The Mutualist Economy: What Is Their Foreseeable Future in the Single Market? Project “The Single Market 20 Years On”

No. 37 August 2012

The mutualist economy: what is their foreseeable future in the Single Market? Project “The Single Market 20 years on”

As an expert of European issues, Marie-José Fleury is the founding manager of the consultancy specialised in European affairs L’Europe à la Une® (www.leuropealaune.eu).

Marie-José Fleury Introduction

Faced with the financial, economic and social conventional firms. This is what Jacques Delors3 crisis which has grown into the most serious cri- reminds us of when he highlights the fact that “the sis of confidence and meaning that the European social and solidarity-based economy and market- Union has ever known since its creation, a further driven enterprise must learn to cohabit”. Following deepening of the Single Market, the driving force the example of other forms of enterprise, faced of economic and social development of the EU, is with the challenges posed by the Single Market needed. This is the purpose of the Single Market and the globalisation of the economy, they must Act, one of whose levers1 is specifically devoted be able to be competitive and above all, develop to social entrepreneurship2. Clearly, mutual soci- within the EU without losing their specificity, their eties cannot be ignored from the Single Market. identity. This requires the EU to treat all forms of So, for Michel Barnier, European commissioner enterprise equally, providing them with a legal responsible for the internal market and services, framework adapted to the specific features of “Europe must be re-orientated towards a social each one, enabling them to develop freely their market economy, re-establish man at the heart of activities and their potential4. the European project (…)”. This Policy Brief is a modest contribution to reflec- If man is at the heart of the mutualist project in tions on the future of the mutualist economy in agreement with the principles of social economy, Europe. In part 1, it takes stock of the mutualist the fact remains that the project is carried by fully- sector in Europe. It concentrates in part 2 on the fledged companies, key actors in the European challenges to which the mutualist sector is con- economy, who operate in the same markets than fronted and evokes in part 3 some perspectives, whether European or national, of this sector.

37 2012/No.

1. Communication from the Commission, “The Single Market Act. 3. Jacques Delors, “L’économie sociale et solidaire met en cause Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence. ‘Working l’économie de marché”(The social and solidarity-based economy together to create new growth’”, COM (2011) 206 final, Brussels, calls into question the market economy), Article published on the 13 April 2011. site of UNIOPSS, 3 May 2012. 2. “Based on values of solidarity and as efficient, competitive businesses, 4. Commission of European Communities, “Mutual societies in an mutuals could be useful instruments for achieving the objectives enlarged Europe”, op. cit. set at the European Summit in Lisbon in March 2000, which aim to combine sustainable economic growth with a quantitative, qualitative improvement in employment and greater social cohesion” in Commission of European Communities, “Mutual societies in an enlarged Europe”, Consultation document, 3 October 2003.

1/7 2/7

2012/No. 37 2011, a S European Single Market, including those of the the of those including Market, the Single within European cohabit enterprise of types Different 1.1. 1. current The state of the mutualist sector in Europe 7. 6. 5. premiums ance insur in €180 billion than more represent overall and citizens European million 230 for care health peo Europe in 350,000 ple roughly employ societies Mutual 1.2. social the of economy. organisations the in employment 3 and 3.5% between of total and represent section ment employ total of 6% and enterprises European all func of tioning” way different a and aim their by terised charac are they all, Above sectors. all in present the of social are economy economic and social actors organisations “the that accepted is it Europe, within Even if defined it tures. has not clearly been cul and countries on depending varies economy of social notion The and societies. mutual eratives coop foundations, associations, economy: social nd ource consultation on the future oil cnm Europe, Economy Social • I • S • • • D • B enlarged Europe”, Social as Economy known Europe, 2002. now (CEP-CMAF), Foundations and Associations societies, Mutual Cooperatives, of Conference Standing European Charter omsin f uoen omnte, Mta sceis n an in societies “Mutual Communities, European of Commission S a to fund profit to a mutu A A A ox ndependence nd nd of the social economy social the of Mutual societies, enterprises… enterprises… societies, Mutual Panorama of mutual societies in Europe in societies mutual of Panorama olid im ffili bsence oci emocr 6

members mutu . Mutual societies constitute the smallest smallest the constitute societies Mutual . p : E

