Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2016)822 - Proportionality test before adoption of new regulation of professions - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2016)822 - Proportionality test before adoption of new regulation of professions. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2016)822  |
| date | 10-01-2017 |
1. CONTEXTOFTHEPROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
A deeper and fairer internal market is a top priority of the Commission: 'to put policies that create growth and jobs at the centre of the policy agenda'.1 The European Council considered that “delivering a deeper and fairer Single Market will be instrumental in creating new jobs, promoting productivity and ensuring an attractive climate for investment and innovation”2. The significant role of professional services in the EU economy cannot be over-estimated and there are numerous studies demonstrating the untapped benefits to furthering the Single Market in services.
In the absence of harmonised requirements at EU level, the regulation of professional services remains a prerogative of the Member States. It is up to each Member State to decide whether there is a need to intervene and impose rules and restrictions for the access to or pursuit of a profession, so long as the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality are respected. In the majority of cases, regulation is justified and even welcome, as for example when it comes to health and safety issues. However, to ensure regulation is fit for purpose and does not create unjustified burdens, it ought to be thoroughly considered so as to fully appreciate its effect upon stakeholders and the broader business environment. In line with the Commission's jobs and growth priorities, ensuring an optimal regulatory environment is key. This is why steps to introduce an ex-ante proportionality test when reforming the regulation of professional services was announced under the Single Market Strategy3.
The right to work in the sense of the freedom to pursue one's chosen profession or to conduct a business is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The key benefits of the EU Single Market include the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services. Limitations to these freedoms are particularly burdensome for SMEs to overcome. As such, regulatory measures must be duly justified as achieved through a thorough proportionality assessment.
'Regulated professions' refer to activities where a specific professional qualification is required and such professions are present throughout all sectors of the economy. Over time different regulations have been introduced by each Member State reflecting long established traditions, either in the form of State regulation or as self-regulation by professional associations. Generally there have been good reasons for regulation, based on the need to protect essential public interest objectives and this brings value to society by, for example, clarifying the technical knowledge, training and competences which professionals should have to ensure citizens are protected. However, inappropriate regulation can place a burden on the professional, business and consumer; these burdens can include disproportionate qualification requirements, extensive reserved activities, compulsory membership in professional associations or other measures. In this regard, the Court of Justice has consistently held that, even if applied without any discrimination, national regulation of professions and any requirements concerning qualifications are liable to hinder or make less
1 https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/index en.
2 www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases">www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases.
3
attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms by EU citizens and companies, guaranteed to them by the Treaty4. The Court also held that the fact that one Member State imposes less strict rules than another Member State does not mean that the latter's rules are disproportionate and incompatible with EU law. It is for the Member States to assess on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the entirety of the regulatory context for that profession, whether it is necessary to place restrictions on the access to and conduct of professional activities and what restrictions are best fit to address the specific public interest concerns.
In 2013, Directive 2005/36/EC, the Professional Qualifications Directive, was amended by Directive 2013/55/EU with the view to modernise Union law in the area of regulated professions. It also introduced a transparency and mutual evaluation exercise between the Member States of all their regulated professions. Based on the information submitted by the relevant competent authorities during the mutual evaluation process, it appears that conducting such an assessment presented a challenge to many Member States5. The fact that the majority of the assessments lacked proper reasoning suggests an underlying problem concerning how the need for regulation and its effects on the broader business environment are evaluated. The mutual evaluation process revealed that regulatory decisions are currently not always based on sound and objective analysis or carried out in an open and transparent manner. Further, and despite the in-depth discussions and the guidance provided by the Commission so far, it has not prevented the introduction of new restrictive measures without objective and comprehensive analysis since. Member States have introduced new regulations such as for instance for the exercise of the legal profession, or have introduced or broadened reserves of activities for instance for tax advice or for tourist guides without or with only a very superficial assessment of proportionality.
