
transposition is shifted to the European level at the time of adoption by the
Council and Parliament.

Harmonisation through regulations can be most appropriate when regulating
new sectors from scratch and easier when the areas concerned allow for limited
interaction between EU rules and national systems. In other instances, where
upfront harmonisation is not the solution, it is worthwhile exploring the idea of a
28th regime, a EU framework alternative to but not replacing national rules -.
The advantage of the 28th regime is to expand options for business and citizens
operating in the single market: if the single market is their main horizon, they
can opt for a standard and single legal framework valid across Member States; if
they move in a predominantly national setting, they will remain under the
national regime. An additional benefit of this model is that it provides a
reference point and an incentive for the convergence of national regimes. So far,
the 28th regime model received little attention except for the European
Company Statute. It should be examined further for expatriate workers or in the

But not too much.

area of commercial contracts where a reference framework for commercial
contracts could remove obstacles to cross-border transactions.

For a smart regulation, policy making methods are equally important as legal
techniques. Smart regulation means regulation informed by an accurate
knowledge of the factors at play and by a sharp awareness of its potential
impacts on the economy, the social context and the environment. The
commitment to better regulation should continue. Impact assessment and
stakeholders' consultation have proven their advantages in terms of quality of
regulation, transparency and accountability. They are key features for reforming
effectively the single market. The social dimension should receive greater
attention by delivering on the commitment to real "social impact assessments'
based on the development of more sophisticated methodologies and upgraded
statistical information. A wide and equal access of all categories of stakeholders
is a crucial element to ensure a real democratic and legitimate law making
process. One of the positive features of the EU system is that it remains more
resistant to regulatory capture than many national political systems. This
advantage should be safeguarded. The register for lobbies is a step forward.
Furthermore, the Commission should ensure that all organisations of interests
have access to its working groups and committees, notably those representing
diffuse interests, such as environmental NGOs or consumer organisations. All
committees and working groups should be registered in an openly accessible
roaster. If necessary, the Commission should place a check on their number.
Committee proliferation hinders policy consistency and may works against the
full participation of civil society organisations when they have small staff and
limited resources.

Effective single market regulation can benefit from a shift of focus from
individual policy interventions to whole policy sectors and from ex ante
measurement of impacts to ex post assessment of what works and what does not
work in a given field. Since the Single Market Review of 2007 there has been a
greater attention to using Market Monitoring as a tool to identify regulatory
needs based on a comprehensive analysis of the functioning of markets
throughout the whole supply chain. The experience with the first applications of
this method shows that it is fit for purpose, but it poses its own challenges.
Market monitoring requires substantial investment in time and resources, precise
focus and well defined scope. It should be used as a targeted tool to examine a
few selected sectors prioritised for further action. These could include not only
mature sectors where bottlenecks and malfunctioning can be identified, but also
new or emerging market sectors, to examine how EU action can help them
deliver their full growth potential. The consumer dimension and the assessment
of the state of implementation of EU rules should be integral parts of the market
monitoring exercise

Functioning markets require rules, but rules that work and provide the right
incentives to economic activity. Smart regulation is thus quality regulation, but
also regulation that does not burden business and citizens with unnecessary
administrative obligations and do not impose excess compliance costs. Pursuing
the simplification agenda and the reduction of administrative burden with
determination is significant contribution to improve the chances of SMEs and
entrepreneurs to fight the economic crisis. Ultimately, it is also key to dispel the
negative perception that the Single Market is synonymous with over-detailed
and useless regulations. The Commission should make all efforts to achieve the
objective of reaching a cut by 25% in administrative costs by 2012. Member
States should equally be committed not to reintroduce administrative charges
through gold plating of EU rules.

Key recommendations:

⇒

Use regulations rather than directives when possible;

⇒

Use the 28

regime as an ad hoc solution where appropriate.

4.2. Reinforcing enforcement

The single market is a construct based on law. Thus, it is crucial that Member
States take seriously their obligation to timely transpose and correctly apply the
rules they agreed to.

