27. Acknowledges that the ‘open method of coordination’ is an important policy tool in the context of
the Lisbon Strategy; stresses, however, that this method cannot be seen as a general substitute for more
formal coordination and common policy measures in this context; insists that the European Parliament befully informed on the development of OMC practices and calls on the Commission to submit an evaluation-report on this method; insists that the open method of coordination must not evolve into a parallel, non-transparent legislative procedure which undermines the procedures laid down in the EC Treaty and compro-
mises parliamentary scrutiny;
28. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
P6_TA(2006)0204
The implementation, consequences and impact of the internal market legislation
in force
European Parliament resolution on the implementation, consequences and impact of the internal
market legislation in force (2004/2224(INI))
The European Parliament,
—having regard to the Commission communication of 5 June 2002 on impact assessment
(COM(2002)0276),
—having regard to the Commission communication of 5 June 2002 entitled ‘Action plan “Simplifying and
improving the regulatory environment”’ (COM(2002)0278),
—having regard to the Commission communication of 11 December 2002 on better monitoring of the
application of Community law (COM(2002)0725),
—having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2003 on better law-making (1)
concluded between Parliament, the Council and the Commission,
—having regard to its resolution of 20 April 2004 on the impact of Community legislation and the
consultation procedure (2),
—having regard to the conclusions of the Competitiveness Council of 25 and 26 November 2004,
—having regard to the Commission communication of 16 March 2005 entitled ‘Better Regulation for
Growth and Jobs in the European Union’ (COM(2005)0097),
—having regard to the Commission report of 21 March 2005 entitled ‘Better lawmaking 2004’
(COM(2005)0098),
—having regard to the Commission's Impact Assessment Guidelines of 15 June 2005, and the annexes
thereto (SEC(2005)0791),
—having regard to the European Economic and Social Committee opinions on ‘Better lawmaking’ and on
‘How to improve the implementation and enforcement of EU legislation’ of 28 September 2005 (3),
—having regard to the Commission communication of 27 January 2005 entitled ‘Second Implementation
Report of the Internal Market Strategy 2003-2006’ (COM(2005)0011),7.12.2006 C 297 E/132 Official Journal of the European Union
Tuesday, 16 May 2006EN
(1) OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 104 E, 30.4.2004, p. 146.
(3) OJ C 24, 31.1.2006, p. 39 and p. 52.
—having regard to the Commission communication of 25 October 2005 entitled ‘Implementing the Com-
munity Lisbon programme: A strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment’
(COM(2005)0535),
—having regard to the relaunching of the Lisbon Strategy on 22 and 23 March 2005,
—having regard to the internal market scoreboard reports,
—having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
—having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the
opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0083/2006),
A. whereas in the above mentioned Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2003 Parliament, the
Council and the Commission gave a commitment to the better regulation agenda,
B. whereas in the relaunched Lisbon Agenda the Commission put better regulation at the heart of the drive
for jobs and growth in the European Union,
C. whereas deregulation and reducing the amount of red tape arising from EU legislation are vital precondi-
tions for attaining the Lisbon objectives,
D. whereas improved European lawmaking should lead to a more competitive edge in the global economy,
fair competitive conditions between companies, the stimulation of growth and the strengthening of
social cohesion,
E. whereas pursuit of the objective of better regulation must not lead to the undermining of environmental,
social or consumer standards,
F. whereas citizens and businesses will benefit from good, clear and simple internal market laws, which
will facilitate implementation and enforcement,
G. whereas stakeholders have raised concerns regarding difficulties experienced as a result of unclear or
incomplete concepts, definitions or provisions in Community legislation,
H. whereas problems of transposition and implementation often result from poorly drafted legislative texts;
whereas the European legislative bodies have an important responsibility in this matter and should there-fore avoid complicated and unclear compromises in negotiations,
I. whereas textual ambiguities generate legal uncertainties and discrepancies when texts are transposed into
national law, with the potential for distortion of competition and fragmentation of the internal market,
J. whereas successive internal market scoreboard reports indicate that, despite improvements in some
Member States, transposition and implementation of Community legislation continue to be a problem,
K. whereas the better regulation agenda must prioritise the implementation and transposition of existing
legislation in order to avoid discrepancies undermining Europe's competitiveness, employees' and consu-mers' rights and consumers' and businesses' ability to take full advantage of the internal market,
L. whereas successive internal market scoreboard reports show that transposition continues to be a serious
problem in several Member States,
M. whereas better regulation requires both ex ante and ex post impact assessments to test whether objectives
can be or have been achieved,7.12.2006 C 297 E/133 Official Journal of the European Union
Tuesday, 16 May 2006EN
N. whereas Parliament, Council and the Commission have recognised the need to use alternative means of
regulation in suitable cases and in cases where the EC Treaty does not specifically require the use of a
legal instrument,
O. whereas under the above mentioned Interinstitutional Agreement, such means of regulation will not be
applicable where fundamental rights or important political options are at stake or in situations where
the rules must be applied in a uniform fashion in all Member States,
P. whereas no formal mechanism exists to inform Parliament before it is proposed to use alternatives to
