2017-11-01 - EC 95-16 - Report - 2017

Ref.
Ares(2017)6015269 - 08/12/2017
Evaluation of Directive
95/16/EC on the
approximation of the laws
relating to lifts
Final Report
November 2017
EVALUATION OF DIRECTIVE 95/16/EC
ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS RELATING TO LIFTS
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Directorate C - Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains
Unit C3 - Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Systems
Contact: GROW-LIFTS@ec.europa.eu
B-1049 Brussels
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some
operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors,
and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained
therein.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017
ISBN 978-92-79-76892-7
doi:10.2873/777146
© European Union, 2017

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project team wishes to express its appreciation to all those who have contributed to
this evaluation. To officials at DG GROW and members of the Steering Group Committee
for the overall project direction and for providing assistance on the technical aspects of
the Lifts Directive; to representatives of National Authorities, Notified Bodies and the
industry, at both EU and Member State level, who kindly and significantly contributed to
the study, providing useful insights and actively collaborating to the data collection.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AdCo Administrative Cooperation Group
CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis
CEN European Committee for Standardization
DG Directorate General
DG GROW Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
DoC Declaration of Conformity
EC European Commission
EEA European Economic Area
EO(s) Economic Operator(s)
EFESME European Federation for Elevator Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
EFTA European Free Trade Association
EHSR(s) Essential Health and Safety Requirement(s)
ELA European Lift Association
ELCA European Lifts & Lift Components Association
EN(s) European Harmonised Standard(s)
EQ Evaluation Question
ESO(s) European Standardisation Organisation(s)
EU European Union
ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute
FTE(s) Full time equivalent(s)
ICSMS Information and Communication System for the pan-European Market
Surveillance
LC Lifts Committee
LD Lifts Directive
LWG Lifts Working Group
MRL Machine Room-Less
MS Member State(s)
MSA(s) Market Surveillance Authority(ies)
NACE Nomenclature Générale des Activités Économiques dans les Communautés
Européennes
NB(s) Notified Body(ies)
NB-L European Coordination Group of Notified Bodies for Lifts
NLF New Legislative Framework
OPC Open Public Consultation
OJEU Official Journal of the European Union
RAPEX EU Rapid Exchange System for dangerous non-food products
R&D Research & Development
REFIT Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme
RfU Recommendation(s) for use
SBS Small Business Standards
SBS Structural Business Statistics
SME(s) Small- and Medium-sized Enterprise(s)
TC Technical Committee
ToR Terms of Reference
TRIS Technical Regulation Information System
UCMP Unintended Car Movement Protection
UEAPME European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
i
LIST OF COUNTRIES
AT Austria
BE Belgium
BG Bulgaria
CH Switzerland
CN China
CY Cyprus
CZ Czech Republic
DE Germany
DK Denmark
EE Estonia
EL Greece
ES Spain
FI Finland
FR France
HR Croatia
HU Hungary
IE Ireland
IS Iceland
IT Italy
JP Japan
KR Republic of Korea
LI Liechtenstein
LT Lithuania
LU Luxembourg
LV Latvia
MT Malta
NL Netherlands
NO Norway
PL Poland
PT Portugal
RO Romania
SE Sweden
SI Slovenia
SK Slovakia
TR Turkey
UK United Kingdom
US United States of America
ii
GLOSSARY BASED ON DIRECTIVE 95/16/EC

The definitions of the following terms do not account for improvements and new
definitions of the new Lifts Directive 2014/33/EU.
‘Essential health and safety requirements’ (EHSRs) are designed to ensure a high
level of product safety. EHSRs define the results to be attained, or the hazards to be
dealt with, but do not specify the technical solutions for doing so.1
‘Existing lift’ indicates any lifts placed on the market and put into service before
Directive 95/16/EC came into force (at the earliest, after 1 July 1997, and at the latest,
by 1 July 1999). These lifts are not covered by Directive 95/16/EC.
‘Harmonised standards’ means a European standard adopted on the basis of a request
made by the Commission for the application of Union harmonisation legislation.2
Compliance with harmonised standards is always voluntary. Application of a harmonised
standard provides a presumption of conformity with the EHSRs they aim to cover,
provided that its references have been published in the OJEU.
‘Hazard’ means a potential source of injury or damage to health (definition provided in
section 1.1.1 of the Machinery Directive).
‘Installer of a lift’ means the natural or legal person who takes responsibility for the
design, manufacture, installation and placing on the market of the lift and who affixes the
CE marking and draws up the EC declaration of conformity. Although not explicitly
mentioned in the definition, the Directive allows for this role to be split into two different
economic operators, one involved only in the design and manufacture, and the other
involved only in the installation and placing on the market of the lift.3
‘Lift carrier’ is the part of the lift by which persons and/or goods are supported to be
lifted or lowered.
‘Lift shaft’ is the vertical space permitting the passage of a lift from floor to floor.
‘Lift pit’ is the bottom of a lift shaft.
‘Manufacturer of the safety components’ means the natural or legal person who
takes responsibility for the design and manufacture of the (lift) safety components and
who affixes the CE marking and draws up the EC declaration of conformity.
‘Model lift’ means a representative lift whose technical dossier shows how the EHSRs
will be met for lifts which conform to the model lift defined by objective parameters, and
that use identical safety components.
‘Placing on the market of the safety component/lift’ occurs when the
manufacturer/installer first makes the safety component/lift available to the user.
‘Safety component’ means a component as listed in Annex IV to the Lifts Directive.
1
According to EC (2016), The 'Blue Guide' on the implementation of EU product rules 2016.
2
Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 on European Standardisation, Article 21(1)(c).
3
See the last paragraph of Article 8(2) and Article 8(5). The definition has been clarified in Directive
2014/33/EU in various articles such as Article 7, Article 9(1) and Article 16(2).
iii
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................. V
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Scope and objectives of the evaluation........................................................... 1
1.2. Content of this report .................................................................................. 1
2. BACKGROUND OF THE LIFTS DIRECTIVE ................................................................. 3
2.1. Legislative background ................................................................................ 3
2.2. The Lifts Directive ....................................................................................... 5
2.3. Intervention logic...................................................................................... 10
2.4. The adjustments of the Directive to the evolving context ................................ 13
3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................................................................................... 15
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 17
4.1. The evaluation grids .................................................................................. 17
4.2. The research approach .............................................................................. 17
4.3. Limitations and mitigation measures ............................................................ 25
5. STATE OF PLAY.................................................................................................. 29
5.1. The European lift market............................................................................ 29
5.2. Transposition and implementation of the Directive ......................................... 39
5.3. Accidents related to lifts............................................................................. 45
6. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ......................................................... 49
6.1. Relevance ................................................................................................ 49
6.2. Effectiveness ............................................................................................ 56
6.3. Efficiency ................................................................................................. 68
6.4. Coherence ............................................................................................... 76
6.5. EU Added value ........................................................................................ 79
7. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 82
7.1. Relevance ................................................................................................ 82
7.2. Effectiveness ............................................................................................ 83
7.3. Efficiency ................................................................................................. 84
7.4. Coherence ............................................................................................... 86
7.5. EU Added value ........................................................................................ 86
8. ANNEXES.......................................................................................................... 88
8.1. List of findings .......................................................................................... 88
8.2. Cross-referencing evidence tables ............................................................... 90
8.3. Evaluation grids ........................................................................................ 92
8.4. Stakeholder consultation ........................................................................... 104
8.5. The Directive EHSRs and harmonised standards ........................................... 127
8.6. Transposition of the Directive at national level ............................................. 132
8.7. Case studies ........................................................................................... 137
8.8. Methodology for the CBA........................................................................... 175
8.9. Data for the market analysis ..................................................................... 179
8.10. List of information sources ........................................................................ 181
v
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Directive 95/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 1995 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts (hereafter referred to as
“the Directive”) was applicable between July 1999 and April 2016, when it was repealed
by Directive 2014/33/EU. The changes introduced are relatively limited, and primarily
aimed at aligning the legislation to the New Legislative Framework. Specifically, key
elements such as the products included in the Directive’s scope, the definitions, the
essential health and safety requirements and the procedures for conformity assessment
have not been modified. As a consequence, the study results are also applicable to the
new Directive.
The Directive had the strategic objectives of ‘improving health and safety of users and
maintenance personnel’ and ‘ensuring an effectively operating internal market for safety
components and lifts’, by setting common essential health and safety requirements for all
lifts and related safety components.
The evaluation aimed at assessing the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence,
and EU added value of the Directive. It also aimed at analysing the European lift market
and assessing the implementation of the Directive in the Member States.
Results of the evaluation
Relevance
The evaluation concluded that the Directive’s strategic objectives are overall
still relevant to current needs in terms of lift free movement and safety. However,
when looking at specific provisions, for instance those related to the “prior approval”
(necessary to derogate from providing free space beyond the lift extreme positions to
prevent the risk of crushing) and to lift accessibility to disabled persons, the Directive
seems to be less relevant. In these cases, the lack of specificity of these provisions and
their different implementation at national level leave room for concern. In line with the
principles of the New Approach, the former can be dealt through standardisation, while
the latter could apparently be solved by proper coordination in the implementation of the
new Directive.
Besides being relevant to the free movement of the products in its scope, the Directive
demonstrated to be an appropriate policy tool also to align to and overall
address new risks entailed by technological developments related to lifts.
Consistently with the New Approach, the Directive defines only the risks to be covered,
entrusting manufacturers/installers to choose the technical solution to comply with the
legislation. This allowed, or at least did not hinder, innovation to occur in the lift sector.
Some potential safety issues related to new technologies such as Machine Room-Less lifts
should be dealt with by further guidance.
Finally, the Directive is overall perceived by stakeholders as being sufficiently
clear, despite some issues relating the concepts of “putting into service” and “lift
manufacturer”.
Effectiveness
The Directive has been uniformly transposed across EU Member States, and there is no
evidence of any transposition difficulties. As for its implementation, the analysis identified
some discrepancies across Member States, particularly with regard to the provisions for
lift accessibility to disabled persons and to the prior approval, which deserve attention.
The development of harmonised standards has been key to ensure an effective
application of the Directive. Indeed, they are largely used as the most common
means to demonstrate compliance with the Directive. Via the presumption of conformity
mechanism, harmonised standards allow manufacturers and installers to avoid the costs
for testing compliance of solutions alternative to that provided by the standards. Mainly
v
for this reason, voluntary harmonised standards are de facto perceived as binding by
economic operators. This is particularly the case for SMEs, which do not have sufficient
resources to test technical solutions alternative to standards.
The procedures for conformity assessment proved adequate to ensure the highest
degree of health and safety for consumers and users. This is largely recognised by
stakeholders and linked to the downstream control performed by Notified Bodies.
Market surveillance has been differently implemented across Member States, in
terms of strategies, extent of monitoring activities, frequency and types of checks, and
level of penalties, this negatively impacting its overall effectiveness. As a possible
consequence, the number of non-compliant products reported by market surveillance
authorities in the lift sector is very low. However, evidence collected suggests that the
level of non-compliance in the sector is actually low. This positive accomplishment relates
to the strong and positive role of Notified Bodies in the conformity assessment process,
acting as “ultimate controllers” of product compliance with the Directive. In addition, the
new Lifts Directive is expected to bring considerable improvements also in the market
surveillance framework for lifts.
As for the achievement of its strategic objectives, the Directive effectively
contributed to a well-functioning internal market for lifts and safety components, through
the harmonisation of the relevant national legislation. The Directive’s effectiveness is
further enhanced by the legal certainty and transparency it provides. Overall, despite the
existing data limitations, it can be inferred that the Directive managed in increasing lift
safety by looking at the declining number of accidents involving maintenance personnel
per number of installed lifts.
Efficiency
Based on the available data, it can be assumed the Directive somehow balances
costs and benefits for all stakeholder categories. Moreover, there is no evidence
that the compliance costs entailed by the Directive increased in comparison to the period
before 1999. However, benefits seem not evenly spread, with larger companies
benefiting more than SMEs from harmonisation due to their orientation to export. Finally,
available statistics show a reduction in lift-related accidents involving maintenance
personnel over recent years, which could lead to think of an increase in lift safety and
thus an increase in well-being for this category of stakeholders.
Coherence
There is no evidence of inconsistencies between the Directive and other EU
legislation relevant for lifts, with particular regard to the Machinery and the
Cableways Directive and the EU Regulation on construction. However, the interfaces
between these Directives are not always clear. No major contradictions emerged between
the Directive and national building legislation. As for the internal coherence of the
Directive, requirements for lift installers and safety component manufacturers can be
considered as generally clear and no overlapping rule has been identified.
EU added value
The Directive consistently contributed to aligning national legislation relating to
the lift sector, which benefited both the internal market and lift safety. Despite
these positive effects, the study identified some areas of concerns relating to safety
issues currently not dealt with sufficiently well by the guidance and standards developed
under the Directive. Consequently, further harmonisation in the implementation of the
Directive would be beneficial and the use of some mechanisms/tools (e.g. AdCO, ICSMS)
could be intensified.
vi
1. INTRODUCTION
This Report responds to the request for services by the European Commission, Directorate-
General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW) concerning the
Evaluation of Directive 95/16/EC.
The study was led by EY with the support of Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting.
1.1.Scope and objectives of the evaluation
The subject of this evaluation is Directive 95/16/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
lifts (hereafter referred to as “the Directive”). The Directive was applicable from July 1999 to
April 2016, when it was repealed by the new Directive (Directive 2014/33/EU).4 The changes
with respect to Directive 95/16/EC are relatively limited, and primarily aimed at aligning the
legislation on lifts and safety components for lifts to the New Legislative Framework (NLF).5 In
substance, key elements such as the products included in the Directive’s scope, the definitions,
the essential health and safety requirements (EHSRs) and the procedures for conformity
assessment have not been modified. As a consequence, although the present evaluation
focuses on a retrospective analysis of the implementation of Directive 95/16/EC, the study
results are also applicable to the new LD. Moreover, the new Directive also solved some of the
issues highlighted in the study. These cases will be pointed out in the report.
The objective of the present evaluation is to assess the performance of the Directive in the
16 years of its implementation (from July 1999 to April 2016), the extent to which it met its
objectives in terms of safety and internal market, and to identify possible gaps, weaknesses
and best practice. Furthermore, this evaluation has been linked to the Regulatory Fitness and
Performance programme of the European Commission (REFIT),6 which aims at making sure
that EU legislation remains fit for purpose and delivers the results intended by the policy
makers in the most efficient and effective way. To achieve its objectives, this study:
 Assesses the implementation of the Directive in the 28 EU Member States (MS);
 Provides a better understanding of the European lift market;
 Evaluates the relevance, effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, and EU added-value of the
Directive.
While the analysis of the implementation of the Directive covers the 28 EU MS, the evaluation
of its relevance, effectiveness, coherence, efficiency and EU added-value is extended to the
European Economic Area (EEA) -which, together with the 28 EU MS, includes Iceland, Norway
Liechtenstein- and to Turkey and Switzerland.
1.2.Content of this report
Current chapter 1 presents a summary of the scope and objectives of the evaluation.
Chapter 2 presents the background of the Directive, including the legislative framework, key
concepts of the Directive, such as its objectives, scope, main provisions and concerned
stakeholders. It also includes the intervention logic framework used as a basis for the
evaluation process. Finally, the adjustments of the Directive to the evolving context are also
discussed.
4
Directive 2014/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of
the laws of the Member States relating to lifts and safety components for lifts.
5
The “New Legislative Framework” has been adopted in July 2008 on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market
surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 and of Decision No
768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing
of products, and repealing Council Decision 93/465/EEC.
6
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/index_en.htm.
1
Chapter 3 presents the evaluation questions, framed within the five evaluation criteria, which
have been answered to assess the Directive, and how the criteria are to be understood.
Chapter 4 presents the evaluation methodology and the data limitations encountered, so as to
allow the reader to have a correct interpretation of all data presented in this report.
Chapter 5 presents an overview of the transposition and implementation of the Directive at
national level, of the current situation and trends of the lift market, and of lift-related
accidents.
Chapter 6 provides detailed answers to the evaluation questions on the basis of the evidence
gathered. A cross-referencing table summarising the relation between the answers to the
evaluation questions and the findings of the study is presented in Annex 2.
Chapter 7 drafts the conclusions on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, and
EU added value of the Directive.
Chapter 8 includes Annexes, presenting the evaluation grids, an overview of stakeholder
consultation, and tables presenting the transposition of the Directive at national level. It also
includes five case studies, the methodology for the CBA, and the list of information sources.
2
2. BACKGROUND OF THE LIFTS DIRECTIVE
2.1.Legislative background
Prior to the establishment of the New Approach in 1985, the Framework Directive 84/528/EEC7
laid down the procedures for EEC type-examination and EEC inspection for lifting and
mechanical handling appliances. According to this Directive, separate directives for each
category of lifting and mechanical handling appliances would lay down the technical
requirements as to design and inspection procedures for appliances and their components.8
Directive 84/528/EEC set therefore the basis for Directive 84/529/EEC,9 entered into force in
September 1986, on electrically-operated lifts. The Directive was amended several times. In
particular, Directive 90/486/EEC10 extended its scope to include hydraulically-operated lifts.11
With the establishment of the New Approach in 1985, two new concepts reached the top of
the EU legislative agenda: the definition of EHSRs and of minimum procedures for
market surveillance. As a result, the three directives mentioned above were repealed from 1
July 1999, when Directive 95/16/EC became fully applicable. Directive 95/16/EC had a
wider scope than the repealed directives, since it provided common EHSRs for lifts, regardless
of the operating technique employed.
EHSRs are designed to ensure a high level of product safety. They define the results to be
attained, or the hazards to be dealt with related to the characteristics of the product (e.g. to
safety, health, environment, consumer protection), but do not specify the technical solutions
for doing so. As a consequence, there may be several EHSRs associated to the same product.
Once products conform to these and other requirements, they can be placed on the market
and are granted free movement.12 The verification of product compliance with the applicable
EHSRs is done ex ante through the conformity assessment, which is to be carried out by the
manufacturer/ installer, an authorised representative or by a third party, i.e. a Notified Body
(NB) recognised at both national and EU level. In any case, manufacturers/installers remain
responsible for the safety or other aspects of the product also after its placing on the market
(see Box 1 for additional details on the different steps).13 To demonstrate that a product
complies with the relevant EHSRs, manufacturers may choose to apply harmonised
standards.14 The application of harmonised standards is voluntary, so that the manufacturer
7
Council Directive 84/528/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to common provisions for lifting and mechanical handling appliances. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/P
DF/?uri=CELEX:31984L0528&from=EN
8
Ibid.
9
Council Directive 84/529/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to electrically operated lifts. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31984L0529
10
Council Directive 90/486/EEC of 17 September 1990 amending Directive 84/529/EEC on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to electrically operated lifts. http://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/
publication/69e0988e-401d-411f-8c5b-e283ba93382c/language-en
11
European Commission (2007). Guide to the application of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC. p. 8.
12
The 'placing on the market' of a product applies separately to each product unit. Consequently, the product unit
concerned must comply with legislation at the time it is placed on the market. Lift installations must comply with the
Directive’s EHSRs at the moment they are placed on the market.
13
So that “manufacturers who consider or have reason to believe that a product which they have placed on the market
is not in conformity with the applicable Union harmonisation legislation must immediately take the necessary
corrective measures to bring that product into conformity, to withdraw it or recall it, if appropriate. Furthermore,
where manufacturers have reason to believe that the product presents a risk to health, safety, the environment or any
other public interest protected by the applicable legislation, they must immediately inform the competent national
authorities of the Member States where they made the product available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of
the noncompliance and of any corrective measures taken”. Source: EC (2016), The 'Blue Guide' on the implementation
of EU product rules 2016, p. 31.
14
According to Regulation (EU) No. 1025/2012 on European standardisation, a harmonised standard is a European
standard adopted on the basis of a standardisation request (a mandate) made by the EC and the EFTA Secretariat for
the application of the Union harmonisation legislation. Mandates are addressed to the European Standardisation
Organisations (ESOs), i.e. CEN, CENELEC or ETSI. With reference to lifts and safety components, only CEN, being
responsible for this market/ technology, has developed relevant harmonised standards.
3
may always apply other technical specifications as long as they allow meeting the EHSRs.
However, when a product conforms to the applicable harmonised standards referenced in the
Official Journal of the EU (OJEU), it benefits from a presumption of conformity with the
applicable EHSRs covered by those standards. This gives the economic operator who applies a
harmonised standard legal certainty, since there is no need to provide further proof of
conformity with the EHSRs covered by the standard (for more information see Annex 8.5).
Box 1 – Obligations of the safety component manufacturer and of the lift installer within the
Union harmonisation legislation
“The Union harmonisation legislation applies when a product is placed on the market and to any
subsequent operation which constitutes making available until it reaches the end-user”. According to the
Directive, the “placing on the market of the lift” occurs when the installer first makes the lift available to
the user (Art. 1(4)). However, the “putting into service” also matters in the lifecycle of a lift. The
Directive does not define this concept, though the 2016 Blue Guide states it is “the moment of first use
within the Union by the end user for the purposes for which it [i.e. the product] was intended. The
concept is used, for example, in the field of Lifts […] and results in the scope of Union harmonisation
legislation being extended beyond the moment of making available of a product”, i.e. until the lift is put
into service. Hence, the installer assumes full responsibility for product compliance until it is placed on
the market and put into service.
Annex I, point 6 of the Directive foresees that an instruction manual must accompany a lift or a safety
component, so that the product can be easily e.g. maintained, inspected, repaired, and periodically
checked.
Products which have been repaired without changing their original performance, purpose or type, are not
to be considered as new products according to Union harmonisation legislation. Thus, such products do
not need to undergo conformity assessment again. If however the original performance of a product is
modified (within the intended use, range of performance and maintenance originally conceived at the
design stage), this product is to be considered as new according to Union harmonisation legislation. Thus,
maintenance operations are basically excluded from the scope of the Union harmonisation legislation.
Source: Blue Guide 2016
Market surveillance is an essential tool for enforcing legislation and is based on measures to
check that products meet the relevant EHSRs and that non-compliant products are brought
into compliance or withdrawn/recalled from the market. The Directive requires (like all the
“New Approach” directives) MS to organise and carry out market surveillance activities through
Market Surveillance Authorities (MSAs).
The Global Approach,15 setting a European framework for product marketing, further
established harmonised methods for the assessment of conformity to be performed by
manufacturers. It also aimed at facilitating the adoption of future technical harmonisation
directives concerning the placing on the market of industrial products, together with rules for
the use of the CE marking. Such methods should ensure that products are in full conformity
with the EHSRs laid down in harmonisation directives, to provide for the health and safety of
users and consumers. With particular regard to the Directive, it offers installers and
manufacturers a wide choice of conformity assessment procedures, namely modules B, C, D,
E, G and H (see section 2.2.2 for details).
The complexity of the New and Global Approach, in terms of both procedures and actors
involved, called for a reinforcement of processes to ensure product conformity and consistency
across Europe. Furthermore, it raised the need for a clarification of roles and responsibilities
along the product supply chain. Regulation (EC) No 765/200816 directly responded to these
needs. The wide range of elements included therein gave rise to the “New Legislative
15
Decision 90/683/EEC, repealed by Decision 93/465/EEC, repealed by Decision No 768/2008/EC of 9 July 2008.
16
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008, setting out the
requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation
(EEC) No 339/93. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:218:0030:0047:en:PDF
4
Framework” (NLF), aimed at improving the internal market for goods and
strengthening the conditions for placing products on the EU Market, by enhancing
both market surveillance and conformity assessments. The recent repeal of Directive
95/16/EC by Directive 2014/33/EU aligned the former to the NLF.
The following figure briefly summarises the legislative context of the Directive described in this
section.
Figure 1 – Synthesis of the evolution of the regulatory environment for lifts
Directive 2006/42/EC
Directive 84/528/EEC:
on machinery Directive
lifting and mechanical
handling appliances 2014/33/EU: Directive 95/16/EC
& Directive amended relating to lifts and repeal
Directive 84/529/EEC: 95/16/EC safety components entry into force of
electrically operated lifts relating to lifts for lifts Directive 2014/33/EU
LD entry into force and application
1984 1995 1999 2006 2014 2016

1985 2008 onwards
New and Global approach New Legislative Framework
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008

Decision 768/2008
Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012
Source: EY
2.2.The Lifts Directive

2.2.1. Objectives and scope of the Directive
Directive 95/16/EC has a twofold objective: (1) to ensure the free movement of lifts and safety
components for lifts within the Internal Market (2) while ensuring that such products provide a
high level of protection of the health and safety of people.
To this end, the Directive lays down EHSRs, establishes the rules for the placing on the market
and/or putting into service of lifts and their safety components, and the related procedures for
conformity assessment and CE marking (see also the section 2.2.2 below).
The Directive covers lifts (and related safety components) placed on the market and put
into service after the date of its applicability 1 July 1999 up to April 2016, when
Directive 2014/33/EU became applicable on the same products. The Directive does not cover
lifts (and related safety components) placed on the market and put into service before the
Directive came into force, at the earliest after 1 July 1997, and at the latest by 1 July 1999,
being the safety of these lifts (and of related safety components) pursued under national
legislation.17 Lifts in scope of the Directive will be referred to in the report as “existing lifts”.
The scope of the Directive is further specified in its Article 1(2) to include:
 Lifts: i) intended for the transport of persons only; ii) intended for the transport of
persons and goods; iii) intended for the transport of goods only, if the carrier is accessible
to persons and if the controls of the lift are inside the carrier or can be reached from within
the car; iv) moving along a fixed course even where they do not move along guides that
are rigid.
17
The Commission issued Recommendation 95/216/EC concerning safety improvements of “existing lifts”, inviting
Member States to improve the safety of “existing lifts” and ensure a satisfactory level of maintenance. However, the
Recommendation is not legally binding and rules on “existing lifts” differ from one MS to another.
5
Lifts in scope of the Directive are “permanently serving buildings and constructions”, and
are therefore to be intended as lifts in new or existing buildings; or lifts in existing wells in
replacement of “existing lifts”, including when the existing guide rails and their fixings or
the fixings alone are retained. A number of different types of lifts are excluded from the
Directive’s scope,18 such as lifts to carry goods only, platform lifts for people with
disabilities, homelifts, or appliances in high-rise buildings, which are included within the
scope of the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC.
 Safety components listed in Annex IV of the Directive, such as: i) devices for locking
landing doors; ii) devices to prevent falls referred to in Section 3.2 of Annex I to prevent
the car from falling or unchecked upward movements; iii) over-speed limitation devices;
iv) energy-accumulating shock absorbers, either non-linear or with damping of the return
movement; and energy-dissipating shock absorbers; v) safety devices fitted to jacks of
hydraulic power circuits where these are used as devices to prevent falls; vi) electric safety
devices in the form of safety switches containing electronic components.
As discussed in Box 1, maintenance operations are excluded from the scope of the Directive –
unless they bring significant modifications to the lift. In this case the lift would be considered
as a “new lift” unit in scope of the Directive and maintenance operations would be considered
equivalent to installation activities.
2.2.2. Relevant provisions
This section describes the rules applicable to the placing on the market of “new lifts” and
related safety components classified in two main blocks: provisions related to the compliance
of lifts with the EHSRs, and provisions related to conformity assessment.
Provisions related to compliance of lifts with the EHSRs
“Lifts covered by this Directive must satisfy the essential health and safety requirements set
out in Annex I” (Directive, Article 3). The EHSRs for lifts and safety components deal with
particular hazards associated with their normal use and foreseeable misuse.19 They refer to the
design and construction/installation of lifts and safety components, and are intended for the
protection of users and maintenance personnel performing – for instance - lift installation,
maintenance, rescue operations, repairs, and inspections.
The safety component manufacturer and the lift installer have the obligation to assess the
hazards to identify the EHSRs that apply to their products, and determine the protective
measures required. They must then design and construct their products taking account of this
assessment.
Annex I to the Directive defines 31 EHSRs under the following six sections (see Annex 8.5):
 General requirements in section 1;
 Requirements related to hazards to persons outside the car in section 2;
 Requirements related to hazards to persons in the car in section 3;
 Additional hazards in section 4;
 Requirements relating to the marking of the lift in section 5;
 Requirements relating to instructions for use in section 6.
18
According to its Article 1(3), the Directive shall not apply to: lifting appliances whose speed is lower than 0,15 m/s,
construction site hoists, cableways, lifts for military or police purposes, lifting appliances from which work can be
carried out, mine winding gear, lifting appliances intended for lifting performers during artistic performances, lifting
appliances fitted in means of transport, lifting appliances connected to machinery and intended exclusively for access
to workstations, rack and pinion trains, escalators and mechanical walkways.
19
The “foreseeable misuse” is to be taken into account based on the Machinery Directive (whose EHSRs are also
applicable to lifts), Annex I, section 1.1.2 (a) – principle of safety integration.
6
In general, all hazards that are not covered by the EHSRs of Annex I of the Directive, such as
stopping accuracy, maintenance-related aspects, electricity supply, contact with moving parts,
and the principle of safety integration, are covered by EHSRs defined in the Machinery
Directive.
Some EHSRs proved to be particularly relevant in the context of this evaluation, namely those
regarding lift accessibility to disabled persons and those addressing the risk of crushing, as
further detailed in the boxes below.20
Box 2 – Lifts accessible to people with disabilities
Within general EHSRs, there are provisions for lift car and controls aimed at granting lift accessibility for
disabled persons.
The European legislation currently sets no obligation concerning the provision of lifts accessible to
disabled persons. Directive 95/16/EC introduces non-discriminatory access conditions for
passengers with disabilities through provisions set in par. 1.2 and 1.6.1 in Annex I, which are related to
some technical specifications regarding the dimensions of the lift car and the position of controls.
Examples of voluntary specifications for lifts accessible to persons with disabilities can be found in clause
5 of standard EN 81-70.21 Moreover, Declaration 95/357/EC22 encourages MS to take any measures
necessary to ensure that all levels of existing buildings, as well as those under construction, are
accessible to disabled persons, particularly those who use wheelchairs. It also recommends that at least
one lift accessible to disabled persons in wheelchairs be provided in all new buildings.
The responsibility for this matter however ultimately lies with the MS as strictly related to building
regulation, which is a national prerogative. Therefore, different approaches for granting accessibility
exist,23 none of them being considered as a best practice.24
Box 3 – Risk of crushing and prior approval

Among the EHSRs related to hazards to persons outside the car, the Directive makes reference to the
obligation to prevent the risk of crushing when the car is in one of its extreme positions. This objective is
to be achieved by means of a free space or refuge beyond the lift extreme positions. However, in specific
cases and particularly in existing buildings where this solution may be impossible to fulfil, other
appropriate means may be implemented to avoid the risk of crushing, provided that the relevant Member
State Authority gives prior approval (EHSR 2.2).
Provisions for conformity assessment

The obligation to assess conformity with the EHSRs (Article 8)
Manufacturers of safety components and lift installers are subject to procedures to
demonstrate the conformity of the products with the relevant EHSRs (conformity assessment).
Based on the Directive, they can choose among different options for conformity assessment,
for both the design and the production - for safety components – or the installation phase – for
lifts. Independently from the specific procedure, a Notified Body entrusted at national level to
assess the conformity of products is always involved.
As for lift safety components, the manufacturer can choose to apply an EC type-examination
(module B, point A) performed by a NB in the design phase (currently EU type-examination).
In the production phase, he can choose between the conformity to type (module C) consisting
of random checks performed by a NB on a sample of production and the product quality
assurance (module E), consisting of a system for final inspection and testing of safety
20
The new Lifts Directive has not apparently solved these issues.
21
Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts. Particular applications for passenger and goods passenger
lifts. Accessibility to lifts for persons including persons with disability.
22
Declaration 95/357/EC by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to lifts. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31995C09
07&from=EN
23
ELA and others (2013). Accessibility of the built environment legislation in Europe.
24
ACE and others (2006). The build-for-all reference manual. Appendix 2, page 46.
7
components to be approved by a NB. Alternatively, he can apply a full quality assurance

system (module H) covering both the design and the production phases that has been
approved by a NB.
As for lifts, the installer might opt for an EC type-examination (module B, point B) by a NB in
the design phase. In the installation phase, three options are available:
 Submitting the lift to a final inspection performed by a NB;
 Product quality assurance system (module E) approved by a NB, consisting of a final
inspection and testing of the lift installation performed by the installer;
 Production quality assurance system (module D) approved by a NB, consisting of a final
inspection and testing of the lift installation carried out by the installer.
As an alternative, the lift installer can use a single conformity assessment procedure:
 Assessing the conformity of the lift design and installation under a full quality assurance
system (module H) approved by a NB. If a lift design does not fully comply with the
relevant harmonised standards, a NB must carry out a design inspection to assess the
conformity of the lift in respect of those aspects that deviate from the harmonised
standards. Alternatively, the installer may also choose to combine the full quality
assurance system performed in the design phase with one of the three procedures
described above for the installation phase.
 The lift design and installation is subject to unit verification (module G) by a NB.
The obligation to notify conformity assessment bodies (Article 9)
Article 9 defines the obligation for Member States to “notify the Commission and the other
Member States of the bodies which they have appointed to carry out the procedures referred
to in Article 8 [i.e. the conformity assessment], together with the specific tasks and
examination procedures which these bodies have been appointed to carry out and the
identification numbers assigned to them beforehand by the Commission”.
Annex VII sets the minimum criteria to be taken into account by Member States’ notifying
authorities for the notification of bodies. These criteria require NBs to be independent from the
lift installer or safety component manufacturer to grant the impartiality of the conformity
assessment. Other requirements relate to staff knowledge and experience, facilities and
resources that a body must dispose of in order to be recognised as a NB.
The obligation to affixing the CE marking (Article 10) accompanied by the EC declaration of
conformity (Annex II)
Manufacturers of safety components and lift installers are subject to the obligation of affixing
the CE marking25 accompanied by the EC declaration of conformity (DoC), respectively on the
safety component and on the lift, as a proof of compliance with all the provisions of the
Directive. The CE marking demonstrates compliance of the lift or safety component
with applicable requirements set in the Directive as well as with any other EU legislation
relevant for lifts, thus also ensuring that all the appropriate conformity assessment procedures
have been successfully carried out (Article 5).
The CE marking must be accompanied by the EC DoC (currently EU DoC), which the lift
installer and safety component manufacturer must draw up. The EC DoC must report, among
other information, the contact details of the economic operator responsible for its drafting and
– where appropriate - of the NB responsible for the conformity assessment, together with a
description of the relevant product in terms of serial number, year of manufacture, relevant
provisions to which the product complies and reference to harmonised standards - where
25
The CE marking is a standard pictogram that has to be legibly and indelibly affixed on each of the safety
components. Where there is insufficient space, it may be affixed to an undetachable label to the safety component. It
must also be affixed on every lift car. The layout of the CE marking is represented in Annex III of the Directive.
8
appropriate. The lift installer and the safety component manufacturer must keep the EC DoC
for ten years after the date a lift was placed on the market or the last manufacture of a safety
component. The EC DoC shall be made available to the Commission, the Member States and
any NBs, upon request.
2.2.3. The importance of market surveillance activities
As discussed, a specific framework for market surveillance has been set up by Regulation (EC)
No 765/2008 and no specific procedures are laid down in the Directive. Specific provisions for
market surveillance are included only in Directive 2014/33/EU.
Member States have the obligation to carry out market surveillance.26 They must designate the
responsible authority(ies) and provide them with adequate resources in terms of staff, budget
and facilities. If Member States discover that lifts or safety components for lifts placed on the
market with CE marking are not in conformity, they must ensure that the necessary corrective
measures are taken. If the relevant economic operator does not take such measures
voluntarily, the Member State must ensure that unsafe products are withdrawn from the
market in accordance with the safeguard procedure.27 The market surveillance system should
include a procedure for dealing with complaints and also involve checks on samples of lift
installations and safety components for lifts. Although carried out in the context of market
surveillance, certain tasks such as technical checks and testing may be entrusted to other
bodies, but the authorities remain responsible for all decisions taken as a result. Member
States shall cooperate with each other and with the European Commission to share information
and optimise resources for market surveillance. To facilitate this cooperation, a Group for
Administrative Cooperation (Lifts AdCO) has been set up.
2.2.4. Stakeholders
The Directive specifies requirements for actors concerned with the market and the safety of
lifts and safety components, and namely:
 Manufacturers of safety components and installers of lifts, who have to comply with
specific obligations in order to be allowed to place their products on the EU market;
 The Notified Bodies, who are involved in the conformity assessment and are coordinated
by the NB-L, the European coordination group of NB for lifts (see also section 2.4.3);
 The European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs), and in particular the European
Committee for Standardisation (CEN), that produces harmonised standards for lifts and
safety components (see also section 2.4.2);
 The EU Member States that are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of
the Directive through appointed Market Surveillance Authorities;
 The European Commission that, for instance, may adopt any appropriate measure with
a view to ensuring the practical application of the Directive in a uniform manner, or has to
be informed - and ensure that other Member States are informed - on measures adopted
by a Member State against non-compliant lifts or safety components.
Moreover, the Directive demands the interaction of various specifically established bodies. In
particular, the implementation of the Directive foresees the direct involvement of the following:
 The Lifts Committee (LC) advises the European Commission with regard to the
application of the Directive;
 The Lifts Working Group (LWG) is composed of representatives of the Commission, of
Member States and observers from the industry, standardisation bodies, NBs, trade unions
26
Market surveillance refers to the activities needed to ensure that the conformity assessment procedures are
correctly applied and that the lifts and safety components placed on the market comply with the EHSR and are safe.
27
Based on Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.
9
and associations of building owners, allowing them to take part in the discussion of
problems related to the practical application and the implementation of the Directive;
 The Administrative Cooperation Group for Lifts (Lifts ADCO) facilitates the cooperation
between Market Surveillance Authorities and the European Commission.
Finally, a number of industry associations exist at EU level, and include the following:
 ELA (European Lift Association) represents the lifts, escalators, moving walks and safety
components associations active in the EU or EFTA. It helps the national associations in
their dialogue with their respective governments. ELA was founded in 2002 as a result of
the transformation of the European Forum of the National Lift Associations (EFLA);28
 ELCA (European Lift & Lift Component Association), founded in 1998, represents lifts and
lifts components manufacturers in Europe. It is particularly focused on safeguarding the
interests of the micro and SME lift companies in the manufacturing, installation,
maintaining and repair of lifts;29
 EFESME (European Federation for Elevator Small and Medium-sized Enterprises)
represents the interests of European SMEs operating in the lift sector. It was founded in
2005 and draws together the European Federation of National Associations belonging to all
branches of the lift sector. To date, EFESME brings together 14 National associations from
13 EU Member States. EFESME has been a member of UEAPME since 2009 and became
founding member of SBS in October 2013;30
 SBS (Small Business Standards) is a European non-profit association co-financed by the
EC and EFTA Member States. Its goal is to represent SMEs’ interests in the standardisation
process at EU and international level. Moreover, it aims at raising SMEs’ awareness about
the benefits of standards and at encouraging their involvement in the standardisation
process. SBS was established to meet the European Union’s aspiration to make the
standardisation system as inclusive, transparent and open as possible in line with
Regulation 1025/2012 on the European Standardisation System.31
2.3.Intervention logic
The two strategic objectives of the Directive (free movement of lifts and safety components,
and high level of protection of health and safety) aim at responding to two needs: of lift safe
functioning for users and maintenance personnel, and of free movement of lifts and related
components.
These strategic objectives are disaggregated in three specific objectives, representing the
operational orientations of the EU action, namely:
 Simplifying and harmonising conformity assessment procedures in the EU;
 Harmonising EHSRs across the EU Member States;
 Preventing the placement on the market of non-compliant lifts.
In order to allow Member States to achieve these specific objectives, the Directive includes key
provisions, or inputs to be implemented by Member States, namely: EHSRs for safety
components and lifts, and procedures for conformity assessment. With respect to EHSRs, an
additional provision not explicitly presented in the intervention logic below has to be
considered, i.e. that granting a two-way communication between the lift installer and the
building constructor so that the building characteristics allow the lift(s) installed therein to
meet the Directive’s EHSRs (Article 2(2)). In addition, among the EHSRs mostly discussed in
this report, there are those ensuring lift accessibility to disabled persons and the prevention of
28
http://ela-aisbl.eu/index.php/who-we-are
29
http://www.elca-eu.org/about-elca-European-Lift-and-Lift-Component-Association.php
30
EFESME (2014), Activity Report, Update June - December 2014. p.18.
31
http://www.sbs-sme.eu/who-are-we
10
the risk of crushing. With respect to procedures for conformity assessment, the provisions
on the CE marking and the EC DoC are considered to be linked thereto as only after completing
the conformity assessment the manufacturer/installer can affix the CE marking and draft the
EC DoC. In addition, the minimum criteria for the notification of bodies are strictly related to
the procedures for conformity assessment, being NBs involved therein. Finally, provisions for
market surveillance are presented in a separate box as they are not explicitly included in the
1995 Directive, but were implemented following the entry into force of Regulation (EC)
765/2008. For instance, to achieve a simplification and harmonisation of conformity
assessment procedures, the Directive sets a number of options for conformity assessments,
minimum criteria for the notification of NBs and rules for CE marking and for drafting the EC
DoC.
These provisions are expected to work through mechanisms (i.e. incentives – both regulatory
and economic - to comply with the Directive, brand recognition, positive/negative feedback
and penalties) that will trigger short, medium and long term impacts (represented as outputs,
outcomes and impacts respectively). For instance, economic operators might be willing to
apply the CE marking to achieve recognition of the quality of their products as long as the CE
marking is perceived as a “brand” testifying product safety.
The “immediate” outputs resulting from these provisions are a harmonised application of the
legislation on lift safety among Member States, the development of harmonised standards in
support of the Directive and for presumption of conformity. The establishment of NBs for lifts
and safety components and the enforcement of market surveillance and corrective measures
are also seen as an output.
The correct and full implementation of all these provisions is directed at achieving some
specific outcomes, namely: a reduction in lift-related accidents, a reduced number of non-
compliant lifts placed on the market, the facilitation of intra-EU trade for lifts and safety
components, the establishment of a fair and level-playing field for businesses in the lift sector
and an overall increased competitiveness of the EU lift sector.
In the long term, the foreseen impacts of the provisions of the Directive are: increased health
and safety for users and maintenance personnel and the removal of all trade barriers to the
internal market of lifts – which fully meet the original needs.
As discussed in Chapter 3 below, the evaluation questions (and related criteria) help in
assessing the overall performance of the Directive, having identified its working mechanisms.
The figure below outlines the Directive’s intervention logic described above, highlighting the
links with the evaluation criteria and evaluation questions that guided the study.
11
Figure 2 - The Directive’s intervention logic
EQ6 -
EQ15 LD EFFECTIVENESS EQ21
EQ22 EU ADDED VALUE
STRATEGIC SPECIFIC INPUTS IN THE OUTCOMES IMPACTS

NEEDS MECHANISMS OUTPUTS
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVES LD
1. Safe 1. Improved 1. Simplifying and 1. EHSR for safety 1. Incentives – 1. Harmonised 1. Reduced lift- 1. Increased
functioning health and harmonising components and both application of the related accidents health and
of lifts for safety of conformity lifts regulatory legislation on lifts 2. Reduced num. of safety for
users and users and assessment and economic safety among MS non-compliant lifts users and
2. Procedures for maintenanc
maintenance maintenanc procedures in - to comply 2. Harmonised placed on the
conformity e personnel
personnel e personnel the EU with the standards for market
assessment
2. Free 2. Effectively Directive presumption of 2. Removal of
2. Harmonising • Rules for CE- 3. Facilitation of intra-
movement of operating EHSR across 2. Brand conformity EU trade for lifts all trade
marking and EC barriers to
lifts and internal the EU MS recognition 3. Establishment of and safety
safety DoC the internal
market for NBs for lifts and components
components 3. Preventing the • Minimum criteria market of
safety safety components
for lifts placing on the for notification of 3. Positive/ 4. Establishment of a lifts
components
market of non- bodies negative 4. Enforcement of level-playing field
and lifts
compliant lifts feedback market surveillance for businesses in
Input from Regula- and corrective the lift sector
tion (EC) 765/2008 4. Penalties
measures 5. Increased
Provisions for market
competitiveness of
surveillance
the EU lift sector
EQ1 –
LD RELEVANCE LD EFFICIENCY EQ16 -
EQ5
EQ18
LD COHERENCE
CONTEXT
EQ19
Technological and scientific development EQ20 EXTERNAL FACTORS
Social development Other EU legislation
International competitiveness International initiatives
The lift market
Source: EY
12
2.4.The adjustments of the Directive to the evolving context

2.4.1. The amendments to the Directive
Three pieces of legislation amended the Directive after its entry into force in July 1999, the
Revised Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC, Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012, and the new
Directive 2014/33/EU.
The Revised Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC32 became applicable from 29 December
2009. Its Article 24(1) amended the scope of Directive 95/16/EC, clarifying that that “lift” shall
mean “a lifting appliance serving specific levels, having a carrier moving along guides which
are rigid and inclined at an angle of more than 15 degrees to the horizontal”. The amendment
applies merely for lifts intended for the transport of persons, persons and goods, goods alone if
the carrier is accessible. Moreover, due to the amendment, the lifting appliances moving along
a fixed course even where they do not move along guides that are rigid shall also be
considered as lifts. This amendment also clarified the definition of carrier, which “is a part of
the lift by which persons and/or goods are supported in order to be lifted or lowered”.33 More
importantly, the first indent of the amended article 1(3) points out that lifts with a travel speed
lower than 0.15m/s will be excluded from the scope of the Directive and will thus be subject to
the Machinery Directive.34
Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012,35 also referred to as “The Standardisation Package”, comes
to support Europe 2020 strategy.36 This Regulation:
 Defines European standardisation as a policy tool for the Union;
 Sets basic rules for cooperation between standardisation organisations, EC and Member
States;
 Amends a number of directives, including the Directive, to harmonise the principles of
formal objections to harmonised standards.
The objectives of this Regulation are, among others, to speed up standardisation processes
and align the procedures in harmonisation legislation.37 As a consequence, Article 26(1)(e) of
Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 repeals Article 6(1) of Directive 95/16/EC.
Finally, on 20 April 2016 the new Directive 2014/33/EU replaced the previous Directive
95/16/EC and introduced relatively limited changes. Its main purpose was to align the
legislation on lifts and safety components to the NLF. The new Directive will be integrated in
the national law of the 28 EU Member States as well as Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway,
Switzerland and Turkey.38 The main changes brought by the new Directive are:39
32
Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending
Directive 95/16/EC (recast) – OJEU L 157 of 9.6.2006, p. 34.
33
Ibid.
34
European Commission (2009). Guide to the application of The Lifts Directive 95/16/EC, p. 14.
35
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. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:316:0012:0033:EN:PDF
36
COM(2010) 2020 final. Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
37
Ibid.
38
According to EC (2016), The 'Blue Guide' on the implementation of EU product rules 2016, the agreement on the
EEA, which came into force in 1994, covers all Union harmonisation legislation to which the guide is applicable.
Therefore, all the EU harmonisation legislation – including the New Directive, also applies to EEA countries. Moreover,
the Custom Union Decision signed in 1995 between Turkey and the EU foresees that Turkey shall align with all EU
product legislation (also on quality infrastructure such as CE marking requirements, NB, accreditation and
standardisation).
39
LEIA, Technical guidance note No. 29, Re-cast Lifts Directive 2014/33/EU; http://www.conformance.co.uk/adirective
s/doku.php?id=lift
13
 The terminology of the list of safety components, Annex III, point 2, referring to
devices to prevent “unchecked upward movements” has been amended into “unintended
car movement” (UCMP);
 Several new or amended definitions, additions from the NFL, such as: placing on the
market, making available on the market for safety components, authorised representative,
importer, distributor, economic operator, technical specification, recall and withdrawal;
 The obligations of economic operators have been aligned to the NFL. For example, the
installer of lifts and manufacturer of safety components must report to the national
authorities any non-conformities or safety issues identified in their product(s);
 New and modified requirements for Member States for setting up and performing market
surveillance and related activities;
 Few modifications on the terminology used for EHSRs listed in Annex I;
 New and modified requirements for accreditation, notification and operation of the
NBs in accordance with the NFL.
Compared to Directive 95/16/EC, the unit verification also requires the location where the lift is
installed, explanations of the manufacturing drawings and diagrams, a list of the EHSRs to be
taken into consideration and a list of the harmonised standards, if applied.
2.4.2. Harmonised standards and mandates
A number of regularly updated European standards (developed by CEN Technical Committee
on Lifts)40 detail possible technical specifications -responding to the EHSRs- for various types
of lifts, and different aspects of lift construction and operating principles. Only one EC mandate
has been issued in relation to Directive 95/16/EC in 1992. This standardisation mandate
(M/CEN/92/3) addressed CEN and it is not publicly available. This mandate has been replaced
by a new standardisation request (M/549),41 in order to safeguard coherent terms of reference
for developing and revising harmonised standards for lifts and safety components covered by
Directive 2014/33/EU. Standards cannot really remain unchanged over time, as they need to
adapt to technological developments and state of the art evolution. Standards also bring a
great support to global value chains. For example, European and national standardisation
bodies cooperate with international standardisation bodies such as ISO and IEC, to develop
international standards to be used worldwide.42 The aim is for EN 81-20 and EN 81-50 to
become the leading international standards,43 because many of CEN/TC 10 standards are
already used worldwide, such as EN 81-1/-2 for lifts.
2.4.3. The Coordination Group of NBs for Lifts and related recommendations for use
The Coordination Group of NBs for Lifts (NB-L) discusses and solves issues in the context
of the conformity assessment procedures in order to ensure consistency and coherence of the
tasks carried out by NBs. NB-L deals, inter alia, with particular situations where the
specifications given in the standards have to be additionally explained. It has the duty to
assess if the solutions proposed by economic operators guarantee a sufficient and acceptable
decrease of possible risks.44 Such specific solutions and other general issues are circulated
through the Recommendations for Use (RfU). The RfU (also referred to as “technical sheets
for coordination”) report the common approach of NBs approved by the NB-L and endorsed by
the LWG. The application of RfU was voluntary in Directive 95/16/EC. Currently, as stated in
Article 24(11) of Directive 2014/33/EU, NBs “shall” apply as general guidance the
administrative decisions of NB-L.
40
CEN’s Technical Committee ‘Lifts, escalators and moving walks’ (CEN/TC 10).
41
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/mandates/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.welcome#
42
COM(2016) 358 final. European standards for the 21st century, p. 4.
43
http://www.liftinstituut.com/newsroom/90-new-standards-en-81-20-and-en-81-50-in-list-of-harmonised-standards
44
ETUI (2010). A Trade Union look at the Lift Sector.
14
3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS45
22 evaluation questions (EQ) have guided the assessment of the Directive. They refer to the
analysis of the European lift market, and to five evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency, coherence, and EU added value. The evaluation criteria were understood to mean:
 Relevance: whether the objectives of the Directive still correspond to current problems,
needs and challenges. In particular, the study assessed to what extent the scope and
mechanisms of the Directive allowed addressing the main issues arising from the lift sector
and in regard to lift safety. It also assesses whether the Directive follows up and adapts to
technological, scientific and social developments (EQ from 2 to 5).
 Effectiveness: whether and to what extent the Directive’s objectives in terms of lift
safety and functioning of the internal market for lift and safety components have been
achieved so far at both national and EU level (EQ from 6 to 15).
 Efficiency: whether the Directive has proportionally delivered its results in terms of costs
and benefits (EQ from 16 to 18).
 Coherence: whether the Directive is consistent with other EU pieces of legislation relevant
for lifts and whether it is internally coherent (EQ 19 and 20).
 EU Added value: to what extent the results of the EU action are additional to those that
would have resulted from action at Member State level (EQ 21 and 22).
The following box lists the evaluation questions that have been addressed in the study.
The European lift market
EQ 1. How has the European lift market evolved since the adoption of the Directive? What is the
current situation and trends in the lift market?
Relevance
EQ 2. To what extent did the initial objective of facilitating the functioning of internal market
correspond to needs/issues of all stakeholders and still do?
EQ 3. To what extent did the initial objective of ensuring a high level of safety of lifts correspond to
needs/issues of all stakeholders and still do?
EQ 4. How are innovation and new technologies taken into account?
EQ 5. Is there an issue of clarity of the Directive?
Effectiveness
The implementation of the Directive
EQ 6. What are the discrepancies between MS in the process of the implementation of the Lifts
Directive?
EQ 7. Have there been problems with the implementation of the Directive?
The effectiveness of the Directive in achieving its objectives
EQ 8. How effective was the development and use of the European harmonised standards for the Lifts
Directive?
EQ 9. To what extent has the conformity assessment procedure for lifts and safety components for lifts
been effective and provided highest degree of health and safety for consumers and users?
EQ 10. How effective are Market Surveillance Authorities in identifying non-compliant lifts and safety
components for lifts?
EQ 11. To what extent has the Lifts Directive contributed to an effectively operating internal market for
the products in its scope?
EQ 12. To what extent does the Directive ensure legal certainty, transparency and non-discrimination
between companies?
EQ 13. To what extent has the Lifts Directive achieved its aims with regard to the protection of health
and safety of users and maintenance personnel?
45
Following the comments received by the Steering Group, the EQ changed with respect to those provided in the ToR.
Moreover, the order of EQs under “effectiveness” has changed, and they were grouped under the three macro areas
presented.
15
Enabling factors
EQ 14. What are the barriers to effective application and enforcement, in particular through surveillance
of lifts on the market?
EQ 15. What are the factors that influence positively and negatively the effective application of the
Directive?
Efficiency
EQ 16. What are the regulatory (including administrative) costs for the different stakeholders?
EQ 17. What are the main benefits for stakeholders and civil society that derive from the Directive?
EQ 18. To what extent are the regulatory costs proportionate to the benefits achieved? How affordable
are the costs for the stakeholders, given the benefits they receive? What does this represent in
terms of administrative and reporting burdens?
Coherence
EQ 19. Are there overlaps/complementarities between the Lifts Directive and any pieces of EU legislation
or Member State legislation in the relevant areas (in particular Cableways and Machinery
Directives)? To what extent are they coherent? Are there additional requirements at EU and
national level with regard to certain products? Are there contradictions?
EQ 20. Are the requirements for installers and manufacturers clear? Are there overlapping rules?
EU added value
EQ 21. What is the additional value resulting from the Lifts Directive, compared to what could be
achieved at national level?
EQ 22. What is the added value of the Lifts Directive for stakeholders?
16
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1.The evaluation grids

The approach to answering the evaluation questions has been defined in specific evaluation
grids, presenting:
 The judgment criteria used to specify the meaning of the evaluation question;
 The analytical approach used in order to answer the evaluation question, given the
judgement criteria;
 The indicators used to evaluate the achieved results as well as to identify potential
shortcomings;
 The sources of information, including primary sources (i.e. stakeholders), and
secondary sources, i.e. existing documents, publications, reports.
All evaluation grids are presented in Annex 8.3.
4.2.The research approach
The approach to the analysis has been based on the understanding of the relation between the
evaluation questions and the intervention logic of the Directive. Besides the reconstruction of
the intervention logic, the tools and techniques adopted in the study and described in the
following sections include:
 Desk research;
 Field research;
 Case studies.
4.2.1. Desk research
The desk research included a comprehensive review of the existing documents and legislative
texts at international, EU and national levels. Some examples are relevant literature on lift
safety and sector, the policy context and the main issues related to the Directive’s
implementation (see Annex 8.10 for details).
Policy context, transposition and implementation
Insights on the policy context have been gathered through previous studies and reports on the
on-going work of the EC on harmonisation legislation, NB-L RfU, the requests for
standardisation and the amendments to the Directive. These documents have been crucial to
frame the legislative background, the Directive’s main provisions and working mechanisms and
to identify the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders’ concerned by the Directive. Finally, for
assessing the transposition and implementation of the Directive at Member State level, the
national transposition laws of the 28 EU Member States have been analysed specifically
focusing on:
 The definition of the "installer of a lift";
 The provisions in the national building regulations in relation with the requirement of
Article 2(2) of the Directive in order to ensure a two-way flow of information between the
lift installer and the person responsible for work on the building or construction;
 The transposition of Article 8 of the Directive included any restrictions in the use of
harmonised standards;
 The prior approval as set out in section 2.2 of Annex 1 of the Directive to prevent the risk
of crushing;
 The provisions for granting lift accessibility to disabled persons.
The raw data of this analysis are presented in Annex 8.6. The national reports for market
surveillance, drafted by MSAs pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008,
represented another information source to understand the policy context of the Directive.
17
Market data analysis

Products falling in scope of the Directive include lifts intended for the transport of persons,
persons and goods, goods alone if the carrier is accessible, and their safety components (as
listed in Annex IV). After-sales services (e.g. maintenance) are not in scope of the Directive.
The market analysis looked at the following indicators:
 Units and value of lifts and safety components sold (production);
 Overall value and volume of intra/extra EU imports/exports of lifts and safety components;
 Competitiveness;
 Turnover;
 Number of patents;
 Number and size of enterprises (i.e. safety component manufactures, lift installers);
 Number of employees.
A number of sources have been analysed to look for the above-mentioned indicators. The table
below summarises the results of this analysis, showing which indicators have been identified,
in which sources and referred to which products. Unfortunately, in many cases the available
data do not fully match with the products in scope of the Directive. Where possible, indicators
related only to the products in scope of the Directive have been estimated by integrating
official and non-official sources.
18
EVALUATION OF DIRECTIVE 95/16/EC ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS RELATING TO LIFTS
Table 1 – Methodology for each indicator

