The full potential of the EU Single Market can unfold when the EU and Member States return to the core idea underlying the Single Market – an open market economy with free competition. Crisis prevention and response capabilities are important. However, all instruments of a controlled economy, which disproportionately restrict entrepreneurial decision-making freedom, are incompatible with a free market. For example, measures such as mandatory formation of strategic reserves determined by the EU, creation of lists of significant economic participants by Member States, directives for accepting priority European orders, and extensive mandatory information requests spanning all areas of business activity are viewed critically by many businesses. Even and especially in potentially upcoming crisis times, voluntary actions and initiatives should be prioritized wherever possible. Instruments for managing current and future crises should be designed and implemented effectively and proportionately.

Open borders within the European Union remain the most important prerequisite for completing the single market. Exceptionally necessary border controls, such as in the Schengen Area, should minimise disruptions to the cross-border movement of businesses and goods. In particular, cross-border commuting employees of companies must not face disadvantages due to controls. A complete border closure, as occurred at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020, must not be repeated. The Union and Member States should aim to reduce discrimination and restrictions on the free movement of goods, services, people, and capital. The 'Single Market Enforcement Taskforce' (SMET) established for this purpose should operate with a results-oriented approach, transparency, and close involvement of stakeholders from the economy.

The competition also applies to complementary dispute resolution options: In addition to state jurisdiction guaranteed by the rule of law principle, consumers and companies should also be provided with alternative forms of dispute resolution as an option, whereby access to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) should also be possible. The reform of the ADR Directive on "Alternative Dispute Resolution" already partially pursues these goals. However, the principle of voluntariness must also be preserved in the field of alternative dispute resolution. Mandatory conciliation procedures, for example, are just as incompatible as unilateral cost-bearing obligations.

The European Union is a legal community – the internal market can only thrive under clear legal rules. Overloading the fundamental economic freedoms with societal or changing political ambitions is viewed very critically by the business sector.

Internal market policy should focus on the core of the market. A prime example is the regulation of due diligence obligations in supply chains (CSDDD). According to the EU, this should solely realize the internal market (compare chapter "Corporate Responsibility"). Hence, the internal market norm of Article 114 TFEU was chosen as the legal basis rather than trade norms, although almost exclusively international actions are affected. The anticipated high bureaucratic burden, raised liability issues, and foreseeable legal processes are perceived by the majority of the business sector as serious concerns. Companies not directly covered by the CSDDD or the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, such as SMEs, are also negatively impacted.

It is particularly alarming that the internal market is no longer solely regarded by the EU as a place of lawful trading, but due diligence obligations are applied to all trading within the EU, and "safe harbor" rules are rejected. Occasional legal violations in individual EU Member States cannot be equated with structural failure. Improvements are needed here to find a practically manageable solution.

The continuous increase in the effort associated with importing goods into the EU not only complicates business activities for importers and companies based in the EU but also diminishes the EU's attractiveness as a sales market for EU companies and companies from third countries.

Concept ideas impacting the core of the internal market, such as a further "5th freedom" for the internal market, for instance, for data or more generally "knowledge," come with significant legal uncertainties and should not lead to even further politicization of the EU internal market. The internal market should primarily be preserved and developed as a free market.

Cross-border companies are still exposed to numerous barriers and obstacles that should be addressed and eliminated (see DIHK survey on internal market barriers 2024 (PDF, 2 MB) –  only available in German). The EU also needs common rules for many new developments to ensure equal competitive conditions for all. Harmonisation of national regulations and alignment of technical standards can contribute to creating a "level playing field".

However, harmonisation must not become an end in itself. It promotes the internal market if the economic benefits of new uniform EU regulations outweigh the costs and obligations they entail. This also applies to insolvency law, the full harmonisation of which ultimately pursues independent political objectives that are only marginally related to the functioning of the internal market. Targeted sector-specific harmonisation is always necessary where required. Member states' scopes of action are worth protecting – often only better and uniform implementation of directives is needed, not immediately applicable and mandatory European standardisation through regulation and associated administrative, often European, control.