The latest Commission Internal Market Scoreboard shows that with an average
of 0.7%, the transposition deficit is the lowest ever recorded within the EU,
falling even below the 1% target set by Heads of State and Government. Yet,
closer analysis points to a compliance deficit which is as persistent as alarming.

The single market remains highly fragmented. At the end of 2009, 74 single
market directives had not yet produced their full effects in the EU due to lack of
national transposition measures in one or more Member States. In other words,
the single market is an engine that works at around 95% of its potential. Member
States also have quite a relaxed attitude towards transposition deadlines. On
average, they grant themselves an extra 9 months to adopt the implementing
legislation after the deadline expires. Some are even more generous and in the
case of 16 directives granted themselves more than two years. Overall, 55% of
EU directives are not implemented by the deadline. Even when single market
rules are transposed on time and correctly, this does not exclude uneven
implementation. If we add up non transposition to incorrect transposition, the
EU average compliance deficit ranges between 1.5% and 1.8% in recent years.
The picture is no rosier when it comes to infringements. At the end of 2009,

there were 1206 cases open. If the number of infringements remained pretty
stable over the years, the time to solve these cases has not. It has increased. It is
now 28 months for EU 15 and 16 for EU 12. 1 out of five cases takes more than
three years before being resolved or brought before the Court. Even when
regulations are concerned, administrative implementation can be problematic.
The law on the ground often turns out to be very different from the law in the
Single rule-book. This "regulatory patchwork" is a serious threat to the
credibility and reputation of the single market.

Paradoxically, the 12 worst offenders in terms of transposition delays are the
Member States belonging to the Euro-area. Likewise, Euro-area members
feature prominently in the ranking for number of overdue or incorrectly
transposed directives. That the majority of required national transposition
measures are late is not just a problem for the legal coherence and transparency
of the system. Late transposition is damaging for the effectiveness of regulation.
On average, Euro-area members score once again much worst than non Euro
Area members also in terms of infringement procedures.

If the EU wants to re-launch the single market, there are good reasons to take
enforcement very seriously. The tricky feature of the enforcement question
today is that it presents a mixed picture of successes and failures, innovation and
old problems. The Commission has prioritised correct application of EU law
within the framework of its better regulation agenda. Preventive action has been
stepped up in partnership with Member States. The infringement procedure has
been used in a more effective and targeted way. Guarantees of transparency
have been introduced in response to the European Parliament and Ombudsman
pressure, through for instance the CHAP - complaints handling- system. New
tools have been introduced to facilitate informal resolution of problems through
very successful mechanisms, such as SOLVIT and with the pioneer EU-pilot
project. Nevertheless, the way the enforcement system operates has not changed
much compared to the past. To many it works in a less than satisfactory manner.

The hard truth is that the decentralised system in which Member States are
responsible for the implementation of EU law and the Commission monitors
their action presents many advantages but cannot ensure total and homogeneous
compliance. Private enforcement is a complementary tool, but it has limitations
as well. At the same time, it is neither possible nor desirable to police the single
market only from Brussels. To get out of this sub-optimal compliance trap, it is
necessary to strengthen central enforcement through the infringement procedure
and grass-root private enforcement. At the same time, it is crucial to explore
with determination how to apply a new approach based on network-based
governance and partnership. This new approach would best be applied to
alternative dispute resolution and to cooperation between the Commission and

national administrations. The ultimate objective would be to design a coherent
enforcement system in which infringement procedures, informal problem
solving mechanisms and private enforcement through national courts form a
seamless web of remedies against breaches of EU law. What is needed is a
concerted press towards compliance, with appropriate passageways and
coordination procedures between the different elements of the system.