The current uneven scrutiny of the regulation of professions across the EU has a negative impact on the provision of services and the mobility of professionals. Action by individual Member States alone will not ensure a coherent EU legal framework for assessing the proportionality of envisaged national regulation and address the existing problems faced by national authorities. The main objectives of the action to introduce more clarity to the applicable criteria, strengthening reliability, transparency and comparability across Member Stares and ensuring that rules are applied in an equal manner so as to prevent further burdening and fragmenting the Single Market, could be achieved more successfully at EU level by virtue of its scale and effects through the introduction of a common EU-wide assessment mechanism, applied by all Member States and in a comparable way. In view of frequent changes to professional regulation, without EU action, there is the risk that the gap between those who already apply good regulatory practices and properly assess proportionality before deciding whether to adopt regulation6 and those who do not will widen, thus increasing divergence in the quality of regulation. This ultimately has a negative effect on access to professions and negative consequences for consumers and economics alike.
To address the issue, the Commission announced in the Single Market Strategy an initiative laying down a proportionality test to be used by Member States before adopting or amending
see Cases C-340/89 Vlassopoulou and C-55/94 Gebhard.
assessments are still not conducted almost a year since transposition. Of those that were received
around 70% took the decision to maintain the status quo based on underdeveloped conducted
assessments.
6
national regulations of professions. There is considerable potential to enhance the creation of growth and jobs by Member States through increasing the transparency of their regulated professions and completing a more thorough analysis of their proportionality before adopting any new rules while simultaneously completing reforms in their regulated professions to modernise their requirements. As described in the impact assessment accompanying this proposal, numerous studies show how poor regulatory choices are liable to distort competition by restricting market entry and thus may result in substantial lost employment opportunities, higher prices for consumers and hinder free-movement. In terms of job creation alone, an academic study suggests around 700 000 more jobs7 could be created in the EU through addressing unnecessary and disproportionate regulations.
The proportionality test is therefore designed to support better regulatory practices and ultimately their outcomes. It applies to newly introduced or reviewed requirements on access to or the pursuit of a regulated profession. It consolidates the case-law of the Court of Justice on the proportionality of requirements restricting access to or pursuit of regulated professions but leaves the decision of what to regulate and how to Member States, this decision is evidence-based following a thorough, transparent and objective assessment. It takes full account of the specificity of each profession and its regulatory environment. The benefits of this initiative for professionals, consumers and public administrations lie largely in the fact that it would ensure the better regulation of professions by preventing disproportionate rules from being adopted. The objective of this proposal is to a large extent the codification of established case-law of the Court of Justice. Departure from this case-law could denature the proposal. The Commission may withdraw a proposal if it is denatured.
An EU Directive would significantly facilitate the obligation for Member States to comply with the proportionality principle and would guarantee that Member States implement the proportionality test in an equivalent manner at all levels of regulation in order to avoid fragmentation of the Single Market.
The initiative aims at introducing clarity and promotes objective, reliable and comprehensive proportionality tests in order to increase confidence and innovation through regular reviews of national regulation of professions. Underlying this action is the aim of not only supporting the Member States accomplish these shared objectives but to do so in a structured and streamlined way so as to ease their administrative duties.
Consistency
with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The proposal is consistent with and complements the existing provisions of Directive 2005/36/EC.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The proposal is consistent with the Commission’s priorities as set out in its Single Market Strategy (SMS) as well as the EU objectives of creating growth and jobs, ensuring the free movement of professionals, improving the environment for businesses and offering choice to consumers.
Another action announced in the SMS is the periodic guidance on specific needs. This initiative aims at identifying problems per country and per profession where the reform of the regulatory framework would be economically beneficial, and based on which the Commission
7 “Measuring Prevalence and Labour Market impacts of Occupational Regulation in the EU”, Maria
will recommend Member State level action. These two actions are complementary, in the sense that the proportionality test will provide the general framework of criteria to be used when assessing the proportionality of envisaged regulation, a sunrise clause, whilst the periodic guidance on reform needs will focus on specific issues, identified in the existing regulation of certain professions or sectors.
The present proposal is consistent with and complements the initiative to improve notifications under the Services Directive. Whereas the latter complements the existing notification procedure applicable for restrictions under the Services Directive, the present proposal provides clarity on the criteria to be used by Member States when assessing the proportionality of draft national laws regulating professions and falling under the Professional Qualifications Directive. Some requirements in national regulation of professions (such as legal form or shareholding requirements) fall under both the Professional Qualifications Directive and the Services Directive. In such cases, the proportionality assessment would follow the rules in this proposal and the information to be provided in the notification procedure falling under the Services Directive would have to be based on and reflect this assessment. Consistency between these instruments is being ensured and this proposal does not introduce any new notification procedures.