Indicator Source Coverage Issues Action Estimate
Units and ELA reports Products: Lifts and Fully matching Where available, these data were used to provide a breakdown at MS None
value of lifts (2013, 2015, safety components with the scope of level and to calculate the ratio of the number of accidents/number of
and 2017) Territory: EU28 with the the Directive, installed lifts for MS.
components exception of BG, CY, EE, though likely to The under-representation of SMEs is not deemed to hinder the estimate
sold HR, IE, LV, MT, SK + under-represent of production sold, as they play a minor role in lift production.
(production) CH, NO, TR SMEs.
In some cases, these data were used to triangulate data provided by
Timeframe: official sources.
2010-2015
Eurostat Products: Lifts: NACE (A) Data at MS (A) Data have been used only at aggregate level (EU). Value of lifts sold
Prodcom46 Rev. 2 code 28221630 level are very (B) The inclusion rather than the exclusion of skip hoists in scope of the = no calculation
and 28221650 fragmented. Directive is not straightforward. Nonetheless, skip hoist production value necessary
Safety components: (B) NACE codes -whether in scope or not of the Directive- over total EU production of lifts Value of lift
NACE Rev. 2 code for lifts include and skip hoists is estimated to not exceed 10%,49 meaning that those components sold =
28221950 skip hoists.47 outside the scope of the Directive are even fewer. This estimate is value of lift
50
Territory: EU28 and EEA (C) NACE codes confirmed by data provided by the German statistical office. As a result, components
for lifts include lifts the indicator has been used as it is. including escalator
that might fall (C) The percentage of lifts that may fall under the Machinery Directive components*0.92
Timeframe:
under the (MD) has been estimated as residual, considering that most products in Units of new lifts
1995-2015 Machinery its scope are “captured” by NACE Rev. 2 code 2822 (see Table 22). As a installed = units of
Directive (e.g. due result, the indicator has been used as it is. lifts sold + units of
to different (D) We estimate that only 92% of the NACE code for safety components lifts imported – units
speeds).48 fall within the scope of the Directive, being the remaining 8% related to of lifts exported
Intra- and Eurostat Products: Lifts: SITC (D) The NACE escalator. Import/export of
extra-EU28 International Rev. 3 code 74481 code for safety (E) The number of new lifts installed has been estimated based on lifts = no calculation
trade Trade52 components refers Prodcom data, by adding to lifts produced in the EU the net necessary
Safety components:
(import and also to escalators import/export balance. The units of imported/exported lifts (not provided
And UN SITC Rev. 3 code 74493 Import/export of
export) in that are not in by Prodcom) has been estimated by dividing the import/export values by
Comtrade Territory: EU28 and EEA scope lift components =
volume and of the the (estimated) unitary lift cost (total production value/total production
Database import/export of lift
value Timeframe: Directive. quantity). The underlining assumption is that lifts are imported/exported components
(E) The number of
46
Eurostat PRODCOM provides the value and volumes of sold production. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/EN/prom_esms.htm
47
A skip hoist is a bucket or car operating up and down a defined path, receiving, elevating, and discharging bulk materials.
48
The Directive does not apply to lifting appliances whose speed is not greater than 0.15 m/s. (Art. 1(3)).
49
Feedback from four industry representatives: an EU representatives of SMEs, an Italian industry association, an expert of the sector and a representative from CEN TC10.
Overall, 24 stakeholders were contacted but only these replied.
50
Based on the authors’ estimates, the production value of skip hoists in Germany was equal to 11%, 10% and 10% in 2013, 2014 and 2015 respectively over total EU
production of lifts, skip hoists and components. Similar data have been requested also to statistical offices of other major producing countries (i.e. ES, FR, IT), but this level of
disaggregation was not available. Similarly, more disaggregated data were requested to Eurostat (to account for the value of skip hoists only), but this level of detail for NACE
codes was not available.
19

2002-2015 new lifts installed at the price they are produced. including escalator
needs to be Although these figures are not fully comparable with those provided by components*0.92
estimated. ELA,51 for some years there is a good correspondence between Prodcom
and ELA data, the latter being equal to 82% of the former in 2010, to
74% in 2012, to 84% in 2013.
Competitive- None None Needs to be Estimated based on UN Comtrade Database. Export shares
ness estimated
Turnover Eurostat Products: Lifting and Lifting includes To isolate the turnover related to the products in scope of the Directive, Turnover of
Structural handling equipment: also lifting data from both ELA and the annual reports of the four largest market products in scope
Business NACE Rev. 2 code 2822 machineries that players have been considered. of the Directive =
Statistics do not fall in scope 1) Data from ELA provided the value of new lifts sold and of Turnover in the
(SBS)53 of the Directive. modernisation in Europe, per year, between 2010 and 2015. lifting and handling
Territory: EU28 + NO
Handling Knowing that maintenance accounted for around 50% of total equipment sector,
and TR
equipment are not turnover in the sector in 2011 and 2013,54 this percentage was used related to both
in scope of the to calculate the overall turnover in the lift sector. The resulting value production and
Timeframe: Directive. was then compared to the turnover of the lifting and handling services * 0.22 *
2008-2014 equipment sector based on SBS data, to get the share over the total 0.40
turnover including lifting and handling equipment. This share was
equal to 15% on average between 2010 and 2014.55
2) Data from the annual reports provided the turnover of the four
largest market players in the sector. Based on the market analysis
performed by Credit Swiss,56 their turnover accounts for 55% of
total EU turnover. We assumed that their market share is still 55%
52
Prodcom does not provide details on trade partner countries as does Eurostat International Trade database.
51
The reason could be that the definition of “new lift” changes from one database to the other. Moreover, geographical coverage is different.
53
“Turnover” includes all duties and taxes on the goods or services invoiced by the unit with the exception of the VAT invoiced vis-à-vis its customer and other similar
deductible taxes directly linked to turnover. It also includes all other charges (transport, packaging, etc.) passed on to the customer, even if these charges are listed separately
in the invoice. Reduction in prices, rebates and discounts as well as the value of returned packing must be deducted. Income classified as other operating income, financial
income and extra-ordinary income in company accounts is excluded from turnover. Operating subsidies received from public authorities or the institutions of the EU are also
excluded. Source for definitions: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/setupMetadata.do (document named Help for Indicators).
Production value provided by SBS cannot be compared to the value of sold production provided by Prodcom, as production value is calculated differently from one database to
the other. Production value in SBS is defined as turnover, plus or minus the changes in stocks of finished products, work in progress and goods and services purchased for
resale, minus the purchases of goods and services for resale, plus capitalised production, plus other operating income (excluding subsidies). Income and expenditure classified
as financial or extra-ordinary in company accounts is excluded from production value. Included in purchases of goods and services for resale are the purchases of services
purchased in order to be rendered to third parties in the same condition. Production value in Prodcom is valued at the selling price net of turnover tax and discounts granted to
customers. Packaging costs are included even if charged separately. Freight costs are not included. As a consequence, turnover from SBS is not related to production value
from Prodcom.
54
According to Credit Suisse (2012 and 2014), Elevators and Escalators.
55
The definition of turnover provided by Eurostat (see footnote 53) includes values that are excluded from ELA data. Moreover, since ELA mainly represents large enterprises,
this share could be an underestimation of the value of turnover in the lift sector.
56
According to Credit Suisse (2015) and EFESME (2014).
20

in the other regions their reports refer to, i.e. EMEA and Europe 38
countries. This percentage has been used to calculate the total
turnover in the lift sector between 2010 and 2014. The resulting
value was then compared to turnover of the lifting and handling
equipment sector based on SBS data. This share was equal to 30%
on average between 2010 and 2014.57
Then, the average resulting from estimates 1) and 2) above was
calculated for each year, and applied to data related to the total lifting
and handling equipment sector provided by SBS (22% on average).
Resulting estimates have been cross-checked with some external
sources. Based on our estimates, the total turnover in the lift sector was
equal to €12 billion in 2012. Based on EFESME (2012), the same variable
was equal to €10 billion in the same year. Similarly, according to
Elevatori (2015)58 the turnover in the Italian lift sector 2014 was equal to
€2.1 billion, while according to our estimates it was €1.8 billion in the
same year.
Result: the turnover in the lift sector (including turnover from both
production and services, indicator 1) is equal to around 22% of the
turnover of the lifting and handling equipment sector.
Turnover includes We calculated the value of turnover related to the sale of products in
also revenues from scope of the Directive applying the parameter of 40%59 to the above-
after-sales calculated indicator 1.
services (i.e.
modernisation and
maintenance) that
do not fall in scope
of the Directive.
Annual Products: Lifts, Both the product These data were used to triangulate data provided by official sources. None
reports of escalators, auto-walks, and geographical
Kone, Otis, automatic doors and coverages are
Schindler, integrated access outside the scope
Thyssen control systems of the Directive.
Krupp Territory: Europe, Moreover, these
Middle-East and Africa, data do not cover
and “Europe 38 SMEs.
countries”60
57
Given that the geographical coverage of reference is wider than the EU28 and that figures for turnover do not related only to lifts, this share could be an overestimation of
the value of turnover in the lift sector.
58
Elevatori (2015), The great beauty: the Italian lift industry, Interlift 2015.
59
CreditSuisse (2012, 2014, 2015), EFESME (2014), interview with an EU SME representative, with an Italian industry association, with a large installer.
60
Including, a part from the 28 EU MS, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey.
21

Timeframe:
2008-2015
Number of European Products: Lifting and The number of Turnover and R&D expenses in the lifting and handling equipment sector Number of patents
patents Patent Office handling equipment: patents refer to are correlated. Based on Amadeus’ data, this correlation is equal to 0.77related to products
(EPO) NACE Rev. 2 code 2822 the NACE code (R2=0.6) in both 2013 and 2014. We assumed that the correlation in scope of the
Territory: World related to lifting between expenses in R&D (and related patents) and turnover is the same Directive = Number
and handling in the lift sector as in the lifting and handling equipment sector. of patents in the
equipment, As explained above, we estimated turnover related only to sales of new lifting and handling
Timeframe: including products lifts and components in the EU, which is equal to around 9% (i.e. equipment sector *
1990-2014 that are not in 22%*40%) of total turnover in the lifting and handling equipment sector. 0.22 * 0.40
scope of the
As a result, the number of patents related to products in scope of the
Directive.
Directive has been calculated by applying the parameter of 9% to the
number of patents in the lifting and handling equipment sector provided
by EPO.
Number of Eurostat Products: Lifting and Lifting includes The number of active enterprises falling within the scope of Directive hasNumber of
enterprises Structural handling equipment: also lifting been estimated at being at the maximum between 21% and 25% of the enterprises in the
Business NACE Rev. 2 code 2822 machineries that corresponding SBS data (i.e., 22% average).61 This proxy is based on lift sector (i.e.
Statistics do not fall in scope data for Germany62 and Italy63 that also include enterprises active only in
including both
(SBS) of the Directive; the after-sales services (i.e., outside the scope of Directive). manufacture/
Territory: EU28 + NO
and TR Handling Being impossible to disaggregate further, this data will be considered as installation and after-
equipment are not purely indicative. sales services) =
in scope of the Number of
Timeframe: Directive; enterprises in the
2008-2014 lifting and handling
Number of
equipment sector *
enterprises include
0.22
also those
enterprises active
only in the after-
sales services that
do not fall into the
scope of the
Directive.
Size of Amadeus Products: Lifting and Amadeus database We calculated the shares of micro, small, medium and large enterprises Count of firms
enterprises Database handling equipment: provides micro- in the sector of lifting and handling equipment for the available years and according to size to
falling within (Bureau van NACE Rev. 2 code 2822 level data for the applied them to official data on the number of enterprises provided by obtain their relative
61
It was not possible to apply the same share as for turnover since the underlining assumption would have been that the turnover per firm in the lift sector is distributed
equally as in the lifting and handling equipment sector, which is likely not to be the case.
62
According to estimates based on data provided by the German statistical office, the number of firms in the lift sector in Germany in 2014 was equal to around 188, i.e. equal
to around 21% of the firms active in the lifting and handling equipment sector in the country in the same year, according to SBS.
63
The number of firms in the Italian lift sector is equal to 400, i.e. equal to around 25% of the firms active in the lifting and handling equipment sector in the country in the
same year according to SBS. Source: ANACAM (the Italian lift industry association) http://www.anacam.it/anacam/chi-siamo
22

the scope of Dijk) Territory: EU28 + NO sector of lifting SBS. share over total firms
the Directive and TR and handling As a result, we obtained the distribution of firms per size in the sector of in the sector of lifting
Timeframe: equipment. lifting and handling equipment, assuming it is similar to that of the lift and handling
sector. equipment.
2005-2014
Number of ELA reports Lifts and safety Although related Data provided by ELA specifically relate to the lift sector. These data None
employees (2013, 2015, components only to the lift include employees involved in both production/installation and the
2017) sector, these data provision of after-sale services (the latter not being covered by the
include also Directive). However, considering that:
employees and 1) ELA data are likely to exclude micro and small firms –and related
enterprises active employees- active only in the after-sales market;
only in the after-
2) For most firms, employees involved in installation are likely to be
sales market (i.e.
also involved in the provision of service;
not covered by the
Directive). ELA data are considered sufficiently reliable. Moreover, they are coherent
Moreover, these with data retrieved from the annual reports of the major producers,
data are likely to considering that they employ 40% of total workforce in the sector.64
refer to large As a result, the indicator has been used as it is and was preferred to the
enterprises only, indicator from SBS.
as they are When presenting data from ELA disaggregated per firm size, we assumed
represented by that the distribution of employees across different firms in the lift sector
ELA. is the same as that of the lifting and handling equipment sector.
Annual Products: Lifts, Both the product These data were used to triangulate data provided by official sources. None
reports of escalators, auto-walks, and geographical
Kone, Otis, automatic doors and coverages are
Schindler, integrated access outside the scope
Thyssen control systems of the Directive.
Krupp (from Territory: Europe,
2008 to Middle-East and Africa,
2015) and “Europe 38
countries”.
Timeframe:
2008-2015
64
Based on authors’ estimates on Amadeus data applied to SBS.
23
Lift-related accidents
As for accidents related to lifts, in light of the lack of data from official sources, the
evaluation mainly relied on data provided by ELA, in combination with information from national
studies, national reports on market surveillance specifically conducted in the lift sector65 and
reported in the targeted surveys. Similarly to data for the market analysis, accident data are
limited (see below section 4.2.3), hindering a thorough evaluation of the Directive’s
effectiveness in improving lift safety.
Cost-benefit analysis
Table 20 in Annex 8.8 maps the obligations deriving from the Directive for each stakeholder
impacted. The identification and assessment of the costs and benefits introduced by the
Directive could not rely on a previous impact assessment, and has therefore been based on a
comparison with the previously existing directive regulating lifts (i.e. Directive 84/528/EEC). The
matching allowed for the identification of new requirements and simplifications that caused new
costs or the ceasing of others (see Table 21 in Annex 8.8).
Data on cost/benefits has been collected through surveys and interviews to the different
categories of stakeholders.
4.2.2. Field research
The field research consisted of a combined mix of tools:
 An Open Public Consultation (OPC) launched by the Commission in early June 2016 and
concluded in January 2017, involving overall 66 stakeholders. The results of the OPC have
been considered as evidence to be triangulated with information gathered through the other
research tools;
 Four targeted surveys addressed to four categories of stakeholders (Member State
authorities in charge of the implementation of the Directive, MSAs in charge of the
enforcement of the Directive, NBs, lift installers and safety component manufacturers,
including SMEs, and related industry associations). Overall, it involved 116 stakeholders.
The targeted surveys included both closed and open questions complementing the questions
of the OPC;
 Interviews to 38 stakeholders. Interviewees were selected on the basis of their specific
knowledge of or experience with the Directive, particularly for the case studies. They were
also selected to ensure a balanced geographical coverage and a balanced representation of
all stakeholder categories;
 A Workshop held in the context of the LWG. The workshop served to discuss the
preliminary results of the study with representatives of the Commission, of Member States
and observers from the industry, standardisation bodies and NBs. The workshop has been a
valuable tool to collect further evidence and validate the results with relevant stakeholders.
Altogether, through the different tools used, more than 220 stakeholders were consulted, with a
wide geographical coverage. Bulgaria and Croatia are the only countries for which no
stakeholder was willing to participate.
Please refer to Annex 8.4 for a detailed overview of stakeholder consultation.
4.2.3. Case studies
Five thematic case studies have been drafted, with the objectives of:
 Ensuring a higher level of detail, not feasible with reference to all the Member States and all
the aspects of the implementation of the Directive (e.g. its effectiveness in terms of safety,
65
European Commission; Report on the Member States reviews and assessment of the functioning of market
surveillance activities for the 2010-2013 period pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008. http://ec.e
uropa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/building-blocks/market-surveillance/organisation_en
24
the costs for economic operators, the use and benefits of harmonised standards). Therefore,
case studies have been used to produce useful insights and specific evidence, that helped to
better understand the overall situation in the EU and the results achieved with the Directive
in specific areas of action;
 Illustrating in practical terms the implication and impacts of specific situations;
 Understanding the causal links between the intervention and the achievements/results/
impacts;
 Identifying successful practices and approaches.
In line with the issues highlighted in the evaluation questions and emerging from the targeted
surveys, the case studies focused on the following topics:
 Access to lifts for disabled persons: national policies and regulations on the matter (case
study 1);
 “Prior approval”: implementation issues and possible solutions (case study 2);
 Technological trends in the lift industry since 1999: are EHSRs and European harmonised
standards appropriate, flexible and effective to support the implementation of the Lifts
Directive? (case study 3);
 Market surveillance of lifts: a comparison between Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain
(case study 4);
 Analysis of costs and benefits induced by the Directive on SMEs (case study 5).
Case studies have been based on both desk and field research – with a total of 20 stakeholders
being interviewed. Please refer to Annex 8.7 for the case studies.
4.3.Limitations and mitigation measures
4.3.1. Overview
The following table presents the mitigation measure undertaken for each limitation described
below. The following sections provide details.
Table 2 –Limitations and mitigation measures
Limitation Mitigation measure
Lack of assessment of the Whenever possible, the report highlights information reported by
effectiveness of the Directive stakeholders referring to the situation previous to the entry into force of
against the baseline the Directive
Lack of data on market A number of questions were foreseen in the targeted surveys to fill in
surveillance in the lift sector these gaps. The answers to these questions proved to be not entirely
informative, therefore the assessment of the effectiveness of market
surveillance was based on available data collected through desk research.
Lack/incompleteness of market A specific methodology, to gather estimates to disaggregate data, has
data been developed, also through additional stakeholder consultation
Lack of official data on lift Additional reports/literature have been investigated to fill-in the gaps at
accidents at EU level least for the main MS. Most of the analysis is based on data requested to
ELA
Low response rate to targeted Specific interviews were scheduled to fill-in these gaps. Moreover, the
survey questions collecting CBA in section 6.3 presents the estimates resulting from this exercise
data for the CBA trying to avoid generalisations due to small sample on which calculations
are based.
Unbalanced representation of General interviews aimed at involving the least represented categories/
some stakeholders/MS MS
25
4.3.2. Desk research limitations

Policy context, transposition and implementation data limitations
To properly assess the Directive, the definition of a baseline scenario would have been ideal.
However, the reconstruction of the baseline scenario was not possible in the context of this
study. This was due firstly to the lack of an impact assessment for the Directive at the time of
its adoption – which should provide a “picture” of the baseline.66 Secondly, the collection of
information dating back to more than 20 years ago (as the Directive was adopted in 1995)
would have proved cost-ineffective.
To partly address this limitation, whenever possible, the report highlights information reported
by stakeholders referring to the situation previous to the entry into force of the Directive.
Moreover, the evaluation of the effectiveness of market surveillance in the lift sector was
hampered by a serious lack of data in the national reports on market surveillance activities.
More specifically, a number of indicators67 could not be obtained. As a consequence, a number
of questions of the targeted survey were foreseen to fill in these gaps. The answers to these
questions however proved to be not entirely informative, therefore a thorough assessment of
the effectiveness of market surveillance could not be achieved.
Market data analysis limitations
The limitations encountered in gathering market data related to:
 Incomplete data for the years before 2000;
 The NACE codes used for the analysis include products that are outside the scope of the
Directive (i.e. some lifts and skip hoists that are subject to the Machinery Directive), thus
limiting a precise estimate of the lift market;
 Available data do not allow distinction between safety components manufacturers and lift
installers, thus again hindering an accurate assessment of the lift market;
 For the same reason, available data do not provide the number of new lift installers and
safety components manufacturers entering the market since 1999. Furthermore, data at
national level are highly fragmented;
 Finally, as also discussed in Box 1, as part of the Union harmonisation legislation, the
Directive does not cover after-sales services (i.e. maintenance and modernisation of lifts).
However, these constitute an integral and relevant part of the lift sector, particularly in
Europe. Due to data aggregation, it was not possible to distinguish the number of firms
active in the production and installation from those performing modernisation and
maintenance only, and therefore not impacted by the Directive but by the national
legislation.
As a result of the limitations encountered, a specific methodology to the market analysis has
been developed, as described in section 4.2.1. The limitations described partly hindered the
assessment of the impacts of the Directive on the internal market, though some trends can still
be identified.
66
Inasmuch as an Impact Assessment “verifies the existence of a problem, identifies its underlying causes”. EC (2015),
Better Regulation Guidelines, p.16.
67
i.e. the number of safety components for lifts recalled from the market, per MS, per EU/non-EU product; the number
of inspections carried out by MSA as reported in the national reports; % of non-compliant lifts or safety components for
lifts recalled from the market per MS, per EU/non-EU product; comparison to key trading partners; time necessary to
take a safety component off the market, if it is taken in whole EU at the same time; % of non-compliant lifts and safety
components for lifts in all production placed on the market and put into service, per MS; % of controls that resulted in
identification of non-conformity of lift or safety component; % of controls that resulted in prohibiting lifts and safety
components for lifts to put on the market or put into service, per MS, per product; % of inspections by MSAs, where the
conclusions are different from the results provided by the conformity assessment procedures (particular of final
inspection or unit verification).
26
Lift-related accident data limitation

The constraints in accident data are related to several factors, such as:
 The absence of an official centralised reporting system on accidents and of common
classifications on the seriousness of the injury;
 The lack of details on the causes of accidents (e.g. whether accidents are due to drawbacks
in the Directive’s EHSRs, lack of maintenance or to lift misuse), and tendency not to report
minor accidents;68
 The lack of a sufficiently wide timeframe (i.e. from 1995 to 2015) for both registered
accidents and the number of lifts into service per Member State;
 Statistics never distinguishing between accidents involving lifts subject to the Directive and
“existing lifts” (i.e. lifts installed before the entry into force of the Directive);
 Incomplete official accident data in national reports on market surveillance for lifts.
As a consequence, additional reports and literature have been consulted to gather data on lift
accidents at least for the leading countries (e.g. DE, ES, FR, IT), but for the abovementioned
reasons, they are hardly comparable. Moreover, specific requests for data were sent to ELA. It is
to be noted that ELA mainly represents the big market players and that the methodology to
collect these data was not provided. However, when national industry associations were
contacted to triangulate such data, they always referred to data collected by ELA.
The lack of accident statistics has in part hindered the evaluation of the effectiveness of the
Directive in terms of increased lift safety, although some trends may still be observable.
Cost-benefit analysis limitations
The analysis incurred some limitations that did not allow for a comprehensive assessment of all
the costs and benefits entailed by Directive 95/16/EC. To collect the largest possible amount of
quantitative data from MSAs, NBs and economic operators, questions on the costs and benefits
entailed by the Directive were included in the surveys and in the OPC. However, only a small
number of respondents could provide the requested data or were willing to, possibly for
confidentiality reasons (i.e. none of the respondents could or would provide an overall number
of performed EC type-examinations). In addition, respondents could not provide exact figures
but rather average estimates of most of the costs that they incurred when the Directive came
into force.
Regarding the development of a baseline to compare costs and benefits before and after the
implementation of the Directive, as previously discussed, data are not available.
The major benefit of the Directive for consumers and maintenance personnel is a higher safety
level of lifts. However, data on the period before the implementation of the Directive are not
available, thus a more in-depth analysis of the effects on lift safety could not be performed.
These limitations made it difficult to calculate the overall costs and benefits entailed by the
Directive. Whenever possible, costs and benefits are reported in quantitative terms and with
respect to the whole EU market. In other cases, costs are only available in unitary terms for a
single company, but could not be extended to the whole market. Finally, some other
costs/benefits were not quantifiable and were described only in qualitative terms.
4.3.3. Field research limitations
The field research has been extensive and largely outdid the expected targets (as reported in
Annex 8.4 on stakeholder consultation). Moreover, stakeholders were, for the large majority,
very keen on providing their input to the evaluation.
68
ELA (2012). The Importance of Accident Statistics.
27
Nonetheless, some issues are worth mentioning. As for the targeted surveys, it resulted that
information requested was very detailed and respondents expressed the need for an extension
of the deadline in order to provide more complete information. This implied a rescheduling of
activities (e.g. interviews) that were specifically aimed at investigating issues emerged from the
targeted surveys. Furthermore, as already mentioned, quantitative questions aimed at collecting
data for the CBA received very low rates of response. In addition, some categories of
stakeholders (i.e. large enterprises)69 were particularly represented, to the detriment of other
categories (i.e. SMEs). The same consideration regards the geographical representation, with a
particularly high involvement of German stakeholders.70
When referring to the evidence provided by the targeted surveys or OPC in Chapter 6,
percentages are calculated on the actual number of answers received per each question, thus
excluding:
 Answers that did not provide any information, i.e. the “I do not know” selections;
 “Not applicable” answers, i.e. those questions that were not asked to some respondents as
it was outside their area of competence;
 “No answer received”, i.e. when the respondent decided to skip the question.
In practice, reported percentages often have a different calculation basis, and the base
might be less than 116 (the total number of respondents to the targeted surveys) and less than
66 (the total number of respondents to the OPC).
As for the interviews, a general lack of Public Authorities’ willingness to participate was
detected.
69
85% (28 out of 33) of total enterprises responding to the targeted survey are large enterprises.
70
19% (22 out of 116) of total respondents are German.
28
5. STATE OF PLAY
5.1.The European lift market

EQ1. How has the European lift market evolved since the adoption of the Directive? What is the current
situation and trends in the lift market?
This section presents evidence and an analysis of the structure, economic importance and
competitiveness of the lift sector in Europe (i.e. in the EU28 Member States, plus Norway,
Switzerland and Turkey, while data for Iceland and Liechtenstein are not available), including its
evolution.71 The configuration and main trends in intra- and extra-EU trade are also assessed.
The timeframe and geographical coverage of the analysis vary according to the availability of
data.
5.1.1. Number of firms and employees
Based on Prodcom data, the number of firms active in the lift market (including production
of lifts and safety components, modernisation and maintenance) is equal to 0.1% of the total
number of firms active in all the manufacturing sectors in the EU28 in 2014. This share
corresponds to around 2,000 firms in 2014. Therefore, the number of firms impacted by the
Directive is lower than 2,000, as this number includes also firms performing only modernisation
and maintenance that are not in scope of the Directive. The number of firms in the lift sector
has been overall declining since 2008, possibly due to the financial and real estate crisis that
seems to particularly impact large firms (-8%). The number of medium and small firms
decreases on average by 6 and 5% respectively, while micro firms increase overall by 1%.
Moreover, the distribution in the number of firms per size is very uneven in the lift
sector. 51% of firms are micro, 31% are small, 15% are medium, and only 3% are large firms.
When looking at the distribution per country, 70% of firms in the lift sector were located in
ten Member States in 2014. Over the period 2008-2014, all EU countries, with the exception of
Bulgaria, Greece and Poland, experienced a decrease in the number of firms active in the lift
sector.
In 2015, large firms employed 62% of EU workforce in the lift sector, medium firms employed
24%, small firms 11% and micro 3%. As Figure 3 shows, the number of employees declined
for large and medium firms from 2008 to 2010, while it increased for micro and small
firms over the same period, followed by relative stability thereafter. Over the entire period,
the number of employees increased on average by 4% in micro firms, by 2% in small firms,
remained stable in medium firms and declined by 3% in large firms.
71
For details on methodology and limitations of the analysis see sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.
29
Figure 3 - Number of employees in the lift sector (both production and services) by company
size, in the EU28 between 2008 and 2015
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
-
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Micro (<10 employees) Small (10-49 employees)

Medium (50-249 employees) Large (>249 employees)
Source: Authors’ estimates based on ELA and Amadeus database

Considering the EU28 plus Norway, Switzerland and Turkey, the overall number of
employees in the sector was equal to 154,319 in 2015.72 The countries with the highest
number of employees in the lift sector in 2015 were Turkey (25,000 – employing 16% of total
workforce in the sector in Europe in 2015), Italy (23,000 – 15%), Spain and Germany (18,831
and 18,000 respectively – both equalling 12%), and France (16,700 – 11%).73 Apart from
Turkey, whose number of employees increased by nearly 11% between 2011 and 2015, all the
other countries experienced moderate decreases.
5.1.2. Turnover, sold production and R&D
The lift market is characterised by enterprises that besides manufacturing lifts and safety
components in scope of the Directive, sell also other products and services (i.e. other lifting
equipment and maintenance services) that do not fall in scope of the Directive. The figures
provided below represent the best estimates on the market impacted by the Directive.
The overall turnover related to the sales of new lifts and components is estimated to
be equal to around €5 billion in Europe in 2014. Over the period considered, turnover
decreased at an average annual rate of 3%, with a major drop from 2008 to 2009 possibly
related to the financial and real estate market crisis. The decline in the industry turnover
impacted in particular small and large firms, suffering a turnover contraction of -1% and -
5% respectively.
72
ELA (2017), European Lifts Statistics. Please consider that data for Iceland and Liechtenstein were not available.
73
Ibid.
30
Figure 4 – Turnover related to the sales of new lifts and components in the EU between 2008
and 2014
6
4
EUR bln
-
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: Authors’ estimates based on Eurostat SBS, data for EU28
Most turnover is produced by large firms,74 with a strong presence of four large
multinational companies, Kone, Otis, Schindler, and ThyssenKrupp Elevator,75 which have a
combined market share of at least 55% in terms of value in Europe in 2014.76 Micro and SMEs
play a key role as manufacturers/importers of safety components, as well as providers of
maintenance/modernisation services, or as highly specialised installers of lifts in ancient
buildings.
Figure 5 shows the trend in the value of sold production of lifts in the EU between 1995 and
2015. In the period preceding the entry into force of the Directive (1995-1999), the annual
average growth rate of the overall sold production of lifts was equal to +1%. After the entry into
force of the Directive, the value of sold production of lifts grew on average by 14% in the EU15
from 1999 to 2005. Considering the period between 2006 and 2015, sold production decreased
on average by 3% in the EU28. This included a sharp decrease (-29%) between 2008 and 2009,
possibly due to the financial and real estate market crisis.
When considering the value of sold production per aggregates of Member States, the EU15
accounts for nearly total lift production value of the EU28, i.e. on average 98% in 2003, 2004
and 2005 (available years).
74
67% by large firms, 23% by medium, 8% by small, and 2% by micro enterprises in 2014. Estimates based on SBS
and Amadeus data relating to the lifting and handling equipment sector.
75
Kone is a Finnish company, ThyssenKrupp is German and Schindler is Swiss. Otis is a US-based company with a
strong presence on the EU market through its subsidiaries, which were taken into account for the purposes of this
analysis. Other relevant European companies are the Spanish Orona and the Greek Kleemann.
76
Source: Credit Suisse (2014). Global Elevators and Escalators. Share referred to sale of new installations,
maintenance and modernisation. Specifically, Kone, Schindler and Otis equalled 16% of the market each, while Thyssen
Krupp 7%. As the ratio between products and services is expected to be inversely proportional to the size of the
enterprises, this percentage has to be considered the lower boundary.
31
Figure 5 – Value of sold production of lifts in scope of the Directive in Europe between 1995 and
2015 (nominal values)77
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
EUR bln
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
-
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
EU15 EU28
Source: Authors’ estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom
Figure 6 below shows the trend in the value of sold production of safety components in the
EU between 1995 and 2015. In the period preceding the entry into force of the Directive (1995-
1999), the annual average growth rate of the overall sold production of safety components was
equal to +14%. After the entry into force of the Directive, the value of sold production of lift
safety components grew on average by 2% in the EU15 from 1999 to 2005. Considering the
period between 2006 and 2015, sold production continued to increase on average by 2% in the
EU28. This included a sharp decrease (-17%) between 2008 and 2009, possibly due to the
financial and real estate market crisis.
When considering the value of sold production per aggregates of Member States, the EU15
accounts for nearly all the total safety component production value of the EU28, i.e. on average
96% in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (available years).
Figure 6 – Value of sold production of lift safety components in scope of the Directive in Europe
between 1995 and 2015 (nominal values)78
3.0
2.5
2.0
EUR bln
1.5
1.0
0.5
-
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
EU15 EU28
Six countries totalled nearly 80% of the overall production value of the EU28 in 2015:
Spain (23%), Germany (19%), Italy (16%), and France (10%). Well below follow Finland (6%)
77
The figure presents data within the maximum available timeframe. The “EU15” and the “EU28” are to be considered
as geographical aggregates.
78
The figure presents data within the maximum available timeframe. The “EU15” and the “EU28” are to be as
considered geographical aggregates.
32
and Sweden (5%). The breakdown by product at national level is diversified. Spain is by far the
largest lift producer in terms of both value and volume (27% and 29% of total EU volume/value
production in 2015), while Italy is the biggest producer of safety components (22% of total EU
value).
Figure 7 – Six major producing Member States in 2015
Lift production value Lift production volume
Other EU MS Other EU MS
16% 24% Spain
Spain
29%
27%
Finland
6%
Sweden United
7% Kingdom
8%
Sweden
France 5% Germany
11% 16%
France
Germany 7% Italy
24% 11%
Italy
11%
Safety components (value, data for volume were not available)
Spain
Other EU MS 19%
26%
Germany
14%
Finland
6%
Czech
Republic
4%
France
9% Italy
22%
The major producing countries are also those where R&D mainly takes place. The most
innovative European country in the lift sector is Germany, granting on average 52 patents per
year, i.e. 30% of total patents granted in the EU over the period 1990-2012. It is followed by
France (11% on average), Switzerland and Spain (each 9%), Finland (6%) and Italy (4%).
Figure 8 – Number of patents related to products in scope of the Directive in six European
countries between 1990 and 201279
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Germany France Switzerland Spain Finland Italy All other EU countries
Source: Authors’ estimates based on EPO
79
The last years (i.e. 2013 and 2014) have been excluded as not reliable. Moreover, as indicated by the red circle, also
the years from 2010 might not fully reflect the real number of granted patents since this process suffers of a backlog of
around five years. (see for instance: London Economics (2010), Economic Study on Patent Backlogs and a System of
Mutual Recognition, p. 39-40. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328678/p
-backlog-report.pdf or http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/solwpaper/09-005.htm)
33
Five out of the six above-mentioned countries are also amongst the ten most innovative
worldwide in the lift sector between 1990 and 2014. The full list includes China, Japan,
Germany, the USA, the Republic of Korea, France, Switzerland, Spain, Finland, and Taiwan.
Figure 9 below shows the number of patents related to products in scope of the Directive in the
EU28 plus Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Turkey, USA, Japan, the Republic of Korea and
Taiwan between 1990 and 2012. The largest number of patents was registered in the
aggregate of EU28, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Turkey until 2007, when China
took first place, being granted nearly 80% of patents in 2012.
Figure 9 – Number of patents related to products in scope of the Directive in several countries
between 1990 and 2012
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
China EU28, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Turkey Japan USA Republic of Korea Taiwan
Source: Authors’ estimates based on EPO and SBS database
After the entry into force of the Directive in 1999, the number of patents in the European
aggregate started to decrease, at an average of -0.2% between 1999 and 2005. Overall, the
decrease accentuated even more after the 2008 crisis (-12% between 2008 and 2009). In
Europe, the number of patents reduced at an average rate of 8% between 2005 and 2009. The
decrease rate was similar in the other countries: 7% in Japan, 4% in Taiwan and 2% in the
USA. On the contrary, in some eastern countries the number of granted patents grew, by a
small 2% in the Republic of Korea and to an impressive 49% in China.
Explanations for these trends could be many. Firstly, China’s strong economic growth and
industrialisation, might lead to more innovation. Secondly, the Chinese government has been
heavily subsidising patenting since 1985, with the latest, significant amendments in 2000 and
2009, which increased thresholds for patent grants.80 Thirdly, it is to be noted that registered
patents in the EU suffer considerable backlogs of applications, which could result in data
incompleteness in the latest years of the series, thus partly explaining the drastic decrease
registered in the EU. Finally, following the beginning of the real estate boom in 2005 in China,
EU producers might have increasingly applied for patents in China, as demonstrated by EPO
data.81
80
RAND (2015). Patenting and Innovation in China, Incentives, Policy, and Outcomes. p. 15.
81
EPO data show that in terms of number of patents, the variable “appln_auth” (i.e. “application authority”, the country
where the patent is registered) is highly correlated to the variable “person_ctry_code” (i.e. the nationality of the
applicant). Correlation is 0.99 for Chinese application authorities and applicants and 0.81 for those located in the EU28,
CH, IS, NO and TR. Therefore, the increase in patents registered by Chinese applicants is reflected by an increase in
patents registered in Chinese application authorities.
34
5.1.3. New lift installations

The number of new lifts installed in the EU28 plus Norway, Switzerland and Turkey
experienced an average decrease of 1% over the period 2010-2015, passing from 132,857
units in 2010 to 124,574 units in 2015.82 Figure 10 disaggregates these figures, indicating that
the trend is almost entirely due to significant drops in two of the biggest markets - Italy (-61%)
and Spain (-53%), both having suffered the real estate bubble crash in 2008 more than other
countries. In most other countries, the number of new lifts installed has actually increased
(+16% on average). The countries with the largest number of new lift installations in 2015 were
Germany (totalling 17% of total of new installations in Europe), Turkey (15%), Spain (12%) and
France (10%). In terms of value of new lifts installed, however, Germany ranked first, followed
by Turkey, the UK, and Switzerland. Despite the decrease in terms of volumes, the value of new
lifts installed experienced an increase of 5% over the same period.
Figure 10 – Number of new lifts installed in 22 EU countries, comparison 2010-201583
30,000
27,500
25,000
22,500
20,000
17,500
15,000
12,500
10,000
7,500
5,000
2,500
-
DE TR ES FR CH UK IT PL BE AT SE NL CZ FI NO RO DK EL PT LU HU SI
2010 2015
Source: ELA
When using estimates based on Prodcom data, it is possible to broaden the timeframe of the
analysis and examine data at EU level (Figure 11). Between 1995 and 1999, the number of new
lifts installed in the EU15 grew by nearly 7% on average, while it grew by 5% after the entry
into force of the Directive in 1999 until 2003. Once again, the impact of the economic and real
estate crisis is visible since 2007. From 2007 to 2015, the average growth rate of new lifts
installed has been equal to -8%.
Figure 11 – Number of new lifts installed in Europe between 1995 and 201584
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
-
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
EU15 EU28
82
Estimates based on statistics provided by ELA.
83
Data for BG, CY, EE, HR, IE, LV, MT, SK are not available.
84
35
5.1.4. Trade and competitiveness

As shown in the figure below, the EU is a net exporter of lifts and safety components.
Considering the EU28, a total of €1,967 million was exported towards third countries in 2015,
compared to €386 million imported in the same year.
In the period 1995-1999, preceding the entry into force of the Directive, the annual average
growth rate of extra-EU export of products in scope of the Directive was equal to +2%, while
the annual average growth rate of extra-EU import was equal to +12%.
After the entry into force of the Directive, the extra-EU15 import grew on average by 8% from
2000 to 2005, while it grew by 1% in the EU28 from 2006 to 2015. On average, extra-EU
export grew by 8% in the EU15 from 2000 to 2005, and by 7% in the EU28 from 2006 to 2015.
The difference between the graph relating to EU15 and EU28 can be explained by the
importance of intra-EU trade, as discussed further below.
Figure 12 – Extra-EU trade in products in scope of the Directive between 1995 and 201585
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
EUR mln
1,000
800
600
400
200
-
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Extra-EU15 import Extra-EU28 export Extra-EU15 export Extra-EU28 import
Source: Authors’ estimates based on Eurostat International trade database
A comparison between intra- and extra-EU trade of lifts and their components shows
how the former is impressive with respect to the latter (Figure 13 below), although this
difference is reducing over time.
In the period preceding the entry into force of the Directive (1995-1999), the annual average
growth rate of extra-EU trade of products in the scope of the Directive was equal to +4%, while
the annual average growth rate of intra-EU trade was equal to +12%.
After the entry into force of the Directive, the extra-EU15 trade grew on average by 8% from
2000 to 2005. Within the EU28, it grew by 5% from 2006 to 2015. Intra-EU trade grew by 9%
on average in the EU15 from 2000 to 2005, and by 1% in the EU28 from 2006 to 2015.
85
36
Figure 13 – Intra- and extra-EU trade in products in scope of the Directive outside and within
the EU between 1995 and 201586
3,200
3,000
2,800
2,600
2,400
2,200
2,000
EUR mln
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
-
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Extra-EU15 trade Extra-EU28 trade Intra-EU15 trade Intra-EU28 trade
Before the year 2000, intra- and extra-EU trade were almost equal, with intra-EU
trade even being lower than extra-EU trade until 1998. After year 2000, intra-EU15 trade
was around 1.2 times higher than extra-EU15 trade until 2003. This difference is decreasing
over time, starting from 1.7 in 2004 and going down to 1.1 in 2015 in the EU28.
The figure above once again shows the economic crisis and the following downturn
heavily affected both intra- and extra-EU trade flows, each diminishing, over the period
2008-2010, by 11% and 5% respectively.
The figure below displays intra-EU28 trade broken down by product types. The trade in safety
components is larger than the trade in lifts (€1.600 million in 2015 compared with €968 million
in the same year).
Figure 14 - Intra-EU trade in the lift sector in the EU between 2002 and 2015
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
EUR mln
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2002 2008 2009 2015
Lifts Safety components
Source: Authors’ estimates based on Eurostat International trade database, data for EU28
Intra-EU export accounted for 58% of total exports of products in scope of the Directive in
2015, as shown in the figure below. Hungary, Estonia, Slovakia and Croatia are the most
oriented to trading with other Member States, their shares of intra-EU export being larger than
86
37
80% of their respective national export in products in scope of the Directive. The largest lift
producers (i.e. Spain, Germany and Italy) have intra-EU exports shares around 50% over total
(national) export in products in scope of the Directive.
Figure 15 – Share of intra- and extra-EU export over total export in the lift sector in 201587
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
HU EE SK HR BE CZ PL NL AT DK FR EU28 UK IT DE IE FI ES BG SE EL LT PT SI RO
Intra-EU export Extra-EU export
As regards import, the share of intra-EU import equalled 87% of total import of products in
scope of the Directive in 2015.
Figure 16 – Share of intra- and extra-EU import over total import in the lift sector in 2015
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
EE LU PT AT CY HU PL FI LT FR BE LV HR MT IE DK RO DE SE EU28 SK IT NL CZ SI UK BG EL ES
Intra-EU import Extra-EU import
If trends are considered, only the Croatian and Bulgarian shares of intra-EU trade have
increased since 2002 if compared to extra-EU trade, thus indicating an overall increased
preference of EU Member States to trade with third countries.88
Global trade and international competitiveness
The table below displays the shares of the world’s five largest exporters of products in scope of
the Directive. In 2015, the EU28 – together with Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey,
China, Japan, the USA and Thailand made up nearly 90% of global export of products in scope
of the Directive. The aggregate of EU28, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey is by
far the greatest exporter, totalling more than half of world’s exports. Nonetheless, its
87
Data for CY, LU, LV, MT are not available.
88
Source: Eurostat international trade database.
38
share is decreasing, passing from 71% in 2000 to 60% in 2015, this indicating a loss of
competitiveness in global export markets.89 On the contrary, China and Thailand are gaining
shares in the exports of products in scope of the Directive over the same period: the former
passing from 2% to 20%, the latter from 1% to 3%.90
Table 3 – Shares of the world’s five largest exporters of products in scope of the Directive
between 2000 and 2015
Country 2000 2002 2006 2008 2010 2012 2015
EU28, Iceland, Norway, 71% 73% 71% 69% 66% 61% 60%
Switzerland, Turkey
China 2% 3% 8% 13% 13% 17% 20%
Japan 9% 8% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3%
USA 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Thailand 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3%
Rest of the world 12% 11% 11% 10% 11% 11% 10%
Source: Authors’ estimates based on UN Comtrade Database
At Member State level, the six largest extra-EU exporters in 2015 together made up more
than 70% of total EU exports of products in scope of the Directive: Spain and Italy (both their
shares equal to 19%), Germany (16%), France (8%), Slovakia and the Netherlands (both 5%).
Figure 17 - Six largest EU28 exporters outside the EU of products in scope of the Directive, 2015
Spain
Other EU MS 19%
27%
Netherlands Italy
5% 19%
Slovakia
5%
France
8% Germany
16%
Source: Eurostat International trade database
As regards imports from third countries, 87% of EU28 imports in the lift sector in 2015 came
from Switzerland (36%), China (34%), the USA (11%), and Turkey (5%).
5.2.Transposition and implementation of the Directive
The analysis of transposition and implementation has focused on the main provisions related to
EHSRs and procedures for conformity assessment, and namely:
 For EHSRs: the definition of installer, the two-way flow of information between the person
responsible for the building construction and the lift installer, and the provisions for granting
lift accessibility to disabled persons and for preventing the risk of crushing;
89
The analysis of export shares measures the extent to which a country is successful in global export markets, as an
indication of both the health and levelness of a particular sector. A decrease in the share of total lift exports would
represent a lower competitiveness relatively to other exporting countries. Using this indicator, the competitiveness of
the EU28 and EEA countries’ lift industry seems to be decreasing as compared to its major competitors.
90
If the aggregate of EU28, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey is broken down by country, the ranking of the first
ten world’s exporters is: China, Italy, Germany, Spain, France, Netherlands, Japan, USA, Thailand, the UK.
39
 For conformity assessment: the transposition of the article on conformity assessment

procedures and of procedures for NBs notification.
Finally, although the Directive does not set explicit provisions on market surveillance,
these were also assessed as, following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008,
Member States have the obligation to organise market surveillance in the sectors covered by the
Regulation’s scope – including the lift sector.
5.2.1. Provisions related to EHSRs
Overall, the EU Member States have uniformly transposed the main provisions of the
Directive, as further described in the following (see also Annex 8.6 for details).
Definition of installer. 26 Member States have adopted exactly the same definition of
“installer” as provided by the Directive, with the exception of Estonia and the Netherlands. In
Estonia, the installer is considered as a manufacturer within the meaning of the Product
Conformity Act.91 Similarly, in the Netherlands, the installer is compared to a “fabricant” (i.e. a
producer). Moreover, the Dutch legislation “Warenwetbesluit liften”92 lacks a proper definition of
installer, as the latter is defined through its obligations of performing the conformity assessment
and affixing the CE marking. On the contrary, a definition of installer is explicitly provided in the
“Warenwetbesluit liften 2016” (transposing the new Directive).
The two-way flow of information between the person responsible for the building
construction and the lift installer. The set-up of the two-way flow of information foreseen by
Article 2(2) should ensure that the building structure allows the lift to function properly and to
be used safely.
This article is transposed exactly as it is from the Directive in the national legislation of 26
Member States plus Switzerland, and no additional requirements are introduced within the
national transposition laws, as shown in Annex 8.6. The only exceptions are Austria and
Hungary, which specify that the two-way information flow between the building constructor (or
building authority) and the installer is guaranteed by either the signing of the lift technical file
by each of the parties involved or a “Confirmation of cooperation”.93 Except for Denmark94 there
are no provisions in Member States’ national building regulations related to requirements of
Article 2(2).
Information on the implementation of the provision has been shared on the collaborative
platform CIRCABC by some Member States, showing that minor differences exist, although
not impacting the Directive’s application (see the box below).
Box 4 – Implementation of Article 2(2) on communication between the lift installer and the
building constructor
In Cyprus, during the lift design phase, the architect or the designer of the building discusses with the
building owner his/her requirements and agrees on various issues, including the type of lift to be installed,
and its intended use. The architect then designs the building so that the lift can comply with the relevant
EHSRs. During the installation phase, the lift installer cooperates and exchanges information with the
person responsible for the construction of the building, to ensure that all EHSRs for the proper and safe
installation of the lift will be accommodated. This exchange of information takes place before the
construction of the lift well and the machine room, if any, and continues throughout the construction of the
building. The lift installer is also responsible to provide the building constructor his “method statement” for
91
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/511072016002/consolide
92
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0008212/2012-01-01#HoofdstukIII
93
For Austria: Aufzüge-Sicherheitsverordnung 2008, § 2(2) and (3). In Austria, the “relevant documents” to be shared
between the lift installer and the building constructor are defined by the national standard ÖNORM B2476-1: 2011. The
standard prescribes the evidence of information exchange. Namely, the plan and description of the lifting system (or a
confirmation agreement) shall be signed by both the person responsible for the building or construction and the
installer. Source: LWG website. For Hungary: Law 113/1998 (VI. 10) on elevators and escalators, Art. 3 (4) and (5).
94
In any case, the Danish Building Regulation does not set additional requirements if compared with the Directive.
40
the safe execution of the lift installation, which will form part of the “Safety and Health Manual” for the
whole construction of the building. Furthermore, the officials of the Department of Labour Inspection
during their scheduled inspections at the various construction sites could also check that the said provision
of the Directive is implemented as well as many other provisions which are applicable during the
installation phase of the lift. For example, a typical check regards the fulfilment of article 2(3)95 of the
Directive.
In the Czech Republic, an “order clarification” has to be shared between the lift installer and the building
constructor to achieve a clear agreement concerning all technical details of the new lift and the relevant
parts of the building or construction.
In Slovakia, the building designer prepares the project documentation, where a description of the space
for the operation of the lift (e.g. shaft, machine room, access) is provided. The project documentation
must be in accordance with the technical dossier to be drafted by the lift installer according to the
Directive. The lift installer is responsible to verify that there are no differences between the building
documentation and the dossier. The person responsible for the building or construction is kept informed on
the progress of the lift installation, as well as on the requirements for the smooth and safe installation of
the lift by the lift installer, who has to write these requirements in the logbook.
In Sweden, the local building authority meets with all parties involved in the building process, for instance
the person responsible for the work on the building, the lift installer, the local fire fighter’s service, and the
local authority dealing with safety of maintenance personnel.
In the UK, for larger construction projects, the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (SI
2007/320/2007) require the appointment of a specific duty holder known as the “CDM Co-ordinator”,
responsible for coordinating design work and the planning of construction work.
Source: CIRCABC
Disabled persons’ accessibility. 20 Member States included the provisions relating to the
structural features of the lift carrier and controls to ensure disabled persons’ accessibility (Annex
I, EHSR 1.2 and 1.6.1) in their national legislation transposing the Directive exactly as they are
in the Directive, as presented in Annex 8.6. The remaining eight Member States96 have included
lift accessibility provisions mainly in their national building regulations. The majority of
Member States have set up additional (or more specific) provisions to regulate this
area,97 given that the Directive provides very general EHSRs for lifts accessibility to disabled
persons (as discussed in Box 2). Once again, these provisions have been usually integrated in
the national building regulations, as they aim to address the more general accessibility of the
building that is a national prerogative. For instance, in France, Ireland, Spain, Sweden and the
UK, building regulations “accessible” passenger lifts should conform to harmonised standard EN
81-70. In Poland, the national building regulations include specific provisions for granting
disabled persons accessibility to lifts, aligning with the recommendations of the Declaration
made by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.98 In Cyprus, Italy and
Latvia the building regulations provide for specific requirements on the dimensions of the lift
car, on the presence of telephone devices and on the exact location of lift control panels. In
Spain, Latvia and Italy local regulations prescribe additional requirements such as the Braille
system99 (see case study 1 in Annex 8.7).
Prior approval. As detailed in Annex 8.6, 20 Member States100 have transposed directly from
the Directive the “prior approval” allowing Member States to prevent the risk of crushing by
95
Requiring that MS “take all necessary measures to ensure that shafts intended for lifts do not contain any piping or
wiring or fittings other than that necessary for the operation and safety of the lift”.
96
DE, DK, EE, IE, IT, MT, NL, SI, UK.
97
According to 71% (n=65 out of 91) of respondents. 19 EU MS plus CH, NO and TR are covered, with the exception of
HU, LT, LV, RO and SI. No data are available for BG, EL, HR and PT.
98
For more information please refer to Box 2.
99
Braille is a system of raised dots that can be read with the fingers by people who are blind or who have low vision.
100
According to the analysis of the Directive transposition, to responses to the survey, interviews and to documents
available in the LWG restricted area: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EL, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, UK.
41
means different than the free/refuge space beyond the lift extreme positions (i.e. Annex I, EHSR
2.2) in their national legislation. In four Member States (ES, FR, SE, SI) the derogation to the
provision of free space beyond the lift extreme positions is acceptable only when a lift has to be
installed in “existing buildings” where structural constraints exist.101 Finally, three Member
States102 plus Switzerland have not transposed the prior approval, as the EHSR 2.2 as
formulated is deemed contrary to the New Approach - requiring to only define the risk to be
covered (i.e. of crushing) and not the means to cover it (i.e. “by means of free space or refuge
beyond the extreme positions”).
The prior approval has been implemented differently in Member States and considering various
mechanical/technical means to provide free space (e.g. to the use of buffers, or of an
“automatic movable stop” preventing the lift to pass a certain ceiling thus preventing from the
risk of crushing), as detailed in case study 2 in the Annexes. In some cases, the national
legislation defines the criteria for the derogation (e.g. Lithuania, Sweden.
5.2.2. Provisions related to conformity assessment
Conformity assessment procedures103 to be applied by the safety components
manufacturers and the lift installers, as defined in Article 8 of the Directive, have been
implemented in all Member States. The conformity of a product can be assessed using any
of the available options (i.e. modules) for conformity assessment. As such, different modules
can be used by the same manufacturer/installer. The most frequently used procedures are the
EC type-examination (module B) plus final inspection for lifts and the EC type-examination
(module B) plus conformity to type with random checking for safety components. The full
quality assurance procedure (module H) for lifts and safety components does not seem widely
used, as well as the combination of full quality assurance with production and product quality
assurance for both lifts and safety components. Overall, therefore, it seems that the most
commonly used conformity assessment procedures are those more intensively involving a NB
(see Figure 18).
101
In Finland, although the national legislation allows for the prior approval as foreseen by the Directive, it specifies that
“where there is not sufficient safety space, this may be achieved by permanently-installed safety devices”. Source:
Trade and Industry Ministry's decision on the safety of lifts (564/97) 05/06/1997, Statutes of Finland 24/06/1997.
102
DE, EE, IE.
103
Conformity assessment procedures are those requested to manufacturers of safety components and lift installers to
demonstrate the conformity of the products with the relevant EHSRs.
42
Figure 18 – Frequency in use of different conformity assessment procedures for lifts and safety
components, as declared by economic operators, NBs and MSAs in the survey104
100%
90% 21% 22%

80% 41% 40%
48%
70% 18% 59% 59% 62% 58% 61%
68% 28%
60%
17%
50%
29% 27% 9%
40% 24% 7%
15%
30% 15%
27% 27% 13%
45% 13% 21% 27%
20% 15% 7%
35%
26%
10% 11% 10% 17% 20% 16%
8% 7% 11%
0% 4% 4% 3% 3%
Module B + Module B + Module B + Module H + Module H + Module H + Module H Unit Module B + Module B + Module H
final product production final product production verification conformity product
inspection quality quality inspection quality quality to type with quality
assurance assurance assurance assurance random assurance
checking
Lifts Safety components
Always On average Rarely Never
Source: targeted surveys
NBs’ notification procedures, as defined in Article 9 of the Directive, have been

implemented differently across Member States. According to data retrieved by NB-L105 and
integrated with information collected through the targeted survey, 19 Member States106 have
transposed this article making accreditation107 mandatory. In four Member States108
accreditation was not mandatory before the entry into force of the new Directive. NBs had to be
assessed by the notifying authority, and could choose accreditation as a means to be notified. In
the current framework of Directive 2014/33/EU, accreditation is the preferred means of
demonstrating technical capacity of notified bodies109 and these procedures are published on the
Commission’s website.110
5.2.3. Market surveillance
The Directive did not set specific procedures for market surveillance activities, while
the new Directive introduced structured requirements. Nonetheless, a number of Member
States declared to have devised an overall strategy for market surveillance activities
specifically in relation to lifts. Among Member States having proactive strategies, Belgium
is promoting nationwide surveillance campaigns, requiring all lifts to undergo a risk assessment
procedure to check their compliance with EU regulations.111 In Finland and Slovenia,
inspectors monitor lifts in service and proactively conduct inspections where necessary. The
German lift surveillance strategy is based on the national regulation, which prescribes
104
Overall, 101 stakeholders replied to this question (53 NBs, 30 large economic operators, seven SMEs and micro
economic operators, three industry associations, eight MSAs). Percentages in the chart are calculated based on these
101 answers. All EU MS plus CH, NO and TR are covered, with the exception of BG, CY, HR, LT and PT. Respondents
were required to declare which conformity assessment procedures for lifts and safety components they generally
applied, being obliged to choose, for each procedure, an answer among: always, on average, rarely, never.
105
Survey conducted by a working group within NB-L in 2015.
106
AT, BE, CY, CZ, EE, ES, EL, FR, IT, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK and TR.
107
According to art. 2 of Regulation 765/2008, “accreditation shall mean an attestation by a national accreditation body
that a conformity assessment body meets the requirements set by harmonised standards and, where applicable, any
additional requirements including those set out in relevant sectoral schemes, to carry out a specific conformity
assessment activity”.
108
DE, FI, IE, NL. Data for BG, DK, HR, HU, LV are not available.
109
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/building-blocks/accreditation_en
110
See: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/nando/index.cfm?fuseaction=na.main.
111
Source: survey, Belgian MSA.
43
mandatory annual inspections for lifts in service and requires inspectors to report to MSAs on
any safety issues encountered. In 2012, Ireland started a project aimed at examining the
safety of lifts in service, later focusing on investigating whether lift owners respect their
maintenance and inspection duties. Malta has both a reactive and proactive approach. Between
2009 and 2010, lifts in service were subject to a major operation involving a large number of
self-initiated inspections aiming to increase awareness among economic operators and
consumers about the importance of full-compliant lifts. In the Netherlands, both proactive and
reactive approaches to market surveillance (related to six product sectors including lifts) were
introduced by the Social Affairs and Employment Inspectorate in 2012. Over the 2011-2015
period, there was a first attempt to conduct a market surveillance strategy mainly based on a
risk assessment approach. In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for
enforcing the Directive and it mainly follows a risk-based approach, conducting surveillance
through visits to receive a detailed report of the installation from the NBs. Similarly, the Danish
Working Environment Authority prioritises market surveillance activities on a risk-assessment
basis and it reports not to provide any significant resources for the lifts sector as it is not aware
of any safety problem. France reports that periodical technical inspections and maintenance
contracts are mandatory for all lifts in service. The inspections have shown that maintaining the
approved safety level of lifts over time is one of the main issues. In particular, inspectors often
find that the remote alarm system installed ceases to be operational due to loft aging. Finally,
the Czech Republic declared to conduct mainly proactive market surveillance. Market
surveillance of lifts in service and safety components is mainly reactive in Norway, as it is
based on reports from periodic safety control, and on document checks. Physical checks in
conjunction with safety inspection bodies may also be relevant. In addition, the Norwegian
Building Authority runs a webpage on where every owner of lifts and lifting platforms has the
obligation to register these installations in a register called NIREG, and to register all the
periodic safety controls undertaken as well as all the accidents related to these installations. The
Swedish MSA also declares to perform only reactive market surveillance.
As for monitoring activities, the Hungarian, Norwegian, Slovak, Swedish, and Polish MSAs
state that they check safety component manufacturers’ and lift installers’ documents and
authorisations (e.g. the EC DoC). Moreover, in Poland, inspectors verify if a specific item has
been assessed by the Technical Supervision Office. The Czech MSA also reports that monitoring
activities focus on product marketing inspections and on accompanying document checks in the
lift sector. Market surveillance activities were also conducted on safety components placed on
the market either by domestic manufacturers or by importers. Over the period 2010-2012, 93
physical product checks were carried out. Cyprus and Estonia conduct market surveillance
checks in the premises of lifts installers and in buildings where lifts are installed. No additional
market surveillance is conducted, as safety components are not retail articles, although the
Cypriot MSA reports to check technical files of the safety components. Luxembourg reports that
investigations in the lifts sector are not very frequent and that they usually involve a visual
inspection of the lift installation, of labelling and of the presence of the EC DoC. No serious non-
compliance cases were found in the period 2010-2013. The Bulgarian MSA performed a
remarkable number of self-initiated physical checks of products over the period 2010-2013.
They identified few cases of infringements, concerning small-scale or third-country producers
who were less familiar with the EHSRs necessary to be complied with for placing goods on the
EU market.
Surveillance activities also differ between Member States in terms of type of checks.112
For example, some MSAs monitor mainly documents and authorisation checks (e.g. Hungary,
Norway, Slovakia, Sweden and Poland), while others focus on product marketing inspections
and on accompanying document checks in the lift sector (e.g. the Czech Republic) or conduct
112
“The extent of market surveillance activities” and “the approach of MSAs to determine compliance” are not uniform
across the EU according to respectively 70% and 69% of OPC respondents.
44
inspections in the premises of lifts installers and in buildings where lifts are installed (i.e. Estonia
and Cyprus). In terms of frequency, the number of checks varies consistently across
Member States, with some Member States performing many more inspections than others. For
instance, Bulgaria and Hungary performed 582 and 97 inspections respectively in 2013, while
Poland and Sweden performed two and one inspection in the same year.113 Such a great
variance might be (partly) due to diverging interpretations of the term “inspection” by reporting
Member States. However, this also provides evidence of existing differences in national
approaches to market surveillance.
Directive 95/16/EC did not foresee any specific rules on penalties for infringements,
although this has changed in the new Directive.114 The previous situation resulted in differences
in the set up and use of sanctions at national level,115 which in turn may cause differences in the
deterrence power of sanctions.
Sanctions are mainly administrative, and consist in both fines and restrictive measures.116
Criminal sanctions for infringements of the Directive are foreseen only in the Netherlands,
although they have never been applied between 2010 and 2013. The following table presents
the number of penalties, voluntary corrective measures taken by economic operators and
restrictive measures117 imposed by MSAs between 2010 and 2013 in different Member States.
Table 4 – Penalties (P), voluntary (V) and restrictive (R) measures related to Directive
95/16/EC over 2010 and 2013118
2010 2011 2012 2013
MS
P V R P V R P V R P V R
AT 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - -
BG 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - -
CZ 3 - - 1 - - 3 - - 2 - -
DK - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0
FI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HU - - - - - - - - - 1 1 9
MT - 72 5 - 30 2 - 11 7 - 9 4
NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PL 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0
RO 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
SE - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 -
SI 0 - - 11 - - 0 - - 0 - -
SK - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 -
Source: National reports
5.3.Accidents related to lifts

