Rapporteur:

Isabel YGLESIAS

Advisor	Sonsoles CENTENO HUERTA (for the rapporteur)
Plenary Assembly decision	27.2.2025
Legal basis	Rule 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure
Section responsible	Single Market, Production and Consumption
Adopted in section	2.9.2025
Adopted at plenary session	18.9.2025
Plenary session No	599
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	96/0/1

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) stresses the central role of enforcement policy in reducing the fragmentation of the Single Market and calls on the Commission to implement a clear and coordinated approach between preventive, collaborative and remedial tools. It also stresses the primary obligation of Member States to implement EU law in due time and correctly. Following the Single Market Strategy, the Commission should give strong signals on how it will further, and urgently, strengthen enforcement.

1.2.

The adequate implementation of EU law should be integrated into all steps of the legislative process, and legislation should include clauses dedicated to enforcement. Furthermore, gold-plating should be avoided by limiting the possibilities of complementing EU legislation with supplementary national requirements. The EESC asks for active engagement from the co-legislators in this regard, as well as the Member States in the national transposition or implementation phase, particularly when revising the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making and the Better Regulation Toolbox.

1.3.

The EESC asks the Commission to update the Communication on enforcement of EU law (1) to strengthen and simplify the enforcement tools and accelerate the handling of infringement procedures, while increasing their transparency. To that end, the Commission should communicate on yearly priorities on enforcement through the Annual Progress Report on Enforcement and Implementation.

1.4.

The EESC points out the importance of using the infringement procedures efficiently as the strongest tool to ensure that Member States apply EU law correctly, and recommends reducing the duration of the procedures to avoid legal uncertainty, as well as increase transparency and enhance communication to complainants.

1.5.

SOLVIT, as the only EU tool which contributes to resolving individual complaints on the application of EU law, should be improved and connected to the other enforcement tools; strengthening the SMET is also a necessary step. In addition, it would be useful to explore new possibilities to ensure the correct application of EU law, such as appointing special authorities in the Member States specifically dedicated to Single Market affairs and allocating more resources both at national and EU level. In this context, the EESC calls on Member States to provide future Single Market sherpas with the necessary resources.

1.6.

In conclusion, the EESC considers that making the Single Market simple, seamless and strong is not possible without prioritising the correct enforcement of EU law. Thus, the EESC invites the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, to rapidly implement concrete measures to improve its enforcement policy, and the Member States to reduce existing barriers and refrain from creating new ones.

2.   General comments and background

2.1.

In recent years, enforcement policy has evolved to combine ex-ante cooperation mechanisms with infringement actions. In 2016, in the Communication ‘EU law: Better results through better application’ (2) (the ‘2016 Communication’), the Commission prioritised enforcement for certain cases adopting a more strategic approach, which was kept in the 2022 Communication ‘Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers’ (3).

2.2.

In its Stocktaking report on the Commission working methods for monitoring the application of EU law (4), the Commission concluded that the prioritisation outlined in the 2016 Communication was implemented successfully, enhancing the impact of the Commission’s enforcement action. In this regard, data shows a clear decline in the number of infringement procedures, as acknowledged by the Commission itself (5). The Single Market Scoreboard for 2023 states that the number of Single Market infringement cases showed a cumulative decrease of 21 % over the previous 4 years.

2.3.

This decrease can be explained by the decreasing number of new directives to be transposed, the growing support provided to Member States to transpose and apply them, and the increasing use of the EU Pilot dialogue between the Commission and Member States. However, some academics claim that it could be due to the fact that the Commission suffers from too much political influence due to its dual role as enforcer and as a political driver for integration (6).

2.4.