The cumulative effect of individual regulations, which may pursue good goals on their own, is increasingly overwhelming companies – especially in the area of sustainability and in connection with reporting obligations. Legislative proposals should also be better examined for their coherence with existing and planned initiatives (see the chapter "Reducing Bureaucracy and Better Lawmaking").

Differences between Member States alone do not justify European interventions in national legal and economic systems – the EU should focus on its core competencies and areas of responsibility.

The internal market standard of Article 114 TFEU must not become a general clause allowing the EU to regulate every economic sector in detail, even where it only has coordination competence, such as in the health and education sectors. From the perspective of businesses, maintaining the division of competencies between the Union and Member States, as defined by EU treaties, is crucial for planning and implementing regulatory measures. Subsidiarity and proportionality ensure that there is no general precedence of regulations over directives, but rather that the regulation of a topic at the EU level, as well as the choice of legal instrument, is justified on a case-by-case basis.

For this reason, regulations are not appropriate where the EU intervenes outcome-oriented and selectively in civil law systems within national competence (for example, "discovery," punitive damages, reversal of the burden of proof).

Businesses broadly reject new administrative structures and state interventions in civil law. The private legal society, as well as the procedural autonomy of Member States, must be respected.

On the path to completing the EU internal market, the principle of mutual recognition alongside harmonization, while respecting national identity, is an important instrument.

To create equitable competition conditions, it requires an equally resolute implementation of the law at the level of all EU member states by national authorities and courts, as well as impartial oversight by the European Commission. More effective utilization of infringement proceedings by the Commission could play an important role here. In deciding whether to initiate and proceed with infringement proceedings, which are at the Commission's discretion, it should solely perceive itself as the guardian of the treaties and base its decisions on legal considerations. This could contribute to the legal certainty important for companies and primarily lead to uniformity of the internal market in the sense of a "Level Playing Field" across the entire EU. Legal certainty and rule of law in the internal market, including reliable enforcement of laws, are pivotal factors for cross-border investments within the EU.

When implementing European regulations, it is crucial to ensure they are sufficiently legally secure and clear. For instance, the unclear criteria of the Digital Services Act (DSA) are problematic, such as the references to "illegal" content, which can differ across member states. These uncertainties burden companies, especially since significant penalties may be imposed in cases of legal errors. 

Der wachsende Umfang an Anzeige-, Melde-, Statistik-, Nachweis- und Informationspflichten kann den Warenverkehr stark einschränken. Vorgaben für Dienstleistungserbringer, zum Beispiel in Bezug auf Sprachkenntnisse, sollten reduziert werden. Die unterschiedliche nationale Anwendung von EU-Recht führt zu erheblichen Wettbewerbsverzerrungen und bereitet insbesondere im Bereich der Dienstleistungsfreiheit Probleme, vor allem den KMU. 

Ein prioritäres Ziel der EU-Kommission sollte die Stärkung des Binnenmarkts sein. Ein besonderer Fokus sollte dabei auf den Abbau von Hürden gelegt werden, die das Wachstumspotenzial des Dienstleistungshandels einschränken. Hierbei wäre eine koordinierende Unterstützung durch die EU hilfreich, um heterogene nationale Regelungen stärker zu harmonisieren oder um das bereits harmonisierte Recht konsequenter anzuwenden. Gleichzeitig sollte es die EU vermeiden, restriktive Vorschriften einzuführen. Bürokratische Vorschriften wie die Entsenderichtlinie sollten gestrichen oder zumindest stark überarbeitet werden.