Accidents related to lifts can involve users or maintenance personnel. They can be lethal (i.e.
leading to death), serious (i.e. leading to hospitalisation) or minor. This section firstly provides
113
Report on the Member States reviews and assessment of the functioning of market surveillance activities for the
2010-2013 period pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, Sector 10 Lifts.
114
Article 43 of Directive 2014/33/EU states that “Member States shall lay down rules on penalties applicable to
infringements by economic operators of the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take
all measures necessary to ensure that they are enforced. Such rules may include criminal penalties for serious
infringements”.
115
“Penalties for infringements” are not uniform according to 74% of respondents to the OPC.
116
In Denmark, Estonia (up €to 3,200), the Netherlands (€525 or €1,050), Norway, and Slovakia (up €to 166,000).
117
According to article 21 of Regulation 765/2008, restrictive measures shall be taken by Member States to prohibit or
restrict a non-compliant product being made available on the market, to withdraw it from the market or to recall it.
118
“Penalties” include both fines and penal sanctions. “Voluntary measures” are corrective actions taken by economic
operators. “Restrictive measures” are corrective actions taken directly by MSAs. “-” means the data was not provided.
Data for other MS were not available.
45
an overview of lift-related accidents at EU level collected by ELA. Secondly, it presents data

related to some Member States, to conclude with a comparison across Member States only on
some selected years, according to data availability.
Statistics on accidents due to lifts are rare and data fragmented at European level. Moreover,
statistics lack details on the causes of accidents (e.g. lift misuse rather than lack of lift safety)
and they do not distinguish between accidents involving lifts subject to the Directive and
“existing lifts” (i.e. lifts installed before the entry into force of the Directive). Country-specific
data have been collected in the framework of an EU Commission' study (2007)119 and in specific
national reports. According to this study, there were 1,339 lift accidents involving maintenance
personnel within eight EU Member States120 between 2001 and 2005. However, these data can
only provide selected, anecdotal indications on the number of accidents and trends over time in
individual countries. These data cannot, therefore, be compared or aggregated.
The number of lift-related accidents involving maintenance personnel compared to the
number of installed lifts has been decreasing at an annual average of 3% between 2008
and 2015, as shown in Figure 19 below.
Figure 19 - Ratio between accidents involving maintenance personnel and number of installed
lifts (in thousands), data for 19 MS over 2008-2015121
25%
23% 24%
20% 22%
20%
18%
18% 18%
15%
13% 15% 15%

14%
10%
8%
5%
3%
0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Source: Authors’ elaboration based on PRODCOM and ELA data
More information from national reports was gathered from Greece, France, Italy, the
Netherlands, Germany, and Spain. However the data are not comparable since the timeframe
and the type of accidents considered are different, as well as the ways of reporting them.
Greece
The number of lift-related accidents in Greece has been very low since 1998, although
increasing in 2008 and 2009 (Table 5).
Table 5 - Serious or lethal accidents related to lifts in Greece over 1998-2009122
‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 Total
N. 3 2 3 1 4 4 2 3 1 2 8 8 41
France
Table 6 shows that similarly to lethal accidents in Greece, the overall number of lift-related
accidents, although high, is diminishing at an average of 9% in France over the period, despite
the increase in the number of lifts in service. If the number of installed lifts is considered, for
119
Health and Safety Laboratory (2007), Technical assessment of means of preventing crushing risks on lifts subject to
Directive 95/16/EC.
120
The report does not provide information on which MS are covered.
121
Data for BG, CY, EL, HR, IE, MT, LT, RO, SI are not available.
122
Zarikas, V. and others (2013), ‘Statistical survey of elevator accidents in Greece’, Safety Science, Vol. 59, pp. 93–
103.
46
the years where such data is available, the ratio between accidents and installed lifts is
decreasing, from 0.4% in 2011 to 0.3% in 2013.
Table 6 – Total number of accidents related to lifts and related causes in France, over 2008-
2013123
Type of accident (users) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Stopping accuracy 1,760 1,590 1,070 1,020 930 960
Hit by closing doors 930 1,000 720 760 620 650
Abrupt stop 570 310 290 290 360 230
Total 3,260 2,900 2,080 2,070 1,910 1,840
The number of lifts in service in France is not much higher than the number of lifts in service in
Greece (520,000 and 411,900 units in 2011 respectively).124 Interestingly, as shown in Table 7,
the number of lethal accidents in France is similar to that in Greece. The total number of lethal
accidents has been consistently diminishing in France since 2001. This indicates, among other
drivers, a possible increase in the level of lift safety.
Table 7 - Number of lethal accidents related to lifts in France over 2001-2013125
‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 Tot
N. 8 7 6 6 6 4 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 44
Italy
As shown in the table below, the number of accidents related to lifts per number of installed lifts
has been very low in Italy over the last five years.
Table 8 – Total number of accidents related to lifts in Italy over 2010-2015126
Causes # accidents # accidents/ # installed lifts
Maintenance or installation 125 1.5 out of 10,000
Stopping accuracy 114 1.35 out of 10,000
Rapid fall and block 75 9 out of 100,000
Car door locking problems 46 5.5 out of 100,000
Other 36 4.5 out of 100,000
Total 396
The Netherlands
Table 9 presents the ratio between total127 lift-related accidents and the number of installed lifts
in the Netherlands over the period 2011-2015. As shown, the trend is overall increasing.
Table 9 - Total number of accidents related to lifts in the Netherlands over 2011-2015128
Indicator 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total accidents 3 8 3 9 7
Installed lifts 87,500 88,500 90,000 90,000 95,000
Ratio (per 1,000 lifts) 3% 9% 3% 10% 7%
Germany
With regard to Germany, the calculated ratio (number of accidents involving users and
maintenance personnel compared to thousands of installed lifts) declined over the period 2011-
2013. If compared to accidents in the Netherlands, it appears that accidents in Germany
occurred more frequently.
123
http://www.elca-eu.org/main-figure-for-europe-in-the-world.php
124
Ibid.
125
Fédération des ascenseurs (2014), Situation économique du secteur, mai 2014, p. 10.
126
http://www.liftonweb.it/news_ascensori.asp?INWS=873
127
i.e. involving both users and maintenance personnel, and irrespectively of accident seriousness (fatal, serious,
minor).
128
Authors’ calculation based on ELA and http://www.liftinstituut.nl/sites/default/files/content/ongevallenstatistieken_de
f_nov2016.pdf
47
Table 10 - Total number of accidents related to lifts in Germany over 2011-2013129

Indicator 2011 2012 2013
Total accidents 178 103 133
Installed lifts 650,000 657,000 690,000
Ratio (per 1,000 lifts) 27% 16% 19%
Spain
Similarly to Germany, the ratio is declining in Spain, but shows that lift-related accidents occur
much more frequently than in the Netherlands.
Table 11 - Total number of accidents related to lifts in Spain over 2012-2013130
Indicator 2012 2013
Total accidents 513 303
Installed lifts 1,014,953 1,021,953
Ratio (per 1,000 lifts) 51% 30%
129
ELA (2015).
130
Ibid.
48
6. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS
6.1.Relevance
6.1.1. Relevance of objectives to current needs related to free movement and safety
EQ2. To what extent did the initial objective of facilitating the functioning of internal market correspond to
EQ3. To what extent did the initial objective of ensuring a high level of safety of lifts correspond to
The Directive pursues two strategic objectives (and related needs): to facilitate the well-
functioning of the internal market for lifts and safety components, and to improve the
health and safety of lift users and maintenance personnel (see also the intervention logic
in section 2.3).
Evidence gathered through desk research, surveys and interviews confirms the persistence of
these needs and the relevance of the Directive’s objectives thereto.131
The relevance of the Directive to needs related to free movement is confirmed as intra-
EU trade of products in its scope is impressive if compared to trade with third countries,
although this difference is reducing over time, it was still equal to 1.1 in 2015. In this context,
legislative certainty and harmonisation of the applicable rules for placing lifts and safety
components on the internal market is essential for free movement. This has been stated by 94%
of the survey respondents acknowledging that the Directive contributes to reducing barriers to
intra-EU trade.132
The safe functioning of lifts and safety components is also still important, specifically
considering the persistency of lift-related accidents. Although the trend in accidents
involving maintenance personnel decreased by 3% on average between 2008 and 2015, no
Member State reports zero accidents. Moreover, the Directive aims to ensure the same level of
safety for all lifts across the EU, which is particularly relevant given the increasing number of
newly installed lifts in most EU Member States (see Figure 10). The need for a Directive
harmonising the EHSRs for lifts and safety components is also confirmed by 94%133 of survey
respondents. In addition, the conformity assessment procedures to assess lift and safety
component compliance against the applicable EHSRs are deemed relevant, as 89%134 of survey
respondents state there is no need to change any of these procedures.
The persistency of the needs that the Directive addresses is confirmed by Member States’
development of technical legislation on lifts, as results from data extracted from the TRIS
database.135 Between 1999 and 2016, around 66% of 56 notifications136 relating to lifting
machines and equipment (product type I30) referred only to lift regulations. This percentage is
131
99% of respondents to the survey stated that the Directive meets their current needs to a great extent (n=46 out of
116 respondents) or to some extent (n=69 out of 116 respondents). The relevance has been confirmed also by six
interviewees (an Italian MSA, two implementing authorities, an Italian and a Spanish industry association representing
SMEs, a German representative from the coordination of NBs for lifts).
132
N=89 out of 95 respondents.
133
Including n=72 out of 109 “to a large extent”, n=31 out of 109 “to a moderate extent”.
134
N=93 out of 105 survey respondents.
135
Technical Regulation Information System. http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/search/
136
Registered based on Directive (EU) 2015/1535 (i.e. the ex 98/34 procedure) of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical
regulations and of rules on Information Society services. The notification procedure allows the EC and the MS to
examine the technical regulations other MS intend to introduce for products (industrial, agricultural and fishery) and for
Information Society services before their adoption. The aim is to ensure that these texts are compatible with EU law and
the Internal Market principles. Source: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/about-the-20151535/the-
aim-of-the-20151535-procedure/
49
even more meaningful knowing that the lift sector represents only 22% of the turnover of the
lifting machines and equipment sector137 (see section 4.2.1).
While the core needs identified at the time of the Directive’s adoption are still
persistent and the objectives of the Directive still relevant thereto, the study
identified some specific needs that are not addressed.
Firstly, the risk of crushing seems not properly addressed in the Directive, according to 45% of
survey respondents and to 59% of respondents to the OPC.138 42% of survey respondents
consider that EHSR 2.2 on crushing is not aligned with the New Approach,139 as the EHSR does
not only define the objective (to avoid the risk of crushing) but also the means to address it, i.e.
“free space or refuge beyond the extreme positions”. The 2009 EC “Guide to application of the
Lifts Directive 95/16/EC” forced, in a certain way, the interpretation of this requirement.140 In
addition, issues have been raised as regards the “prior approval”, as it allows Member States to
derogate having free/refuge space not only in “existing buildings”, but also in new buildings.141
While the structure of existing buildings might not allow adequate height of the lift well or depth
of the lift pit to fulfil the requirements for (permanent) free space, stakeholders claim that there
cannot be any derogations as such in new buildings. As to other risks, few stakeholders142
stated the risk of flooding of the lift pit, and earthquakes are not properly covered. While it is
true that the list of EHSRs in Annex I does not cover these risks, nor does the Machinery
Directive, no sufficient evidence has been gathered to confirm these risks are relevant to the
safety of lifts and safety components.
Secondly, issues concerning lift accessibility for disabled persons have also been raised.
Although mainly transposed identically from the Directive, the provisions on lift accessibility to
disabled persons have been implemented differently across the EU, as also confirmed by 71% of
survey respondents.143 These provisions are included in national building regulations to address,
more in general, building accessibility to disabled people, which is a national prerogative.144 In
any case, 65% of survey respondents do not perceive these requirements to have any major
impact on the implementation of the Directive.145 As a matter of fact, 54% of them146 even think
that there is a need to enshrine additional provisions for minimum compulsory awareness of
manufacturers and installers in the legal framework for ensuring accessibility to lifts of disabled
persons. Indeed, while the Directive is relevant for empowering people with disabilities to take
full advantage of their rights,147 the EHSRs related to the carrier148 and controls149 are not
perceived as sufficient anymore, as discussed during the LWG Workshop.
137
Assuming that the category “product type I30 - lifting machines and equipment” provided in the TRIS database
corresponds to NACE Rev. 2 code 2822 – lifting and handling equipment.
138
N=27 out of 60 survey respondents and n=33 out of 56 of OPC respondents. This issue was raised also at the LWG
workshop.
139
N= 39 out of 93.
140
Stating that ““Free space or refuge beyond the extreme positions” shall be understood as space that is permanently
available. The requirement for free space cannot therefore be satisfied by means of protective devices. The free space or
refuge must have a sufficient volume to enable a person above or below the car to be protected against the risk of
crushing and it must be possible to attain the free space or refuge in case of unexpected movement of the car.” (p.76).
141
N=16 out of 18 survey respondents proposing an amendment of EHSR 2.2. An EU representative from SMEs also
supported this point in the context of the LWG workshop.
142
Four large installers and a small-medium installer, and three large installers, respectively.
143
N=65. 18 EU Member States plus Norway, Switzerland and Turkey are covered, with the exception of HU, LT, LV, RO
and SI. Moreover, no stakeholder from BG, EL, HR, IS, LI and PT participated to the survey.
144
These regulations define, for instance, specific car dimensions, the exact location of lift control panel and the use of
the Braille system for its readability, or require the presence of telephone devices inside the lift car (see case study 1 for
more information).
145
N=39 out of 60. 17 declared the building regulations to have some impacts, while four declared these regulations to
have a high impact on the implementation of the Directive. No impact also confirmed by interviewees: small-medium
Czech NB, the Slovakian and German MSA, an implementing authority.
146
N=49 out of 90.
147
See European Disability strategy (COM(2010) 636 final).
50
Thirdly, with regard to provisions related to conformity assessment, few stakeholders150

question the relevance of the EC-type examination certificate for lifts, since its content proved
not always adequate to demonstrate lift compliance with EHSRs.
Finally, although not in scope of the Directive,151 some stakeholders152 raised the need to
harmonise also modification and modernisation activities that are regulated at national
level.
6.1.2. Relevance to needs specifically related to innovation and new technologies
EQ4. How are innovation and new technologies taken into account?
The relevance of the Directive’s strategic objectives is confirmed even considering

that both market- and safety-related issues have changed since its adoption, due to
innovation and new technologies.
Over time, a number of drivers – such as demographic development, urbanisation, safety, travel
speed acoustic noise, ride comfort and occupied space – have contributed to the development of
new technologies related to lifts.153 In particular, the concept of Machine Room-Less (MRL) lifts
and all that it implies - drive units, suspension, control systems, safety systems such as
PESSRAL (Programmable Electronic Systems in Safety related Application), energy efficiency
devices, and monitoring conditions - constituted one of the main technological developments in
the industry (see also case study 3 in Annex 8.7). However, the drivers that led to such
developments are various and are not directly related to the implementation of the
Directive.
The Directive is still adequate in addressing needs related to these developments
thanks to the flexibility of its EHSRs, which entrust manufacturers/installers to choose the
technical solution to comply therewith.154 Also, 72% of survey respondents and 91% of the OPC
acknowledge that the flexibility of EHSRs allows to address potential safety needs related to
innovation and new technologies.155 Using the words of an implementing authority, EHSRs are
“neutral to technology developments as they are applicable under all circumstances”. Not only
the flexibility of its EHSRs allows the Directive to be relevant to needs related to innovation and
new technologies, but it also does not hinder innovation.156 The Directive’s EHSRs are so flexible
that -according to 94% of survey respondents, they allowed European firms’ propensity to
innovate157 and for 84% of respondents it increased the European lift sector
competitiveness with respect to global competitors.158 As confirmed by literature,159 the
internal market legislation has acted as a “catalyst for promoting innovation” in the lift industry.
First of all, there has been a positive impact on sector innovation since the economies of scale
148
“Where the lift is intended for the transport of persons, and where its dimensions permit, the car must be designed
and constructed in such a way that its structural features do not obstruct or impede access and use by disabled persons
and so as to allow any appropriate adjustments intended to facilitate its use by them” ( Directive, Annex I, point 1.2).
149
“The controls of lifts intended for use by unaccompanied disabled persons must be designed and located accordingly”
(Directive, Annex I, point 1.6).
150
A micro Italian NB, a large Finnish and two large English installers.
151
Which, as said, covers the marketing of lifts and safety components until they are placed on the market and put into
service.
152
A large Finnish, one German and two large Swiss installers, the Dutch MSA, two implementing authorities.
153
Intelligent Energy Europe (2010), Credit Suisse (2012), KONE Inc. (2007).
154
Consistently with the principle introduced by the New Approach to define the risks to be covered and not the specific
technical solution, as discussed in section 2.1.
155
N=77 out of 107. Respondents to the OPC confirm this result by stating that the EHSR are likely to be able to deal
with new innovations and technologies relating to lifts over the next ten years.
156
As also confirmed by 84% if survey respondents (n=89 out of 105 respondents).
157
N=79 out of 84 of survey respondents. This being confirmed also by interview with an Italian industry association for
SMEs with a representative from CEN TC10, with a MS implementing authority.
158
N=58 out of 69 of survey respondents.
159
CESS and Panteia (2014), Evaluation of the Internal Market Legislation for Industrial Products, Final report.
51
generated by product standardisation allowed new investments in R&D, as also confirmed by a

large Finnish installer.160 According to a study in 2014,161 the consolidation of the lift industry
across Europe is acknowledged as having enabled the development of more extensive R&D
centres, since costs are spread across a larger number of units sold. Secondly, some EHSRs
created a new demand for certain products. For instance, EHSR 4.5162 - relating to the
incorporation of a “two-way means of communication” in lifts - boosted the demand for
emergency telephone systems.163 This could be linked, again, to the functioning of the New
Approach, which - as stated by a representative from German NBs - “is an extremely user- and
innovation-friendly regulatory instrument”.
Despite the above mentioned positive aspects, some issues in terms of relevance to new
technologies emerged from the study. A couple of stakeholders164 deem the Directive is
even too permissive and does not fully cover some safety aspects.165
The main issue relates, again, to EHSR 2.2 on crushing. In the case of Machine Room-Less
(MRL) lifts, which represent the main innovation in the sector,166 the derogation to provide free
space to address the risk of crushing is not an exception but rather a rule. These lifts indeed do
not allow having free space beyond the lift extreme positions. According to some stakeholders
and literature,167 the absence of refuge space is risky for maintenance personnel.
Other issues have been raised by stakeholders in relation to new technologies such as the need
to add software-related safety components to the list provided in Annex IV. However, these
requests are to be read, as discussed below, in light of a lack of clarity on the application of the
Directive rather than of its relevance to new technologies. Therefore, the two issues discussed
above are the only ones related to innovations and not covered by the Directive, which therefore
overall takes into account the technological developments occurred in the sector.
6.1.3. Clarity of the Directive
EQ5. Is there an issue of clarity of the Directive?
The clarity of the Directive has been assessed looking first at its scope and definitions and then
at the clarity of its main provisions on compliance with EHSRs and conformity assessment
procedures. The following analysis shows that most of these provisions do not result as
being entirely clear to stakeholders.
Scope and definitions (Article 1)
Some stakeholders168 complain about the non-harmonisation of lift modification and
modernisation practices, this reflecting a lack of clarity on the scope of application of
the Directive. On the same line, a few stakeholders stress the Directive does not cover
updates and changes to lift controls. Indeed, it is currently possible to update or change
control software without directly involving a NB, and the lack of requirements to display clearly
which software version is installed may make it difficult to quickly perform maintenance in case
of emergency. As discussed further below, these instances could also be linked to the lack of
definition of “putting into service” in the Directive, that leaves room for interpretation. As part of
160
Stating that the Directive had a positive impact on innovation, as “the economies of scale brought by product
standardisation encourage investments in new concepts and solutions”.
161
CESS and Panteia (2014), p. 105.
162
Stating that “Cars must be fitted with two-way means of communication allowing permanent contact with a rescue
service”.
163
CESS and Panteia (2014), p.105.
164
An EU representative from SMEs and a NB.
165
According to 24% of survey respondents (n=26 out of 107), the Directive EHSR adjustment to safety issues related
to new technologies could be improved.
166
See case study 3 in Annex 8.7 for further information.
167
EC (2014), Minutes of the meetings of the working group of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC from 2002 onwards, p. 59.
168
A large Finnish, one German and two large Swiss installers, the Dutch MSA, two implementing authorities.
52
the Union harmonisation legislation, the Directive is indeed not expected to cover lifts after they
have been placed on the market and put into service. Therefore, modernisation, maintenance,
(software) updates and changes169 are regulated only at national level.170 In this sense,
stakeholders171 ask to be provided with guidance on when a lift is no longer considered as a
“modernised old lift” but turns into a new lift, thus requiring the CE marking. This need had also
been identified by relevant literature.172
On average, 79% of survey respondents and 64% of OPC respondents deem the definitions as
per Article 1(4) of the Directive clear,173 complete and up to date, and if this was not the case,
according to 73% of survey respondents, they are now clearer in Directive 2014/33/EU.174
Nonetheless, there are still some issues as follows.
In light of the changes occurred in the lift sector and supply chain, the definition of "installer
of a lift" is not updated, negatively impacting the Directive’s relevance.175 According to this
definition, the installer is responsible for both the design and installation of the lift. Reality,
however, often shows that different economic operators are responsible for the design and
manufacture and for the installation and placing on the market of the lift, so that lifts are
provided as “kits”.176 In this context, the Directive does not define the “manufacturer of a
lift”, i.e. the operator applying for the EC type-examination certificate and not necessarily
installing the lift on site. This definition would help to clearly separate the responsibilities of the
two operators, focus on how the handover of the lift is done between the two phases, and MSAs’
powers to act in case of infringements.177 Also, according to some survey respondents, given
that the installer’s role is often split between operators responsible for the design and operators
responsible for the installation, this makes the procedures based on quality assurance system –
covering both phases - not fully relevant.178 These conformity assessment procedures can
indeed be applied only if the same economic operator performs both design and installation.
However, this issue has been addressed in the new Lifts Directive with further clarifications.
The lack of the definition for “putting into service” of a lift (i.e., made available to the lift
owner by the installer), despite the term being used in the Directive, does not allow to clearly
distinguish between this concept and that of “placing on the market” (i.e. made available to
the user).179 Indeed, 43% of survey respondents180 claim that “putting into service of a lift” may
occur a number of years after the lift has been placed on the market, in particular for large and
complex projects. This causes difficulties for installers when either the legislation or the relevant
harmonised standards change, since although they are bound by the contract signed before the
change occurred, they have to provide a lift complying with new requirements.181 Technical
169
As discussed in Box 1, updates and changes could be assimilated to maintenance operations.
170
Unless the extent of the modification is such that the lift is considered to be placed on the market as a new lift, thus
being subject again to conformity assessment (this has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the lift installer or
NB). EC (2016). The 'Blue Guide' on the implementation of EU product rules 2016, p. 16.
171
The Finnish MSA, an English and a French NB, a large Spanish and a large Finnish installer.
172
The European Evaluation Consortium (2004), Study on the Application of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC, p.19.
173
N=80 out of 101 of survey respondents and n=35 out of 55 of respondents to the OPC.
174
N=74 out of 101.
175
N=24 of survey respondents. This is confirmed also by results of the OPC, where 44% of respondents (n=25) deem
this definition as unclear and obsolete.
176
This is the case, for instance, of a small-medium Spanish installer who declares to only install lifts without involving
in the design and manufacturing phases. As also confirmed by a CEN TC10 representative.
177
As also supported by some stakeholders consulted (a CEN TC10 representative, two implementing authorities, and a
German MSA).
178
One Turkish and two Belgian NBs, an implementing authority.
179
Four NBs, five large installers, a French industry association, an implementing authority, an ADCO chair. The
inadequacy of the definition of “placing on the market” has emerged also from the OPC, where 54% of respondents
expressed a negative opinion (n=29).
180
N =15 out of 35. The issue has emerged also at the LWG workshop (see Annex 4).
181
A large Finnish installer and seven industry associations (CH, ES, two FR, PT, UK, EU). CESS and Panteia (2014),
Evaluation of the Internal Market Legislation for Industrial Products, Final report. p.78.
53
specifications provided in harmonised standards whose references have been published in the
OJEU are considered to reflect “the state of the art” (of technology) at the time of their
adoption, and provide the presumption of conformity with those EHSRs they deal with. As a
consequence, any deviations from standards must grant an equivalent level of safety as
provided thereby. Although a product must comply with the applicable provisions of the
legislation when it is placed on the market, the “putting into service” concept “results in the
scope of Union harmonisation legislation being extended beyond the moment of making
available of a product”.182 This interpretation provided by the Blue Guide probably creates
confusion for economic operators having to apply the Directive in practice. Therefore, even if in
principle the EU harmonisation legislation applies only until the lift is placed on the market183
and there would be no need to define the “putting into service” of a lift,184 in practice, both the
Blue Guide and operational practices make this an area to be further clarified. Moreover, as it
will be further discussed below, this is another sign that, despite the legislative framework
defines them as voluntary, standards are considered as binding by economic operators and
all other stakeholders concerned with the lift sector.185
The “closed” list of safety components in Annex IV –together with article 1, points 1, 2, 3-
defines the scope of the Directive in terms of products covered. 67%186 of survey
respondents think that the approach of the Directive providing a “closed” list of safety
components is more effective than the approach of the Machinery Directive providing an
indicative (i.e. “open”) list. As a proof, 92% of survey respondents state a general definition
of “safety component” would not be more appropriate than a list,187 as it would
“inevitably lead” to different interpretations and applications.188
Therefore, stakeholders not only prefer a “closed” list, but they even request for additional
specificity with respect to safety components. Examples provided include the definition of each
safety component and of the term “device” (used in the list of safety components). On the
same line, other stakeholders189 pinpoint to some inconsistencies between the terminology of
the list of safety components and the EHSRs of both the Lifts and Machinery Directive (for
example a safety component of the Directive is an “overspeed limitation device”, while EHSR
1.4.2 uses the term “overspeed governor”). Moreover, quite a large share of survey respondents
(28%)190 deem this list should be enlarged to include:
 Monitoring systems and detection devices for alternative suspensions means (requested by
12 respondents);
 Safety-related control systems, including software (requested by 11 respondents);
182
EC (2016), The 'Blue Guide' on the implementation of EU product rules 2016, p.22. See Box 1.
183
i.e. after it has been installed and the conformity assessment procedure has been completed.
184
Since the EU harmonisation legislation applies only until the “placing on the market”, as underlined in the context of
the LWG Workshop.
185
A large Italian installer suggested that the “placing on the market” could be defined so as to enable the installer to
put the lift into service based on the legislative requirements in effect at the date of the contract agreement.
Alternatively, it could be defined as to correspond to the date of the EU DoC. An implementing authority participating to
the LWG workshop also observed that these definitions are clearly set in Directive 2014/68/EU on pressure equipment,
which might be a reference for the Directive. This Directive defines: ‘placing on the market’ as the first making available
of pressure equipment or assemblies on the Union market; and ‘putting into service’ as the first use of pressure
equipment or an assembly by its user. Directive 2014/68/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May
2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure
equipment. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0068&from=EN
186
N=71 out of 106 respondents.
187
N=82 out of 109. The definition of “safety component” in the Directive refers to the list provided in its Annex I. Only
two stakeholders (an implementing authority and a small-medium NB) suggest the list of safety components should be
provided only as a guideline, as a closed list limits innovation.
188
One NB and four large installers provided reasons for this statement.
189
A large installer and two representatives from SMEs.
190
N=32 out of 115 respondents, mainly large installers and NBs.
54
 Safety devices creating “artificial free space” by other means (requested by five
respondents), to prevent the risk of crushing;
 Fire-resistant landing doors (requested by four respondents).
This could be interpreted as confirmation of the lack of clarity of the safety component list, as
the abovementioned safety components are actually already covered by the Directive’s EHSRs.
Finally, according to some stakeholders, the definition of “model lift” is unclear and
incomplete.191 In particular, a large Finnish installer claims that the current definition does not
clarify whether a model lift can be created by only applying the EU type-examination or whether
module H is also allowed. Also the purpose of a model lift needs further specification. For
example, the Directive does not suggest minimum parameters or characteristics necessary to
verify whether an installed lift is within the scope of a model lift, though still respecting the
principles of the New Approach.192
Compliance with EHSRs (Article 3 and Annex I)
In the context of the analysis of the areas of concern not covered by the Directive, some
stakeholders point to the risk of fire193 as not properly addressed, even though the EHSRs on
fire of the Machinery Directive194 apply to lifts.195
On the same line, a number of stakeholders deem the risk of crushing identified by EHSR 2.2
not properly addressed by the Directive. The Directive, in line with the New Approach, does not
specify the volume, height and location of free space, nor does it provide any criteria or
methods for defining the adequacy of free space beyond the lift extreme positions.196
Some stakeholders197 suggest clear indications would reduce the risk of crushing, while others
find the indications provided in the EHSR 2.2 "incompatible" with the New Approach198 and
suggest deleting any references to the means of achieving protection from the risk of crushing
(i.e. by means of free space or refuge beyond the extreme positions).
Conformity assessment procedures (Article 9)
On average, 92% of survey respondents deem that tasks, obligations and rights of all
stakeholders concerned by the Directive (i.e. safety component manufacturers, lift
installers, Public Authorities – namely Member State implementing authorities and MSAs, NBs)
are clear or have been clarified in Directive 2014/33/EU. Among the tasks of stakeholders
concerned by the Directive, the rules for affixing the CE marking are clear, according to the
large majority of respondents (69%) or clarified in the new Directive (20%). Moreover, they
are easy to apply in practice,199 raising only some needs for clarification with respect to rules
for affixing the CE marking on UCMP devices - a subsystem made up of several components.200
As for the drafting of the EC DoC, 79% of survey respondents declare there are no issues in
relation to its content, with only one stakeholder stating the meaning of "where appropriate" is
not fully straightforward.
191
24% (n=24 out of 102) of respondents to the targeted survey and 56% (n=30 out of 54) of respondents to the OPC.
192
A large Finnish and a large French installer.
193
A small Finnish NB, three large installers, the Dutch MSA and an implementing authority.
194
Directive 2006/42/EC on Machinery, Annex I, EHSR 1.5.6, 3.5.2 and 5.5.
195
Directive Article 14 and Annex I, preliminary remarks, point 4.
196
According to 17 large installers in different MS. Based on the New Approach, the Directive should leave technical
specifications (e.g. volume, height, location) to be defined by harmonised standards.
197
39% of survey respondents, n=36 respondents out of 93. More specifically, 17 NBs, 11 lift installers, an English
industry association, the MSAs of Finland, Germany and the UK, and four implementing authorities.
198
42% of survey respondents, n=39 out of 93.
199
62% (n=65 out of 105) of survey respondents.
200
A Slovak MSA, a German industry association, two Finnish and Belgian NBs, and a large Swiss and a large Belgian
installer.
55
Moreover, some stakeholders claim that no specific procedure is foreseen for testing software
safety,201 this not properly addressing risks related to the use of software, such as in the case of
remote access to lift controls202 or when PESSRAL technologies are in place.203 However, EHSR
1.2.1 of the Machinery Directive states that control systems must be designed and constructed
in such a way that “fault in the hardware or the software of the control system does not lead to
hazardous situations”. This could indicate that the interface between the Directive and the
Machinery Directive is not completely clear to stakeholders.
No issues on any other provisions of the Directive have been raised in terms of clarity in the
context of the study.
6.2.Effectiveness
6.2.1. The implementation of the Directive
EQ6. What are the discrepancies between MS in the process of the implementation of the Lifts
Directive?
EQ7. Have there been problems with the implementation of the Directive?
The Directive has been uniformly transposed across EU Member States with no difficulties, as
emerging from desk research and according to the input provided by seven out of nine Member
State authorities replying to the related survey question.204 The study, consistently with
stakeholders’ opinion, did not found any significant discrepancies across Member States,205 nor
major problems in the implementation of the Directive.206 Also, 73% of survey respondents do
not perceive that national practices incorporate costly or unnecessary requirements into
products or structures covered by the Directive.207 Yet, some heterogeneity in the
implementation of some provisions, mainly with reference to EHSRs, has been identified and
linked to problems stemming from the lack of specificity and guidance within the Directive, as
further detailed below.
A first element of discrepancy across Member States relates to provisions granting lift
accessibility to people with disabilities, whether temporary or permanent, and to senior
citizens in general (EHSR 1.2 and 1.6, see also case study 1). Additional national provisions for
lift accessibility208 are provided in national building regulations to ensure more in general the
accessibility of the building. This heterogeneity is allowed by EHSR 1.2 and 1.6 that leaves room
for Member States to further regulate in this area.
A second element of discrepancy across Member States relates to the provision for
preventing the risk of crushing (EHSR 2.2).209 EHSR 2.2 allows, in specific cases, for
different means to prevent the risk of crushing. This possibility has been translated in some
cases into additional national requirements. For instance, in the United Kingdom the minimum
requirement for free space is set out by the competent authority to be a rectangular block
provided in the lift pit and headroom; in the Netherlands a combination of free vertical space
201
Through for example functional testing, as stated by a representative from NB-L and of the German coordination of
NBs for lifts.
202
9 large German NBs and a medium-sized Austrian NB. This has been confirmed by a representative from German
NBs.
203
Programmable Electronic Systems in Safety related Application.
204
i.e.: CY, EE, LT, MT, NL, PL, SE. IE and LU declared to be unaware of any difficulties in the transposition. See also
section 5.2 and Annex 8.6.
205
According to 69% (n=80 out of 116) of survey respondents.
206
207
N=33 out of 45.
208
As confirmed also by 71% (n=65 out of 91) of respondents. 19 EU Member States plus Norway, Switzerland and
Turkey are covered, with the exception of HU, LT, LV, RO and SI. Moreover, no stakeholder from BG, EL, HR and PT
participated to the survey.
209
Five NBs, 11 large installers, the English and German MSAs and an implementing authority.
56
(one metre clearance) and the rectangular block is required.210 Using the words of a large
English installer, these differences make some lifts “acceptable and legal in one country but
illegal in another”. Differences in implementation and further regulation at national level are the
result, once more, of the lack of specificity of the EHSRs, which, although consistent with the
New Approach, is perceived as an issue by many stakeholders, possibly as a consequence of the
interpretation provided in the EC “Guide to the application of Directive 95/16/EC”.
One additional minor discrepancy across Member States relates to the implementation
of the two-way flow of information between the lift installer and the building
constructor foreseen by Article 2(2). This flow of information aims at ensuring that the building
constructor is informed about the requirements of the Directive, so that the building structure
allows the lift to operate properly and function safely. Based on the information available, some
Member States (e.g. CY, CZ, SK) require the signing of a written declaration of collaboration
between the lift installer and the building constructor. Other Member States foresee meetings
(e.g. SE) or the appointment of a person in charge of ensuring collaboration between the
installer and the building constructor (e.g. UK). However, different national practices for
applying this provision do not seem to influence the overall effective implementation of the
Directive and survey respondents feel the Directive should not further regulate this area.211 On
the same line, an implementing authority points out that this provision constitutes an example
of overregulation, since “if an activity depends on the involvement and cooperation between
different parties, they will cooperate even without the legal obligation to do so”.
The provisions related to conformity assessment do not highlight any major
implementation problems.
Conformity assessment procedures detailed in Article 8 (and in the related Annexes) are
differently implemented in Member States, as shown in Figure 18 and as foreseen by the
Directive. The analysis undertaken aimed at assessing whether the different use is the result of
some modules being more effective than others. The conclusion is that the tendency to use a
specific module depends on national market features, on competences (and resources) available
within the firm, and on product and installation location,212 rather than on specific problems
leading to a lack of stakeholders’ confidence in the capacity of some modules to assess lift
compliance with the Directive (see also section 6.2.2).
Another issue related to conformity assessments and meanwhile solved in the new
Directive relates to the EC-type examination certificate for lifts. This certificate was
considered not always adequate to demonstrate lift compliance with EHSRs. Specifically,
information gathered from some stakeholders213 highlights that installers are sometimes
requested to present further evidence on lift compliance. This issue has been solved in the new
Directive, which partly amended the content of the EC-type examination certificate (now called
“EU-type examination certificate”) for lifts and safety components for lifts.214
210
Current ENs have arrived at a specification for free space that can be briefly summarised as: the accommodation of a
rectangular block as refuge space in both the pit and the headroom; s 1-metre clearance in the headroom. Health and
Safety Laboratory (2007), Technical assessment of means of preventing crushing risks on lifts subject to Directive
95/16/EC. p.20.
211
212
A small-medium Italian NB, eight large German NBs and the Slovakian MSA.
213
A micro Italian NB, a large Finnish and two large English installers.
214
Annex IV of the new Directive indeed states that “The technical documentation shall contain, where applicable, the
following: […] a list of the harmonised standards applied in full or in part the references of which have been published in
the Official Journal of the European Union and, where those harmonised standards have not been applied, descriptions
of the solutions adopted to enable the safety component for lifts to meet the conditions referred to in point 1, including a
list of other relevant technical specifications applied. In the event of partly applied harmonised standards, the technical
documentation shall specify the parts which have been applied”.
57
Minor issues have been raised also in relation to the EC DoC.215 They have been either
solved in the new Directive or they are not supported by a significant share of
stakeholders. For instance, the requirement to provide the EC DoC in the language of the
relevant Member State is perceived as a burden especially by SMEs. A large Finnish installer
suggests a number of improvements to reduce such a burden. First of all, the EC DoC could be
provided in electronic format, for instance via the manufacturer’s website. This improvement
would reduce the paper work and make the EC DoC available any time it is needed.
Alternatively, the installer proposes the paper format of the EC DoC to be simplified to include
only the manufacturer’s declaration and product type, and the full EC DoC to be made available
on line.
Finally, also the implementation of NBs’ notification processes (Article 9) differs across
Member States. For instance, as discussed in section 5.2.2, some Member States216 made
accreditation mandatory. Different accreditation procedures entail different pay-out costs. In
addition, NBs differ in terms of scope of accredited activities and procedures. Some Member
States want a NB to be involved in additional activities (in-service inspections or other regular
checks of lifts in service) that are outside the scope of the Directive.
This could possibly explain the differences in the number of national NBs, even when comparing
Member States with a similar number of installed lifts. For instance, Spain has more than one
million installed lifts, Italy more than 950,000 and Germany around 720,000. Respectively, they
have notified 13, 88 and nine NBs in NANDO database.217 As the figure shows, there are some
variations across countries in the ratio between the number of NBs registered in NANDO and
thousands of installed lifts per country.
Figure 20 – Ratio between the number of NBs and the number of installed lifts (thousands) in
25 EU MS plus Norway and Turkey in 2015218
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
-
LV LT SI EE LU CY IT BE HU SK BG DK NO NL SE AT EL FI FR PT RO CZ UK TR PL ES DE
Source: Authors’ estimates based on NANDO (for NBs) and ELA (for installed lifts)
The Directive’s alignment to the NLF has certainly been a step forward towards the
harmonisation of NBs’ notification procedures across the EU, given that it set out requirements
for accreditation. Moreover, the status of the technical sheets for coordination (RfU)
215
The EC DoC must report, among other information, the contact details of the economic operator responsible for its
drafting and – where appropriate - of the NB responsible for the conformity assessment, together with a description of
the relevant product in terms of serial number, year of manufacture, relevant provisions to which the product complies
and reference to harmonised standards - where appropriate.
216
AT, BE, CY, CZ, EE, ES, EL, FR, IT, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK. Data for BG, DK, HR, HU, LV are not
available.
217
NANDO is a database where all NBs designated to carry out conformity assessment according to a directive for each
Member State are registered. http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/nando/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.notified
body&sort=country
218
Missing data for HR, IE, MT.
58
prepared by NB-L to be used on a voluntary basis by NBs has been enhanced in the
new Directive. Its Article 24(11) indeed states that NBs “shall” apply the RfU as general
guidance, thus granting further alignment of national NBs’ approaches across the EU. This is
much truer if we consider that RfU are granted a high level of publicity, as they are published on
both DG GROW’s website (RfU endorsed) and CIRCABC (RfU approved).
To conclude, the Directive has been overall uniformly transposed and implemented
across Member States. Among the discrepancies identified, some (i.e. those related to the EC
type-examination certificate, to the EC DoC content and to NBs’ notification procedures) have
been – at least potentially - addressed in the new Directive. Others (i.e. the implementation of
Article 2(2)) do not cause any concerns. However, there remain implementation
differences that deserve attention related to provisions for lift accessibility and the
EHSR 2.2.
6.2.2. The effectiveness of the Directive in achieving its objectives
EQ8. How effective was the development and use of the European harmonised standards for the Lifts
Directive?
The development and use of European harmonised standards for the Directive has been
effective and very supportive to the Directive’s implementation,219 as also confirmed by
the absence of any formal objections to harmonised standards ever raised since the Directive’s
entry into force. Moreover, as described in case study 3 and confirmed by stakeholders,
harmonised standards are in line with technological developments occurred in the lift
industry.220 The positive role of harmonised standards is even more recognised by Member
States that accessed the EU after the entry into force of the Directive and for which data are
available.221
The effective development of harmonised standards is confirmed as they are largely
used as the main reference guide for ensuring compliance with the Directive.222
Harmonised standards are so widely applied that in practice they are perceived as
mandatory.223 More specifically, economic operators – and especially SMEs – tend to refer
(nearly exclusively) to harmonised standards, as they are the “easiest and safest way” to
ensure compliance with the EHSRs.224 This would be mainly due to the excessive costs of
testing compliance with EHSRs of alternative solutions225 granting an equivalent
safety level as that provided by the standards. In light of this, only large enterprises would
have the capacity to test and apply innovative solutions, or more in general solutions that
deviate from harmonised standards. Similarly, SMEs would be capable to innovate only if they
specialise in a particular market niche, thus be willing to sustain initial high testing costs. To
conclude, it is worth mentioning the opinion of a large English installer who confirms the
importance of harmonised standards: “Some try to claim the standards are not law and
therefore are guidelines only: however, the link of the Directive with standards needs beefing
up. The standards are in fact the universal currency to most”. Overall, the perceived “mandatory
nature” is a negative issue as this would lead the sector away from the principles of the New
Approach, limiting innovation and competition.
219
As confirmed by 95% (n=105 out of 110) of survey respondents.
220
As confirmed by 79% (n=84 out of 107) of survey respondents. Two interviewed Italian industry associations, two
implementing authorities.
221
CY, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK. For the purposes of this analysis we also considered Turkey. Overall, 22
answers were received from these MS, and two additional from Turkey. See Annex 8.4 for more information.
222
For instance, in the context of the LWG workshop held in January 2017, a MS representative stated that in his
country all lifts comply with harmonised standards.
223
According to the Dutch MSA and an implementing authority.
224
According to a NB-L representative, Spanish industry association, an EU representative from SMEs, and an
implementing authority.
225
As reported by a NB-L representative, and an EU representative from SMEs.
59
As discussed in the box below, the perceived “mandatory nature” of harmonised standards
might also be due to their specific implementation at national level.
Box 5 – The implementation of European harmonised standards
The perceived “mandatory nature” of standards seems to be the residue of old national laws, that
before the entry into force of the Directive established compliance with standards as mandatory.226 For
instance, a Portuguese interviewee declared that prior to the entry into force of the Directive, all lifts in his
country had to comply with harmonised standards EN 81-1 and EN 81-2 for electrical and hydraulic lifts
respectively. This point was more recently raised in a 2010 LWG’s meeting, where the fact that “voluntary
European Standards harmonised under the Directive are often required in the national legal acts for
obligatory use” was presented as interfering with the requirements of the Directive. Currently, national
legislations seem to refer to harmonised standards to compensate for the lack of specificity of some
of the Directive’s provisions. This is the case for instance of EHSR 2.2 on the risk of crushing, where
some MS (e.g. NL, UK) point out to compliance with harmonised standards as the best way to provide free
space in cases where it has to be achieved by “other appropriate means”. Similarly, as discussed in case
study 1, some MS refer to national (e.g. AT, DE, UK) or European harmonised standards (e.g. ES) to
assess the adequacy of lift accessibility to disabled persons.
Moreover, the obligation to ensure an equivalent safety level as that provided by the standards
may make in some cases their application as de facto mandatory to ensure effective compliance
with the EHSRs. For instance, regarding EHSR 4.8 on car lighting, the relevant harmonised standards
require 100 lux illumination inside the lift car. In this case, there is no other possible “equivalent safety
level”, and the installer is obliged to – at least – stick to 100 lux.
In addition, both the number of ENs -detailing the technical specifications for various types
of lifts, for different aspects of lift construction and operating principles - and their several
revisions227 support their adequacy in covering the EHSRs (as far as aimed to be covered
by the standards concerned). At the same time, the close cooperation between industry
representatives and the EC in their development process ensures that ENs are almost in full
aligned with market and safety needs.228
Although updated, harmonised standards are not always necessarily able to cope with the speed
of technological progress. 75% of respondents to the OPC identified as a drawback the lengthy
procedure needed by CEN to develop harmonised standards.229 By the time harmonised
standards are adopted, the technological development described therein risks being some years
old. As a consequence, there are many of the latest technical solutions not covered by
harmonised standards because they are not yet established as “common practice”.230 Since
many economic operators are “forced” to rely on standards (due to high testing costs if
deviating therefrom), this may explain why few respondents231 believe that harmonised
standards negatively affect firm incentives to innovate, although they are voluntary and cannot
in principle limit innovation. Overall, 46%232 of survey respondents instead think harmonised
standards increase firm incentives to innovate.
226
A French industry association, a SME representative, and an implementing authority.
227
The standards EN 81 “Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts” part 1 for electric lifts and part 2 for
hydraulic lifts, for instance, have been amended to take account of the development of MRL lifts. European Commission
(2007). Guide to the application of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC, p. 73. EN 81-1:1998/A2: October 2004 - Safety rules
for the construction and installation of lifts - Part 1: Electric lifts - A2: Machinery and pulley spaces, and EN 81-
2:1998/A2 - Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts - Part 2: Hydraulic lifts - A2: Machinery and pulley
spaces.
228
As in the case of the two new safety standards for the construction and installation of lifts and for the design and test
of safety components applying for passenger and goods-passenger lifts released by CEN in 2014. http://www.liftinstituut
.com/newsroom/90-new-standards-en-81-20-and-en-81-50-in-list-of-harmonised-standards
229
N=39. Supported also by an implementing authority, a small-medium Spanish installer, a French industry
association.
230
As stated by an ESO member.
231
11% of survey respondents (n=7 out of 65).
232
N=30 out of 65.
60
Finally, few stakeholders233 claim that there should not be an excessive emphasis on the role of
harmonised standards, as their application may not be always sufficient to grant lift safety. This
could be due to the fact that economic operators have the tendency to consider harmonised
standards as a “shortcut”, using them as a “cook book” (i.e. step by step), therefore not taking
full responsibility to properly assess all the risks connected to the specificity of their products.
EQ9. To what extent has the conformity assessment procedure for lifts and safety components for lifts
been effective and provided highest degree of health and safety for consumers and users?
The conformity assessment procedures (Article 8) caused no major implementation

