Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "European Governance - a White Paper"

(COM(2001) 428 final)

(2002/C 125/13)

On 30 July 2001, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on "European Governance - a White Paper".

At its Plenary Session on 12 and 13 September 2001, the Committee decided, under Rules 11(4) and 19(1) of its Rules of Procedure, to set up a sub-committee to prepare a draft opinion on the matter.

The sub-committee drew up its draft opinion on 12 March 2002. The rapporteur was Ms Engelen-Kefer and the co-rapporteur Ms Pari.

At its 389th Plenary Session (meeting of 20 March 2002), the Committee adopted the following opinion by 75 votes with four abstentions.

1. Shaping the future of Europe with improved modes of governance: two reform processes - one objective

1.1. In the framework of a wide and structured debate, the European Commission submitted its White Paper on European Governance on 25 July 2001. It thus set in motion one of the major reforms announced by Commission President Romano Prodi at the beginning of 2000. The thorough overhaul of the shape of the EU and the simplification and improvement of the European institutions' policymaking and working methods - on the basis of the present Treaty - are the aims of this reform in order to make the European Union more efficient, better understood, and to bring it closer to its citizens in a more open, coherent, transparent and responsible way.

1.2. At present the two reform processes - the debate on the European Union's future and the debate on governance - are moving forward in parallel. The European summit held in Laeken on 14-15 December 2001 fixed the composition of, and agenda for, the Convention, which is preparing the next intergovernmental conference. In setting up this Convention, the heads of state and government have given a major boost to the further development of democracy in Europe as for the first time citizens and their representatives will participate in the decision-making on the future shape of the European system of government, in the spirit of a more open and participative governance. The European Economic and Social Committee, the European social partners and the Committee of the Regions have observer status in the Convention. This is in accordance with the Committee's role as the institutionalised representative of organised civil society.

1.3. The European Economic and Social Committee welcomes the White Paper. It urges the Commission to implement the necessary reforms for good governance identified in the White Paper as this offers the chance to show the public that quick action is being taken to correct deficiencies in policy development and delivery and to better involve people in its work.

1.4. Furthermore, there is an urgency for reforms in view of the next enlargement - the magnitude of which has no precedent in the EU's history - and of the deepening of the European Union. Valuable time would be lost if the Commission and the other institutions were not to improve their working structures and methods before the next intergovernmental conference in 2004.

1.5. The European Economic and Social Committee actively pursues the issues of European governance, according to the Nice Treaty, as the institutionalised(1) representative of organised civil society. It does so under the double perspective of establishing new synergies between the institutions of the European Union and developing its role as a fundamental intermediary between the EU institutions and organised civil society. In that context, The EESC welcomes the Protocol between the Committee and the Commission of 24 September governing arrangements for cooperation in the spirit of a better European governance.

1.6. Over the past three years the Committee has organised debates(2) and has issued a number of opinions(3) focusing more specifically on the way to ensure an effective participation of organised civil society. In previous opinions, the Committee has made a number of concrete proposals in this area. It is regrettable that several of these proposals have not been taken into account in the Commission White Paper.

1.7. In this opinion on the White Paper, the Committee will concentrate on the issues that concern it most and where it can bring added value. It focuses around three axes: the reasons and principles of better governance, the proposals for better involvement of civil society and for better regulation, and finally the role of the EESC.

2. Why reform European Governance?

2.1. The European Union has certainly made enormous strides yet many Europeans feel remote from its work for all the reasons very rightly mentioned in the White Paper - wrong perceptions, bad communication, inadequate involvement, and poor knowledge

2.2. Deficits in the EU's political objectives and measures have also been responsible for people's scepticism. The EU should avoid creating too high expectations, which it is not able to meet, thus generating mistrust and harming its credibility. A European identity will not emerge unless the common values shared by its citizens are translated into effective Community policies and tangible benefits across-the-board. The euro provides a clear illustration of the above argument. It is interesting to note how enthusiastically citizens embraced the new currency and participated actively in its successful introduction.

2.3. Europeans wish for a Europe that is secure, stable, with a social profile, a sound economic performance, which respects the environment, creating healthy living and working conditions and which ensures that basic goods and services are available to all members of society at a fair price. These comprehensive objectives, which also include respect for the Member States' cultures, must be recognised as common values, defined - and, if need be, extended - and pursued as such. Only then will it be possible for Europe's citizens to recognise the benefit of a common European identity and declare their support for it. The Committee will step up its efforts - especially in the light of enlargement and globalisation - to make the general public more aware of the importance of the European Union as a community of values.