2. LEGALBASIS, SUBSIDIARITYAND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The proposal is based on Articles 46, 53(1) and 62 TFEU.
The European Union has the right to act in the field of regulation of professions for the achievement of the Internal Market objectives based on the articles in the TFEU on the free movement of persons and services. In particular, Article 46 TFEU provides for specific provisions to be adopted in the area of the free movement of workers, Article 53(1) TFEU provides for issuing Directives concerning the taking-up and pursuit of activities as self-employed persons and Article 62 of the TFEU is the basis for legal acts on the exercise of the freedom to provide services.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
According to the subsidiarity principle, the EU should only act where the objectives of the proposed action cannot be achieved sufficiently by Member States and where the objectives can be better achieved by the EU. As evidenced by the information obtained in the mutual evaluation, the criteria used and the intensity of assessments vary significantly between Member States. This current uneven scrutiny of the proportionality of regulation of professions across the EU, and the impacts stemming from this, has a substantial impact on the wider economy of the EU, the provision of services and the mobility of professionals. Studies, independently conducted as well as those contracted by the Commission show that disproportionate regulation has a negative impact upon job creation, growth, consumer choice, prices, innovation, investment and trade8. In addition we have seen what benefits may
See for example in COM(2013)676; 'The Cost of Non-Europe in the Single Market for services', European Parliament Research Service, 2014; 'Estimation of service sector mark-ups determined by structural reform Indicators', European Commission, 2015; 'Regulatory heterogeneity as obstacle for international services trade', H. Kox, A. Lehour, 2005; 'The discriminatory effect of domestic regulations on international services trade: evidence from firm-level data', EFIGE, 2012; "Business services – Assessment of Barriers and their Economic Impact", European Commission, 2015; 'The Economic Impact of Professional Services Liberalisation', European Commission, 2014,
8
be brought by steps taken to reform regulation and which, in addition, were found to have no direct impact upon the protection of legitimate public interests:
• In Italy, the Bersani reform of 2006 brought new entrants into the market, leading to higher overall employment of young pharmacists.
• In Poland, the reform of lawyers introducing objective access rules led to almost a tripling of the number of lawyers between 2005 and 2015 and almost a doubling of the number of legal advisers without negative effects on wages and quality.
• In Greece reforms resulted in lower prices for consumers of services of real estate agents, legal professions, accountants, tax consultants and physiotherapists which were liberalised by the reform enacted in 2011. T he number of start-ups for notaries, auditors, tourist guides and chartered valuers has more than doubled in 2014 compared with the yearly average before the liberalisation.
However, isolated action by individual Member States alone will not ensure a coherent EU legal framework for assessing the proportionality of national regulation and address the existing problems faced by national authorities. Therefore, the objectives of the action, namely the reliability and comparability of proportionality assessments could be achieved more successfully at the Union level through the introduction of a common EU-wide assessment mechanism applied by all Member States in a similar way, by virtue of its scale and effects. National law would hence reflect the criteria set out in the proposed action and which would have to be considered by national authorities when assessing the proportionality of national regulation in the professions.
An EU approach would thus enable national authorities to perform comprehensive and comparable proportionality checks through creating a transparent and predictable legal framework to assess barriers to regulated professions. The European Council has repeatedly called for action on this front. In February 2015 the European Council called for guidance12, following this the Council welcomed the proportionality tests inclusion in the Single Market
Strategy saying that it 'reiterates that the Single Market is Europe’s main engine for growth
and job creation and a key to investment and increasing European competitiveness. Emphasises that strengthening and deepening the Single Market requires urgent and ambitious actions, both at Union and national level, to deliver concrete and pragmatic results which directly benefit consumers and businesses, in particular SMEs . Most recently in June 2016 the Council called upon the Commission to take steps to vigorously pursue efforts towards better regulation'14.
Proportionality
This proposal is in line with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5 i TEU.