Proactive enforcement

The infringement procedure is the central and vital mechanism tool to ensure
effective single market enforcement. The Commission has correctly given
priority to infringement policy in the context of a more diverse and enlarged
Europe. Based on the Strategy launched in 2007, there has been significant
progress on many fronts. The Commission should use infringement with
increased determination, including when it comes to cases which expose
Member States most directly to the risk of binding measures, namely actions for
non compliance with earlier Court judgements and Commission decisions
prohibiting state aid and ordering the recovery of amounts paid. Confronting
Member States may raise tensions and carry a political cost, but objective
enforcement is in the long term interest of all Member States. The enforcement
action of the Commission should not be influenced by political considerations
and its "distance" from political guidance should be ensured through appropriate
procedures and responsibilities.

Processing of infringement cases, notably for non transposition, should be
accelerated. The Commission should take a political commitment to limit to 6
months the maximum duration of cases concerning the non-notification of
implementing measures (the current average is 14 months) and of 12 months for
all other cases under Art. 260 TFUE (down from 26 months). After that
deadline, the Commission should be able to decide whether to go to Court or to
close the case. Internal periodic review exercises should ensure the respect of
these benchmarks. The criteria for priority selection of cases should be further
refined and appropriate reporting on the application of these criteria should be
made in the Annual Report on monitoring the application of EU law. A
determined action should be taken to close older, long lasting cases.

In the longer term, there might be reasons to explore whether the Commission
powers under the infringement procedures should not be aligned with those it
has under competition policy. Ideally, once the Commission has established that
there is an infringement, the decision should create an immediate obligation for
the Member State in question to comply. This should of course be without
prejudice of its right to appeal the decision before the European Court of Justice.

Increased enforcement power should be matched by appropriate administrative
guarantees for Member States and individuals.

In the interest of preserving a level playing field in the single market, the
Commission toolbox to investigate Member State respect of State aid rules
should be modernised and strengthened. The level of maturity of current state
aid rules lags behind those existing in the field of mergers and antitrust. An
amendment of the current Procedural Regulation could reform and modernise
the investigative tools in the area of State aid.

Key recommendations:

⇒

Set out a benchmark for the maximum average duration of
infringement procedures, limiting to 6 months procedures for non
notification and 12 months all other infringement procedures;

⇒

Explore how to align the Commission infringement powers to those it
has under competition policy;

⇒

Amend the Procedural Regulation on State aid to modernise the
procedure and strengthen the investigative powers of the Commission,
bringing them in line with those in the fields of mergers and antitrust.

Managing Member States compliance: preventive action, monitoring of
implementation and mutual evaluation

To be effective, enforcement must be a concern at all stages of the policy cycle.
The quality of the regulation produced by EU institutions matter when it comes
to implementing them. Enforcement-friendliness should be an integral part of
the design of new policies and regulations. Clarity of drafting, simplicity of
provisions and adequate transposition deadlines greatly facilitate follow up work
from Member States. Early awareness of implementation issues should be
fostered through the preparation of implementation plans alongside the
formulation of new important legislative initiatives. The Council and Parliament
should also play their part to the full, accepting to include in the new legislation
the obligation for Member States to prepare correlation tables when adopting
implementing acts. Technical assistance through expert groups meetings,
guidelines and administrative cooperation should be deployed by the
Commission services to prepare the ground for correct application of new
regulations.

Preventive actions should be matched by a parallel attention to monitoring
correct national implementation and to evaluating the actual effects of
regulation. Transparency, peer pressure and administrative cooperation are the

silver bullets in this area. The Internal Market Scoreboard has proved to be a
very effective tool to ensure transparency and leverage peer pressure. It should
be expanded. Once measures are notified, conformity analysis by the
Commission is a critical task. Unfortunately, today conformity checks are an
administrative nightmare. To make just one example, the service dealing with
regulated professions counts 20 people. They have to assess the conformity of
over 6000 pages of national measures in 23 official languages. In the area of
company law and anti-money laundering, Member States have notified around
10 000 pages of national transposition measures. To deal with such a pile of
acts, risk based analysis is one alternative. Stepping up the resources devoted to
monitoring and checking correct application is an obvious second alternative. In
a longer term perspective, one idea would be to post Single Market desks in the
Commission Representation within Member States. These desks could operate a
first check of national implementing measures, alerting the Commission
headquarters services only when a specific issue arises.