2.4. Furthermore, the language used by the EU does not contribute to the understanding of the Union's work. The Committee would suggest that further publications of the Commission and Community legislation should be written in a more comprehensible language.

3. Principles of governance in the European Union

3.1. The Committee fully supports the five principles of good governance proposed by the Commission - openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence - as well as the analysis made. It is important that these principles are implemented in an efficient and responsible way. However, the Committee would stress that the White Paper's definition is not complete. Accountability means not only making clear the roles and responsibilities, but also to clarify to whom and in which way a person or body is accountable.

3.2. In addition to the five principles mentioned, the Committee would like to underline subsidiarity as the basic and the most important principle of good governance. It would like to reiterate that subsidiarity is not merely a principle of administrative technique and distribution of powers but the expression of a certain conception of the individual, its freedom, its responsibilities and the society it lives in. Society would work better if citizens had the feeling that the decisions concerning them are taken at the most appropriate level. The appropriate level is not only determined by territorial criteria (European, national, regional and local) but also by functional criteria according to specific expertise (public authorities, economic community, social partners and other civil society organisations). When deciding who is to be involved in decision-making "functional (horizontal) subsidiarity" must be taken into account alongside "territorial (vertical) subsidiarity", which both in their own right guarantee greater responsiveness to people's concerns and greater efficiency. These two levels of subsidiarity should function in tandem complementing each other. The Economic and Social Committee forms an interface between territorial and functional subsidiarity, thus adding value to better European governance.

4. Proposals for change

4.1. Transparency and communication

4.1.1. The Committee welcomes the White Paper's proposal that measures be taken to make the working methods of the European institutions more transparent and better communicated. The more open policymaking is at EU level, the easier it will be for the general public and political stakeholders in the Member States to help shape and deliver Community objectives and measures and to understand them in their entirety and assess them fairly. The Committee naturally welcomes all efforts by the Commission and other European Institutions to make every stage in policy-making and delivery clear and understandable.

4.1.2. The Committee would like to point out that both the European Commission and the European Parliament have taken this principle on board to a large extent. Both institutions are fully willing to engage in transparent and constructive cooperation. However, the Council's lack of transparency gives cause for concern.

4.1.3. The Committee for its part has taken measures to make its working process more transparent and will develop even further its communications not only at European level but also at the level of Member States and candidate countries. The Committee will do so in collaboration with the Commission as indicated in their Protocol for cooperation.

4.1.4. Accurate information, openness and proper communication of European policies are not the task of the European institutions alone. Both political and civil society stakeholders in the Member States must also be involved. Therefore the Committee strongly supports the White Paper's request to the Member States to make an effort to promote the exchange of information and views between the European and the national, regional and local authorities and the organisations of the civil society. Here again members of the EESC can help to promote understanding in their own countries at different levels for EU matters in which they are involved.

4.1.5. This will require the use of all modern information media and the development of communication channels within the framework of an interactive dialogue with civil society and their organisations. As to the means of communication, it has to be taken into account that the use of new information technologies differs from one Member State to another. The White Paper contains a number of proposals on this matter which have the Committee's support and which should be implemented urgently.

4.1.6. In informing citizens, the Committee would like to stress the importance of education, which has not be taken into account by the White Paper. Both formal (e.g. schools, universities and vocational training centres) and non-formal (e.g. civil society organisations, the workplace or trade unions) educational institutions have particularly important tasks to perform in this context. The use of participatory educational methods and organisations of informal learning is of great value. There is a need to educate all citizens, from children to adults, on the basic, elementary facts of the EU - why it exists, who are the members, how it takes decisions, which subjects are the responsibility of the European Union and which are not, how the Member States participate in the decisions. This will help European citizens not only in better understanding but also in being able to better judge the information they get.

4.2. Involvement of civil society

4.2.1. Grassroots involvement in all stages of policymaking is one of the main concerns of the White Paper. This influence is to be exercised, according to the White Paper, via civil society organisations acting within the framework of "structured consultation procedures". The Committee strongly supports this plan.