The selected policy option seeks to strike the right balance between securing public interest objectives and the quality of services on the one hand alongside improving the access to and exercise of regulated professions for the professionals themselves, whilst ensuring a wider choice for consumers on the other. This proposal respects the principle of proportionality
9 ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Council Conclusions on Single Market Policy 2/3 March 2015 data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document
13 data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document.
14
since the solutions imply cost-efficiency and reduce the overall burden on public administration as it provides clear criteria to conduct proportionality assessments of the regulation of professions and should prevent the introduction of implementation burdens brought by unnecessary future measures. The administrative burden of conducting a proportionality test was already assessed in the context of the revision of the Professional Qualifications Directive of 2013. In line with this assessment, costs stemming from the current proposal, to impose proportionality testing for future regulatory impositions, should be of limited impact15. This effect may be slightly higher for those Member States not currently in compliance with implementation of the Directive. However it is expected that there will be an overall positive effect in terms of administrative costs, because Member States will be less likely to be faced with infringements procedures as the result of an improved system. The Commission intends to work alongside Member States to further assist them in implementing this directive and with a view to further limiting costs. The proposal does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued and indeed is best suited to its objectives. The mutual evaluation followed a guidance route, it revealed a scarcity of evidence to suggest that regulatory decisions are currently being based on sound and objective analysis or in an open and transparent manner. Nearly three years since launching the mutual evaluation around a third of proportionality tests are still not submitted and of those received around 70% put forward the conclusion to maintain their regulatory status quo despite a weak accompanying proportionality test. In addition to this, the rate of regulatory change in the professions is high and the Commission is aware of a continued drive to place new regulatory burdens on professionals without conducting proper prior proportionality based analysis into the need, value or impact of such burdens.
• Choice of the instrument
The instrument chosen is a new Directive, giving Member States a degree of flexibility in terms of transposition and implementation so as to be able to capture the legal essence and the multi-faceted nature of the proportionality principle. A Directive is binding as to the result to be achieved and thus constitutes an appropriate instrument for the achievement of the Internal Market from the point of view of the free movement of workers, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services. As well as these being objectives of the European Union, the Treaty also places legal expectations upon Member States so that whereas the choice as to whether and how to regulate a profession remains their competency it must remain within the remits of justification, proportionality and necessity.
The impact assessment describes fully the scale of the issue in the regulation of professions and the effects that unnecessary regulation has on the wider European economy as well as underlining the issues Member States face in appropriately addressing it. A Directive will allow Member States to assimilate a comprehensive proportionality assessment into their own existing legislative procedures, and since no one methodology is being enforced by the Commission, this allows the Member States to operate with a level of discretion that accommodates their own structures and without affecting the ultimate objective of the Directive: to have a comparable, transparent, reliable, objective, evidenced based decision making process. For these reasons the Commission has judged a Directive to be the most appropriate and effective response.
5
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER
Contents
- CONSULTATIONS
- To address the issue, the Commission announced in the Single Market Strategy an initiative laying down a proportionality test to be used by Member States before adopting or amending
- As more fully explained in the accompanying Impact Assessment; around a third of proportionality
- The World Bank Regular Economic Report Fall 2016: Growth, Jobs and Integration: Services to the
- 17 18
- Commission Staff Working Document - Impact Assessment accompanying this proposal (SWD(2016)
ANDIMPACTASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
Prior to its substantial revision in 2013, Directive 2005/36/EC was the subject of a thorough evaluation on the shortcomings of the existing process for facilitating the free movement of professionals. Based on those findings, Directive 2013/55/EU, amending Directive 2005/36/EC introduced, among other requirements, an obligation for Member States to assess the proportionality of their professional regulations. On the basis of these assessments, pursuant to Article 59(9), by January 2017 the Commission is expected to submit its final findings on the overview of national regulations of professions and on the proportionality assessments conducted by Member States to the European Parliament and the Council, accompanied where appropriate by proposals for further initiatives. This proposal has not been developed from an overall assessment of the Directive as it was revised only recently however, it does stem from the Commission's assessments and is part of the follow-up initiatives prefigured under Article 59(9) of Directive 2013/55/EU as a conclusion to the Commission's assessment. The possibility for a further proposal was therefore foreseen as part of follow-up steps to improve implementation and efficacy of the new provisions.
