General Comparative Report on the Research Project ‘The Implementation of the Services Directive in the EU Member States’ of the German Research Institute for Public Administration Speyer

Abstract

This chapter, the General Report gives a comparative insight in the implementation strategies of all EU Member States (apart from Greece) while transposing the requirements of the EU Services Directive (SD) into national (administrative) law. This chapter comparatively analyses the different ways of the implementation in the Member States and by that gives a survey of different concepts and diverse perceptions of the requirements of the EU Services Directive. The General Report presents the commonalities and differences of the implementation of the Services Directive in 26 EU Member States (in particular as regards the most prominent requirements of ‘Points of Single Contact’, ‘tacit authorisation’, screening of national (administrative) law, and electronic administrative procedures et cetera) and gives a fruitful impression of the burden of transposing the Directive’s stipulations into national law. Finally general conclusions are drawn with respect to the impact of the Services Directive implementation in the EU Member States and on their heterogeneous administrative law systems.

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens is Professor of Public Law and German and European Administrative Law at the German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer; Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß is Professor of Public Law, European Law and Public International Law at the German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer and Professor of International law at Oxford Brookes University, UK. Both Professors are also fellows of the German Research Institute for Public Administration Speyer. Ass. Jur. Michael Mirschberger is a research assistant at the German Research Institute for Public Administration Speyer.

Appendices

The questionnaire has been elaborated in September 2009. It has been slightly revised for the purpose of this publication.

These comments on some of the questions of the questionnaire provided additional information on the questions for the research participants to give them an idea of the intention behind some of the questions. The comments have been elaborated in September 2009 and slightly revised later on.

Annex 1: Questionnaire

The questionnaire has been elaborated in September 2009. It has been slightly revised for the purpose of this publication.

1. General Remarks on the Transposition Strategy and General Comprehension of the Implementation

1.1 Main References Used in this Research

Please indicate the main references of your research (e.g., parliamentary documents and laws implementing the SD or adopted for the occasion of transposition…). We would be very pleased if you could indicate the place of publication, particularly if available online.

1.2 Impact of the Services Directive

1.2.1 Did the transposition of the SD give a profound cause to the national legislator to alter—beyond the minimum requirements and a one-to-one transposition of the SD—administrative laws in general?

1.2.2 Which authorities and partners were involved in the transposition process? Did close cooperation and coordination with the several levels of administration take place?

1.3 Scope of Application and Extension to Other Fields of Administrative Law

1.3.1 What is, according to the (prevailing) opinion in your Member State, the directive’s scope of application? Are the requirements of the SD perceived as binding only for providing transnational services/for transnational establishment, or are at least Articles 5-15 SD also seen as compulsory for the Member States with regard to purely domestic services/establishment?

1.3.2 Can only transnational service providers refer to the laws/regulations implementing the SD? Or are the implementing laws/regulations applicable also to domestic service providers and, if so, to what extent?

1.3.3 Are the laws/regulations implementing the SD also applicable (fully or partly) to everybody, that is, do they engender general and universal standards for the way authorities deal with all citizens or all economic stakeholders, so that these laws/regulations can be claimed by everybody?

1.3.4 In case your Member State did not treat transnational and domestic service providers equally, what was the intention for this? Was there at least a discussion about equal treatment?

1.4 Incorporation of the Transposing Legislation

1.4.1 How and to what extent were the requirements of the SD relating to administrative proceedings implemented in your Member State?

1.4.2 Did your Member State incorporate the new rules/regulations into existing statutes or was a new codification passed?

1.5 Relationship of the Services Directive to Primary EC (Now: EU) Law

1.5.1 How is the relation of the SD to Articles 43 and 49 EC Treaty (now Articles 49 and 56 TFEU) assessed?

1.5.2 Have any problems been identified in this context?

1.6 Screening

How did your Member State accomplish the ‘screening’ in concreto (e.g., authorities concerned, committees, division of tasks), and what were the results?

2. Individual Articles of the Services Directive

2.1 Article 6 SD: Point of Single Contact (POSC)

2.1.1 How were ‘points of single contact’ (POSCs) in concreto introduced in your Member State?

2.1.2 Does your legislator agree with a subjective understanding of the POSC? Or did your national legislator introduce only a few or even only one POSC in your Member State? How many POSCs will be introduced in your country (approximately)? Did your national legislator reallocate administrative competences (despite Article 6 (2) SD) with the introduction of the POSC(s)?

