INTERIM REPORT OF THE SME ´LOW´ LEVEL GROUP

On the Implementation of the 21 Proposals

for the Reduction of Administrative Burdens
Spring Update 2009
 Joint Press Release, 28 January 2009

Better Regulation

Low Level Group celebrates burdens reduction success

The same day the European Commission presents its third Strategic Report on Better Regulation, the “Low Level Group to fight
Administrative Burdens” (LLG) takes the opportunity to assess its own achievements.
“Eight months after the presentation of its 21 suggestions representing a saving potential for companies of approximately 2.5 to 3.5 billions
of Euros, the LLG has achieved impressive outcomes, which will bring considerable savings of time and money for European businesses,”
said SME UNION President Christoph Leitl. “Three suggestions have already been implemented, thirteen of our proposals are currently
being examined at EU institutional level, and this without spending a single euro on advice and opinions from consulting firms.”
As far as the European Commission’s report is concerned, the LLG acknowledges the progress made, but stresses that a lot of work still
needs to be done to simplify life for small and medium enterprises.
“In economically tough times, small enterprises should receive all support possible. They should not have to waste their time with endless
procedures and burdensome regulations. We are extremely pleased to see that some of the policy proposals that the LLG brought forward
last June with the aim of further simplifying the business environment in Europe have been endorsed at EU institutional level,” said Pierre
Simon, President of EUROCHAMBRES.
Examples of the Low Level Group’s achievements
The Low Level Group is particularly satisfied that its suggestion on the European Small Business Act (SBA) was well received and that the
December European Summit fully endorsed this important SME package. For example the modified Commission’s proposal of the
European Private Company, already approved by the EP Legal Affairs Committee, as part of the SBA, will support internationally oriented
SMEs saving time, money and red tape.

Other successful examples:

2
  The revision of the EU Battery Waste Directive – with the aim to clarify and modify certain aspects of its scope - is already fully
implemented. That means that European entrepreneurs have now saved huge logistical costs of recalling batteries which already
have been placed on the market.
 The suggestion concerning the Emissions Trading Directive has been positively taken up by the European Parliament and the
Council and will soon be published. “We see it as a big achievement for European small companies and industry that best-practice
enterprises exposed to carbon leakage will get emission certificates for free in the future,” explained Mr Leitl. The SME opt-out of 25
000 tons and a capacity threshold of up to 35 Megawatt were agreed. Therefore EU member states are now allowed to exempt their
SMEs from the costly administrative monitoring and reporting compliance costs of the EU Emission Trading System. 63% of all
installations (i.e. 2.4% of all installations emissions) have now the possibility to opt-out. The reduction of the administrative burden is
EU-wide estimated with a minus of EUR 94.5 million.
 The urgent suggestions to cut red tape for EU structural funds were taken up by the European Commission. That means for SMEs
that money will soon become faster and easier accessible for businesses in the regions.

“The LLG will continue its fight for the implementation of all proposals presented, at all legislative levels,” concluded JADE President
Thomas Barthelet.

The “Low Level Group”

The “Low Level Group” was created at the end of 2007 to support and encourage the European Commission’s “High Level Expert Group”
to fight against administrative burdens. It was set up by the SME UNION of the European People’s Party, EUROCHAMBRES (the
Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry) and JADE (the European Confederation of Junior Enterprises). It is made
up of seven SME entrepreneurs from the grass root level and seven SME experts providing background support.

The full report of the Low Level Group’s achievements can be downloaded from
www.eurochambres.eu or www.sme-union.eu/docs

------------------------

Press Contacts:
SME UNION – Franziska Annerl, Franziska.Annerl@eu.austria.be, +32 (0)2 218 37 76
EUROCHAMBRES – Guendalina Cominotti, cominotti@eurochambres.eu, +32 (0)2 282 08 66
JADE – Florent Barel, florent.barel@jadenet.org, +32 (0)2 420 17 52
3
 General Remarks

 On 5 June 2008 the SME “Low” Level Working Group to Fight Administrative Burdens (LLG) has presented its 21 proposals for the
reduction of administrative burdens.

 The contribution of the LLG has been submitted to the European Commission, the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens and
to the media during a Press Conference organised together with the LLG partners EUROCHAMBRES and JADE. Commissioner
Verheugen called our proposals “concrete, practical, innovative and quickly realisable”.