Regular reporting from Member States and mutual evaluation can have far
reaching positive impact on conformity of implementing legislation. The mutual
evaluation procedure foreseen in the Services Directive for 2010 is an
innovative way of using peer pressure to improve the quality of implementation,
facilitate exchange of best practices and offer feed back to make adjustments to
existing regulation. This model could be extended to other important regulatory
initiatives. Mutual evaluation could also be a suitable theme on the agenda of
macro-regional cooperation schemes, as in the Baltic Sea Region or in the near
future in the Danubian region. Macro-regional frameworks may facilitate the
dialogue between national systems without of course recreating barriers between
clusters of member states. The evaluation of single market rules in a given area
should also be taken into account when the Commission conducts Market
Monitoring Studies to detect whether market malfunctioning may be related to
the inadequate implementation of directives.

The weight and legitimacy of the European Parliament and of the National
Parliaments should also be brought to bear in this area. The Lisbon Treaty
reinforces the powers of both the European Parliament and National Parliaments
in the law making process. Legislatures should equally look at the other half of
the story, reviewing how EU rules are transposed and implemented. After all,
National Parliaments are often directly involved in passing implementing
legislation. Every year the European Parliament and National Parliaments could
select one piece of legislation or an area of single market law and conduct a
review of its implementation at national level, to spot inadequate
implementation or unanticipated negative effects. The COSAC could be fully
involved in the process. The outcome of this screening could further feed action
at EU or national level.

100

Key recommendations:

⇒

Strengthen preventive action by shaping enforcement-friendly
regulation based on impact assessment, introducing systematically
correlation tables and stepping up technical assistance to national
administrations;

⇒

Create single market desks within Representation offices with the task
of pre-screening conformity between single market legislation and
national implementing rules and to liaise with national administrations
responsible for implementation;

⇒

Extend Mutual Evaluation Process to new legislative initiatives;

⇒

Integrate the ex post evaluation of the implementation situation in a
given sector into Market Monitoring analysis;

⇒

Select every year one or more EU laws for screening by the EP
through a process involving input from National Parliaments and the
COSAC.

Network-based approach and partnership: alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms and cooperation between national administrations

To ensure enforcement effectiveness, it is crucial that citizens know about their
rights and have easy access to an informal dispute resolution mechanism.

A precondition for citizens to activate their right under the Treaty and fight non
compliance is in fact that they are aware of them. There is no shortage today of
EU sponsored information sources on EU law and policies. Yet, the information
is often not easily accessible, not always relevant and often fragmented. The
number of centres providing basic information or legal advice on EU issues is
large: Europe Direct Network, Your Europe Portal, Citizens Signpost Service,
Entreprise Europe Network, Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, to
mention some of them. They target different publics, provide different services,
have different purposes. Their mutual relations are often unclear. Users are often
redirected from one centre to another or find difficult to understand why their
request is not accepted. Furthermore, they are not well connected with problem
solving networks, such as SOLVIT.

Over the past years, the SOLVIT network has developed significantly. Yet, it is
still underused, handling just 1600 cases per year. As it covers the 30 countries
of the European Economic Area, this means that on average each national centre
handles a little more than one case per week. As it relies on centres managed by
the national administrations, it struggles with some shortcomings, such as lack

101

of adequate staff, insufficient oversight from the Commission and a wide variety
of procedures and quality standards used. Another very successful experience in
the area of informal dispute settlement is that of the EU Pilot scheme launched
by the Commission in April 2008 to correct breaches of EU law at an early
stage, without having to open an infringement procedure. This system only
covers, however, fifteen Member States. Its exact articulation with the
infringement procedure on one hand and SOLVIT on the other hand is a
recurrent question.

The first measure to improve the situation is to strengthen the existing
mechanisms to provide an informal solution to disputes. This would mean
strengthening SOLVIT through a clearer legal basis, minimum rules on staffing
and some EU co-funding. The EU pilot scheme should be extended to all the
Member States, ensuring its articulation with the infringement procedures in a
way that does not indirectly lengthen the duration of the latter.