problem.
Overall, it results that conformity assessment procedures are one of the main strengths
of the Directive. The possibility for installers and manufacturers to choose one (or more) of
the different conformity assessment procedures fully matches the needs of operators to achieve
compliance. This in consistency with national market features, with competences (and
resources) available within the firm, and with product and installation location.234
Moreover, conformity assessment procedures cover all production phases and act as a sort of
“checklist” to ensure that all steps are covered and comply with the Directive’s EHSRs.
Therefore, despite being reported as the major compliance cost stemming from the Directive
(see section 6.3.1), 92%235 of survey respondents recognise the effectiveness of
conformity assessment procedures to ensure product compliance with the EHSRs.
To confirm this, according to some stakeholders, the application of the Directive raised
fewer problems than most other New Approach Directives236 thanks to the conformity
assessment procedures harmonised under the Directive. These procedures indeed oblige all
lifts to be assessed by NBs before being placed on the market, which could partly explain the
low extent of product non-compliance.237
A causal relationship between the working mechanisms of conformity assessment procedures
and the declining number of lift-related accidents involving maintenance personnel (see Figure
19) cannot be established based on the available evidence. Nonetheless, the adequacy of
conformity assessment procedures to ensure compliance with the EHSRs - as uniformly
recognised by stakeholders - and the strong, positive role played by NBs in these procedures
lead to think that the low level of product non-compliance in the sector (as detailed
below) could be reasonably linked to the effectiveness of this provision.
EQ10. How effective are Market Surveillance Authorities in identifying non-compliant lifts and safety
components for lifts?
Market surveillance has been differently implemented across Member States238 in terms
of strategies, extent of monitoring activities, frequency239 and types240 of checks, and level of
233
An implementing authority, a medium-sized Dutch NB, an EU representative from SMEs.
234
A small-medium Italian NB, eight large German NBs and the Slovakian MSA.
235
N=90 out of 98.
236
As stated by the representatives of Sweden and the UK. Source: EC, Minutes of the meetings of the working group of
the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC from 2002 onwards.
237
According to three implementing authorities.
238
In principle, the Lift AdCO group should ensure harmonised European cooperation and coordination on market
surveillance in the sector, but, as further discussed in section 6.2.3, the low availability of MSAs’ resources makes their
participation to AdCO not really effective.
239
Such a great variance might be (partly) due to diverging interpretations of the term “inspection” by reporting MS.
However, this also provides evidence of existing differences in national approaches to market surveillance.
240
For instance, some MSAs seem to concentrate on the control of the lift installation compliance, rather than on the
single safety components.
61
penalties.241 In addition, although Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 states that MSAs must control
the products made available or placed on the market in a proactive way, this is not always the
case for lifts. Indeed, the assigned priority for market surveillance in the lift sector
differs across Member States.242 A lower surveillance in the lift sector could be related to the
fact that these products, particularly lift safety components, raise fewer safety concerns as
intended for professional use only. Therefore, they are unlikely to be purchased by consumers,
and would in any case pose no risk if purchased.243 However, as stated in the Blue Guide, “to
have an effective market surveillance at EU level, the effort should be uniform across
the internal market. […] In case of uneven market surveillance, weaknesses can be created,
posing a threat to consumers and create unfair competition in the internal market”.244 In this
regard, 78% of survey respondents and 81% of respondents to the OPC state market
surveillance activities in the sector are not fully effective.245
Moreover, only 9% of the inspections performed in the lift and machinery sectors concerned
lifts in 2013.246 They resulted in 5% of non-compliance for lifts and safety components. When
considering only data for nine Member States247 reporting a number of inspections different from
zero, the share of surveillance activities in the lift sector raises to 19% on average and non-
compliance to 11%. Therefore, the number of findings of non-compliance increases
proportionally to the number of inspections. In any case, 87% of respondents to the
OPC perceive the non-compliance in the sector very low.248
Additional sources might confirm the dimension of lift non-compliance as negligible.
For instance, there are few penalties reported, few voluntary corrective measures taken by
economic operators and restrictive measures imposed by MSAs in the lift sector (see Table 4).
At EU level in 2013, few measures were reported relating to non-compliant lifts or safety
components, consisting mainly in voluntary measures (15), restrictive measures (14) and
penalties (3).249 Moreover, over the period 2005-2015, no RAPEX250 notifications related to lifts
or lift safety components in scope of the Directive. At Member State level, the few data collected
through national reports reflect this positive outline. Although these data could be also
interpreted as due to low MSAs’ effectiveness in identifying non-compliant lifts, they still allow to
infer on the low absolute dimension of non-compliance in the sector.
241
As discussed in section 5.2.3 and confirmed by survey respondents. The majority of them highlighted that the extent
of market surveillance (70%, n=33 out of 47), the approach of MSAs to determine compliance (69%, n=33 out of 48)
and penalties for infringements (74%, n=29 out of 39) are not uniform across MS.
242
Some MS allocate medium priority (e.g. ES) whereas others allocate high priority (e.g. NL) on lift surveillance. See
case study 4.
243
244
EC (2016), The 'Blue Guide' on the implementation of EU product rules 2016, p. 100.
245
246
The machinery sector has been considered the most similar to the lift sector, also under the assumption that the
reporting errors and lacks of data are the same in the two sectors. The percentage in the text refers to 18 MS, and it
has been calculated by excluding those MS reporting no inspections in the machinery sector in 2013, and namely CY,
DE, EE, ES, HR, LT, LU, NL, SK, UK.
247
i.e. AT, BE, BG, DK, HU, MT, PL, RO, SE.
248
Data gathered through the OPC, where 87% (n=33 out of 38) of respondents declared the number of non-compliant
lifts or safety components on the market to be either low or very low.
249
Report on the MS reviews and assessment of the functioning of market surveillance activities for the 2010-2013
period pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, Sector 10 Lifts.
250
In addition to ICSMS, RAPEX (Rapid Exchange of Information System) is another information system set up for
improving communication and collaboration between MS and the EC on measures and action taken in relation to
products posing serious risks to the health and safety of users and consumers.
62
EQ11. To what extent has the Lifts Directive contributed to an effectively operating internal market for
the products in its scope?
EQ12. To what extent does the Directive ensure legal certainty, transparency and non-discrimination
between companies?
The Directive had a significant positive impact on reducing barriers to trade, as emerging
from both the market analysis and stakeholder consultation.
On the one hand, 96%251 of survey respondents think that the Directive facilitated the free
movement of lifts and safety components, and 75%252 deem this is specifically achieved
through a reduction in implementation differences across Member States.
On the other hand, intra-EU trade grew at an annual average rate of 9% in the EU15
from 2000 to 2005 and continued to grow by 1% in the EU28 from 2006 to 2015
(Figure 13). These data provide an indication of the enhanced easiness in the internal trade,
particularly of safety components, that are more “tradeable” goods than lifts. Although a direct
causal link cannot be established,253 the Directive could have positively impacted these trends
(or at least managed to regulate better a booming market), enhancing the intra-EU trade by
setting common EHSRs for the products in its scope.
Overall, the Directive contributed to an effectively operating internal market for the products in
its scope also thanks to the establishment of legal certainty and a level-playing field for
companies in the EU, as also confirmed by 90% of survey respondents. By way of example, an
implementing authority observes the Directive created a level playing field for all NBs, whose
requirements for accreditation have been harmonised, particularly with the new Lifts Directive.
The possibility of relying on presumption of conformity254 provided by harmonised standards
ensures legal certainty and is therefore a great advantage to economic operators, as they do not
need to provide further proof of conformity with the EHSRs covered by those harmonised
standards. Moreover, the few discrepancies identified in the application of the Directive
across Member States substantially contribute to the legal certainty provided as well as to the
establishment of a level-playing field across the EU, which both ensure an effectively operating
internal market. To confirm this, 71% of survey respondents declare that national
implementations have no impact on the effectiveness of the Directive nor do they influence
regulatory or administrative costs across Member States.255
However, a number of issues emerge that reduce the Directive’s legal certainty and capacity
to ensure a level-playing field, thus ultimately impacting its effectiveness.
As discussed under relevance, the Directive’s legal certainty seems sometimes hampered by the
lack of clarity of some important definitions, which impacts to some extent the clarity of
tasks and responsibilities of stakeholders (e.g. of the “lift manufacturer”, who is not
defined).
Furthermore, a number of issues are related to the prior approval (EHSR 2.2). First of all, it
has not been equally transposed across the EU. As a consequence, this provision hampers the
establishment of a level-playing field, since some installers may be allowed to apply their
technical solutions to create artificial free space in some Member States and not in others. This
251
N=112 out of 116.
252
N=81 out of 108.
253
Many other external factors could have indeed influenced the market (e.g. from the second half of the 1990s until
2005, construction industry output grew consistently). http://www.investineu.com/content/construction-industry-
european-union
254
The large majority (89%, n=103 out of 116) of respondents deem that the mechanism of presumption of conformity
is clear and that there are no issues in its application (84%, n=97 out of 116).
255
N= 82 out of 116.
63
also overall reduces the Directive’s legal certainty. Finally, the exceptional character of any
derogation makes it ultimately subject to a “case-by-case” evaluation.
Finally, a number of stakeholders highlight that the lack of information provided in the
instruction manual (EHSR 6.2) hampers a full achievement of a level-playing field in the
sector. The EHSR states that an instruction manual for lift maintenance, inspection, repair,
periodic checks and rescue operations must accompany each lift and be provided by the lift
installer to the lift owner. However, the lack of specificity of this EHSR256 makes it difficult to
ensure that sufficient information is provided by the installer, so that, especially in cases of lifts
entailing new technologies, the lift can be readily maintained by companies other than the
installer itself. The lack of information in the instruction manual can penalise SMEs,257 which are
mainly maintenance operators.
EQ13. To what extent has the Lifts Directive achieved its aims with regard to the protection of health and
safety of users and maintenance personnel?
Ensuring users’ and maintenance personnel’s safety is the second main objective of the
Directive, which is pursued by means of all its main provisions.
Provisions on EHSRs contributed to the achievement of the Directive’s safety objectives. The
analysis of the relevance of the Directive concludes that only few safety issues have not been
addressed by the Directive. In addition, the EHSRs have been reflected into numerous and
widely spread harmonised standards, which are deemed to sufficiently reflect the state of the art
in terms of safety and technological developments in the lift sector.
Provisions on conformity assessment significantly contributed to ensuring lift safety. As
already discussed, the adequacy and effectiveness of these procedures is widely recognised by
92% of survey respondents.258 Moreover, they oblige all lifts to be assessed by NBs before being
placed on the market, this possibly explaining the low extent of product non-compliance.259
Overall, lift safety is perceived as satisfactory also by 97% of survey respondents and by 91%260
of OPC respondents.261 In addition, despite the general lack of data, 94% of survey
respondents think the Directive even increased lift safety.262 This acknowledgement is
even higher when considering opinions expressed by stakeholders from new Member States, as
discussed in Annex 8.4.
However, there are some issues related to EHSR 2.2 that raise doubts on the capacity
of the Directive to adequately prevent some risks. EHSR 2.2 foresees the use of “other
appropriate means” to prevent the risk of crushing in exceptional cases. However, the existence
of means different from free space to prevent the risk of crushing is likely to add more
complexity to regular maintenance/modernisation procedures, and to increase thereby the risk
of accidents for maintenance personnel.263 Moreover, although the functioning of these means
has to be described in the instruction manual ruled by EHSR 6.2, so that maintenance can be
carried out safely, this might not be sufficient to prevent accidents due to confusion, negligence
(maintainers may visit several lift installations per day) or simply to human error.264
256
An English industry association, an Italian industry association, a micro German installer, a large English installer, an
implementing authority, an EU industry association for SMEs.
257
See EFESME (2014), Activity Report, Update June - December 2014. pp. 28 to 34.
258
N=90 out of 98.
259
According to three implementing authorities.
260
N=113 out of 116 declare the Directive is effective in achieving lift safety.
261
N=42 out 46 replied that the Directive’s objectives and provisions contribute to ensuring a high level of heath safety
for lift users and maintenance personnel.
262
N=103 out of 109.
263
Health and Safety Laboratory (2007), Technical assessment of means of preventing crushing risks on lifts subject to
Directive 95/16/EC. As confirmed by a large Finnish installer contributing to the survey. See also case study 2.
264
Ibid.
64
The overall effectiveness of the Directive in achieving protection of health and safety
of users and maintenance personnel is confirmed by the analysis of data on accidents,
although these are subject to a number of limitations. Accident statistics indeed lack details on
the causes of accidents (e.g. lift misuse rather than lack of lift safety) and they do not
distinguish between accidents involving lifts subject to the Directive and “existing lifts” (i.e. lifts
installed before the entry into force of the Directive).
As shown in Figure 19, the number of lift-related accidents involving maintenance
personnel compared to the number of existing installations is decreasing at an annual
average rate of 3% between 2008 and 2015, although it would be reasonable to expect an
increase in accidents due to aging of lifts. Data related to maintenance personnel are sufficiently
reliable since accidents occurring on workplace necessarily have to be reported and registered,
as maintenance personnel can benefit from social security services. Therefore, we can assume
this trend as –potentially- indicative of the improvement in lift safety levels. However,
the decrease in the number of accidents could also be due to an increase in the skills of
maintenance personnel or to improvements in the national legislation on safety at the
workplace.
Concerning the users, the trend in the number of accidents over the total number of
installed lifts is increasing at an annual average rate of 7% over 2008-2015.265
However, these data are not considered as reliable since they also strongly depend on whether
the user is willing to report the injury, to whom the injury is reported and how it is registered. If
we consider that the willingness to report accidents has not changed over the years, however,
there are still additional explanations for the increase in the number of this type of accidents,
such as population aging and lifts more sophisticated than before due to technological
developments. This, together with the absence of accident data only related to lifts in scope of
the Directive, makes it difficult to clearly establish a clear link between the Directive and
accidents.
6.2.3. Enabling factors
EQ14. What are the barriers to effective application and enforcement, in particular through surveillance
of lifts on the market?
The study identified three barriers to effective application and enforcement that are external to
the Directive and only one, minor barrier related to its provisions.
The first external barrier hindering effective enforcement is the lack of MSAs’ financial
and human resources. Four MSAs266 in 2013 declared to have a budget specifically dedicated
to activities in the lifts sector and five267 had dedicated staff/inspectors to perform market
surveillance of lifts and safety components in 2013. This lack of resources has
consequences on market surveillance activities, emerging from both the analysis of
national reports and anecdotal evidence provided by stakeholders. These consequences relate
to:
 Difficulties in having skilled personnel for market surveillance to be carried out as effectively
as possible.268 As further evidence, a Swedish representative reported market surveillance
to be difficult when harmonised standards are not applied, this being confirmed also by a
French industry association declaring that “MSAs are not skilled enough to assess the
conformity of technical solutions alternative to standards”.
265
ELA (2017). This figure includes accidents related to both "existing lifts" and lifts covered by the Directive.
266
Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Hungary.
267
Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary.
268
As also reported by the Danish and Greek MSAs.
65
 The low number of controls in the sector.269 As also emerged from the analysis of the
national reports, Bulgaria, Denmark and Hungary were among the few Member States
performing market surveillance activities in the lift sector. Notably, they were also among
the few Member States declaring to have a specific budget to perform enforcement.
 The lack of coordination and cooperation of MSAs in the field.270
The second external barrier to effective enforcement consists of differences in the
implementation of market surveillance activities across Member States, provided that
one of the key objectives of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 is to achieve a uniform enforcement
for market surveillance to be effective.271 As mentioned in section 5.2.3, Member States rely on
different strategies, extent and depths of monitoring activities, and level of penalties, resulting
in different levels of effectiveness of the enforcement action. Independently from the level of
resources, Member States are free to choose their own strategy to perform market surveillance
in the lift sector. As a result, approaches can be more or less proactive, and some countries
follow only a reactive approach (e.g. ES, IT, NO, SE). In principle, the Lift AdCO Group should
ensure harmonised cooperation and coordination on market surveillance in the lift sector at the
European level. However, the great differences between the legal systems and between the
national organisations of market surveillance cannot simply be solved within an AdCO Group.
Furthermore, the lack of resources makes MSAs’ participation to AdCO not really effective,272
further hindering harmonisation practices.
Although minor, a third external barrier relates to the fact that it is difficult for MSAs
to know when and where a new lift is placed on the market. Although -based on
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008- MSAs are not supposed to check every lift installed, three
stakeholders273 suggested the set-up of an “EU lift register” would considerably help in tracing
new products.
Finally, and more related to its provisions, Directive 95/16/EC did not foresee any
specific rules on penalties for infringements, this possibly resulting in differences in the set
up and use of sanctions at national level.274 In turn, this causes differences in the deterrence
power of sanctions, being therefore an additional barrier to effective enforcement.
EQ15. What are the factors that influence positively and negatively the effective application of the
Directive?
The study identified NBs as a factor that positively influenced the application of the Directive.
Some other factors –mostly related to tools for the exchange of information and cooperation-
could more positively influence the Directive’s application, as they are not used at their full
potential.
NBs play a key role in the application of the Directive. Since all lifts are checked by NBs
before being put into service, NBs are ultimately responsible for surveying that installers and
manufacturers duly fulfilled their obligations arising from the conformity assessment procedures.
Also NB-L, the coordination group of NBs, plays an important role in clarifying the
269
Polish MSA, Report on the MS reviews and assessment of the functioning of market surveillance activities for the
2010-2013 period pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, Sector 10 Lifts.
270
Italian representative. Source: EC, Minutes of the meetings of the working group of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC from
2002 onwards.
271
SEC(2007) 173. Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the
marketing of products and a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common framework for the
marketing of products. Impact Assessment. p.11.
272
The German MSA, an implementing authority, a representative from NB-L and an AdCO representative.
273
An implementing authority together with an Italian NB and a Belgian industry association. To address this issue, NBs
have to transmit conformity assessment certificates to competent authorities in some countries such as Finland and
Italy.
274
“Penalties for infringements” are not uniform according to 74% of respondents to the OPC. The new Directive sets up
more specific rules on penalties, but it does not harmonise them: see its Article 43.
66
specifications given in the standards, if necessary. Over the years, NB-L has indeed been very
active in drafting a number of RfU275 to ensure a common approach for all NBs in Europe. This
positive contribution of RfU has been strengthened by Directive 2014/33/EU, inasmuch as its
Article 24(11) requires that NB-L’s administrative decisions shall be applied as a “general
guidance”. Furthermore, using the words of a large Finnish installer, “RfU are well known to all
economic operators” and help in clarifying the interaction between the Directive and other
pieces of legislation relevant for lifts. In addition, there are official channels of
communication between NBs and MSAs to find solutions to practical implementation
problems, this positively influencing the enforcement of the Directive, according to 67% of
respondents to the surveys.276 Communication and collaboration across Member States or
across NBs in different Member States work well according to 77% of survey
respondents.277 Some areas for improvement have been identified, consisting in:
 Increasing the use of digital means, so that communication across all the stakeholders
concerned by the Directive is faster;278
 Improving cross-border communication channels between NBs;279
 Increasing cross-border communication and collaboration between NBs and MSAs.280
Additional mechanisms are in place to ensure good cooperation, coordination and
exchange of information at national level among MSAs. However, at EU level, the Lift
ADCO group does not work as efficiently as it should due to national specificities and lack
of resources hindering MSAs’ participation to AdCO. On the same line, ICSMS281 seems not to
be particularly relevant in the case of lifts, and only 19% of respondents to the survey282 declare
to have used the system “at least once”. The low level of market surveillance in the sector,
together with the low level of product non-compliance and the fact that ICSMS is not user-
friendly nor custom-made for the Directive and experienced burdensome (as underlined by a
few stakeholders), could explain the low level of usage of the tool.
Finally, the clarity of the guidance documents to the Directive as declared by 76% of survey
respondents283 (and in particular the Guide to Application of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC,
currently under revision due to the New Directive) might also have positively influenced its
application. However, the translation of the guides into the relevant national language is not
275
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/18706/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native
276
More in particular, six stakeholders (3 NBs, the English, German and Norwegian MSAs) declare there are direct
contacts between NBs and MSAs at national level. In Italy, the relevant MSAs respond to NBs’ email requests. Other
stakeholders (9 NBs, the Finnish, Norwegian, Slovakian and Belgian MSAs) state that regular meetings occur between
NBs and MSAs. The Slovakian MSA in particular reports the existence of periodic coordination meetings, joint inspections
involving NBs, training and annual reports at national level fostering cooperation, coordination and exchange of
information between relevant authorities concerned with the Directive. In Ireland a Working Group on lifts that involves
both NBs and MSAs, while in Norway there is an advisory committee.
277
n= 53 out of 69.
278
Six NBs, the Finnish MSA. A small-medium Italian NB for instance suggests implementing a newsletter and another
proposes to increase the use of conference calls. A large Latvian NB suggests the creation of working platforms to
interconnect companies.
279
Which could be implemented by: an increased communication from NB-L (micro Irish NB); allowing each NB to
participate in a national coordination meeting together with MSAs (Slovakian MSA); allowing all NBs to participate to NB-
L (small French NB); allowing NBs of a MS to participate to local groups of NBs in other MS (a large UK NB); NB-L should
organise horizontal working groups (i.e. geographically based) and not only ad-hoc working groups (small Finnish NB).
280
For instance through increasing the use of ICSMS, as suggested by the English MSA. An implementing authority
declares that ADCO meetings should be more frequent and that meetings of the MS representatives and MSAs with NB-L
and industry representatives should be organised at least once a year. Finally, a Belgian NB underlines a lack of efficient
communication between NB and MSAs, which could be solved for instance by setting up a common register of controls.
281
ICSMS is an information and communication support system for the pan-European Market Surveillance, set up by the
European Commission for the exchange of information between MSAs according to Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No
765/2008. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/icsms/
282
Ten German NBs, a Danish association, five MSAs (DK, EE, FI, NL, UK), five MS (CH, DE, IE, LU, MT).
283
N=88 out of 116.
67
always precise284 and these documents are not fully effective285 as lacking concrete examples
and figures.286
6.3.Efficiency
A general limitation on data hampered a thorough assessment of the Directive’s efficiency.
Therefore, this section presents only anecdotal data for some EU Member States, whenever
available, which should be considered as purely indicative.
6.3.1. Analysis of costs
EQ16. What are the regulatory (including administrative) costs for the different stakeholders?
The Directive has regulated the sector by specifying the type of controls that each product
(either a lift or a safety component) must undergo before being placed on the market.
The relevant stakeholder groups impacted by the Directive and related obligations are MSAs, the
economic operators (lift installers and safety component manufacturers), and NBs.
The main costs entailed by the Directive can be classified as follows:287
 Enforcement costs288 impacting MSAs: these are costs due to market surveillance activities,
withdrawal of non-compliant products from the market, assessment of NBs, and periodic
communication to the Commission and other MS of their activities;
 Substantive compliance costs289 impacting NBs: including costs to ensure their ability to
perform their duties, such as training costs;
 Substantive compliance costs impacting economic operators: including costs to ensure
compliance with the EHSRs, to perform the conformity assessments and related to NBs’
service fees, training specialised technicians, periodic purchase of harmonised standards;
 Administrative burden290 impacting economic operators: including costs related to the CE
marking, the production of the EC DoC and its archive for the period required by the
Directive (i.e. ten years).
Details on stakeholders impacted and related costs are provided in Table 20 in Annex 8.8.
These costs have been estimated based on figures reported by interviewees and survey
respondents. Given the poor quality of available data and the lack of information related to the
main Member States, the findings cannot be extended to EU level. A summary of the analysis is
reported in Table 12 below, while a detailed description of the costs and the basis for the
estimates are provided in the following paragraphs.
284
Seven NBs, a German industry association and an EU industry association for SMEs, a large German manufacturer,
the Estonian and German MSAs, an implementing authority.
285
A NB, a Danish, a German and an EU industry association, four large installers, a medium installer, a small-medium
installer, a large manufacturer, two implementing authorities, and the German MSA.
286
Five NBs, a German and EU industry association, four large installers, a medium installer, a large manufacturer, and
an implementing authority.
287
Please refer to Annex 8.8 for further details.
288
These costs are associated with activities linked to the implementation of initiatives such as monitoring, enforcement
and adjudication (Better Regulation Toolbox, p.341).
289
Substantive compliance costs encompass those investments and expenses that are faced by businesses and citizens
to comply with obligations or requirements contained in a legal rule (Better Regulation Toolbox, p.339).
290
Administrative burdens are costs borne by businesses, citizens, civil society organisations and public authorities as a
result of administrative activities performed to comply with information obligations included in legal rules (Better
Regulation Toolbox, p.339).
68
Table 12 - Identified regulatory (including administrative) costs for the different stakeholder
categories impacted by the Directive291
Type of cost Description Estimated cost
MSAs Enforcement Costs due to inspection activities as Approximately between €1,100 and
costs foreseen by Art. 2(1) and (2); Art. €1,800 per inspection.
7(3); Art. 9(2) and (3); Art. 10(4)(b).
MSAs Administrative Costs due to information obligations of Not assessed as already due in previous
burden MSs towards the EC and other MSs as Directive 84/528/EEC.
foreseen by Art. 7(1); Art. 9(1) and
(3); Art. 11.
NBs Substantive Initial and recurring training expenses: Ranging between €500 and €12,000.
compliance (i) to familiarise with the Directive Accounting, on average, for 0.34% of
costs (and related ENs); (ii) due to year-on- annual turnover (higher for SMEs).
year training related to the Directive.
NBs Substantive Cost of purchasing ENs. Recurring Normally updated twice a year.
compliance costs depend on (i) the range of Harmonised Standards cost between
costs services provided; (ii) size of NBs €50 and €250. Accounting on average
(larger NBs pay flat-rates to providers from 0.01% for larger companies to
of technical standards). 0.035% for SMEs.
EOs Substantive Cost of conformity assessments: As reported by interviewees, an EC
compliance variable costs depending on the type of type-examination costs €440-€580; a
costs conformity assessment unit verification costs €900-€1,000. The
share of cost over the turnover is
negligible for large installers and
manufacturers, while it is 0.74% for
SMEs.
EOs Substantive Cost of purchasing ENs. Recurring Normally updated twice a year.
compliance costs depend on (i) the range of Harmonised Standards cost between
costs products; (ii) size of EO (larger EOs €50 and €250. Accounting on average
pay flat-rates to providers of technical from 0.01% for larger companies to
standards). 0.035% for SMEs.
EOs Substantive Initial and recurring training expenses: Accounting, on average, between 0.08%
compliance (i) to familiarise with the Directive for SMEs and to 0.12% for large
costs (and related ENs); (ii) due to year-on- enterprises, only part of which relates to
year training related to the Directive. the Directive.
EOs Substantive Other compliance costs (i.e. These costs are not related to the
compliance equipment, re-engineering, other Directive but rather to business as
costs third-party services – excluding NBs) usual.
EOs Administrative DoC and CE Marking Not assessed as already due in previous
burden Directive 84/528/EEC.
Analysis of costs for Market Surveillance Authorities
Costs for MSAs mainly fall into the category of “enforcement costs”, which entail recurrent
market monitoring activities. These costs are calculated in terms of number of hours needed to
perform inspections and valorised in monetary terms in terms of hourly labour cost per FTE.292
The only two MSAs (DK and FI) responding to the related question of the targeted survey claim
that an inspection is generally composed of two phases: a first data collection phase that can
last between 24 and 40 hours of one FTE, and a second phase of on-site inspections that usually
take four to five hours. Based on the average cost of an FTE, the actual cost of an inspection
ranges between €1,100 and €1,800. However, due to the lack of consistent and reliable data on
291
Data on turnover at firm level have been collected through interviews, where interviewees were asked to report the
firm average turnover over 2014-2016.
292
Based on Eurostat, Labour cost, wages and salaries, direct remuneration (excluding apprentices) by NACE Rev. 2
activity – LCS surveys 2008 and 2012 [lc_ncost_r2], Public administration and defence.
69
the number of inspections conducted per Member State, it is impossible to estimate the overall
effort and the consequential burden for the whole EU market.293
Finally, a potential for simplification has been identified in light of the existing market
surveillance enforcement barriers. An implementing authority, a NB and a Belgian industry
association suggested the set-up of an “EU lift register” to help trace new products, creating
efficiency gains for MSAs’ checks.
Analysis of costs for Notified Bodies
The “accredited bodies” responsible for performing the conformity assessment and issuing EEC
type-certifications mentioned in Directive 84/528/EEC and in Directive 84/529/EEC294 were
usually public bodies (i.e. in Belgium, Spain, Italy and France). NBs received the explicit
mandate from Member States to conduct conformity assessment procedures in the lift market
only with the Directive. Hence, the costs to perform the conformity assessment295 are not
considered in the present analysis, because they are simply “shifted” from one stakeholder (the
public body) to another (the NB) without significantly changing the scope of the obligation.
The primary source of costs for NBs is related to periodic fees due to national accreditation
procedures.296 The average annual cost per year is €625 for two micro, €1,500 for one small
and €3,800 for seven medium and large NBs.297 Data show that the ratio between accreditation
costs and annual turnover decreases with the increase in size of NBs. For instance, accreditation
procedures for two micro NBs account on average for 1% of their annual turnover, 0.05% for
one small NB, and 0.01% for seven medium and large NBs. It should be noted that these costs
are not strictly derived from Directive 95/16/EC, since it did not require mandatory
accreditation.
Training expenses are the most burdensome among compliance costs. 16 respondents report
an annual spending on training ranging between €500 (for micro NBs) and €12,000 (for medium
and large NBs). In terms of NBs’ annual turnover, it represents an average of 0.9% for three
micro NBs, 0.55% for three small NBs, 0.12% for eight medium NBs and 0.03% for two large
NBs.298
The purchase of harmonised standards is also a relevant cost for NBs, especially for smaller
ones. All NBs are required to buy the relevant standards. However, while larger companies
usually prefer to pay an annual fee to a service provider of updated standards, smaller
companies usually buy singular updates. The total annual expenditure on harmonised standards
is on average €2,000 for small NBs (n=3), €20,000 for medium (n=1) and €10,700 for large
NBs (n=9). The average ratio between the reported costs and the annual turnover shows that
the average annual expenditure of NBs on harmonised standards accounts for 0.1% of annual
turnover of small NBs (n=3), for 0.07% of medium (n=1) and for 0.01% of annual turnover for
large NBs (n=9).299
293
MS are required to periodically inform the Commission on their activities pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC)
No 765/2008. These activities include inspections on the lift market. However, figures provided in the national reports
are not reliable to estimate the overall annual number of inspections conducted, and cover only the period 2010-2013.
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/building-blocks/market-surveillance/organisation_en
294
Article 2 of Directive 84/529/EEC states that “conformity [of lifts] with Community provisions shall be established by
means of checks and tests carried out in accordance with the provisions of this Directive”.
295
Including staff costs, office and laboratory costs, and costs of necessary equipment.
296
As reported by NBs answering the survey and located in Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
297
Data on accreditation costs and turnover have been gathered through ten interviews involving NBs from BE, DE, DK,
FI, FR, IT, NL, SE.
298
These figures are calculated as the ratio between the average expenditure on training activities related to the
Directive and the annual turnover, as reported by interviewees and survey respondents.
299
Data on costs for harmonised standards and turnover have been gathered through 14 interviews involving NBs from
AT, BE, DE, DK, FI, FR, HU, IT, NL.
70
NBs reported other costs related to the Directive; however, these could not be taken
into accout as they were not quantifiable. 49% (n=22) of NBs surveyed innovated their
equipment and systems to comply with the Directive. Furthermore, 53% (n=24) of NBs
underwent process re-engineering for the same purpose. 44% (n=16) of NBs deem that costs to
innovate equipment and systems would have been lower if the Directive had not
been implemented. Furthermore, 28% (n=10) stated they only faced these costs due to the
Directive. Also, 9% of NBs (n=4) bore costs related to external support from legal consultants to
comply with the Directive.
Analysis of costs for economic operators
Installers of lifts and manufacturers of safety components are subject to several obligations in
different stages: (i) in the design and production of the safety component; (ii) in the design
phase of the lift, and (iii) in the lift installation phase.
Compliance costs are mainly related to the conformity assessment procedures to be carried
out (e.g. the EC type-examinations) and to on-site verifications performed by NBs (e.g. final
inspection). Other compliance costs include training expenses, the purchase of updated
harmonised standards, initial expenses for new equipment bought to comply with the Directive,
re-engineering of internal processes to acquire a system certification and other expenses due to
external consulting services. It is to be noted however that some of these costs (e.g.
expenses for new equipment, re-engineering and external consulting services) might have
occurred even without the entry into force of the Directive.
The overall burden of compliance costs varies considerably from one economic operator to
another. The variations are due to several aspects including for instance: (i) the size of the
company; (ii) the business structure; (iii) the preferred conformity assessment procedures. On
average, the annual compliance cost equals €10,000 for SMEs and €133,000 for large firms.
Interviewees and survey respondents could only provide a rough estimate of such compliance
costs, which is nearly equal to 0% of large enterprises’ (n=4) and around 0.74% of SMEs’ (n=3)
annual turnover.300
Interviewed companies confirmed that conformity assessment procedures are the most
burdensome provisions of the Directive. For example, once designed, a lift model is
checked multiple times by a NB before being approved. Interviewees and survey respondents
reported the following costs of conformity assessments:
 EC type-examination (Module B): it is not possible to estimate an average cost of such a
procedure. Two large companies reported costs ranging between €440 and €580;
 Unit Verification (Module G): the average cost of this procedure ranges between €900-
€1,000 (n=3), due to higher NBs’ fees and the cost of a FTE for at least one day;
 Full quality assurance system (Module H): the cost of this module does not depend on the
number of lifts designed, being a one-off cost due to a periodic verification by a NB. The
cost to obtain this certification is equal to around €50,000 for two interviewed (one large
and one small) companies. However, these costs should include other, non-identified
internal costs (i.e. the labour cost of employees) and may change depending on the size of
the company, but interviewees could not provide an estimate for such costs.
As reported by a large company, before the Directive entered into force, all lifts had to be
submitted to a unit verification by a national authority. This meant that conformity assessment
procedures were a variable cost proportional to production volumes for all companies
irrespectively of their size. The introduction of the “full quality assurance” (Module H) through
the Directive has reduced the marginal compliance cost for larger companies, which could
spread the burden of a fixed cost (to acquire the “full quality assurance” certification) on a
300
Figures based on answers provided by three small, three medium and four large firms.
71
larger number of produced lifts. The current compliance cost is estimated to be around half in
comparison to the situation existing before the entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC. A small
installer, however, claims that there is no difference since also after the introduction of the
Directive, the “unit verification” (module G) remains the preferred conformity assessment
procedure for companies with small production volumes.
Regarding compliance costs due to the purchase of (updated) harmonised standards, a
micro lift installer reports that harmonised standards have been amended (and thus re-
published) several times since the entry into force of the Directive. Survey respondents report
that the price of harmonised standards ranges between €50 and €250 for each standard. On
average,301 the annual expenses for harmonised standards account for 0.017% of annual
company turnover, though this incidence changes considerably since companies buy different
standards according to products and services relevant for them. Larger companies, which are
usually required to buy more standards, pay an annual flat-rate fee to a service provider in
order to have access to any update and fix to a certain amount the overall costs for technical
standards. For this reason, the weight of these expenses on SMEs is proportionally higher in
comparison to larger companies. In light of this, a clearer and more transparent process of ENs
update represents a potential for simplification, especially for SMEs.
Another relevant source of costs is the training of employees on issues related to the
Directive. While the initial costs borne by economic operators straight after the implementation
of the Directive were directly linked to it, the recurrent annual training expenses are only
partially due to the Directive. Unfortunately, interviewees were not able to disentangle the costs
of training due to the Directive from other types of costs. Based on input from interviews, the
annual training costs amount, on average, to 0.08% for three SMEs and to 0.12% for two large
enterprises of the annual turnover.
The provisions entailing administrative burden for drafting the EC DoC and affixing the CE
marking are not particularly burdensome for lift installers. The requirements to prepare a DoC
and mark each lift with a CE marking were already present in the previous Directive
84/528/EEC, thus these costs are considered as not relevant for the purpose of this analysis.
Finally, the economic operators reported other costs related to the Directive; however,
these these could not be taken into accout as they were not quantifiable. The majority
of economic operators surveyed (58%, n=18) implemented some updates to their
equipment/machineries and 59% (n=17) undertook process re-engineering to be compliant with
the Directive. 28% of economic operators (n=3) reported that they requested external support
from legal consultants to comply with the Directive.
6.3.2. Analysis of benefits
EQ17. What are the main benefits for stakeholders and civil society that derive from the Directive?
The Directive has regulated the sector by harmonising the EHSRs for lifts and safety
components across the EU. In this view, the relevant stakeholder groups impacted by the
Directive and related benefits are the economic operators (lift installers and safety component
manufacturers), users and maintenance personnel.
The main benefits entailed by the Directive can be classified as follows:
 Improved market efficiency,302 including in particular the benefits deriving from legislation
harmonisation across the EU, related also to a harmonised level-playing field, and from
internationalisation;
301
Figures have been provided by seven companies, and range from 0.010% for larger companies to 0.035% for SMEs.
302
This might include improved allocation of resources, removal of regulatory or market failures or cost savings
generated by new initiatives/regulation (Better Regulation Toolbox, p.350).
72
 Additional citizens’ utility, welfare or satisfaction,303 including increased users’ and

maintenance personnel’s safety and increased lift accessibility for disabled persons, if
compared to the previous legislative framework.
The data provided by survey participants and interviewees only allow for a qualitative
assessment of benefits. A summary of the analysis is reported in Table 13 below, while a
detailed description of the benefits are provided in the following paragraphs.
Table 13 - Identified regulatory benefits for the different stakeholder categories impacted by
the Directive
Type of benefit
Description Estimated benefit
EOs Market efficiency
Interviewees reported different Qualitative assessment
- legislationopinions. SMEs: frequent standard
harmonisationupdates cause additional administrative
burden. Large enterprises: the Directive
has removed the costs of compliance
with single national legislations.
EOs Market efficiency The creation of a common regulatory Qualitative assessment
- framework in the EU has reduced intra-
Internationalisati EU export costs. Between 1995 and
on 2015 exports have increased. However,
on average, large enterprises are more
“export oriented” than SMEs, thus
benefiting more from this aspect.
Consumers/ Improved The introduction of common EHSRs is Current available data are not
users and welfare - Safety expected to bring benefits for users/ sufficient to estimate the effect
maintenanc maintenance personnel in terms of of the Directive on increased
e personnel increased safety and reduced accidents safety standards (and reduced
related to lifts. lift-related accidents).
Consumers/ Improved The introduction of EHSRs for granting Current available data are not
users welfare - Safety/ lift accessibility to disabled persons is sufficient to estimate the actual
accessibility expected to bring benefits for this effect of increased well-being of
category of stakeholders in terms of disabled persons due to
increased safety and accessibility to implementation of the Directive.
lifts. However, while the previous
regulatory framework did not
foresee any provision targeting
their needs, the Directive took
them into account.
Analysis of benefits for economic operators
The potential benefits of the Directive are:
 A reduced administrative burden and harmonised level-playing field due to harmonisation of
the regulatory framework;
 Increased internationalisation due to both harmonisation legislation and perceived high
quality of EU product requirements.
The Directive harmonised the EHSRs to which all economic operators must comply with at EU
level. This harmonisation contributed to creating a level-playing field for all firms impacted by
the Directive. As to the benefits deriving from administrative simplifications, interviewees’
opinions differ depending on the size of their company. In general, SMEs are less
export-oriented (being more active in their national markets) and then benefit less than large
firms from any administrative simplification. In fact, firms were previously required to comply
only with their national legislation, which did not frequently update the technical standards of
reference. After the entry into force of the Directive, SMEs incurred more frequent expenses for
303
Such benefits include, most notably, health, safety and environmental benefits (Better Regulation Toolbox, p.350).
73
purchasing harmonised standards, due to both their number and the frequency of their update.
Despite the fact that standards are not mandatory, SMEs are obliged to comply therewith in
light of discussed high testing costs. On the contrary, large companies, being more export-
oriented, benefited in full from administrative simplification. As reported by a large
operator, the total burden of compliance costs is considerably lower (nearly half) than
compliance to each national regulation existing before its implementation.
Several respondents304 claim that the implementation of a harmonised regulatory framework
across Europe in the lift sector has supported companies to implement a stronger
internationalisation strategy, in both other EU Member States and third countries. The
benefits for companies exporting intra-EU are (i) a reduced administrative cost of each
transaction, because exporters are no longer required to perform any local testing or receive
any additional authorisation from the local authority; (ii) a standardised safety level, ensuring
that all products available on the market comply with the same EHSRs. Moreover, as reported
by an Italian manufacturer of safety components, the CE marking is a standard of quality in
the industry also beyond the EU borders: buyers in Asia and US prefer products with a CE
marking being a signal of higher quality and safety. As shown in the figure below, the overall
ratio of extra-EU exports value and overall production value increased from 1995 to 2015. Such
trend may also be an effect of the harmonisation and of the quality of the CE marking
perception beyond the EU.
Figure 21 – Ratio of extra-EU export value/production value in the lift sector
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Source: estimates based on PRODCOM. Data for EU15
However, also in this case, the revenues from exports in the lift sector are higher for
larger companies in comparison to SMEs. Specifically, the incidence on larger companies is
around 20-26%, while it is between 8-11% on SMEs.305 Additionally, in light of the paragraph
above, larger enterprises complying with EU standards see their higher safety recognised also in
non-EU markets.
Analysis of benefits for consumers/users and maintenance personnel
The benefits for consumers/users are considered in terms of a lower number of lift-related
accidents and of increased lift accessibility for people with disabilities.
Unfortunately, available accident statistics do not allow to establish a direct causal link between
the Directive and an increase in lift safety. Evidence shows that the number of accidents
involving maintenance personnel has been decreasing since 2008 (see Figure 19),
possibly indicating a progressive improvement in lift safety levels.
In the same view, available data are not sufficient to quantitatively estimate the increase of
disabled persons’ well-being. However, the Directive should be seen as a great improvement
304
305
Median values based on reported figures on Amadeus database in 2006, 2010 and 2015.
74
with respect to the previous regulatory framework that did not foresee any provisions
targeting their needs. For example, the Directive provides for rules on the dimension of the
lift car and the position of lift controls. However, these provisions suffer some limitations as they
vary considerably across Member States, thus granting different levels of accessibility and
deemed as insufficient.
6.3.3. Balance between costs and benefits
EQ18. To what extent are the regulatory costs proportionate to the benefits achieved? How affordable
are the costs for the stakeholders, given the benefits they receive? What does this represent in
terms of administrative and reporting burdens?
Although the Directive specifies several obligations for MSAs, NBs and economic operators, a
comparison with the previous legislative framework displays a reduction in the duties that
are directly and fully attributable to the Directive.
MSAs’ duties in terms of enforcement of the Directive’s provisions were already foreseen in the
previous Directive 84/528/EEC. Thus, the costs of inspections are not due to the Directive, since
MSAs would have incurred them anyway. There is, however, a reduction of burden for MSAs,
since NBs are now in charge of conducting the conformity assessment verifications. Under
Directive 84/528/EEC, the EEC type-certification was the responsibility of “appointed bodies”,
which were usually public authorities (in most cases the current MSAs) weighing on the national
budget.
As for economic operators, substantive compliance costs related to conformity assessments
are particularly high for small and medium manufacturers of safety components and lift
installers, i.e. equal to around 1% of their annual turnover, while it is negligible for large
operators (see Table 12 above). A difference can be noticed in comparison to the previous
Directive 84/528/EEC – which already foresaw an EU certification before a product could be
placed on the market. While SMEs preferred the EEC type-examination under Directive
84/528/EEC, and still prefer the EC type-examination under the 1995 Directive (thus costs for
them did not change much), large firms tend to opt for the “full quality assurance” system,
which, although entailing higher initial costs and recurring annual inspection costs, is more
convenient for large production volumes. Lack of statistics on the number of conformity
assessments performed before and after the entry into force of the Directive, however, does
not allow for a quantification of the cost reduction for larger enterprises.
The contributions received to the OPC confirm the findings. All large enterprises with few
exceptions declared that the costs and benefits induced by the Directive are balanced and
acceptable,306 with 14 indicating that benefits outweigh costs. Similarly, all large enterprises
agree that the Directive has increased their competitiveness. While only one SME replied to
these questions, not allowing to draw general conclusions, it is worth mentioning that its reply
to both questions was the opposite of that provided by large enterprises. Finally, 73% of survey
respondents do not perceive that national practices incorporate costly or unnecessary
requirements into products or structures covered by the Directive.307
Box 6 – Balance of interests between SMEs and large firms: a focus on harmonised standards
SMEs often lack sufficient resources to be equally represented in the formulation/revision of harmonised
standards, while major market players have dedicated lobbying departments.308 As also recognised by
literature, many large firms “are actively involved in standards development processes. They are involved
306
Two large firms out of 20 do not find that the costs and benefits of the Directive are balanced. The rest of
stakeholders are aligned with this view, with 25 out of 30 declaring that the costs and benefits of the Directive are either
balanced or that benefits outweigh costs. The remaining five declare the costs and benefits are either not balanced or
costs outweigh benefits.
307
N=33 out of 45.
308
A small-medium Spanish installer, an EU representative from SMEs and an Italian industry association.
75
in discussions at policy level and have a clear view of relevant developments, and of the dates for the
introduction of new requirements or changes to relevant technical standards”.309 The need to provide
financial support for a more inclusive standardisation process has indeed be recognised by the European
Parliament itself, in its resolution on the future of European standardisation.310 As a consequence, SBS was
established with the support of the EC to represent SMEs’ interests in standardisation, directly participating
to the ESO’s standardisation process.311 The low SMEs’ involvement in standardisation is even more serious
in the lift sector for a number of reasons.
Firstly, in light of high testing costs, SMEs are not likely to have the financial power to use technical
solutions alternative to harmonised standards, which they are then in a certain way “forced” to use.
Secondly, larger enterprises seem to have benefited more than SMEs from the introduction of the
Directive. One of the benefits due to the Directive and recognised by large enterprises is the international
recognition of ENs. SMEs do not benefit by the use of ENs as much as large enterprises, since they are not
as much export-oriented towards third countries. For this reason, the evaluation cannot conclude that the
Directive has managed the creation of a level-playing field. Finally, SMEs have a prominent role in the lift
market, inasmuch as they employ around 40% of the total workforce in the sector and are more rooted
within local communities than large multinational companies.
This framework suggests that more attention should be paid to ensuring that all relevant stakeholders
benefit equally from EU legislation.
6.4.Coherence
6.4.1. External coherence
EQ19. Are there overlaps/complementarities between the Lifts Directive and any pieces of EU legislation
or Member State legislation in the relevant areas (in particular Cableways and Machinery
Directives)? To what extent are they coherent? Are there additional requirements at EU and
national level with regard to certain products? Are there contradictions?
In the context of the study, the external coherence of the Directive with the EU legislation
relevant for lifts has been assessed against the Machinery Directive, the Cableways Directive,312
and the Construction Regulation.313
Overall, no major issues of overlaps or inconsistencies have emerged from neither desk
nor field research. On the contrary, a number of complementarities exist, and they
cause no duplication of costs.314
As the scope of the Directive has been clarified through its amendment in 2006 (see section
2.4.1), no overlaps or inconsistencies between the Lifts and the Machinery Directive
exist, but only strong interrelations, as mentioned by most respondents.315 As presented in
section 2.2.2, hazards related to lifts that are not covered by the Directive are covered by the
EHSRs of the Machinery Directive. Applicable EHSRs are also described in the NB-L’s RfU,
together with the reasons for their applicability to lifts. This contributes to making economic
operators aware of the relation between the EHSRs defined in the Lifts and those defined in the
Machinery Directive.
In the context of general coherence of the Lifts with the Machinery Directive, some specific
issues have been raised by stakeholders and are presented below for the sake of completeness.
309
CESS and Panteia (2014), Evaluation of the Internal Market Legislation for Industrial Products, Final report, p.75.
310
European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2010 on the future of European standardisation (2010/2051(INI)).
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2010-0384
311
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/access-to-markets/standardisation_en
312
The new Regulation on Cableways (Regulation (EU) 2016/424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9
March 2016 on cableway installations and repealing Directive 2000/9/EC) is already in force and will become fully
applicable on 21 April 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/mechanical-engineering/cableways_en
313
Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down
harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC Text with
EEA relevance. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0305&from=EN
314
According to 88% (n=63 out of 72) of respondents to the survey.
315
N=13 out of 19 responding to the related question.
76
However, they do not question the overall coherence of the Directive, as they have been
highlighted by very few stakeholders or are not backed up by further evidence. Few
stakeholders316 claim that some “light”317 lift solutions for people with disabilities should fall in
the Machinery Directive’s scope, despite their speed making them subject to the Lifts Directive.
In this way, manufacturers producing the same application with different vertical speeds would
no more be obliged to issue different type-certificates and EC DoC depending on the applicable
legislation. Other stakeholders claim that platform lifts for people with disabilities,318
homelifts,319 and appliances in high-rise buildings320 should fall in the scope of Lifts, rather than
of the Machinery Directive, for both safety and economic reasons. As stated in the context of a
LWG meeting, the fact that “too many lifts are being placed on the market under the Machinery
Directive” causes a reduction of installers’ costs but also a decrease in safety levels,321 as
compliance costs under the different legal frameworks are strictly related to the more or less
stringent applicable EHSRs.
Also with reference to the coherence of the Lifts with the Cableways Directive, no overlaps
or inconsistencies emerged as their scopes are mutually exclusive. The Directive’s article
1(2) states in point 3 that it “shall not apply to cableways, including funicular railways”, while
article 6 of the Cableways Directive states that it “shall not apply to lifts within the meaning of
Directive 95/16/EC”. Nonetheless, some stakeholders claim the interface between the Lifts and
the Cableways Directive is not clear.322 For instance, a Swedish MSA states there is no clear
distinction between “inclined lifts” subject to the Directive and “funiculars” subject to the
Cableways Directive. A similar point was raised in a 2010 LWG meeting, where a Member State
representative noticed that some questions concerning the borderline between the Cableways
and the Directive were brought up at the Standing Committee for the Cableways Directive
(CABL-SC). The conclusion of the CABL-SC was that, in case of doubts, it is the responsibility of
the manufacturer to identify the applicable legislation. However it was also said that the “Guide
to the application of Directive 95/16/EC” could further clarify the borderline between these two
Directives, as agreed also by three other Member State representatives.
A few, isolated stakeholders propose merging the Lifts, Machinery and Cableways Directives to
solve the abovementioned issues,323 since the relevant competent authorities of Member States
as well as economic operators spend a lot of time and resources deciding which directive is
applicable between the Lifts, Machinery and Cableways. In this context, the usefulness of a
specific directive on cableways has been questioned, since most Member States do not have
cableways, or have too few of them for a directive to have any impact. According to them, a
merge could positively impact stakeholders’ costs and time, also providing for additional
flexibility. Nonetheless, the need for a merge is not supported by any additional evidence.
Rather a merge would lead to a loss of specificity324 and question the Directive’s relevance,
which is instead widely recognised by stakeholders.
316
An EU industry association and a large Belgian installer.
317
i.e. lifts faster than 0.15 m/sec but slower than 0.60 m/sec.
318
An English MSA and a consumer association.
319
A large Spanish installer.
320
EC, Minutes of the meetings of the working group of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC from 2002 onwards.
321
Ibid.
322
A large English NB, the German and Swedish MSAs, two implementing authorities.
323
Three implementing authorities. An implementing authority in the context of the LWG meeting workshop.
324
As stated by an implementing authority in the context of the LWG workshop, the Directive is praised to have EHSRs
specifically targeted at lifts and similarly does the Cableways Directive, which would be lost in a single Directive.
Moreover, a representative from CEN TC10 observed that the right approach would be to use “risk” as a basis to decide
which directive should cover which product, instead of using only one parameter such as speed.
77
Also as for Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 on construction -which repealed Directive

89/106/EEC,325 no issues of inconsistencies with the Directive were found. Moreover, any
reference to the Construction Regulation has been removed from the new Directive.
The relation between the two areas of legislation, which is necessary, considering that a lift
installation has an interface with the building or construction where it is installed, is solved
under the Directive’s Article 2(2) that introduces a two-way flow of information between the lift
installer and the person responsible for the work on the building or construction.
In general terms, there is neither influence nor impact of national building/construction
regulations on the implementation of the Directive, as also stated by 62% of respondents to the
survey.326 National legislation for buildings and constructions is usually in line with the
Directive,327 i.e. buildings have to fulfil certain requirements so that lifts installed therein can
comply with the Directive. As reported in Annex 8.6, except for Denmark328 there are no
provisions included in Member States’ national building regulations related to requirements of
Article 2(2). As to its implementation, as reported in Box 4, the UK requires the appointment of
a specific duty holder known as the “CDM Co-ordinator” in the context of large construction
projects, who is responsible for coordinating design work and the planning of construction work.
The cases where the building and construction regulations influence the application of the
Directive329 refer to lift accessibility for disabled persons and the use in the event of fire (lifts
with fire recall, evacuation lifts, and fire-fighting lifts).330 In these cases, national regulations
provide for additional requirements.331 As discussed, according to 71% of survey respondents,
the majority of Member States have set up additional provisions to regulate lift accessibility for
disabled persons,332 given that the Directive provides very general requirements for lifts
accessibility to disabled persons. Once again, these provisions have been usually integrated in
the national building regulations and do not have any impacts on the implementation of the
Directive.333
6.4.2. Internal coherence
EQ20. Are the requirements for installers and manufacturers clear? Are there overlapping rules?
The internal coherence of the Directive has been assessed by looking specifically at
requirements for lift installers and safety component manufacturers. No overlapping rule has
been identified and, as already discussed, the definition of “safety component manufacturer”
and “lift installer” are overall clear, with clearly identified responsibilities. In addition, the new
Directive further contributed to clarify the requirements for all stakeholders concerned thanks to
the alignment with the NLF.
However, some issues emerged from the study. The lack of definition for “lift
manufacturer” could have an impact on the clarity of requirements for lift installers, inasmuch
as the definition of “lift installer” entails all responsibilities related to the design, manufacture,
and installation and placing on the market of the lift. In reality, different economic operators are
325
Article 14 and Annex I state that "with regard to the aspects concerning the installation of the lift, this Directive is a
Directive within the meaning of Article 2(3) of Directive 89/106/EEC" and that "the essential requirements laid down in
Directive 89/106/EEC, not included in this Directive, apply to lifts”.
326
N=39 out 63 answering this question.
327
Two NBs, an English industry association, a large Finnish installer, the Danish, the Slovakian and Dutch MSAs and an
328
In any case, the Danish Building Regulation does not set additional requirements if compared with the Directive.
329
Four NBs (2 FR, BE, FI), a large German safety component manufacturer, a large Belgian installer and Finnish MSA.
330
331
In Germany, for instance, national requirements of fire-fighting lifts prescribe the landing doors to be equipped with
windows.
332
N=65 out of 91. 19 EU MS plus Norway, Switzerland and Turkey are covered, with the exception of HU, LT, LV, RO
and SI. Moreover, no data are available for BG, EL, HR and PT.
333
A small-medium Czech NB, the Slovakian and German MSA, an implementing authority.
78
liable for the design and manufacture on the one hand and installation and placing on the
market on the other. This makes it impossible to clearly separate the responsibilities of the two
operators, focus on how the handover of the lift is done between the two phases, and the range
of action of MSAs.
With particular regard to responsibilities deriving from the obligation to ensure
communication with the building constructor (as per Article 2(2)), according to two
stakeholders, the lack of precise requirements in the Directive makes installers’ contractual
power with respect to building constructors very weak.334 Nonetheless, as discussed in section
6.2.1, this does not seem to cause implementation problems, this opinion being isolated and not
backed up by further evidence.
6.5.EU Added value
EQ21. What is the additional value resulting from the Lifts Directive, compared to what could be achieved
at national level?
EQ22. What is the added value of the Lifts Directive for stakeholders?
As part of the Union harmonisation legislation, the Directive aligned the former national
legislation relating to the lift sector. Even though a baseline scenario on national legislation
in force before the full applicability of the Directive could not be reconstructed, a number of
factors allow to conclude that the Directive did bring additional value compared to what would
have been achieved at national level. For instance, the existence of implementation
discrepancies across Member States relating to areas where the Directive does not provide
sufficient guidance has been pointed out throughout the study as negatively affecting the
relevance and effectiveness of the Directive.335
Moreover, 94% of respondents to the survey recognise the EU Added Value of the Directive,336
especially in terms of enhanced free circulation of lifts and safety components and of their
increased safety.337 The recognition of the added value brought by the Directive is even higher
when considering opinions expressed by stakeholders from new Member States, as discussed in
Annex 8.4.
Besides stakeholder’ opinions, the EU Added Value of the Directive in terms of enhanced free
movement of lifts and safety components is confirmed by the increasing relevance of intra-
EU trade since 1995, which suggests an improvement in the conditions for placing lifts and
safety components on the market due to the introduction of the Directive. Harmonised
standards and EHSRs have been important in this sense, as recognised in particular by Member
States that accessed the EU after the entry into force of the Directive and for which data are
available.338
EHSRs and harmonised standards not only created better conditions for placing on the market
products in scope of the Directive, but also allowed internationalisation and innovation in the
sector. As discussed, the introduction of a standard regulatory framework across Europe in the
lift market has supported large companies to implement a stronger internationalisation
strategy in other EU Member States. In addition, the CE marking –to be affixed after the
conformity assessment is completed and demonstrating compliance with all applicable EHSRs -
represents a standard of quality in the lift industry also beyond EU borders.
The introduction of the Directive and the New Approach has allowed for – or at least not
hindered - innovation thanks to the flexibility of its EHSRs, which define the risks to be
334
An EU SME representative and a Maltese industry association.
335
In the case of accessibility to disabled persons or of prior approval, as discussed in sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2.
336
N=89 out of 95.
337
Respectively, 96% (n=105 out of 109) and 94% (n=103 out of 109) of respondents to the survey.
338
CY, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK. For the purposes of this analysis we also considered Turkey. Overall, 22
answers were received from these MS, and two additional from Turkey. See Annex 8.4.
79
addressed allowing economic operators to choose the technical solutions. As stated by a

representative from German NBs, “the so called New Approach, updated by the NLF, is an
extremely user- and innovation-friendly regulation instrument”. According to 94% of survey
respondents, the Directive allowed European firms’ propensity to innovate339 and it
increased the European lift sector competitiveness with respect to global competitors
according to 84% of respondents.340 The trend in the number of patents granted in the
sector since 1995 and in the years immediately after the entry into force of the Directive up to
2004 (Figure 8) confirm this. The internal market legislation has, in the case of the lift industry,
indeed acted as a “catalyst for promoting innovation”.341 First of all, there has been a positive
impact on innovation, since the economies of scale generated by product standardisation
allowed new investments in R&D. For example, as stated in a study carried out in 2014, the
consolidation of the lift industry across Europe is acknowledged as having enabled the
development of more extensive R&D centres, since such costs are spread across a larger
number of units sold.342 Second, new demand for certain products has been created by EHSRs
over the years. This was the case for instance of the Directive’s EHSR 4.5343 relating to the
incorporation of “two-way means of communication” in new lift units, which were reported to
have boosted the demand for emergency telephone systems.344
The Directive is an example of legislation which not only had positive effects on the market but
also on people’s safety. The Directive indeed contributed to harmonise EHSRs for lifts thus
ensuring a minimum baseline of lift safety across Europe. Moreover, although available
data do not allow for a thorough assessment, it seems to have also increased lift safety with
respect to the previous situation, inasmuch as lift-related accidents involving maintenance
personnel has been declining since 2008 (see Figure 19).
The EU added value of the Directive is further confirmed since, through harmonising
EHSRs for lifts and obligations for the relevant stakeholders, it overall reduced the
costs for complying with the legislation, if compared to the previous regulatory framework.
As reported by a large company, all lifts had to be submitted to an additional unit verification
performed by a national authority before the Directive entered into force. Moreover, although
the Directive specifies several obligations for MSAs, NBs and economic operators, a comparison
with the previous legislative framework displays a reduction in the duties that are directly
attributable to the Directive. Overall, the compliance costs related to the Directive are estimated
to be around half in comparison to the situation existing prior to its entry into force, although
large enterprises seem to have benefited more than SMEs from this cost reduction.
Despite the positive effects overall brought by the Directive as emerged in the analysis related
to relevance, few safety issues not currently –or not adequately- covered by the EHSRs
exist, specifically related to provisions for lift accessibility to disabled persons and to the risk of
crushing. As mentioned above, in light of the Directive’s lack of specificity, Member States have
differently implemented these provisions, in some cases providing for additional requirements.
Similarly, although regulated and the national level as outside the scope of the Directive,
stakeholders claim for further harmonisation of modernisation and maintenance practices. These
discrepancies – and related stakeholders’ complaints - possibly call for the need of an increased
EU intervention in the field.
339
N=79 out of 84 of survey respondents. This being confirmed also by interview with an Italian industry association for
SMEs with a representative from CEN TC10, with a MS implementing authority.
340
N=58 out of 69 of survey respondents.
341
342
Ibid, p. 105.
343
Stating that “Cars must be fitted with two-way means of communication allowing permanent contact with a rescue
service”.
344
CESS and Panteia (2014), p.105.
80
In addition, the EU added value of some mechanisms/tools for cooperation related to