 The full package of measures proposed by the “Low” Level Group can be downloaded from www.sme-union.org/docs

 From several meetings with the European Commission (e.g. Commission Vice-President Verheugen, DG Enterprise Director-
General Zourek) we know that the suggestions have been well received. In his speech at the Commission’s Conference “Cutting
Red Tape for Europe” in June 2008, Commissioner Verheugen has referred to the catalogue of the LLG as “very interesting
proposals for simplifying life for SMEs.”

 3 (European Waste Catalogue, Eco Management and Audit Scheme, Public Procurement) of our 21 proposals were taken over by
the EU Commission’s High Level Group on Administrative Burdens and endorsed for fast implementation.

 The European Commission is due to present its 3 rd Strategic Report on Better Regulation at the end of January 2009 which shall
comprise the planned measures for the next two years. This is thus the right time to present our attached LLG mid-term review.

 The LLG proposals bear an estimated saving potential for companies of approximately € 2.5bn to € 3.5bn.

4
 Status of Implementation of the 21 proposals

 Now, eight months after the presentation of our 21 suggestions:

 3 proposals have already been implemented:

o Our suggestion concerning the EU Battery Waste Directive has been adopted in first reading and published on 5 December 2008. It has been clarified
that the directive’s obligations do not apply to batteries placed on the market before 26 September 2008. That means that European entrepreneurs
have now saved huge logistical costs of recalling batteries which already have been placed on the market.

o Our suggestion concerning the Emissions Trading Directive has been positively integrated in a first reading agreement by European Parliament and
Council; its publication is pending. It is a big success for European SMEs and industry the fact that in the future best-practice enterprises exposed to
carbon leakage will get emission certificates for free. The legal basis for preventing the worst case scenario – Europe’s energy intense enterprises
migrating due to exorbitant CO2 costs – was laid down in the agreement between the EP and the European Council in December 2008. The SME opt-
out of 25 000 tons and a capacity threshold of up to 35 Megawatt were agreed. Therefore EU member states are now allowed to exempt their
SMEs from the costly administrative monitoring and reporting compliance costs of the EU Emission Trading System. 63% of all installations
(i.e. 2.4% of all installations emissions) have now the possibility to opt-out. The reduction of the administrative burden is EU-wide estimated
with a minus of EUR 94.5 million.

o Our suggestion on the European Small Business Act (SBA) has been fully endorsed and politically adopted by the European Council last December.
This important SME package needs to be fully implemented at national level: Member States are now expected to present national implementation
plans. For example the modified Commission’s proposal of the European Private Company, already approved by the EP Legal Affairs
Committee, as part of the SBA, will support internationally oriented SMEs saving time, money and red tape.

 Another 13 proposals are currently analysed and considered at the EU institutional level:

o For example, bearing in mind the current European economic downturn, our urgent suggestions to cut red tape for EU structural funds have been
taken up by the European Commission. That means for SMEs that money will soon become faster and easier accessible for businesses in the
regions.

 The LLG will continue to push for the implementation of all proposals presented, at all legislative levels, to reach the goal of reducing red tape by 25 per cent
by 2010.

