EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 19.12.2017
SWD(2017) 465 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Accompanying the document
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
THE OPERATION OF DIRECTIVE (EU) 2015/1535 FROM 2014 TO 2015
{COM(2017) 788 final}
TABLE OF CONTENTS – ANNEXES
Annex 1 – Brief description of the notification procedure
Annex 2 – Application of the procedure between 2014-2015: notifications of technical regulations submitted by the Member States
2.1Volume of notifications during the 2014-2015 period
2.2Breakdown by country
2.3Breakdown by sector
2.4Commission reactions: comments and detailed opinions in 2014 and 2015 (articles 5(2) and 6(2) of the directive)
2.5Commission reactions: blockages in 2014 and 2015 (articles 9(3) and 9(4) of the directive)
2.6Member States reactions
2.7Urgency Procedure (Article 9(7) of the Directive)
2.8Follow-up to Commission reactions
Annex 3 – Application of the procedure in 2011-2013: participation of efta countries signatory to the EEA Agreement, of Switzerland and of Turkey
Annex 4 – Internet consultations 2011-2013
Annex 1 – Brief description of the notification procedure
This annex gives a general overview of the notification procedure for products and indicates the specific procedural characteristics that apply to Information Society services. For a more detailed description of the procedure, please refer to the information brochure Guide to the procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, available on the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris .
Legal bases
Introduced in 1984 by Directive 83/189/EEC 1 , the notification procedure in the field of technical regulations has gradually been extended to all industrial, agricultural and fishery products. In 1998, Directive 83/189/EEC was repealed and codified by Directive 98/34/EC 2 , which in turn was amended by Directive 98/48/EC 3 in order to extend the notification procedure to Information Society services, with the adaptations needed to take account of the demands of the sector. In 2015, Directive 98/48/EC was repealed and replaced by Directive (EU) 2015/1535 4 with the aim of codifying it after the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 5 .
Obligation to notify and standstill period
Article 5(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 (hereinafter "the Single Market Transparency Directive") stipulates that the Member States shall inform the Commission of any draft technical regulation prior to its adoption. The simple transposition of a European Union act does not require prior notification, unless the national authorities adopt national provisions that go beyond mere compliance with European Union acts and that contain technical regulations within the meaning of the Directive (Article 7 of the Single Market Transparency Directive).
Starting from the date of notification of the draft, a three-month standstill period – during which the notifying Member State cannot adopt the technical regulation in question – enables the Commission and the other Member States to examine the notified text and to respond appropriately. The only derogation to this rule is linked to the nature of the measure in question: for technical specifications linked to fiscal or financial measures, there is no standstill period. This also applies to technical regulations that have to be adopted urgently (see below).
Possible reactions and consequences
Where it emerges that the notified drafts are liable to create barriers to the free movement of goods or to the free provision of Information Society services and freedom of estblishment (Articles 34-36, 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), the Commission and the other Member States may submit a detailed opinion to the Member State that has notified the draft (Article 6(2) of the Single Market Transparency Directive). The detailed opinion has the effect of extending the standstill period by an additional three months. The Commission and the Member States can also make comments about a notified draft that appears to comply with European Union law but that requires clarification in its interpretation (Article 5(2)). The Commission can also block a draft for a period of 12 months if European Union harmonisation work is due to be undertaken or is already underway in the same field (Article 6(3) to (5)).
In the event of a detailed opinion being issued, the Member State concerned informs the Commission of the action that it intends to take in response to the detailed opinion, and the Commission comments on that reaction (Article 6(2)). With regard to the comments, the Directive does not lay down any legal obligation for the Member State receiving the comments to indicate what follow-up action it intends to take.
Urgency procedure
Article 6(7) of the Single Market Transparency Directive describes an urgency procedure, which is designed to allow the immediate adoption of a national draft, subject to a closed list of certain conditions that must be clearly indicated at the time of notification (notably "serious and unforeseeable circumstances relating to the protection of public health or safety, the protection of animals or the preservation of plants, and for rules on [Information Society] services, also for public policy" and "urgent reasons occasioned by serious circumstances relating to the protection of the security and the integrity of the financial system, in particular the protection of depositors, investors and insured persons"). The aim of the urgency procedure is to enable a notifying Member State faced with serious or unforeseeable circumstances to adopt immediately the draft technical regulation or rule on Information Society services, without having to wait for the expiry of the three-month standstill period. The Commission decides on the justification for the urgency procedure as soon as possible. If the request to apply the urgency procedure is accepted by the Commission, the three-month stanstill period does not apply and the notified text can be adopted. Nevertheless, any examination of the substance of the text can subsequently be carried out, including as part of potential infringement proceedings for breach of European Union law.