There is a wide agreement on the need to strengthen the enforcement policy, particularly on Single Market legislation (7). This was acknowledged by the Commission in its Communication on implementation and simplification: ‘Shortcomings in implementing the rules and in completing the single market are a drag on our prosperity and competitiveness. (…) As a result, people and businesses do not reap the full benefits of EU policies’ (8). In a new development, the Communication on Simplification and the mission letters of 2024 introduce the obligation for Commissioners to present an annual progress report on enforcement and implementation to their respective European Parliament committee and Council formation, and the Single Market strategy recommends the appointment of a high level sherpa to promote the application of Single Market rules and have an active role in preventing and addressing national regulatory and administrative Single Market barriers (9). The Commission has also broadened the scope of the annual Rule of Law Reports to include the Single Market dimension, focusing on issues affecting cross-border companies, especially SMEs, and provide guidance to Member States to ensure enforcement of market legislation (10).

2.5.

The EESC considers that there is an urgent need for an objective and timely enforcement policy fit for the current challenges: a weak enforcement policy, subject to external interference, maintains barriers, inequalities and fragmentation of the Single Market. It calls for a deep reflection on the use and adequacy of: (i) preventive measures to avoid fragmentation and compliance risks when designing EU legislation; (ii) a clear and coordinated approach between the preventive, collaborative and remedial tools; (iii) more transparent and streamlined infringement procedures to ensure accountability on the exercise of the broad powers of the Commission and (iv) the use and availability of EU tools vis-a-vis citizens and businesses.

2.6.

The EESC calls on the Commission to give a clear and concrete signal on how it will strengthen enforcement, which includes a more decisive approach towards infringement procedures, as a first step to implementing the Single Market Strategy (11). The EESC also points out that Member States have a primary obligation to implement EU law strictly, which requires the right strategies and resources.

3.   Specific comments

3.1.    Preventive measures to avoid fragmentation and compliance risks

3.1.1.

Adequate implementation of EU law should be integrated into all steps of the legislative process. The Commission has recently stated that it will systematically prepare an implementation strategy to plan how it will support Member States throughout the implementation process, identifying legal, administrative or practical challenges to transposing and implementing legislation, arrangements to track progress, support measures (including for SMEs) and a clear timeline. The EESC underlines the importance of applying such a strategy through the drafting, negotiation and adoption of European legislation, and stresses the need to adopt legislation that can be easily implemented. This shall be an obligation not only for the Commission, but also for the co-legislators (12): very often as a result of negotiations, many relevant questions are left open for Member States to decide, even including ‘opt-outs’ or invitations to ‘gold-plating’.

3.1.2.

Open or vague options to diverge from or add requirements to EU legislation complicate uniform implementation and weaken the Single Market by creating regulatory inconsistencies, legal uncertainty, inequality of rights for citizens and businesses and unnecessary costs and burdens for public and private operators. The Stocktaking Report has referred to this problem and includes recommendations which go in the right direction, such as appropriate implementation strategies for regulations, developing IT tools to centralise notifications and reporting relating to regulations or designing the legislation in a way that facilitates the monitoring of implementation.

3.1.3.

Further, the EESC suggests that regulations and directives should include clauses dedicated to implementation and enforcement and review the instruments which are necessary to strengthen enforcement (13). They should specify the provisions that require further implementation by Member States, the need to notify specific measures, the authorities in charge of implementation and the corresponding sanctions in if specific obligations are infringed. Of course, the choice of a regulation or a directive should be carefully considered, depending on the objectives and the level of harmonisation to be pursued, aiming, if possible, to achieve the maximum harmonisation.

3.1.4.

Special attention needs to be paid to gold-plating (14). The EESC stresses that, when a directive or regulation ensures full harmonisation, gold-plating is contrary to EU law and the Commission should actively use its resources to eliminate it, including infringement procedures. Moreover, in cases where it is possible to include more rules or requirements at national level, Member States should refrain from doing so. Therefore, the EESC strongly calls on Member States, in light of the objective of the Single Market, to actively commit to keep differences to a minimum (15).

3.1.5.

