Opinion on the legal basis of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2000/14/EC, 2011/65/EU…, 2013/53/EU, 2014/29/EU, 2014/30/EU, 2014/31/EU, 2014/32/EU, 2014/33/EU, 2014/34/EU, 2014/35/EU, 2014/53/EU, 2014/68/EU and 2014/90/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards digitalisation and common specifications

16.9.2026

Mrs Anna Cavazzini

Chair

Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection

BRUSSELS

Subject: Opinion on the legal basis of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2000/14/EC, 2011/65/EU, 2013/53/EU, 2014/29/EU, 2014/30/EU, 2014/31/EU, 2014/32/EU, 2014/33/EU, 2014/34/EU, 2014/35/EU, 2014/53/EU, 2014/68/EU and 2014/90/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards digitalisation and common specifications (COM(2025)0503 – C10 0091/2025 – 2025/0133(COD))

Dear Chair,

By letter of 7 July 2026, the Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) requested the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI), pursuant to Rule 41(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to provide an opinion on the appropriateness of the legal basis for the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2000/14/EC, 2011/65/EU, 2013/53/EU, 2014/29/EU, 2014/30/EU, 2014/31/EU, 2014/32/EU, 2014/33/EU, 2014/34/EU, 2014/35/EU, 2014/53/EU, 2014/68/EU and 2014/90/EU as regards digitalisation and common specifications (2025/0133(COD)) (hereinafter “the proposed Directive”).

The JURI Committee considered the above question at its meeting of 7 September 2026.

I - Background

The IMCO Committee was in inter-institutional negotiations on the proposed Directive the aim of which is to implement the ‘digital by default’ principle in product legislation and introduce common specifications as a fallback option where harmonised standards do not exist or are insufficient.

The Commission based the proposed Directive solely on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The IMCO Committee did not, in their report adopted on 27 January 2026, amend that choice of legal basis. On the contrary, the Council did amend the legal basis in its general approach by adding Article 100(2) TFEU on marine transport, in addition to Article 114 TFEU. The Council argued, also during the interinstitutional negotiations, that since one of the Directives being amended, namely Directive 2014/90/EU on Marine Equipment, is based on Article 100(2) TFEU on marine transport as its legal basis rather than Article 114 TFEU, the legal basis of the proposed Directive must be amended to reflect this.

The IMCO Committee did not oppose that approach and during the interinstitutional negotiations, the co-legislators have provisionally agreed that it is necessary to add Article 100(2) TFEU as a legal basis, in addition to Article 114 TFEU.

Pursuant to Rule 41(2) the IMCO Committee therefore requested the JURI Committee to provide its opinion on the appropriateness of the legal basis so modified.

II - The relevant Treaty Articles

Title VI (“Transport”) of Part Three TFEU provides, inter alia (emphasis added):

Article 100

(ex Article 80 TEC)

1. The provisions of this Title shall apply to transport by rail, road and inland waterway.

2. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may lay down appropriate provisions for sea and air transport. They shall act after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

Title VII (“Common Rules on Competition, Taxation and Approximation of Laws”) of Part Three TFEU, in Chapter 3 (“Approximation of Laws”) provides, inter alia:

Article 114

(ex Article 95 TEC)

1. Save where otherwise provided in the Treaties, the following provisions shall apply for the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 26. The European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market.

2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to fiscal provisions, to those relating to the free movement of persons nor to those relating to the rights and interests of employed persons.

3. The Commission, in its proposals envisaged in paragraph 1 concerning health, safety, environ mental protection and consumer protection, will take as a base a high level of protection, taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts. Within their respective powers, the European Parliament and the Council will also seek to achieve this objective.

4. If, after the adoption of a harmonisation measure by the European Parliament and the Council, by the Council or by the Commission, a Member State deems it necessary to maintain national provisions on grounds of major needs referred to in Article 36, or relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment, it shall notify the Commission of these provisions as well as the grounds for maintaining them.

5. Moreover, without prejudice to paragraph 4, if, after the adoption of a harmonisation measure by the European Parliament and the Council, by the Council or by the Commission, a Member State deems it necessary to introduce national provisions based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment on grounds of a problem specific to that Member State arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure, it shall notify the Commission of the envisaged provisions as well as the grounds for introducing them.

6. The Commission shall, within six months of the notifications as referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5, approve or reject the national provisions involved after having verified whether or not they are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States and whether or not they shall constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market. In the absence of a decision by the Commission within this period the national provisions referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be deemed to have been approved. When justified by the complexity of the matter and in the absence of danger for human health, the Commission may notify the Member State concerned that the period referred to in this paragraph may be extended for a further period of up to six months.

7. When, pursuant to paragraph 6, a Member State is authorised to maintain or introduce national provisions derogating from a harmonisation measure, the Commission shall immediately examine whether to propose an adaptation to that measure.

8. When a Member State raises a specific problem on public health in a field which has been the subject of prior harmonisation measures, it shall bring it to the attention of the Commission which shall immediately examine whether to propose appropriate measures to the Council.