Communication of final texts
At the end of the notification procedure, the Member States are bound to inform the Commission of final texts as soon as those texts have been adopted and to indicate cases in which the notified draft has been abandoned, in order to allow the procedure to be closed (Article 5(3) of the Single Market Transparency Directive).
‘Technical regulations’ committee
The Standing Committee laid down in Article 2 of the Single Market Transparency Directive consists of representatives appointed by the Member States and is chaired by a representative of the Commission. The Committee meets regularly and constitutes a forum for discussing all issues connected with the application of the Single Market Transparency Directive.
Application of the notification procedure to Information Society services
The notification procedure also applies to Information Society services, with the following adaptations: a) in the event of a detailed opinion being issued, the total standstill period is four months from the date of the communication, instead of the six months stipulated for products; b) the Commission can only block the draft for a maximum of 12 months if the subject of the draft is already covered by an EU Council proposal and if the notified text contains provisions that do not comply with the proposal drafted by the Commission; c) the urgency procedure can be invoked not only under the circumstances stipulated for products ('serious and unforeseeable circumstances') but also 'for urgent reasons ... relating to public safety'.
The simplified procedure
EFTA countries that are contracting parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA’), namely Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, apply the notification procedure with the necessary adaptations 6 : they notify their drafts via the EFTA Surveillance Authority and can comment on the drafts notified by the 28 Member States. On the other hand the entire European Union can comment on drafts notified by the three countries signatory to the EEA Agreement.
Switzerland (which is part of EFTA, but which does apply the EEA Agreement) also participates in the system.
Turkey, which transposed the Single Market Transparency Directive in 2002, participates in the procedure in the same manner as the EFTA countries. The decision to have Turkey participate in the notification system was taken in 1997 as part of the implementation of the final phase of the Customs Union between Turkey and the European Community.
Annex 2 – Application of the procedure between 2014-2015: notifications of technical regulations submitted by the member states
Annexes 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 give a statistical overview of the development of the number of draft technical regulations notified by the Member States between 2014 and 2015, and of their breakdown by Member State and by sector. It should be pointed out that, in accordance with Article 8 of the Single Market Transparency Directive, ‘statistics concerning communications received’ as part of the notification procedure are published once a year in the Official Journal, C series 7 .
The reactions to the notified drafts – in the form of comments or detailed opinions from the Commission or the Member States, or of requests to postpone the adoption of the notified draft for 12 or 18 months (Article 6(3)(4) and (5) of the Single Market Transparency Directive) on the part of the Commission – are illustrated in Annexes 2.4 to 2.6.
Annex 2.7 refers to the requests to apply the urgency procedure that the Member States addressed to the Commission pursuant to Article 6(7) of the Single Market Transparency Directive.
Annex 2.8 shows the action taken by the Member States in response to the Commission’s reactions.
2.1Volume of notifications during the 2014-2015 period
Figure 1: Number of Notifications
The statistics in Figure 1 show that the Member States notified 655 draft regulations in 2014, and 727 draft regulations in 2015 to the Commission.
2.2Breakdown by country
During the 2014-2015 period, three Member States which notified the highest number of draft technical regulations were United Kingdom (143), France (118) and Germany (111). A group of six other countries (Netherlands, Austria, Finland,Sweden, Denmark and the Czech Republic) come next with a total number of notifications of between 63 and 103.
