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


C\_2022097EN.01001001.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 97/10 |

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws

(2022/C 97/03)

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | --- | --- | | Rapporteur: | Piero Mauro ZANIN (IT/EPP), President and Member of the Regional Council of Friuli-Venezia Giulia | | Reference document: | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws. Brussels, 29.4.2021 COM(2021) 219 final | |

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Better regulation to support the recovery of the EU

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 1. | stresses that the EU’s better regulation system is considered by the OECD to be among the most advanced regulatory systems in the world, capable of producing high quality regulation which is fit for the future and matches the major environmental, digital and social transformation challenges facing the European Union; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 2. | agrees that EU laws must create added value, keep the level of administrative burden to a minimum and proportionate to the objectives aimed at by the relevant regulation, be clear and transparent and comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 3. | underscores that it is fundamental that the better regulation system incorporates multilevel governance in the European Union since European legislation is implemented by the Member States, regions and local authorities: the involvement of levels of government which are responsible for implementing EU legislation is a prerequisite for high quality legislation able to work towards common goals. Therefore, recommends that the European Commission prioritises the collaboration with local and regional authorities (LRAs), particularly those with legislative powers, throughout the policy cycle, based on a multi-level governance working method; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 4. | notes that democratically elected LRAs still have limited influence on the shaping of the EU legislation they are required to implement: both these authorities and the CoR, their institutional representative at EU level, must be given a bigger role in the European governance system; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5. | sees as positive the Commission’s efforts to strengthen its role as guardian of the Treaties, its focus on more effective enforcement of EU regulation, and thus doing more to ensure this, and its support for the Member States, regions and municipalities in effectively and properly implementing EU law. A greater degree of implementation and more effective implementation will also further the better regulation agenda; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 6. | calls on the Commission to explore ways of involving regional parliaments more closely in the EU policy-making process, by harnessing the early warning mechanism provided for in the Treaties, in order to ensure that they can contribute positively to the development of active subsidiarity [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0001); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 7. | considers that the time has come to join forces to make better laws, by taking a bottom-up approach, improving and approximating better regulation tools (many of which are used by the regions) to ensure that they are compatible, and sharing good practices and available data; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 8. | endorses the European Commission’s intention of involving Europeans to a greater extent in the process of shaping European policies through consultations, but would urge the Commission to also build for that purpose on the LRAs and the CoR’s capacity of capturing, mediating and relaying citizens’ concerns; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 9. | agrees that political action must be based on in-depth analyses and scientific evidence, so that its economic, social, gender and environmental impact, among others, can be systematically evaluated; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 10. | supports the Commission’s intention to mainstream the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into EU policy- and decision-making, including by improving the analysis and reporting of proposals on sustainable development. Emphasises that the implementation of the SDGs must not be undermined by administrative and regulatory burdens and must pay equal attention to the economic, social, gender and environmental aspects of sustainable development. Urges the Member States and LRAs to do likewise; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 11. | agrees that the ‘do no significant harm’ principle should be applied in all policy fields, in line with the EU 2050 long-term strategy [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0002) and Agenda 2030 [(3)](#ntr3-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0003); calls for LRAs to be involved in resource planning and management, as they are on the front line when it comes to implementing environmental, climate, social and energy policies. Points to the CoR opinion on the European Climate Law [(4)](#ntr4-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0004) and recommends giving consideration to the cost of inaction, which can have significant long-term consequences which are not immediately apparent; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 12. | calls on the Commission, the Member States and the LRAs to issue compatible legislation able to remove obstacles and red tape which, by slowing down recovery, undermine people’s wellbeing. Asks the Commission to support the regions, particularly cross-border regions and less developed by promoting common legislation, drawing on the cooperation initiatives already in place in border and vulnerable areas, such as the European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 13. | calls on the EU institutions, the Member States and the LRAs to each focus on implementing the recommendations of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and ‘Doing Less More Efficiently’ [(5)](#ntr5-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0005). Calls for these recommendations to be updated in light of the lessons learned from the pandemic and the objectives of the green and digital and social transition and building fairer, more resilient and more equal economies and societies in the framework of NGEU; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 14. | calls for the interinstitutional agreement, guidelines and toolbox on better regulation to be reviewed, incorporating the multilevel dimension of the European regulatory process, as suggested by the Task Force on Subsidiarity [(6)](#ntr6-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0006). Underlines the importance of action to increase the level of awareness about and use of better regulation tools among the Member States and LRAs, particularly those with legislative powers. Calls for every effort to be made to enhance the linguistic aspect, terminology sharing and proper translation, as these are key to working towards the common objectives of better regulation at all levels of governance; |

