The Estonian Presidency of the Council of the EU has presented the national delegations with a non-paper, of which EUROPE has had sight, in which it invites them to examine the various options for the critical elements of a proposed European electronic services card, at a 'competitiveness and growth' working group on Monday 2 October.
This document aims to set out possible solutions to the most important points of the proposal ahead of the forthcoming work. The proposals are based around five key points: - effects of the electronic card; - the scope of the proposal; - insurance; - administrative simplifications; - administrative cooperation.
As regards the effects of the card, the Presidency notes a lack of clarity in the Commission's proposal, partly due to “negative” wording on the prerogatives incumbent on the member states. The Commission's text stipulates that the member states are required not to impose prior authorisation and notification requirements on the holder of the electronic card.
On this point, the Presidency proposes: - either to keep the current wording and clarify a few points, such as that ex-post controls will remain effective, vocational qualifications will not be affected and, lastly, the card will count as prior authorisation for public orders; - or to opt for positive wording stipulating that the holder of the card is entitled to start providing a service in the host country in the framework of pre-defined and coordinated requirements.
On the scope, the Presidency is entering technical considerations and proposes keeping the statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community (known by its French acronym, NACE), which sets out a specific list of economic sectors covered, in order to avoid any discrepancy between member states. As a second option, it suggests listing service sectors covered in general terms (construction sector, and so forth) in the legislative text, adding the sectors concerned using the NACE classification in an appendix. Finally, the third solution put forward by the Presidency is to list the service sectors concerned in general terms in the legislative text and to provide the economic sectors in question using the NACE classification in a guideline document for its implementation.
As regards insurance, the Presidency is considering the option to keep but clarify the Commission's approach to the insurance certificate and professional liability insurance, but also to remove the article concerning obligations upon professional organisations, or even to remove the entire chapter on professional liability insurance.
As regards administrative simplification, the Presidency proposes: - sticking to the Commission's approach, particularly the obligation on member states to notify the Commission of the requirements upon service providers, but within 12 months after the regulation enters into force, rather than nine as proposed by the Commission; - or to limit the information requirement to certain data. The Presidency has also put forward various solutions for the reuse of data registered on the card by the holder, for instance getting rid of this option.
Finally, as regards administrative cooperation, the Presidency is getting into technical ground on the role of the member state of origin and host member state when the electronic card is issued and the supervision of the services provided. It also touches upon the validity of an electronic card.
The Presidency puts forward two options: - keeping the current approach based on an indefinite period whilst tightening up and clarifying the wording of the text on the supervision mechanism; - or introducing an imperative obligation upon the member state of origin and the host member state to regularly confirm the validity of the electronic card in connection with its holder (with an automatic renewal option).
Readers may recall that in early 2017, the European Commission submitted a legislative proposal (a regulation and directive) instituting an electronic 'services' card to simplify administrative procedures to service-providers wishing to extend their activities to other member states (see EUROPE 11700).
No agreement was reached on this controversial dossier under the Maltese Presidency of the Council (see EUROPE 11797), as the member states were not convinced of the added value of the measure, for service-providers in particular.
According to our information, there are three major groups at the Council: - a group of countries that are more or less completely opposed to the plan, which include Germany, France and Luxembourg; - a second bloc that is in favour of the proposal on the table, made up mainly of the more liberal member states, such as the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands; - a group that is broadly in favour of the plan, made up of Central and Eastern European countries, but with misgivings. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)