2.1.3 Were the POSCs introduced in your country as new and independent authorities/offices or were the tasks of the POSCs assigned to already existing authorities?

2.1.4 Were private partners involved in the introduction of POSCs? If so, in what way (e.g., by licence, accreditation)?

2.1.5 Who is liable for the mistakes of the POSCs? According to which principles?

2.2 Article 7 SD: Right to Information

2.2.1 Were the ‘rights to information’ extended in your national legislation during the transposition process?

2.2.2 For which fields have the ‘rights to information’ been implemented? Only within the scope of the SD or beyond?

2.3 Article 8 SD: Procedures by Electronic Means

2.3.1 How did your Member State establish electronic procedures in concreto?

2.3.2 Did the transposition in this context have a great impact or had your Member State already established electronic procedures to a comparable extent?

2.3.3 Did your Member State—in contrast to the intention of the SD (cf. Recital No. 52; Handbook 5.4.1)—remove other means of administrative proceedings?

2.4 Article 9 SD: Authorisation Schemes

2.4.1 In which areas of administrative law is an ‘a posteriori inspection’ pursuant to Article 9 (1) lit.c SD not seen as sufficient so that the national legislator maintains the ‘authorisation scheme’?

2.4.2 Which types of authorisation schemes/authorisation procedures exist in your Member State and which one usually applies? Which types had to be abolished or altered due to the requirements of the SD?

2.4.3 According to your national understanding, are simple notification requirements included in Article 9 ff. SD that had to be abolished?

2.5 Article 10 SD: Conditions for the Granting of Authorisation

2.5.1 Article 10 (3) SD implies the recognition of authorisations/requirements granted by other Member States. Where and how was this requirement implemented? Did problems occur in this context?

2.5.2 Was it difficult for your Member State to grant authorisations that give access to a service activity or grant permission to exercise an activity throughout the whole national territory? If it was difficult, how was this problem solved? If not, why?

2.5.3 Did your Member State identify areas of ‘overriding reasons to the public interest’ (Article 10 (4) SD) to justify regional authorisation only?

2.5.4 According to Article 10 (5) SD, the applicant is entitled to get an authorisation once all conditions for the authorisations have been met. Is this any different from your existing administrative laws? To what extent will the courts review the decision by the granting of authorisation? Do courts also review the use of discretion by authorities? Did the transposition of Article 10 (5) SD change this in any way?

2.5.5 Was there a need to change national law due to the obligation to fully reason the decision of the authority (Article 10 (6) SD)?

2.5.6 The SD did not alter the reallocation of administrative competences with regard to the granting of authorisations (Article 10 (7) SD), as Article 6 (2) SD did with the POSC. Despite this intention, did your national legislator change the allocation of competences?

2.6 Article 11 SD: Duration of Authorisation

Was the principle of unlimited validity of authorisations implemented in a generally applicable rule/regulation? What exceptions were made according to Article 11 (1) SD in your Member State? Was there previously a prohibition on time-limited authorisations in your national legal system?

2.7 Article 12 SD: Selection from Among Several Candidates

To what extent did the requirements of Article 12 SD (regarding selection from among several applicants) change your legal system? Was there any need for the transposition of these requirements (since these requirements had previously been stated in the case law of the ECJ)?

2.8 Article 13 SD: Authorisation Procedures

2.8.1 Which authority determines a priori the duration of an administrative procedure? The legislator by law or the responsible authority by decision?

2.8.2 Did your national legislator establish a general rule on the duration of the procedures? Is this general rule only applicable within the scope of application of the SD or does it apply even beyond? If there is a generally fixed duration, how long is it? If not, did your legislator prescribe different durations in different, specific administrative laws?

In case the authority does not respond to the filed application within the prescribed time, the authorisation is “deemed to have been granted to the provider” (Handbook 6.1.8.).

2.8.3 Is it possible to differ from the prescribed durations of procedures? If so, is this possibility used?

2.8.4 Is a tacit (fictitious) authorisation already usual in your legal system? Is it usual in general administrative procedures law or only in specific administrative laws?

2.8.5 Does a tacit (fictitious) authorisation have only formal effects or also substantive ones?

2.8.6 Do the same rules apply to tacit (fictitious) authorisations as apply to formally granted administrative authorisations (e.g., nullity, revocability, or as regards imposing collateral/additional conditions later on…)?