A more radical solution would be to establish an EU network of alternative
dispute resolution centres along the lines of the model applied for the
decentralisation of competition policy with the creation in 2004 of the European
Competition Network (ECN). The idea would be to merge all the centres
existing at national level (for information, legal advice or problem solving) into
a one stop shop point for citizens covering both cases of misapplication of EU
rules and cases involving small scale breaches to EU legislation. The centre
would remain within the national administration to maintain the advantages of
proximity to citizens, knowledge of local laws and respect of subsidiarity. EU
law should define the set up, powers and procedures of the centres. Some forms
of co-funding from the Community budget could also be explored. The national
centres would have a partner in the Commission, that would oversee their
functioning, supplying, where requested, legal advice or stepping in the
procedure should the complainant be unhappy with the solutions found (or not
found) for his/her case. This network of problem solving centres should be
coordinated with the centralised enforcement by the Commission through
appropriate rules and procedures, and could help relieve part of the burden on
the infringement procedure.

Easier and faster cross-border administrative cooperation between national
administrations would also make it easier for citizens to enjoy their rights within
the Single Market. The Internal Market Information System (IMI) introduced
with the Services directive has proved to be a very successful mechanism to put
national administrations in contact and should be extended to other sectors than
Services. Furthermore, the Commission should invest in animating networks
with national administration on implementation, facilitating exchange of best

102

practices, training, and discussing guidance on how to apply Single Market
rules.

Key recommendations:

⇒

Extend the EU Pilot scheme to all 27 Member States and step up the
SOLVIT system ensuring EU co-funding and a clearer legal basis.

⇒

Step up administrative cooperation by extending the IMI system to other
areas of legislation

⇒

In the long term, establish an EU network of alternative dispute resolution
centres.

Private enforcement

The EU legal system empowers citizens and business to stand up for their rights,
through litigation before national courts. Thus, private enforcement is a key tool
to contribute towards reduction of the compliance deficit and to ensure the
effectiveness of the Single Market. There are two ways in which private
enforcement can be strengthened.

Firstly, national judges play a key role in interpreting and applying EU law next
to national law. The Commission, in partnership with Member States, should
step up its support for training programmes and structures to ensure that national
judges and legal professionals have a solid knowledge of the Single Market rules
they are most often required to apply.

Secondly, the right to obtain compensation for damages following a breach of
EU law is the same for all citizens of the EU. Access to this right is not. The
remedies and procedures differ from Member State to Member State as they are
enshrined in the national legal system. The result is a marked inequality between
Member States in the level of protection of the right to damages. Experts have
calculated that the amount of unrecovered damages may range to more than 20
billion per year in the EU. There is some rationale in addressing this problem in
particular when it comes to breaches of competition rules. A legislative initiative
could aim at creating in all Member States minimum guarantees that allow
victims of competition law infringements to effectively enforce their right to
compensation before national courts.

105

5.1. New political initiative

President Barroso has identified the single market as a key strategic objective
to be pursued with renewed political determination. He has also announced
the Commission’s intention to lead this process, fully engaging the European
Parliament, the Council, Member States and all stakeholders.

This report, commissioned by President Barroso, aims at providing inputs for
the articulation of a new strategy, that the Commission may wish to consider.

Building on an extensive consultation process, the proposed strategy is
comprehensive and consists of initiatives respectively aiming at building a
stronger single market, building consensus on it, and delivering it. A package
deal is suggested.

All this requires investment in a fully fledged political initiative. This may
create a new momentum, which is necessary also to make swift progress with
proposals that have been on the table for a long time.

For this to happen, it seems necessary not only to work on each specific
initiative, but also to refocus the way in which the single market is dealt with
by the EU institutions and to redefine the place of the single market in overall
EU policy making.