Administrative Anforderungen bei der Arbeitnehmerentsendung sollten abgebaut und innerhalb der Europäischen Union vereinheitlicht werden (vergleiche Kapitel "Fach- und Arbeitskräftesicherung umfassend angehen"). Auch die A1-Bescheinigung, welche bei den Mitgliedstaaten unterschiedliche, vielfach überflüssige bürokratische Anforderungen und Prozesse aufstellt, wird überaus häufig von den Unternehmen als Beispiel für unverhältnismäßige Bürokratie und großes Hemmnis genannt (vergleiche Kapitel "Bürokratieabbau und Besseres Recht"). 

Zur Förderung des freien Warenverkehrs sollten (unter anderem technische) Standards möglichst EU-weit harmonisiert und kostengünstig zugänglich werden. Um den grenzüberschreitenden Versandhandel nicht zu hemmen, sollten europäische Verpackungsvorschriften im B2C-Bereich durch die Mitgliedstaaten einheitlich umgesetzt werden. Die Belastung von Unternehmen durch immer neue nationale Registrierungsvorschriften und Pflichten zur Benennung von Bevollmächtigten sollten minimiert werden. Informationen und Verwaltungsverfahren sollten aus Wirtschaftssicht zukünftig in allen Mitgliedstaaten online und neben der jeweiligen Landessprache zumindest auch in englischer Sprache zur Verfügung gestellt werden.

The so-called "Single Point of Contact" should be as uniform and promoted as possible throughout Europe. Furthermore, it must be legally equipped to initiate and support all business-relevant processes. The "Single Digital Gateway" is a start. The expansion of the central EU online platform ("Single Digital Gateway") should be implemented and expanded more quickly. This platform should provide comprehensive information on all relevant processes and rules of the individual member countries, be accessible in different languages, and support the digital as well as central handling of cross-border administrative procedures. The uniform EU-wide platform would be particularly a relief and help for SMEs.

In the future, as far as possible all administrative procedures relevant to cross-border economic activity should be able to be carried out online. The prerequisite for this is a reliable, data protection-compliant digital identity that protects personal rights for individuals and companies.

Consistent thinking in end-to-end processes and software architectures according to SaaS ("Software as a Service") is necessary for this. Each service must be consistently examined for automation potential. These requirements should be formulated by the legislator for the public administration. In addition to digital solutions, companies should also have the option of written, telephone or personal procedure processing available whenever possible.

De facto, the single market is considered completed from the perspective of businesses only when transactions with customers in other EU member states are as seamless as those within the home member state. Some companies continue to face interventions affecting property rights or professional activities – without sufficient legal protection at the national level. This especially affects the legal certainty of investments in innovative, long-term, and risky projects, including areas like renewable energy.

In 2020, at the initiative of the EU, all bilateral investment protection agreements between EU member states (Intra-EU BITs) were terminated. Companies investing across borders have since had no option to resolve disputes with foreign states concerning investments before an independent arbitration tribunal and are compelled to rely on state judicial systems. Moreover, the EU is making it harder for European companies to use international legal frameworks for investment protection, such as those under the World Bank (ICSID), by working to withdraw from international investment protection agreements and intervening extraterritorially in investment protection cases against European companies.

In many member states, as well as internationally, court proceedings are lengthy and occur in politicized contexts, including energy law.

Additionally, the EU Commission itself acknowledges significant shortcomings in various member states' judicial systems in its annual rule of law report and the associated Justice Scoreboard. Companies interpret the reliance on national legal mechanisms as a signal against investment security within the EU because national legal systems are simultaneously deemed inadequate. These deficiencies in rule of law must be systematically addressed. International legal protection standards that account for European peculiarities must be incorporated.

Furthermore, specific follow-up mechanisms in the area of investment protection that are accessible to SMEs must be established. Many proposals, including a multilateral investment court, are being closely monitored by businesses but are only achievable in the long term. Other suggestions, such as an investment protection regulation, could provide legal remedies in the near term. Where legal questions under EU law arise, avenues should be found to involve the European Court of Justice in arbitration processes. Investment restraint should be avoided, as this could jeopardize or, at least, delay important European projects such as the Green Deal.