2.8.7 Are other aspects concerning tacit (fictitious) authorisations worth mentioning?

2.9 Articles 14, 15, 16 SD

2.9.1 Did your national legislator identify a need to adapt national law to implement these articles? If so, how was this adaptation achieved?

2.9.2 Is there discussion about the self-screening of the Member States?

2.9.3 Are there further problems or discourses regarding these articles in your Member State?

2.10 Articles 14–19 SD

Are there any discussions with regard to prohibited requirements/restrictions (Articles 14, 15, 16, and 19 SD) and further exemptions (Articles 16 (3), 17, and 18 SD) in your Member State?

2.11 Articles 22–27 SD

Regarding the transposition of Articles 22-27 SD, have there been discussions? Do any issues of the SD transposition process impact on the modernisation of administrative law and administrative procedures law? How is the role of the Member State as an initiator of private regulation (Article 26 SD re certification schemes and quality charters) assessed?

2.12 Articles 28 ff. SD: Administrative Cooperation

2.12.1 Were there provisions on transnational administrative assistance in your Member State prior to the transposition of the SD? If so, were these provisions congruent with the rules on domestic administrative assistance (if any in your country)?

2.12.2 Did the requirements of the SD give cause to (re)arrange the provisions for administrative assistance in a general, maybe uniform way?

2.12.3 Are there provisions on financial compensation for the wide range of assistance?

2.12.4 Was there a need to change rules on data protection and professional secrets due to the wide range of information obligations? Have such rules only been adapted or did a profound change take place?

2.13 Article 29 SD: Mutual Assistance—General Obligations for the Member State of Establishment

To what extent is this article seen as problematic? Have there been discussions regarding the confirmation of not unlawful business conduct enshrined in Article 29 (1) SD?

2.14 Problems and Discourses on Administrative Cooperation

Were there any problems or discourses regarding Chapter VI (administrative cooperation) worth mentioning?

2.15 Convergence Programme (Chapter VII of the Services Directive)

Regarding this chapter, did any discussions take place in your Member State that you think are worth mentioning here? How is the role of the Member State as an initiator of private regulation in Article 37 SD (re codes of conduct) assessed?

3. Assessment of the Impact of the Services Directive

3.1 Extent of the Impact

In Germany, the impact of the SD on administrative procedures law, administrative law for business activities, and even beyond is assessed as severe. From the perspective of your Member State, do you agree?

3.2 Assessment of the Transposing Legislation

How is the transposition of the SD judged in your Member State? Is it perceived as a great success and an improvement or did only a minimum transposition take place? What aspects guide your assessment?

3.3 Most Important Changes Induced by the Services Directive

In your view, what is the most important and most profound change induced by the transposition of the SD in your Member State, and why?

Annex 2: Comments on the Services Directive Questionnaire

These comments on some of the questions of the questionnaire provided additional information on the questions for the research participants to give them an idea of the intention behind some of the questions. The comments have been elaborated in September 2009 and slightly revised later on.

on 1.2:

In Germany, the implementation of the Services Directive (SD) triggered simplification, modernisation, and acceleration of administration or better administrative proceedings. This process has been ongoing for more than ten years now in Germany; the SD builds an important step in this context. To support the simplification, modernisation, and acceleration of administrative procedures, the SD has been implemented beyond its minimum requirements. The scope of application of the new rules and regulations implementing the SD has been extended, and to some extent novel and rather generally applicable rights and procedures have been introduced in German law that were modelled according to the rules and requirements of the SD. Accordingly, innovations of the general administrative law statues have been the aim of the German legislator. Thus, the implementation of the SD became an occasion and a cause for modernising parts of the statutes on administrative proceedings in Germany.

on 1.3:

Most lawyers/legal scholars in Germany assume that the SD is solely applicable to transnational rather than domestic services and establishments because of the limited competence of the EU. The “Handbook on the implementation of the Services Directive” of the European Commission seems to disagree with that opinion. However, the European Commission does not give any explanation for this opinion (Handbook 5., 6.). Therefore, the opinions of the Member States are of interest.

