Enforcement of Single Market rules and ensuring a level playing field without unjustified barriers is key in order to make the Single Market work for businesses and citizens. In January 2026 the European Commission presented its first annual Single Market enforcement agenda as part of its annual Single Market and Competitiveness Report of 2026. Although, is it a fully-fledged agenda? The actual size and content of the agenda raise some questions. What does the Commission intend and how will it live up to its initial promises? Would a more comprehensive agenda be desirable and possible and how the Commission could and should give more transparency about enforcement? After a brief description of the initial announcement of the agenda and content of the first Single Market enforcement agenda, I will discuss the last two questions. More transparency is desirable: from a democratic perspective, but also in order to focus enforcement on those areas which matter most for a well-functioning Single Market based on a dialogue between the Commission, Council of Ministers of the European Union and European Parliament.
The first Single Market Enforcement agenda: two priorities
In its Single Market Strategy of May 2025 the Commission announced an annual Single Market Enforcement agenda. It described its aims as follows:
“In addition to ensuring enforcement in response to significant breaches of EU law indicated by stakeholders, the focus will be on proactive and strategic enforcement of Single Market rules. The Commission will identify priority policy areas and present them in an annual Single Market enforcement agenda, conduct a systematic investigation into the implementation and application of Single Market rules in these areas, and where appropriate, launch infringement procedures in a coordinated manner.”
The actual and first annual Single Market enforcement agenda only comprises half a page. The Commission announces two priority areas for horizontal investigations and enforcement actions, based on the so-called Terrible Ten barriers, as announced in the aforementioned Single Market Strategy:
- late payments in transactions between undertakings and public authorities; and
- obstacles in construction and installation services related to the green transition.
The actions may cover most or all Member States and might lead to infringement actions. Furthermore the Commission states that these priorities “will not be set to the detriment of the treatment of other existing or future obstacles to the free movement of goods and services” and it announces its intention to “enhance transparency on enforcement, when specific enforcement actions are decided, clear explanations regarding the objectives pursued, the expected benefits as well as the results achieved will be published.”
Although the intention of the Commission’s first enforcement agenda is positive, the actual agenda seems disappointing. Due to its short length, the agenda can hardly be considered as giving a comprehensive vision on Single Market enforcement. Without substantiating its choice carefully, the Commission briefly announces its two priority areas. The agenda further only contains some general remarks on the possible use of infringements (such as infringement procedures) and the follow-up, but leaves room for other actions on other obstacles as well. As justification for choosing the two priority areas the Commission only refers to the Terrible Ten. Why the two areas contribute to ‘strategic enforcement’, however, is not clear.
The need for more transparency of enforcement
More transparency of enforcement by the European Commission, including its priorities, is desirable for several reasons. However, it is important to stress that more transparency should not in any way undermine the independence of the Commission as the guardian of the Treaties. Or, to put it differently, the Commission should not be open for instructions, but could be open for suggestions. And in any way, according to the principle of good administration, it should provide reasons for its decisions and choices. As resources are limited, choices have to be made in order to ensure an effective use of these resources. In a democracy, it is normal that competent authorities should be held accountable. This applies to institutions responsible for enforcement as well. More transparency could enable a dialogue with the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on the enforcement priorities. This may help in using the resources for enforcement of those Single Market rules which have the widest impact on free movement and choices of businesses and citizens to develop cross-border activity in practice.
In order to ensure more transparency, the Single Market enforcement agenda should provide a thorough overview of ongoing EU Pilots and infringements, especially on the general topics of the pending proceedings as well as the Member States involved. The bilateral exchanges of views in specific proceedings are and should remain confidential. After the aforementioned comprehensive overview has been made, it would be desirable if the Commission could explain more carefully why it prioritizes certain areas and its choice for specific instruments. In this regard it is important to link the priorities to facts and needs from practice. Is there an actual problem in practice which will be tackled? The link with the Terrible Ten in the current enforcement agenda is positive and is a first step, as the Terrible Ten contain many of the current most pressing barriers in the Single Market, but more data about and analysis of the facts and needs from businesses and citizens in practice would be desirable. A more comprehensive overview will provide a solid and transparent base for ensuring the European rule of law within the Single Market, as it will help in making the right choices and justifying these choices in a transparent way.
In sum, the current Single Market enforcement agenda is a first step, but there is room for improvement. Solid enforcement of Single Market rules is key in order to make the Single Market work and ensure a level playing field in practice. From a democratic point of view, more transparency on the state of enforcement and the enforcement priorities would be desirable as well. The aim should be enabling a dialogue and thereby ensuring that those choices are made which give enforcement real impact in practice.