4.2.2. The White Paper lists a number of organisations, which occupy a "special place" within civil society. It emphasises the important role played worldwide by NGOs in development policy, but omits to mention organisations active in the fields of environment, social and consumer protection, human rights and culture in the widest sense. In the Committee's view, this seemingly arbitrary and incomplete list of a few civil society organisations does not reflect reality. It is all the more urgent to define the civil dialogue, the qualitative and quantitative criteria for representativeness and to make a clear distinction between "civil dialogue" and "social dialogue". The Committee is disappointed to note that the White Paper has not taken into account its previous proposal on the subject.

4.2.3. Concerning the criteria of representativeness for the selection of organisations to take part in the civil dialogue, they should be defined in order to ensure transparency and a democratic selection procedure. In the White Paper, the Commission decided not to propose criteria as was suggested by the Committee in its opinion of 25 April 2001.

4.2.4. In that opinion, the Committee identifies eight criteria, to which it would now like to add a further criterion on transparency. In order to be eligible, a European organisation must:

- exist permanently at Community level;

- provide direct access to its members' expertise and hence rapid and constructive consultation;

- represent general concerns that tally with the interests of European society;

- comprise bodies that are recognised at Member State level as representative of particular interests;

- have member organisations in most of the EU Member States;

- provide for accountability to its members;

- have authority to represent and act at European level;

- be independent and mandatory, not bound by instructions from outside bodies;

- be transparent especially financially and in its decision-making structures.

4.2.5. The Committee proposes again to discuss these criteria with the institutions and civil society organisations as a basis for future cooperation.

4.2.6. The Committee attaches great importance to the fact that the special role of the social partners within the framework of organised civil society is made crystal-clear. It therefore welcomes the White Paper's express reference to this special role and the special influence of the social partners. The task of the social partners within the framework of the Social Dialogue is an excellent example of the effective implementation of the governance principle at European level. The European Social Dialogue is a mechanism with quasi-legislative powers according to articles 137 and 138 of the Treaty. It is clearly defined in terms of participants, powers and procedures and has quasi-constitutional status(4). It derives its distinctiveness from the special powers and responsibilities of its participants playing their role in an autonomous way. For this reason, their role and responsibilities cannot be transferred to other policy areas or actors. Hence the Committee's repeated reminder(5) that it is vital to make a clear distinction between "Social Dialogue" and "Civil Dialogue".

4.2.7. In this context, the Committee thinks that it is of fundamental importance to make it clear that the EESC is not the forum for Social Dialogue. It is in no way the task of the Committee to provide an alternative to the social partners. The Committee as the institutionalised representative of organised civil society derives its legitimacy from the fact that all its members, by virtue of their expertise, have been instructed by representative organisations from the Member States to play a constructive part in the European opinion-forming process in general. The Committee's added value is that opinion-forming within its four walls involves all civil society players, including those organisations which are not social partners.

4.2.8. However, because of its composition and the representative role which it is empowered to play under the Treaty of Nice, the Committee is very much predestined to play a key role in the definition and structuring of the civil dialogue. The Committee has been campaigning for years for a public democratic discourse at European level between the representatives of organised civil society and has - as an initial contribution to the discussion - described the essential features of this civil dialogue(6). The Committee considers the establishment of such a civil dialogue to be an essential instrument for applying the governance principles (openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, coherence). In addition, the civil dialogue would, as a result of its principle of providing a public arena, make a vital contribution towards enhancing transparency and creating a European public arena as a sine qua non for a European identity.

4.2.9. The Committee would also point out that the White Paper presumes that European civil society is homogeneous, despite this not being the case even within the different Member States. The situation will get even more complicated with the future enlargement. The role of Member States in appointing EESC members, therefore, is crucial to ensuring that their particular interests and their model of society are adequately represented in order to have a representative and balanced body of the economic and social components of organised civil society in Europe.

4.2.10. The Committee supports the Commission's proposal to set up an on-line database with details of civil society organisations in order to increase openness and structure their dialogue with the institutions.

4.2.11. Even though civil society is to have a considerably greater say in future in the influencing of Community policies, it is clear that responsibility for drawing up legislation must remain with the official institutions, in the framework of representative democracy. The legislative and regulatory authorities have the ultimate responsibility for reconciling the general interest with the special interests of the various civil society organisations and ensuring that this balance is preserved.