The German legislator implemented the SD mainly by creating new rights and proceedings in the general administrative law in Germany (Law on Administrative Proceedings = Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, VwVfG). The implementation effectively allows transnational service providers, domestic service providers, and potentially every citizen to claim these new rights and proceedings (if a specific administrative law statute is referring to the new provisions). We would like to know whether other Member States also implemented the requirements of the SD in such an extensive way—i.e., beyond the direct scope of the SD, thus giving domestic providers/citizens (potentially) the same benefits as service providers from other Member States (and if so, to what extent). In this context, the concepts and aims the national legislator pursued when extending implementation are also interesting. In case your Member State did not extend the implementation of the SD to purely domestic service providers, we would like to know whether there were discussions in that regard, and why the legislator refused an extension.

on 1.4:

In Germany, the SD was implemented mainly by introducing a new section providing for a new procedure with its own procedural rules in the pre-existing general administrative law statutes (Law on Administrative Proceedings). Those specific administrative laws that fall under the scope of the SD (e.g., German Trade, Commerce and Industry Regulation Act) declare the new procedure applicable by reference to the new section in the Law of Administrative Proceedings. All other administrative laws beyond services (such as planning law) may refer to the new section as well. Thus, the new procedure prompted by the implementation of the SD may be applied in relation to citizens even in contexts outside the scope of application of the SD. Therefore, the new administrative procedure inserts well into the previous administrative legislation in Germany, which consists of a general codification on procedures (Law on Administrative Proceedings) and various specific administrative laws regulating special fields of administration by providing for material standards and/or peculiar procedural rules, in addition to the general ones.

on 1.5:

The SD codifies in certain areas case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) regarding the freedom of services and of establishment. Consequently, the question arises (especially in case of divergence between the case law and a partially more restrictive SD) how the relation of the case law to the provisions of the SD is comprehended in the MS and which conclusions can be drawn from this.

The provisions of Article 16 (1) lit. b., (3) sentence 1 SD and their restricted range of justifications are of particular interest in this regard because the SD limits the established principles of ECJ case law regarding “overriding reasons relating to the public interest” (cf. recital No. 40; Article 4 No. 8 SD). From the German point of view, the enumeration in the articles of the SD seem to be conclusive.

on 1.6:

The MS are obliged to “screen” their legislative acts in light of the provisions of the SD and to alter them accordingly (e.g., Articles 5 (1), 9, 10, 14, 15 SD). This requires an enormous amount of administrative work and questions how in concreto the screening has been accomplished and which offices and administrative levels have been involved. Which duties did they have to carry out? Which methods were used?

Moreover, what is interesting is the implementation of Article 5 (1) SD. When was a domestic rule/regulation assessed as being “not sufficiently simple”? Was there a uniform standard?

on 2.1:

A probable core issue in the implementation of the SD was the introduction of the “Points of Single Contact” (POSC). As indicated above, in Germany, Article 6 SD has been implemented by introducing a new section providing for a general administrative procedure (called a “single point of contact procedure” [“Verfahren über eine einheitliche Stelle” (§§ 71a-71e VwVfG)]) in the German Statute of Administrative Proceedings Law. By naming the procedure differently than the name in the SD, the general character of the procedure was underlined (as it may be applied in all areas of administrative law). The new section does not determine the office name. The individual name of the POSC can be chosen independently from the procedure name. Due to the federal structure, various names for the POSC may come into existence.

Because Germany is a federal system, not only the national (federal) legislator but the sixteen constituent states are obliged to pass legal regulations on administrative proceedings and to perform changes necessary for the implementation of the SD. Because the SD does not touch upon “the allocation of functions and powers among the authorities” within the national system (see Article 6 (2) SD), the establishment of POSCs requires several levels of responsibility. There is no single federal competence in this regard. All sixteen constituent states are implementing their peculiar system for the POSC, leading to several different systems. At least eight models are discussed, and not all federal states have yet chosen their definite system. This broad discussion in Germany might be unique. But based on the broad discussion of the different systems in Germany, the question arises whether there was a comparable discussion in other MS about the setting-up, the allocation of the POSCs at the administrative level, and about to which authorities the tasks should be attributed. Did other Member States also have cause for general modernisation of administration? Discussing different possibilities of establishing the POSCs implies a subjective understanding of POSCs. The subjective understanding means that is it the service provider’s point of view that counts; for a service provider, the same POSC is always responsible for his matters. In strict contrast, a completely different understanding allows only one national POSC for every MS (but this interpretation is too strict even for the European Commission; see Handbook 5.2.1.).