1–C b indivisible a

o te rnils f oil cnm pooe b the by promoted economy social of principles the for exclusively a a the a ge a a l a 5 urope l d tion A rity . The social economy represents 10% of of 10% represents economy social The .

bility 21.

societies a a

risks of development tic list ff

: a

between securities .

irs a mutu govern ,

: 8 n principles ommon , or . They provide social services and and services social provide They . P

op. cit. mutu 9 , “ property a .

a non

even a oper rli T l

he without

a a members societies a - nce ls “

profit

( ment surpluses nwr o h Erpa Commission’s European the to Answer role a of EU2020

sh te .

a :

princ of re the

a the on , DG

res

not - the discrimin

seeking :

comp the

” principle mutu a , founding strategy

members mutu controlled iples for .

T open a a hese a ny I sis : l a ntern

, a the societies l January 2010. , 19 January

tion

. to

of of

to a principle of ’ re

“

a incre

a a a

bsence

n one between ny reinvested by l a mutual

P initi res

person government

olicies a person in se ) , a

giving the which l

of the

c members

a 21

a , P who

pit

in c c so profit one

a me

a olicy st a order pit ccess ------l

fulfils

a represent

fin century a vote ns ieties . l - D

a seeking resources

the to nced to ep ”.

ity of mutuals mutuals of ity major the to common be to appear principles tain cer Thus, responsible. socially are they essence, law” private by governed are they pany; com the of management the in involvement their by and members characterised between solidarity are of principle the societies of forms These investment. an of remuneration the to opposed as needs members’ of satisfaction the is aim whose moral) or (physical people of group voluntary as “a them defines defini Commission the common However, a tion. of formalisation the renders difficult diversity This another. to State one Member from considerably vary traditions Mutualist 9. 8. identified. be can situations three tries, one from realities to another country different hide figures These

improve a the

property joint rtment ”, S

autonomous health insurance and social protection bodies). Cooperative and Social Public, Economy), the on of Information Centre and International Research - (CIRIEC cooperative et sociale publique, According to AIM (Association Internationale de la Mutualité, a grouping of l’économie sur d’information et recherches de international Centre

by a in

tives conditions a

the E

tudy im a , nd

or A: E A: urope the

does members

rights IP sever nd

even The Social Economy in the European Union

/A/ conomic

do not a

est

a lity

within

not or EMPL l (See Box 1). (See Box

li a or me

blished remuner a of

depend

bility a

by a

services cert (See Map 1). / nd

a ST borrowing bsence S

a a 464.434, J 464.434, PE /2010-004

in cientific on a nd in tion

the

limits

mutu public provided

a of rticles

, economic

P a

sh which they lis

subsidies olicies According to According coun a a reholders

to tion

is re the nd

, E

the between a redistributed

who ctivities members

mployment to

, 2007. collective

’ exist

7 c a and, in in and, a dheres

pit good , . , a uly or to l

- - - - -

2012/No. 37 10. etc.). pensions, vate pri (prudential, insurance life (prop and erty/damage) services insurance non-life provide They member-policyholders”. its by controlled and/or owned established, - regulation prudential vency sol comparable) (or Area Economic European the to subject such as and insurance in engaged sons per of entity legal private a is company insurance definition following the to respond cor them of Most countries. European of majority societies insurance Mutual or societies. providence health societies, their insurance of mutual either type the activities: on depending into categories fall two latter the Slovenia), Sweden, Luxembourg, Romania, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Netherlands, the Malta, Spain, Hungary, Latvia, Greece, France, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Bulgaria, Belgium, (Austria, of that mutuals the status recognise countries of majority great the in Secondly, Slovakia. and Lithuania Estonia, Republic, Czech Cyprus, in case the is This nised. recog not is status this where countries of group in do a not exist whole of societies mutual all, First 2011 AMICE, Definition adopted by the Board of Directors on 4 October on Directors of Board the by adopted Definition AMICE, . Employment and Social Aairs, “The role of mutual societies in the 21st century”, Study IP/A/EMPL/ST/2010-004 PE 464.434, July 2011. July 464.434, PE IP/A/EMPL/ST/2010-004 Study Policies, century”, 21st Scienti c the in and Economic societies A: mutual of Department role “The Policy Aairs, Policies, Social and Internal for DG Employment Parliament, European Source: Mutualism in Europe: the diverse realities of the EU EU the of realities diverse the Europe: in Mutualism sectors besides insurance and pensions and insurance besides many in sectors present are mutuals where Countries prudential companies and insurance mutual with Countries status mutual recognizing not Countries Portugal are widespread in the the in widespread are M A P 1: M Spain Ireland utu 10 United Kingdom United : “A mutual mutual “A : a lism France