5
 Part I: Existing Law
Concerned legislation
1. Minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or
mobile construction sites (Council Directive 92/57/EEC)
Formulation of the problem:
The Directive provides in Art. 5 lit.c) that during the preparation phase
the coordinator has to “prepare a file appropriate to the characteristics
of the project containing relevant safety and health information to be
taken into account during any subsequent works.” According to Art. 6
lit. c) this file has to be updated “to take account of the progress of the
work and any changes which have occurred”. This provision may help
to reduce costs for any other enterprise carrying out future work on the
building, but it places an additional burden on the enterprise currently
working on it.
2. Refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the
territory of the country (8th Council Directive 79/1072/EEC and
Council Directive 2008/9/EC)
Formulation of the problem:
Taxable persons who paid VAT in the context of their business in a
Member State, to which they did not supply any goods or services,
can apply for tax refund in the relevant Member States (this is often
the case when participating in fairs and exhibitions). Rights of
deduction vary considerably across Member States, which makes
deduction possible in some countries, while restricting it or not
allowing for it in others. These differences apply in particular to the
6
Status of implementation
Status of implementation: We have called for the deletion of the
up-date requirement in the safety and health document for later
works in the construction sites directive. This has not been
implemented so far.
Status quo: Nevertheless, the European Commission has already
acknowledged the need for action in this field in its report on mobile
construction sites which has been presented on 12 November 2008.
Probability of implementation: In this report, the Commission has
announced the provision of guidelines regarding the safety and
health document, which should reduce the administrative
obligations for companies in this area to a minimum.
Lobbying: Traditionally, the tripartite Consultative Committee for
Safety and Health is involved in the drafting of such guidelines.
Status of implementation: First of all, diverging national provisions
of recoverable costs have to be respectively harmonised. This
represents the basis for the second step: taxable persons should
get the VAT refunded directly through their VAT declaration
submitted in their country of establishment (so called cross-border
deduction). This would bring considerable simplification for
entrepreneurs, since they could get their foreign VAT refunded the
same way they do in their country of establishment (which would
also eliminate the language problem). In case the clearing solution
was implemented without prior harmonisation of refundable costs,
entrepreneurs would get their VAT refunded according to deduction
laws (and restrictions) of their country of establishment. The
following charges: fuel, automobile costs, alimentation and
accommodation costs, tolls, gifts, luxury goods, etc. Despite some
improvements for entrepreneurs, arrangements for the refund of value
added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the
country cause problems and therefore expenses for businesses. In
both systems the entrepreneur needs to know the VAT according to
tax deduction provisions (and restrictions in particular) in the Member
States of fixed establishment. The entrepreneur needs to make use of
the language set by the Member States (Member States can choose
language: restriction to national language is also legal). Hence,
language knowledge is necessary for successful tax refund.
3. Intrastat Regulation (Regulation (EC) 638/2004)
Formulation of the problem:
The present Intrastat-System (statistics on trade of goods between
Member States) is based on the collection of both trade flows (imports
and exports) within the EU. For example, there are mirror data
available for German imports from exporting country Austria, which
correspond to Austrian dispatches to Germany. Currently, this
mirroring data may not be seen as redundant – according to
comprehensive research on mirror differences on the one hand and
due to different parameters used for arrivals and dispatches on the
other hand. Intrastat-Statistics is - when measured in time unit - a very
burdensome statistical provision, and generally, statistics are
7
entrepreneur would receive the VAT refund according to deduction
laws of the Member States, in which he/she paid the VAT. This
provision would lead to negative consequences for Member States
that handle input tax deduction more restrictively. This suggestion
has not yet been implemented. The harmonisation and the refund in
the territory of establishment have not yet been achieved.
Status quo: For instance on the website of the Austrian Ministry for
Finance the application forms of all other EU-Member States have
been made available, including explanatory documents and
guidelines. But this service depends on the will of the fiscal
departments in the other Member States to provide their documents
online. With Directive 2008/9/EC it will be possible for companies as
of 1.1.2010 to submit their request for refund electronically.
Probability of implementation: The harmonisation of all national
legal provisions on the refund of VAT in the EU-27 is very unlikely.
But: The refund in the country of establishment according to the
national legal provisions would be possible also without
harmonisation. This could be a feasible solution.
Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Status quo: The publication of the decision concerning the MEETS-
Program is pending. This programme creates the framework for
evaluating concrete measures in order to solve the existing
challenges facing economic statistics, such as the Single Flow
System. Furthermore, a proposal for a Regulation amending the
Intrastat Regulation is in first reading in the Council. The proposal
shall – inter alia - reduce administrative burdens by lowering the
coverage rate of data collected. During the negotiations in the
Council, the French Presidency proposed a reference to the Single
Flow Systems in one of the recitals as a long-term efficiency
perceived by businesses as one of the most burdensome information reduction measure.
duties at all. Therefore, a reform of the Intrastat-System must aim at a Probability of implementation: Likely.
double objective: to increase statistical quality and at the same time to
reduce reporting burdens on businesses.

4. Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,
energy, transport and postal services sector (Directive
2004/17/EC)
Formulation of the problem:
The administrative formalities required to access EU subsidies are
extremely onerous for SMEs, which generally do not have the means
to involve external experts in this process. Article 67 of the directive
sets out statistical obligations that necessitate considerable survey
expenses.
Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Probability of implementation: A revision of the directive would be
very difficult, as it took the then 15 Member States 4 years to reach
an agreement on its present form. The statistical obligations we
would like to see abolished or at least significantly simplified result
from WTO level. Therefore the General Procurement Agreement
would probably have to be renegotiated before any changes could
be made at EU level.
Probability of implementation: Difficult.

5. Digital Tachographs (Regulation (EC) 561/2006)
Formulation of the problem:
Unlike passenger traffic, legislation for carriage by road does not have
the same limits for the compulsory use of digital tachographs or the
same applicability of social legislation as most limits of related
legislation. In practice, this difference leads to serious problems that
need to be tackled urgently.
Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Status quo: No proposal for a new formulation is foreseen in the
near future which is mostly due to the fact that in some Member
States, the regulation as it is, only now is being implemented.
Lobbying: However, we encourage enterprises that encounter
these problems to take them up with their respective European
associations in order to raise awareness in Brussels.

6. Distance Contract (Directive 97/7/EC) Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Formulation of the problem:
Status quo: On 8 October 2008 the Commission has presented a
Due to the highly complex non-harmonised national rules on distance
proposal for a directive on consumer rights, which foresees full
contracts, a great number of SMEs limit themselves to national
harmonisation in consumer law. But the concrete provisions are
markets instead of conducting their business in other EU countries,
8
thus profiting from the Internal Market. Additional civil or administrative burdensome: especially the right of withdrawal and the information
law sanctions applicable in other Member States in case of failure to obligations for businesses.
comply with the information requirements of the above Directives may Probability of implementation: Still unclear, it will depend on the
act as a further disincentive for SMEs to conduct business cross- ongoing legislative procedure.
border.
Lobbying: Ongoing.

7. E-Commerce (Directive 2000/31/EC and Directive 2003/58/EC) Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Formulation of the problem:
Status quo: On 8 October 2008 the Commission has presented a
According to the above-mentioned provisions, businesses with an
proposal for a directive on consumer rights, which foresees full
internet presence are required to provide a great deal of information
harmonisation in consumer law. This proposal contains burdensome
on their websites and corporate businesses also on their e-mails,
provisions for SMEs (e.g. concerning information obligations and
letters and order forms. Certain information about businesses should
the right of withdrawal, which shall be prolonged to 14 days). Many
clearly be publicly available. However, the requirements set out in
of the information obligations are too far reaching and unnecessary.
these two directives may well create burdens for SMEs conducting
The E-commerce-directive itself, which also contains many
business via the internet. As these provisions only set out minimum
information obligations, has not yet been fully harmonised.
standards and leave it to the Member States to impose more
comprehensive and complex information requirements, they pave the Lobbying: Ongoing.
way for disparities within the EU. Indeed, national legislation
transposing the provisions of the two directives varies considerably
between Member States, thus making it more costly for undertakings
to comply with these rules they are subject to when conducting
business over the internet with partners in other Member States.
Therefore, the provisions mentioned represent a burden for cross-
border trade within the EU.