4.2.12. In the context of increasing modes and fora for consultation, clear rules and principles are needed to ensure proper coordination and to increase the coherence of EU consultation policy. This will be even more important in the context of the future enlargement. To that end, the Committee, in the interest of transparency, efficiency and accountability, insists that the Commission fulfils its promise to publish the list of the 700 ad hoc consultation bodies and fully supports the intention of the Commission to rationalise the existing consultative system based on the above bodies mentioned.

4.2.13. Furthermore, the Committee welcomes the proposal of the Commission to adopt a code of conduct with minimum standards for consultation. The principle of transparency should be extended also to the consultation process: the outcome of consultations should be made public. It also supports the intention of the Commission to make the expert advice taken available to the public.

4.2.14. When consulting on-line, the problem of representativeness and of the weight the opinions expressed should carry in the decision making process is even more acute. The Committee believes the criteria of a representative organisation should be equally applied and the conditions of transparency respected.

4.3. Better policies, regulation and delivery

4.3.1. The Committee supports the proposals of the White Paper to simplify and speed up the European legislative process, as Community rules are increasingly complex and sometimes tend to add to existing national regulations rather than actually simplifying and harmonising them.

4.3.2. On the other hand, the White Paper has overlooked the contradiction between greater involvement of players - including civil society - at all levels and the desire for faster and more effective policymaking. More democracy requires more time. Faster legislation could involve risks. A balance should be struck between appropriate consultation and efficiency of legislation.

4.3.3. The Committee is disappointed by the White Paper's insufficient regard for the opinions which it has delivered in several stages since October 2000 on simplifying single market legislation(7). At the Commission's request, the Committee has also prepared an exploratory opinion(8) on the subject as an input to the preparation of the "Action Plan for Better Regulation" announced in the White Paper. The Committee supports a well-structured programme for simplification, with clear priorities, concrete timetables and means of monitoring and control. This programme should rely on a code of conduct for EU institutions. To date only the European Economic and Social Committee has adopted such a simplification code of conduct.

4.3.4. Concerning the ways to improve regulation and combine the different policy instruments the Committee believes that the necessity of EU legislation should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. Regulation should only be used if there is no a better alternative. The main stakeholders affected by the measure should be consulted when the appropriate model is assessed.

4.3.5. A systematic and independent impact and cost-benefit analysis is necessary prior to any proposal of legislation. The Commission has been carrying out impact studies for the last fifteen years, but their effectiveness remains limited as there is no guarantee that they are prepared independently, they do not include possible alternatives to the adoption of legislative acts, and often they remain internal while they should be systematically made public together with the relevant draft piece of legislation.

4.3.6. In addition to the analysis prior to any new legislative measure and when amending an existing one, an impact analysis should be carried out on the final amended legislative act. Often the final result, as decided by the legislators, is very different from the Commission's initial proposal, sometimes ending up with complicated, over-rigid and costly legislation.

4.3.7. The Committee welcomes the suggestions in the White Paper concerning the increased use of alternative regulatory instruments to legislation. Nonetheless, the White Paper focuses mainly on co-regulation as one of the leading approaches to future regulation. The Committee advocates that all alternatives to legislative action be assessed on an equal footing and based on objective criteria of their pros and cons. A given model should not be granted greater attention unless it is the most suitable response to the policy issue concerned, to the expertise and fora available, and to the stakeholders represented.

4.3.8. The Committee wants to highlight the usefulness of instruments like self-regulation or voluntary agreements, which have proved to be effective mechanisms providing assessment, decisions and implementation. However, self-regulation should never impinge neither on fundamental rights nor on the basic principles underlying the building of the European Union.

4.3.9. The European Economic and Social Committee welcomes a greater use of the open method of coordination. This method though must not be confused with the legislative procedure and it should be made very clear that it is used in the areas where the primary responsibility rests with the Member States. Member States will rely upon commonly agreed policies implemented through national actions plans, peer reviews, exchange of best practice, benchmarking etc. This method is already being used in the area of social exclusion, employment, immigration and asylum policy as well as social security. The method, whilst fully respecting subsidiarity, means a new balance between legislative and non-legislative measures. The Committee warns, however, against any inflationary use of it and the risk of creating overlapping procedures and excessive bureaucracy.

4.3.10. The Committee also notes that the open method of coordination should be used on a case by case basis and the instruments - common guidelines, national action plans, exchange of best practices - should vary according to the particularities of the issue treated and the objectives set. However, the Committee believes that essential for the successful use of the tool is public and systematic evaluation of the progress made in the Member States.