in Belgium E Netherlands Luxembourg urope ------: Germany the Denmark

ing of the Single Market. Single the of ing deepen the in societies mutual of role the ignore to difficult appears it that indicates overview This transport. and distribution tor, water sec credit the in notably insurance providence, health besides and sectors other many in active are the societies mutual in Ireland, and Kingdom spectrum, United the of end other the at Finally, c) b) a) distinguished: be can situations Three cover. compulsory or complementary of form the in whether and age, old handicap illness, as such risks social which cover services and insurance as well as health, benefit mutual societies or societies providence Health diverse Slovenia Italy Management is shared between the mutual mutual the between shared is Management societies and the State (France). State the and societies ered by mutuals (Belgium, Germany with the the with Krankenkassen Germany (Belgium, mutuals by ered The compulsory social security scheme is cov is scheme security social compulsory The (Spain); insurance complementary and role propose tive alterna an play often mutuals the case which The State chooses to manage welfare cover, in in cover, welfare manage to chooses State The Austria Republic Malta Czech Sweden

re Hungary a Poland provide welfare coverage concerning concerning coverage welfare provide lities Slovakia Lithuania

of Latvia Estonia

Finland the Greece Romania ); Bulgaria EU . Cyprus

2012/No. 37 13. 12. 11. regulations do not apply to the whole of the mutu the of whole the to apply not do regulations which all enterprises can thrive. Thus, social econ Thus, can thrive. which all enterprises in market domestic European a as work its to is and aim capital) and services goods, persons, of movement (free liberties fundamental major four the of realisation the supposes Market Single The Challenges2. facing the mutualist sector in Europe the cross-border activities of enterprises, such such directive 2005/19/CE the enterprises, as of activities cross-border the facilitate to designed regulations European of set a with equipped now is EU the whereas However, and economy the markets. the on competition increased of internationalisation the with alignment in particular in level, European at course its pursue to able be should development Their level. national a on and diversification material geographical via external becoming growth internal through developed first societies Mutual activity cross-border Developing 2.1. participation. member of arationale within cooperation i.e. approach, entrepreneurial of their characteristics specific the promoting of that challenge, a major with faced are level, societies mutual national or European a at whether Finally, model. mutualist the for problems specific poses whole, a as economy European the for challenge a is which population, the of ageing the Moreover, • • difficulties: major two with faced are societies mutual level, European At under-exploited. largely remains growth potential for their yet And enterprises. capitalist as degree same the to Market Single the of strengths should the be from able to omy enterprises benefit ih mat n uul oite wih under activities. insurance take which societies mutual on impact high to corresponding has a This of particularly companies. types other those on based exclusively which are almost rules, on them undifferentiated of nature and the mutuals ignore impose specific borders; national beyond represented poorly are they that extent large a to explains and their difficult more of activities development cross-border the makes countries some in status this absence of the recognition or of States Member in existing als on the other hand, European directives tend to to tend directives European hand, other the on mutu of types of diversity the hand, one the on oprto isrne etr (...)”, sector insurance cooperation abroad. Responses to capital needs through cooperation expansion business and cooperation practical of Example sector. business and cooperation in the mutual and cooperation insurance Cf. of shares concerning companies of different Member States taxation of system amending applicable common to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges the 2005 on 1990 17 February 90/434/EEC Directive of 2005/19/EC Directive Council AMICE, “Cross-border business and cooperation in the mutual and mutual the in cooperation“Cross-borderbusiness and AMICE, annex 1 of the 2005/19/ECtheofannex 1 “ directive.AMICE, See p cit. op. 11 on mergers, these these mergers, on eety w mutuals two Recently Cross-border ”, 2011. . - - - - 15. 14. most of the time, be exercised beyond borders beyond exercised be time, the of most for cannot, ownership common and democracy of principles the Thus, governance. in participate to are who not able but as simple clients as members considered not are subsidiaries the of cyholders societies. mutual exclusively gov be could who associates or and shareholders by erned controlled companies), (generally limited companies public stock joint of form the place in take only can establishment cross-border Member this another However, subsidiaries. through in notably State establishment of the from freedom benefit Market, Single the within enter prise European other any like indeed, Mutuals, cases certain in status legal of absence the even or regulations national of fusion activity ment of their cross-border amongst in encountered the others, the difficulties develop evoke, mutuals point, this Concerning level. European at together group to able or authorised always not sector alist • • status their to specific ties difficul certain with confronted are they market, insurance integrated the of framework the Within market. insurance the as such markets, regulated on operate which mutuals for true more the all is This actor. nomic apply as to rules to mutual societies any other eco Market Single Indeed, EU. the throughout services movement, free provide to freedom the and establishment of freedom from benefit to are supposed societies mutual companies, as Considered legislation European and societies Mutual 2.2. directives due to their size, the types of activity activity of types the size, their to due directives these of scope the from excluded also are eties (Bulgaria); cover life-insurance provide only can they others in (Greece), cover pro life-insurance vide cannot they countries additional certain In provide services. always and therefore, activities certain cannot, out carry to example, for authorised not, are societies Member mutual many States, in Furthermore, State. original Member the by required forms legal the of one non-life insurance: in certain cases, mutual soci mutual cases, in insurance: certain non-life have must provider service the life-insurance: op. cit Europe, 2012. Groupe mutuals, European of favour in arguments Legal market), to aEuropean cooperative. Posso Cesare mutual, French (one European Parliament, “The role of mutual societies in the 21 “ Les mutuelles dans le marché intérieur ., pages 12 ) have organised their cross-border activities thanks activities cross-border their organised have ) 45 to 48. , meaning that mutual societies are are societies mutual that meaning , amne Mutualité Harmonie 15 :