A common commitment

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 15. | agrees that it is not possible to produce good quality legislation without taking account of the results of previous legislation. Points out that many regions have added evaluation clauses to their laws in order to ensure that data on the impact of specific legislation are available. Acknowledges that institutions at every level — European, national, regional and local — are responsible for sharing the data gathered in a common evidence register; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 16. | notes that it would be useful to establish a joint legislative portal and recommends that communication campaigns be organised in all Member States to raise awareness about it; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 17. | considers that the LRAs’ sites could help to publicise more widely the Commission's public consultations, passing on calls for contributions and, where appropriate, promoting permanent networks of contributors with a view to collecting requests and input from end users, whose feedback is crucial for making progress on growth and development objectives; |

Improved communication with stakeholders and the general public

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 18. | is pleased that the European Commission intends to further improve the consultations and make them more targeted, clearer and more user-friendly, partly by means of more balanced and structured questionnaires which are less technical and easier to understand. Endorses the move to merge public consultations and roadmaps into a single ‘call for evidence’ on the ‘Have Your Say’ portal. Stresses that questionnaires need to be translated simultaneously into all the EU languages in order to make it possible for interested parties to take part, in all places and at all levels; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 19. | suggests that, given their specificities, LRAs should be more frequently subject to targeted consultations. Recommends that the Commission consult the CoR on developing open consultations and roadmaps for proposals which have a significant impact on subnational tiers of government, and that it involve LRAs via the CoR in a decentralised, systematic information campaign on the European Commission's annual work programmes; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 20. | considers that the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) presents an excellent opportunity for debate with citizens. Points to the CoR opinion on Local and regional authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens and reiterates that the CoFoE should be seen as an opportunity to rethink and reform the way the EU functions and is perceived by its citizens [(7)](#ntr7-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0007). Again points out that the CoR must play a key role in the CoFoE, that LRAs, particularly those with legislative powers, must be given a stronger role in the democratic functioning of the EU and that the territorial dimension of EU policies must be bolstered; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 21. | stresses the need to promote public involvement in the EU policy-making process. Accordingly, points to the CoR proposal to establish a pan-EU network for dialogue based on voluntary public participation (CitizEN) which, if tested during the CoFoE, could introduce a structural mechanism for informing and involving the general public, boosting their long-term political engagement; |

Improved transparency

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 22. | recommends ensuring that the legislative process is as transparent as possible, so that, for every legislative proposal, members of the public have unfettered access to all the data available and all the existing input, studies and evaluations; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 23. | considers that the CoR’s access to select trilogue meeting documents, provided that it has already issued an opinion or is drafting one on the proposal in question under Article 307 TFEU, would be essential to assess whether the changes discussed in those meetings are relevant from a regional or local perspective and warrant a new opinion. Such access would enable the CoR to fulfil its role as an advisory body and would ensure the effectiveness or ‘effet utile’ of the provisions of the Treaties pertaining to the CoR; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 24. | calls on the Commission to link up databases, registers, archives and portals, including MIDAS. Through specific communication and training activities, the CoR and associations of LRAs, the Commission should also make the public more familiar with these sources of information; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 25. | welcomes the Commission’s intention to step up efforts to improve public consultation and the way feedback is processed. It is currently unclear how the Commission weighs individual contributions, but this is necessary to ensure democratic transparency here. In any event, when drawing up its legislative proposals the Commission should pay special attention to the contributions from regional public administrations with powers in the areas under consultation; |