In Germany, the SD was not a chance to change administrative competence (in accordance with Article 6 (2) SD). Nevertheless, other Member States might have taken this occasion to re-allocate their administrative responsibilities and transferred responsibilities even to POSCs. In Germany, POSCs serve only as intermediaries between the service provider and the responsible administrative authority. Furthermore, it would be interesting whether your Member State established virtual POSCs (i.e., only on an electronic basis, like Internet portals). The European Commission claims the establishment of at least a hotline or comparable means (cf. Handbook 5.2.1.). By filing an application to a POSC in Germany, prescribed deadlines for filing an application to an authority are observed. The receipt at the responsible administrative authority is deemed as taking place three days after the filing at the POSC. Have similar regulations been installed in other Member States? Another interesting issue is how the Member States pursue smooth cooperation between the POSCs and the responsible administrative authorities.

The Commission Handbook discourages establishing different POSCs for domestic nationals and nationals from other MSs and from different offices for the freedom of services and the freedom of establishment. In principle, however, different offices are conceivable (Handbook 5.2.1.). Furthermore there are questions regarding the financing of the POSCs. Has a fee-system for using POSCs been established? Is there a problem with the strict principle of proportionality of costs outlined in 5.2.1. in the Commission Handbook and your relevant national regulations? (see also recital No. 49 of the SD). Who will be liable for the actions of POSCs? If there is already a legislative and judicial system of state liability in your country, does the liability of POSCs conform to this system, or was any kind of adaptation necessary? The system of liability can be set up exclusively by the Member States (e.g., cf. recital No. 51). A connected question is the supervision of the POSCs. In Germany, one essentially distinguishes between supervisory power and (merely) legal supervision. The model of supervision may differ according to the chosen way of establishing POSCs.

on 2.3:

In Germany, regulations on electronic administrative procedures existed prior to the implementation of the SD. But these previous regulations did not give the applicant an enforceable right of electronic procedure; the electronic procedure was used at the discretion of the authority. Now, the authority is obliged to use electronic procedures if the applicant so requires (new § 71 e VwVfG). Establishing effective software solutions creates a lot of work. Was there cooperation between the MS in establishing their national software system? Quite interesting is also whether an applicant has to purchase special devices for an electronic procedure (e.g., a signature card). In principle, the implementation of electronic procedure should not replace traditional administrative procedure (cf. recital No. 52, Handbook 5.4.1.). Some countries might have taken the occasion of the SD to abolish other means of driving administrative procedures.

Must the choice of electronic procedure be expressed explicitly, or is an implied expression sufficient (e.g., by filing the application in electronic form)? Once electronic procedure is chosen, does that mean that the administrative procedure must be completely electronic (even for communication between the responsible authority and the POSC)? Can the applicant still change his choice once he opts for electronic procedure?

on 2.4:

In Germany, there are three types in this context. First, there are regulations that require prior authorisation for certain activities or projects; to start without an authorisation is prohibited. Second, there are rules that provide for a simple notification to an authority so that except when there is good cause, no material examination of the activities takes place. Third, there are rules that require a qualified notification to an authority; this means that the applicant can start his business or activity/project once notified, but the authority will still materially examine the project and may prohibit the activity/project if legal requirements are not met. Thus, the applicant bears the risk of later interdiction of his/her activity/project. He/she might even be obliged to restore former conditions at his/her own expense.

In the implementation process of the SD, it has been discussed whether these three types have to be altered or abolished or whether some of them are compatible with the SD. We would like to know whether comparable types of authorisation schemes exist in other Member States as well, and if so, how the impact of the SD was judged and which solutions have been found.

on 2.5:

Due to the allocation of competence in the German constitution, it is the constituent states and local authorities that are responsible for granting authorisation. This could pose problems in implementing the requirement of the SD that authorisations grant access to service provision throughout the entire territory of the Member State. This problem can probably be solved best by rules on recognition on all levels of the administration structure.

on 2.8:

Article 13 (1) and (2) SD contain general criteria reflecting the requirements of the rule of law. In this context, one has to observe—comparable to Article 6 SD—whether and to which extent the regulations on the costs of administrative procedures had to be adapted pursuant to Article 13 (2) S. 2 SD.