4.3.11. The Committee must also adapt its working methods to this new institutional development and play a more important role in it. The work to be done in relation to the Council of Ministers and the European Council must be upgraded. The Committee must be given more opportunities to be heard on documents presented to the European Council and should be invited to informal Council meetings, in the framework of its competences.

4.3.12. The Committee would like to strike a note of prudence in the proliferation of autonomous European regulatory agencies. Before setting up a new agency, it should be proved that it would bring a clear added value and would not increase red tape and unjustified costs. These agencies should not add an extra layer to existing administrative structures but should become integrated into networks of expertise, exploiting the synergies between regional, national and European bodies. Furthermore, the organisation and activities of these agencies should be carefully supervised as important policies risk being shaped by them without being subject to democratic control and hence not repairing the "democratic deficit".

5. Role of the European Economic and Social Committee in better involving citizens

5.1. Each institution has a role to play in ensuring that Europe's citizens are really involved in the European construction. The European Economic and Social Committee, as confirmed by the Nice Treaty, is the formal consultative body composed of representatives of the economic and social elements of organised civil society. It has a key role to play in the framing of Community legislation and is an essential link between Europe and organised civil society in the Member States as it provides for a permanent and structured forum for dialogue and consultation.

5.2. The Committee would like to emphasise three characterising elements that bring real added value to a better governance of Europe:

- Firstly, the Committee is used to working in a process that promotes consensus and aims at finding the common interest within the different interests of civil society organisations represented in it, even when these sometimes conflict initially. It is a fact that each organisation involved in the consultation process has the tendency to refer to its particular interests as a general interest. The Committee opinions, based on a "bottom-up" method of working, reflect a synthesis of views and a consensus that can help the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council in their task of ensuring the general interest whilst preparing and adopting their legislative acts.

- Secondly, the appointment of EESC members by the Member States selected for their experience and knowledge in a wide variety of relevant fields, guarantees that they have not only adequate expertise but also a strong knowledge of what is happening in their countries. This means that they are able to provide well-founded, practical and balanced opinions and estimate whether Community measures are acceptable in their countries.

- Thirdly, EESC members are able also to promote understanding for these measures in their countries and in an interactive dialogue explain to the members of the organisations they represent the relevance of the EU to their everyday lives, thus facilitating the necessary acceptance.

5.3. The Committee is the forum where civil dialogue is put on an official footing. It is willing to develop, with the cooperation of the Commission(9), its role as a forum for dialogue and consultation, as this is an efficient way of involving in its work those parts of organised civil society that are not currently represented by its members. The Committee already does so by organising public events and hearings as mentioned in the previous opinion.

5.4. The EESC, as a practical contribution to European governance, will pursue better synergies between European Institutions. It will:

- increase its efforts to implement the arrangements decided under the Protocol for cooperation with the European Commission;

- aim at creating similar mechanisms for closer cooperation with the Council, as indicated by the Spanish Minister for European Affairs during in his intervention at the Committee's Plenary Session on 17 January 2002;

- actively pursue the development of its relations with the European Parliament in accordance with the Action Plan for EESC/EP relations which the Committee's Bureau, adopted in October 2001(10), and the European Parliament's resolution on European governance of 29 November 2001(11).

6. Summary

6.1. The European Economic and Social Committee welcomes the White Paper on European governance. It urges the Commission to implement in due course the reforms for good governance necessary to strengthen European citizens' confidence in the European project, as well as to prepare for the future enlargement and deepening of the European Union.

6.2. The EESC as the institutionalised representative of organised civil society actively pursues the issues of European governance. Over the past three years, it has organised debates and has issued several opinions making a number of concrete proposals in the area. Disappointingly, a great number of these have not been taken into account in the Commission White Paper.

6.3. The EESC fully supports the five principles of good governance proposed by the Commission. In addition to these principles, the Committee would like to underline subsidiarity - both functional (horizontal) and territorial (vertical) - as the basic and the most important principle of good governance. The Committee forms an interface between territorial and functional subsidiarity, thus adding value to better European governance.

6.4. The Committee emphasises the need to make the working methods of the European Institutions, especially those of the Council, more transparent. The Institutions, together with the political and civil society stakeholders in the Member States, should offer accurate and extensive information on European policies. Here the EESC has a role to play. To do this efficiently, the use of modern communication channels and interactive dialogue are needed.