New tools for further simplifying and lessening the administrative burden

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 26. | agrees that the time has come to focus more on the impact of legislation in terms of financial costs and ever increasing red tape for local and regional authorities, people, families and businesses, particularly micro, small and medium-sized businesses which are the backbone of the EU economy; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 27. | calls on the European Commission, when applying the ‘one in, one out’ approach, through which the Commission aims to offset new burdens arising from legislative proposals by cutting an equivalent amount of existing red tape in the same sector, to guarantee that inception impact assessments and impact assessments include an evaluation of the potential territorially differentiated impacts of each legislative initiative. Expects that the application of this principle preserves the EU’s legislative objectives and high economic, social and environmental standards. Further expects that the methodologies used to measure and reduce burdens rely on an evidence-based approach concerning the offsetting of administrative burdens and the cost of inaction so that they can later become standard operating practice for decision-makers at all levels and flank proposals throughout the legislative cycle all the way through to implementation at national, regional and local level; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 28. | stresses that new European legislative initiatives should generate EU added-value and, in addition, believes that it would be crucial to ensure that the measures and obligations proposed are simple and can be applied effectively and efficiently in order to achieve the agreed policy aims. Calls for increased transparency and accountability and for less administrative burdens on businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Stresses that the EU should adopt a target to reduce the overall EU regulatory burden on businesses; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 29. | points out that following the adoption of the Small Business Act, some countries and regions have implemented methodologies for evaluating the burden imposed by legislation on businesses. Encourages the exchange of good practices on ways to offset burdens, as well as instruments, methodologies and data collected; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 30. | considers that investing in the roll-out of digital solutions able to modernise public administrative systems by bringing them into line with the pace and needs of industry is crucial for cutting red tape and streamlining procedures; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 31. | calls on the Commission and the Member States to support businesses, particularly micro, small and medium-sized businesses, when they make the investments needed to adapt to the standards required under the relevant EU sectoral legislation, including as regards training and upskilling, reskilling; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 32. | acknowledges that legislation needs to be reviewed and simplified with a view to removing barriers to implementation, including across borders, and making laws more effective, transparent and understandable to end users, whether individuals or businesses. Accordingly, welcomes the achievements of the 2020 Annual Burden Survey which, in line with the 2016 interinstitutional agreement on better regulation, reports on the measures taken to reduce burdens and simplify legislation; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 33. | endorses the objective of the regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT) which has now been reinforced with the establishment of the Fit for Future Platform (F4F). Welcomes the enhanced role of the CoR in this platform, with three representatives in the Government group, which partially addresses the CoR’s concerns regarding the governance and effectiveness of the previous REFIT Platform, and with RegHub (Network of Regional Hubs for EU Policy). Reiterates its support for the F4F Platform and its commitment to step up cooperation with the European Commission. Points out that the CoR is well placed to systematically gather input from LRAs, through its members, networks and other targeted initiatives such as RegHub [(8)](#ntr8-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0008); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 34. | highlights the added value RegHub provides, by means of stakeholder consultations, to the development of a European database on the impact of implementing EU legislation. Flags up the fact that RegHub also supports the implementation of EU legislation by disseminating information and creating an environment for the exchange of good practices and also for the assessment of progress and results. Notes that with a view to the continuity and consistency of simplification, it might be useful to activate RegHub for directives and regulations on which consultations and reviews have been organised in order to support the implementation of these texts. Calls on the Commission to consider long-term financial support for the development and consolidation of RegHub as a better regulation instrument; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 35. | considers that it is essential to step up the participation of regions, provinces and cities in RegHub as far as possible, and also calls on the Member States to use the network to implement systems for gathering data and information at local level; |

Improving our tools

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 36. | considers that one thing the pandemic has taught us is that it is crucial to pick up on indications of such events as early as possible, so that appropriate action can be taken swiftly to mitigate at least the worst effects. Notes that policy-makers need comprehensive, up-to-date scientific data in order to shape strategies able to cope with the challenges. Points to the need for close, ongoing cooperation with the scientific and research community; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 37. | hopes that the methodology for incorporating strategic foresight into the policy-shaping process will be set out in the better regulation package, taking due account of the local and regional perspective. Points out that LRAs and the CoR are well placed to contribute to strategic foresight; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 38. | calls on the Commission to take account of the CoR’s input when establishing the Joint Legislative Portal, including opinions, territorial impact assessments, RegHub reports, studies and documents on legislative proposals and reviews. Asks to be able to contribute to the technical improvements to the ‘Have Your Say’ portal in order to promote greater understanding of specific local features and facilitate access for LRAs; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 39. | hopes that the European Commission will make the local and regional impact of policies clearer by revising the better regulation guidelines and updating the toolbox with regard to tools and methodologies for the identification of impacts in general and territorial impact assessments in particular, making them flexible enough to be used in a range of situations and at all levels; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 40. | points out that concepts such as evaluating impact on rural areas, urban impact assessments and cross-border impact assessments all come under the umbrella of territorial impact assessments and that compartmentalising them must not undermine the objective of place-based and evidence-based policy-making; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 41. | welcomes the continued efforts of the European Commission (specifically the Joint Research Centre and DG Regional and Urban Policy) and the ESPON EGTC programme to fine-tune the tools for assessing territorial impact. Recommends that even when a full territorial impact assessment is not feasible or not deemed relevant, other types of impact assessment should be carried out using the most detailed territorial data available with existing statistics; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 42. | points out that ‘territorial blindness’ has harmful repercussions on the quality of policy-making. The absence of sufficient subnational data in many important indexes and scoreboards (such as the DESI (Digital Economy and Society) Index, the Social Scoreboard and the SDGs) and the absence or insufficient quality of subnational analysis in the foresight activities of the European institutions can have an adverse and enduring impact on the Union as a whole, on the spirit of cohesion between territories and on the lives of individuals. The better regulation guidelines and toolbox must therefore give clear signals and provide useful tools to enable territorial impact assessments to be more broadly used throughout the policy-making cycle, guaranteeing that other types of impact assessments (social, economic, environmental or otherwise) are also carried out at subnational level; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 43. | calls for the LRAs to be more involved, so as to provide data and information for territorial impact assessments which European-level bodies would have difficulty accessing. Calls on the European Commission to pass on information to LRAs via the CoR and RegHub on how to use the various models developed by ESPON to perform territorial impact assessments. This will foster a culture of assessment and evidence-based and place-based policy-making, including when transposing and implementing regulation; based on a multi-level governance working method; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 44. | highlights the need to explain why no impact assessment is carried out for a given legislative proposal, especially in the case of proposals likely to have a territorial impact; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 45. | agrees with the task force's [(9)](#ntr9-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0009) recommendations as regards active subsidiarity, since taking decisions at the closest possible level to Europeans helps boost the visibility of the measures and enhances the EU’s democratic legitimacy. Calls on the Commission to take account of the forms of decentralisation already in place across the EU, including in the field of taxation, when considering subsidiarity, given that this monitoring exercise must be based on the distribution of powers between the various tiers of government; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 46. | calls on the co-legislators and the Member States to systematically use the subsidiarity assessment grid. Urges regional parliaments to use this grid when verifying that EU legislative proposals comply with the subsidiarity principle, within the meaning of Protocol No 2 to the TFEU; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 47. | with a view to delivering on the objectives of the green and digital transition, calls on the Commission and the Member States to involve the LRAs in every stage of the decision-making process, both at European level (during consultations and ex ante and ex post assessments) and at national level (when shaping policies, from legislation to framing and implementing plans and programmes and policy instruments which most impact cities and regions) in order to ensure consistency. In line with the task force’s [(10)](#ntr10-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0010) recommendations, recommends updating the ways in which countries involve their regions in implementing the National Recovery and Resilience Plans (NRRPs) and the Green Deal objectives based on a multi-level governance working method, with a view to the green, digital and socially fair transition; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 48. | welcomes the efforts to increase the quality of assessments through independent scrutiny and supports the setting up of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board [(11)](#ntr11-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0011) since the permanent nature and composition of the new board, with its extended mandate, partially addresses the CoR's concerns regarding its effectiveness. Reiterates its call for the board to include a permanent member designated by the CoR. Calls on the European Commission to make available draft evaluations and impact assessments that are submitted to the board so that the CoR’s contributions to better regulation can be evaluated and targeted more effectively. Asks the board to consider using the reports on the implementation of RegHub as a tool for examining the legislative proposals and points out that the CoR is willing to step up its cooperation with the board; |