To this end, the co-legislators should avoid creating possibilities for gold-plating and, where possible, reduce those possibilities during the legislative negotiations. There should be a formal engagement by Member States to avoid it in national transpositions or implementing measures of EU law (16). For instance, the difficulties created for economic operators in the field of public procurement due to this practice should be corrected in the current revision of the directives.

3.1.6.

As stated in the Internal Market Strategy, the lack of Single Market ownership by Member States is one of the worst barriers in the EU, one of the ‘Terrible ten’ (17). Furthermore, as it stands today, the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making (18) only includes the need for Member States to identify any addition to the law transposing the Directive (19). In the expected review of this Agreement (20), the EESC recommends a thorough assessment of the following recommendations and the active engagement of Member States.

3.2.    The need for a clear and coordinated approach between preventive, collaborative and remedial tools

3.2.1.

The need for enforcement is particularly relevant for the Single Market, in which national authorities tend to use its national tools in ways that, far from eliminating barriers, create requirements in breach of EU Law, and add fragmentation to the internal market. The Commission has recently recognised that: ‘barriers confirmed by stakeholders include the complexity of national procedures and lack of information on them, disproportionate national requirements in the area of services, including mobility of professionals, burdensome administrative requirements for posting workers and difficulties related to taxation in a cross-border context’ (21).

3.2.2.

The Commission has recognised the need to strengthen enforcement on the ground, including improved coordination with surveillance authorities in the case of EU product compliance, or making SOLVIT the default tool for internal market dispute resolution. It also includes the need to improve the handling of infringement cases, including better prioritisation of enforcement action, clarity and consistency in case handling or better use of EU Pilot.

3.2.3.

The EESC believes that the Commission should implement an urgent update to the 2022 Communication on enforcement, as the overall instrument, reflecting on the need to: (i) strengthen the correct and timely implementation of EU legislation; (ii) simplify the tools and use them in a coordinated manner; (iii) accelerate the handling of infringement procedures; and (iv) increase transparency of enforcement activities.

3.2.4.

In addition, in order to enhance implementation by Member States, the Commission should communicate on yearly priorities on enforcement, together with its work programme. This could also be integrated in more detail into the Annual Progress Report on Enforcement and Implementation, which each Commissioner should present to the relevant European Parliament committee.

3.2.5.

Finally, enforcement policy needs to be strengthened by connecting it with the compliance promotion and verification tools defined in the Better regulation toolbox of 2023 (22) and ex post mechanisms when breaches of EU law are detected. The Single Market Enforcement Taskforce (SMET) report of 2024 (23) has launched a discussion to contribute to a compliance culture agenda, including consistent infringement procedures, wider use and better connection between cooperation tools to ensure compliance (e.g., SMET, package meetings, EU-Pilots, SOLVIT, IMI) (24).

3.2.6.

Indeed, very often, consumers, businesses or other stakeholders are the ones who report barriers and malpractice in relation to Single Market freedoms. However, this information is difficult to convey to the Commission, or the Commission does not have enough resources to take action to solve the problems. For instance, the Technical Regulation Information System (‘TRIS’), which requires Member States to notify technical regulations and codification, is a well-known and long-standing tool, but leads to constant frustration because of the lack of transparency in its functioning and the difficulties for private parties to provide comments through it. The Commission should reinforce this tool and develop mechanisms so that the ultimate beneficiaries and actors of the Single Market can easily participate in the removal of barriers and provide information about wrongful transposition or implementation.

3.2.7.

In summary, the EESC underscores the need to streamline tools and procedures but also to employ them in a coordinated manner. Particular emphasis should be placed on the effective use of ex-post enforcement mechanisms, especially when collaborative tools have failed to resolve the issue.

3.3.    More transparent and efficient infringement procedures

3.3.1.

Infringement procedures are considered the ‘last resort’, as they are the only means of imposing correct implementation of EU law on Member States, even going as far as financial sanctions. It is the tool with the strongest deterrent effect, and one that has been very useful to strengthen the Single Market. However, many parties have requested changes, as the use of infringement procedures seems too politicised or its handling too burdensome (25).