In such a case, poli case, a such In ” (Mutuals within the Single 1)(See Map ad h Iain mutual, Italian the and , 13 due to the pro st .

century”, 14 . ------

2012/No. 37 pillars: the first defines quantitative requirements requirements quantitative defines the first pillars: insurers for requirements directive II” the is sector “Solvency mutualist the on impact the strongest having acts legislation European the of One 19. 18. 17. 16. Europe? in sector mutualist the exactly for repercussions the What be will protection. social on growing the expenditure to due finances public on pressure with hand in hand goes population the of ageing The States. Member EU all in systems protection the on social of impact a have significant will ageing population the that grow fact the been of has awareness ing there decades, last the During population the of Ageing 2.3. services. these to apply (SGEI) interest economic of and competition Single general services Market, the to European relative rules a the SSGI, the of concerning text absence the In (SSGI). interest” general of services “social as considered could also be societies mutual of activities the of Some (SCR). requirement capital solvency and reporting requirements, governance beyond) and 2011 of end the until (i.e. timescale project the of directive terms II” “Omnibus the and tive direc II” “Solvency the with both compliance their for to the mutuals enable proposed them to ensure or anticipated been have changes some concerns, societies mutual gov of the to ernance adapted seem not do which risks of management and supervision the governance, to regard with restrictions imposes pillar second The cipline. dis market concerns pillar third the Finally, risks. of management and monitoring the to regard with requirements qualitative the defines pillar second The (SCR). requirement capital solvency the (MCR) and requirement capital require minimum the capital ments; for levels estab and regulatory two margin lishes solvency the to regard with minimum guarantee fund. guarantee minimum or the provisions reinsurance the mutuals, of the authorities, notably in the insurance sector. The Omnibus II Directive new the Directivepowersofclarifyingfurther theOmnibusII the of proposition a Commission adopted authorities, the control new of Parliament and Council at the end of 2011. Following the The directiveintroduction in its final Authority draft was due to be adopted Markets by the European and Insurance European Securities the European the of and Occupational Authority Pensions and powers the the of of and respect Parliament in European (…) Council the of directive a for Proposal o h Erpa Cmiso’ pbi cnutto o te future of European company law, May the on consultation public Commission’s European the to MACIF by response the to addition in sent and GEMA by adopted 21 Parliament inApril II Solvency Directive ea agmns n aor f saue o Erpa mutuals, European for the statute a in of favour societies in mutual arguments Legal of role “The Parliament, European st century”, century”, op. cit. 20 as well as measures relating to to relating measures as well as 2009. , pages uy 07 aotd y h European the by adopted 2007, 10 July of , CM21) fnl 19 final, 8 COM(2011) , 19, 24and49. 2012. 16 17 concerning solvency solvency concerning . It is based on three three on based is It . 18 . To address these these address To .

