xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2020039EN.01004801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/48 |

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Better regulation: taking stock and sustaining our commitment

(2020/C 39/10)

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Rapporteur | : | Olgierd Geblewicz (PL/EPP), Marshal of the Zachodniopomorskie region |
| Reference documents | : | COM(2019) 178 final SWD(2019) 156 |

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Comments

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 1. | welcomes the European Commission’s stock-taking on the better regulation activities and stresses that better regulation indeed should not be a hidden deregulatory agenda, that better regulation and evidence-based, transparent and inclusive policy making are key imperatives in a climate where democracy and decisions by compromise are being attacked, but also that better regulation-tools should never substitute democratic political decision-making; underlines that better regulation tools themselves do entail ‘costs’ (in terms of time, human resources, etc.) and therefore they also need to be designed effectively; and that better regulation must be a shared effort among all levels of governance; welcomes therefore in particular the positive recognition of the need to involve local and regional authorities and the Committee of the Regions more directly in the EU policy process; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 2. | states that the citizens of the European Union deserve good quality legislation that builds European added value, that is clear and well-communicated to those it is addressed to in terms of objectives, and that is monitored in terms of results. Because local and regional authorities implement and use approximately 70 % of EU legislation, while also having the closest links to citizens, they must be directly involved in the process of creating good EU rules and the process of assessing their effectiveness. Because it is crucial from the point of view of implementing rules and for the perception of the EU that citizens understand the aim and benefits of rules, as credible bodies in the eyes of citizens, local and regional authorities must be fully involved in this communication process, i.e. providing information about and clarifying the meaning of rules in a way that can be understood at local level. The role of the Committee of the Regions, as a formal bridge between the EU institutions and local and regional authorities, is essential here; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 3. | notes that the quality of law is one of the keys to the success of European integration and that if governance guarantees cooperation between levels of government to implement EU policies, apply legislation effectively, and find socially acceptable responses to global challenges, Europe will be strong, its institutions will be governed by the rule of law, its policies will be effective, and citizens will be engaged and involved in the decision-making process; supports in this sense also the European Commission’s statement that quantitative approaches (aimed at reducing so-called administrative burdens by a certain percentage) are not adequate to address the complexity and diverse nature of EU regulation and its impact at different levels; endorses in this context also the recommendation of the Task Force on Subsidiarity that the issue of ‘legislative density’ in relation to its added value should be a core element of the REFIT exercise; also welcomes in this context the commitment of the future Commission president to set up a Conference on the future of Europe in 2020 and recalls the CoR’s desire to be fully involved in any discussion on improving EU governance, and its suggestion for a permanent, structured system of citizens’ dialogue in order to strengthen the democratic functioning of the EU; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 4. | agrees that the better regulation agenda is a tool to help improve EU policies and to provide a basis for making sound and timely policy decisions, ensuring that the legislation adopted by EU institutions ‘does more good than harm’, i.e. making sure that legislative measures are evidence-based and well-designed, and that they deliver tangible and sustainable benefits for citizens, businesses and society as a whole. This applies both to new rules as well as to the large body of existing EU legislation; is aware that this tool is, in effect, the beginning of a process to develop the best possible regulatory mechanisms; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5. | is aware that, in view of the competencies given to it under the Treaties and the human resources it has, the European Commission plays a key role in better regulation policy. However, the Committee points out that better regulation cannot be achieved exclusively through action at the EU level. It emphatically points out the important, but not fully exploited, potential of cooperation with local and regional authorities, which the CoR is a natural bridge to; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 6. | points out the EU’s obligation to regulate in areas of shared competence only if and only in so far as the aims of the policy in question cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, their regions or their local authorities, in accordance with Article 5 of the Treaty of the European Union, i.e. with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; supports the conclusions of the Task Force on Subsidiarity and Proportionality and the proposal to open up the policy by improving involvement of all levels of government through a new approach to the principle of subsidiarity – ‘active subsidiarity’; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 7. | stresses that local and regional authorities are not currently directly involved in the negotiations between the EP and the Council during legislative procedures, and are also not directly involved in the formal subsidiarity control mechanism; recalls, however, that the CoR does have the right to take action before the European Court of Justice in cases where subsidiarity is not respected, and that it is using this possibility to reinforce its political messages on the subject and thus plays an important role in making the voices of local and regional authorities heard; calls on the Commission to explore ways of involving regional parliaments more closely in these processes for instance by formally including them in the early warning mechanism or the extension of the yellow and red cards system to regional parliaments in order to ensure that they can contribute positively to the development of active subsidiarity; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 8. | notes that monitoring and evaluation are key to the process of improving legislation. The CoR points out that new rules are often implemented before full and proper evaluation of the impact of the existing legislation has been completed. Local and regional authorities apply the majority of EU law and therefore have the broadest knowledge of its impact on citizens in practice; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 9. | welcomes the Commission’s call for REFIT measures to be strengthened through increased involvement of the Committee of the Regions; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 10. | highlights the CoR’s capacity to consult and communicate with local communities by using its contacts with existing networks that bring together representatives of local and regional authorities in the Member States; |