3.3.2.

The European Court of Auditors (ECA) has stressed that infringement procedures last too long and the percentage of infringement cases that take longer than benchmark deadlines is rising (26). It recommends: (i) reinforcing infringement case management and sanctions, while monitoring progress; and (ii) reviewing the methodology for proposing sanctions to ensure that they have a sufficient deterrent effect.

3.3.3.

The EESC agrees with the need to strengthen enforcement actions, in particular: (i) reduce the duration of infringement procedures; (ii) increase their transparency, including information about the different stages and the result in case of closure of the procedure; and (iii) enhance communication to complainants. It stresses the need to engage in a thorough analysis to reconsider procedures in detail, detecting the root of the delays, reinforcing the need to handle procedures in an efficient manner, through internal regular reporting, motivating delays in internal deadlines and committing to respecting the benchmarks. All of these factors are key to avoid situations of legal uncertainty and long-term negative consequences that can strongly impact businesses, workers and consumers. The annual report to be presented by each Commissioner should also reflect on efficiency in the handling of procedures, including its duration.

3.3.4.

It is also important to take due account of complainants, enhancing guidance on how to file complaints and publishing more information on current procedures, to avoid inadmissible complaints (27). It would be useful to update complainants when they do not receive a formal response, with possible changes in the status of their complaints, or referring them to other channels as soon as it is clear that the complaint will not be pursued.

3.3.5.

Finally, transparency of enforcement is necessary for accountability purposes, considering the importance of compliance with EU law for the day-to-day life of citizens and business. Public interest in EU law has grown in recent years, as shown by the high number of complaints and petitions to the European Parliament (28). Transparency promotes faster compliance by Member States and creates peer pressure, accelerating enforcement.

3.3.6.

The EESC underlines the need to simplify transparency tools, using the new capacities offered by digitalisation to include updated data on the procedures in a single web page. The annual monitoring reports give a good overview of enforcement policy, but they do not include meaningful information for citizens and business in due time (29).

3.4.    Rethinking EU tools vis-à-vis citizens and businesses

3.4.1.

SOLVIT is the EU’s only tool for resolving individual complaints on the application of EU law. Its objective is to solve problems in a smooth manner, with the cooperation of the authorities, limiting the use of human resources. However, as pointed out by Letta (30), the system needs urgent improvements to be more efficient and effective: centres are understaffed, in some cases lack the appropriate training, or follow different procedural standards. Consequently, businesses, consumers and workers face significant delays and sometimes lose the opportunity to appeal against administrative decisions. The recommendation on SOLVIT should be replaced by a legally binding EU regulation which could ensure that the tool works in a meaningful way, with uniform application of procedures (31). This shift would also increase accountability, visibility and responsiveness and facilitate a consistent interpretation of EU law across the network.

3.4.2.

SOLVIT is an important tool to contribute to enforcement, detecting systemic malpractice and connecting the information with other enforcement tools, in particular infringement procedures, ensuring that compliance with EU law is achieved in a timely manner.

3.4.3.

However, while a useful tool, SOLVIT is limited in its scope. The EESC considers that it would be useful to explore new possibilities in the Member States to ensure the correct application of EU law in the internal market, which could help to ensure a response in due time to the problems reported by citizens and businesses. Letta proposed special authorities in the Member States specifically dedicated to Single Market affairs (32).

3.4.4.

The EESC considers political will from Member States essential to strengthen compliance in the Single Market. This would help to simplify enforcement efforts, distributing the responsibilities and diminishing costs for the Commission and the Member States. Furthermore, it will not be possible to strengthen enforcement policy without allocating more resources for the Commission DGs responsible for implementation and enforcement, but also for the national authorities that play a primary role in ensuring the correct implementation of EU Law.