5.2. Refocusing EU institutions on the single market

The Commission, which has been able to defend the single market even
during the unprecedented tensions of the recent crisis, should continue and, if
necessary, intensify the full use of its powers of enforcement. In the
legislative process that it initiates, the Commission should be a strong
advocate of the integrity of the process, so that its proposals, whilst of course
being fully open to the decisive influence of Parliament and Council, would
not end up denatured, as sometimes has been the case. Withdrawal of a
proposal may on occasions be prefrable to a deeply unsatisfactory outcome.
Also, the Commission should encourage the Council to make full use of
qualified majority voting, in the many areas where that is foreseen, without
indulging in endless processes to try to have all Member States agree, often
at the expense of the incisiveness of the outcome.

In its own internal modus operandi, which of course it is entirely for the
President and the College to determine, it seems appropriate to adopt a more
comprehensive approach in the formulation of policies for the single market.
Numerous portfolios are crucially involved.

106

The President’s leading role is particularly crucial to bring a wholistic vision.
A Group of Commissioners embracing all the competences on economic
integration, chaired by the President, or by the Commissioner for the Internal
Market and Services when the President is not available, could be the
appropriate body for policy formulation. On the other hand, the responsibility
for enforcing existing rules should stay as close as possible with the
specifically competent Commissioners, because enforcement actions should
not be the object of broader mediations.

The European Parliament could consider ways to bring, there two, more
unitary vision to a subject area which is currently in the competence of the
Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, but – in the approach
suggested in this report – involves heavily the comptences of several other
Committees, like the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committe and the
committees active in the areas of industry, social policies and others.

The Council has a similar problem. Single market issues are to a large extent
the remit of the Competitiveness Council, but other key responsibilities for
aspects of the single market are in the hands of the Ecofin Council, the Social
Affairs Council and others.

Now that the European Council, also through the role of its permanent
President, can afford a greater continuity in steering economic governance of
the EU, it would be helpful to have a top-level comprehensive guidance of
the Council’s contribution to this key pillar of European integration. While
the power of initiative and the enforcement – under the control of the Court -
will of course have to remain firmly in the hands of the Commission, the
whole process of giving a stronger impulsion to the single market would
benefit if the European Council considered this to be one of its key areas of
permanent attention, giving its President a mandate to ensure that is done
with political vision and concrete continuity, in close cooperation with the
President of the Commission.

Parliament, Council and Commission should also consider introducing a fast-
track legislative procedure for those measures that would be included in a
strategic initiative for the single market, as was done following the 1985
White Paper.

To ensure proper follow up, there could be an annual moment when the three
institutions, involving also the stakeholders, take stock of the „State of the
Union“, as regards economic integration.

107

5.3. The place of the single market in EU policy making

Throughout this report, it has emerged that the single market, although
lacking a strong identity and visibility in terms of policy perceptions, is really
instrumental to several other areas of EU policy making, which do attract
greater political interest. Yet, these areas risk not delivering what they are
intended to deliver, if they cannot fully stand on a robust single market.

Europe2020 is a promising overarching policy initiative, which will be
crucial for the future of Europe. It identifies correctly a single market pillar.
It seems crucial that new political energies be triggered around this pillar, to
give momentum to several related initiatives of the srategy. The relaunch of
the single market on the basis of a new consensus and commitment, as
proposed here, might perhaps provide such energy.

Economic and Monetary Union, as mentioned in previous chapters, has a
weakness in the insufficient degree of single market and competition at play
in many Member States. They made the bold decision to share the same
currency. That requires, at the very least, a high degree of sharing effectively
a single, integrated, flexible market, a prerequsite for an optimum currency
area and a vector for improvements in productivity and competitiveness. The
Eurogroup should make a point in calling all its participating Member States
to achieve at least the degree of actual embracement of, and compliance with,
the single market and competition that occurs in non-Eurozone Member
States.

The effort to put in place some form of Economic government, the latest
expression of the EU’s ambition to control its economic fate, should also
consider the single market as a key item on the agenda. This is certainly a
commitment, and a policy, shared by all 27 Member States. Therefore, this is
a natural candidate topic to be dealt with systematically in the upcoming
building block of Economic government.