6.5. The Committee would like to stress the importance of the thorough education of European citizens on the basic elements of the European construction by formal and non-formal educational institutes.

6.6. The Committee strongly supports the Commission's plan to involve civil society organisations in all stages of policy-making within "structured consultation procedures", and welcomes the proposal to adopt a code of conduct for consultation. However, there is an urgent need to make a clear distinction between "civil dialogue" and "social dialogue" and to establish criteria of representativeness for the selection of civil society organisations to take part in civil dialogue. To that end, the Committee re-iterates its proposal for criteria of representative organisation.

6.7. As to better regulation, the EESC supports the proposal of the White Paper to simplify European legislation. However, the White Paper does not come up with concrete proposals in this area and fails to take into account the different opinions delivered by the Committee on the simplification of single market legislation. In addition to simplification, the Committee calls for a systematic and independent impact analysis mechanism and objective assessment of alternative modes of legislation. It welcomes a greater use of the open method of coordination in the areas where the primary responsibility rests with the Member States. The Committee must adapt its working methods to this new institutional development and play an important role in it.

6.8. Concerning the value added by the EESC to European governance, the Committee would like to make the following points: the Committee offers a synthesis view of the opinions of European society to help the Institutions in their decision-making; the members of the EESC, nominated by the Member States, represent a pool of expertise of their respective fields and of their home country; the EESC members promote understanding of European policies in a two-way interactive dialogue both at European and national level.

6.9. The Committee is willing to develop, in cooperation with the Commission, its role as a forum for dialogue and consultation. The EESC will increase its efforts to implement the arrangements included in the Protocol for Cooperation signed with the Commission and will strive to create similar mechanisms of closer cooperation also with the Council and the European Parliament.

Brussels, 20 March 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) Article 257 of the EC Treaty "The Committee shall consist of representatives of the various economic and social components of organised civil society, and in particular representatives of producers, farmers, carriers, workers, dealers, craftsmen, professional occupations, consumers and the general interest".

(2) For example:

- Social economy and the single market - 12 October 1999

- First Convention of civil society organised at European level - 15 and 16 October 1999

- Choosing our future: shaping the 6th EU Environment Action programme Views from civil society - 7 March 2001

- The Euro: can we anticipate all reactions? - 14 May 2001

- Shaping the strategy for a sustainable European Union: views from civil society and public authorities - 26 and 27 April 2001

- Conference on the role of organised civil society in European governance - 8 and 9 November 2001

(3) See for instance:

- "The role and contribution of civil society organisations in the building of Europe" - OJ C 329, 17.11.1999

- "The 2000 Intergovernmental Conference - The role of the European economic and Social Committee" - OJ C 117, 26.4.2000

- "The Commission and non-governmental organisations: building a stronger partnership" - OJ C 268, 19.9.2000

- "Strategic objectives 2000-2005" - OJ C 14, 16.1.2001

- "Organised civil society and European governance: the Committee's contribution to the White paper" - OJ C 193, 10.7.2001.

(4) Art. 137 and 138 TEC.

(5) See for instance:

- "The role and contribution of civil society organisations in the building of Europe" - OJ C 329, 17.11.1999

- "The 2000 Intergovernmental Conference - The role of the European economic and Social Committee" - OJ C 117, 26.4.2000

- "The Commission and non-governmental organisations: building a stronger partnership" - OJ C 268, 19.9.2000

- "Strategic objectives 2000-2005" - OJ C 14, 16.1.2001

- "Organised civil society and European governance: the Committee's contribution to the White paper" - OJ C 193, 10.7.2001.

(6) Quote opinion OJ C 268, 19.9.2000, point 5.13.

(7) Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on simplifying rules in the single market - own-initiative opinion, Brussels, 19 October 2000 (OJ C 14, 16.1.2001), and opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on simplification (additional opinion) - Single Market Observatory, Brussels, 29 November 2001 (OJ C 48, 21.2. 2002).

(8) Opinion on the Communication from the Commission - simplifying and improving the regulatory environment (COM(2001) 726 final) of 21 March 2002.

(9) As mentioned in the Protocol.

(10) DI 149/2001.

(11) Point 12 of that resolution states that the European Parliament "proposes, following on from suggestions made by the Commission and the Economic and Social Committee, that an inter-institutional agreement on democratic consultation be concluded committing all three Institutions to commonly agreed consultation standards and practices at Union level."