---

(1)   COM(2022) 518 final.

(2)   SWD(2023) 254 final, 14.7.2023.

(3)  See, in this sense, p. 7 of the Commission’s Report ‘ Monitoring the application of European Union law: 2023 Annual Report’.

(4)   SWD(2023) 254 final, 14.7.2023.

(5)  See, in this sense, p. 7 of the Commission’s Report ‘ Monitoring the application of European Union law: 2023 Annual Report ’.

(6)  See p. 2 of Kelemen, R. D. and Pavone, Tommaso, Where Have the Guardians Gone? Law Enforcement and the Politics of Supranational Forbearance in the European Union (December 27, 2021)and p. 17 of Meyers, Zach, Better Regulation in Europe: an action plan for the next Commission (March 19, 2024).

(7)  P. 129 of the Letta report and the joint statement by BEUC and BusinessEurope on enforcement of EU Consumer Law of 2 June 2025, available here and here.

(8)   COM/2025/47 final (see p. 2).

(9)  See, in this regard, page 6 of the Single Market Strategy.

(10)   Rule of Law communication and country-by-country reports (2024).

(11)  Communication ‘ The Single Market: our European home market in an uncertain world – A Strategy for making the Single Market simple, seamless and strong ’.

(12)   OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2016/512/oj.

(13)  Consumer and business representatives call upon the European Commission to swiftly review the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/2394) with the aim of strengthening cross-border enforcement, ensuring strong protection for consumers and a level playing field for all traders serving EU consumers regardless of where they are located.

(14)   ‘Gold plating' is a widely used term in the context of the implementation of EU law, which refers to additional national obligations that go beyond EU requirements. See the definition in footnote III COM/2025/47 final ’.

(15)   COM/2020/93 final (see p. 3).

(16)  P. 324 of the Draghi Report: ‘[a]dd a new standard requirement in the article on the transposition of directives requiring Member States to systematically assess, using the same methodology as the EU institutions, the impact of their transposition measures on concerned parties (including instances of ‘gold-plating’).

(17)  Page 6 and 7 of the Single Market Strategy.

(18)   OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2016/512/oj.

(19)  See paragraph 43, OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2016/512/oj.

(20)  Announced by president Von der Leyen in her Political Guidelines 2024-2029 (p.7), and in the ‘Simpler and Faster Europe’ Communication (p. 12) - both here.

(21)   COM/2023/162 final, p. 14.

(22)  See the Better regulation toolbox, 2023 (p. 334), which categorises the different tools (‘compliance promoting’ vs. ‘verification’).

(23)   SMET Report 2023 – 2024.

(24)  It is important to link the SMET exercise to SOLVIT, to ensure efficiency. Particularly when Member States do not give solutions to complainants.

(25)  The Letta report states (p. 128): ‘ The process of addressing and rectifying major infringements is critical. These include the slow pace of proceedings, and the inadequacy of penalties to serve as a genuine deterrent against future violations ’.

(26)   ECA – Special report 28/2024: Enforcing EU Law, paragraph 54: ‘ In 2023, the average time taken peaked at 3.3 years, with 48 % of cases taking longer than the 3-year benchmark to be referred to the Court of Justice or closed. ’

(27)  The Letta report states: ‘Official figures point indeed at a sharp drop in infringement cases, which is not compensated by the number of EU Pilot cases or proportionate to the drop in the number of new complaints.

(28)  See p. 28 of the Stocktaking report and point 79 of the ECA´s special report 28/2024: ‘(…) the Commission also receives around 700 petitions from the European Parliament each year, some of them referring to breaches of EU law.’

(29)  See paragraph 73 of the ECA’s special report 28/2024.

(30)  See p. 127 of the Letta Report.

(31)   Letta Report.

(32)  Letta report: ‘ One viable approach could involve adopting a model similar to that used in EU Competition law enforcement for handling cases of significant legal, economic, or social impact.’