|
|
2014 |
2015 |
|
Austria |
38 |
43 |
|
Belgium |
20 |
20 |
|
Bulgaria |
6 |
13 |
|
Croatia |
10 |
4 |
|
Cyprus |
14 |
3 |
|
Czech Republic |
26 |
37 |
|
Denmark |
29 |
39 |
|
Estonia |
18 |
17 |
|
Finland |
34 |
37 |
|
France |
49 |
69 |
|
Germany |
50 |
61 |
|
Greece |
7 |
8 |
|
Hungary |
24 |
22 |
|
Ireland |
6 |
2 |
|
Italy |
29 |
20 |
|
Latvia |
15 |
21 |
|
Lithuania |
4 |
8 |
|
Luxembourg |
2 |
1 |
|
Malta |
5 |
1 |
|
Netherlands |
59 |
44 |
|
Poland |
25 |
36 |
|
Portugal |
7 |
22 |
|
Romania |
24 |
17 |
|
Slovakia |
23 |
35 |
|
Slovenia |
8 |
6 |
|
Spain |
21 |
30 |
|
Sweden |
38 |
32 |
|
United Kingdom |
64 |
79 |
|
Total |
655 |
727 |
Table 1 – Number of notifications of technical regulations submitted by the Member States in 2014 and 2015
|
Member States |
2014 |
2015 |
|
Austria |
5.8% |
5.9% |
|
Belgium |
3.1% |
2.8% |
|
Bulgaria |
0.9% |
1.8% |
|
Croatia |
1.5% |
0.6% |
|
Cyprus |
2.1% |
0.4% |
|
Czech Republic |
4.0% |
5.1% |
|
Denmark |
4.4% |
5.4% |
|
Estonia |
2.7% |
2.3% |
|
Finland |
5.2% |
5.1% |
|
France |
7.5% |
9.5% |
|
Germany |
7.6% |
8.4% |
|
Greece |
1.1% |
1.1% |
|
Hungary |
3.7% |
3.0% |
|
Ireland |
0.9% |
0.3% |
|
Italy |
4.4% |
2.8% |
|
Latvia |
2.3% |
2.9% |
|
Lithuania |
0.6% |
1.1% |
|
Luxembourg |
0.3% |
0.1% |
|
Malta |
0.8% |
0.1% |
|
Netherlands |
9.0% |
6.1% |
|
Poland |
3.8% |
5.0% |
|
Portugal |
1.1% |
3.0% |
|
Romania |
3.7% |
2.3% |
|
Slovakia |
3.5% |
4.8% |
|
Slovenia |
1.2% |
0.8% |
|
Spain |
3.2% |
4.1% |
|
Sweden |
5.8% |
4.4% |
|
United Kingdom |
9.8% |
10.9% |
Table 2 – Percentage of notifications submitted by the Member States in 2014 and 2015
2.3Breakdown by sector
Table 3: Breakdown by sector of the drafts notified by the Member States of the European Union in 2014
|
M Figure 3: Percentage of the sectors of the drafts notified by the Member States of the European Union in 2014 |
|
Sectors |
2014 |
|
Construction |
143 |
|
Agriculture, Fisheries and Foodstuffs |
127 |
|
Telecoms |
52 |
|
Transport |
48 |
|
Mechanics |
47 |
|
Environment |
41 |
|
Energy, Minerals, Wood |
38 |
|
Goods and Miscellaneous Products |
37 |
|
Domestic and Leisure Equipment |
36 |
|
Chemicals |
31 |
|
98/48/EC Information Society Services |
25 |
|
Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics |
23 |
|
Health, Medical Equipment |
7 |
|
Total |
655 |
|
Table 4: Breakdown by sector of the drafts notified by the Member States of the European Union in 2015 sector of the e M
Figure 4: Percentage of the sectors of the drafts notified by the Member States of the European Union in 2015 |
2.4Commission reactions: comments and detailed opinions in 2014 and 2015 (Articles 5(2) and 6(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535)
Figure 5: Commission Reactions to Notifications in 2014 and 2015
The number of comments made by the Commission increased from 161 in 2014 to 191 in 2015.
The number of detailed opinions issued by the Commission increased between 2014 and 2015: 60 detailed opinions in 2014 on the total number of 655 notifications (9.1%) and 81 in 2015 on the total number of 725 notifications (11.2%).
2.5Commission reactions: requests to postpone the adoption of the notified draft for 12 months in 2014 and 2015 (articles 6(3) and 6(4) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535)
During the 2014-2015 period, the Commission requested a 12-month postponement of the adoption of 12 draft regulations notified by the Member States, because they concerned a subject on which Union harmonisation work had already been announced or was underway.