Better regulation tools and the role of local and regional authorities in making better use of them

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 11. | notes that consultations with stakeholders can provide an important input into the content of legislation and have a legitimising effect – they boost acceptance of the rules and can thus make implementation much more effective. The Committee therefore welcomes the initiative to set up the ‘Have Your Say’ portal for communicating with and consulting citizens. It notes, however, that responses from individual citizens so far constitute only a minority of submissions, which is probably due to the fact that the portal and the consultation processes are not yet widely known; therefore calls for a strengthening of measures to inform about and promote such consultations, not least through cooperation with local and regional authorities; in addition, suggests to envisage specific, targeted consultations for local and regional authorities, particularly on topics with particular relevance to them. In this context, involving the CoR by using its contacts in networks of representatives of local and regional authorities could make it possible to reach a wider range of individual and institutional stakeholders, which would improve the consultations’ outcome; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 12. | notes that assessing results is a key tool for enhancing the legitimacy and transparency of legislation, and therefore supports the Commission’s intention to pay particular attention to subsidiarity and proportionality when carrying out assessments; draws attention to the fact that local and regional authorities can provide especially valuable information in this area; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 13. | points to the need to undertake further work on developing impact assessment indicators that take into account tools covering the sub-national level, particularly indicators used to develop policies such as the sustainable development goals or a social scoreboard. This will enable European, national, local and regional authorities to familiarise themselves with the impact assessments in different regions and identify areas where improvements in legislation and policy-making are needed at the local level; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 14. | draws attention to the diversity of European regions, which can result in a law having an asymmetrical territorial impact. Initial impact assessments should determine whether there is a territorial impact of policy implementation to be taken into account at an early stage in the legislative process and therefore it should become the usual practice for all Commission Directorates and departments to analyse this aspect when preparing legislation. This would allow them to better assess the best means to achieve their policy objectives and to carry out more in-depth territorial impact assessments on legislation where this is relevant. It would also help to sensitise all Commission directorates for the potential territorial and geographical impact of their policy choices; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 15. | notes that in 2018 it launched a pilot project on a network of regional hubs for gathering local and regional data on EU policy implementation through specific questionnaires (RegHub). The Committee welcomes the fact that the Commission communication on better regulation confirms support for this project. It calls for further efforts to be made to improve this project and after the positive evaluation of the pilot phase, to integrate it into the system of EU policy and law-making; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 16. | strongly supports the objectives of the REFIT platform; has been a member of the platform’s stakeholder group since it was established in 2015; calls for the platform’s mandate to be extended in line with the proposals of the Subsidiarity Task Force, which identified a number of problems preventing the CoR from contributing more effectively to the functioning of the platform; stresses that the CoR, as a consultative body, is best placed to provide informed input, but that at present the highly specific and technical nature of submissions to the platform, and the short deadline for submitting contributions, do not allow the Committee of the Regions to make use of its potential and make an appropriately significant contribution; also points to the major contribution that the RegHub network could make, via the CoR, to the REFIT platform’s objectives; |