8. First and Fourth Company Law Directives (Council Directives Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
68/151/EEC and 78/660/EEC) EU level.
Status quo: The two directives are currently revised in order to
Formulation of the problem:
avoid unnecessary burdens for companies due to publicity and
The 1st Company Law Directive contains the obligation of companies
annex requirements. The Commission proposal for the revision of
to publish – inter alia – their financial statements both in commercial
9
registers and in national gazettes. According to the 4th Company Law
Directive, micro and small companies are required to prepare and
publish a condensed balance sheet every financial year. Micro
companies typically outsource the administrative work related to the
condensed balance sheet to external advisors, i.e. typically
accountants and auditors. The main reason for this is that these very
small companies typically do not have the required competences.
9. Waste Incineration Directive (Directive 2000/76/EC)
Formulation of the problem:
Prescriptive, legally binding requirements for the monitoring of
emissions to air; no exemptions for non significant emissions; no
general capacity threshold in the directive.
10. REACH (Regulation (EC) 1907/2006)
Formulation of the problem:
The REACH Regulation does not exempt all recovered substances
from the registration requirement in accordance with Title II. Pursuant
to the current legislation, substances out of a recovery process which
are not the same as substances already registered (Article 2
paragraph 7 letter (d)) have to be treated like imported or newly
10
the 4th Company Directive with the option for Member States to
choose whether to exempt micro enterprises from the European
rules on annual accounts and the Commission proposal for the
revision of the 1st Company Directive with the objective to eliminate
the costs of publishing in the national gazette information that has
been already disclosed in commercial registers are currently
undergoing the co-decision procedure in the European Parliament
and in the Council.
Probability of implementation: Very likely.
Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Status quo: Small incineration plants should be excluded from the
scope of the directive through the introduction of a capacity
threshold. In addition, Member States should be given the option to
grant exemptions from certain monitoring requirements when – with
a view to the normal operation of a plant – the compliance with the
emission limit values is ensured. An exemption clause is already
part of the IPPC review package as put forward by the Commission
on December 21st 2007 (COM (2007) 843 final). However there
should also be a general exemption rule for smaller waste
incineration plants. The co-decision procedure is pending.
Probability of implementation: Very likely.
Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Probability of implementation: Still unclear.
Lobbying: To lobby for our position SME UNION has organised a
working breakfast on REACH & the Reality for SMEs on 8 October
2008 with representatives of the European Parliament, European
Commission, businesses, REACH agency experts and French EU
manufactured ones.
11. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE-Directive
2002/96/EC)
Formulation of the problem:
The WEEE does not provide for a “de-minimis”-rule for small
producers. As a result, particularly businesses which place only a very
small number of products on the market encounter burdens relating to
the requirement to participate in a collection and treatment system.
12. European Waste Catalogue (Commission Decision 2000/532
EC ; Waste Statistics Regulation (EC) 2150/2002 ; Waste
Shipment Regulation; Basel Convention)
Formulation of the problem:
According to current practice, several waste classification codes are
used at European and national level. That creates additional burden
for the businesses concerned, e.g. in waste shipment or other foreign
trade related procedures, or in statistical reporting.
13. Battery Directive (Directive 2006/66/EC)
Formulation of the problem:
Article 6(2) of the Battery Directive 2006/66/EC stipulated that
batteries that did not fulfil the requirements of the Directive were not to
be placed on the market after 26 September 2008 or they needed to
be withdrawn from it. It was unclear whether this meant that measures
had to be taken to withdraw batteries currently on the market but not
meeting the directive’s provisions.
11
Council Presidency
Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Status quo: The Commission proposed the revision of the WEEE-
Directive in December 2008. In this framework, the exemption for
small producers will be demanded.
Probability of implementation: Still unclear.
Lobbying: Ongoing.
Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Status quo: The Commission is doing preparatory work for the
revision of the European Waste Catalogue with the aim of a far-
reaching harmonisation.
Probability of implementation: It is likely that the different waste
classification codes on waste statistics and waste shipment will be
maintained.
Status of implementation: Proposal implemented! We demanded
the clarification that the directive’s obligations shall not apply to
batteries that had been placed on the market before 26 September
2008.
Status quo: The battery directive has been amended in first
reading and was published in the EC official journal on 5 December
2008 (L327/08, page 7) as Directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive
2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and
accumulators as regards placing batteries and accumulators on the

14. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC
Directive 2008/1/EC)
Formulation of the problem:
Businesses falling within the scope of Directive 2008/1/EC are
confronted with numerous information obligations which cumulatively
lead to costly administrative burdens. In some cases, this seems
inappropriate compared with the anticipated positive environmental
impact from such activities.
15. Eco Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS-Regulation (EC)
761/2001)
Formulation of the problem:
Some parts of the existing voluntary EMAS regulation (EMAS-II) are
perceived by companies as very burdensome. Companies which
decide not to register for the Environmental Management System are
not granted the administrative simplifications which are foreseen for
registered businesses.
16. Directive 1999/13/EC on the limitation of emissions of volatile
organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in
12
market.
Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Status quo: The required action to review some of the existing
thresholds in Annex I of Directive 2008/1/EC with a view to raising
or changing them in order to reduce bureaucracy for SMEs has not
yet been taken up by the Commission. The IPPC directive is part of
the industrial emissions package (Industrial Emissions Directive)
which was presented by the Commission in late 2007. Political
negotiations have just started.
Probability of implementation: Difficult at this stage.
Lobbying: Ongoing.
Status of implementation: Implemented partially.
Status quo: The Commission has presented a proposal for the
revision of the EMAS-regulation in its SCP-package. But the original
goal of better adapting EMAS to the needs of SMEs has not been
met. The proposal includes impracticable regulations and instead of
the reduction of administrative burdens, additional burdens are
created.
Probability of implementation: We have urged for a re-tabling of
the proposal, but this is not very realistic, because only Germany
and Austria have announced their disagreement. It is more likely
that there will be some corrections in specific areas.
Lobbying: Ongoing.
Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Status quo: EU legislation addressing solvent emissions from
 certain activities and installations (VOC)- Directive
Formulation of the problem:
The VOC Directive lays down several very detailed obligations on the
monitoring and reporting of compliance with the emissions control
requirements. This is particularly the case with the guidance for a
Solvent Management Plan in Annex III. While Member States are not
obliged to require operators to set up such plans pursuant with Annex
III of Directive 1999/13/EC, no alternative is mentioned. Thus many Probability of implementation: Difficult at this stage.
Member States have laid down in their national legislation a
requirement for operators to establish such costly plans. However,
there are less onerous instruments to adequately demonstrate
compliance with the binding emissions controls.
17. Emissions Trading Directive (ETS-Directive 2003/76/EC)
Formulation of the problem:
The ETS Directive also covers smaller combustion installations, partly
operated by SMEs. Operators of such installations must thus comply
with certain information obligations, in particular with costly monitoring
and reporting requirements. Installations with annual emissions below
50.000 tons are responsible for only 6% of the total CO2 emissions of
all stationary sources covered by the ETS Directive.
18. Structural Funds (Regulation (EC) 1080/2006, Regulation (EC)
1081/2006, Regulation (EC) 1082/2006, Regulation (EC)
1083/2006, Regulation (EC) 1084/2006, Regulation (EC)
1341/2008; Proposal COM (2008) 803, Proposal COM (2008)
813, Proposal COM (2008) 838
13
stationary sources should clearly provide more SME-friendly
instruments to demonstrate compliance with the emission controls
or even leave the choice of such instruments to Member States.
This has not yet been taken up by the Commission. The VOC
Directive is part of the industrial emissions package which was
presented by the Commission in late 2007. Political negotiations
have just started.
Status of implementation: Basic legal problems solved.
Status quo: First reading agreement between EP and Council,
publication in the Official Journal is pending. The SME opt-out of 25
000 tons (as a compromise between the position of businesses for
50 000 and the Commission’s proposal of 10 000 tons) and a
capacity threshold of up to 35 Megawatt were agreed. The basics
for tackling the carbon leakage problem are laid down in the
Directive (100% free allocation of certificates up to 2020).
Lobbying: Strong lobbying activities of all kinds: amendments,
voting lists, briefing events, personal contacts in Brussels, press
releases, position papers; SME UNION came out with several press
releases and close cooperation with SME Circle.
Status of Implementation: Partially implemented
Status quo: The Commission is already aware of the problem.
Because of the financial crisis, the Commission and the Member
States are interested that structural funds are channelled more
rapidly into the regions. Currently several singular simplification