9. By way of derogation from the procedure laid down in Articles 258 and 259, the Commission and any Member State may bring the matter directly before the Court of Justice of the European Union if it considers that another Member State is making improper use of the powers provided for in this Article.

10. The harmonisation measures referred to above shall, in appropriate cases, include a safeguard clause authorising the Member States to take, for one or more of the non-economic reasons referred to in Article 36, provisional measures subject to a Union control procedure.

III – CJEU case law on the choice of legal basis

The Court of Justice has traditionally viewed the question of the appropriate legal basis as an issue of constitutional significance, guaranteeing compliance with the principle of conferred powers (Article 5 TEU) and determining the nature and scope of the Union’s competence.

According to well-established case law, the legal basis of a Union act does not depend on an institution's conviction as to the objective pursued, but must be determined according to objective criteria amenable to judicial review, including in particular the aim and the content of the measure.

If examination of a measure reveals that it pursues a twofold purpose or that it has a twofold component and if one of those is identifiable as the main or predominant purpose or component, whereas the other is merely incidental, that measure must be based on a single legal basis, namely that required by the main or predominant purpose or component. Only exceptionally, if it is established that the act simultaneously pursues a number of objectives, inextricably linked, without one being secondary and indirect in relation to the other, may such an act be founded on the various corresponding legal bases. This would however only be possible if the procedures laid down for the respective legal bases are not incompatible with and do not undermine the right of the European Parliament.

IV – Aim and content of the proposed Directive

In the context of the Union’s efforts to foster its competitiveness, the Commission proposed targeted amendments to a series of existing Directives (13) with a view to, on one hand, rationalise and simplify reporting requirements and administrative burden by switching to digital format and, on the other, seek for alternative options to give businesses legal certainty regarding compliance with Union rules in situations where harmonised standards do not exist, are not available, are not sufficient, or there is an urgent need.

V – Analysis

When it comes to amending acts, it is important to take into account, for the purposes of identifying its legal basis, the existing rules which it amends and, in particular, their objective and content.

The proposed Directive introduces amendments to several Directives, including Directive 2014/90/EU. All those Directives are based on Article 114 TFEU, except for Directive 2014/90/EU which is based (solely) on Article 100(2) TFEU. It should be noted in this respect that point 2 of the Explanatory memorandum of the proposed Directive, in the part on legal basis, erroneously implies that Directive 2014/90/EU was also based on Article 114 TFEU.

As already mentioned, the proposed Directive provides for targeted amendments with a twofold objective: (a) removing paper-based obligations and transitioning to digital equivalents, and (b) the introduction of a provision on common specifications as an alternative to harmonised standards. The amendments to Directive 2014/90/EU are limited to the first aspect.

Article 100(2) TFEU provides that “The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may lay down appropriate provisions for sea and air transport” and constitutes thus the appropriate legal basis in the field of sea transport, and in particular for Directive 2014/90/EU, the objective of which is “to enhance safety at sea and to prevent marine pollution through the uniform application of the relevant international instruments relating to marine equipment to be placed on board EU ships, and to ensure the free movement of such equipment within the Union.”

As regards the initial legal basis of the proposed Directive, Article 114 TFEU, it must be recalled that that provision allows the Union to adopt harmonisation measures for the purpose of the establishment and functioning of the internal market.

This legal basis may be considered appropriate and sufficient for the amendments to Directive 2014/90/EU considering their ancillary nature to the main provisions and in regard of the objective of that Directive. Also, the amendments do not modify any provisions directly linked to sea transport but rather contribute to the digitalisation of business-to-authority reporting and facilitate the digitalisation of and economic operators’ obligations and reporting procedures, with a view to enhance the effectiveness of the internal market regulatory framework for marine equipment.

However, the addition of Article 100(2) TFEU as a legal basis to the proposed Directive, as provisionally agreed by the co-legislators, does not raise legal concerns. First, Articles 100(2) and 114 TFEU provide for legal bases that are compatible in terms of procedure, both providing for the use of the ordinary legislative procedure. Second, as Article 100(2) TFEU was the initial legal basis of Directive 2014/90/EU, it may also allow for the minor amendments to its provisions included in the proposed Directive.

For the handling of the legislative procedure, it has to be noted that, whilst Article 114 TFEU only requires the consultation of the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 100(2) TFEU such obligation of consultation is extended to the Committee of Regions. The Committee of the Regions was consulted following the provisional addition, during the interinstitutional negotiations, of Article 100(2) TFEU to the legal basis of the proposed Directive.

VI – Conclusion

At its meeting on 7 September 2026 the Committee on Legal Affairs unanimously concluded that that the addition of Article 100(2) TFEU in the Directive amending Directives 200/14/EC, 2011/65/EU, 2013/53/EU, 2014/29/EU, 2014/30/EU, 2014/31/EU, 2014/32/EU, 2014/33/EU, 2014/34/EU, 2014/35/EU, 2014/53/EU, 2014/68/EU and 2014/90/EU, as regards digitalisation and common specifications, as agreed upon by the co-legislators during the inter-institutional negotiations does not appear to be inappropriate.

Yours sincerely,

Ilhan Kyuchyuk