aur 2011. January 19 in in ------

traditional insurance company. insurance traditional a or society mutual a by covered are they whether as to one is mism. in Thus, indifferent four persons trust, of in dyna sense lacking as across come nevertheless a they with associated positive, ally of recognition for model their struggling are they globally, that, show mutuals of image the on polls Opinion 2.4. Training and recognition of the mutualist model groups. ade these for protection of an level quate maintain to impossible becomes it that risk a is there However, persons. vulnerable most the accept to continue will they members, and policyhold ers between treatment equal and darity soli on built vocation a have mutuals that Given insurance. social the and health voluntary for of services premiums high increasingly pay to will have persons subsequently who and risks, greater to groups exposed vulnerable or exclude weaken could even portfolios risk healthy taining main to view a with differentiation premium and techniques selection risk of standardisation the Thus, cover. social and health voluntary towards shift a to lead could population the of ageing The 23. 22. 21. 20. crisis. current the by tarnished what some been has image whose companies, private the model to as mutualist an banks and alternative challenge critical a is “value” word Bancel Jean-Louis For known. little are which surpluses, their of mechanisms precise redistribution the the of including nature function, they way the of knowledge public promote and explain not do als mutu that seems it trivialisation, Faced of risk the solidarity. with and ethics to relating nication commu in invest also companies and institutions pension Moreover, companies. insurance ditional of tra objective is the also declared the enterprise of heart the at client the placing yet, And services. and/or price of notion the all above advertise als mutu most exceptions, rare few a With rare. quite really are values on centered campaigns Publicity includes amendments to the Solvency II Directive. de laMutualité Française on Societies) Benefit Mutual French mutualist differences (page 100). of Federation National – ( FNMF the for study vie de Conditions des l’Observation et February ( integration) CREDOC CNAM-ENASS, the September 2010, European managers, insurance and for mutuals MBA French partnerships: and européenne l’intégration et françaises until postponed be should in the Omnibus IIdirective project published inJanuary dispositions II 01 January Solvency the of Lefèvre E., the of Manager General Deputy Former E.,« Lefèvre implementation thecompromise, latestEuropean the Accordingto 04 ie a er fe te ie ii iiily planned initially limit time the after year a i.e. 2014, op. cit. Fusions, regroupements et partenariats: les mutuelles les partenariats: et regroupements Fusions, 21 . Although their image remains glob remains image their Although . , page 99. Fédération Nationale de la Mutualité FrançaiseMutualité la de FédérationNationale (FNMF). 22 , giving a meaning to the the to meaning a giving , ete e ehrh pu l’Etude pour Recherche de Centre » (Mergers, amalgamations (Mergers, » crid u a qualitative a out carried ) ééain Nationale Fédération 23 to propose propose to 2011. 01 In 2011. 5/7 ------

3. European and national perspectives

In order to face up to the challenges evoked pre- in favour of one type of statute advocate for better viously, different actions are necessary on both a recognition of mutuality on a European level and European and a national level. greater possibilities for mutuals to exercise their cross-border activities. Their opponents ques- 3.1. European perspectives tion the practical usefulness of the instrument proposed, taking into consideration the experi- It is important to favour, both on a European and ence acquired with the statute for European coop- a national level, a level playing field by removing eratives, for which the complexity of referral to obstacles hindering mutuals when they find them- national legislations hampers the practical imple- selves in competition with their counterparts in mentation of the regulation26. the capitalist sector (factors relating to activities, market entry, mergers and cross-border activity). 3.2. National perspectives