Formulation of the problem:
Companies supported by structural funds often have to comply with
complicated documentation requirements. This implies an increased
risk of delay of the payment of EU funds or, in worst case, denial or
repayment of the funds even when the idea behind the project is in
line with the programme’s objective. In addition, audits and ex-post
controls of smaller projects are often very time-consuming and labour
intensive for companies. Also for SME associations and Chambers of
Commerce the requirements are often bureaucratic and therefore
disencourage these organisations to participate in projects co-
financed by the structural funds.
14
measures have been decided (concerning income generating
projects) or will be decided soon (easier recognition of flat rate
costs, use of lump sums). Recently the Commission started a new
working group with the Member States on further simplification
which will concentrate on control systems and auditing.
Probability of implementation: Not unlikely, currently increased
pressure for simplification because of financial crisis (see above).
Lobbying: Ongoing, pointing out that the over-bureaucratisation in
the administration of structural funds has become detrimental in
reaching cohesion policy goals, and making concrete proposals for
simplification.
 Part II: Forthcoming Law
Concerned legislation
19. Food labelling (Directive 2000/13/EC; Council Directive
90/496/EEC, proposal for a regulation COM(2008)40)
Formulation of the problem:
Labelling is the most restrictive element for the food production sector.
It contains a multitude of provisions and complex legal requirements.
This places a heavy burden on SMEs. In other legal areas a huge
amount of records are requested. In many areas, experts’ opinions are
prescribed. This is costly for SMEs.
20. Right of disabled persons travelling by air (Regulation (EC)
1107/2006)
Formulation of the problem:
After coming into effect on 26 July 2008, article 6.2. ’Transmission of
information’ in particular will cause serious problems for tour
15
Status of implementation
Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Status quo: The proposal for a regulation of the European
Parliament and the Council on the provision of food information to
the consumers (COM (2008) 40 final) aims to replace Directives
2000/13/EC and 90/496/EEC. Instead of simplifying the existing
directives, the proposal contains further bureaucratic obligations for
SMEs. Those obligations (as nutrition information for every food) do
not always translate into helpful information for consumers, but are
sometimes confusing. Furthermore, the proposal includes the
possibility for Member States to apply stricter provisions. The
intended harmonisation will not be reached through a differentiated
approach and through different Member States’ provisions. The
proposal for a regulation is currently under discussion in first
reading by EP and Council.
Probability of implementation: Still unclear. The regulation will
probably be adopted in March 2009.
Lobbying: Ongoing.
Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Status quo: According to ECTAA (The European Travel Agents'
and Tour Operators' Associations) it is already generally accepted
that tour operators and travel agencies only inform the airline and
operators. In case the tour operator receives a notification of the need
for assistance by a person with reduced mobility, it is obliged to
transmit the information concerned at least 36 hours before the
published departure time of the flight to the operating air carrier, and
all concerned airports (departure, transit, arrival).
21. IFRS for SMEs
Formulation of the problem:
The IASB has published an exposure draft of a proposed IFRS for
Small and Medium-sized Entities (ED IFRS for SMEs). Like the ’full
IFRS’ for capital market oriented enterprises, this standard could be
integrated into Community acquis in the future. In this regard the LLG
stresses that the development of IFRS for private entities must not
result, even in the long run, in any legal obligation of SMEs to apply
the full IFRS or the IFRS for private entities.
16
the airline notifies the airports accordingly. However, this claim has
not been implemented on paper. To guarantee legal certainty for
tour operators it should be aimed for removing the respective
passage in Art. 6 of the regulation.
Probability of implementation: Still unclear.
Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated at
EU level.
Status quo: The revised standard (IFRS for private entities) will be
published in the first trimester of 2009.
Probability of implementation: At this stage there are no signs
that it will be integrated in Community law.
 Part III: Small Business Act
Concerned legislation
“Small Business Act” for Europe (SBA)
17
Status of implementation
Status of implementation: Adopted, to be mainly implemented at
national level.
Status quo: The SBA has been adopted in December 2008.
Our suggestion on the European Small Business Act (SBA) was
well received and the EU December summit fully endorsed and
adopted politically this important SME package to be now
implemented on Member States level.
Lobbying: SME UNION and EUROCHAMBRES have held several
events and also lead discussion in SME Coordination Group; written
input, LLG proposals, press releases.
 All rights reserved.

Extracts - only with list of references and after consultation.

IMPRINT, Owner and editor:

Small and Medium Entrepreneurs Union of the European People's Party (EPP)
22, Rue de Pascale, 1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 2 233 38-38, www.sme-union.org, sme@sme-union.org

Responsible for content:

Patrick Voller, Secretary General, SME UNION of the EPP

pvoller@sme-union.org, Tel: +32 2 233 38 38

Ben Butters, Director European Affairs, EUROCHAMBRES

butters@eurochambres.eu, Tel: +32 2 282 08 71

Florent Barel, Vice-President of JADE (European Confederation of Junior Enterprises)

florent.barel@jadenet.org, Tel: +32 2 42 01 752

Date of publication: January 2009

18