Article 13 (3) SD requests an a priori determination of the duration of procedures (cf. recital No. 43). In Germany, there is a general rule on the duration of administrative procedures in the Law of Administrative Procedures and is fixed at three months. Specific administrative laws can lay down different time spans according to their specific needs while still sticking to other general rules on administrative procedures contained in the Law on Administrative Procedures. If specific administrative laws do not provide for a different duration, the general rules will apply.

With regard to the prescribed duration, it is interesting to know when it commences. Does it start with the filing of the application at the POSCs, or does it start when the application is sent to the responsible authority?

Germany implemented the general requirement of tacit authorisation in the Law of Administrative Procedures (section 42a VwVfG). Specific administrative laws refer to this rule. In addition, laws outside the scope of the SD may refer to it as well. In German law, tacit authorisations were already known in exceptional cases.

In Germany, the tacit (fictitious) authorisation has no substantive (material) effect, but only a formal one. This means that the legal fiction only indicates that an authorisation was granted, but not that this authorisation is legal. German administrative law provides several rules about the arrangement of authorizations (administrative acts). According to the prevailing view in Germany, these rules also apply to tacit (fictitious) authorisations, so the tacit authorisation does not differ from formally-granted administrative authorisations.

In Germany, authorities are obliged for the sake of legal certainty to confirm when a legal fiction exists (section 42a (3) VwVfG). The applicant as well as others whose rights might be concerned by the authorisation can request such a letter of confirmation (as documentary evidence). Once such a letter is issued, the period for initiating legal action commences.

It is also of interest whether MS defined areas of administrative law to which tacit authorisation does not apply due to Article 13 (4) sentence 2 SD (“overriding reasons relating to the public interest”).

The term “Response” in Article 13 (4) SD is read (as usual) in German administrative law as “issued,” not as “decided.” It is, however, not certain whether all Member States agree with that interpretation. It is interesting as well whether in your view the provisions of the SD on tacit authorization could be applied directly in case of lacking or wrongful implementation.

on 2.10:

In Germany, there is a debate about the scope of application of Articles 14, 15 SD. In one opinion, Articles 14 and 15 SD are also applicable to the freedom of services and not only to the freedom of establishment—as far as the provisions are suitable for the freedom of services.

Furthermore, some think that Article 17 has also to be applied with regard to Article 19 SD, and that the relation of Article 16 to 18 SD is not very clear. In one opinion, Article 18 SD is only an enforcement regulation that does not provide an additional exemption. The Commission Handbook says in 7.1.5. and 7.1.3.1. (para 107) that Article 18 SD is a ground of justification. It is interesting whether similar discussions took place in other MS and which conclusions have been drawn. Have there been problems with the requirements of the SD in this context? How have they been solved?

on 2.11:

The requirements of Chapter V can first of all be seen as a substitute for prohibited requirements for granting authorisations. Such requirements are replaced by obligations on the service providers, whose fulfilment is supervised by public authorities. This is a transition of responsibilities from the authorities to the private sector. In our view, this chapter is not very fruitful regarding whether the SD engendered an impact on the national legislator—except Articles 23, 25 SD. Perhaps you or the discussion in your MS have a different point of view on this chapter. For this reason, the questionnaire creates room for discussion.

on 2.12:

Administrative cooperation is an important topic for the administrative work in the EU. In this context, it is interesting whether there were any regulations for transnational administrative assistance in your MS before, and whether the rules transposing the SD fit in the already existing system of administrative assistance.

Usually there is no charge for administrative assistance due to comity in public international law and to acts of EC Law. This might have changed in the MS because of the considerable work caused by the required administrative assistance (cf. especially Articles 30, 31 SD). Due to several obligations to provide or disclose information to other Member States (cf. Articles 10 (3), 28, 29 (3), 33 SD), the question arises whether there were any national legal problems regarding data protection or professional secrets.

on 3.1:

Since the first draft, legal and administrative experts and politicians in Germany have broadly discussed the SD because of the expectation that the SD enfolds a strong impact on the administration in Germany.

on 3.2:

Assessment of the implementation of the SD is very contentious in Germany. There are many voices that would have preferred a more ambitious approach when looking at the implementation of each single requirement of the SD in concreto. On the other hand, the implementation in Germany goes beyond the minimum requirements of the SD (e.g., by extending the rules of the SD beyond the scope of application of the SD) and released further impulses for modernisation, simplification, and the acceleration of administrative proceedings.