Stakeholder
consultations
A public consultation was carried out between 27 May and 22 August 2016. A total of 420 responses were received. These included submissions from individuals, members of regulated professions, professional associations, regulatory bodies, government authorities and academics. There was a broad consensus across stakeholders that action should be taken at EU level to introduce clarity and a common approach as regards proportionality tests. Across respondent demographics we received majority support for a binding (Directive) solution: users; providers, both large and small business; public authorities and unions all endorsed the proposal. Some professional associations were less positive. Specifically the German and Austrian crafts sector, who organised identical responses across 100 craft associations, to reject the idea of any action at an EU level either through a directive or a guidance approach. We decided to maintain the organised response16 in collating the results of the consultation and in doing so we are still able to maintain a majority support for our proposal. In addition the consultation showed the need for action since a disparity of approaches to analysis was uncovered not only across the EU but also within individual Member States. It found a lack of clarity on the existence of any analytical and proportionality based expectations when designing regulation as well as a sporadic approach to consultation and transparency.
A summary of the results can be found on: ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/.
In addition, a high level conference held by the Commission on 18 May 2016 allowed for a further exchange of views.
The issues were also discussed with Member States at the High Level Group meeting of 3 May 2016 and 10 November 2016.
• Collection and use of expertise
The results of the mutual evaluation of regulated professions, conducted by the Member States, together with the Commission contributed to the preparation of this proposal.
6
OECD studies show that labour mobility is a key determinant of productivity which enhances economic growth17. Furthermore, the Commission contracted economic studies on the effects of reforms to the regulatory requirements for accessing selected professions in four different countries: Germany, Greece, Italy and the United Kingdom18.
In addition, according to a recent survey carried out in April 2015 in all 28 Member States, at least 21% of the labour force in the European Union (50 million people) can be considered as working in a regulated profession19.
• Impact assessment
In line with its 'Better Regulation' policy, the Commission services conducted an impact assessment analysing the different policy options and their impact on stakeholders.20
The different options examined in the impact assessment were:
Option 1 - issuing proportionality guidelines and in-depth information exchange between authorities establishing an EU wide proportionality test for regulated professions which could encompass several options.
Option 2a - Laying down the minimum criteria for conducting proportionality checks, based on and complementing the case-law and by introducing transparency on Member States' assessments through a binding instrument (Directive).
Option 2b - Implementing the same approach as 2a but through the means of a Recommendation.
Option 3a - Further including procedural aspects to those of option 2a, such as public consultations and periodic review through a binding instrument (directive).
Option 3b - As with those same aspects of option 3a but through the instrument of a Recommendation.
Drawing on the consultation, experience and evidence presented through an impact assessment the Commission concluded that the best option to improve the existing situation is Option 3a:
Option 1 - A guidance approach has already been tested: first through the issuing of a Communication in 2013 then through a grid and guidance provided to support the two yearlong mutual evaluation and which proved to be unable to adequately address the regulatory issues it uncovered. As well as this the Commission has been working intensively with the Member States to encourage them to attend better to issues of proportionality (through visits to Member States, a Conference, Single Market Forums, and workshops).
www.oecd.org/eco/growth">www.oecd.org/eco/growth.
ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf
M. Koumenta and M. Pagliero (2016), "Measuring Prevalence and Labour Market Impacts of
Occupational Regulation in the EU". See: ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/20362.
9
20
Option 2a - This would address the issues faced by Member States in interpreting the case law as well as clarity on the criteria to be evaluated and would thus go some way to improving the quality of the assessments and their ultimate outcomes.
Option 2b - Both this option and 3b have the same drawbacks as option 1. An optional route would not address the issue of Member States disregarding the practice of conducting a proportionality test and thereby cannot be foreseen as preventing the future introduction of unnecessary burdens, or as an effective mechanism for removing issues identified through such reviews. Finally these same constraints would limit the possibility for information to be shared more transparently with citizens and stakeholders.
