Evaluating impacts on differential treatment of businesses
| Moderator:Heta (see all) |
|
|
| Upload data
|
Scope
Are some products or businesses treated differently from others in a comparable situation?[1]
Definition
This key question attempts to capture a broad range of conditions in which the principle of equal treatment could be at stake, either in the current situation or as a result of proposed policy interventions.
This could happen for instance in the case in which some actors may benefit from unjustified exemption from compliance with certain rules (e. g. the entry on the market of actors not bound by previously laid down requirements such as -for instance- greenhouse gas emission permits), or if regulation imposed technical barriers that are de facto discriminatory with respect to certain firms or to certain products.[1]
Result
A practical example of the issues at stake can be found in the implementation of Directive 97/13 on a Common Framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (UMTS licences). Under this Directive Member States must grant individual licences through open, non-discriminatory and transparent procedures but are free to decide to request fees for the grant of those licences. While some Member States organised tenders to benefit from the high revenues for the sale of these licences, others granted the same licences for free. This issue raised important questions regarding discrimination of certain undertakings.
The well-known "Danish bottle case" (Judgement of 20 September 1988, Case 302/86, Commission v Kingdom of Denmark, Free movement of goods - containers for beer and soft drinks, "Danish bottle case" [1988] ECR 4607) concerning beverage container recycling is another interesting example: In 1981, Denmark implemented a new recycling regulation that limited the types of containers that could be used to bottle beverages. The regulation was successful in improving the efficiency of the new recycling system. However, it was suggested that the new legislation would unfairly favour Danish producers, which had already begun to adapt their products to the new requirements, vis á vis producers outside of Denmark. The case was brought before the European Court of Justice. The Court held that protection of the environment is an imperative requirement which may limit the application of Article 30 of the EEC Treaty (free movement of goods) and thus affirmed the claims against the Danish law as unfounded.[1]
Other information:
Indicators:
To the best of the IA TOOLS team's knowledge, there are no indicators in the Eurostat database or in any other authoritative publicly available databases that are directly related to this key question. Users are invited to contribute their own knowledge to this topic by contacting the IA TOOLS team.[1]
See also
References
This text is for information only and is not designed to interpret or replace any reference documents. The text is partly adapted from the Commission Impact Assessment Guidelines, SEC(2005)791