Europaudvalget 2024-25
EUU Alm.del Bilag 257
Offentligt
2974599_0001.png
Non-paper on enhancing the enforcement of the Single
Market rules by strengthening infringement proce-
dures by Denmark
Summary
Concentrating on the proper enforcement and addressing unjustified barriers that significantly impede the
Single Market's functioning and the European economy could greatly enhance the benefits of the Single
Market for companies. This should be done by:
Taking a target approach to enforcement focusing on the breach of rules with a significant impact on
the free movement.
Building on reasoning such as assessments of economic impact, resource availability, or its broader
impact on other areas on the European cohesiveness inspired by the Single Market Scoreboard.
Taking on a target and structured approach to enforcement
The lack of enforcement of the Single Market rules is one of the main complaints national authorities are met
with when discussing the Single Market with businesses. We therefore welcome the new Commission's com-
mitment to burden reduction and enforcement. Addressing unjustified barriers that significantly impede the
Single Market's functioning and the European economy could greatly enhance the benefits of the Single Market
for companies, considering that 60% of all barriers have proven persistent over a period of 20 years
1
. The focus
should preferably be on those areas and rules, which have real impact on the free movement. Important aspects
in this regard may be for example the (economic) impact of the breach, the scope of the breach and whether
rules affect the access to activities or regulate activities themselves. Substantive breaches of rules and unjusti-
fied barriers deserve more attention compared to procedural breaches.
Increasing transparency
The European Commission’s
role as ‘guardian of the Treaties’
is independent and should not be affected by
giving the Commission concrete instructions on enforcement. However, in the past the European Commission
showed openness towards suggestions. More transparency on priorities for enforcement would make a dia-
logue with the Commission on these priorities possible. The European Commission could announce its prior-
ities for enforcement in its Annual Single Market and Competitiveness Report, afterwards discussions could
be organized with the Council or Member States (e.g. SMET) and with the European Parliament.
Promoting trust
Strengthening the Commission’s role is contingent on its ability to
promote trust and transparency in
its’
en-
forcement of the Single Market rules. The Commission should, therefore, publicize and provide a reasoning
for why to launch an infringement proceeding as part of the enforcement section of the Annual Single Market
and Competitiveness Scoreboard. Furthermore, it would be desirable to have an overview of pending Court
cases and EU pilots to indicate against which Member States cases are pending. Such an aggregated overview
would enable the Commission and Member State to discern patterns in compliance with EU law and would
provide valuable input for a dialogue on enforcement priorities.
1
The Single Market at 30, 16 March 2023.
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 257: Notat, høringssvar og non-paper m.v. om Kommissionens høring om kommende horisontale indre markedsstrategi
Keeping in line with increasing the transparency and justification of launching infringement procedures, it is
equally important that the Commission follows up on the proceedings. This should be done as part of the
annual policy cycle, where necessary actions can be discussed in the relevant forums. This would both exem-
plify the Commission’s commitment for a stronger enforcement of the EU rules and simultaneously work as a
deterrence for Member States.
Input for dialogue: more transparency on pending procedures and follow-up of complaints
A higher level of transparency would be welcomed by policymakers at EU and national level. This could be
done through analyzing structural and recurrent issues and reporting these accordingly to the Council and
European Parliament to enhance dialogue and transparency. Regarding SOLVIT important progress is being
made in this analysis and subsequent transparency, but this should also apply to CHAP (general procedure for
submitting complaints) and the Single Market Obstacles Tool (SMOT). This analysis should feed into the
policy-making process regarding the Single Market and would enable the work on structural solutions for
systemic problems. Moreover, it would supply the complainant with more transparency as they would be able
to view the follow-up of the submitted complaint. This would be helpful to manage expectations of the com-
plainant and would make it more worthwhile to submit complaints.