The key role of application

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 49. | undertakes to bring all its tools and methodologies for collecting and analysing territorial data together into one single better regulation package, to include RegHub consultations, thereby forging stronger links with the Commission's better regulation toolbox and the tools developed by the European Parliamentary Research Service. Encourages the Commission and the Member States to ensure that LRAs also have access to the initiatives set out there providing support for transposing directives, implementing regulations and properly enacting EU rules; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 50. | in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Subsidiarity [(12)](#ntr12-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0012), recommends that LRAs cooperate on preparing national implementation plans which can provide added value over those developed by the European Commission; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 51. | agrees with the Commission on the need to familiarise the Member States and the regions with the notion of gold-plating and, if additional rules at national level are considered necessary when implementing European legislation, recommends that this be identified through the transposition act or related documents, in accordance with the provisions of the interinstitutional agreement on better regulation [(13)](#ntr13-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0013). It is also recommended to avoid gold-plating, particularly when implementing programmes under shared management and in the case of national procurement rules, with a view to preventing over-regulation. |

Brussels, 1 December 2021.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Apostolos TZITZIKOSTAS

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0001)  CoR opinion on Better regulation: taking stock and sustaining our commitment, CDR 2579/2019.

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0002)  https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050\_en.

[(3)](#ntc3-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0003)  https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/sustainable-development-goals\_en.

[(4)](#ntc4-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0004)  https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/OpinionTimeline.aspx?opId=CDR-1361-2020.

[(5)](#ntc5-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0005)  Report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and ‘Doing Less More Efficiently’, https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/report-task-force-subsidiarity-proportionality-and-doing-less-more-efficiently\_en.

[(6)](#ntc6-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0006)  Recommendation 8.

[(7)](#ntc7-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0007)  CoR opinion on Local and regional authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens, https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/OpinionTimeline.aspx?opId=CDR-4989-2019.

[(8)](#ntc8-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0008)  Network of Regional Hubs for EU Policy https://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/Pages/network-regional-hubs-implementation-assessment.aspx.

[(9)](#ntc9-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0009)  Report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and ‘Doing Less More Efficiently’, https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/report-task-force-subsidiarity-proportionality-and-doing-less-more-efficiently\_en.

[(10)](#ntc10-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0010)  Recommendation 4.

[(11)](#ntc11-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0011)  Opinion on the EU agenda on better regulation, https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/OpinionTimeline.aspx?opId=CDR-4129-2015.

[(12)](#ntc12-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0012)  Recommendation 5 of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and ‘Doing Less More Efficiently’.

[(13)](#ntc13-C_2022097EN.01001001-E0013)  Point 43 of the agreement.

---