the Directive could be enhanced. For instance, market surveillance drawbacks highlight that
the existing cooperation and coordination mechanisms, such as AdCO, could be more effectively
exploited. Similarly, although ICSMS is recognised as a good tool to ensure cooperation between
MSAs across the EU and disseminate information regarding potentially unsafe products, it is
neither user-friendly nor custom-made for lifts, and experienced burdensome.
81
7. CONCLUSIONS345
7.1.Relevance
The Directive’s objectives of improving the health and safety of lift users and
maintenance personnel and of ensuring an effectively operating internal market for
safety components and lifts are still relevant in light of the importance of intra-EU28 trade
and the persistency of lift-related accidents. The Directive is still needed as it sets common
requirements for all economic operators active in the sector across Europe, providing that all
lifts placed on the EU market comply with its EHSRs. This has a twofold effect: to reduce trade
barriers that would stem from different regulatory systems at national level and to harmonise
the EHSRs for lifts, thus aligning lift safety levels across Europe. In addition, being compliant
with the New Approach, EHSRs can be achieved through flexible means so as to allow
manufacturers/installers to choose the best technical solution to conform with them, thus also
not hindering innovation. Moreover, the Directive demonstrated to be able to align to
technological developments occurred in the lift sector and to take into account risks
related thereto.
However, the study identified some issues related to the interpretation of EHSRs that
partly question the Directive’s relevance. EHSR 2.2 on the risk of crushing raises a number
of concerns. Firstly, this provision is considered as not aligned with the New Approach, as it
defines the means (i.e. free space) to prevent the risk of crushing. Secondly, the “prior
approval” allowing Member States to derogate having free/refuge in “existing buildings” is
frequently applied also in case of new buildings. In this regard, and particularly with respect to
new technological developments, MRL lifts foresee the use of “other appropriate means” to
provide refuge space a priori. The increasing use of this technology increases the safety
concerns related to the risk of crushing in combination of the "prior approval" foreseen in EHSR
2.2.
The EHSRs to ensure lift accessibility to disabled persons are quite general, and not specific
enough to address the needs of disabled persons. However, in line with the New Approach, the
issue could be dealt with in standards.
Finally, although the Directive is perceived as overall clear by stakeholders, some issues
exist in relation to its key definitions and to its field of application. In particular, the lack
of a definition for “lift manufacturer” is not compatible with current practises adopted by
economic operators in the lift supply chain. Similarly, the “putting into service” of a lift is not
defined, or the applicability of the Directive to this phase of a lift lifecycle is not clear, also in
light of the inconsistencies identified with the interpretation provided in the Blue Guide. These
issues could be clarified by guidance. On the same line, stakeholders request for lift modification
and modernisation practices to be harmonised, although out of scope of the Union
harmonisation legislation unless the extent of the modification is such that the lift is considered
to be placed on the market as a new lift. Finally, the approach of the Directive providing a
closed list of safety components, although adequate, still leaves room for interpretation, so that
a number of stakeholders suggested Annex IV of Directive 95/16/EC to be enlarged to include
items that are actually already covered by the Directive. The new Lifts Directive has clarified this
issue.
345
Although this evaluation covers the 28 EU Member States (plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and
Turkey), it is to be noted that the Directive was adopted in 1995 and not all of these countries have applied it since this
reference year. Consequently, some of the trends discovered and described do not necessarily reflect the developments
in all of the countries in the scope over the entire period of application of the Directive (i.e. from 1995 to 2016).
82
7.2.Effectiveness
The Directive has been uniformly transposed across EU Member States, and there is no
evidence of any transposition difficulties. As for its implementation, the analysis identified
some discrepancies across Member States. A number of them (i.e. those related to the EC
type-examination certificate, the EC DoC content, NBs’ notification procedures) have been –at
least potentially- addressed in the new Directive. Discrepancies in the implementation of the
two-way communication flow between the lift installer and the building constructor do not cause
any concerns. However, there remain implementation differences related to provisions for lift
accessibility and the prior approval that deserve attention.
The development and use of harmonised standards has been key to ensure the
effectiveness of the Directive. The supportive role of harmonised standards to the application
of the Directive is confirmed as they are largely used as the main (if not the only) reference for
ensuring compliance therewith. They are indeed the “easiest and safest way” to comply with the
EHSRs, since, via the presumption of conformity mechanism, they allow avoiding the excessive
costs for testing solutions alternative to standards. As a consequence, however, harmonised
standards are perceived as de facto binding, particularly by SMEs. In addition, harmonised
standards have been frequently updated -in cooperation with industry representatives- to take
into account the latest technological developments, and they adequately cover all Directive’s
EHSRs. Despite this, harmonised standards are not always necessarily able to cope with the
speed of technological progress, as stakeholders deem the CEN’s procedure to develop
standards to be lengthy.
The conformity assessment procedures caused no major implementation problem and
resulted to be one of the main strengths of the Directive. The possibility for installers and
manufacturers to choose among different conformity assessments fully matches the needs of
operators to achieve compliance, consistently with national market features, competences (and
resources) available within the firm, and product and installation location. Despite being
reported as the major compliance cost stemming from the Directive, conformity assessment
procedures are deemed effective and adequate for both the design and the
production/installation phase to ensure that the products placed on the market are safe.
Confirming this, the application of the Directive raised fewer problems than most other
New Approach directives thanks to the conformity assessment procedures, which
require all lifts to be assessed by NBs before being placed on the market, this possibly
explaining the low extent of product non-compliance.
Market surveillance activities related to lifts sector are not harmonised across the EU
in terms of strategies, extent of monitoring activities, frequency and types of checks, and level
of penalties, this negatively impacting the overall effectiveness of enforcement activities in the
sector. For instance, surveillance activities performed in the lift sector were much lower than
those performed in the machinery sector in 2013. Moreover, the extent of surveillance
activities seems insufficient, as not related to the size of the market. Despite the low
level of surveillance, non-conformity in the lift sector is lower if compared to the
machinery sector, although the number of findings of non-compliance increase
proportionally to the number of inspections.
With regard to its strategic objectives, the Directive effectively contributed to the
achievement of a well-functioning internal market for lifts and safety components,
through the harmonisation of the relevant national legislation. Looking at the positive market
trends in the lift industry, slowed down only by the economic and financial crisis, it seems likely
to conclude on the effectiveness of the measure in easing –or better regulating- a booming
market. In particular, production and intra-EU trade were increasing steadily from 1995 until the
economic crisis, and the latest trends show they are now recovering. The Directive’s
effectiveness is further enhanced in that it grants legal certainty and transparency across
companies operating in the EU lift sector.
83
Overall, the Directive seems to have been effective also in improving the safety of lifts,
first of all by setting a common “baseline” in all EU Member States by means of EHSRs, which
are reflected by widely used and frequently updated harmonised standards. Moreover, the
conformity assessment procedures ensure that all lifts are subject to the final check of NBs,
which further ensures compliance with the Directive. The overall effectiveness of the Directive in
achieving its safety objective is confirmed also by the analysis of lift-related accidents. Despite
the existing data limitations, it can be inferred that the Directive managed to increase lift safety
by looking at the declining number of accidents involving maintenance personnel per number of
installed lifts. Nonetheless, the issues raised relating to implementation of EHSR 2.2
could potentially reduce lift safety.
As to the barriers to effective application and enforcement of the Directive, they are
mainly external, i.e. not related to the Directive’s provisions. The first external barrier
to effective enforcement is the lack of MSAs’ financial and human resources. These
lacks have negative consequences related to difficulties in having skilled inspectors, the low
number of controls in the sector and the lack of coordination and cooperation of MSAs on the
field. The second external barrier consists of differences in the implementation of
market surveillance activities across Member States. In principle, the Lift AdCO Group
should ensure harmonised cooperation and coordination on market surveillance in the lift sector
at European level. However, the low availability of MSAs’ resources as well as national
specificities make MSAs’ participation to AdCO not really effective, further hindering
harmonisation practices. Provided that enforcement has to be uniform to be effective, there are
concerns on how the current heterogeneity can result in effective surveillance activities. A third
barrier to enforcement seems to be that MSAs do not know when and where a new lift
is placed on the market. Finally, a minor barrier directly related to the Directive
concerns the rules on penalties. Although these have been introduced in the new Directive,
the previous situation resulted in differences in the set up and use of sanctions at national level,
further causing differences in the deterrent power.
To conclude on the overall effectiveness of the Directive, the key role of NBs has to be
highlighted. As already discussed, NBs are ultimately responsible for surveying that lift
installers and safety component manufacturers duly fulfilled their obligations, since they perform
a final check on every lift installed. NB-L also plays an important role in ensuring a common
approach for all NBs in Europe, a role that has even been strengthened by the new Directive.
Moreover, there are official channels of communication between NBs and MSAs to find solutions
to practical implementation problems, this positively influencing the Directive application. The
clarity of the guidance documents to the Directive might also have positively influenced its
application, although they are not as effective as they could.
On the contrary, the existing mechanisms to ensure good cooperation, coordination and
exchange of information specifically on market surveillance are not at their full
potential. For instance, ICSMS seems not particularly relevant to lifts, due to the low level
of market surveillance in the sector, linked to the low level of detected non-compliance, it is not
user-friendly nor custom-made for lifts, and experienced burdensome.
7.3.Efficiency346
Based on the available data, there is no evidence that compliance costs due to the
Directive have increased in comparison to the period prior to its entry into force.
MSAs’ enforcement costs were already foreseen in the previous legislative framework. Thus,
the quantified costs of inspections are not to be attributable to the Directive, since MSAs would
have incurred these costs anyway. On the contrary, a reduction of burden for MSAs
occurred. The New Approach indeed established the NBs, which are now in charge of
346
Percentages and averages in this section shall be interpreted as indicative, in light of the low number of observations.
84
conducting the conformity assessments that were among Member States’ responsibilities in the
previous regulatory framework, thus weighing on national budget.
As for NBs, training expenses seem to be the most burdensome among their compliance costs,
ranging between €500 (for micro NBs) and €12,000 (for medium and large NBs) and equal on
average to 0.34% of a NB’s annual turnover, a percentage that is decreasing with increasing
NB’s size (accounting on average for 0.9% of three micro NBs’ annual turnover, for 0.55% of
three small NBs, for 0.12% of eight medium NBs and for 0.03% of two large NBs). The purchase
of harmonised standards appears also as a relevant cost for NBs, especially for smaller ones.
While larger NBs prefer to pay an annual fee to a service provider of updated standards, smaller
NBs usually buy singular updates. The total annual expenditure on harmonised standards is on
average €2,000 for small NBs (n=3), €20,000 for medium (n=1) and €10,700 for large NBs
(n=9). The average ratio between this cost and the annual turnover is equal to 0.1% of annual
turnover of three small NBs, to 0.07% for one medium NB and to 0.01% for nine large NBs.
Economic operators’ compliance costs seem to be largely due to conformity assessment
procedures, which are the most burdensome provisions of the Directive. Before the Directive
entered into force, conformity assessment procedures were a variable cost proportional to
production volumes for all companies, irrespectively of their size. The introduction of the “full
quality assurance” through the Directive has reduced the marginal compliance cost for large
companies, by transforming a variable cost (i.e. the EEC type-examination) into a fixed cost (to
acquire the “full quality assurance” certification) that allows for economies of scale, as
companies can now spread this cost on a larger number of produced lifts. Other components of
compliance costs seem due to the purchase of harmonised standards, ranging between €50 and
€250 for each standard (accounting on average for 0.017% of a company’s annual turnover)
and to training expenses for technical personnel (accounting on average for 0.08% of three
SMEs’ annual turnover and for 0.12% of two large firms’ annual turnover). The current
compliance cost for economic operators is estimated to be around half in comparison
to the situation existing before the entry into force of the Directive. Based on the
available data, the overall burden of compliance costs seems to vary considerably from one
economic operator to another, depending on (but not only): (i) the size of the company; (ii) the
business structure; (iii) the preferred conformity assessment procedures. Overall, compliance
costs seem to account for around 0% of four large firms’ annual turnover and for around 0.74%
of three SMEs’. The administrative burden related to the drafting of the EC DoC and to affixing
the CE marking seem not particularly burdensome for economic operators. Moreover, these
requirements were already foreseen in the previous legislative framework, therefore the related
costs were not considered for the purpose of this study.
The Directive brought about significant administrative simplification compared to the previous
regulatory framework. Overall, the study identified no major need for additional
simplification, with the exception of isolated requests raised by a negligible number of
stakeholders.
The Directive also brought a number of benefits, although they could only be qualitatively
estimated.
Economic operators benefited from legislation harmonisation across the EU, which brought a
harmonised level-playing field and administrative simplification. The impact of administrative
simplification differs depending on the company size. SMEs, being less export-oriented than
large enterprises, did not benefit (or benefited considerably less) from any
administrative simplification. In addition, if previously they had to comply with their national
legislation only, they now incur more frequent expenses for purchasing harmonised standards,
due to both the number and frequency of their updates. Moreover, the implementation of a
standard regulatory framework in the lift sector across Europe has supported companies to
implement a stronger internationalisation strategy particularly in other EU Member States.
Related to this, exporting companies benefit from lower transaction costs and standardised
production safety level. In addition, the CE marking is a standard of quality in the industry
85
recognised also beyond the EU borders. However, also in this case, the incidence of export
revenues is higher for larger companies in comparison to SMEs, suggesting once again that
larger companies are benefiting more than SMEs from a more homogenous market.
With regard to consumers/users, the number of accidents involving maintenance personnel is
decreasing, this possibly indicating an improvement in lift safety levels. An increase in benefits
for disabled persons can be also inferred, as the previous regulatory framework did not
foresee any provisions targeting their needs. The Directive instead added specific provisions
related e.g. to the dimension of the lift car and the position of lift controls.
7.4.Coherence
With regard to the external coherence of the Directive, there is no evidence of
inconsistencies between the Directive and other EU legislation relevant for lifts, with
particular regard to the Machinery and the Cableways Directive and the EU Regulation on
construction. On the contrary, a number of complementarities exist that, while not causing any
duplications of costs, are not always clear.
There is strong complementarity between the Lifts and the Machinery Directive, as their scope
is mutually exclusive, and all hazards that are not covered by the Directive are dealt with by the
EHSRs of the Machinery Directive. Minor issues have emerged related to the interface between
these Directives, particularly in the case of “light” lift solutions.
No overlaps or inconsistencies exist between the Lifts and the Cableways Directive, as, also in
this case, their scopes are mutually exclusive. Isolated claims have been raised asking to clarify
the interface between these two Directives, particularly in the case of “inclined lifts” subject to
the Directive and “funiculars” subject to the Cableways Directive.
As for the Construction Regulation, no major issues of inconsistencies with the Directive were
found. The practical relationship between the two pieces of legislation is regulated by Article
2(2) of the Directive, introducing a two-way flow of information between the lift installer and the
person responsible for the work on the building or construction.
Overall, there is neither influence nor impact of national building/ construction regulations
on the implementation of the Directive, as the former is usually in line with the latter. Finally,
the circular reference in the Directive to the Construction Regulation and vice versa has been
repealed by the new Directive.
As for the Directive’s internal coherence, requirements for lift installers and safety component
manufacturers can be considered as generally clear and no overlapping rule has been identified.
However, the lack of definition for “lift manufacturer” causes some uncertainties in the
attribution of responsibilities due to current business practises, particularly in the context of
market surveillance.
7.5.EU Added value
Stakeholders almost univocally recognised the EU Added Value of the Directive in
terms of enhanced free circulation of lifts and safety components and of their increased safety.
The enhancement of the free movement is confirmed by the increasing relevance of intra-EU28
trade since 1995. This relates to the positive role of EHSRs, which not only created better
conditions for the placing of lift-related products on the market, but also allowed the
internationalisation and innovation in the sector. The Directive seems to have also
increased lift safety with respect to the previous situation inasmuch as lift-related
accidents involving maintenance personnel are declining since 2008. As of yet, no conclusive
evidence is available. The EU added value of the Directive is further confirmed by the reduced
costs for complying with the legislation thanks to the harmonisation of EHSRs and
obligations for the relevant stakeholders.
Despite these positive effects, the study also identified some issues. Firstly, provisions for lift
accessibility to disabled persons, and provisions related to means to avoid the risk of crushing
86
(and modernisation and maintenance practices) may indeed call for increased EU intervention,
since Member States have differently implemented them. Secondly, in light of the drawbacks
identified in market surveillance implementation, the use of some cooperation tools like AdCO
and ICSMS could be increased.
87
8. ANNEXES
8.1.List of findings
N. Finding
1. The number of enterprises in the lift sector experienced an average decrease rate since 2008
2. The largest number of patent applications in the lift sector was registered in the aggregate of
EU28, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Turkey until 2007, when China took first place
3. Intra-EU trade in the lift sector is impressive if compared to trade with third countries
4. EHSRs are sufficiently flexible to allow new technologies that offer the same (or better) level of
safety as that provided by harmonised standards available at certain moment of time
5. The Directive increased firms’ propensity to innovate thanks to the flexibility of its EHSRs
6. Existing areas of concern not covered by the EHSRs relate to issues brought by technological
developments (linked with the provision of permanent free space) as well as to drawbacks of
the relevant EHSRs
7. Issues related to “prior approval”
8. Issues related with the definition of “installer of a lift”
9. Issues related with the definition of “placing on the market”
10. Issues related with the definition of “model lift”
11. Issues related with the definition of “safety component”
12. Maintenance and modernisation are regulated differently at national level, as they are not
covered by the Directive. Nonetheless this creates concerns
13. The Directive is overall clear but room for improvement exists
14. Directive’s transposition has been overall uniform across MS, with some exceptions related to
the prior approval and provisions for lift accessibility
15. The Directive’s implementation suffers some discrepancies across MS, although these are not
perceived as an obstacle to free movement and safety by stakeholders
16. There are no national practices incorporating additional, costly or unnecessary requirements
into products or structures relevant for Directive
17. The majority of MSs has set up specific provisions for granting accessibility to persons with
disabilities
18. The accreditation process of NBs is different across the EU, although this situation will improve
through the alignment to the NLF
19. Conformity assessment procedures effectively contributed to the application of the Directive
20. Lift non-compliance is low
21. NBs play an important role in ensuring the effective application of the Directive as they act as
“ultimate controllers”
22. ENs effectively contributed to the application of the Directive
23. ENs are considered, in practice, as binding, as they are the “easiest and safest” way to comply
with the Directive’s EHSRs, due to high costs of testing alternative solutions
24. The time for developing ENs is sometimes excessive
25. MSAs lack (skilled) human and financial resources
26. There is lack of uniform approach (in terms of strategies, methods and penalties) to market
surveillance in the lift sector
27. Issues related to instruction and maintenance manual (EHSR 6.2)
88
N. Finding
28. Accidents related to lifts on average concerned more maintenance personnel involved in lift
installation and maintenance than users, however, this trend is decreasing
29. Communication and collaboration among all stakeholders concerned with the Directive is
generally effective but some areas for improvement exist especially with regard to AdCO and
the use of tools such as ICSMS and RAPEX
30. On average, compliance costs entailed by the Directive were quite marginal
31. The administrative burden entailed by the Directive is not particularly relevant for lift installers
32. Enforcement and market monitoring obligations were already foreseen in Directive 84/528/EEC.
The Directive does not add further provisions on MSAs
33. The total burden of compliance activities with the Directive is considerably lower than the
compliance to the individual national regulation which existed before its implementation
34. Larger enterprises with cross-border trade benefit, in proportion, more than SMEs of a more
homogeneous regulatory environment
35. There exist no overlaps or contradictions between the Directive and other EU or international
legislation, rather complementarities
36. Interface between the Directive and other relevant legislation for lifts are not always clear
37. There is little influence of national building regulations on the implementation of the Directive
89
8.2.Cross-referencing evidence tables

The following cross-referencing table displays the interrelations between the EQs, the key findings and related evidence sources.
Evaluation question Key findings Evidence sources
THE EUROPEAN LIFT MARKET
EQ 1. How has the European lifts market evolved since the adoption of the Directive? What is the 1-3 Market analysis; Literature
current situation and trends in the lifts market?
RELEVANCE
EQ 2. To what extent did the initial objective of facilitating the functioning of internal market 3, 6, 7, 12, Stakeholder consultation; Market
correspond to needs/issues of all stakeholders and still do? 17 analysis; Legislative framework; TRIS
EQ 3. To what extent did the initial objective of ensuring a high level of safety of lifts correspond database
Case study 1, 2, and 3
to needs/issues of all stakeholders and still do?
Literature
EQ 4. How are innovation and new technologies taken into account? 2, 4-6 Stakeholder consultation; Case study
3; Market analysis; Literature
EQ 5. Is there an issue of clarity of the Directive? 7-13 Stakeholder consultation
EFFECTIVENESS
EQ 6. What are the discrepancies between MS in the process of the implementation of the Lifts 14-18 Analysis of the transposition
Directive? Stakeholder consultation
EQ 7. Have there been problems with the implementation of the Directive? Case study 1 and 2
EQ 8. How effective was the development and use of the European harmonised standards for the 22-24 Stakeholder consultation
Lifts Directive? Case study 3; Literature
EQ 9. To what extent has the conformity assessment procedure for lifts and safety components 19-21 Stakeholder consultation; Analysis of
for lifts been effective and provided highest degree of health and safety for consumers and users? the transposition; Literature
EQ 10. How effective are MSA in identifying non-compliant lifts and safety components for lifts? 14, 15, 20, Stakeholder consultation
21, 26 Case study 4; Literature
EQ 11. To what extent has the Lifts Directive contributed to an effectively operating internal 3, 7, 8, 13, Stakeholder consultation
market for the products in its scope? 15 Market analysis; Literature
EQ 12. To what extent does the Directive ensure legal certainty, transparency and non-
discrimination between companies?
EQ 13. To what extent has the Lifts Directive achieved its aims with regard to the protection of 6, 28 Stakeholder consultation; Legislative
health and safety of users and maintenance personnel? framework; Case study 2; Literature
EQ 14. What are the barriers to effective application and enforcement, in particular through 25, 26 Stakeholder consultation; Market
surveillance of lifts on the market? analysis; Case study 4; Literature
EQ 15. What are the factors that influence positively and negatively the effective application of 19, 21, 22, Stakeholder consultation; Legislative
the Directive? 29 framework
Literature
90
Evaluation question Key findings Evidence sources

EFFICIENCY
EQ 16. What are the regulatory (including administrative) costs for the different stakeholders? 30-33 Stakeholder consultation
EQ 17. What are the main benefits for stakeholders and civil society that derive from the 33-34 CBA; Market analysis
Directive? Case study 5
EQ 18. To what extent are the regulatory costs proportionate to the benefits achieved? How 28, 30-34
affordable are the costs for the stakeholders, given the benefits they receive? What does this
represent in terms of administrative and reporting burdens?
COHERENCE
EQ 19. Are there overlaps/complementarities between the Lifts Directive and any pieces of EU 35-37 Stakeholder consultation
legislation or Member State legislation in the relevant areas (in particular Cableways and Legislative Framework
Machinery Directives)? To what extent are they coherent? Are there additional requirements at EU Analysis of the transposition
and national level with regard to certain products? Are there contradictions? Literature
EQ 20. Are the requirements for installers and manufacturers clear? Are there overlapping rules? 13
ADDED VALUE
EQ 21. What is the additional value resulting from the Lifts Directive, compared to what could be 3, 5, 15, 34 Stakeholder consultation
achieved at national level? CBA; Market analysis
EQ 22. What is the added value of the Lifts Directive for stakeholders? Legislative Framework; Literature;
Case study 3
91
8.3.Evaluation grids
Horizontal issue The European lift market
Evaluation question EQ 1. How has the European lifts market evolved since the adoption of the Directive? What is the current situation and
trends in the lifts market?
Understanding the Assessing to what extent the EU lift market has evolved since the adoption of the Directive.
questions
Questions Judgement criteria Analytical approach Indicators and descriptors Primary sources Secondary sources
EQ 1.How has Market analysis, with a) Desk and field research  Trends of intra-EU trade of lifts and -  Minutes of the LWG;
the European a focus on to provide an analysis of safety components, in volume and
lifts market technological and market trends, with value, comparison before and after  Eurostat PRODCOM, SBS
evolved since scientific specific focus on trends in 1999 and R&D expenditure
the adoption developments. the lift market, at the EU databases;
 Changes in the global value chains  OPC: Q33, Q34
of the and global level (types of  UNCOMTRADE;
(relevance of subcontractors outside
Directive? lift, structure of the  TC: Q56  Amadeus database;
the EU, dependency on extra-EU
What is the market and size of the
subcontractors; need for extra-EU  Publications by EU
current producing companies,
economic operators to improve their industry associations,
situation and sales, production costs,
technology and safety standards due Trade Unions and
trends in the competitiveness, change in
to the Directive) consumer associations;
lifts market? the value chain);
 Balance between Exports/Imports of  EU policy and legislative
b) Focus on technological -
lifts and safety components documents (e.g. European
and scientific development
Disability strategy,
occurred  Comparison of competitiveness - COM(2010) 636 final;
indicators across the EU and major
trading partners  Other secondary sources.
Criterion Relevance
Evaluation questions EQ 2. To what extent did the initial objective of facilitating the functioning of internal market correspond to needs/issues of all
stakeholders and still do?
EQ 3. To what extent did the initial objective of ensuring a high level of safety of lifts correspond to needs/issues of all stakeholders
and still do?
EQ 4. How are innovation and new technologies taken into account?
EQ 5. Is there an issue of clarity of the Directive?
Understanding the Understanding to what extent is the strategic and operational approach defined in Directive 95/16/EC relevant to meet the existing
questions needs in the area of internal market and safety of lifts.
92
Questions Judgement criteria Analytical approach Indicators and descriptors Primary sources347 Secondary sources
EQ 2.To what The Directive is still a) Desk and field research to provide  Qualitative assessment  OPC: Q12, Q15  Minutes of the LWG;
extent did the needed to guarantee a an analysis of market trends, with of stakeholders’
initial objective of well-functioning of the specific focus on the trends in the lift perceptions on the  TC: Q29  Publications provided by
facilitating the internal market and to market and in the market of safety appropriateness of the  Interviews: Q1 EU industry associations,
functioning of the avoid trade barriers due components for lifts, at the EU and Directive to reach its Trade Unions and
internal market to diverging regulations global level (types of lifts, structure objectives consumer associations;
correspond to on lift safety. of the market and size of producing  EU policy and legislative
 Degree of alignment  OPC: Q15, Q25
needs/ issues of companies, sales, production costs); documents (e.g.
between stakeholders’
all stakeholders b) Correspondence matrix between  TC: Q16 European Disability
needs and the Directive’s
or still do? amendments to the Directive and the strategy, COM(2010)
objectives  Interviews: Q1
main developments occurred 636 final;
(alignments within the NLF – “goods  Number of products  OPC: Q24, Q25  Results of the first phase
package” approved in 2008; the and/or safety of the Standardisation
components currently  TC: Q12
recast of the Machinery Directive mandate M/420;
2006/42/EC). outside of the scope of  Interviews: Q2, Q3
 TRIS database;
the Directive, which
c) Alignment between the Lifts have high market  Documents related to
Directive and EU priorities in the field potential (in terms of the application of the
of accessibility and energy efficiency. sales, production Energy Efficiency
d) Evidence on any economic, social volume/value) Directive.
and environmental impacts induced
 Number of notifications -
by the Directive.
under the ex 98/34
e) Evidence on the tendency of MS to procedure and related
regulate the sector. EC comments
EQ 3.To what The scope of the a) Desk and field research to provide  Qualitative assessment  OPC: Q10  Minutes of the LWG;
extent did the Directive matches with an analysis of safety trends, with of stakeholders’  TC: Q11, Q12, Q16,
initial objective of the main issues arising specific focus on: perceptions on the Q29  Publications provided by
ensuring a high from the analysis of the appropriateness of the EU industry associations,
 Safety components included in  Interviews: Q2, Q4 Trade Unions and
level of safety of lifts market, the the scope of the Directive, as Directive to reach its
lifts correspond evidence available on objectives consumer associations;
compared to the evolution of the
to needs/issues safety issues, and the market and the products;  EU policy and legislative
of all stakeholders’ opinions.  Degree of alignment  OPC: Q15, Q25 documents (e.g.
stakeholders and  Existing and emerging risks at EU between stakeholders’ European Disability
and global level not covered by needs and the Directive’s  TC: Q11, Q14, Q15,
still do? strategy, COM(2010)
the Directive. objectives Q16, Q29
636 final;
b) Correspondence matrix between  Interviews: Q1, Q4,
amendments to the Directive and the  Results of the first phase
Q5, Q7
main developments occurred of the Standardisation
(alignments within the NLF – “goods  Evidence on accidents  OPC: Q32 mandate M/420;
package” – approved in 2008; the occurred since the  Documents related to
Directive entry into  TC: Q70b
347
This column reports the question (Q) number of each consultation tool (OPC = Open Public Consultation; TS = Targeted Survey; CBA = questions supporting the CBA; and
Interviews).
93
Questions Judgement criteria Analytical approach Indicators and descriptors Primary sources347 Secondary sources
recast of the Machinery Directive force, due to risks not  Interviews: Q15 the application of the
2006/42/EC). covered by the Lifts Energy Efficiency
c) Alignment between the Lifts Directive Directive).
Directive and EU priorities in the field  Stakeholders’  OPC: Q10
of accessibility and energy efficiency. perceptions on lift safety
 TC: Q11, Q12
d) Evidence on any social impact
induced by the Directive.  Interviews: Q4
EQ 4.How are The Directive follows up Desk and field research to provide an  Emerging safety issues,  OPC: Q10, Q23, Q25,  Minutes of LWG
innovation and on trends in safety and analysis of: related to technological Q26 meetings;
new technologies market, considering  Technological and social developments, not  TC: Q12, Q13
taken into technological covered by the Directive  Interviews: Q6  Eurostat, SBS, R&D
developments (e.g. population activities by sector;
account? developments and ageing, urbanisation trends) as reported in the survey
related potential safety occurred since the Directive’s  European Patent Office
 Number of revisions to  OPC: Q32, Q34
issues. adoption; database;
existing European safety  TC: Q17
 Trends in use in the EU: standards  CBA: Q10  CEN/TC 10, Business
typologies of lifts placed on the  Number of new  Interviews: Q16 plan and available
EU market; standards developed documents on the work
since 1999 carried out (work
 Market of high-tech safety programme).
components for lifts and
 Trends in patents -
integration of digital
registered in the lifts
technologies.
sector
 Number of patents that
could be linked to the
Directive provisions
(number of patents for
safety components –
period covered 1999 -
today)
EQ 5.Is there an The Directive is clear to Desk and field research to provide an  Stakeholders’ TC: Q8, Q10, Q23, Q25,  Minutes of LWG
issue of clarity of all stakeholders, its analysis of the clarity of the Directive misunderstanding/ Q34 meetings
the Directive? provisions are clear misinterpretations about
the Directive
 Clarity of the scope
 Clarity of requirements
94
Criterion Effectiveness
Evaluation questions EQ 6. Have there been problems with the implementation of the Directive?
EQ 7. What are the discrepancies between MS in the process of the implementation of the Lifts Directive?
EQ 8. How effective are Market Surveillance Authorities in identifying non-compliant lifts and safety components for lifts?
EQ 9. To what extent has the conformity assessment procedure for lifts and safety components for lifts been effective and provided
highest degree of health and safety for consumers and users?
EQ 10. How effective was the development and use of the European harmonised standards for the Lifts Directive?
EQ 11. To what extent has the Lifts Directive contributed to an effectively operating internal market for the products in its scope?
EQ 12. To what extent does the Directive ensure legal certainty, transparency and non-discrimination between companies?
EQ 13. To what extent has the Lifts Directive achieved its aims with regard to the protection of health and safety of users and
maintenance personnel?
EQ 14. What are the barriers to effective application and enforcement, in particular through surveillance of lifts on the market?
EQ 15. What are the factors that influence positively and negatively the effective application of the Directive?
Evaluating whether and to what extent have the set targets been achieved so far at both EU and MS level, by taking into account
Understanding the both the strategic objectives related to the functioning of the internal market and the safety of lifts.
questions The assessment of the overall achievements will be carried out by taking into account the different areas of intervention of the
Directive and the specific provisions contributing to the strategic objectives.
EQ 6.Have there No problem occurred Evidence on any problem Existence of any problem in the  OPC: Q16, Q18  Industry associations
been problems with in the implementation occurred in the implementation of the Directive  TC: Q2, Q8, Q10, Q22, reports;
the implementation of the Directive implementation of the Q33, Q34
of the Directive? Directive.  NB RfU;
 Interviews: Q9, Q10, Other secondary sources.
Q11
EQ 7.What are the Level of Desk and field research with Qualitative assessment of  OPC: Q12, Q17 Lifts case study in
discrepancies differentiation among specific focus on: existing MS differences in the Evaluation of Internal
between MS in the MS in the implementation of the Lifts  TC: Q20, Q24, Q26, Market Legislation for
 Mapping of differences Q28, Q32, Q45, Q46
process of the implementation of the among MS in the Directive Directive. Industrial Products, SWD
implementation of Directive, in particular implementation;  Interviews: Q12 (2014) 23 final;
the Lifts Directive? as regards Publications of EU industry
information  Identifying best practices.
associations;
obligations and
compliance Documents available in the
assessment. LWG on CIRCABC;
Other secondary sources.
95
EQ 8. How effective Assessment of the a) Analysis of the  % of non-compliant lifts and  TC: Q72  Minutes of LWG
are MSA in effectiveness of the implementation of the safety components recalled meetings;
identifying non- current mechanisms Directive, in terms of: from the market per MS, per
compliant lifts and for market EU/non-EU product (as % of  CIRCABC interest group
safety components surveillance in  Enforcement of the the lifts/safety components related to the Lifts
for lifts? ensuring that the legislation (e.g. rules for placed on the market in the Directive;
products placed on the implementation of same year)  MSA Reports (last
the market are Market surveillance, available: 2010-2013).
designated authorities,  Number of inspections carried  TC: Q69, Q70,
compliant to the
systems for control out by MSA (last year
safety standards.
established, frequency of available)
the controls);  Frequency of controls, per  TC: Q76
 Effectiveness in MS, per lifts and per safety
guaranteeing lift components for lifts
compliance and safety  MS differences in targeting
(number of accidents  TC: Q58, Q59, Q68
lifts and safety components
recorded, placement of for control
non-compliant lifts on the
market and differences  % of inspections that resulted  TC: Q77
among MS). in identification of non-
conformity of lift or safety
component
b) Analysis of the differences
among EU MS, and good  % of inspections that resulted  TC: Q78
practices (in MS or other in prohibiting lifts and safety
pieces of EU legislation) as components for lifts to be put
emerged from the field on the market or into service,
research. per MS, per product
 % of inspections where the  TC: Q79
conclusions are different from
the results provided by the
conformity assessment
procedures
EQ 9.To what Assessment of the Desk and field research to  % of conformity assessment  TC: Q42a  Other secondary
extent has the effectiveness of the provide an analysis procedures for lifts used by sources at EU and
conformity conformity focused on: NB per module national level (e.g. data
assessment assessment procedure  NB differences in the use provided by Notified
procedure for lifts in ensuring that the of conformity assessment  % of conformity assessment Bodies, European
TC: Q42c
and safety products placed on procedures; procedures for safety Standardisation
components for lifts the market are safe. components for lifts used by Organisations, etc.).
been effective and  Quality of work of NB;
NB per module
provided the  Trust and acceptance of
highest degree of certificates issued by NB  Frequency of using the EC TC: Q42d
health and safety by the market and type-examination procedures
for consumers and surveillance authorities; for lifts
users?  Use of procedures under  Frequency of using the EC  TC: Q42e
96
module H (full quality type-examination procedures
assurance); for safety components for lifts
Obstacles encountered when
 Number and type of  OPC: Q12
performing the conformity
difficulties experienced with
assessment.  TC: Q39, Q40, Q41
the acceptance of certificates
by MS authorities per MS and
type of procedure
EQ 10. How Coverage of the Mapping of hENs defined to  Revisions of hENs and  OPC: Q14  Publication of the
effective was the safety requirements cover safety requirements of reasons for revision (e.g. European and national
development and through European the Directive, processes and accidents, lack of clarity);  TC: Q17
standardisation
use of the European harmonised standards developments.  Interviews: Q16 organisations/bodies;
harmonised (hEN).
standards for the  EC notification system;
Uptake of hENs at  Formal objections to hENs -
Lifts Directive? international level,  Other secondary
 Proportion of hEN transposed  Interviews: Q19 sources.
and possible issues
or referred into ISO standards
recorded.
 Uptake of hENs in  Interviews: Q19
international markets (in
particular, China, Korea, USA)
 Possible cases of conflicting  Interviews: Q18, Q20,
standards for lifts and Q21
components at different level
of intervention (MS, EU,
international)
EQ 11. To what The Directive has a) Desk and field research to  % and number of conformity  TC: Q42b  Minutes of LWG
extent has the Lifts harmonised the provide an analysis of market assessment procedures used meetings;
Directive legislation. trends, with specific focus on: under module H (full quality
contributed to an assurance)  CIRCABC interest group
The internal market  Production and intra-EU related to the Lifts
effectively operating for lifts is well- flows (import-export) since
internal market for Directive;
functioning. the entry into force of the
the products in its Directive;  SOLVIT Annual reports
scope? (years available years);
 Potential obstacles to the
free movements of lifts;  MSA Reports (last
b) Correspondence matrix available: 2010-2013);
between the Directive and the  Other secondary
main issues in the lift market. sources (data of EU
c) Evidence on any unintended industry associations
effect of the Directive on the and consumer
market. associations, national
sources on accidents,
d) Evidence on any economic, newspaper articles,
social and environmental etc.).
impact induced by the
Directive.
97
e) Evidence on reduced
barriers to lift trade within
the internal market.
EQ 12. To what The Directive is clear Evidence on any economic  Perception of stakeholders on  OPC: Q18, Q19, Q13,  UNCOMTRADE
extent does the and appropriate to impact induced by the the clarity of the Directive Q33, Q34 database;
Directive ensure ensure a level-playing Directive.  Perception of economic  TC: Q8, Q9, Q10, Q18,
legal certainty, field for companies in  Industry associations
Evidence on any unintended operators on the existence of Q21, Q34, Q38, Q56 reports;
transparency and the EU effect induced by the any competition issues
non-discrimination  Interviews: Q11  Other secondary
Directive. induced the Directive within
between the internal market sources
companies?
EQ 13. To what The Directive has a) Desk and field research to  % reduction of accidents  OPC: Q32, Q9, Q10  Minutes of LWG
extent has the Lifts improved the safety provide an analysis of safety related to lifts before and  TC: Q70, Q71c, Q72, meetings;
Directive achieved of lifts. trends, with specific focus on: after the implementation of Q31  CIRCABC interest group
its aims with regard The essential  Trends in accidents due to the Directive as reported by related to the Lifts
to the protection of stakeholders and qualitatively  Interviews: Q15, Q8 Directive;
requirements of the newly installed lifts;
health and safety of Directive were assessed in the literature  SOLVIT Annual reports
users and  Number of lifts found by  Number of lifts/safety (years available);
designed to MSA to be not compliant
maintenance exhaustively cover components recalled/  RAPEX weekly reports
personnel? with the Directive’s withdrawn from the market and database;
the existing risks requirements (estimate of
linked to lifts. due to safety issues (last  MSA Reports (last
size of the problem). available data) available: 2010-2013);
b) Correspondence matrix  % of stakeholders that state  Other secondary
between the Directive and the that the safety of lifts has sources (data of EU
main issues in lift safety. increased with the industry associations
c) Evidence on any unintended implementation of the and consumers
effect on safety. Directive associations, national
d) Evidence on any social sources on health and
impact induced by the safety and accidents,
Directive. newspaper articles,
etc.).
EQ 14. What are Main issues Desk and field research on: Existing barriers to the effective  OPC: Q20, Q22  Minutes of LWG
the barriers to encountered in  Reasons behind drawbacks application and enforcement as  TC: Q47, Q53, Q60, meetings;
effective application relation to the in application and reported by stakeholders Q61, Q65, Q66, Q68,
and enforcement, in enforcement of the enforcement  CIRCABC interest group
Q73 related to the Lifts
particular through Directive and cases of  Identification of good
surveillance of lifts non-compliance of the practices implemented to Directive;
on the market? lifts placed on the overcome obstacles  MSA Reports (last
market. available: 2010-2013).
EQ 15. What are Identification and Desk and field research aimed  Frequency of administrative  TC: Q47, Q53, Q62,  Minutes of LWG
the factors that analysis of the main at: cooperation between MS and Q63, Q64 meetings;
influence positively issues in the  Mapping of the Directive MSA as reported in the
and negatively the application of the Lifts survey  CIRCABC interest group
98
effective application Directive intervention logic;  Costs of enforcement in  TC: Q67, Q68 related to the Lifts
of the Directive?348  Identifying the weakest different MS as reported in Directive;
links and the processes/ the survey  MSA Reports (last
means/actors involved in  Feedback of stakeholders on available: 2010-2013);
 OPC: Q12
those links; the guidelines/ documents/  Other secondary
actions of the EC and of MS  TC: Q32, Q37, Q45,
 Identifying the strongest sources.
to help improving the Q46
links/good practices as well
application of the Directive  Interviews: Q13
as the processes/ means/
actors involved in those
links;
 Identifying the causal
mechanisms beyond more
effective processes.
Criterion Efficiency
Evaluation questions EQ 16. What are the regulatory (including administrative) costs for the different stakeholders?
EQ 17. What are the main benefits for stakeholders and civil society that derive from the directive?
EQ 18. To what extent are the regulatory costs proportionate to the benefits achieved? How affordable are the costs for the
stakeholders, given the benefits they receive? What does this represent in terms of administrative and reporting burdens?
Understanding the Assessing to what extent the obligations placed by the Directive are efficient in terms of benefits achieved, as compared to the
questions costs implied
Questions Judgement crit. Analytical approach Indicators and descriptors Primary sources Secondary sources
EQ 16. What are Assessment of  Mapping and quantification of  Average direct compliance costs by  TC: Q41-44, Q49, Q50, Q52, Publicly available
the regulatory the overall the administrative number of impacted stakeholder Q69, Q70-74; Q76-78 statistical data
(including regulatory requirements for economic (per type of stakeholder and/or  CBA: Q1-21 (Eurostat) or
administrative) direct, operators (manufacturers, type of lift and safety component) privately-owned
costs for the enforcement and installers and importers), databases (Orbis)
 Estimate of the administrative  OPC: Q33
different indirect costs. when possible per type of lift with information on
burden (as administrative costs)  CBA: Q13-27
stakeholders? Assessment of and safety components for market size and
per category of stakeholder
the lifts; number of operators
administrative  Mapping and estimate of  Influence on prices for installation  OPC: Q33 per MS;
burden of the compliance costs (technical and maintenance (impact on users)
348
The answer to this evaluation questions will consider all the results emerged from the previous evaluation questions on effectiveness.
99
information changes, adaptation to  Estimate of enforcement costs for  CBA: Q34-38, Q69-82 Other secondary
obligations standards, testing etc.), per MSA sources (e.g. Lifts
entailed by the type of lifts and per category case study in
Directive. of safety components for  Qualitative and (when possible)  Cross-analysis on results of Evaluation of
lifts, and per stakeholder quantitative comparison between the effectiveness evaluation Internal Market
group; the regulatory costs including and of the benefits and added Legislation for
 Mapping and quantification of administrative burdens, the value evaluations Industrial Products,
enforcement costs for MSAS; effectiveness of the Directive in SWD (2014) 23
 Qualitative comparison achieving its objectives349 and final; publications of
between the costs and the potential benefits350 EU industry
effectiveness of the Directive. associations).
EQ 17. What are Scale and nature  Mapping and (when) possible  Price reduction or revenue increase  CBA: Q28-32 Publicly available
the main benefits of the benefits quantification of the benefits for economic operators; Changes in statistical data
for stakeholders of the Directive production costs of lifts and costs  Follow-up interviews
produced by the Directive for (Eurostat) or
and civil society for the different the different categories of of components in the EU MS; privately-owned
that derive from stakeholders stakeholders. databases (Orbis)
 Qualitative evidence of the effects  CBA: Q28-32
the directive? (manufacturers, with information on
of essential safety and health  TC: Q54, Q55, Q56
installers and market size and
requirements on investments on
importers, MSA,  Follow-up interviews number of operators
innovation and R&D (if and to what
users, per MS;
extent innovation was boosted by
maintenance
the need of addressing risks and
personnel and Other secondary
ensure compliance with the
civil society in sources (e.g. Lifts
Directive)
general). case study in
 Costs for accidents – and influence  CBA: Q33 Evaluation of
on well-being - for users and Internal Market
maintenance personnel, including Legislation for
societal costs for accidents at work Industrial Products,
SWD (2014) 23
final; publications of
EU industry
associations).
EQ 18. To what The costs  Analysis of costs and benefits  Stakeholders’ perception of the  OPC: Q31 Comparative
extent are the entailed by the for the different stakeholders proportionality of costs with respect analysis between the
regulatory costs Directive are in the scope of the Directive to benefits generated by the results in EQ12 and
proportionate to proportionate to Directive EQ14 on the
the benefits the benefits regulatory costs and
achieved? How achieved. benefits and
affordable are the Costs are administrative
costs for the
349
Based on the results of the evaluation questions related to “Effectiveness”, presented in the table above.
350
Based on the evaluation question “What are the main benefits for stakeholder and civil society that derive from the directive?”, presented further on in this table.
100
stakeholders, affordable for all burden.
given the benefits kinds of
they receive? stakeholders.
What does this The
represent in terms administrative
of administrative burden is not
and reporting excessive.
burdens?
Criterion Coherence
Evaluation questions EQ 19. Are there overlaps/complementarities between the Lifts Directive and any pieces of EU legislation or Member State
legislation in the relevant areas (in particular Cableways and Machinery Directives)? To what extent are they coherent? Are
there additional requirements at EU and national level with regard to certain products? Are there contradictions?
EQ 20. Are the requirements for installers and manufacturers clear? Are there overlapping rules?
Understanding the Understanding the level of consistency among EU and MS legislation and to what extent the remaining divergences can prevent the
questions achievements of the overall objectives of the Directive.
EQ 19. Are The Directive is Desk and field Number of provisions of the Lifts  OPC: Q27  Relevant EU legislation and
there consistent with research focused on Directive not aligned with the  TC: Q48, Q49, Q50, Q51 application guides (Cableway and
overlaps/comple both EU and documents other pieces of EU and national Machinery Directive, Ecodesign
mentarities national legislation concerning the safety legislation in the scope of the  Interviews: Q22, Q23,
Q24, Q25 Directive);
between the Lifts without raising any of lifts at European analysis.
Directive and any overlapping or and national level in  Guide to Application of Lifts
Number of overlapping or Directive 95/16/EC.
pieces of EU contradiction. order to identify contradictions between the Lifts
legislation or potential overlapping Directive and other pieces of EU  Recommendations of the European
Member State / contradictions and and national legislation in the Coordination of Notified Bodies for
acts in the any related scope of the analysis. Lifts (NB-L) regarding the
relevant areas? environmental, social application of the Directive;
Are there economic impact.  Other secondary sources (e.g.
additional 2010 study on energy efficient
requirements at elevators and escalators).
EU and national
level with regard
to certain
products? Are
there
contradictions?
101
EQ 20. Are the The scope of Desk and field Feedback from manufacturers and  OPC: Q18, Q19  Guide to Application of Lifts
requirements for application of the research focus on installers on the clarity of  TC: Q8, Q9, Q10, Q23, Directive 95/16/EC.
installers and Lifts Directive is provisions of the requirements of the Lifts Directive Q25
manufacturers clear. Directive that are  Recommendations of the European
clear? Are there unclear or uncertain Coordination of Notified Bodies for
overlapping Lifts (NB-L) regarding the
rules? application of the Directive.
Criterion EU added value
Evaluation questions EQ 21. What is the additional value resulting from the Lifts Directive, compared to what could be achieved at national level?
EQ 22. What is the added value of the Lifts Directive for stakeholders?
Understanding the Assessing to what extent the results of the EU action are additional to the value that would have resulted from action at MS level.
questions
 Trends of intra-EU trade of lifts and

EQ 21. What  The Directive increased Overall analysis of -  Eurostat
safety components, in volume and
is the benefits for economic the Directive PRODCOM and
value, comparison before and after
additional operators by establishing enhancement of international
1999
value resulting common rules across the internal market trade database;
from the Lifts Europe, thus establishing (taking into  Reduction in differences in lift-related  OPC: Q32
 UNCOMTRADE
Directive, the well-functioning of the account also any injury rates across Europe as reported  TC: Q70
database;
compared to internal market. impact on by stakeholders  Interviews: Q15
what could be innovation and  Other secondary
 The Directive increased  Stakeholders’ perception on the  OPC: Q13, Q32, Q33,
achieved at technology) and sources.
benefits for users and benefits resulting from a common  TC: Q54
national level? safety in the EU
maintenance personnel legislation  Interviews: Q26, Q27
through harmonisation of
safety requirements
EQ 22. What is Stakeholders confirm the Lifts Overall analysis of  Number of positive achievements of  OPC: Q34  Eurostat,
the added Directive to be a valuable the Directive as the Directive in terms of: PRODCOM, data
 TC: Q54, Q55
value of the policy measure to address provided by on intra- and
o Competences and skills upgrade;
Lifts Directive their needs. different extra-EU trade;
for stakeholders o Work-based training;
 UNCOMTRADE
stakeholders?
o Skills accreditation; database;
o Unified Conformity compliance  ETUI, ELA papers
standards for the inspections and reports;
taking place across the MS
102
 Changes in the global value chains  Position papers/

 OPC: Q33, Q34
(relevance of subcontractors outside consultations of
the EU, dependency on extra-EU  TC: Q56 main relevant
subcontractors; need for extra-EU organisations
economic operators to improve their (Industry
technology and safety standards due to organisations,
the Directive) consumers and
maintenance
 Balance between Exports/Imports of - personnel
lifts and safety components representatives).
103
8.4.Stakeholder consultation
In line with the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines,351 the first section of this Annex
sets out a brief summary of the consultation strategy performed within the context of this
evaluation, providing details on each consultation tool. Further, it shows the actions
undertaken to meet the EC minimum standards for stakeholder consultation. The second
section presents a brief outlook on the main findings resulting from the analysis of the
targeted surveys and OPC.
8.4.1. The Consultation strategy
The overall process of stakeholder consultation for the Evaluation of the Directive began in
early June 2016 and continued up to January 2017. The consultation collected inputs from a
wide range of stakeholders through different tools, namely:
 An OPC launched and managed by the EC;
 Four targeted consultations based on online surveys addressed to MS implementing
authorities, MSAs, NBs, economic operators;
 Targeted interviews;
 A workshop presenting the first findings to the LWG.
The OPC and the four targeted consultations were conducted ahead of the interviews, as the
latter were aimed at complementing and triangulating the information collected and
clarifying issues emerged. The workshop held in the context of the LWG served to collect
further evidence and validate the results with relevant stakeholders.
The table below presents the targets of stakeholder involvement (as per ToR) and the actual
coverage achieved – excluding the workshop.
Table 14 – Target of stakeholder involvement as per ToR and actual coverage achieved
(excluding the workshop)
Stakeholder category Target as per ToR Achieved

The competent authorities responsible for the implementation of the 28 37352
Directive including MSAs
Representatives of CEN 3-5 3
NBs 15-20 66
Other stakeholders where deemed relevant, organisations n/a 19
representing maintenance personnel, consumer organisations
Representatives from Industry, European federations and SMEs 5-10 23
within the lifts sector
Lifts companies from different MS, also non-EU (EFTA countries and 50 67
Switzerland)
Total 101-113 215
As for the geographical coverage of the stakeholder consultation, all EU Member States,
together with Norway, Switzerland and Turkey, were involved in the consultation, except for
Croatia and Bulgaria (figure below).
351
European Commission, SWD(2015) 110 final. Better Regulation Guidelines.
352
Competent authorities/MSAs from BG, ES, HR, HU, RO and TR did not participate.
104
Figure 22 - EU coverage and number of stakeholders involved per Member States353
9
3 8
3 5 4
2
13
7
30 8
9
3 6
19 3
8 5
1
2 2
2
10 24
4
2 1
Source: EY
8.4.2. Open Public Consultation

The OPC was launched on 22 September and closed on 16 December 2016.354 It consisted of
an online questionnaire available in six official languages: English, French, German, Italian,
Spanish and Polish. It ran on the Commission’s infrastructure (EU Survey) and was
addressed to all EU citizens. The survey was designed to gather feedback on:
 The evaluation criteria, in particular the relevance, effectiveness and added value of the
Directive;
 Newly developed technologies and their impact on the lift industry and safety;
 The current state of the art of the accessibility to lifts granted to people with disabilities
(either permanent or temporary);
 The clarity and exhaustiveness of the definitions and rules provided in the Directive.
61 questionnaires were received from stakeholders who reported having some knowledge of
the Directive and of the lift sector, namely:
 8 Public Authorities (AT, CZ, 3 DE, FI, PL, UK);
 6 NBs (ES, CZ, FR, 2 IT, TR);
 1 Standardisation Organisation (IT);
 24 manufacturers/installers (AT, BE, CH, CZ, DE, ES, DK, FI, FR, IT, NO, PL, RO, SE, TR,
UK);
 10 industry associations355 (CH, 2 DE, FR, 2 EU level, IT, PT, SE, UK);
 12 maintenance personnel, users and other target groups356 (EU level, FR, PL, SE, UK).
353
Please note that in addition to those presented in the map, 17 EU level organisations were involved in the study.
354
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8930
355
Of whom two representing SMEs.
356
Three organisations representing lifts owners, two EU organisations representing persons with disabilities, three
organisations representing users, one EU organisation representing maintenance personnel, three users/citizens.
105
Additionally, five questionnaires were received from stakeholders stating to have a basic
knowledge of the sector (a German Public Authority, a Finnish trade association and three
anonymous).
To avoid overlapping, the OPC had a very general character as compared with the specific
information required in the targeted surveys.
8.4.3. Targeted surveys
Four targeted surveys based on online questionnaires, were launched on 6 June,
closed on 15 September and ran on the EY online survey tool (eSurvey). The questionnaires
have been differentiated and aimed at:
 The analysis of the implementation of the Directive at national level;
 The collection of data on accidents, the overview of the market surveillance activities -
in order to fill-in the gaps of the reports currently available;357
 The assessment of the costs and benefits of the Directive, for companies, MS authorities
(including MSAs) and NBs;
 The in-depth analysis of conformity assessment procedures.
Overall, the targeted surveys was addressed to 595 stakeholders, 116 of which replied:
 11 Member State implementing authorities358 (out of 35; missing replies from AT, BE,
BG, CZ, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LV, NO, PT, RO, SE, SK, TR, UK);
 11 MSAs359 (out of 92; missing replies from AT, BG, CH, CY, CZ, EL, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE,
IT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, TR);
 53 NBs (out of 268) in 15 different countries;360
 33 among installers and manufacturers, 28 large, three SMEs and two micro (out of
153) in 17 different countries;361
 Six national industry associations362 and one European association (out of 47
representatives).
8.4.4. Interviews
The project also foresaw stakeholder involvement through 38 interviews (with two Public
Authorities not willing to be involved).
More in detail, the interviews aimed at:
 Investigating in details specific topics and issues emerged from the analysis of the
survey as well as from the desk-based research, by discussing them with the involved
national and EU stakeholders;
 Gaining a better understanding of the consequences of current practices, the most
important and emerging issues, by involving stakeholders acting in the lift market (e.g.
357
Report on the MS reviews and assessment of the functioning of market surveillance activities for the 2010-2013
period pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, Sector 10 Lifts.
358
From CH, CY, DE, EE, IE, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, SI. The complete coverage of the EU28 MS could not be achieved
due to stakeholders’ unwillingness to reply, despite the several reminders sent to highlight the importance of the
study.
359
From BE, DE, DK, EE, FI, LT, NL, NO, SE, SK, UK. The complete coverage of the EU28 MS could not be achieved
due to stakeholders’ unwillingness to reply, despite the several reminders sent to highlight the importance of the
study.
360
AT, BE, CZ, FI, FR, DE, IE, IT, LV, LU, NL, PL, SK, TR, UK.
361
AT, BE, CH, CZ, DK, ES, FI, FR, DE, HU, NL, NO, PL, RO, SE, TR, UK.
362
From BE, DE, DK, IT, MT, UK.
106
representatives of user associations, representatives of industry associations, lift

installers, manufacturers of safety components, NBs, standardisers);
 Understanding the different perspectives and viewpoints, by discussing with different
stakeholders;
 Triangulating information and interpreting data collected throughout the desk and field
research carried out so far.
The stakeholders involved were selected according to a combination of the following criteria:
 Geographical representativeness, to ensure a balanced representation of all EU Member
States;
 Balanced representation of all stakeholders, so as to include those categories that were
(i) not addressed by the targeted consultations, and especially the ESOs, user, worker
and other civil society associations; (ii) under-represented in the previous two types of
consultations, i.e. the Public and the targeted consultation (e.g. SMEs).
The stakeholders involved are listed below:
 3 MS implementing authorities (EL, NL, PT);
 4 MSAs (FR, IT, LV, PL);
 7 NBs;
 2 ESOs;
 9 installers/manufacturers (a large, five medium and four small-sized enterprises);
 6 industry associations;
 7 user and worker associations and other target groups363.
8.4.5. LWG Workshop
The LWG took place on 11 January 2017 in Brussels. As mentioned in section 2.2.2,
participants to the LWG were representatives of the Commission, of Member States plus EEA
countries – Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland – Switzerland and Turkey, ELA, NBL, CEN and
SBS.
By means of a Power Point presentation, the Contractor gave an overview of the evaluation
first findings related to each provision of the Directive, stimulating discussion and feedback
from the LWG’s members.
8.4.6. Report Charts
The following sections present a brief summary of the most significant figures and results
emerged by the consultation process.
363
Three organisations representing disabled people (LU, EU level), three organisations representing maintenance
personnel (ES, FI, FR) and a consumer association (EU level).
107
Definitions
As shown in the graph below, according to the large majority of respondents to the targeted
survey, the definitions provided in the Directive are clear, complete and up to date.
Moreover, 73% (n=74 out of 101) of respondents think that the definitions are now clearer
in Directive 2014/33/EU. Among these, all economic operators (both large companies and
SMEs) agree on the above statement.
Figure 23 - Respondents’ perception on the clarity of key definitions provided in Directive
95/16/EC364
100%
12%
24% 25% 22% 24%
80%
60%
88%
40% 76% 75% 78% 76%
20%
0%
Installer of a lift Manufacturer of the Placing on the Safety component Model lift
safety components market of the lift
Clear Unclear/Incomplete/Obsolete
Source: targeted survey
Respondents to the OPC find the definitions of “installer of a lift”, “placing on the market of
the lift” and “model lift” as partly missing, despite considering the changes introduced by the
new Directive 2014/33/EU. No major issues relate to the definitions of “safety component”
and “manufacturer of safety components”. Economic operators which agree with the above
statements are mainly large companies.
Figure 24 - Respondents’ perception on the clarity of key definitions provided in Directive
95/16/EC365
100% 4%
90% 13%
80% 44%
70% 55% 56%
60%
50% 96%
87%
40%
30% 56%
20% 45% 44%
10%
0%
Installer Manufacturer of Placing on the Safety Model lift
of a lift the safety market of the lift component
components
Clear Unclear/Incomplete/Obsolete
Source: OPC
364
Installer: “clear” according to 78 out of 102 respondents. Placing on the market of the lift: “clear” according to
76 out of 101 respondents. Safety component: “clear” according to 79 out of 101 respondents. Manufacturer of the
safety components: “clear” according to 89 out of 101 respondents. Model lift: “clear” according to 78 out of 102
respondents.
365
Installer: “clear” according to 30 out of 55 respondents. Placing on the market of the lift: “clear” according to 24
out of 55 respondents. Safety component: “clear” according to 46 out of 54 respondents. Manufacturer of the safety
components: “clear” according to 53 out of 56 respondents. Model lift: “clear” according to 24 out of 54
respondents.
108
In the context of the LWG, similar issues were raised regarding the definitions. For instance,
a CEN TC10 representative underlined the lack of definition of the term “manufacturer of
lifts”. Introducing it would help to account for the fact that currently lifts are provided “as
kits”, since the two phases of design and installation are separated inasmuch as they can be
performed by two distinct economic operators. In this situation there is an issue of
responsibility, as it should be accounted for how the handover between the manufacturing
and installation phase is done. Similarly, a MS representative and a French industry
association in the context of an interview declared that the “installer” definition should not
be changed. In their opinion, if the definition would be broken down by stages, it would be
more difficult to place the lift on the market, as it would be necessary to examine if in the lift
manufacturing phase everything is done according to the EHSRs. Currently instead the lift
installer (being it a legal or natural person) takes responsibility for all stages of lifts
conformity with the EHSRs (design, manufacture, installation and placing on the market). On
the contrary, the opinion an interviewed Spanish SME association aligns more with the
results of the consultations. The interviewee declares that “the wording of the directive is
not suitable anymore for the lifts industry”, as it only defines the safety component
manufacturer and lift installer while there are a number of economic operators that are lift
manufacturers but not installers.
Again in the context of the LWG Workshop, the CEN TC10 representative added that the
Directive should define when the “placing on the market” of a lift occurs, a point supported
also by an AdCO chair. The latter further stresses that the Directive has to explicitly define
what “putting into service” means. A Member State representative observes that Directive
2014/68/EU on pressure equipment clearly defines the “placing on the market” of a product,
whose definition could be used in the Directive. The EC clarifies that “compliance matters in
the placing on the market of a lift”, as only when the lift is installed (i.e. placed on the
market) a NB can perform the full conformity assessment. The EC suggested that a possible
solution would be to delete any references to “putting into service”, as the Directive applies
only until the conformity assessment is completed. When the lift is put into service, the
Directive ceases to apply as from this moment on the product is outside the scope of the
harmonised legislation.
Tasks, obligations and rights of stakeholders concerned by the Directive

As shown in the figure below, a large share of respondents366 to the survey deem that
tasks, obligations and rights of all the stakeholders concerned by the Directive (i.e.
safety component manufacturers, lift installers, Member State implementing authorities,
MSAs, and NB) were already clear in Directive 95/16/EC. When this was not the case,
they have been either partially or completely clarified in Directive 2014/33/EU.367 Only a
small percentage of respondents declares that tasks, obligations and rights were clearer in
the old Directive than they are in the new Directive or that they still remain unclear (overall
11% for manufacturers’ and 11% for installers’ requirements).
366
On average, 46% (n=39 out of 84 on average) of respondents to this question.
367
On average, 46% (n=39 out of 84 on average) of respondents to this question.
109
Figure 25 – Stakeholders’ perception on the clarity of tasks, obligations and rights

100% 3% 3% 4%
6% 5% 2%
6% 4%
90% 5%
80% 32%
70% 38% 39% 56%
60% 66%
50%
40%
30% 63%
51% 49%
20% 41%
27%
10%
0%
Requirements for Requirements for lift Requirements for MS Requirements for NB Responsibilities of
safety components installers and MSA economic operators
manufacturers
Were clearer in Directive 95/16/EC than they are in Directive 2014/33/EU
Were unclear in Directive 95/16/EC and still remain unclear in Directive 2014/33/EU
Were not clear in Directive 95/16/EC and have been completely/partially clarified in Directive 2014/33/EU
Were clear already in Directive 95/16/EC
EHSRs and harmonised standards