Table 5
|
Year |
Standstills (Blockages) |
Total |
|
|
Announcement of a Community text (Article 9(3)) |
Presentation to the Council of a Community text (Article 9(4)) |
||
|
2014 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
|
2015 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2.6Member States reactions
Table 6 - Comments and detailed opinions issued by the Member States in 2014 and 2015 (Articles 5(2) and 6(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535)
|
2014 |
2015 |
|||
|
Comments |
Detailed Opinions |
Comments |
Detailed Opinions |
|
|
Austria |
8 |
9 |
9 |
5 |
|
Belgium |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Bulgaria |
1 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
Croatia |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
Cyprus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Czech Republic |
0 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
|
Denmark |
1 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
|
Estonia |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
Finland |
3 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
France |
10 |
5 |
8 |
2 |
|
Germany |
17 |
0 |
33 |
6 |
|
Greece |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
|
Hungary |
2 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
|
Ireland |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
Italy |
8 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
|
Latvia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Lithuania |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
Luxembourg |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Malta |
3 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
|
Netherlands |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Poland |
15 |
6 |
12 |
2 |
|
Portugal |
0 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
|
Romania |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
Slovakia |
2 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
|
Slovenia |
6 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
Spain |
9 |
8 |
9 |
11 |
|
Sweden |
3 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
|
UK |
12 |
0 |
7 |
2 |
|
Total |
112 |
64 |
125 |
67 |
Table 7 – Number of reactions (comments and detailed opinions) issued by Member States between 2014 and 2015 by sector
2.7Urgency Procedure (Article 6(7) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535)
Table 8 - Requests to apply the urgency procedure received in 2014 and 2015
|
2014 |
2015 |
|||
|
Requests |
Favourable
|
Requests |
Favourable
|
|
|
Austria |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Belgium |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Bulgaria |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
Croatia |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Cyprus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Czech R. |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
Denmark |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Estonia |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
|
Finland |
10 |
10 |
4 |
4 |
|
France |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
Germany |
1 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
|
Greece |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Hungary |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
|
Ireland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Italy |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Latvia |
0 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
|
Lithuania |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
Luxembourg |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Malta |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Netherlands |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Poland |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Portugal |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Romania |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
Slovakia |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
Slovenia |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Spain |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Sweden |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
|
UK |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
40 |
29 |
36 |
31 |
Table 8 provides an overview of the number of requests to apply the urgency procedure, by Member State and by year; it also shows the number of requests to which the Commission gave a favourable opinion.
Table 9 - Breakdown by sector of the requests to apply the urgency procedure in 2014 and 2015
|
BE |
BG |
CZ |
EE |
FI |
FR |
DE |
HR |
HU |
IT |
LT |
LV |
NL |
PL |
RO |
SI |
SK |
ES |
SE |
UK |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
R |
F |
|
|
98/48/EC Information Society Services |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Agr. Fisheries and Foodstuffs |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Chemical |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
6 |
14 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
|
Construction |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Domestic and Leisure Equip. |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Environment |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
Goods & Misc. Products |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Mechanics |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Pharmac. and Cosmetics |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
Telecoms |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
Transport |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
5 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
7 |
14 |
14 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
12 |
12 |
1 |
0 |
R: Requests F: Favorable Opinions
Table 9, which gives a sectoral breakdown of the requests to apply the urgency procedure received by the Commission during the 2014-2015 period, shows that the application of this exceptional procedure was invoked mainly in the pharmaceutical and cosmetics sector (29 requests) and in the chemicals sector (23).
2.8Follow-up to Commission reactions
Table 10 shows the number of detailed opinions issued by the Commission in 2014-2015, the number of replies to detailed opinions by Member States and the number of replies that were deemed satisfactory. The table also shows the number of notifications that were closed. 8
Table 10
|
Year |
Detailed Opinions |
Responses from the MS |
Satisfactory |
Closures |
|
2014 |
60 |
62 |
28 |
3 |
|
2015 |
81 |
69 |
35 |
6 |
Table 11
|
Year |
Comments |
Responses from MS |
|
2014 |
161 |
101 |
|
2015 |
191 |
132 |
Table 11 shows the number of comments issued by the Commission in 2014-2015 and the number of replies to comments by Member States.
Annex 3 – Application of the procedure in 2014-2015: participation of efta countries signatory to the eea agreement, of switzerland and of turkey
Table 12 – Number of notifications from EFTA countries and comments issued to them by the European Union
|
2014 |
2015 |
||||
|
Notifications |
Comments |
Notifications |
Comments |
||
|
EFTA |
Iceland |
4 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
Liechtenstein |
0 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
Norway |
17 |
5 |
18 |
5 |
|
Table 13 – Number of notifications submitted by Switzerland and Turkey and comments issued to them by the Commission or the Member States
|
2014 |
2015 |
|||
|
Notifications |
Comments |
Notifications |
Comments |
|
|
Switzerland |
9 |
3 |
10 |
5 |
|
Turkey |
6 |
2 |
16 |
2 |
Table 14 – Number of comments from EFTA, Switzerland and Turkey regarding the notifications from the Member States
|
2014 |
2015 |
|
|
EFTA |
0 |
0 |
|
Switzerland |
0 |
0 |
|
Turkey |
0 |
0 |
Annex 4 – Internet consultations 2014-2015
Note: Internet consultations available only after August 2014 due to the roll-out of the new website and new statistical analysis algorithm.
Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation, amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 12–33.