After a first attempt to legislate on a European stat- In response to the difficulties evoked relating to ute for mutuals in 1992 – which failed in 2006 – the mergers, solutions have been envisaged on a debate returns to the fore with the publication of national level. Thus, in some countries, it is pos- various studies and documents from the European sible to create merger structures between mutu- Commission24 and the European Parliament25. als, which facilitate management, control and the development of the mutualist group thus consti- Mutuals, as well as all the other organisations tuted. Certain countries (notably Germany, the within the social economy, should be in a posi- Netherlands and Austria) benefit from the statute tion to benefit from the Single Market in the same of “holding mutual” which enables 49% of the way as the other companies and without having to capital to be placed on the stock market, whereas abandon their specific characteristics. the remaining 51% remains under the control of the members27. Similarly, French mutuals ben- A European statute would help mutuals to overcome efit from legal tools such as the Union technique legal and administrative difficulties which obstruct de mutuelle 45, the GIE (Groupement d’intérêt their cross-border and transnational activities, as économique), the Société de groupe d’assurance well as cooperation within the Single Market. mutuelle (SGAM) (See Box 2), the Union de groupe mutualiste (UGM) and the Union mutualiste de All the parties concerned are nevertheless far groupe (UMG), real alternatives to mergers. from seeing eye to eye on the subject. Thus, those

Box 2 – The Société de groupe d’assurance mutuelle (SGAM) The Société de groupe d’assurance mutelle (SGAM, or Mutual Insurance Group Company), is a flexible legal instrument, created in 2001 by the French legislator which enables the regrouping of mutual insurance societies in a more or less integrated way and one which respects the principles of social economy, (participative democracy) and the specific mutualist characteristics (absence of social capital), and establishes a mutualist group structure. Their degree of integration as well as their scope and the conditions of financial solidarity between members are decided by the founders. The SGAM is not only open to mutual insurance companies, but also to health mutuals, pension institutions, and insurance or re-insurance companies of mutual or cooperative type or joint management whose company headquarters is in a European Union Member State or another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

Source: GEMA, Argument on the SGAM, April 2012.

37 2012/No.

24. Broeck S. D., Buiskoll B. J., Vennekens A., Panteia, Study on the company law statutes), Brussels, 2008, 145 pages; AISAM, current situation and prospects of mutuals in Europe, First progress « Sociétés d’assurance mutuelles. Les dispositifs réglementaires, report, Zoetermeer, February 3, 2012. financiers et fiscaux » (Mutual insurance societies. The regulatory, 25. Declaration of the European Parliament of 10 March 2011 on financial and fiscal instruments), Brussels, 2007. establishing European statutes for mutual societies, associations 27. Lefèvre E., op. cit., page 81. and foundations. 26. AISAM-ESSEC, De Beaufort V., Camboly J-M., « Comparaison des statuts de droit des sociétés UE » (Comparison of European

6/7 www.notre-europe.eu / [email protected]

19 rue de Milan – 75009 Paris – France

Tel: +33 (0)1 44 58 97 97 / Fax: +33 (0)1 44 58 97 99

However, these national solutions emerge in cer- Finally, the mutuals themselves are implicated. tain countries but not throughout the EU. The dif- Thus, the role of making the mutualist model ficulty of this alternative is that a local grouping known and recognised, and that of informing structure will not be usable in the other EU coun- European citizens and consumers is incumbent tries because it will not be recognised, which is upon them. Hence, operations implemented by the contrary to the aim of easy access to the Single AMI (Association of Mutual Insurers), created in Market. 2004 by thirteen English mutuals, illustrates the success of a global communication strategy based on mutualist values28.

Conclusion

How would it be possible to guarantee the recog- The progressive implementation of the Single nition, preservation and above all, reinforcement Market should not mean uniformity. Thus, mutu- of mutuality in the future? The European public als should be better recognised as distinct and consultation29 brought to light the expectations important economic actors of European society. of civil society both with regard to growth and As Jacques Delors emphasizes, “these new struc- employment, and in relation to the social dimen- tures take into account what neither the market sion of the Single Market in the protection of pub- economy, nor the public economy is able to grasp, lic services, echoing the strong adherence of eco- and at the same time offer viable and complete nomic actors to a highly competitive social market economic solutions through their values of inno- economy. vation. They must occupy their rightful place in our

society in the quest for a developing way which is 37 2012/No. Mutuals, in comparison to their competitors pro- more caring towards Man and more respectful of vide an added value for the European economy nature”30. and the whole of society in cultural, political and also economic and social terms. Many Europeans deliberately choose mutuals to benefit from a good level of health care and social services, to insure themselves against all types of risk and find the best solution to their needs.

28. Lefèvre E., op. cit., page 101. 29. Communication from the Commission, “Single Market Act. (...)”, op. cit. 30. Jacques Delors, op. cit.

7/7 With the support of the European Commission