The large majority (98%, n=56 out of 57) of respondents to the OPC state that the EHSRs
took sufficiently into account innovations and technologies at the time of the Directive’s
approval. Respondents (96%, n=53 out of 55) also confirm that the EHSRs take sufficiently
into account the risks related to current innovations in the lift sector. Similarly, the large
majority of respondents to the targeted survey (72%, n=77 out of 107) declare EHSRs to
be adjusted well enough to take into account potential safety issues related to newly
developed technologies. Moreover, 84% (n=89 out of 105) of them think EHSRs are
sufficiently flexible to allow new technologies that offer the same (or better) level of
safety as that provided by the harmonised standards. Among the economic operators, large
firms mainly agreed with such a statement.
However, some areas of concern not adequately covered by the EHSRs exist,
according to 54% (n=63 out of 116) of targeted survey respondents (e.g. the prior approval
provision,368 the risk of flooding369 of the lift pit, of fire370 and earthquake).371
368
N= 25 out of 63 survey respondents.
369
Four large installers and one small-medium installer.
370
A small NB, 3 large installers, an MSA and an implementing authority.
371
3 large installers.
110
Figure 26 – Respondents’ perception on the adequacy and flexibility of EHSRs with respect
to new technologies
100%
4% 2%
90% 14%
24%
80%
70%
60% 50%
50% 48%
40%
30%
20%
34%
10% 24%
0%
Adjustment of EHSR to take into account potential Flexibility of EHSR to allow new technologies hat
safety issues related to newly developed offer the same or better level of safety
technologies
There are no new technologies/solutions that offer the same/a better level of safety
There are no new risks the Directive needs to address
Not really/not at all
Somehow
To a great extent
Respondents to the OPC (91%, n=46 out of 50) confirm this result by stating that the
EHSRs are likely to be able to deal with new innovations and technologies relating
to lifts over the next ten years. Nonetheless, as stated by an interviewed German
representative of NBs and by a MS representative in the context of the LWG workshop, there
are emerging risks due to the increasing use of products related to the internet of things in
lifts and related maintenance. The EC observed that the Blue Guide provides some
clarifications in this respect as, “software updates or repairs could be assimilated to
maintenance operations provided that they do not modify a product already placed on the
market”. Among interviewees, a representative of NB-L and of the German coordination of
NBs for lifts state that the wide use of software technologies (such as in PESSRAL),372 is not
matched by an EHSRs addressing a functional testing/analysis of these devices.
Moreover, as shown in the figure below, respondents to the OPC believe the Directive does
not adequately address two issues, which are not related to new technologies, i.e. the lack
of free space under and above the lift car (i.e. EHSR 2.2) and accessibility of lifts by people
with disabilities.
372
Programmable Electronic Systems in Safety related Application.
111
Figure 27 - Risks addressed by the Directive
Risks entailed by machine room-less lifts (MRL) 80% 16% 5%
Lack of accessibility to lifts by people with disabilities either

35% 62% 4%
permanent or temporary
Lack of adequate lighting in case of emergency 84% 12% 2%
Lack of two-way means of communication allowing

86% 12% 2%
permanent contact with a rescue service
Lack of ventilation in the lift car in case of prolonged

86% 7% 7%
stoppage
2%
Collision with or fall on the lift car of counterweights 96% 2%
Trapping of users in the lift car in case of power cut or fire 77% 18% 5%
Lack of resistance of lift doors in case of fire 87% 7% 7%
Accessibility of the space where the lift car travels 95% 5%
Lack of/not enough free space (or refuges) provided above

42% 25% 33%
and under the lift car
Crushing (when the lift car is in one of its extreme positions) 92% 8%
Adequately addressed Not properly addressed Not addressed
Source: OPC
With regard to the prior approval, a representative of NB-L participating to the LWG
Workshop stressed this issue has been existing for 30 years, and it is time to find a solution.
According to a MS representative, a possible solution could be to repeal EHSR 2.2 and refer
to ENs. The definition of an adequate free space is strictly related to the inherent hazard.
Moreover, the Directive should define when the derogation can be applied in new buildings.
For instance, he stated there could be the need to grant the prior approval also in new
buildings in cases of emergency (e.g. as it occurred after the earthquake in Italy, where a
number of buildings constructed lacked free space). On the contrary, an interviewed Italian
and a Spanish SME association said that the Directive should not foresee any derogation to
the provision of free space in the lift pit and headroom in new buildings.
At the LWG Workshop, an AdCo representative stated that according to the New Approach,
the Directive should only establish the conditions to cover identified risks. According to the
stakeholder, EHSR 2.2 goes beyond this task. The NB-L representative observed that the
Directive leaves “room for manoeuvre” to cover the risk of crushing, the problem being that
not all MS apply this provision in the same way, and this is the issue. Another MS
representative declared that the existence of alternative solutions to protect maintenance
personnel working above or below the lift needs to be evaluated, a point supported also by
another MS representative at the LWG and another interviewed. An ESO representative
pointed out that the principle of safety integration is clearly set in the Machinery Directive,
whose EHSRs are also applicable to lifts. In his opinion, the prior approval should not be
accorded in new buildings, although exceptions can exist, as EHSRs are flexible.
Nonetheless, he recognised that currently there is an abuse of the prior approval. A MS
representative reinforced this point, stating that if prior approval is repealed, the Directive
would disregard the principle of “safety integration”.
112
With regard to accessibility of lifts by people with disabilities, both the majority of
respondents to the targeted survey (54%, n=49 out of 90) and to the OPC (73%, n=24 out
of 32) underline the need to enshrine additional provisions for minimum compulsory
awareness of manufacturers and installers in the legal framework for ensuring
accessibility to lifts of disabled persons.
More in specific, respondents to the OPC provide opinions about the provisions on lift
accessibility to people with disabilities. Half of them rates the general information about
accessibility of lifts and access conditions as bad/very bad (49%, n=25 out of 51).
Furthermore, the availability of lifts in public buildings with more than one floor could
be improved, according to 42% (n=16 out of 38) of respondents (see the Figure below).
Figure 28 - Services offered to persons with disabilities or with reduced mobility when using
lifts
100%
90% 17% 21%

80% 42%
49%
20%
70% 20%
60%
50% 16%
40% 23%
30% 63% 59%
20% 42%
28%
10%
0%
The general information Accessibility of lifts car Availability of lifts in public Equipment of lifts with
about the accessibility of and controls buildings with more than audio and visual signals &
lifts and on the access one floor controls
conditions
Very good/ Good Neither bad or good Bad/ Very bad
Source: OPC
At the LWG Workshop, a MS representative stressed that the issue of lift accessibility is a
political one. As they are, EHSRs are not applicable to all lifts, thus making some lifts
accessible and other not accessible to disabled persons. In this regard, another MS
representative stated that “political thinking has changed”, as his country’s Ministry is
questioned on this issue, the Directive’s EHSRs are too thin in this field and need
clarification. A CEN TC10 representative observed that the point is whether EHSRs set in the
Directive for lift accessibility are applicable all the time for all the lifts. In this regard, the EC
stated that an option currently under consideration for reinforcing the EHSR on lift
accessibility would be to require that “whenever possible and reasonable”, these EHSRs shall
be applied to all lifts. Another option would be to make the national building legislation
responsible for this, as it would not be the Directive’s role to require that every lift shall be
accessible. However, it appears that these EHSRs are not sufficient as they are. An ESO
representative observes that a premise is that any EHSRs is to be applied as far as possible,
as this gives flexibility. Lift accessibility is a MS’s prerogative, the Directive sets a principle,
but should not regulate further. According to the stakeholder, the problem relies in market
surveillance flaws, as MSAs would be in charge of checking compliance according to national
requirements. Finally, another MS representative observes that different types of disabilities
should be considered, if a revision of the EHSRs related to lift accessibility is foreseen.
113
The large majority (79%, n=84 out of 107) of survey respondents deem European
harmonised standards in line with developments occurred in the lift and safety component
industry. The five SMEs contributing to the targeted survey are aligned in recognising the
positive contribution of harmonised standards to the application of the Directive, as well as
their alignment with the latest technological developments. Overall, six large enterprises out
of the 28 contributing express negative opinions on one of the two aspects of the ENs.
Figure 29 – Respondents’ perception on the adequacy of harmonised standards and on their

support to the application of the Directive373
100%
6% 1%
90%
80%
49%
70%
60%
60%
50%
40%
30%
50%
20%
34%
10%
0%
Ens' alignment with technology in the lift sector EN effectively support the application of the Directive
To a great extent Somehow/not really Not at all
With particular regard to MS that accessed the EU after the entry into force of the Directive
and for which data are available,374 they value more the positive aspects of ENs. For
instance, 41% (n=9 out of 22) of these respondents –compared to 34% overall, as shown in
the figure above- deem that ENs are aligned with technology in the lift sector to a large
extent, while 0 declared ENs are not at all aligned –compared to an overall 6%. Similarly,
64% (n=14 out of 22) of these respondents recognise ENs effectively support the application
of the Directive to a great extent, compared to an overall 50%.
Moreover, although the application of ENs is voluntary in the framework of Union
harmonisation legislation, 64% (n=7 out of 11) respondents from MS that accessed the EU
after the entry into force of the Directive perceive that ENs positively impact EU firms’
incentives to innovate. If the overall answers to this question are analysed, 46% of
stakeholders (n=30 out of 65) agree on this. Once again, this demonstrates that
stakeholders from MS which “recently” joined the EU value more the contribution of ENs.
In the context of the LWG workshop, a MS representative stated that the fundamental role
of ENs is demonstrated in that in his country there are only lifts compliant with ENs. An SBS
representative stated that it should be recalled “the state of the art of safety” is defined by
373
Alignment of EN with the state of the art in the area of lifts and safety components: N=36 responded ‘To a great
extent’, N=64 responded ‘Somehow/Not really; N=7 out of 107 responded ‘Not at all’. EN effectively support the
application of the Directive: N=55 answered ‘To a great extent’, N=54 answered ‘Somehow/Not really, N=1 out of
107 survey respondents answered ‘Not at all’.
374
CY, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK. For the purposes of this analysis we also considered Turkey. Overall,
22 answers were received from these MS, and two additional from Turkey.
114
EHSRs. Any other solutions is possible, provided it respects the level of safety set in the
Directive.
Respondents to the OPC were asked to rate some aspects related to harmonised standards.
Interestingly, 72% (n=39 out of 54) of them deem the length of harmonised standard
development process as excessive. Similarly, a remarkable share of respondents (61%,
n=33 out of 54) believe that harmonised standards should be reviewed/revised more
often. Amongst economic operators, all firms irrespectively of their size agree with the
above statements.
Figure 30 - Rating of aspects related to harmonised standards
100%
13% 14% 11%
90%
80%
70% 61%
72%
60%
50%
87% 86% 89%
40%
30%
20% 39%
28%
10%
0%
The length of the The scope and The frequency with The quality / The clarity over whic
Harmonised coverage of the which existing usability o existing standards can be
Standards current portfolio of Harmonised Harmonised used
development process Harmonised Standards are Standards
Standards reviewed/revised
Very Positive/Positive Negative/Very Negative
Source: OPC
These points are confirmed by an interviewed representative of NB-L and a Spanish SME
association, saying the process for the review of harmonised standard is not frequent
enough. This represents an obstacle for SMEs that do not have enough resources to test
technical solutions alternative to harmonised standards. On the same line, a MS
representative declared that although the timing for reviewing standards is not always
adequate, economic operators should bear in mind that lifts should primarily comply with the
EHSRs. For this reason, they are always free to apply technical solutions alternative to ENs.
However on this point, an interviewed French industry association stated that once an
innovative solution alternative to standards is proposed, MSAs and NBs need time to assess
whether it effectively complies with EHSRs. To do this, their preferred tool is the harmonised
standard. In this sense, the lengthy of the process for developing standards could represent
an obstacle to innovation.
At the LWG workshop, a MS representative confirmed that lift technology develops very
quickly and standards are not aligned with latest technologies.
EC DoC, CE marking, conformity assessment and NBs

As shown in the figure below, the large majority of survey respondents (69%, n=72 out of
105) believe the rules for affixing the CE marking were clear already in Directive
95/16/EC, and if this was not the case, they have been either partially or completely
clarified in the new Directive (20%, n=21 out of 105).
115
Figure 31 – Respondents’ perception on the clarity of the rules for affixing the CE marking
Rules were unclear in
Rules were not clear Directive 95/16/EC and
in Directive 95/16/EC still remain unclear in
and have been Directive 2014/33/EU
completely/partially
clarified in Directive
2014/33/EU
21%
Rules were clear

Rules were
already in
clearer in
Directive
Directive
95/16/EC
95/16/EC than
70%
they are in
Directive
2014/33/EU
Moreover, 62% (n=65 out of 105) of survey respondents declare to have never
encountered a situation where these rules needed to be clarified, 1% (n=1 out of
105) declare to have had the need for clarification in some cases, 37% (n=39 out of 105)
admit it has been often the case. No particular difference is registered if the company size is
considered.
As far as the conformity assessments procedures are concerned (figure below), the
large majority of survey respondents deem them to have proved adequate for both the
design and the production/ installation phase. Eight stakeholders (8%, n=8 out of 100)
assess procedures as inadequate.
Figure 32 – Stakeholders’ perception on the adequacy of conformity assessment procedures
Inadequate
8% Completely
adequate
53%
Somewhat
adequate
39%
Attendees at the LWG workshop agreed on the presented first findings of the study. A MS
representative added that there are no issues with the conformity assessment procedures,
while a representative of ELA observed these are well-established and the industry is used to
cope with them. A representative of German NBs interviewed confirmed these points.
With regard to the notification procedures for NBs, at the LWG workshop the EC
observed that the new Directive should have improved the situation with respect to the
accreditation requirements, as further supported by a two MS representatives. A
representative of NB-L observed that the first findings of the study on the issue “reflect a
feeling that we have also identified”.
Market Surveillance
The majority of respondents to the targeted survey report to be not completely satisfied with
the market surveillance activities in their country. Economic operators of all size are aligned
116
with such a statement. As a proof, 53% (n=49 out of 92) of respondents report that market
surveillance is only somehow effective and 25% (n=23 out of 92) evaluate it as ineffective.
In particular, when analysing responses by stakeholders’ category it emerges that 28%
(n=12 out of 43) of NBs and 30% (n=10 out of 43) of economic operators find market
surveillance ineffective and 63% (n=27 out of 43) and 39% (n=13 out of 33) somehow
effective. On the contrary, PAs express more positive opinions as they deem market
surveillance somehow effective (56%, n=9 out of 16) and effective (38%, n=6 out of 16).
Figure 33 - Effectiveness of market surveillance
Uneffective Effective
25% 22%
Somehow
effective
53%
72% (n=39 out of 54) of stakeholders to the OPC state to be aware of market surveillance
activities focused on lifts and their safety component in their country. They rate activities
related to market surveillance as shown in the figure below.
Figure 34 - Rating of market surveillance activities
Effectiveness of Market Surveillance Authorities in
18% 81%
removing non-compliant products from the market
Effectiveness of Market Surveillance Authorities in

18% 81%
identifying non-compliant products
The number of products on the market that are non-

13% 87%
compliant
The number of products on the market that have

82% 19%
never been assessed
The typical time from market entry to inspection /

73% 28%
assessment
The likelihood of an individual company being 16% 83%

inspected
The number and frequency of inspections carried out 19% 82%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very high/ High Low/ Very low
Source: OPC
In this regard, an interviewed MS representative recognised Directive 95/16/EC did not set
provisions for market surveillance. Although the situation has improved in the new Directive,
there is need to clarify specific market surveillance issues, such as the prohibition and
restrictions of use. More specifically, the nature of the measures to be taken in order to
restrict or prohibit the placing on the market of a particular lift that has already been put
117
into service should be clarified.375 At the LWG Workshop, a MS representative observed that
MSAs often do not know where a new lift is installed. This issue could be easily solved by
setting up an EU register of new lifts. In this regard, another MS representative states that
in his country NBs provide data to MSAs on an annual basis. This helps MSAs in identifying
new lifts installed, and deciding whether to carry out an inspection or not. Another MS
representative reports a similar situation in his country, where NBs are required to transmit
conformity assessment certificates to MSAs. However, this does not solve the issue of ex
ante verification, a task which the MS delegated to a local authority. By doing so, a lift
cannot be put into service unless it is previously verified and approved by these authorities.
A representative of SBS stated that “there is a ‘distance’ between the institutional level who
drafted the Directive and that who should implement it”. According to the stakeholder the
enforcement system does not work. As a concluding remark, the EC observed that the
purpose of market surveillance would not to control each lift installed. According to an
interviewed representative of NB-L, the main problem of market surveillance is due to lack
of coordination at the AdCO level, the root of this lack of coordination being represented by
the scarce resources available to MSAs.
Relevance and effectiveness of the Directive

69% (n=80 out of 116) of survey respondents declared not to be aware of any
discrepancies across EU Member States in the implementation of the Directive. If
any discrepancies exist however, as shown in the figure below, they have no impact on the
effectiveness of the Directive in achieving its objectives nor do they influence regulatory or
administrative costs across Member States (n=82 out of 116).
Figure 35 – Respondents’ perception on the impact of implementation discrepancies
between EU MS
100%
10% 9% 8% 11%
90%
20%
80% 18% 22% 18%
70%
60%
50%
40%
72% 69% 72% 71%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Hinder the free circulation of Influence Reduce the safety of lift Influence regulatory/
lifts and safety components market behaviour and/or safety components administrative costs across
for lifts for lifts MS
To no extent To a small extent To a great extent
However, when asked about the aspects of the Directives fully and consistently interpreted
and applied across Member States, a great percentage of respondents to the OPC report that
375
According to the interviewee, this need is related to two reasons. Firstly, the lift owner is not an economic
operator within the meaning of the Directive, although he is impacted by any kind of restrictions on the lift use.
Moreover, anything occurring to the lift after it has been put into service is dealt with by the national legislation.
Secondly, lifts are non-standardised goods, “existing” as such only after the installation takes place. Therefore, it is
difficult to uniformly apply the same corrective measures since each lift is unique. This question has already been
raised in AdCO, to ensure consistency. More specific guidelines have to be provided on this topic.
118
some aspects related to market surveillance have not been adequately covered across
Europe. More in detail, as shown in the figure below, respondents deem that the extent of
market surveillance (70%, n=33 out of 47), the MSAs’ approach to determine compliance
(69%, n=33 out of 48) and penalties for infringements (74%, n=29 out of 39) are not
uniform across Member States. According to an interviewed NB-L representative, this lack of
uniform approach is mainly due to a lack of coordination at the AdCO level.
Figure 36 - Aspects of the Directive fully and consistently interpreted and applied across
Member States
Measures to withdraw/prohibit lifts that may

16% 16% 68%
compromise health and safety
Not prohibiting, restricting or impeding lifts or

safety components compliant with the 73% 19% 7%
Directive
The establishment of effective, proportionate

8% 18% 74%
and dissuasive penalties for infringements
4%
The extent of market surveillance 26% 70%
The suspension, withdrawal or placement of

11% 64% 25%
restrictions of certificates issued
The criteria for the notification of Notified

22% 71% 7%
Bodies
The assessments undertaken by Notified

35% 61% 4%
Bodies
The conformity assessment procedures

80% 18% 2%
available to companies
The approach of Market Surveillance

13% 19% 69%
Authorities to determining compliance
The transposition of the Directive into national

32% 64% 4%
legislation
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
To a large extent To a medium extent To a small extent
Source: OPC
Similarly, a representative of German NBs interviewed declared that national authorities,

such as notifying authorities, accreditation bodies and MSAs “act differently in the
interpretation of standards, guidelines or in performing audits and assessments to the
economic operators and the NBs”.
As shown in the figure below, the large majority of targeted survey respondents (99%,
n=115 out of 116) state the Directive is relevant, as it meets their current needs to a
great or some extent. Moreover economic operators of all size agree on the fact that
Directive meets current needs to a great or some extent. This point is confirmed by an
interviewed Italian SME association, stressing that the relevance of the Directive is
strengthened by the related ENs, as they reflect technological evolution.
Similarly, almost all survey respondents regard the Directive as effective in
guaranteeing the free circulation of lifts and safety components within the EU (97%,
n=112 out of 116) and in ensuring a high degree of lift safety (98%, n=113 out of 116).
Considering the answers of the economic operators, only four of them (two large and two
119
micro companies out of ninety) considered the Directive as no effective in guaranteeing the
free circulation of lifts and safety components. For the most part, economic operators of all
size agree on the fact that Directive has been effective in ensuring a high degree of lift
safety.
Figure 37 - Relevance and effectiveness of the Directive
100% 3% 3%
90%
80% 29%
41%
70% 59%
60%
50%
40%
67%
30% 56%
20% 40%
10%
0%
The Directive perfectly The Directive is effective in The Directive is effective in
meets the current needs of guaranteeing the free guaranteeing a high degree
stakeholders circulation of lifts and of lift safety
safety components within
the EU
To a great extent To some extent To no extent
With particular regard to MS that accessed the EU after the entry into force of the Directive
and for which data are available,376 they value even more positively these aspects of the
Directive. As a proof, 54% (n=13 out of 24), 71% (n=17 out of 24), 71% (n=17 out of 24)
declare that the Directive to a large extent perfectly meets their needs, and is effective in
guaranteeing free movement and a high degree of lift safety. As shown in the figure above,
the same dimensions were rated slightly less positively if the overall replies are considered.
On the same line, an interviewed MS representative stated that since the entry into force of
the Directive “safety has significantly improved, as currently it is possible to trace the whole
supply chain of safety components and lifts, from the very first moment of their design. This
improvement is strictly related to the NLF, which works very well for lifts.” This point is also
supported by an interviewed French industry association.
Respondents to the OPC identify (61%, n=36 out of 59) in the uneven enforcement of
market surveillance across EU Member States the major obstacle hindering the free
circulation of lifts and lift safety components (as shown in the figure below). Also
economic operators of all size consider the uneven enforcement of market surveillance as
the major obstacle hindering the free circulation of lifts and safety components. However a
considerable share of respondents highlight the lack of instructions for use provided on the
lift site (39%, n=11 out of 28), different levels of perceived quality of certificates issued by
NBs (63%, n=34 out of 53) and national practices incorporating additional requirements into
products regulated by the Directive (67%, n=34 out of 50) as further barriers for the lift free
movement in the Internal market.
376
120
Figure 38 - Obstacles hindering the free circulation of lifts and lift safety components
100% 4%
6% 8%
16%
90%
20%
80% 39%
30%
18%
70% 16%
60%
63%
50% 22%
40% 53%
52%
12%
30% 61%
20%
25%
27%
10%
11% 14%
6%
0%
Different national Lack of instructions for use Different levels of perceived National practices Uneven enforcement of
requirements or practices provided and available on quality of certificates issued incorporating market surveillance across
the lift site by Notified Bodies additional/costly/ EU Member States
unnecessary requirements
into products relevant for
Lifts Directive 95/16/EC
To a large extent To a medium extent To a small extent There is no such obstacle
Source: OPC
With regard to the overall clarity of the Directive, respondents to the OPC report having
faced only small issues related to the clarity of the definitions (66%, n=40 out of 60).
However economic operators of all size found partly missing the definitions of “Installer of a
lift” and “Placing on the market of the lift”. Similarly, the majority of stakeholders did not
encounter difficulties due to the clarity of economic operators’ responsibilities all along the
value chain (n=35 out of 61). Relatively major issues seem to be associated to the
translation of the Directive in other languages and to the clarity of the conformity
assessment procedures (figure below).
Figure 39 - Issues related to the text of the Directive
100%
15%
90% 25%
31% 27%
80% 41%
70%
60%
66% 28%
50% 51%
25%
57%
40%
30%
20% 39%
33% 15%
10% 18% 13%
2% 2% 2% 3% 10%
0%
Lack of clarity in The translation of Lack of clarity in Lack of clarity of Lack of clarity of
the definitions the Directive in the procedures of economic the interplay of
my national conformity operators’ the Lifts Directive
language assessment responsibilities all with other EU
along the value legislation relevant
chain for lifts
To a large extent To a medium extent To a small extent I have not faced such issue
Source: OPC
121
Attendees at the LWG Workshop also discussed some issues related to the lack of clarity of
the Directive. To solve the uncertainties in the application of different legislative framework,
a MS representative proposed a merge between the Cableways, the Machinery and the
Lifts Directives, stating that “a lift is not a special machine in any case”. According to the
stakeholder, this could increase the safety requirements for lifts, giving at the same time
more flexibility and bringing more challenges to innovative solutions. He adds that this
would reduce the burden for economic operators as they shall no more worry about the
compliance of their products with respect to a specific legislation. On this point, an
interviewed Italian SME association declared that the amendment to the Machinery Directive
significantly clarified the Directive’s scope of application. With reference to a possible merge
between all Directives, the EC observed “the risk is to lose expertise”. The MS representative
replied that risks shall be taken into account in the machine design and construction phases.
Another MS representative stated that the Directive is peculiar, due to the role of the
“installer”. The conformity assessment process is also completely different from other EU
directives. For this reason, the stakeholder stressed the need to leave the possibility of self-
assessment and not to merge the Directive with other directives. The Directive has indeed
very specific EHSRs related to lifts, so does the Cableways directive for cableways and so on.
The risk of a merge is to lose specificity. Another MS representative disagreed with this
point, deeming a merge could be beneficial to improve clarity on the scope of these
Directives. On the same line, clarity of the Directive’s scope would be increased if the
exhaustive list of safety components in Annex IV would be replaced by a general definition
of what is a safety component. According to the speaker, a closed list hinders innovation. A
representative of SBS observed instead that in his experience the Directive’s scope is very
clear. However, the applicability of the EHSRs of the Machinery Directive to lifts should be
more clearly stated (e.g. requirements on noise, flood). Furthermore, he stressed the need
to revise the list of EHSRs to help economic operators to better understand which risks to
analyse. A CEN TC10 representative intervened observing that instead of discussing
products, it would be better to focus on the risks each Directive tries to address, especially
considering that lifts are used by persons who are not aware of all the risks. For this reason,
using speed as a borderline to decide which directive should cover which product should be
looked at very carefully. He therefore suggests to use the “risk” as a basis to decide which
directive should cover which product.
As far as lift-related accidents are concerned, a MS representative at the LWG
Workshop observed that statistics suggest people nowadays “do not use lifts as they
should”, this not being due to a decrease in lift safety. Moreover, nowadays there are
additional risks that are not addressed by the Directive, such as animals (e.g. dogs) that use
lifts more frequently, or the use of robotics in lifts. The stakeholder concluded that it is not
possible to establish a link between the accident and the non-compliance of the lift with the
Directive. An SBS representative observed, that statistics from every stakeholder should be
collected (not only from ELA), to evaluate the effectiveness of the Directive in reducing
accidents. However, a major obstacle is that there are no centralised system to collect these
data at EU level.
EU added value and impacts of the Directive

Stakeholders consulted through both the targeted surveys and the OPC have very similar
opinions on the positive value brought by the Directive, inasmuch as they recognise that
although the Directive contributed to reducing costs to a lower extent, it brought other
major benefits such as the free movement of lifts/safety components and the reduction of
disparities among Member States.
122
Figure 40 – EU added value provided by the Directive

2% 4% 4%
100%
7% 14%
90%
24% 19%
80%
70% 34%
60%
50%
90%
40% 77%
72%
30%
53%
20%
10%
0%
Facilitating free Ensuring a high Reducing costs Reducing disparities
movement of degree of health between MS
lifts/safety and safety
components
To a large extent To a moderate extent To no extent
Source: targeted survey and OPC
The following table presents a comparison between the ratings of certain impacts of the
Directive.
MS accessing the Overall replies

EU after 1999
Facilitating the free circulation of lifts and safety components 81% (n=17) 92% (n=100)
Ensuring a high degree of health and safety 71% (n=15) 66% (n=72)
Reducing costs 37% (n=7) 46% (n=41)
Reducing disparities between Member States 67% (n=14) 75% (n=81)
Reduction of barriers to trade thanks to the harmonisation of 89% (n=17) 94% (n=89)
national requirements or practices
European firms’ propensity to innovate 88% (n=14) 94% (n=79)
European firms’ competitiveness with respect to its global 60% (n=9) 84% (n=58)
competitors
Establishment of a level playing field for all economic 81% (n=13) 90% (n=73)
operators
Apparently, respondents from MS that accessed the EU after the entry into force of the
Directive and for which data are available377 value more positively than the other
respondents only the positive contribution of the Directive in ensuring a high degree of
health and safety for users and maintenance personnel.
Respondents to the OPC were asked to give their opinions about positive and negative
aspects potentially induced by the Directive. Among the most positive impacts, stakeholders
signal: the alignment with the “state of the art” of lift technology through harmonised
standards and the facilitation of intra-EU trade for lifts and safety components and cost
377
123
savings. On the contrary, it seems that the Directive did not contribute to increasing safety
of lifts and to reduce the number of non-compliant lifts placed on the market.
Figure 41 - Positive aspects which may have been induced by the Directive
Alignment with the “state of the art” through

90% 11%
harmonised standards
Facilitation of intra-EU trade for lifts and

96% 4%
safety components and cost savings
Increased competitiveness of national firms
with respect to European competitors in the 74% 26%
lift sector
Increased competitiveness of national firms
with respect to non-EU competitors in the lift 81% 19%
sector
Increased safety of lifts for maintenance
personnel due to the alignment with EU 85% 15%
safety standards
Increased safety of lifts for users due to the
29% 71%
alignment with EU safety standards
Reduced number of noncompliant lifts placed

33% 67%
on the market
Unified Conformity compliance standards for

81% 19%
the inspections taking place across the MS
Workers’ competence and skill upgrade 83% 17%
Workers’ skill accreditation 38% 62%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strongly agree/ Agree Disagree/ Strongly disagree
Source: OPC
As for the negative aspects, stakeholders highlight that the Directive did not play a
relevant role in introducing mandatory requirements for accessibility to lifts by
disabled persons (n=33 out of 54). Furthermore, 54% (n=27 out of 50) of respondents
deem that the reduced Member States’ competences to regulate the sector eventually led to
a less specific legislation for lifts.
124
Figure 42 - Negative aspects which may have been induced by the Directive
Increased administrative burden 43% 58%
The Directive does not introduce any

requirement for accessibility to lifts by 61% 39%
disabled persons
Reduced innovation in lift design 26% 74%
Reduced MS competence to regulate the

sector eventually led to a less specific 54% 46%
legislation for lifts
Increased production costs borne by

firms due to the obligation of carrying 30% 70%
out the conformity assessment
Increased weight of regulation on SMEs

25% 75%
reduces competition
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strongly agree/ Agree Disagree/ Strongly disagree
Source: OPC
8.4.7. Minimum standards for stakeholder consultation

While conducting the consultations, the standards listed in the “Better Regulation Guidelines”
of the European Commission were applied, to guarantee that all relevant stakeholders have
the opportunity to express their opinions. The table below presents the five Minimum
Standards and actions to ensure compliance.
Minimum Standards Actions for compliance
 Clear content of the  All stakeholders consulted were first informed about the
consultation process objectives of the evaluation study. Moreover, they were
('Clarity'): All communication always provided with the Accreditation Letter of the EC,
and the consultation further detailing the background and the implementation
document itself should be process of the analysis;
clear, concise and include all  Targeted surveys and interviews were drafted specifically
necessary information to for each stakeholder category, so as to provide them with
facilitate responses relevant questions;
 All stakeholders involved through the interviews have
received the interview guidelines in advance, in order to
have the chance of preparing their answers and collect the
information needed;
 The Contractor made use of a Power Point presentation to
facilitate stakeholders’ involvement in the context of the
workshop held at the LWG’s meeting.
 Consultation of target groups  The stakeholders to be targeted were defined in a joint
('Targeting'): When defining effort with the EC. As agreed in the ToR, it was aimed at
the target group(s) in a ensuring that the most relevant groups (i.e. all MS,
consultation process, the industry stakeholders, NBs, standardisers and user
Commission should ensure associations) had their say in the consultation process;
that all relevant parties have  In order to ensure a balanced representation of all
an opportunity to express stakeholders in terms of both geographical and category
their opinions coverage, targeted interviews were intentionally aimed at
involving parties under-represented in the OPC and
targeted surveys, e.g. SMEs and civil society associations,
125
Minimum Standards Actions for compliance

or specific MS representatives;
 Despite all efforts to ensure an equal consultation of all
relevant parties, large economic operators are over-
represented with respect to SMEs. While large operators
were very engaged and they ensured a comprehensive
participation to the study, SMEs were more difficult to
reach. Furthermore, national representatives of large
economic operators often managed to coordinate their
answers to the targeted survey and OPC, meaning that
they had a stronger weight in the consultation process;
 The workshop held at the LWG meeting involved all
relevant stakeholders concerned by the Directive.
 Publication: The Commission  In the page introductory to the OPC, due notice was given
should ensure adequate to the current evaluation study and to the possibility for
awareness-raising publicity stakeholders to participate, if they were willing to, in more
and adapt its communication targeted surveys.
channels to meet the needs of  Awareness-raising activities about the importance of the
all target audiences. Without survey and the whole evaluation process were carried out
excluding other at the NB-L meeting. The former was held in Brussels on
communication tools, (open 24 May 2016, and saw the participation of NBs, industry
public) consultations should representatives and AdCO;
be published on the internet  Several reminders by email were sent to relevant
and announced at the "single stakeholders in order to remark the importance of their
access point"378 contribution to the study;
 The LWG meeting where the Contractor held the final
workshop to present the result represents another
occasion where publicity to the study was granted.
 Time limits for participation  The OPC ran for 12 weeks;
('Consultation period'): The  The targeted surveys ran for almost 15 weeks. At
Commission should provide stakeholders’ request, the deadline was extended to 15
sufficient time for planning September 2016.
and responses to invitations
and written contributions
 Acknowledgement of feedback  Results of targeted surveys and interviews were analysed
('Feedback'): Receipt of and included in the report. Full contributions were not
contributions should be published as the Contractor guaranteed the confidentiality
acknowledged and of information to all stakeholders consulted;
contributions published.  A complete analysis of OPC results has been included in
Publication of contributions on this report;
the "single access point"  The results of the Workshop have been taken into account
replaces a separate and integrated in the Report core text.
acknowledgment if published
 The synopsis report presents and synthetises the results of
within 15 working days.
all the consultation activities.
Results of (open public)
consultations should be
published and displayed on
websites
378
"Your Voice in Europe": http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/
126
8.5.The Directive EHSRs and harmonised standards

In general, all hazards that are not covered by EHSRs of Annex I of the Directive are dealt
with by the EHSRs set out in Annex I of the MD. Consequently, many of the EHSRs of the
MD are generally applicable to lifts under the Directive, such as (non-exhaustive list):
 Stopping accuracy, preventing the risk of persons tripping or falling when entering or
leaving the car;
 Maintenance-related aspects, ensuring that lifts can be inspected and maintained
safely;
 Electricity supply, where the MD states that the electrical equipment of machinery
shall comply with the safety objectives set in Annex I of the Low Voltage Directive
2006/95/EC;379
 Contact with moving parts, ensuring protection for maintenance and inspection staff
who have access to the machinery spaces;
 The principle of safety integration is always applicable to the design and
construction of lifts. It states that “machinery must be designed and constructed so that
it is fitted for its function, and can be operated, adjusted and maintained without putting
persons at risk when these operations are carried out under the conditions foreseen but
also taking into account any reasonably foreseeable misuse thereof”.380
As per the Directive’s Annex I, the other EHSRs directly applicable to lifts cover:
 The carrier (Directive Annex I, section 1.2) or lift car, whose dimensions and strength
must be designed and constructed consistently with the maximum number of persons
and the rated load of the lift set by the installer. In addition, the structural features of
lifts for persons shall not impede access and use by disabled persons;
 The means of suspension and means of support (Directive Annex I, section 1.3), to
overcome the force of gravity acting on the lift car, whether fixed above or below the
car. They must be chosen and designed to ensure an adequate level of safety and to
minimise the risk of car falling, taking into account the conditions of use and
manufacture, as well as the materials used;
 The control of loading (including overspeed) (Directive Annex I, section 1.4),
whereas lifts must be designed, constructed and installed so as to prevent starting if the
rated load is exceeded. Moreover, lifts must be equipped with an overspeed limitation
device (included in Annex IV within the list of safety components) to prevent
uncontrolled upward movement of the car;
 The machinery (Directive Annex I, section 1.5), where it requires that all passenger
lifts must have their own individual lift machinery. This requirement does not cover lifts
whose counterweights are replaced by another lift car.381 The machinery and the
associated devices must not be accessible except for maintenance and emergencies, so
as to prevent accidents due to contact between users or other persons and hazardous
elements of the lift machinery;
379
Currently Directive 2014/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of electrical
equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits.
380
Directive 2006/42/EC, Annex I, section 1.1.2 (a).
381
There exist indeed “double-deck” lifts that have two cars, one above the other, and “duo” lifts, where one car
acts as the counterweight for the other.
127
 The lift controls (Directive Annex I, section 1.6), which must be designed and located
accordingly when a lift is intended for use by unaccompanied disabled persons. Lift
controls must be clear and easy to understand and the call circuit (i.e. the system for
handling the call signals sent from the landings to the control system of each lift) can be
interconnected or shared in a group of lifts;
 The hazards to persons outside the car (Directive Annex I, section 2). Firstly, a lift
must be designed and constructed to ensure that the shaft or car travel zone are not
accessible except for maintenance or in emergencies. Before a person enters that space,
the normal use of the lift must be made impossible.382 Secondly, the lift must be
designed and constructed to prevent the risk of crushing when the car is in one of its
extreme positions. This objective is to be achieved by means of a permanently
accessible free space or refuge beyond the lift extreme positions (i.e. the top and the
bottom of the shaft). To apply this requirement, the lift shaft must be provided with a pit
below the lowest position and adequate headroom above the highest position that can
be reached by the lift car in order to enable a person to avoid being crushed in case of
unexpected movement of the car. However, in specific cases and particularly in existing
buildings where this solution may be impossible to fulfil, other appropriate means may
be implemented to avoid the risk of crushing, provided that the relevant Member State
Authority gives prior approval;
 The hazards to persons in the car (Directive Annex I, section 3). The full enclosure of
the lift car – with the exception of ventilation holes - and the full-length car doors are to
prevent risks due to contact between persons or objects in the car and objects outside
the car in the shaft or travel zone. In the event of a power cut or failure of an element of
the suspension or support system of the car, the lift must have devices to prevent free
fall or uncontrolled upward movements of the car. Devices to prevent free fall or
uncontrolled upward movements of the car and devices fitted to jacks of hydraulic power
circuits to prevent falls are safety components listed in Annex IV of the Directive. Also
buffers are safety components, they must be installed between the bottom of the shaft
and the floor of the car to act as “shock absorbers”;
 Other hazards (Directive Annex I, section 4) such as the risk of crushing, fire, collision
between the car and the counterweight moving in the opposite way, people being
trapped in the car, temperature of the lift car exceeding a maximum value limits;
 Marking (Directive Annex I, section 5) of the lift , requiring that each car bears an
easily visible plate clearly showing the rated load in kilograms and the maximum
number of passengers allowed to be carried;
 Instructions for use (Directive Annex I, section 6) must accompany the lift safety
components. They are to be provided by the safety component manufacturer in the form
of a manual drawn up in an official language of the Member State of the lift installer or
in another EU language acceptable to it. This manual must allow that assembly,
connection, adjustment, maintenance, periodic inspections and operations related to
rescue can be carried out effectively and without danger. Each lift must be accompanied
382
In this regard, clause 5.1 of standard EN 81-71 sets additional requirements to prevent unauthorised access to
the car shaft when a lift is particularly exposed to the risk of vandalism. EN 81-71:2005 + A1:2006 - Safety rules
for the construction and installation of lifts - Particular applications to passenger lifts and goods passenger lifts -
Part 71: Vandal resistant lifts.
128
by documentation – such as an instruction manual and a logbook383 - provided by the lift

installer in the official language(s) of the EU.
When a product conforms to the applicable harmonised standards referenced in the OJEU, it
benefits from a presumption of conformity with the applicable EHSRs covered by those
standards. Sometimes only certain parts or clauses of a harmonised standard may support
EHSRs. In these cases, only those parts or clauses will provide presumption of conformity
after the references are published in the OJEU.384
Mandates are addressed to the European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs), i.e. CEN,
CENELEC or ETSI. The following box briefly describes the three ESOs.
Box 7 - The ESOs
The European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical
Standardisation (CENELEC) bring together the National Standardisation Bodies of 33 European
countries.385 CEN and CENELEC work as European platforms for the standardisation of products,
services, processes and systems across a growing range of sectors such as: accessibility, defence and
security, energy efficiency, energy labelling, ecodesign and energy management, health and safety.
Services provided by CEN and CENELEC include developing European Standards and Technical
Specifications, providing industries with technical reports, drafting guides and harmonisation
documents, setting up workshop agreements.
The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) produces globally-applicable standards

for Information and Communications Technologies, including fixed, mobile, radio, converged,
broadcast and internet technologies. Its products and services consist in developing technical
specifications and standards with global application, offering active support to industry and European
regulation and establishing specification and testing methodologies.
With particular reference to lifts and safety components for lifts, only CEN has developed relevant
harmonised standards.
Source: ESOs’ official webpages and GROW webpage on “Key Players in European Standardisation”386
The flow chart below provides insights on the mandate procedure, from the EU request for a
standard to its official publication.
383
The instruction manual should contain the plans and diagrams necessary for normal use and relating to
maintenance, inspection, repair, periodic checks and the rescue operations. The logbook serves as a register of
repairs and, where appropriate, periodic checks.
384
COM(2016) 1958 final. The 'Blue Guide' on the implementation of EU product rules 2016. p.41.
385
28 EU MS plus Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey.
386
http://www.cencenelec.eu/aboutus/Pages/default.aspx; http://www.etsi.org/about and http://www.etsi.org/ima
ges/files/ETSIGenericPresentation.pdf; https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/key-players
_en
129
Figure 43 - Major stages for the development of a European harmonised standard

Identification of a need for a new standard
Consultation with a wide group of interested parties such as social partners, consumers, SMEs, industry
associations and EU MS
Submission of a draft request to the Committee

on Standards of Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 for NO Review of the request and the need for standard
a vote
YES
Adoption of the request as a Commission Implementing Decision and formal request notified to the relevant ESO
NO Review of the request and the need for

Consideration by the appropriate committee
standard
YES
Drafting of the standard by experts and

building consensus on its content
LEGENDA
EC action
Validation through public consultation and voting ESO action
procedures
Ratification and publication of the EN and

submission of references to the EC
Verification of the conditions for publication in NO Review of the standard to bring it in compliance
the OJEU with the EC’s initial standardisation request
YES
Publication of the EN references in the OJEU
Source: EY elaboration387
Where the voting result is positive, the relevant ESO ratifies and publishes the EN. As the
relevant EN supports Union harmonisation legislation and it was drafted on the basis of an
EC request, this EN is “harmonised” within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of Regulation (EU)
No 1025/2012.388 Then the relevant ESO transmits the EN references to the EC, including
the reference number and the title in all official languages of the EU. After the adoption of a
harmonised standard, national standardisation bodies are obliged to transpose the relevant
EN as an identical national standard and to withdraw any national standards which are
conflicting with a harmonised standard.389 The transposition of the standard is usually
387
Based on: UEAPME (2010), Standardisation and SMEs, p. 32, COM(2016) 1958 final. The 'Blue Guide' on the
implementation of EU product rules 2016. p. 43-44 and DG GROW website: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-
market/european-standards/requests_en
388
The article states that a “harmonised standard means a European standard adopted on the basis of a request
made by the Commission for the application of Union harmonisation legislation.
389
According to article 3(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012: “During the preparation of a harmonised standard or
after its approval, national standardisation bodies shall not take any action which could prejudice the harmonisation
intended and, in particular, shall not publish in the field in question a new or revised national standard which is not
completely in line with an existing harmonised standard. After publication of a new harmonised standard, all
conflicting national standards shall be withdrawn within a reasonable deadline”.
130
carried out before the references of the harmonised standard are published in the OJ.
However, national transposition is not a precondition to get a presumption of conformity. As
for the Commission, it has to verify whether the relevant EN complies with the initial
mandate, checking in particular that the EN is covered by the relevant request and whether
essential or other legal requirements ‘aimed to be covered’ are clearly indicated and covered
by the standard. As a final step and after all the necessary verifications, the Commission
publishes the references of a harmonised standard in the OJ. This publication finally
establishes a presumption of conformity with essential or other legal requirements covered
by the relevant harmonised standard.
According to Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012, formal objection occurs when a
Member State or the European Parliament dispute the publication of the references of a
harmonised standard in the OJEU considering that it does not entirely satisfy the
requirements which it aims to cover. Through this process, the disputant may ask the
Commission to draft a Commission Decision in order to prevent or remove the presumption
of conformity.
131
8.6.Transposition of the Directive at national level
The following table presents the transposition of the main provisions of the Directive at national level. The “√” sign means the Member State
transposed the provision exactly as it is in the Directive. A blank cell means the provision is not transposed at national level. Any differences
between the national transposition and the Directive is reported.
MS Definition of installer Article 2(2) Article 8 Prior approval Provisions for people with disabilities
‘installer of a lift’ shall MS shall take all appropriate Conformity The lift must be designed and constructed […] the car must The controls of lifts
mean the natural or measures to ensure that the person assessment to prevent the risk of crushing when the car be designed and intended for use by
legal person who takes responsible for work on the building procedures is in one of its extreme positions. The constructed in unaccompanied
responsibility for the or construction and the installer of objective will be achieved by means of free such a way that disabled persons
design, manufacture, the lift, on the one hand, keep each space or refuge beyond the extreme its structural must be designed
installation and placing other informed of the facts positions. However, in specific cases, in features do not and located
on the market of the lift necessary for, and, on the other affording MS the possibility of giving prior obstruct or accordingly
and who affixes the CE hand, take the appropriate steps to approval, particularly in existing buildings, impede access
marking and draws up ensure, the proper operation and where this solution is impossible to fulfil, and use by
the EC DoC. safe use of the lift. other appropriate means may be provided disabled persons.
to avoid this risk.
AT390 √ The person responsible for the √ √ √ √
building construction and the
installer company have to exchange
all the information and ensure the
appropriate measures for proper
operation and safe use of the lift.
This is within the scope of the
preliminary examination on the
basis of the relevant documents to
check. The person responsible for
the building construction or
structure and the installer company
have to take the necessary
measures, in addition to those for
safety and operation of the devices
to be installed or in the lift shaft.
This is within the scope of the
preliminary examination on the
basis of relevant documents.
BE391 √ √ √ √ √ √
390
Bundesgesetzblatt Für Die Republik Österreich Jahrgang 1996 Ausgegeben am 30 December 1996 (Verordnung: Aufzüge-Sicherheitsverordnung 1996). https://www.ris.bka.
gv.at/Dokumente/BgblPdf/1996_780_0/1996_780_0.pdf
391
Arrêté royal du 9 mars 2003 relatif à la sécurité des ascenseurs; http://economie.fgov.be/fr/binaries/2012.12.18AR_ConsolideSecurite_ascenseurs_tcm326-46173.pdf Arrêté
royal du 10 août 2008 concernant la mise sur le marché des ascenseurs. http://economie.fgov.be/fr/binaries/04-10081998_Ascenseurs_tcm326-46171.pdf
132
392
BG √ √ √ √ √ √
393
CY √ √ √ √ √ √
CZ394 √ √ √ √ √ √
395
DE √ √ √
DK396 √ √ √
397
EE The lift installer is a √ √
person responsible for
the lift design,
manufacture,
installation and placing
on the market of the
lift. The lift installer is a
producer within the
meaning of the Product
Conformity Act.
EL398 √ √ √ √ √ √
399
ES √ √ √ Only in existing buildings √ √
FI400 √ √ √ […] Where there is not sufficient safety √ √
space, this may be achieved by
permanently-installed safety devices.
FR401 √ √ √ In exceptional cases and prior to the √ √
commissioning of works, where the installer
of a lift in an existing building considers that
it is technically impossible to reserve these
392
Ordinance on the essential requirements and assessment of the conformity of lifts and their safety devices. Publication date: 2006-05-16. Available at: Link.
393
Essential Requirements Lifts Regulations of 2003 (R. 310/2003). http://www.cylaw.org/KDP/data/2003_1_310.pdf
394
Government Order 27/2003 Coll. Of 9 December 2002 laying down technical requirements for lifts. https://www.i-vytahy.cz/data/media/fck/file/27_2003_Sb.pdf
395
Ordinance for the law on device safety and amendments, Federal law Gazette 1998 part I Nr. 37. https://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl&
jumpTo=bgbl198s1393.pdf#__bgbl__%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id%3D%27bgbl198s1393.pdf%27%5D__1489421733336
396
Ministry of Labor's Order on the entry into force of the EC Directive on the Approximation of Member States' Regulations on Elevators. No. 92-6182-32. https://www.retsinform
ation.dk/pdfPrint.aspx?id=180337
397
Lift and its safety and conformity assessment requirements. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/118032016003
398
Ministerial decision n° F.9.2/oik.32803/1308 du 20/08/1997 FEK B n° 815 du 11/09/1997. http://www.karagilanis.gr/images/nodes/103/15302_kya_32803_97.pdf
399
Real Decreto n° 1314/97 de 01/08/1997, por el que se dictan las disposiciones de aplicación de la Directiva del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo 95/16/CE sobre ascensores
BOE n° 234 de 30/09/1997. Publication date: 1997-09-30. http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/rd1314-1997.html
400
Decision of the Ministry of Trade and Industry on the safety of lifts (564/97) 05/06/1997. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1997/19970564
401
Décret n° 2000-180 du 24 août 2000 relatif à la mise sur le marché des ascenseurs. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000583214
133
free spaces or refuges by referring to the
dimensions indicated in the European
legislation in force, it may use any other
equivalent technical solution which has been
submitted to the prior approval of an
authorised body […], so as to prevent the
risk of crushing and such that the
associated safety device is activated before
the person outside the cabin is at risk.
HR402 √ √ √ √ √ √
403
HU √ The building authority and the lift √ √ √ √
installer sign a detailed “technical
sheet” providing information on the
lift characteristics so that the lift as
well as the building meet the
installation requirements of the
relevant regulations and standards.
IE404 √ √ √
IT405 √ √ √ √
406
LT √ √ √ √ √ √
LU407 √ √ √ √ √ √
408
LV √ √ √ √ √ √
409
MT √ √ √ √
NL410 √ √ √
402
The Rule on Safety of Elevators. Number: 58/2010. http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2010_05_58_1384.html
403
113/1998. (VI.10.) Gov. Regulation on the licensing, operation, supervision and control of construction of elevators and escalators. Publication date: 1998-06-10. 108/2001.
(XII.23) FVM-GM on the Safety Requirements and Certification of Conformity for Lifts. 2001-12-23. (IV.29) BM-GKM Joint Decree 108/2001 on the safety requirements and the
certification of lifts. (XII.23) FVM-GM. 2004-04-27. http://www.simontornya.hu/_user/browser/File/letoltheto_dokumentumok/epitesugyek/jogszabalyok/10_1_16.pdf |
http://vili.pmmf.hu/portal/documents/19217/52791/108_2001_rendelet.pdf
404
S.I. No. 246/1998. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/si/246/made/en/print
405
Decreto del presidente della repubblica 30 aprile 1999, n. 162. http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2017/03/15/17G00031/sg
406
Order No. 106 of the Social Security and Labor of Lithuania of 27 December 1999 of the Minister of Transport on technical regulations approval for lifts and safety components
for lifts. https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.65D0C6BBF8EC
407
Règlement Grand-Ducal du 25 Octobre 1999 relatif aux ascenseurs. Publication date: 1001-01-01. http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/rgd/1999/10/25/n2/jo
408
Amendments to the Cabinet Regulations No 157 of 25 April 2000. Regulations on lifts and safety components in the design, manufacture and installation of lifts conformity
assessment. Publication date: 2004-04-30. https://m.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=5279
409
Product Safety Act no. V of 2001 - Lifts Regulations, 2002. http://justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=10799&l=1
134
411
PL √ √ √ √ √ √
412
PT √ √ √ √ √ √
RO413 √ √ √ √ √ √
414
SE √ √ √ Only in existing buildings √ √
SI415 √ √ √ Only in existing buildings
SK416 √ √ √ √ √ √
UK417 √ √ √ √ √ √
Provisions in national building regulations relating to Article 2(2) of the Directive
The analysis assessed whether some provisions – additional to those set out in the Directive - relating to the communication between the lift
installer and the building constructor are foreseen in the national building regulations. The results are presented in the following table.
MS Reference to communication between lift installer and building constructor Link to national building regulation
AT None http://www.bauordnungen.de/Burgenland_Baugesetz.htm
BE None http://www.droitbelge.be/news_detail.asp?id=769
BG None http://lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2135470582
CY None http://www.ucm.org.cy/DocumentStream.aspx?ObjectID=656
CZ None http://www.pracepropravniky.cz/zakony/stavebni-zakon-uplne-zneni
DE None http://www.bauordnungen.de/Baugesetzbuch.pdf
https://www.akh.de/fileadmin/download/Recht/Gesetze/HBO/HBO_mit_Anlagen_.pdf
DK “When undertaking modifications and major repairs of lift, the person http://www.buildup.eu/en/practices/publications/danish-building-regulations-2010-br10
responsible for the building construction and the lift installer must exchange http://engelsk.arbejdstilsynet.dk/en/regulations/executive-orders/677-ombygning-og-
the necessary information as well as take the necessary measures in order to reparation-af-elevatore
ensure the continual correct functioning of the lift and to guarantee that the
latter may continue to be used safely.”
410
Decision on lifts. Official publication: Administrative measures. https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-1999-120-p25-SC19456.html
411
Law of 30 August 2002 on the conformity assessment system. 2002-10-07. http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20021661360 Regulation of the Minister of Economy
of 8 December 2005 on the essential requirements for lifts and their safety components. Number: 2005/263/2198. http://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/du/2005/s/263/2198
412
Decree nº 513/70 of 30 October. https://dre.tretas.org/dre/16638/decreto-513-70-de-30-de-outubro Decree nº 13/80 of 16 May. https://dre.tretas.org/dre/207129/decreto-re
gulamentar-13-80-de-16-de-maio
413
Decision on establishing the conditions for the placing on the market of lifts. Publication date: 2003-05-13; Page: 00002-00016. http://lege5.ro/Gratuit/gezdcmztgyyq/hotarare
a-nr-410-2016-privind-stabilirea-conditiilor-pentru-introducerea-pe-piata-sau-punerea-in-functiune-a-ascensoarelor-si-pentru-punerea-la-dispozitie-pe-piata-a-componentelor-de-
siguranta-pentru-/4
414
Regulation amending the regulation on lifts and certain other power-driven devices, Swedish Constitution 1993:1598. https://rinfo.boverket.se/H/PDF/1997-1H4.pdf
415
The Law on Technical Requirements for Products and Conformity Assessment; 1999-07-23. https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina?urlurid=20074212
416
Government Regulation 571 of the Slovak Republic of 6 December 2001 Laying down the details of the technical requirements And conformity assessment procedures for lifts as
amended. https://www.employment.gov.sk/files/slovensky/uvod/legislativa/pracovna-legislativa/nariadenie-vlady-571_2001zz.pdf
417
The Lifts Regulations 1997 S.I. n° 831 of 1997. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/831/made
135
MS Reference to communication between lift installer and building constructor Link to national building regulation
EE None Kadrioru ehitusmäärus - Tallinn
EL None http://www.elinyae.gr/el/lib_file_upload/210a_85.1149838844198.pdf
ES None http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1999/11/06/pdfs/A38925-38934.pdf
FI None http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1959/19590266
FR None https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=3031C82DD0425C43F523B90351
FB0DF5.tpdila14v_2?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000032492258&cidTexte=LEGITEXT00000607
4096&dateTexte=20170509
HR None http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2013_12_153_3221.html
HU None http://njt.hu/cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=155637.336447
http://njt.hu/cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=169057.330811
IE None http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/Develop
mentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad%2C24773%2Cen.pdf
IT None http://www.bosettiegatti.eu/info/norme/statali/2001_0380.htm
LT None https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.F31E79DEC55D
LU None http://www.vdl.lu/vdl_multimedia/Publications/Politique+et+Administration/R%C3%A8gle
ments+communaux/R%C3%A8glements+li%C3%A9s+aux+projets+urbains+et+de+cons
truction/R%C3%A8glement+sur+les+b%C3%A2tisses.pdf
LV None https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=269069
MT None ACT No. XII of 2011
NL None http://www.buildup.eu/sites/default/files/content/integrale-tekst-bouwbesluit-
13813bzksite.pdf
PL None ACT of 7 July 1994 - BUILDING LAW
PT None https://web.fe.up.pt/~construc/go/docs_GO/sebenta/por%20capitulos%202013/10-
legisla%C3%A7%C3%A3orev11fev14.pdf
http://www.cm-vpaguiar.pt/dataFiles/files/RGEU.pdf
RO None http://www.mdrap.ro/constructii/reglementari-tehnice
http://www.euroavocatura.ro/legislatie/1250/LEGEA_50_1991,_Actualizata_2017,_privind
_autorizarea_executarii_lucrarilor_de_constructii
SE None http://www.boverket.se/contentassets/3108c5069a60495380949c906e9c6f0b/bbr-1-
ovk.pdf
SI None https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina?urlid=2002110&stevilka=5387
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina?urlid=2009108&stevilka=4889
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina?urlid=2007126&stevilka=6414
SK None http://www.zakonypreludi.sk/zz/1976-50#cast2
UK None https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/LVDC/British_BuildlingRegs.pdf
136
8.7.Case studies
8.7.1. CASE STUDY 1: Access to lifts for disabled persons
Executive Summary
This case study seeks to measure the impact of the Directive (if any) on national provisions
regulating the access to lifts for people with disabilities, examining the extent to which
access to lifts for disabled persons has been provided and harmonised across the EU28.
The main findings show that despite a uniform transposition of the Directive’s
provisions related to lift accessibility for disabled persons, Member States have
foreseen additional requirements in their national building regulations. National practices
indeed vary depending on factors not immediately related to lifts, such as the type of
building where a lift is installed (new construction vs. existing building), its function (public
vs. private), or height (two or more storeys).
Overall, these additional national requirements are not perceived by stakeholders
as burdensome or obstacling the internal market for lifts. On the contrary,
accessibility requirements for disabled persons are perceived as insufficient in the Directive.
Introduction
The EHSRs of Directive 95/16/EC address lift accessibility to persons with disabilities,
ensuring non-discriminatory access conditions. However, the provisions fix basic
requirements418 only, and no obligation exists concerning the provision of access to lifts for
disabled persons in the European legislation.
Given the sensitivity of this area, and in line with the overall objectives of the present
evaluation, this case study seeks to shed light on whether and how the transposition and
implementation of the Directive at national level affected the provision of access to lifts
for disabled persons across the 28 EU Member States.
The information provided in this case study has been obtained through extensive desk
research, targeted surveys and interviews with key stakeholders.
Background
Since its entry into force in 1999, Directive 95/16/EC has sought to ensure the free
movement of lifts in the Internal market by harmonising the EHSRs to which lifts and
their safety components must conform to. The harmonisation efforts have affected
different policy areas including, notably, the provision of access to lifts to persons with
disabilities.419 The Directive ensures non-discriminatory access conditions for passengers
with disabilities through provisions set in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.6.1 of Annex I, which are
related only to the minimum size of door entry, the dimensions of the lifts car and the
position of control panels.
Specifications for the accessibility of lifts by persons, including persons with disabilities, are
provided in clause 5 of harmonised standard EN 81-70.420 However, since standards are
418
Prideaux, S. (2006), Good Practice for Providing Reasonable Access to the Physical Built Environment for
Disabled People. Leeds: Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds.
419
Waddington, L. (2009), ‘A Disabled Market: Free Movement of Goods and Services in the EU and Disability
Accessibility’, European Law Journal, Vol. 15 (5): 575–598.
420
CEN (2003), European Standard EN 81-70 - Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts. Particular
applications for passenger and goods passenger lifts – Part 70: Accessibility to lifts for persons including persons
with disability. Brussels.
137
not mandatory, this can only be considered as a reference document. Clause 5.2 of the EN
81-70 states that entrance clear opening should be at least 800 mm. Nevertheless, national
regulations can require more than 800 mm.421 The clause also mentions that the car and the
landing doors shall be built as automatic power operated horizontally sliding doors. Clause
5.3 of EN 81-70 provides detailed information regarding the inside dimensions of cars with a
single entrance or with two opposite entrances. The clause states that any car with adjacent
entrances must have a width and a depth suitable for the access of a wheelchair. The table
below illustrates the minimum car dimensions for cars with a single entrance or two opposite
entrances.
Table 15 - Minimum car dimensions for cars with a single entrance or two opposite
entrances
Type of lift Minimum car dimensions Accessibility level
1 450 kg This type of car accommodates one wheelchair user
Car width: 1,000 mm
Car depth: 1,250 mm
2 630 kg This type of car accommodates one wheelchair user
Car width: 1,100 mm and an accompanying person
Car depth: 1,400 mm
3 1,275 kg This type of car accommodates one wheelchair user
Car width: 2,000 mm and several other users. It also allows a wheelchair
Car depth: 1,400 mm to be rotated in the car
Source: CEN (2003)422
According to Clause 5.4, control devices must respect the following:

 The minimum area of active part buttons is 490 mm2;
 The minimum dimension of active part of buttons: inscribed circle with a diameter of 20
mm;
 The active part of buttons must be identifiable visually, by touch and from face plate or
surrounds.
Landing signal requirements are specified in point 3 of Clause 5.4 that state, among
others, that an audible signal on the landing should indicate when the doors start opening.
Although there is currently no obligation concerning the accessibility of lifts to disabled
persons in the European legislation, a Joint Declaration of the European Parliament,
the Council and the Commission423 encouraged Member States to take any measures
necessary to ensure that all levels of existing buildings, as well as those under construction,
are accessible to disabled persons, particularly those who use wheelchairs. It also
recommended that at least one lift accessible to disabled persons in wheelchairs be provided
in all new buildings. Nevertheless, standards are voluntary, the Declaration is not
binding and the responsibility for this matter ultimately lies with the Member
States. As a consequence, Member States have different approaches for granting
accessibility424 to disabled persons, and none of them is considered a best practice.425
421
Ibid.
422
Ibid.
423
Declaration 95/357/EC by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to lifts. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31995C
0907&from=EN
424
ELA and others (2013), Accessibility of the built environment legislation in Europe.
425
ACE and others (2006), The build-for-all reference manual. Appendix 2, page 46.
138
Practices and trends identified

National practices for granting lifts accessibility to disabled persons vary depending on, inter
alia, the type of building in which a lift operates (new vs. existing building), its function
(public vs. private building), or its height (two or more floors). The examples below provide
an overview of existing national differences in terms of lift accessibility.426 At the core of
these differences there is the existence of national standards for some EU countries.
In Cyprus, Regulation 61427 provides that no building to which the Regulation applies “shall
be erected unless (among other requirements) the lift car has a minimum dimension of
1.50m”. Moreover, for the lift car to be accessible to handicapped persons, the entrance
door of the lift shall have at least a net opening of 0.80 m, and the lift has car dimensions of
at least 1.40m length and 1.10m width. Finally, “a telephone device at a height of 1.05 m
shall be installed on each lift up to 1.30m and 0.40m from the door, to be connected to the
telecommunication network and to communicate with the lift maintenance responsible
and/or the police and/or the fire brigade”.
The Italian Ministerial Decree n. 236 14-6-1989428 establishes a number of requirements
mainly related –among others- to car dimensions (80 x 120 cm minimum size in existing
buildings; 140 x 110 cm in new other buildings; 135 x 95 cm in new residential buildings),
to the closing speed of landing doors -of at least four seconds, and to remain open for at
least 8, and to control panels -to be provided also in Braille signs.
The Latvian Building Code LBN 208-15429 provides for a minimum size of the lift car of the
access to public buildings and it lays down requirements for lift control panels. Moreover, the
lift car must provide audio information on the operation of the lift (floor where the lift is, the
direction of travel), and the lift call button and the control panel button designation provide
Braille and tactile display.
The Spanish Royal Decree 173/2010, similarly to the Irish Building Regulations 2010,430
specifically state that so as to be defined “accessible”, a lift must comply with requirements
of EN 81-70.431 The same does the French “Arrêté”,432 stating that the national standard
transposing EN 81-70 is deemed to satisfy all the requirements so that a lift can be said
“accessible”.
Finally, in the UK, British Standard BS 8300:2009 states that an accessible lift should be at
the same level than at least one entrance door to the building and that a clear level of
manoeuvring space of 1,500 mm x 1,500 mm should be provided in front of the entrance of
all types of lifts.433
426
ELA and others (2013).
427
Regulation 61. The Road and Building Law on the Use of Buildings by Disabled Persons. http://www.mcw.gov.cy
/mcw/dbpd/disabledaccess.nsf/All/3BC82DF3DA86360BC22572A6004A620D?OpenDocument
428
Technical requirements needed to ensure accessibility, adaptability and visibility of private buildings and public
housing subsidised and facilitated for the purpose of overcoming and eliminating architectural barriers. http://www.
gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1989/06/23/089G0298/sg
429
http://likumi.lv/ta/id/274995-noteikumi-par-latvijas-buvnormativu-lbn-208-15-publiskas-buves-
430
Technical Guidance Document M, Access and Use. Section 1.3.4.2 Passenger lift details. http://www.housing.gov
.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad%2C
24773%2Cen.pdf
431
Ibid, p. 34. See Annex I of Royal Decree 173/2010.
432
Arrêté du 20 avril 2017 relatif à l'accessibilité aux personnes handicapées des établissements recevant du public
lors de leur construction et des installations ouvertes au public lors de leur aménagement. Article 7-2, https://ww
w.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/arrete/2017/4/20/LHAL1704269A/jo/article_7-2
433
BSI British Standards (2009), Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people –
Code of practice, p. 56
139
The figures below display the level of lift accessibility for persons with disabilities across the
EU.
Figure 44 - Level of accessibility of lifts for persons with disabilities

a. New buildings and full renovation b. Existing buildings
Legenda
· Full legislation for all existing buildings
· National/regional legislation on accessibility of the disabled
· Obligation of lifts in public buildings of more than one level
· Obligation of lifts in residential buildings of more than two levels or reservation of space for later
installation of lifts
· Public procurement supplements to directives for access of disabled
· Applying EN 81-70 (only for existing buildings)
· Legislation for residential buildings
· National/Regional legislation on accessibility of disabled
· Obligation of lifts in public buildings of more than one level
· Obligation of lifts in residential buildings of more than four levels
· No reservation of space for later installation of lifts
· No public procurement supplement on disabled access
· National/regional legislation on accessibility of the disabled
· Obligation of lifts in some public buildings (traffic)
· Obligation of lifts in residential buildings of more than five levels
· No reservation of space
· No public procurement obligations for accessibility
· No specific legislation
· No obligation of any sort for public or residential buildings
· No answer received
434
Source: ELA and others (2013)
These trends have been confirmed also by stakeholders, as overall 71% of respondents435 to
the survey declared that their Member State has set up specific provisions for granting lift
accessibility to persons with disabilities, whether temporary or permanent, and to senior
citizens in general. As a consequence, 73%436 of survey respondents think that there is a
need to enshrine additional provisions for minimum compulsory awareness of
manufacturers and installers in the legal framework for ensuring accessibility to lifts of
434
ELA, EEA, ELCA, EFESME, EPSA, EDF, ANEC, EUCAN (2013). Accessibility of the built environment legislation in
Europe.
435
n=65. All EU Member States plus Norway, Switzerland and Turkey are covered, with the exception of HU, LT, LV,
RO and SI. Moreover, no stakeholder from BG, EL, HR, IS, LI and PT participated to the survey.
436
17 NB, 17 large installers, two small-medium installers, three manufacturers of safety components, and the
Maltese industry association, six MSAs and three implementing authorities.
140
disabled persons. Moreover, a large share of respondents to the OPC rate the general
information about accessibility of lifts and access conditions as bad/very bad.437
Furthermore, the availability of lifts in public buildings with more than one floor could
be improved, according to 42% of respondents to the OPC.438
Identification of issues or possible best practices
Member States introduced specific provisions to complement the EHSRs related to lift
accessibility for persons with disabilities and a number of them refer to EN 81-70. These
provisions have been usually integrated in the national building regulations439 and do not
have any particular impact on the implementation of the Directive.440 In addition, there are
a number of regulations relating the accessibility of buildings for people with
disabilities, which can also impact lifts in terms –for instance- of number of lifts
installed and required to be accessible.441
In addition, an ESO Member pointed out that there are differences in implementation of
EN 81-70 among EU countries. France suggests that all lift cars should be compliant with
the car size as defined in EN 81-70, while Germany requires that at least one lift in the
building complies with EN 81-70. The stakeholder also emphasised that the Directive is not
particularly clear about accessibility requirements and that some additional guidance from
the EC or the LWG would be useful. Additionally, he deems the obligation to have lifts with
car sizes suitable for disabled accessibility should be clarified for new buildings and should
be encouraged in existing buildings.
A consumer association mentioned that the safety aspects for average consumers are well
covered by the Directive. However, the association raised concerns regarding platform lifts
which fall under the Machinery Directive, where accessibility requirements are not applicable
and should therefore be covered by the Directive.
A Dutch implementing authority stated that his country has ratified the “Convention on the
rights of persons with disabilities”.442 Article 9 of the Convention refers to accessibility and it
is also applicable to lifts. The stakeholder highlighted that these specific provisions ought to
be in line with the Directive, more specifically with Annex I, article 1.2 and article 1.6.1. The
437
Two German PAs, two NBs, 16 lift installers, two industry associations, two organisation representing
maintenance personnel/users, an organisation representing people with disabilities.
438
An Italian NB, 14 lift installers, an organisation representing people with disabilities.
439
A large Turkish NB, an English industry association, a large French and two large English economic operators,
the Danish, Estonian, Finnish, German and Norwegian MSA, the Cypriot, Dutch, two implementing authorities.
440
A small-medium Czech NB, the Slovakian and German MSA, an implementing authority.
441
For instance, in Austria, the revised standards series ÖNORM B 1600 to B 1603 was published on 1 of October
2013. The standards refer to planning and designing accessible buildings and provide recommendations for
developers and planners that aim at reducing architectural barriers that “exclude many disabled persons from
participating in community life”. In addition, an Austrian economic operator pointed out that new public buildings
are expected to comply with the standard, or if at least 50 persons regularly enter and exit the building. As for old
buildings, the law is mandatory only if they are public. Lifts have to be installed in any new buildings with at least
two floors in Denmark to ensure building accessibility to persons with disabilities, while lifts must be installed in any
public buildings with at least two floors, or in any residential buildings with three floors or more in Norway. In
Germany, the national standard DIN 18040 (Construction of accessible buildings – Design principles – Part 1:
Publicly accessible buildings) describes the technical requirements for accessibility of buildings. The guidelines for
“Accessibility in Building Design” are intended to serve as a manual for the work of the federal building authorities,
developers, planners, and users of other public buildings and workplaces. In Poland, the specific provisions included
in national buildings/constructions regulation for granting disabled persons accessibility to lifts align with the
recommendation of the Declaration made by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. In Finland,
there is a general requirement that all new buildings must be accessible to everybody. The English MSA pointed out
that the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act also compels businesses and workplaces to provide access to disabled
persons, namely by means of platform lifts in shops and offices.
442
Ratified on 14 June, 2016. Available at: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2016-182
141
Finnish MSA mentioned that the only specific provision set up in Finland relates to having, in
buildings with three floors and above, a lift that can be used by persons in wheelchairs.443 A
representative of disabled persons mentioned that in Luxembourg a new accessibility law is
due in 2017 and will require that all floors in new buildings where services are offered to the
public must be accessible by lifts. This law will apply to existing buildings and government/
public-financed buildings in a given timeframe (probably ten years).
When asked whether national provisions regarding access to lifts for disabled persons create
obstacles to the circulation of goods, the ESO Member stated that the differences
between countries do not create major obstacles. However, they create unnecessary
differences, and thus economic burden to suppliers and consumers. The Dutch implementing
authority mentioned that in the Netherlands there are no additional rules, thus no obstacles
to the free circulation of goods. However, a representative of disabled persons pointed out
that having differences in accessibility legislation at national level implies that disabled
persons travelling in the EU have to become accustomed to different requirements. This
represents a clear barrier to the freedom of movement.444
A consumer association stated that the biggest issue with provisions on lift accessibility is
with control panels, especially for persons with visual impairment. Moreover, there are
tactile screens being used and the visual contrast of requirement of control panels
represents a problem for persons with low visual impairment. In this regard, a disabled
persons’ representative pointed out that, as touchscreen commands for lifts become more
and more popular, there should be a harmonised standard for this kind of interface. The
stakeholder, together with an ESO member, pointed out that there must be accessibility
features not merely for wheelchairs, but for a wider range of disabilities. For instance, in
case of an alarm, people with hearing impairment have only the option of speaking with
operators. In this case, there is a need for other alternatives (i.e. screens). On the contrary,
the Dutch stakeholder mentioned that no additional provisions are needed. In addition, the
ESO Member considers that the provisions in the Directive and EN 81-70 must be made
mandatory. Similarly, a Disabled Persons’ representatives stated that, although it is not
problematic if they remain voluntary, standards are easier to implement if mandatory. A
consumer association mentioned that standards can continue to be voluntary, but
enhanced market surveillance is needed. The association considers the market
surveillance to be weak, and that there are no checks on accessibility of lifts – the lift
inspectors are not responsible to check if the lifts are accessible or not (i.e. Germany and
Austria). In this sense, the stakeholder recommends that the minimum criteria for
performing market surveillance activities should be further harmonised and defined in the EU
legislation.
In their response to the OPC, the European Disability Forum (EDF) highlights that the
definitions and scope of the Directive should also reflect the ratification of the UN Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).445 Particular attention should be given
to the introduction of terms such as “accessibility for persons with disabilities” as well as
443
According to the stakeholder, this provision is in line with the Directive.
444
As EN 80-71 is proposed for revision, the ESO Member highlighted the following key elements for revision:
 Minimum car dimensions and increase in the door width;
 Introduction of specific values for measuring contrast between adjacent surface, and;
 More clarification on location of pushbuttons and displays.
On the same subject, the Finnish MSA mentioned that the status of EN 81-7x series standards is somehow unclear
and that there should be clearer rules when certain standards could be applied.
445
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
142
“universal design”. Furthermore, they state the importance of understanding accessibility for
persons with various types of disabilities –such as deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially
sighted. In addition, EDF pointed out that Article 7 of the Directive should be extended to
allow the withdrawal of lifts and safety components that do not comply with the accessibility
requirements. As for EN 81-70, EDF considers that, once revised, it will play an important
role in the implementation of the Directive’s provisions. EDF also considers that the
minimum dimensions for the size of the lift cabin should be changed, as the current size is
not sufficient for many new models of electric wheelchairs (i.e. mobility scooters) or other
equipment. Provisions concerning accessibility should be made mandatory and be included in
the Directive. According to EDF, ENs are not sufficient as real change comes usually when
legally binding rules are established and made obligatory for the industry. Finally, EDF
considers that any standardisation activity related to the Directive should ensure the
participation of users’ organisations.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the provisions on lift accessibility to disabled persons have been implemented
differently among Member States. Overall, these additional national requirements are
not perceived by stakeholders as burdensome or hindering the internal market for
lifts. On the contrary, accessibility requirements for disabled persons are perceived as
insufficient in the Directive. By way of example, one of the main issues raised is that lifts
must be made accessible to persons with disabilities other than mobility
impairment.
Bibliography
ACE and others (2006), The build-for-all reference manual.
Austrian Standards, Building for accessibility. Available at: https://www.austrian-standards.a
t/en/infopedia-topic-center/infopedia-articles/building-for-accessibility/
BSI British Standards (2009), Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of
disabled people – Code of practice.
CEN (2003), European Standard EN 81-70 - Safety rules for the construction and installation
of lifts. Particular applications for passenger and goods passenger lifts – Part 70:
Accessibility to lifts for persons including persons with disability. Brussels.
Declaration 95/357/EC by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts. Available at: http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31995C0907&from=EN
ELA, EEA, ELCA, EFESME, EPSA, EDF, ANEC, EUCAN (2013): Accessibility of the built
environment legislation in Europe.
ELA (2008), Guideline: adapting existing lifts for safety and accessibility of all.
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety
(2015), Guideline: Accessibility in Building Design. Available at: http://www.bmub.bund.de/
fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Pools/Broschueren/barrierefreies_bauen_leitfaden_en_bf.pdf
Prideaux, S. (2006), "Good Practice for Providing Reasonable Access to the Physical Built
Environment for Disabled People." Leeds: Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds.
Waddington, L. (2009), ‘A Disabled Market: Free Movement of Goods and Services in the EU
and Disability Accessibility’, European Law Journal, Vol. 15 (5): 575–598.
143
Stakeholders interviewed
Category Name
ESO member -
Consumer Association ANEC - The European consumer voice in standardisation
MS implementing Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment -
authority Directorate for Health and Safety at Work (Netherlands)
MSA TUKES (Safety and Chemicals Agency) – Finland
Disabled persons European Disability Forum
representative
Disabled persons ADAPTH – Centre de compétence national pour l’accessibilité des bâtiments
representative
Disabled persons European Network on Independent Living
representative
8.7.2. CASE STUDY 2: Prior approval: implementation issues and possible solutions
Executive Summary
The case study evaluates the transposition and implementation at national level of the
Directive’s “prior approval” provision.
The results show that the implementation of the prior approval is not harmonised across
Member States, and many stakeholders believe that the provision is not in line with the New
Approach. In particular, stakeholders believe that the provision of free space should be
mandatory for new buildings, and that the prior approval provision could be restricted to
existing buildings without Member State competent Authorities’ involvement.
Introduction
EHSR 2.2 of Annex 1 of the Directive requires lift installers to provide free space or refuge
when the lift is at one of its extreme positions in order to prevent the risk of crushing, but
allows for the use of other means in specific cases. EHSR 2.2 is one of the most discussed
EHSRs. Indeed, prior evaluations446 of the Directive, as well as an overwhelming majority of
stakeholders surveyed for this evaluation, have highlighted inconsistencies in the
transposition and implementation of this provision across Member States.
The provision is generally accepted for existing buildings where no free space can be
provided, but it is questioned in the case of new buildings. Moreover, consulted stakeholders
consider that, as it stands, the provision is unclear and might lead to potentially hazardous
situations where human or technical errors can cause fatal accidents. Finally, the leeway
granted to Member States can also generate distortions to the free trade of lifts in the
internal market.
Background
EHSR 2.2 is of particular relevance for the health and safety of maintenance personnel
operating outside the lift car. The provision stipulates that the risk of crushing is to be
prevented by means of free space or refuge beyond the extreme positions that can be
reached by the lift car to enable a person to avoid being crushed in case of unexpected
movement of the car.
446
The European Evaluation Consortium (2004), Study on the Application of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC and Health
and Safety Laboratory (2007), Technical assessment of means of preventing crushing risks on lifts subject to
Directive 95/16/EC.
144
Notwithstanding these prescriptions, EHSR 2.2 also provides for an exception that can be
used in very particular situations where free space or refuge cannot be provided. This case is
especially relevant for existing buildings, where it might be difficult to provide free space due
to structural conditions. In this situation, EHSR 2.2 allows installers to exceptionally use
alternative solutions that provide similar levels of safety after obtaining the “prior approval”
of the national authorities. Moreover, in addition to this prior approval, the installation of lifts
without permanent recess areas is also subject to the demonstration that it is not possible to
obtain clearances in the pit and/or headroom as prescribed by the EHSR to address the risk
of crushing, as further described in Box 9.
Box 8 – The pit refuge
Harmonised standards EN 81-1 and EN 81-2447 require an area in the lift recess pit and overhead
space which can be used as an emergency refugee. The standards entail that the refuge uses the
following dimensions: 1.0m, 0.6m, or 0.5m. As seen in the representation below, the refuge cannot
accommodate more than one person.
448
Source: Health and Safety Laboratory (2007)
However, the “prior approval” can be problematic for at least two reasons.
Firstly, by allowing Member States to grant installers permission to use alternative means,
different safety standards might emerge both across and within Member States,
not necessarily guaranteeing the same safety level. Also the existence of different models of
lifts is likely to add more complexity to the regular procedures and to increase thereby the
risk of accidents. As a consequence, the use of alternative measures might not completely
avert the risk of crushing for operators working outside the lift.
Secondly, the need of Member States’ “prior approval” in case of alternative solutions to
reduce hazards to persons outside the lift’s car might also generate disruptions to the
functioning of the EU internal market, as no clear criteria are specified that can be
applied equally across the Member States. This issue raises a doubt regarding the provision’s
compatibility with the EU New Approach in the internal market.
These two issues were addressed as part of two consecutive evaluations of the Directive in
2004 and 2007. The 2004 evaluation study highlighted that the third paragraph of EHSR 2.2
447
The existing standards have been replaced, as of 1 September 2017, by new standards for lifts EN 81-20 and EN
81-50.
448
Health and Safety Laboratory (2007), Technical assessment of means of preventing crushing risks on lifts
subject to Directive 95/16/EC.
145
was generating problems in the implementation of the Directive, as it was being interpreted
differently by Member States and NBs, giving rise to excessive administrative burden and
leading to platform lifts being installed with “much reduced pits and head-room”.449 The
report concluded that a better application of EHSR 2.2 was necessary, and that more
detailed guidelines could contribute to improving coordination between lift
installers and the building managers. The technical assessment450 undertaken in 2007
with the aim “to examine whether the solutions available other than free space or refuges to
prevent the crushing risk provide an equivalent level of safety” reached similar conclusions.
According to this assessment, there were “differing interpretations over what should
constitute a ‘free space or refuge’ across Europe. Although a number of alternative measures
were identified that offered levels of safety similar to the mandatory free space granted by
the Directive, these would require an “automatic deployment (to) reduce the necessity for
maintenance personnel to have knowledge of how to deploy a range of potentially diverse
systems”. Thus, the report argued that certain amendments would be necessary to
include more precise provisions in both the Directive and Standards to reduce the
risk of crushing.
Also the European Trade Union Institute paper on the Lifts Industry claims that artificial
safety spaces on new lifts put the life of maintenance personnel at risk. In their view,
permanent safety spaces are fundamental for the maintenance personnel’ safety in
the lift shaft.451
The analysis of the implementation of EHSR 2.2 and particularly of the “prior approval”
confirms there are differences across Member States, as presented in the bow below.
Box 9 – Implementation of the “prior approval”
 Cyprus gave prior approval twice, due to existing constraints in existing buildings. The means
adopted to prevent the risk of crushing consisted in steel bars equipped with limit switches to
prevent the lift car to travel below a certain point, thus artificially creating the required free space.
 In Lithuania prior approval is given to the following measures adopted to prevent the risk of
crushing in case of a reduced pit. The lift aprons452 have to be manually unlocked with a triangular
key, while they automatically lock when extended. A bi-stable entrance detection switch is
mounted in every landing door lock giving access to the pit. This switch opens when the car door
is opened with the triangular key. The switch activates a safety system that neutralises normal
operation. With the entrance detection of the lower landing doors is activated, inspection
operation and emergency operation is possible only after both car buffers are positioned in the
upper support brackets. With the car buffers in the upper position, the safety space fulfils the
requirements of point 5.7.2.3 of EN 81-21.453 Normal operation is possible only with both car
buffers positioned in the lower support brackets. After opening of the landing, a green light visible
from the landing is switched on in the pit when both car buffers are in the upper position
indicating the safe pit situation and a red light is switched on in all other cases. Instructions in the
pit indicate when safe access to the pit is allowed. An additional limit switch prevents that the
extended apron touches the pit floor and prevents that the car drives on the buffer during
449
The European Evaluation Consortium (2004), Study on the Application of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC.
450
Health and Safety Laboratory (2007), Technical assessment of means of preventing crushing risks on lifts
subject to Directive 95/16/EC.
451
European Trade Union Institute (2009), A Trade Union look at the Lift Sector.
452
Smooth vertical parts extending downwards from the sill of the landing or car entrance. Source: http://www.kle
emannlifts.com/index.php?option=com_glossary&id=55&lang=en
453
EN 81-21:2009+A1:2012. “Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts — Lifts for the transport of
persons and goods — Part 21: New passenger and goods passenger lifts in existing buildings”.
146
inspection and emergency operation.

 In Malta, if prior approval is needed, the installer has to submit an application form to the Malta
Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (MCCAA), together with other documentation such as
an architect's signed declaration to define the structural problems and a NB's report of the safety
feature providing 'temporary refuge space'. Based on this, or on on-site inspection if required, the
MCCAA issues or not the derogation for such lift installation.
 In the Netherlands, the prior approval provision has been transposed.454 This derogation to the
provision of (permanent) free space is given if standard EN 81-21 is followed for the construction
of the lift or if the building meets certain conditions. The lift installer must request prior approval
to the authority in charge to evaluate the actual impossibility to fulfil the requirement of sufficient
free space or refuge beyond the extreme positions of the car. This competent Authority may also
request a NB for support to evaluate the building conditions and express the final judgement.
 In Slovenia, when a lift installer wants to install a lift in an existing building where the safety
space is not enough, he shall get the approval of a NB. On the basis of this positive opinion, the
Ministry of Economy issues the permission.
 In Sweden the building authority can request the economic operator to prove that the solution
providing free space is impossible to fulfil. The solution is deemed as “impossible to fulfil” in an
existing building if it creates unreasonably higher costs than other solutions. Other solutions are
also accepted if the existing building has special architectural or aesthetic values, which could be
reduced or destroyed if the lift must fulfil the solution with free space.
 In the UK, the installer has first to demonstrate that it is impossible to provide the free space as
required by the Directive. Secondly, the installer needs to ensure that the risk of crushing is
prevented by applying for instance standard EN 81-21.
Source: CIRCABC

Differences in implementation are a reason of concern for many stakeholders. Some455
consider the “prior approval” as the most recurrent problem related to the implementation of
the Directive, and some others456 consider that the application of the “prior approval”
represents the deepest discrepancy in existing differences across Member States. According
to six stakeholders,457 this causes every country to have its own rules as to how compliance
with EHSR 2.2 of Annex I is achieved, thus making some products “acceptable and legal in
one country but illegal in another”.458 A large installer from the UK states that the existence
of the prior approval provision is a “disaster for transparency”, which goes also against the
principles of the New Approach and reduces lift safety for maintenance personnel. As a
consequence, 40% of survey respondents459 deem this to be an area of concern that is not
adequately covered by the Directive.
Also when looking at results of the targeted surveys, the majority of stakeholders460 consider
that the provision should be either removed or amended, with suggested amendments
454
Decision of the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment of July 5, 2010, no. 9012. https://zoek.officielebekend
makingen.nl/stcrt-2010-11770.html
455
Nine stakeholders out of 30 replying to the specific question in the survey (3 NB (DE, NL, UK), 3 large installers
(2 BE, CH), the Norwegian and UK MSAs, and an implementing authority).
456
19 stakeholders (5 NB, 11 large installers, English and German MSAs, and an implementing authority).
457
A micro Irish NB, a large French and a large English economic operators, English and German MSAs, and an
458
A large English economic operator.
459
24 respondents out of 60 answering this question. More specifically, 3 NB, 18 lift installers, one manufacturer of
safety components, the Dutch MSA, and an implementing authority.
460
Specifically, 93 stakeholders answered this question. 39% consider that the provision should be removed (17
NB, 11 lift installers, an English industry association, the MSAs of Finland, Germany and the UK, and four
147
almost unanimously (i.e. 16 out of 18) related to the fact that exceptions to the guarantee
of free space/refuge should be limited exclusively to lifts installed in existing buildings. In
these cases, there might indeed be limitations on the building structure that may not allow
adequate height for the lift well or pit depth to fulfil the requirements for permanent free
spaces.
The biggest criticism to the prior approval came from economic operators across the EU,
who asserted that the third paragraph of EHSR 2.2 should be either amended or repealed.
Indeed, nine economic operators argued that EHSR 2.2 “must give clear principles in
defining the volume, height and location of free spaces”.461 This idea was echoed by a large
French economic operator that claimed that the Directive should “give some guidance to
ensure equivalent levels of safety, regardless of the technical solution applied”. Similarly,
nine economic operators demanded clear and specific guidelines to ensure the same level of
safety across Member States.462 According to a European-wide economic operator, “the
harmonised standards EN 80-1 and EN 80-2 provide very clear specifications for adequate
height of free space”, but it is paramount for the Directive to ensure that “those principles
are anchored in the legislation and mandatory in application”.
An ESO Member deems the “prior approval” to be extremely important and relevant. If EHSR
2.2 would be removed, he considers that (permanent) free space will no longer be provided
as the use of “other appropriate means” (i.e. electro-mechanical devices) allows to reduce
the height of the lift well, thus representing an economic advantage. However, he considers
that these “other appropriate means” do not provide the same level of safety against the
risk of crushing as the provision of permanent free space. As for harmonised standards, he
deems that they provide very clear specifications for adequate height of free space.
Furthermore, he considers that any modification brought to EHSR 2.2 must be carefully
evaluated and that the obligation to provide free space in new buildings must remain in the
Directive. The same stakeholder states that EHSR 2.2 is crucial for the safety of the lift
maintenance personnel as they visit 6-8 lifts per day and they must enter the car roof and
the pit during every visit. Providing adequate free space is the most effective way of
preventing risk of crushing and it provides the lift industry with a common method of
mitigating it, regardless of the design and technology of the lift.
A Member State implementing authority considers that the application of EHSR 2.2 poses
a few challenges:
 First indented line: It is unclear what is acceptable as to prevent the risk of crushing
when the car is in one of its extreme positions. Installers tend to deviate from
harmonised standards and apply other (electronic) devices to prevent the risk of
crushing. However, the application of electronic devices can fail and, in some cases, can
be influenced. Existing technology can pose new hazards to a product for which an
economic operator is not sensitive enough.
 Second indented line: It is unclear what is acceptable free space or refuge space beyond
the extreme positions.
implementing authorities); 19% think it should be amended (2 NB, 12 lift installers, the Belgian and Norwegian
MSAs, the Dutch and Swiss MSAs), and 42% deem the provision as being relevant and compatible with the New
Approach (25 NB, four lift installers, two safety component manufacturers, a Belgian and a German industry
association, the Dutch and Slovak MSAs and four implementing authorities).
461
A Belgian, Romanian, Polish, Czech, Danish, German, Swiss, Dutch and Turkish economic operators.
462
An Italian, French, Dutch, Czech, Slovakian, Swiss, Portuguese, Spanish and Romanian economic operators.
148
 Third indented line: there should always be enough free space or refuge space beyond
the extreme positions of the car to prevent the risk of crushing (i.e. no derogation
should be possible).
Overall, the implementing authority considers that there is a lack of communication
between the architect, the person responsible for work on the building, the NB and
the installer to ensure free space is provided. Furthermore, he considers that there is a
lack of knowledge about the Directive throughout the value chain.
The Finnish MSA stated that the prior approval provision should be removed from the
Directive as it is not appropriate that Member States authorities have been given the task to
assess the conformity. In his opinion, this task should be fulfilled by NBs, as they have
technical knowledge. Furthermore, he considers that the provision distorts competition and
hinders innovation due to the fact that it has become an unclear situation in the EU, where
the actors involved have different ways of implementing the provision. Likewise, a
maintenance personnel’s representative pointed out that the prior approval provision distorts
competition especially if the approach to evaluate the adequacy of free space differs across
Member States. By contrast, an implementing authority and an ESO member stated that the
provision does not distort competition and innovation.
The ESO Member considers that the prior approval provision should remain only an
exception for existing buildings and this should be mandatory for all Member States.
Similarly, an implementing authority considers that, to avoid uncertainty and discrepancies
across Member States, the provision of permanent free space should remain a mandatory
rule under all circumstances. The stakeholder specified that in this way, the Directive would
have the same application in all Member States and create a level playing field for architects,
persons responsible for work on the building or construction, NBs and economic operators.
Moreover, the maintenance personnel’ representative stated that, if the prior approval is
removed as an exception, the alternative solutions will come as a state of art and safety
level will be reduced in practice.
The ESO member pointed out that, although harmonised standards provide very clear
specification for adequate height of free space, those standards are of voluntary application.
Therefore, the Directive must provide a set of principles ensuring that they are anchored in
the legislation and mandatory in application. The principles could be formulated in the form
of safety objectives (not technical specifications) in line with the EU New Approach. In
absence of such principles, market dynamics may force the installers to considerably reduce
the height of the free spaces by applying different interpretations of the requirements which
represents a serious safety issue and must be addressed by the Directive itself.
Finally, a NB interviewed stated that the prior approval provision represents a necessary
requirement, as Member States should be in the position assess the adequacy of alternative
means to avoid the risk of crushing in exceptional situation. The stakeholder pointed out that
the provision does not hinder innovation at all. However, since the Directive provides a guide
to avoid the risk of crushing (i.e. through free space), this could distort competition in the
internal market. Similarly, the ESO member concluded that, without a proper specification,
lift installers may provide for different sizes and volumes for refuge spaces with specific
instructions for taking refuge in case of emergency. This may create confusion on what
instruction to follow or even ignoring the instructions (if complicated) leading to dangerous
situation for lift maintenance personnel.
Conclusions
The implementation of the prior approval provision has not been harmonised
across Member States, and many stakeholders deem the provision not to be in line with
149
European Commission’s New Approach in the internal market. Therefore, different views and
approaches are applied, for instance regarding exceptions to guarantee free space, this
hindering the legal certainty and transparency of the Directive. However, differences in the
Directive’s implementation may defy the principles of the New Approach and reduce lift
safety for maintenance personnel. These variations impede a harmonised approach and thus
cause every country to have its own rules on how to comply with EHSR 2.2, which has led to
a situation where some products are acceptable and legal in one country but illegal in
another.
Although the prior approval represents an important requirement, having different
implementation approaches across Member States affects competitive solutions of lift
installers and NBs and complicates the work of the authorities.
Bibliography
European Trade Union Institute (2009), A Trade Union look at the Lift Sector.
European Commission, Minutes of the meetings of the working group of the Lifts Directive
95/16/EC from 2002 onwards.
Health and Safety Laboratory (2007), Technical assessment of means of preventing crushing
risks on lifts subject to Directive 95/16/EC.
The European Evaluation Consortium (2004), Study on the Application of the Lifts Directive
95/16/EC.
Category Name
ESO member -
Notified Body -
MSA TUKES (Safety and Chemicals Agency) - Finland
Maintenance Finnish Metalmaintenance personnel’ Union
personnel’
representative
8.7.3. CASE STUDY 3: Technological trends in the lift industry since 1999: are EHSRs and
European harmonised standards appropriate, flexible and effective to support the
implementation of the Lifts Directive?
Executive Summary
This case study seeks to identify the main technological trends in the lift industry since the
implementation of the Lifts Directive. It evaluates to which extent the EHSRs and ENs have
been appropriate, flexible and effective to support its implementation.
The main findings show that the lift industry has developed considerably since 1999.
From the literature review, survey consultation and interviews, it resulted that one of the
main technological developments is the concept of Machine Room-Less lifts. Survey results
have concluded that 54% of respondents deem that there are some areas of concern on lift
safety that are not effectively covered by the EHSRs.
The main conclusions that can be drawn from this case study are that the technological
developments in the lifts industry are not directly linked to the implementation of
the Directive. Furthermore, while EHSRs have proved to be appropriate, flexible and
150
effective to support the implementation of the Directive, innovation and technology evolve
faster than it takes to develop harmonised standards or update the existing ones.
Introduction
This case study aims at analysing how the technological trends in the lift industry since 1999
have affected the implementation of Directive 95/16/EC. It looks mainly at the technological
trends over time and assesses whether the EHSRs and European standards have been
flexible and effective in supporting the implementation of the Directive.
The case study provides an overview of technological developments of the lift industry since
the Directive’s entry into force. First, we present the current situation of the lift industry in
the EU and the main drivers of the technological developments. Then we focus on European
standards and EHSRs, and present their main additions to the overall development of the
industry. We analyse current practices, trends in the sector, and main issues.
Background
The lift industry has developed significantly over recent years. When producing a lift, the
main concerns of economic operators relate to space restrictions, reliability, safety and
ride comfort, travel speed and acoustic noise. Technological developments in the
industry are also related to the introduction of energy efficient technologies which can
increase competitiveness and energy/money saving.463 The demand for “green buildings”464
is on the rise in the EU as better construction and use of buildings could lead to major
resource savings (it could reduce 42% of the final energy consumption and roughly 35% of
the total greenhouse gases emissions).465
As the figure below illustrates, the main growth drivers of the lifts industry are related to
three main areas: new equipment, modernisation and maintenance. The demand for new
equipment derives from population growth, rapid urbanization, changing demographics and,
as mentioned above, environmental aspects. Modernisation relates to aging equipment and
population, increased attention to safety issues and related legislation, and environmental
aspects. As for maintenance, conversion from new equipment deliveries has represented,
along with safety and legislation, an important growth driver.466
463
Intelligent Energy Europe (2010), Energy Efficient Elevators and Escalators.
464
The term refers to both a structure and the using of processes that are environmentally responsible and
resource-efficient throughout a building life-cycle.
465
ECORYS (2014), Resource efficiency in the building sector, p. 12 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/
Resource%20efficiency%20in%20the%20building%20sector.pdf
466
Credit Suisse (2012), Elevators and Escalators, p.5.
151
Figure 45 - Growth trends and drivers for lift and escalator market
Source: Credit Suisse (2012), Elevators and Escalators

As mentioned, a main driver of innovative technological solutions has been saving
construction space.467 Commonly, due to the size of the equipment, all lifts used to
require a machine room where the motor (and pumps for the hydraulic lifts) and a control
cabinet were deposited. However, as a result of the development in permanent magnetic
motor technology and motor drives, the size and shape of these components have been
reduced considerably, making it possible for these components to be fitted into the shaft.
Moreover, the size of the motor is nowadays reduced by the roping system used, where the
ends of the cables are fixed to the supporting structure. The suspension sheaves are
provided above or below the car and counterbalance, creating a force-multiplying effect
(compound pulley system).468
The figure below provides an overview of the lift technological development from 1996 up to
2007. The graph illustrates the development of different types of lifts throughout this period
and, suggesting that gearless Machine Room-Less (MRL) lifts cover the widest range of
heights.
467
Intelligent Energy Europe (2010), p. 11.
468
Ibid, p. 10.
152
Figure 46 - Lift technology development from 1996 to 2007
469
Source: KONE Inc. (2007)
MRL lifts present several advantages, such as providing travel distances up to 80 m,

capacity of 8 to 21 persons (630 to 1,600 kg), and high efficiency of modern traction
gearless machines used, which hardly ever require ventilation and are energy efficient with a
low pollution impact.470 The permanent magnet motors and gearless traction machines
provide higher performance and ride quality. Due to a more efficient design, less energy is
wasted and, since no machine room for air conditioning and light is available, this brings
additional cost reduction for the building owner.471 It has been estimated that MRL lifts will
make up 90% of the total lifts market share by 2020.472
The table below highlights the main differences between the hydraulic lifts and MRL lifts.473
More importantly, the table highlights the safety advantages between the two types of
lifts.
Table 16 - The main differences between hydraulic lifts and MRL lifts
Hydraulic MRL
Safety advantage
Installation and Driving equipment is safer Drive assembled in the shaft, passers-by
maintenance easier and quicker exposed to danger
Relative safety474 89% safe 11% safe
Cost advantage
Equipment Cost is least among all MRL costs are 30% higher
types
Installation Installation costs are lower Installation costs are higher by 25%
469
KONE Inc. (2007), New Elevator Technology: The Machine Room-Less Elevator. An energy-efficient, space
saving and high performance elevator.
470
http://www.liftline.co.uk/machineroomless.htm
471
http://www.neii.org/mrls.cfm
472
Intelligent Energy Europe (2010), p. 11.
473
Applied Mechanical Engineering (2015), A Critical Review and Investigation of MRL elevators.
474
The study concludes that, due to the location of the machine (either in the top of the hoist-way or under the
cab), reaching it for maintenance purposes can be difficult. This makes MRL lifts less safe than hydraulic lifts, and
accidents during construction and servicing of the lift more likely.
153
Hydraulic MRL
Maintenance Costs are moderate Subjected to degrading working
environment and replacement is expensive
Energy Energy costs are higher MRL can be 80% more energy efficient475
than MRL drives compared to hydraulic lifts
Relative savings 63% savings compared to 37% savings compared to hydraulic lifts
MRL lifts
Other advantages
Noise Noise is dampened Noise is present due to presence of MRL in
hoist-way
Speed Only suitable for low speeds Suitable for high speed applications
Ride comfort Similar to that of MRL Similar to that of hydraulic
Car space Larger car can fit in the Car size is limited by counterweight space
same space
Relative advantages Other advantages 53% Other advantages 47% compared to
compared to MRL lifts hydraulic lifts
Total Relative 65% compared to MRL lifts 35% compared to hydraulic lifts
advantages and value
Source: Applied Mechanical Engineering (2015)
Overall, the study concluded that the total relative advantages and value are higher for
hydraulic lifts (65%), compared to MRL lifts (35%). In terms of relative safety, hydraulic lifts
are much safer than the MRL lifts (89% and 11% respectively). As MRL lifts rely on the
relocation of motor room parts to exclude the need for a separate room, a new position for
the control panels needs to be found. In most cases, the panels are incorporated into
extended architraves or special panels, frequently at the top floor. This could increase safety
risk for users, including maintenance personnel.476
Safety issues related to MRL lifts have been highlighted also in LWG meetings.477 For
example, concerns have been expressed regarding maintenance operations. Some installers
have argued that the headroom above the car was not useful when access to the car roof
was forbidden. In this case, the use of a ladder and trapdoor was unfeasible and it was
foreseeable for the maintenance operators to access the top of the lift car. This conduct was
pointed out as being against the principle of “safety integration”,478 hence preventive
measures were recommended.479
Finally, EC’s standardisation request M/549 mentions that forthcoming standards on lifts
must include the necessary definitions of the product type and adapt to new technologies
and market developments. Wherever possible, the standards should enhance innovation and
475
A generalised equation to calculate the annual consumption of energy of lift per square meter of the building
space has been used to calculate the energy efficiency of lifts (E=R x SD x T/3600, where: R=motor rating in kilo
watts, SD=number of starts/day, T=time factor expressed in seconds and dependent type of drive and number of
floors travelled).
476
http://www.liftline.co.uk/machineroomless.htm
477
478
According to EHSRs of the Machinery Directive, the principle of safety integration is always applicable to the
design and construction of lifts. It states that “machinery must be designed and constructed so that it is fitted for
its function, and can be operated, adjusted and maintained without putting persons at risk when these operations
are carried out under the conditions foreseen but also taking into account any reasonably foreseeable misuse
thereof”.
479
154
competition by providing the option of a stable technical basis on which further progress can
be based.480
When asked about the main technological innovations related to the lift sector since the
entry into force of Directive 95/16/EC, stakeholders provided various responses. Among
them, a large number481 stated that MRL lifts (and all that they imply, such as drive units,
suspension, control systems, safety system such as PESSRAL,482 energy efficiency devices,
monitoring conditions) have constituted one of the main technological developments brought
about by the Directive. According to the “Guide to application of the Lifts Directive
95/16/EC”, MRL must provide access to lift machinery to prevent accidents caused by the
contact between users or other persons and its hazardous elements.483 In this sense, EHSR
1.5.2 of the Directive clearly states that “the installer of the lift must ensure that the lift
machinery and the associated devices of a lift are not accessible except for maintenance and
in emergencies”.
An ESO member identified the following technological innovations in the lifts industry: MRL
lifts, multiple lift cars in one lift well (e.g. double-decker or independently moving lift cars),
lifts with intermittent travel path (e.g. horizontal and vertical combined), other suspension
means, such as belts (thin steel wire ropes covered by synthetic martial), synthetic coated
steel wire ropes, thin steel ropes, carbon fibres and other. Furthermore, the stakeholder
mentioned the introduction of other methods of load testing as another technological
innovation (e.g. applying forces or kinetic energy instead of adding external mass for testing
purposes). A large installer mentioned a wide list of innovations in the lifts sector, including
systems for reduced pit and headroom, suspension near ropes as belts and coated ropes,
electronic or electro-mechanical safety devices, new materials such as carbon fibre for
landing and car doors, and car door lock requirements. The Slovakian MSA stated that,
overall, the increased focus on electronic and electrical solutions, programming and
monitoring of functions of the lift from outside, represents an important technological
development.
A Spanish Maintenance personnel’s representative identified the following innovations:
blocking devices for landing doors benefit mainly the users, for rises (wedges) that prevent
unintentional upward movement, shock absorbers and energy dissipaters. Finally, a French
maintenance personnel’s representative stated that, generally, the Directive allows product
quality improvement, as well as users’ and maintenance personnel’s safety. Nonetheless, it
represents a bedrock that needs to constantly evolve to be improved.
A further development identified by the Swiss Member State implementing authority is the
invention of “alternative means” to prevent crushing over the shaft of the lift, as stated in
EHSR 2.2.
An ESO member considers that EHSRs encourage innovation to better address risks and
ensure compliance with the Directive. More broadly, separating the legislative requirements
from the technical specifications to fulfil those requirements has created an environment
480
Standardisation request M/549: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/mandates/index.cfm?fuseaction=se
arch.welcome
481
12 economic operators (AT, CH, DE, FI, IT, MT, NL, NO, RO, SE, TR, UK). 12 NBs (AT, BE, DE, DK, CH, EE, EL,
FR, FI, IT, PL, SE). 3 MSAs (DK, FI, NL). 3 MS implementing authorities.
482
Programmable Electronic System in Safety Related Applications.
483
European Commission (2009), Guide to application of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC, p. 73.
155
strongly supporting innovations and application of new technologies. The EHSRs also guide
the manufacturer and the installer to focus on removing all risks inherent in the design. A
NB pointed out that EHSRs may even be too flexible, as the economic operators are not
currently aware of all the risks that new technologies may bring. On the same line, an SBS
representative stated that the EHSRs encourage innovation, but not the management
of risks. In this sense, he deems that, in certain fields (i.e. emergency rescue operations),
risk management has worsened compared to the situation before the Directive. On the
contrary, the Spanish Maintenance personnel’s representative deems the EHSRs encourage
innovation and better address risks, as manufacturers began to analyse the health and
safety consequences on maintenance personnel.
An implementing authority mentioned that the EHSRs are neutral to technology
developments as they are applicable under all circumstances. Furthermore, the
stakeholder deems harmonised standards to be a helpful instrument for economic
operators, because of presumption of conformity with the EHSRs.484 As a consequence, the
Directive does not impose limitations to innovation and development of new technologies.
Nevertheless, economic operators can introduce new technologies that can pose a hazard
not previously foreseen (e.g. the application of industrial control systems and connection to
external networks, such as the internet).
The ESO member considers that there is no need to change the scope of the Directive in the
light of innovation and technological developments. However, there is need for some
clarifications. For instance, there are innovations and technologies for load testing of the lift
installation (as required by Annex VI, section IV) that do not add external mass to the lift.
Although the Directive does not prohibit such testing method, the stakeholder considers that
this section could be clarified to explicitly allow such test method. Moreover, digitalisation
within the lift industry brings new ways of working. For example, it is possible to provide
documents and instructions online rather than providing hard copies which, according to
section 6 of Annex I, should be provided with the lift or safety components. He also
highlights that although this is not prohibited, it should be made explicit in the Directive. A
Finnish maintenance personnel’s representative considers that there is currently no need to
change the scope of the Directive. However, the emergence of digitalisation is a new
phenomenon that may require to expand the Directive’s scope in the future.
As for harmonised standards, the ESO member deems they strongly support innovation
and dissemination of innovative solutions into the markets worldwide. Harmonised standards
are voluntary, hence manufacturers and installers are free to innovate and use other
specifications. The harmonised standards support innovation by providing a basis for and
often confidence in the safety of innovative solutions. According to the stakeholder,
such confidence is important for the market acceptance of the innovative solution. When the
innovative solution is established in the market, it can be included in the harmonised
standards. In addition, ENs for lifts are widely used around the world. Therefore,
harmonised standards strongly facilitate the marketing of European innovative
solutions outside Europe. The SBS representative finally considers that the use of
harmonised standards helps the development of advanced installations across the lift
industry, in compliance with the EHSRs set out in the Directive.
484
Nevertheless, as stated in the Blue Guide (2016), “As long as a title of a harmonised standard is not published in
the OJEU the harmonised standard, or parts thereof, does not give the presumption of conformity with the essential
or other requirements it aims to cover”, p. 39.
156
When asked if the evolution of harmonised standards is in line with the state of art in the
area of lifts and safety components, an implementing authority noted that the evolution is
not in line, but “running behind”. In his opinion, innovation and technology developments
evolve faster than it takes to develop harmonised standards or update the existing ones
(e.g. the development of a lift that can move in more directions). Similarly, a NB considers
that standards do not represent an incentive to innovation as there are no standards for
newly developed technologies. The aim is to standardise solutions that have been introduced
by inventors and become common. Therefore, standards cannot be a tool to put innovations
on the market, as they are behind the innovations. The SBS representative also considers
that the state of art evolves faster than harmonised standards, hence creating the necessity
to update them regularly. Similarly, the Spanish maintenance personnel’s representative
considers that harmonised standards must constantly adapt to new products. As a proof, the
ESO member considers that there are many innovations not yet covered by harmonised
standards because they are not yet established as “common practice”. Overall, the Directive
has, in his opinion, transformed the lift industry. Prior to the implementation of the Directive
in 1999, installers had to maintain many different variations of lift design with specific
installation, test and maintenance instructions. The Directive has allowed harmonisation,
which resulted in:
 More reliable design;
 Harmonised test and maintenance methods, thus improving work safety and better
services for the customers;
 Accelerating innovations and their time-to-market (faster ramp-up of the production
volume);
 Consolidation of manufacturing facilities, thus better control on manufacturing process
and higher quality, and;
 Increased competitiveness at international level (due to the fact that EU legislation is
accepted by non-EU countries).
Furthermore, the Dutch stakeholder also emphasised a few points that are not sufficiently
covered neither by Directive 95/16/EC, nor by Directive 2014/33/EC:
 Developments as “industrial control systems”, “embedded software”, “software updates”
and “internet connection” pose new challenges and can introduce new hazards;
 Development of devices, systems and installation to safeguard free space in the shaft
(not intrinsic safe) ;
 Introduction of belts instead of cables and new detection systems;
 No controls inside the car/carrier – no way to correct your destination when you are in
the car;
 MRL lifts;
 Use of electronic devices and entertainment systems in the car;
 Magnetic propulsion opens the possibility that a lift can move in more than one
direction.
Furthermore, the Spanish and Finnish maintenance personnel’s representative considers that
all the most impacted stakeholders - namely lift installers, lift maintainers and lift users –
should be should be included in the Directive’s revision process.
Conclusions
The lift industry has developed considerably since the Directive entered into force in 1999,
though the drivers that led to such technological developments are not directly
related to the Directive.
157
Rather, the Directive’s EHSRs have proved to be flexible and effective so as not to
hinder innovation and new technologies. It has been highlighted indeed that separating
the legislative requirements from the technical specifications (set out in harmonised
standards) to fulfil EHSRs has created an environment supportive to innovations and
application of new technologies.
On the same line, ENs are considered almost in line with technological developments
incurred in the lift industry. Furthermore, although voluntary, they are deemed to contribute
to the application of the Directive and to increase incentives to innovate. There are still
many innovations not covered by the standards as they are not recognised as common
practices yet. More broadly, innovation and technological development evolve faster than it
takes to develop standards or update the existing ones and currently there are no standards
for newly developed technologies.
Bibliography
Applied Mechanical Engineering (2015), A Critical Review and Investigation of MRL elevators.
Credit Suisse (2012), Elevators and Escalators.
ECORYS (2014), Resource efficiency in the building sector. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu
/environment/eussd/pdf/Resource%20efficiency%20in%20the%20building%20sector.pdf
European Commission (2009), Guide to application of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC.
Intelligent Energy Europe (2010), Energy Efficient Elevators and Escalators.
KONE Inc. (2007), New Elevator Technology: The Machine Room-Less Elevator. An energy-
efficient, space saving and high performance elevator.
LiftLine, Machine room less lifts. http://www.liftline.co.uk/machineroomless.htm
Category Name
ESO member -
Notified Body -
Maintenance personnel’ Federación de Industria de Comisiones Obreras (Spain)
representative
ESO Small Business Standards (SBS)
Maintenance personnel’ Finnish Metalmaintenance personnel’ Union
representative
Maintenance personnel’ FO METAUX
representative
8.7.4. CASE STUDY 4: Market surveillance of lifts: a comparison between Italy, the
Netherlands, Poland and Spain
Executive Summary
This case study focuses on the effectiveness of market surveillance activities targeting lifts
and safety components in four Member States, namely Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and
Poland. The aim is to provide an overview of the enforcement of the Directive, its level of
effectiveness at the EU and national level and to identify best practices.
158
The main findings of this study show that stakeholders concerned by the Directive are
satisfied with its enforcement in their country, with over a half considering it somehow
effective. One quarter assessed market surveillance as ineffective and nearly a half of
respondents declared there are no substantial differences in the implementation of market
surveillance of lifts across the EU. Nevertheless, studies found that overall, market
surveillance activities in the lift sector can still be improved and currently, it
represents the weakest point in the value chain.
As a conclusion, market surveillance of lifts can still be improved. In order to have an
effective market surveillance at EU level, the effort should be uniform across the internal
market.
Introduction
In the context of the implementation of the Directive, this case study assesses its
enforcement in the internal market, focusing on the challenges faced by MSAs at EU level.
Besides the overview of general market surveillance activities, it also looks more closely at
their enforcement in four Member States: Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Poland.
Background
As stated in Regulation EC No. 765/2008,485 national MSAs are obliged to control the
products made available on the market in a proactive way, guarantee coordination at
national level and cooperate at EU level. At the same time, economic operators must
cooperate with national MSAs and “take corrective measures where necessary”.486
Market surveillance must be undertaken by the Member State authorities and ensure the
control of products on the internal market, regardless of their origin, ensuring that the
relevant applicable requirements of EU harmonisation legislation have been fulfilled.
Market surveillance occurs on the marketing stage of the product and its activities depend
on the nature of the product and the applicable legal requirements (from control of formal
requirements to laboratory inspection). All economic operators must have a role and
responsibilities in market surveillance.487
In order to monitor products placed on the market, MSAs must regularly visit commercial,
industrial and storage locations, workplaces and other places where products are put into
service, perform casual checks, test samples and request all the necessary information. A
number of good practice guides have been developed to develop efficiency in identifying and
taking appropriate measures for non-compliant products (in this case, lifts and safety
components for lifts). In addition, there are various tools that aim at enhancing the
cooperation and information exchange on market surveillance at EU level, such as RAPEX,
ICSMS and AdCo Groups.488
For the purpose of this case study, four EU Member States will be assessed, namely Italy,
the Netherlands, Poland and Spain. The selection of these countries was based on their
level of implementation of market surveillance and the size of their lifts industries.
Therefore, Italy, Spain and Poland are among the most important national markets for lifts
in Europe, especially in terms of production and existing installations.
485
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the
requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing
Regulation (EEC) No 339/93.
486
European Commission (2016), The ‘Blue Guide’ on the implementation of the EU products rules, p. 97.
487
Ibid, p. 99.
488
See http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/building-blocks/market-surveillance/organisation_en
159
In Italy, the national MSA is the Ministry of Economic Development (Ministero dello Sviluppo
Economico), although additional control bodies (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Guardia di
Finanza) supports it in conducting inspections across the national territory.489 In addition,
the Custom Agency is responsible for product checks at the non-EU border.490
The overall budget available to Italian MSAs ranged from €1.49 million in 2010 to €1.59
million in 2013. This budget coincides almost entirely with the budget of the Ministry of
Economic Development. However, the data does not cover the overall amount of resources
dedicated to market surveillance as the Ministry is not responsible for all the product areas
falling under the scope of Regulation 765/2008.
In Italy, a dedicated Municipal Office registers each new lift installed after having received
the relevant documentation by the lift owner. After they have been put into service, every
two years, all lifts are controlled by the competent body designated by the lift owner – that
could be either a Public Authority (the Local Health Agency, or the Regional Agency for
Environmental Protection) or a body being also a NB. A body who finds a non-compliance
notifies the National Authority. After a NB or a Municipal Office notifies a non-conformity
issue to the MSA, two phases occur. During a first phase, some information is requested
from the installer. Once clarifications are obtained, in case they are judged insufficient or not
sufficiently persuasive, the inspection phase starts.
The Italian MSA stated that the lift sector is so highly regulated, that only in very few cases
non-compliance occurs. It has, however, happened that some lifts were suspended from
operating, in order to align them to conformity rules, and then bring them back to service.
These cases were, nonetheless, always concerning formal non-compliance.
In the Netherlands, market surveillance of products is implemented by the following
authorities: the Social Affairs and Employment Inspectorate (I-SZW), the Human
Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT), the Netherlands Radio communications
Agency (AT), Verispect B.V., the Health Care Inspectorate (IGZ) and the Netherlands Food
and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA).491 Each of the six authorities is in charge of
its own specific product area. For lifts and safety components for lifts, the authority in
charge of market surveillance is the Social Affairs and Employment Inspectorate (I-SZW). In
2008, the Dutch government adopted the Renewed Surveillance Programme (Vernieuwd
Toezicht)492 whose purpose is to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of market
surveillance activities by developing better relationships with economic operators and
increasing awareness among businesses about their legal obligations under the legislation in
place.
Overall, during the 2010-2013 period, the total national budget for market surveillance
was estimated to be €20 million.493 However, there is not specific data on the distribution of
resources.
The table below provides an overview of the national market surveillance programme (2015-
2016) in the Netherlands:
489
National Market Surveillance Programme (2016), Italy.
490
European Commission (2016), Summary of Member States’ assessment and review of the functioning of market
surveillance activities according to article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.
491
European Commission (2016), Ibid. p. 33.
492
http://www.rijksinspecties.nl/toezichtagenda
493
European Commission (2016), the Netherlands, p. 27.
160
Table 17 - Sectoral national surveillance programme in the Netherlands
Applicable EU Division Type of Motivation Priority Starting Outcomes

legislation monitoring period
Directive Lifts and Controls, Compliance High All year Reactive

95/16/EC safety RAPEX, campaign controls in
components ICSMS, other 2016
alerts
Source: National Product Market Surveillance Plan for 2015-2016, Netherlands
Proactive and reactive market surveillance has been conducted by I-SZW since 1 January
2012.494 Nevertheless, in the survey consultation, the Dutch MSA pointed out that the
number of inspections carried out since the implementation of the Directive is impossible to
provide. Between 2010 and 2013, the I-SZW provided four presentations with regard to the
lift sector in the country and also contributed to the definition of the distinction between
cableways and lifts. In addition, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment began
fulfilling comitology agreements495 for five product Directives – including the Directive -
which provided knowledge and insights to the Standing Committee of the EU.496
In Poland, the authority in charge with market surveillance is the Office of Competition and
Consumer Protection (OCCP) who also cooperates with Customs and other nine MSAs. The
overall budget for market surveillance activities in Poland ranged from €8.8 million to
€10.2 million (2010-2013), and represented 0.0013% of the national budget.497 The national
market surveillance programme for 2016 states that the MSAs will be carrying out
inspections of selected lifts installed in workplaces and of their safety components. The
activity will be predominantly reactive, as a response to complaints and reports on the
potential presence of non-compliant goods.498
The table below provides a review of market surveillance activities in the lift sector between
2010 and 2013:
Table 18 - Market surveillance activities in the lift sector in Poland (2010-2013)
Indicator 2010 2011 2012 2013
Number of product related accidents/user 0 1 0 0
complaints
Number of substantiated complaints by n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
industry concerning unfair competition
Number of inspections (total number) 3 2 2 2
 Number of reactive inspections 3 2 1 2
 Number of proactive inspections 0 0 0 0
 Number of inspections prompted by Customs 0 0 1 0
Number of inspections based on:
 Tests performed in laboratories 0 0 0 0
 Physical checks of products 3 2 2 2
494
European Commission (2014), Review and Assessment of Market Surveillance and External Border Control from
2010 to 2013, the Netherlands.
495
Elaboration of the product directives and regulations on product safety, or primary regulations.
496
European Commission (2015), p. 19.
497
European Commission (2016), p. 36.
498
National Market Surveillance Programme (2016), Poland.
161
Indicator 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of inspections resulting in
 Finding of non-compliance 2 1 1 2
 Corrective actions taken by economic 2 0 1 2
operators (voluntary measures)
 Restrictive measures taken by market 0 1 0 0
surveillance authorities
 Application of sanctions/penalties 0 0 0 0
Number of inspections where other MS were 0 0 0 0
invited to collaborate
499
Source: European Commission (2014)
The small number of controls reported in the table above is, according to the review and
assessment of the national market surveillance authority, due to the specificities of lift
equipment. The controls carried out by the National Labour Inspectorate were usually
restricted to checking documents and verify whether the equipment had the necessary
accreditation. Between 2010 and 2013, the controls on products covered by the Directive
were actually intervention controls or controls conducted following a request of other
national authorities.500
As stated by the Polish MSA, the inspection and investigation methodologies consist in
checking whether the product in question meets the requirements specified in the Directive,
namely documental and technical aspects. The level detail of an inspection depends on
where the inspection takes place and on whether the lift is already installed and in use.
Regarding the basic documents which should accompany lifts, usually there is no problem
obtaining a DoC.
As for the sanctions and penalties available to MSA and related to the Lifts Directive, the
MSA stated that currently sanctions are restrictive measures set out in the Act on conformity
assessment systems and market surveillance, which is in force in Poland.501 Therefore, a
District Labour inspector who conducts inspections may:
 Order to eliminate non-compliance of a product;
 Order to withdraw a product from the market or from use;
 Prohibit making the product available;
 Order to reclaim the product;
 Order to destroy the product;
 Order to inform the users about identified non-compliance with the requirements,
specifying the date for such notification and its method.
Additionally, a fine may be imposed on the entity that does not fulfil its duties and places on
the market or puts into service a product that does not meet the necessary requirements.
Penalties are imposed in accordance with the rules laid out in the above-mentioned Act and
the legal measures are addressed to the entity responsible for the product.
In Spain, market surveillance activities are carried out by different competent authorities in
their respective sectors. For the lift sector, the authority in charge with market surveillance
activities is the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism, Sub Directorate-General for
499
European Commission (2014). Review and assessment of the functioning of market surveillance activities
pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 – 2010-2013, Poland.
500
Ibid, p. 26.
501
Act of 30 August 2002 on the conformity assessment system (OJL of 2010, No. 138, item 935, as amended).
162
Quality and Industrial Safety (Industria Ministerio de Industria, Energia y Turismo.