legislation or to consult Parliament on the results that will be delivered by alternative regulation;
whereas, this absence of checks and balances undermines the democratic prerogative of Parliament,
Q. whereas it is vital that all three institutions invest resources and staff in establishing ‘better regulation’
task forces,
1. Stresses the need for a common approach to better regulation, based on a core set of regulatory princi-
ples, namely subsidiarity, proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and targeting; stressesthat this approach cannot bypass the rights of social consultation and must respect the principles of partici-pative democracy;
2. Stresses the need for Parliament, Council and the Commission to establish ‘better regulation’ task forces,
to set up an interinstitutional working group to develop training, skills and quality control and to share andbenchmark better regulation best practice;
3. Urges the Commission to produce a short, clear guide to the better regulation process, outlining the
key appraisal steps that should take place in the evolution, development and implementation of Communitylegislation including an ex-post evaluation on important issues, in cooperation with Parliament;
4. Insists that all Commission proposals be accompanied by a ‘Better Regulation Check List’ summarising
the steps through which the proposal should proceed, and that this check list should be updated as each
stage is completed, with cross-references to any relevant studies or impact assessments;
5. Emphasises the fact that a strategic regulatory approach and stable framework will produce optimal
results by enabling the affected sectors to plan and implement legislation in the most effective way;
commends the Commission for the CARS 21 initiative, which is a good example of a strategic approach to
regulation;
6. Requests that the Commission carry out both ex ante and ex post impact assessments on legislation to
assist in identifying whether key policy objectives have been met and to assist with the regulatory review
process;
7. Considers it essential, in the interests of the consistent use by the Commission of impact assessments,
in particular in relation to internal market legislation, that their quality be monitored by a dedicated quality
control function;
8. Insists that all legislative proposals forwarded to Parliament include an executive summary of the
impact assessment;
9. Stresses that Member States must ensure that they are not causing new implementation problems by
imposing additional requirements at national level when transposing Community legislation (‘gold-plating’),and confirm this by means of a formal declaration to the Commission;
10. Insists that the Commission must continue to consolidate, simplify and codify Community legislation
so as to improve accessibility and legibility;7.12.2006 C 297 E/134 Official Journal of the European Union
Tuesday, 16 May 2006EN
11. Requests that the Commission come forward with new proposals for more transparent and effective
stakeholder consultation; takes the view that the social partners must be involved in this on an equal footing
and that consumer and environmental organisations must be consulted;
12. Urges the Commission to improve the effectiveness of the ex ante scrutiny of national draft technical
regulations under Directive 98/34/EC on the provision of information in the field of technical standards andregulations and of rules on Information Society services (
1),inter alia by increasing public access to objec-
tions raised by the Commission and other Member States;
13. Insists that the Commission establish a transparent fast-track infringement procedure for internal
market test cases and that it inform Parliament on how its priority criteria for infringement handling, asannounced in its above mentioned communication on better monitoring of the application of Communitylaw, are in practice screened and brought to the attention of complainants;
14. Urges the Council and the Commission to improve monitoring of the implementation of and compli-
ance with Community law; is of the opinion that this is likely to assist in improving transposition rates andthe sharing of best practice between the Member States, as well as in introducing sanctions for non-compli-ance; insists that the Commission's reports on implementation must not be confined to a legal analysis of
the implementing instruments but must also evaluate the application of the legislation in question in prac-
tice;
15. Insists that Parliament be provided with a list of policy measures in which the Commission has used
alternative means of regulation that includes an evaluation of the failure or success of such means of regu-lation, their impact on the situation in practice —and more specifically on employees' and consumers'
rights, social cohesion, fair competition, the stimulation of growth and the EU's competitive position —and
on best practice, and lessons learned from the process; insists that this information be incorporated in theCommission annual report on better law-making;
16. Recognises that the classic method of regulation is not always the appropriate way to achieve a policy
objective;
17. Insists on the central role of Parliament, and particularly of the rapporteur responsible, in monitoring
Member States' implementation of and compliance with Community law and the supervision thereof by theCommission;
18. Recognizes the potential of the Lamfalussy process to achieve a single market in financial services, but
regrets the slow progress in reaching an interinstitutional agreement which fully recognises the Parliament's
role in the implementation process;
19. Insists that, in the Annual Work Programme, the Commission provide a list of those proposals which
may be the subject of alternative regulation;
20. Insists that alternative regulatory proposals include clear objectives and defined deadlines for action, as
well as sanctions for non-compliance;
21. Proposes that Parliament's committees set up robust review mechanisms to evaluate and monitor the
implementation and use of alternative means of regulation with a view to ensuring legal redress for consu-mers where operators fail to meet their commitments under such alternative regulatory proposals;
22. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.7.12.2006 C 297 E/135 Official Journal of the European Union
Tuesday, 16 May 2006EN