“Yes, thank you very much. Thanks for these reactions and certainly are very useful. I want to start with the enforcement. I think that was quite a lot of reactions, first also saying what our Polish colleague said online, that sometimes the barriers are actually not illegal. So there I do not have the European level instrument to go after my mistakes because the barrier for a company from a company perspective would be a complicated administrative process, you know, charging excessive fees for things that are regulated and very often legally regulated at the national level. That's why I come back to my last point at the first intervention: ownership. Member states need to help us to understand the single market from their perspective and take it as home market, as our Polish colleague said. Now for the enforcement, and here I come to the comment: we have European law, and for this obviously we need to enforce. There I would disagree that the enforcement is not a priority because just to cite the KPI which says, okay, compliance checks were done and then they were late. This is the easiest when it comes to the enforcement. It's really to go after the breach and how the legislation is applied, and you know, this is where a lot of effort is taken and a lot of legal process is needed. But we start, as I said, we have three pillars in the Commission for the enforcement. First is preventive, and I insist on that because when we are legislating at the EU level, one of the ten barriers is also overly complicated, complex EU rules. So I would certainly invite the members of this committee to help us also when the legislation is created here, that also the single market perspective is always looked at because very often when we have the final compromises, we have solutions, but the single market would have, you know, an additional burden to really happen in reality. I can give you examples on that. Let's take also a declaration. This is one of the now proposals which is here. I've seen the compromise now here in the Parliament, and of course I duly respect the position of the Parliament, but just looking at the list of requirements, information points that we would need to ask for a service provider, if I take the position that you have, we will ask forty-one items to a person who will go for forty-eight hours or twenty-four hours servicing, you know, a machine, and then he goes back to the country of origin. I mean, we need to have single market in the perspective when we legislate at the EU level, at the national level. The second point I want to make is that, yeah, take this professional qualifications. I agree it's a lot, it's 370, and we have good experiences there already with member states. We are working with them in so-called single market task force, but it's not easy because member states see, of course, legitimate reasons why they legislate at home, for environmental perspective, from the social security perspective, for the security perspective. I can give you tens of reasons, and it's very, very difficult to convince a national legislator that for someone who comes from another member state, this is obviously an additional burden. So here we have a collaborative method, and I would like to invite our members of the Parliament to help to spread as a commissioners' ambassadors in your own home countries to really ask member states when they've legislated at national, local, regional level to have this perspective in their mind. Of course, the infringements are long. We are now trying to also look at the approaches. We looked at the statistics for now. We have forty-five months of infringement period, so this is certainly something we need to look into with member states and also in the Commission internally. Thank you.”
EU Single Market harmonisation · EU competences on consumer protection and product standards