Subdirección General de Calidad y Seguridad). In 2010, roughly €26.7 million was available
for MSAs, while this figure declined to €20.7 million in 2013.502
In order to ensure compliance with the legislation in force, the Spanish MSA carries out
inspections in distribution and sale centres. In this sense, members of staff from laboratories
carry out visual (“on the spot”) inspections and verifications of product compliance with the
Directive directly in distribution or sale centres. The MSA carries out product sampling either
based on complaints received from third parties or through direct purchases on the
market.503
The following box presents the criteria for selecting a product sector as a priority for controls
by MSAs in Spain.
Box 10 - Selection criteria for products to be checked by the Spanish MSA
The following criteria are used by the Spanish MSA to select the products to be checked:
 Products that recently presented safety problems;
 Products where the lack of safety could have serious consequences;
 Products subject to checks in previous inspection and that had a poor track record of compliance;
 Products required to comply with new legal provisions;
 Products very common among users;
 Products whose level of compliance with the applicable law is unknown.
504
Source: European Commission (2015)
In 2013, 1,349 products were inspected by the MSA, i.e. the Spanish Ministry of Industry,
Energy and Tourism, and 221 related to the lift sector.505 In 2015, out of 1,571 products
inspected by the MSA, 45 related to the lift sector (out of which 0 were declared non-
compliant).506 The table below provides an overview of the market control programme for
2015 for products related to the Directive.
Table 19 - Market surveillance programme for 2015 in Spain related to the Directive
Applicable Product Motivation Priority Controls Participation Subsequent
EU description planned of Customs measures
legislation
Directive Safety Detection of Medium CE marking, No Notification of
95/16/EC components non- compliant technical autonomous
products specification communities
s declared
507
Source: Ministerio de Industria, Energia y Turismo (2015)
In the MSA’s perspective, their activities are conducted in a manner suitable to the national
market. One of the main shortcomings identified by the Spanish MSA relates to the
shortage of resources, especially those needed to monitor the large number of imports.
Furthermore, the MSA has encountered difficulties in monitoring products imported from
502
European Commission (2016), Review and assessment of the functioning of market surveillance activities for the
period 2010-2013 pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, Spain, p. 21.
503
Ibid.
504
Ibid.
505
Ministerio de Industria (2015), Energia y Turismo, Control de Productos Industriales. Available at: http://www.f2
i2.net/documentos/lsi/VigilanciaMercado/VIGILANCIA_DE_MERCADO_REGL_765_2008_Mod1.pdf
506
Ibid.
507
Ministerio de Industria, Energia y Turismo (2015), Market control programme for 2015. Available at: http://www
.f2i2.net/documentos/lsi/VigilanciaMercado/PROGRAMA_MINETUR_2015_SEGUIMIENTO_MERCADO.pdf
163
some Asian countries, whose traceability represents a major issue. Finally, despite the
training provided for the national authorities, the report states that ICSMS is not being used
enough.508
According to the Italian market surveillance representative, Italy has generally a reactive
approach to inspections. Since 2002, all installed lifts are controlled every two years – which
is deemed by the stakeholder to be a great effort, considering that Italy is the second lift
producer in the world and the second lift producer in terms of number of installed lifts.
Among the four Member States considered, the Netherlands seem to have the most
proactive market surveillance. The country has adopted the Renewed Surveillance
Programme (Vernieuwd Toezicht) and has been working closely with the EU. Moreover, the
National Product Market Surveillance Plan for 2015-2016 assigns high priority for market
surveillance activities in the lifts sector. Between 2010 and 2013, few inspections have been
performed in the Polish lifts sector. Moreover, these controls were mainly reactive, namely
conducted as a request of other national authorities. The 2015 Spanish market surveillance
programme assigned medium priority for market surveillance activities in the lift
sector. Nevertheless, the Member State’s reports showed that a relatively high number of
inspections have been carried out in between 2013 and 2015. Out of this number, only a
small percentage of inspections were related to lifts or lift safety components (16.4% and
2.9% respectively).
Based on the available data, there are clearly differences among the four Member States in
terms of market surveillance activities in the lift sector. However, as stated in the Blue
Guide, “in order to have an effective market surveillance at EU level, the effort should
be uniform across the internal market. This is much more important given that the external
borders of the EU constitute an access point for products coming from third countries. In
case of uneven market surveillance, weaknesses can be created posing a threat to
consumers and create unfair competition in the internal market”.509
Overall, survey respondents assess MSAs’ activities as effective (22%) or somehow effective
(53%), with only 25% of them assessing market surveillance as ineffective. Moreover, 53%
of respondents510 declared there are substantial differences in the implementation of
market surveillance of lifts across the EU. Five stakeholders out of eight asserted that
safety components are seldom511 or never512 targeted for control in their country.
When asked to provide information describing the inspection and investigation
methodologies specifically relating to lifts and lift safety components (including the extent
of monitoring activities and the level of detail to which they are conducted), various answers
were given by stakeholders. One Finnish MSA mentioned that there is not an increased need
for proactive inspections, as nearly all lifts are placed on the market according to final
inspection or according to unit verification module and not according to modules based on
quality assurance. As for inspections carried out by MSA to enforce Directive 95/16/EC, the
Finnish authority provided the following numbers: two inspections in 2004, one inspection in
2008, one inspection in 2011 and one in 2015. The Danish MSA specified that there were
508
European Commission (2015), Review and assessment of the functioning of market surveillance activities for the
period 2010-2013 pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, Spain.
509
EC (2016), The 'Blue Guide' on the implementation of EU product rules 2016, p. 100.
510
I.e. 20 out of 38 responding to the question.
511
Large French and large English economic operator.
512
Danish, German MSA and Maltese industry association.
164
merely five inspections throughout the whole period, while Norway mentioned that there
were no inspections conducted in market surveillance of lifts. Sweden conducted 27
inspections between 1999 and 2015.513
As for monitoring activities, the Finnish MSA mentioned that they do receive yearly
detailed summaries of installed lifts, which contain information on for instance the number of
lift models and installers. In addition, the MSA conducts field supervising visits to lift service
companies and installing companies. A Norwegian MSA said that both proactive and reactive
surveillance focuses on scrutinizing documents for particular lifts and quality systems. In
Germany, the MSA specified that the yearly inspection of lifts required by law is conducted
by third parties. The Belgian MSA said that lifts which resulted non-compliant can be subject
to a follow-up inspection and face fines. In Sweden, the MSA requests the documentation
and, where problems are being identified, the Authority issues communications of demands
for action by letter or email.
Box 11 - Sanctions and penalties available to MSAs and related to the Directive
Below are presented some examples of sanctions and penalties available to MSAs, related to the
Directive (as reported by the MS implementing authorities in the targeted surveys and interviews):
 Estonia: If a product poses any risk, the MSA can request it to be labelled with clear warnings in
Estonian regarding the risks that the product may cause, or establish prior conditions to placing
the product on the market to ensure safety. The MSA may also prohibit the placing of a product
on the market and take measures that ensure compliance, or demand and organise the
immediate withdrawal of a dangerous product from the market. Violating the conditions
mentioned brings penalties of up to €3,200.
 Netherlands: The authority may issue warnings and give penalties (both administrative and
penal) of €525 or €1,050 per infringement in severe cases. Most severe cases are taken to court.
 Norway: Sanctions and penalties had been used very rarely over the period 1999-2005.
Nevertheless, the sanctions and penalties available to MSAs are the following: violation fines
(used when an economic operator has transgressed one of the provisions covered by the
Directive) and coercive fines (used when the economic operator repeats the offence).
 Slovakia: The MSA shall impose a fine up to €166,000 for improper or fraudulent use of CE
marking or DoC, for products placed on the market or distributed without the DoC or marking, for
products placed on the market without fulfilling the relevant requirements.
 Sweden: According to the MSA, some decisions imply that the operator is required to take
corrective measures, which in some cases are associated with sanctions.
In terms of effectiveness of the collaboration and communication with other MSAs/NBs at

EU level, the Polish MSA mentioned that the exchange of information relating to the
Directive takes place during AdCo meetings. According to the Polish MSA, AdCos facilitate
efficient and direct communication between their members. The Swiss implementing
authority mentioned that most Member States Authorities are open to collaborate and
communicate. Nevertheless, some countries lack resources and others face difficulties due to
differences between the legal systems in place and the internal organisation of the country.
The Cypriot implementing authority mentioned that there should be more collaboration and
communication between the stakeholders that can consist in more AdCo meetings (between
MS and the EC), meetings of Member States’ representatives and MSAs within NB-L, as well
as the industry representatives at least once a year. Similarly, the German MSA mentioned
that Member State implementing authorities should participate to the relevant AdCo
513
1999: 0, 2000: 2, 2001: 1, 2002: 0, 2003: 3, 2004: 2, 2005: 2, 2006: 2, 2007: 5, 2008: 5, 2009: 2, 2010: 1,
2011: 0, 2012: 0, 2013: 1, 2014: 1, 2015: 0.
165
meetings, in order to ensure adequate communication. The Dutch MSA mentioned that,
where necessary, MSA representatives establish contact, prepare input and cooperate in
order to find a common point of view in the AdCo. Hence, where there are issues concerning
both the Working Group and AdCo, there is close coordination between the two.
Four MSAs identified overall strategies devised and implemented for market surveillance
activities related to lifts. The Finnish MSA mentioned the following:
 Monitoring the lifts placed on the market;
 Surveillance of lift products as part of other supervision in the branch;
 Market surveillance inspections where necessary;
 Monitoring accidents, updating national accident register, investigating accidents where
required;
 Providing information and guidance to consumers and economic operators, especially
concerning the implementation of the Directive and new national law on lift safety, etc.
The Belgian MSA mentioned the nationwide modernisation campaign requiring all lifts to
undergo a risk assessment and subsequent modernisation to align them with the EU
regulations. The Swedish MSA mentioned that only reactive strategies have been carried
out.
The majority of stakeholders514 responded that lifts and safety components are differently
targeted, specifying that the focus of control is mainly on the lift.
The majority of MSAs consulted responded that they have used ICSMS for lifts. A Dutch
MSA responded that, although the system has been used, it is not custom-made for the
Directive. The Estonian MSA mentioned that ICSMS has been used for lifts but it is not user
friendly. A Finnish MSA has checked whether there are notifications for lifts on the ICSMS.
An Italian MSA pointed out that the tool has hardly ever been used for lifts, since its current
structure makes it useless. In the stakeholder’s opinion, it could become more effective if it
were associated with RAPEX. A German MSA mentioned that they have a subscription that
keeps them informed about all activities related to the Directive and that the only problem is
related to the language used (MS use national languages). The Irish implementing authority
mentioned that, so far, ICSMS system has only been used for issues concerning the
Machinery Directive. The Swiss implementing authority mentioned that ICSMS is a good tool
to check if a lift that has been controlled and found not conform in another MS, with the
mention that in most cases the reports showed a default in the installation and not in the
manufacture of the lift. Finally, a Polish MSA stated that the ICSMS system has never been
used in order to forward information about products covered by the provisions of the Lifts
Directive.
MSAs ensure that products on the EU market comply with the applicable legislation. Besides
avoiding competition distortions on the EU market, market surveillance pursues also
consumer protection from non-compliant products. Nevertheless, various actors claim that
market surveillance in the EU can still be improved in some areas.
The European Trade Union Institute considers that market surveillance represents a
weak link of the Directive chain of operations. This is due to implementation
unevenness among Member States.515 Similarly, one Joint Industry Call for Action (2015)
514
German and Danish MSA. German, Maltese, British, Austrian and Belgian economic operators.
515
The European Trade Union Institution (2009), A Trade Union Look at the Lift Sector.
166
claims that market surveillance can still be improved in areas such as: lack of awareness
of MSAs, enforcement, testing and resources. Pan-EU cooperation on market
surveillance should be increased, intensifying cooperation among national MSAs and
increasingly involving industry in market surveillance activities.516 An Evaluation of the
internal market Legislation for Industrial Products found that market surveillance is deemed
the weakest part of the implementation system due to following reasons: inherently
difficult nature of the task (e.g. due to high level of non-compliant products entering the
market) and varying levels of resources and technical expertise available in EU MS.
Lastly, the evaluation concludes that MSAs must differentiate between minor cases of
non-compliance with administrative requirements and severe cases of non-
compliance with essential safety requirements.517 Likewise, a position paper issued by
the International Confederation of Inspection and Certification Organisations (CEOC) pointed
out that market surveillance in Europe continues to show substantial discrepancies. These
inconsistencies occur especially when being implemented by the national authorities, who
show different levels of resources allocated for these activities and consequently
different levels of intensity of enforcement effort. The organisation recommends that
the extent of market surveillance activities and frequency of controls should no longer be
subject solely to the judgment of the MS and preventive testing of products should be
undertaken by independent third parties.518
A Notified Body also claimed that the weak point in the lift value chain is represented
by market surveillance. The interviewee mentioned that the activities of MSAs represent a
key step to introduce and overlook the products entering the market. The stakeholder
further claimed that, overall, the activity of market surveillance in the lift sector is
more reactive than proactive, and that there is a need for effective alignment of activities
or approach. Having a weak actor in the value chain affects the well-functioning of the lifts
sector within the internal market. Similarly, a European consumer association pointed out
that the market surveillance in the EU is too weak. The interviewee stated that, in the
lifts sector, things are slightly better as a pre-market authorisation is required, but lifts are
not being checked in terms of accessibility. As a recommendation for enhanced market
surveillance in the EU, the stakeholder said MSAs should strictly follow the EU legislation in
place in order to provide harmonised and consistent enforcement activities at EU level.
Conclusions
In conclusion, market surveillance represents an important part of the value chain, as it
ensures that products placed on the market comply with the relevant legislation. However,
the level of market surveillance in the EU could be improved as inconsistencies in the level of
resources allocated and the level of intensity of the market surveillance activities have been
identified. Safety components appear to be seldom or never targeted for control in the EU.
Inconsistencies have been identified in the implementation of the market
surveillance in four Member States selected, where proactive and reactive inspections
differ from one country to another.
516
European Partnership for Energy & Environment (2015), Market Surveillance in Europe. Joint Industry Call for
Action. Available at: http://www.epeeglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/Market_Surveillance_in_Europe_-_Industry_C
all_for_Action_-_January_2015.pdf
517
European Commission (2014), Evaluation of the Internal Market Legislation for Industrial Products, p. 83.
518
CEOC International (2016), Effective market surveillance in Europe. Available at: http://www.vdtuev.de/fit-to-
drive/vdtuev-en/dok_view?oid=648647
167
Finally, in order to have an effective market surveillance in the EU, the effort should be
spread evenly among all the Member States. Having weak points in the market, poses a risk
to consumers and creates unfair competition in the market.
Bibliography
CEOC International (2016), Effective market surveillance in Europe. http://www.
vdtuev.de/fit-to-drive/vdtuev-en/dok_view?oid=648647
European Commission (2016), The ‘Blue Guide’ on the implementation of the EU products
rules.
European Commission (2015), Review and assessment of the functioning of market
surveillance activities for the period 2010-2013 pursuant to Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC)
No 765/2008
European Commission (2015), Report on the MS reviews and assessment of the functioning
of the market surveillance activities for 2010-2013 period pursuant to Article 18(6) of
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 (Sector 10 Lifts).
European Commission (2014), Review and Assessment of Market Surveillance and External
Border Control from 2010 to 2013
European Partnership for Energy & Environment (2015), Market Surveillance in Europe. Joint
Industry Call for Action. http://www.epeeglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/Market_Surveilla
nce_in_Europe_-_Industry_Call_for_Action_-_January_2015.pdf
ISO (2012), A Guide to Good Practice. Principles and Practices in Product Regulation and
Market Surveillance.
Ministerio de Industria (2015), Energia y Turismo, Control de Productos Industriales. http://
www.f2i2.net/documentos/lsi/VigilanciaMercado/VIGILANCIA_DE_MERCADO_REGL_765_200
8_Mod1.pdf
National Market Surveillance Programme (2016), Italy.
National Product Market Surveillance Plan for 2015-2016 (2015), Netherlands.
National Market Surveillance Programme (2016), Poland.
PROSAFE (2009), Best Practice Techniques in Market Surveillance.
The European Trade Union Institution (2009), A Trade Union Look at the Lift Sector.
Category Name
Notified body -
Consumer Association ANEC - The European consumer voice in standardisation
MSA France
MSA Italy
MSA Poland
8.7.5. CASE STUDY 5: Analysis of costs and benefits for SMEs

Executive Summary
This case study evaluates the cost and benefits induced by the application of the Dircetive
on SMEs. The main results of this case study show that the costs incurred by SMEs are
mainly administrative and due to the conformity assessment procedures. Survey
respondents quantified the average burden of conformity assessments around 1% of the
annual turnover. The most frequent type of conformity assessments used by medium or
small lift installers are the “EC Type-Examination” (Module B) and a final inspection of the
installed lift; the “Unit Verification” (module G) procedure and the Unit Verification. The cost
168
of these conformity assessments is variable depending on the quantity of the installed lifts:
the grater the number, the higher the overall cost.
Regarding the compliance costs induced by Directive, the majority of SMEs claim that their
company did not require legal consultants in order to comply with the Directive. A large
majority of NBs that quality assure SMEs considers that they would have also faced costs for
new equipment if the Directive was not implemented, but that the costs would have been
lower.
The Directive is fully embedded in the company’s manufacturing process and, once
familiarised with the legislation, compliance costs become incorporated into the
manufacturing process and the costs decrease in the long term.
Introduction
This case study aims at analysing the cost and benefits induced by the Directive on SMEs.
The findings of this case study are based on in-depth desk research on the one hand, and on
stakeholder consultation on the other hand. Unfortunately, the small number of responses
received did not allow to draw conclusions representative for the situation at EU level.
Background
The European lifts sector is dominated by four major companies (Kone, Otis, Schindler,
ThyssenKrupp), which account for approximately 55% of the market share.519 Despite the
market concentration, there is a very significant number of SMEs operating in the lifts
sector.520 In 2012, the European lift market had a value of roughly €10 billion, which is
equivalent to the sale of 130,000 new lifts sold, a modernisation of about 10,000 installed
lifts and the maintenance of 5.4 million units.521 As shown in the figure below, a high
percentage of the market share is attributable to maintenance, modernisation and repair.
Figure 47 - European lifts sales by sector
Source: Koncept Analytics (2010), Global Escalator and Elevator Market. Report: 2010 Edition.
Lift manufacturing and installing accounts for only 34% of the total market share while the
rest consists of after-sale services.
An EC study found that the total estimated costs of compliance of internal market legislation
across 8 harmonised product cases were estimated at €342 million. Compliance with the
519
Credit Suisse (2014). Global Elevators and Escalators.
520
European Commission (2014), Commission Staff Working Document. Part 2: Results of the case studies. A vision
for the internal market for products. COM (2014) 25 final. p. 84.
521
EFESME (2016), Activity Report June 2015 – June 2016.
169
Directive was estimated at €26 million, representing 0.9% of annual turnover of the lifts
industry.522 The same study concluded that, generally, SMEs incur higher compliance costs
than large companies that are deemed to manage these costs better by spreading them
across a higher number of units. In addition, large companies tend to be more aware of the
legislative changes within the internal market and thus follow them more closely. In the
short-term, the adaptation process to the new technical requirements can be costly for
manufacturers. Nevertheless, these costs can decrease in the long-term, once the
manufacturers familiarise themselves with the legislation.523 Overall, SMEs encounter higher
compliance costs compared to their turnover and, unlike large companies, SMEs do not have
specialised staff merely for compliance purposes. Finally, SMEs are more inclined to depend
on external third-party conformity assessment and less inclined to take part or monitor the
overall EU standardisation process.524 Additionally, SBS considers that there are practices
which restrict competition in the internal market. SBS states that there are imbalances
between countries in terms of accessibility to Standards. In this sense, SMEs have two
options: allocate the financial resources in order to translate the relevant standards, or wait
for the national translation, which can take many years. The association believes that access
to standards should be made as easy as it is for large companies.525
In the context of the alignment of the EU directives to the new legislative framework (NLF),
economic operators are deemed to experience increase in costs. Among these, Directive
2014/33/EU falls under the “Alignment Package”. Economic operators (manufacturers,
importers, distributors and lift installers) are deemed to incur costs related to:526
 Introduction of traceability requirements; and
 Reorganisation/streamlining of safeguard clause procedure.
Thus, overall the desk research results show that the costs incurred by the economic
operators are mainly administrative.
For the purpose of this case study, various economic operators and NBs have been consulted
through a targeted survey. Among the economic operators consulted, SMEs’ responsiveness
was fairly low. However, the information gathered can provide a picture of the costs induced
by the Directive on SMEs. The vast majority of survey respondents were large companies
(30 responses), with more than 249 employees, and only ten responses were received from
SMEs (3 micro, two small and five medium firms). NBs’ responsiveness was higher
compared to that of the economic operators. Hence, responses were received from 26 NBs
that quality assure large companies and 27 NBs that quality assure SMEs (5 micro
enterprises, eight small enterprises and 14 medium enterprises).
The figure below provides a breakdown of respondents by company size.
522
European Commission (2014), Commission Staff Working Document. Part 1: Evaluation of the Internal Market
Legislation for Industrial Products, 2014, p. 101.
523
Ibid, p. 103.
524
Ibid, p. 105.
525
Small Business Standards (2014), Position Paper: Linguistic accessibility of standards in the lift sector.
526
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450592/BIS-15-469-IA-alignme
nt-of-nine-EU-single-market-directives-with-the-new-legislative-framework.pdf
170
Figure 48 - Breakdown of the responses of EOs and NBs by company size

30 30
26
25
Number of responses
20
14
15
10 8
5 5
5 3 2
0
Micro (less than Small (between Medium Large (more
10 employees) 10 and 49 (between 10 than 249
employees) and 49 employees)
employees)
EOs NBs
Analysis of costs for Economic Operators

Regarding the administrative burden due to the Directive, the consulted economic
operators527 responded that the percentage of conformity assessment procedure costs
weight to approximately 1% on the annual turnover. When asked whether there is any
national practice which incorporates additional/costly/unnecessary requirements into
products/ structures relevant for Directive 95/16/EC that increases costs and/or hampers
internal market, 12 economic operators provided affirmative responses, 19 economic
operators responded “No” and nine responded “I do not know”. 528
Among those economic operators who have encountered additional national practices that
induce costs, a medium company from Germany mentioned that further technical
documentation “New EC-type declarations preoperative tests based on Technical Rules for
Operational Safety” (Technische Regeln für Betriebssicherheit - TRBS) are required.
Regarding substantive compliance costs – which are not explicitly made by the Directive
but are required in order to be compliant with its provisions - when asked whether the
company has updated its equipment/machineries to be compliant with the Directive, most
SMEs529 did not (or did not know) incur in any cost, since update costs are part of the
“business as usual” for enterprises. Five out of ten SMEs respondents mentioned that their
company did not undergo a process of re-engineering in order to be compliant with the
Directive. Nevertheless, two SMEs mentioned that their company did undergo this process,
and one Danish medium company stated that the process induced a cost of €100,000 and
was related to obtaining a “Full Quality Assurance” certificate.
527
Four responses were provided.
528
The responses also include large economic operators.
529
Five SMEs mentioned that they did not, two mentioned that they did and three did not know.
171
Analysis of costs for Notified Bodies

Out of the total number of NBs that quality assure SMEs, 13 respondents mentioned that
their firm had to pay a fee to be notified as a NB under the Directive. Seven claimed that
there were no costs incurred and seven did not know. Among those who provided affirmative
responses, eight specified that the fee is paid every year. One Italian NB that quality assures
small enterprises mentioned that the fee amount depends on the size of the company and
its turnover. Nevertheless, based on stakeholders’ responses, the yearly accreditation fee
ranges from €3,000 to €45,000.
The average annual cost of buying new standards incurred by NBs that quality assure
SMEs530 is €4,980. The average annual cost of training on the Directive a specialised
employee incurred by NBs that quality assure SMEs is of €3,297.531
A Danish medium-sized company532 mentioned that, when the Directive entered into
force in July 1999, there were initial costs and investment related to organisation
adjustments, implementation of new procedures, development of necessary documents and
training of all relevant employees. Nevertheless, after the implementation of the Directive,
the costs for regulatory compliance and conformity assessment procedures have been
reduced (as compared to the previous national requirements).533
A Greek medium-sized company, whose average turnover for the last three years was
€17,000,000, pointed out that, as their company was established in 2000, the products were
in conformity with the Directive from the very beginning. The Directive and the relevant
harmonised standards represent a prerequisite for the European lift market and are also
accepted in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, South America and Australia. As for the costs
entailed, the economic operator mentioned that it actually relates to maintaining the quality
management system and the relevant certificates according to the Directive. For the Greek
company, the cost of the EC type-examination of a safety component is €1,500 and €2,000
for issuing a model lift EC type-examination. As for frequency, the economic operator stated
that one EC type-examination per year is needed. For a final inspection on the local market
as per the Directive Annex VI, the cost is approximately €300.534 The Greek economic
operator also mentioned to have incorporated a Quality Assurance System which is in
accordance with the Directive. Although the cost to obtain this is €3,000 per certificate, the
annual cost is not considerable for the company as it is estimated at 0.05% of total
turnover. The estimated cost for in-house training is €3,000 per employee where one
employee would receive this training on a yearly basis. Finally, the company exports to more
than 50 countries outside Europe, where there is not a clear certification framework hence
the Directive provides an acceptable one. Therefore, in the economic operator’s opinion, the
Directive has indeed allowed their internationalisation.
The opinions of two Italian small lift installers, on the contrary are not particularly
positive. They perceive the Directive has largely benefited major players and created an
unfair competition with large companies being able to benefit from economies of scale –
530
The calculation is based on 12 responses received from NBs that quality assure SMEs.
531
The calculation is based on 17 responses received from NBs that quality assure SMEs.
532
The company is a subsidiary of an International Company.
533
However, the interviewee could not provide exact numbers on costs and he considered that the conformity
assessment procedures and CE marking were now fully incorporated into the supply chain.
534
The stakeholder mentioned that his company does not install lifts, therefore they do submit lifts to final
inspections. The estimate provided refers in general to a final inspection performed on the national market.
172
spreading the costs of the conformity assessments on larger volumes of production – while
SMEs were forced to satisfy a niche market of artisanal lifts which cannot be adapted to the
standard models produced by large companies.
On a different note, the Spanish Federation of Lifts Associations pointed out a situation
which puts economic operators in difficulty. Currently, a lift must comply with the provisions
of the revised or new standards when being placed on the market. Considering that the
supply of a lift, from the time of the order to the installer until the handover to the
customer, takes more than one year (in some cases several years), such changes in the
technical requirements create a situation of contractual conflict between two parties (as
explained in EQ5). The federation’s representative considers that the current rules should be
modified in such a way that the conformity to the new or changed provisions of the
standards applies at the date of signature of the contract rather than at the product
handover to the customer. As for the costs incurred by the economic operators amid this
situation, the representative pointed out that these would depend on the contract terms
between the installer and the owner. If such conflict is foreseen, both parties may agree to
include a clause in the contract indicating that if the lift installation is delayed by
circumstances not related to the installer’s activity, any additional cost would be the
responsibility of the owner. Based on the consultation with various economic operators, a
study found that changes brought to the Directive at short notice can impose substantial
costs, as units already in manufacture process have to be revised. Where contracts have
already been agreed with customers, these situations prove to be quite problematic.535
Conclusions
The results of this case study reflect the view of a small number of stakeholders at EU level,
based on which it can be concluded that the costs for SMEs include (i) costs due to the
performance of the conformity assessments; (ii) frequent costs related to the acquisition of
updated harmonised standards; (iii) costs due to the training for professionals on the
Directive and the overall regulatory framework. In addition, some SMEs have reported initial
compliance costs such as the support of external consultants to comply with the
requirements of the Directive and undergo a process re-engineering. On the other hand,
benefits are not tangible for smaller lift installers mainly operating on a local level: these
enterprises fear the competition of larger enterprises that, thanks to the adoption a more
cost-effective solutions (i.e. the “Full Quality Assurance” system) may be more competitive.
Bibliography
CESS and Panteia (2014), Evaluation of the internal market Legislation for Industrial
Products, Final report.
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2015), Impact assessment. UK https://www
.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450592/BIS-15-469-IA-
alignment-of-nine-EU-single-market-directives-with-the-new-legislative-framework.pdf
European Commission (2014), Commission Staff Working Document. Part 1: Evaluation of
the Internal Market Legislation for Industrial Products, 2014.
European Commission (2014), Commission Staff Working Document. Part 2: Results of the
case studies. A vision for the internal market for products. COM (2014) 25 final.
535
CESS and Panteia (2014), Evaluation of the Internal Market Legislation for Industrial Products, Final report, p.
81.
173
ELA, Statistics: http://ela-aisbl.eu/images/Statistical_Committee_GA_2016_for_website_fina

l.pdf
SBS (2014), Position Paper: Linguistic accessibility of standards in the lift sector.
Koncept Analytics (2010), Global Escalator and Elevator Market. Report: 2010 Edition.
Number of interviews Stakeholders
2 Medium-sized enterprises (Installers & Manufacturers components) –
Denmark, Italy
2 Small-sized enterprises (installers) - Italy
1 Medium-sized enterprise (lift manufacturer) - Greece
1 Spanish Federation of Lifts Associations (FEEDA) - Spain
174
8.8.Methodology for the CBA
The table below reports the Directive’s main provisions. Each provision entails a type of cost: administrative, compliance, or enforcement
costs.
Table 20 - Directive 95/16/EC obligation mapping and classification of costs

Directive article Type of cost Description Target group
2§1 Enforcement Cost - Ensure that only lifts compliant with the EHSRs of the Directive are placed on the market MSAs
Information and monitoring
2§1 Enforcement Cost - Ensure that only safety components compliant with the EHSRs of the Directive are placed MSAs
Information and monitoring on the market
3§1 and Annex Direct Cost - Substantive Lifts and safety components must satisfy the EHSRs listed in Annex I EOs
I compliance cost
Annex I 6 Direct Cost - Administrative Each lift must be accompanied by a documentation drawn up in the official language of the EOs
burden EU containing instruction manual and logbook with repairs and periodic checks
7§1 Enforcement Cost - The MS shall inform the Commission of any such measure indicating the reason and inform MSAs
Information and monitoring the other MS.
7§3 Enforcement Cost - In case of non-compliant lift or safety component bearing the CE marking, the MS shall MSAs
inspections and sanctions take appropriate action against whomsoever affixed the marking and shall so inform the
EC.
8§1 (a)(i) Direct Cost - Substantive Before placing a safety component on the market the manufacturer must: (i) submit the EOs
compliance cost model of safety component for EC type-examination in accordance with annex V (random
checks)
Annex V (A) Direct Cost - Substantive EC Type-Examination (Module B): EOs
compliance cost - Cost of product check for business
8§1 (a)(i) Direct Cost - Substantive and for production checks by a notified body in accordance with Annex XI. EOs
compliance cost
Annex XI Direct Cost - Substantive Conformity to type with random checking (Module C): EOs
compliance cost - Cost of product check for business
8§1 (a)(ii) Direct Cost - Substantive or, operate a quality assurance system in accordance with Annex VIII for checking EOs
compliance cost production
Annex VIII Direct Cost - Substantive Product quality assurance (Module E): EOs
compliance cost - Cost of product check for businesses
8§1 (a)(iii) Direct Cost - Substantive or operate a full quality assurance system in accordance with Annex IX EOs
compliance cost
Annex IX Direct Cost - Substantive Full quality assurance (Module H): EOs
compliance cost - Cost of validation of the quality assurance system
8§1 (b) Direct Cost - Administrative Affix the CE marking on each safety component and draw up a DoC EOs
burden
8§1 (c) Direct Cost - Administrative Keep a copy if the DoC for 10 years from the date on which the safety component was last EOs
burden manufactured.
175
8§2 (i) & (ii) Direct Cost - Substantive Before being placed on the market a lift/model lift must have undergone one of the EOs
compliance cost following procedures: if it was designed in accordance with a lift having undergone an
EC type-examination as referred to in Annex V, it shall be constructed, installed and
tested by implementing:
Annex V (B) Direct Cost - Substantive EC Type-Examination (Module B): EOs
compliance cost - Cost of products' checks for business
8§2 (i) & (ii) - Direct Cost - Substantive the final inspection referred to in Annex VI (Final Inspection), or EOs
1 compliance cost
Annex VI Direct Cost - Substantive Final Inspection: EOs
compliance cost - Cost of products' check for business
8§2 (i) & (ii) - Direct Cost - Substantive the quality assurance system referred to in Annex XII (Product quality assurance for EOs
2 compliance cost lifts), or
Annex XII Direct Cost - Substantive Product quality assurance for lifts (Module E): EOs
compliance cost - Cost for installers of lifts
8§2 (i) & (ii) - Direct Cost - Substantive or operate a full quality assurance system in accordance with Annex XIV (Production EOs
3 compliance cost quality assurance)
Annex XIV Direct Cost - Substantive Production quality assurance (Module D): EOs
compliance cost - Cost to obtain the production quality assurance
8§2 (iii) Direct Cost - Substantive or, if it was designed in accordance with a lift for which a quality assurance system EOs
compliance cost pursuant to Annex XIII (Full Quality Assurance for Lifts) was implemented,
supplemented by an examination of the design if the latter is not wholly in accordance with
the harmonised standards, it shall be installed and constructed and tested by
implementing, in addition:
Annex XIII Direct Cost - Substantive Full quality assurance for lifts (Module H): EOs
compliance cost - Cost to obtain the certification of full quality assurance system
8§2 (iii) - 1 Direct Cost - Substantive the final inspection referred to in Annex VI (Final Inspection), or EOs
compliance cost
Annex VI Direct Cost - Substantive Final Inspection: EOs
compliance cost - Cost of products' check for business
8§2 (iii) - 2 Direct Cost - Substantive the quality assurance system referred to in Annex XII (Product quality assurance for lifts), EOs
compliance cost or
Annex XII Direct Cost - Substantive Product quality assurance for lifts (Module E): EOs
compliance cost - Cost for installers of lifts
8§2 (iii) - 3 Direct Cost - Substantive or operate a full quality assurance system in accordance with Annex XIV (Production quality EOs
compliance cost assurance)
Annex XIV Direct Cost - Substantive Production quality assurance (Module D): EOs
compliance cost - Cost to obtain the production quality assurance
8§2 (iv) Direct Cost - Substantive or, having undergone the unit verification procedure, referred to in Annex X (Unit EOs
compliance cost Verification), by a notified body;
Annex X Direct Cost - Substantive Unit Verification (Module G): EOs
compliance cost - Cost to perform the unit verification on the lift
176
8§2 (v) Direct Cost - Substantive Or, having been subject to the quality assurance system in accordance with Annex XIII EOs
compliance cost (Full quality assurance for lifts), supplemented by an examination of the design if the latter
is not wholly in accordance with the harmonised standards.
Annex XIII Direct Cost - Substantive Full quality assurance for lifts (Module H): EOs
compliance cost - Cost to obtain the certification of full quality assurance system
8§3 - 1 Direct Cost - Administrative The installer shall affix the CE marking on the lift and draw up a DoC containing the EOs
burden information listed in Annex II
8§3 - 2 Direct Cost - Administrative The installer must keep a copy of the DoC for 10 years from the date on which the lift was EOs
burden placed on the market
9§1 Enforcement Cost - MS shall notify the Commission and the other MS of the bodies which they have appointed MSAs
Information and monitoring to carry out the procedures referred to in Art. 8.
9§2 Enforcement Cost - MS shall apply the criteria laid down in Annex VII in assessing the NBs. MSAs
Information and monitoring
9§3 Enforcement Cost - A MS which has notified a body must withdraw its notification if it finds that the body no MSAs
inspections and sanctions longer meets the criteria laid down in Annex VII. It shall immediately inform the
Commission and the other MS accordingly.
Annex VII Direct Cost - Substantive Minimum criteria to be taken into account by MSs for the NBs MSAs
compliance cost
10§2 Direct Cost - Administrative The CE marking shall be affixed to every lift car and on each of the safety components EOs
burden
10§4 (a) Direct Cost - Administrative if the CE marking is affixed irregularly, the installer of the lift, the manufacturer of the EOs
burden safety component or the authorised representative of the latter, shall be obliged to make
the product conform as regards the provisions on the CE marking
10§4 (b) Enforcement Cost - If the non-conformity persists, the MS must take all the appropriate measures to restrict or MSAs
inspections and sanctions prohibit the placing on the market of the safety component
11 Enforcement Cost - Any decision restricting the placement on the market of a lift or a safety component shall MSAs
Information and monitoring be notified as soon as possible to the party concerned.
Source: EY elaboration
Assessing a regulatory baseline

As shown in the table below, the comparison between Directive 95/16/EC repealing the previous Directive 84/528/EEC highlights those
provisions of the Directive that were already requested within the previous regulatory framework and the additional provisions that should
be taken into account in the analysis of costs and benefits.
177
Table 21 – Comparative table between Directive 84/528/EEC and Directive 95/16/EC
Provisions in Directive 84/528/EEC Provisions in Directive 95/16/EC Baseline
Art. 5: Establishes that all products in the scope of Art. 2 and Art. 3: MSA must ensure that only lifts No additional or reduced burden for MSAs.
the Directive shall undergo an EEC Type- and components compliant with the safety
Examination before being placed on the market. requirements are placed into market.
Art. 6: EEC type-approval/component type Art. 8: the EC type-examination (and other The administrative burden entailed by the
approval are granted by the Member States which technical inspections) are performed by NBs. conformity assessments are on NBs and no longer
also provide a type-approval certificate. on MSs.
Art. 7: If a MS which has granted an EEC type Art. 7: While in previous regulation only issuing This provision, affecting MSAs, does not add or
approval/component approval fail to conform to authority could withdraw a certificate, the new reduce the related enforcement and administrative
the type, it shall suspend or withdraw the regulation allows any MSA which identifies a non- costs.
approval and inform other MSs and the compliant product to remove it from the market.
Commission.
Art. 9, par. 2 and Art. 10: EEC type-examination Art. 8: the verification procedures, as set out in This article of the Directive indicates the
shall be carried out by bodies approved for this this article and further described in the mentioned conformity assessments that can be used by lift
purpose by the Member States; Approved bodies annexes, are carried out by NBs installers and manufacturers. While the previous
appointed by Member States to carry out EEC Art. 9 par 2: MSs shall apply the criteria set in Directive did foresee only the EEC type-
type-examination in accordance with Art. 11 shall annex VII in assessing NBs. examination, the new Directive allows for multiple
comply with minimum criteria laid down in Annex solutions. The additional or reduced costs for
II. economic operators relating to the conformity
assessments are considered for the purposes of
this analysis.
Art. 10, par. 2: MS shall notify other MSs and the Art. 9: MS shall notify the Commission and other No relevant changes for MSs in comparison to
Commission of the body or list of bodies MSs of the bodies which they have appointed to previous Directive.
concerned. carry out the verification procedures.
Art. 13/14: MSs shall monitor the approved bodies Art. 9 par. 3: A Member State which has notified a No relevant changes for MSs in comparison to the
and, in case of withdrawal of approval, body must withdraw its notification if it finds that previous Directive.
communicate the changes to the Commission and the body no longer meets the criteria laid down in
ensure continuity and remove from the market all Annex VII and immediately inform the
improper certificates. Commission and the other MSs.
Art. 17: Manufacturer, or authorised Art. 8: The article (and the related annexes) sets The Directive foresees different types of
representative, using the EEC mark must: (i) out the conformity assessment that lift installers conformity assessments. The additional or
inform the body which granted the certification; and manufacturers of safety components should reduced costs for economic operators relating to
178
Provisions in Directive 84/528/EEC Provisions in Directive 95/16/EC Baseline
(ii) allow representatives of such body to perform follow before placing a product on the market. the conformity assessments are considered for the
inspections. The approved body granting the purposes of this analysis.
certificate must provide copies to other approved
bodies, MSs and Commission.
Art. 18: The approved body which has granted the Art. 8: The article (and the related annexes) sets The Directive foresees different types of
EEC type-certificate must carry out the EEC out the duties of NBs regarding the inspections to conformity assessments. The additional or
inspection of the appliance/components for which conduct before granting a certificate. reduced costs for economic operators relating to
the EEC type-certificate was granted. the conformity assessments are considered for the
purposes of this analysis.
Art. 20: The EEC mark of conformity affixed to an Art. 10: the CE marking is regulated in this article. Directive 84/528/EEC already required installers
appliance and/or component shall certify that it Manufacturers are required to affix the marking on and manufacturers to affix the EEC marking. For
conforms to the type approved or granted an EEC the products. this reason, the CE marking will not be accounted
type-examination certificate. in the analysis of costs.
Art. 21: MSs communicate to other MSs and the Art. 9: MS shall notify the Commission and other No relevant changes for MSs in comparison to
Commission: (i) list of bodies responsible for MSs of the bodies which they have appointed to previous Directive.
carrying out examinations; (ii) list of approved carry out the verification procedures.
bodies; (iii) any subsequent amendment to the
lists.
Source: EY
8.9.Data for the market analysis

The following table presents the product composition of NACE code 2822 based on Eurostat classification.
Table 22 – Eurostat classification of NACE code 2822, lifting and handling equipment
Code Product
28221130 Pulley tackle and hoists powered by an electric motor (excluding of the kind used for raising vehicles)
28221170 Pulley tackle and hoists, non-powered by electric motor (other than skip hoists or hoists of a kind used for raising vehicles)
28221200 Winches and capstans (excluding those for raising vehicles)
28221330 Built-in jacking systems of a type used in garages for raising vehicles
28221350 Hydraulic jacks and hoists for raising vehicles (excluding those for use in garages)
28221370 Jacks and hoists of a kind used for raising vehicles (excluding built-in jacking systems of a kind used in garages, hydraulic jacks and hoists)
28221420 Overhead travelling cranes on fixed support
179
Code Product
28221433 Mobile lifting frames on tyres and straddle carriers
28221435 Transporter cranes, gantry cranes and bridge cranes
28221440 Tower cranes and portal or pedestal jib cranes
28221450 Self-propelled lifting equipment, of a kind mounted to run on rails in servicing building sites, quarries and the like
28221460 Lifting equipment designed for mounting on road vehicles
28221470 Lifting equipment (excluding overhead travelling cranes, tower, transporter, gantry, portal, bridge or pedestal jib cranes, mobile lifting frames or
straddle carriers, self-propelled machinery)
28221513 Self-propelled works trucks fitted with lifting or handling equipment, powered by an electric motor, with a lifting height ≥ 1 m
28221515 Self-propelled works trucks fitted with lifting or handling equipment, powered by an electric motor, with a lifting height < 1 m
28221530 Self-propelled works trucks fitted with lifting or handling equipment, non-powered by an electric motor
28221550 Works trucks fitted with lifting or handling equipment (excluding self-propelled trucks)
28221570 Works trucks, self-propelled, not fitted with lifting or handling equipment, of the type used in factories, warehouses, dock areas or airports for short
distance transport of goods; tractors of the type used on railway station platforms
28221630 Electrically operated lifts and skip hoists
28221650 Lifts and skip hoists (excluding electrically operated)
28221670 Escalators and moving walkways
28221740 Pneumatic elevators and conveyors
28221750 Bucket type continuous-action elevators and conveyors for goods or materials
28221770 Belt type continuous-action elevators and conveyors for goods or materials
28221793 Roller conveyors for goods or materials (excluding pneumatic elevators and conveyors, those specially designed for use underground, bucket type, belt
type)
28221795 Continuous-action elevators or conveyors for goods or materials (excluding pneumatic elevators or conveyors, those designed for use underground,
bucket type, belt type, roller conveyors)
28221820 Teleferics, chair-lifts, ski-draglines and traction mechanisms for funiculars
28221840 Lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery, n.e.s.
28221850 Loading machinery specially designed for agricultural use
28221930 Parts of machinery of HS 8425, 8427 and 8428 (excluding lift, skip hoists or escalators)
28221950 Parts of lifts, skip hoists or escalators
28221970 Parts of self-propelled works trucks, not fitted with lifting or handling equipment, of the type used in factories, warehouses, dock areas or airports for
short distance transport of goods, incl. tractors for railways station platforms, n.e.s.
28222000 Buckets, shovels, grabs and grips for cranes, excavators and the like
180
8.10. List of information sources

Legislation
Council Directive 84/528/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to common provisions for lifting and mechanical handling appliances.
Council Directive 84/529/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to electrically operated lifts.
Council Directive 86/663/EEC of 22 December 1986 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to self-propelled industrial trucks.
Council Directive 90/486/EEC of 17 September 1990 amending Directive 84/529/EEC on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electrically operated lifts.
Decision No 768/2008/EC of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of
products, repealing Council Decision 93/465/EEC, repealing Council Decision 90/683/EEC.
Declaration 95/357/EC by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts.
Directive 89/106/EEC of the European Council of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction
products.
Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 30 Aprile 1999, n.162. Article 4(4) and (5).
Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on
machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC.
Directive 2014/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts and safety components for
lifts.
Directive 95/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 1995 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts.
Directive 2000/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating
to cableway installations designed to carry persons.
Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on
energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives
2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC.
Directive 2014/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the
market of electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits.
Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015
laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations
and of rules on Information Society services (codification).
M/549 Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 5884 final of 21.9.2016 on a
standardisation request to the European Committee for Standardisation as regards lifts and
safety components for lifts in support of Directive 2014/33/EU of the European Parliament and
of the Council.
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008
setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the
marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 and Decision No
768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common
framework for the marketing of products, and repealing Council Decision 93/465/EEC.
181
Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011
laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing
Council Directive 89/106/EEC Text with EEA relevance. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0305&from=EN
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.
Literature
ACE and others (2006). The build-for-all reference manual.
CEN’s Technical Committee ‘Lifts, escalators and moving walks’ (CEN/TC 10).
CESS and Panteia (2014), Evaluation of the Internal Market Legislation for Industrial Products,
Final report.
COM(2010) 636 final. European Disability strategy.
COM(2010) 2020 final. Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
COM(2016) 358 final. European standards for the 21st century.
COM(2016) 1958 final. The 'Blue Guide' on the implementation of EU product rules 2016.
Credit Suisse (2014). Global Elevators and Escalators.
Credit Suisse (2012). Elevators and Escalators.
De Mas Latrie, C. (2010). Revision of EN 81-1 & EN 81-2.
Dispan, J. (2007), Industry report - Lifts and escalators – an industry in flux, IMU Institute
Stuttgart.
EC (2016). The 'Blue Guide' on the implementation of EU product rules 2016.
EFESME (2014), Activity Report, Update June - December 2014.
ELA (2012). The Importance of Accident Statistics.
ELA (2013). Industrial Statistics of Lifts and Escalators, Istanbul 5 April 2013.
ELA & others (2013). Accessibility of the built environment legislation in Europe.
ELA (2015). Safety of existing lifts.
ELA (2015). Statistical data: Lifts and Escalators 2014.
ELA (2015). Accidents of Lifts and Escalators 2014.
ELA (2015). Lifts and Escalators.
ELA (2016), Lifts and escalators.
ELA (2017), Lifts and escalators.
Elevator World Magazine (2014). ELA Congress 2014: A Closer Look, June 2, 2014.
Elevatori (2015), The great beauty: the Italian lift industry, Interlift 2015.
ETUI (2010). A Trade Union look at the Lift sector.
European Accreditation (2015). EA Document on accreditation for notification purposes.
http://www.european-accreditation.org/publication/ea-2-17-inf
182
European Commission (2007). Guide to the application of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC.
European Commission (2009). Mid-term Evaluation of the European Action Plan 2003-2010 on
Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities.
European Commission (2014). Commission staff working document Part 2: Results of the case
studies, SWD.
European Commission (2014). Report on the Member States reviews and assessment of the
functioning of market surveillance activities for the 2010-2013 period pursuant to Article 18(6)
of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, Sector 10 Lifts.
European Parliament (2014). Mapping Smart Cities in the EU. Study. http://www.europarl.euro
pa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/507480/IPOL-ITRE_ET(2014)507480_EN.pdf
Eurostat (2014). PRODCOM annual statistics.
Fédération des ascenseurs (2014), Situation économique du secteur, mai 2014.
Guidance on application of Directive 95/16/EC - New lifts in existing wells. http://ec.europ
a.eu/DocsRoom/documents/15350/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf
Health and Safety Laboratory (2007). Study on the Technical Assessment of Means of
Preventing the Crushing Risk on Lifts Subject to Directive 95/16/EC.
Lifts Working Group meetings minutes, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/
mechanical/lifts/directive-management/index_en.htm
Industriall, Resolution adopted at the Global Mechanical Engineering Conference, Bern, 23-24
November 2015.
Intelligent Energy Europe (2010). Energy efficient elevators and escalators.
Ministerio de Industria (2015), Energia y Turismo, Control de Productos Industriales.
Panteia (2014), Evaluation of the Internal Market Legislation for Industrial Products, Final
report. http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/evaluation/search/download.do?documentId=9966151
RAND (2015). Patenting and Innovation in China, Incentives, Policy, and Outcomes.
Recommendation 95/216/EC of 8 June 1995 concerning improvement of safety of existing lifts.
Schindler (2014). New European standards for lifts.
Schindler (2015). Accelerating business. Smart mobility solutions. Group Review 2015.
http://www.schindler.com/content/com/internet/en/about-schindler/_jcr_content/rightPar/dow
nloadlist_c713/downloadList/59_1392394493186.download.asset.59_1392394493186/Schindl
erAR2015_Group_Review_e.pdf
The Architects’ Council of Europe & others (2006). The build-for-all reference manual.
The European Evaluation Consortium (2004). Study on Application of the Directive 95/16/EC.
The Evaluation Partnership Limited (TEP) (2004). Evaluation of the application of the Lifts
Directive (95/16/EC) Final Report.
Renda, A., Schrefler, L., Luchetta, G., & Zavatta, R. (2013). Assessing the Costs and Benefits
of Regulation. Brüssel: Centre for European Policy Studies.
The European Evaluation Consortium (2004), Study on the Application of the Lifts Directive
95/16/EC.
183
Zarikas, V. and others (2013), ‘Statistical survey of elevator accidents in Greece’, Safety
Science, Vol. 59.
Relevant websites
CIRCABC - Interest Group 'LIFTS Directive'.
http://www.baua.de/de/Themen-von-A-Z/Anlagen-und-Betriebssicherheit/Rechtstexte/
Betriebssicherheitsverordnung.html
http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Pools/Broschueren/barrierefreies_bauen_leitf
aden_en_bf.pdf
http://madb.europa.eu/madb/indexPubli.htm
http://www.elevatorworld.com/
http://ela-aisbl.eu/
http://www.elca-eu.org/main-figure-for-europe-in-the-world.php.
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumers_safety/safety_products/rapex/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/mechanical-engineering/lifts/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/search/
http://www.liftinstituut.com/newsroom/90-new-standards-en-81-20-and-en-81-50-in-list-of-
harmonised-standards
http://www.liftinstituut.nl/sites/default/files/content/ongevallenstatistieken_def_nov2016.pdf
http://www.liftonweb.it/news_ascensori.asp?INWS=873
http://medinaengu.unblog.fr/2013/08/24/the-average-life-span-of-an-elevator-is-about-20-30
-years-before-it-should-be-replaced-for-safety-and-ease-of-care-reasons-2/
http://www.movveo.com/the-consulting-room/what-is-a-realistic-average-useful-life-estimate-
for-passenger-lifts/
www.smart-cities.eu
www.statista.com/statistics/281179/leading-companies-in-the-area-of-elevators-and-
escalators-by-revenue/
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/
http://www.lift-report.de/index.php/en/startingpage
184
ET-07-17-114-EN-N
doi:10.2873/777146

2017-11-01 - EC 95-16 - Report - 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017-11-01 - EC 95-16 - Report - 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ref.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

Freephone number (*):

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017

© European Union, 2017

GLOSSARY BASED ON DIRECTIVE 95/16/EC

2. BACKGROUND OF THE LIFTS DIRECTIVE

Source: Blue Guide 2016

LD entry into force and application

1984 1995 1999 2006 2014 2016

New and Global approach New Legislative Framework

Regulation (EC) No 765/2008

2.2.The Lifts Directive

Box 3 – Risk of crushing and prior approval

Provisions for conformity assessment

components to be approved by a NB. Alternatively, he can apply a full quality assurance

Figure 2 - The Directive’s intervention logic

STRATEGIC SPECIFIC INPUTS IN THE OUTCOMES IMPACTS

2.4.The adjustments of the Directive to the evolving context

4.1.The evaluation grids

Market data analysis

Table 1 – Methodology for each indicator

Indicator Source Coverage Issues Action Estimate

Indicator Source Coverage Issues Action Estimate

Indicator Source Coverage Issues Action Estimate

Indicator Source Coverage Issues Action Estimate

4.3.2. Desk research limitations

Lift-related accident data limitation

5.1.The European lift market

Micro (<10 employees) Small (10-49 employees)

Source: Authors’ estimates based on ELA and Amadeus database

Source: Authors’ estimates based on Eurostat SBS, data for EU28

Source: Authors’ estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom

Source: Authors’ estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom

Source: Authors’ estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom

Source: Authors’ estimates based on EPO

Source: Authors’ estimates based on EPO and SBS database

5.1.3. New lift installations

Source: Authors’ estimates based on Eurostat Prodcom

5.1.4. Trade and competitiveness

Extra-EU15 import Extra-EU28 export Extra-EU15 export Extra-EU28 import

Source: Authors’ estimates based on Eurostat International trade database

Extra-EU15 trade Extra-EU28 trade Intra-EU15 trade Intra-EU28 trade

Source: Authors’ estimates based on Eurostat International trade database

Lifts Safety components

Intra-EU export Extra-EU export

Source: Authors’ estimates based on Eurostat International trade database

Intra-EU import Extra-EU import

Source: Authors’ estimates based on Eurostat International trade database

Country 2000 2002 2006 2008 2010 2012 2015

Source: Eurostat International trade database

 For conformity assessment: the transposition of the article on conformity assessment

90% 21% 22%

Always On average Rarely Never

Source: targeted surveys

NBs’ notification procedures, as defined in Article 9 of the Directive, have been

5.3.Accidents related to lifts

an overview of lift-related accidents at EU level collected by ELA. Secondly, it presents data

13% 15% 15%

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on PRODCOM and ELA data

Table 10 - Total number of accidents related to lifts in Germany over 2011-2013129

6. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS

Thirdly, with regard to provisions related to conformity assessment, few stakeholders150