CoR recommendations

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 17. | while acknowledging the Commission’s efforts to date to review existing legislation, recommends preparing sectoral plans for the revision of laws to ensure coherent and systematic implementation of the objectives set by the Commission. At the same time, the CoR highlights that both when evaluating existing rules and when creating new ones, it is necessary to strengthen multi-level cooperation based on mutual trust; notes that this cooperation should entail actively involving the regions and local authorities from the outset in shaping the European Commission’s annual work programme, as well as in the annual planning of legislative assessment and monitoring activities, particularly as regards territorial impact; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 18. | agrees with the need to strengthen the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles in EU decision-making as part of a more overarching agenda for better regulation. The Committee calls for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality to be given the highest priority and for an active approach to be taken to subsidiarity, as a way to ensure that bottom-up input is fully taken into consideration within the framework of existing competencies at EU level. These principles must be treated as fundamental aspects of the EU decision-making process, not least through close cooperation with the Committee of the Regions, as the institutional representative of local and regional authorities, which are responsible for directly applying large parts of European law; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 19. | points out that in terms of work methodology, the REFIT platform seeks to include both the technical and the political level within the same framework; at the same time, notes that the Committee of the Regions, which represents local and regional political authorities, is treated as an interest group, which does not reflect the nature of its composition; calls, therefore, for the methodology to be reconfigured so that CoR representatives are more directly involved in the political process determining the policy objectives of the platform and of selecting the provisions to be analysed. This would allow CoR members who take part in the platform to make full use of their experience and expertise concerning the implementation of European law and its impact on citizens, while also building the bridge to the CoR’s networks; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 20. | reiterates that it is important for local and regional authorities to be able to adapt EU regulations to local and regional circumstances to avoid creating unnecessary administrative formalities, restrictions or economic burdens. The Task Force on Subsidiarity and Proportionality points out that regulatory density has increased, narrowing the margin for interpretation that should exist when implementing directives. This makes it harder for the Commission to achieve better and more efficient regulation. The issue therefore needs to be addressed in the future work on better regulation; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 21. | recommends also to modify the structure of the REFIT platform by including experts from the local or regional level in the work of national expert groups and groups that bring together representatives of interest groups; this would be an additional way to implement, the recommendations of the working group on increasing the role of local and regional authorities in the law-making process contained in the Commission’s communication; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 22. | notes that the European Commission pledged to step up its cooperation with the Committee of the Regions, as well as with the Economic and Social Committee and representative associations. After a successful completion of the pilot phase, the Regional networks (RegHub) can become a key channel for this increased cooperation. Notes that this would require the Commission, the CoR and all other stakeholders to define jointly with the hubs the timeline, content of policy areas and significance for regions and cities. In this context, the CoR calls for greater involvement of the European Commission already during the pilot phase of the project; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 23. | invites the European Commission to consider the possibility of expanding RegHub after the pilot phase has been completed. The added value the project can bring if the networks are developed, and around 280 regions are involved, increases significantly. Pan-European regional networks (RegHub) could become an important tool for overcoming some of the challenges currently facing the better regulation project and many regions have expressed great interest in participating in the pilot phase of the project. Nevertheless, developing and maintaining such networks would entail investments of financial and human resources along with support for the regions which intend to ensure that they are ready to make a long-term contribution to the network’s activities once the pilot phase is completed; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 24. | welcomes the fact that the European Parliament, Council and Commission signed a new interinstitutional agreement on better regulation in 2016 and that the agreement increased control over the procedure for adopting delegated and implementing acts. The Committee points out, however, that this agreement has not been fully implemented by the signatory institutions and that the Committee of the Regions, was unfortunately not included in the process of drawing it up; highlights that on the basis of the points raised above, it would indeed be in the overall institutional interest of the EU to involve the European Committee of the Regions in any future revision of the inter-institutional agreement; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 25. | calls for the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to be expanded to include a permanent member designated by the Committee of the Regions. The justification for this expansion is the urgent need to raise the Board’s awareness of local and regional perspectives on EU legislation; is convinced that giving local and regional authorities and the CoR a stronger, formalised role in shaping EU policies and law is the only way to help ensure rules are more effective and boost compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, thus increasing legitimacy; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 26. | calls on the EP and the Council to carry out an impact assessment on any substantial amendments these institutions propose during the legislative process. In the event that the agreement reached differs significantly from the Commission’s initial impact assessment, the CoR calls for the economic, social and environmental impacts and regulatory burdens to be reassessed in cooperation between the institutions involved before a final decision is made. In such cases, the CoR insists on being regularly informed of the process of negotiations between the EP and the Council and of the impact on the initial provisions of the regulation and, in the event of significant changes, on being consulted again where possible; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 27. | calls on the Commission to ensure that future impact assessments comprise both an assessment of the economic burdens that new legislation may entail for the public sector and a territorial assessment. This will provide a more qualified basis for discussions on whether EU legislation is the most effective instrument; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 28. | supports the European Commission in its request to Member States to provide the reasons behind any intention at national level to add specific requirements in the process of transposing European law into national legislation (‘gold-plating’); in such cases, and in particular where these requirements add additional burdens for sub-national levels in the implementation of EU law, the Member States should inform the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions as early as possible in order to allow for an appropriate dialogue on the matter to take place; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 29. | calls for the CoR to be included in the next interinstitutional agreement on better regulation, which will be concluded between the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission, in the form of a special protocol for agreement with the Committee of the Regions, particularly concerning the implementation of certain evaluation and consultation mechanisms; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 30. | calls on the European Commission, in cooperation with the CoR, to brief and train the regions and local authorities on the procedures and tools for better regulation. Due account should be given to the information and training initiatives already in place in the Member States, organised by the regions themselves or their representative associations, in order to promote links, synergies and the exchange of information and best practices between the people running both types of initiative and the European Commission through the CoR; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 31. | recommends that, as part of the better regulation approach, the Commission develop communication approaches that aim to convey the need for – and importance of – difficult or controversial future legislative proposals to the public in a transparent way and at an early stage; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 32. | calls for regions that have constitutional legislative powers to be taken into account, and for channels to be provided for full and direct involvement in drawing up legislative acts that are linked to their fields of competence; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 33. | endorses the European Commission’s view that better regulation requires a joint effort, while at the same time emphasising that this initiative has a multi-level dimension, meaning that responsibility must be shared between all tiers of governance; therefore recommends that the European Commission amend the guidelines for better regulation so as to factor the regional dimension into the procedures and tools laid down in the agenda for the entire policy cycle, drawing partly on appropriate consultation of the networks of regions and local authorities coordinated by the CoR; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 34. | stresses that good regulation also means communicating effectively to citizens the reasons, meaning and benefits of laws, something which, due to communication, language or cultural barriers or distance, cannot be achieved effectively at EU or national level; therefore recommends that, from the very beginning, when communicating on the legislative process, the Commission should work closely with the Committee of the Regions which, as the representative of local communities, was created in part by associations of local and regional authorities from across the EU. In this way, communication will be comprehensible for those who apply European law, thereby contributing to a positive image of European institutions and the rules they create. |

Brussels, 8 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---