Option 3a - periodic reviews would ensure that regulation which is no longer appropriate is removed whilst the inclusion of consultation would support that the better involvement of all stakeholders, including consumer bodies and citizens, to ensure that their interest are also accounted for.
Option 3b - as with 2b, an elective approach cannot ensure these steps are taken.
Given experience and the assessments made in preparing this proposal it can be concluded that a discretionary route, a Recommendation, would not compel the analysis necessary and especially in the most difficult cases. The general obligation to conduct periodic reviews, to inform all interested parties and an obligation to ensure a minimum of objectivity and impartiality can only be addressed if implemented legally and this can only be guaranteed by a directive.
On 9 October 2016 the Regulatory Scrutiny Board issued a positive opinion on this initiative. The Board's main recommendations were that the proposal should further expand upon its concurrence with other initiatives, explain more the scale of the problem and why current structures are not capable of addressing it, develop further how the provisions in the proposal will operate and expand upon the views of stakeholders as well as the impacts on SMEs, consumers and national authorities. This was duly taken into account.
The opinion can be found at: ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact.
The different policy options and their impact on stakeholders are analysed in detail in the impact assessment which is available at the following website: ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
A mutual evaluation carried out by the Member States, together with the Commission in 2014-2016 revealed the uneven scrutiny of national regulatory measures and the lack of clarity as to the criteria to be used for proportionality assessments. The conclusion is that proportionality assessments carried out at national level and based on the case-law of the Court of Justice and on national approaches in their current form are not achieving their potential for adding value to the achievement of the Single Market.
• Fundamental rights
The proposal is promoting rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, namely the freedom to choose an occupation and the freedom to conduct a business.
4. BUDGETARYIMPLICATIONS
The proposal has no impact on the EU budget.
5. OTHERELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The Commission would regularly report to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation and performance of the proportionality test at national level. This evaluation is planned to be performed at the same time as the evaluation of the Professional Qualifications Directive.
• Explanatory documents (for directives)
This proposal does not require additional explanatory documents to accompany the transposition into national law, given it is based on the existing case-law and basic better regulation principles. Nevertheless, where necessary, the Commission may present further guidance.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Articles 1 and 2 deal with the subject matter and the scope of the Directive, namely to create a legal framework for conducting proportionality assessments before introducing new or modifying existing legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions restricting access to or pursuit of regulated professions. Proportionality tests covering the regulation of specific professions, introduced by other EU instruments are not covered by this Directive.
Article 3 sets out the definitions used in the proposal, which are to a large extent common to the definitions under Directive 2005/36/EC. In addition, definitions are provided for the two main types of regulation of professions, namely 'reserved activities' and 'protected professional title'.
Article 4 lays down an obligation for Member States to conduct an ex-ante proportionality assessment, substantiated by qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative evidence.
Article 5 lists the justifications on grounds of public interest objectives on the basis of the TFEU or recognised as such by the Court of Justice. Based on settled case-law, grounds of a purely economic nature having essentially protectionist aim or effects, or purely administrative reasons cannot constitute overriding reasons in the public interest.
Article 6 (1) lays down a general obligation for Member States before introducing new or modifying existing provisions restricting access to or pursuit of regulated professions, to assess whether these provisions are necessary and suitable for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and do not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective. Article 6
(2) also sets out the main criteria, which have be considered by the competent authorities, such as the nature of the risks, the scope of the activities, reserved to a profession, the link between the qualification and the activities, the economic impact of the measure etc. Article 6
(3) specifies the use of less restrictive means to achieve the objective pursued, such as the use of protected professional title, without reserving the activities to specific profession. Article 6
(4) gives an overview of the elements to be taken into account when examining the cumulative effect of all the existing measures, restricting access to or pursuit of professions.
Article 7 sets out an obligation to inform all interested parties before introducing new measures and give them the possibility to express their views.
Article 8 provides for exchange of information between competent authorities of different Member States, allowing the Member State which intends to reform a profession to gather the information on the experience of other Member States.
Article 9 provides for transparency of the proportionality assessments.
Article 10 foresees a periodic review of the Directive.
Article 11 deals with the transposition of the Directive.
Article 12 specifies the entry into force of the Directive.
Article 13 sets the addresses of the Directive.