‘Gold-plating’: the rules that Spain adds to European regulations and their impact on the single market

Going beyond what European legislation establishes, adding requirements to those coming from the regulations that come out of Brussels, is a mechanism used by member states, in order to adapt laws to national reality and, why not say it, also to leave a particular imprint. However, this practice, known as gold-plating, can become an obstacle for the single market, in cases where those demands are not sufficiently justified, are unnecessary, or disproportionate.

Although it is a common controversy, and a legal strategy, the president of the European Commission herself, Ursula von der Leyen, has shown her concern about this, by calling for a “pact against gold-plating” in her State of the Union speech on September 16, 2026.

Specifically, the leader pointed out that simplification cannot be limited to reducing the burdens arising from European legislation: it also requires that member states avoid adding unnecessary bureaucracy when applying community rules.

What is ‘gold plating’?

There is gold-plating when, on the occasion of the transposition, execution, or application of a European Union norm, the legislator or national administration incorporates a broader scope, stricter requirements, additional obligations, or more burdensome procedures than those required by Union law. The concept does not necessarily imply that the national measure is contrary to Union law, but identifies a national overregulation that must be justified especially when it generates additional burdens or fragmentation of the single market.

When European regulation establishes complete harmonization, the issue is no longer solely about gold-plating: the introduction of additional national requirements may prove incompatible with the Union act itself. Furthermore, if there is national leeway, that leeway is not unlimited and must be exercised respecting fundamental freedoms, the principle of proportionality, and the unity of the internal market.

Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between two situations: that a state uses a possibility that the directive itself grants to raise protection or establish stricter rules, and that it adds obligations that create a burden that is not necessary or proportionate to achieve the intended objective.

The difference is relevant for companies. When a company operates in several European markets, additional national obligations may force it to adapt contracts, information systems, labeling, compliance processes, or relationships with suppliers country by country. The problem is not only the cost of an isolated obligation but the accumulation of different requirements within a market that aims to operate with common rules.

Three examples in Spain

For La Distribución Anged, this type of expansion of the European framework can translate into greater administrative obligations and additional difficulties for commercial activity.

One of the clearest examples to explain the phenomenon is that Spain extended to three years the period during which the seller is responsible for the lack of conformity of the goods, compared to the two years established as a general rule by Directive (EU) 2019/771. It also raised to two years the general period of presumption of the existence of the lack of conformity, compared to the year provided by the directive.

In this case, the European regulation itself expressly allows member states to establish longer liability periods. Article 10 of the Directive states that states may maintain or introduce periods longer than two years.

Another example is that of packaging and waste. Spanish legislation introduced through Law 7/2022 a tax on non-reusable plastic packaging. The tax levies the manufacture, importation, or intra-community acquisition of certain packaging containing plastic. This is a national fiscal measure that does not stem from a specific obligation of Directive (EU) 2019/904 on single-use plastics.

In the food chain, there are also several cases of gold-plating regarding Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair commercial practices. For example, with the elimination of billing thresholds, despite the fact that European protection is not designed for any commercial relationship, but for relationships in which there is an imbalance. Spain also changes the logic of the Directive in bidirectionality: the European scheme is essentially buyer – supplier, while Spain transforms numerous prohibitions into “one party - the other,” also protecting the buyer against the supplier. Other issues such as contract registration and the preservation of documentation for four years are also clear examples of overregulation.

Brussels also wants to act on national rules

The European Commission has placed gold-plating within its regulatory simplification agenda. The goal is that the reduction of burdens is not limited to the rules approved in Brussels, but also takes into account how they are incorporated and applied in each State.

In September, von der Leyen directly linked this issue to competitiveness and demanded that States accompany European simplification efforts with measures to avoid unnecessary additional burdens. The Commission is also working on tools and best practices aimed at helping States detect and prevent this type of burden during the transposition and application of European legislation.

The community approach does not involve prohibiting any additional national requirement: the goal is to make visible the obligations that are added, justify their necessity and proportionality, and evaluate their effects on the functioning of the single market.

For trade, this issue takes on a particularly relevant dimension because a company's activity does not end at the national border. Differences in contracts, consumer information, waste, labeling, or relationships with suppliers can multiply compliance processes when an operator is present in several countries.

The debate on gold-plating thus falls within a broader issue: it is not enough for there to be a common European standard if its national application ends up generating 27 different regulatory frameworks. The challenge for Brussels is to ensure that simplification also reaches the phase in which European rules become concrete obligations for companies.