P6_TA(2006)0203
Better lawmaking 2004
European Parliament resolution on Better lawmaking 2004: application of the principle of subsidia-
rity—12th annual report (2005/2055(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 on the Action plan “Simplifying and
improving the regulatory environment” (COM(2002)0278),
—having regard to the Interinstitutional agreement of 16 December 2003 on better lawmaking (1) conclu-
ded between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission,
—having regard to its resolution of 20 April 2004 on assessment of the impact of Community legislation
and the consultation procedures (2),
—having regard to the conclusions of the Competitiveness Council of 25-26 November 2004,
—having regard to the Commission communication entitled “Better Regulation for Growth and Jobs in the
European Union” of 16 March 2005 (COM(2005)0097),
—having regard to the Commission report entitled “Better lawmaking 2004” of 21 March 2005
(COM(2005)0098),
—having regard to the Commission's Impact Assessment guidelines of 15 June 2005 and the annexes the-
reto (SEC(2005)0791),
—having regard to the Commission communication entitled “Outcome of the screening of legislative pro-
posals pending before the Legislator” of 27 September 2005 (COM(2005)0462),
—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 “on an EU common methodology for assessing admi-
nistrative costs imposed by legislation” of 21 October 2005 (COM(2005)0518),
—having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2005 on the legislative and work programme of the
Commission for 2006 (4),
—having regard to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe,
—having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
—having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0082/2006),
A. whereas, in its Communication on better regulation for growth and jobs in the European Union, the
Commission establishes a clear link between achieving the Lisbon objectives and better regulation,
B. whereas establishing a transparent, clear, effective and high-quality regulatory environment should be a
priority objective of European Union policy,
C. whereas the regulatory environment in which businesses operate is a determining factor for their compe-
titiveness, for sustainable growth and, consequently, for their employment performance,7.12.2006 128 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea
It-Tlieta, 16 ta' Mejju 2006MT
(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.
(4)Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2005)0524.
D. whereas impact assessment in the context of new legislation and simplification of existing legislation
could contribute to a better evaluation of its social, economic, environmental and health effects and
could reduce the administrative burden that undermines the competitiveness of European businesses, inparticular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),
E. whereas the reputation of the European legislature among citizens and businesses in the EU leaves much
to be desired, notably because the legislation, being often a result of difficult political compromise, lacksclarity and Member States are unable or unwilling to implement it correctly,
F. whereas, in the drafting of legislation, the Commission gives some interested parties the opportunity to
react, through consultations and various working groups, but whereas there is insufficient transparencyconcerning the substance of those consultations, the participants and the manner in which the Commis-sion takes the results thereof into account,
G. whereas in its above-mentioned resolution of 20 April 2004 the Parliament declared itself, by a large
majority, in favour of the use of impact assessment in the EU in order to improve legislation, and whe-reas the Council and the Commission have underlined the importance of impact assessment in numerousdocuments,
H. whereas the impact assessment carried out by the Commission does not consistently follow the same
methodology and is therefore of varying quality, and whereas the impact assessment often resembles ajustification of the proposal rather than an actual objective assessment,
I. whereas a great deal of implementing (or secondary) legislation is adopted through the comitology pro-
cedure, without proper parliamentary control or impact assessment,
J. whereas legislation is partly a learning process in which it is possible to learn from mistakes made; whe-
reas the impact of legislation is not made sufficiently transparent and whereas reports by the Commis-sion on the implementation of Community legislation are confined to implementation in the Member
States and do not give an insight into whether, in practice, the legislation has met the objectives set,
1. Stresses the need for any Community legislation adopted to comply fully with the principles of subsi-
diarity and proportionality;
2. Supports the ambition of improving European legislation with a view to enhancing growth and jobs,
and stresses the need for an integrated and consistent approach to initiatives on “better regulation”, suppor-
ting the three Lisbon pillars in case the market fails; stresses that initiatives on “better regulation” must be
implemented in a transparent and democratic way;
3. Promotes legislation based on principles and focused on quality rather than quantity; sees the “better
regulation” debate as an occasion for reflection on legislation as a process designed to achieve clearly defined
policy goals by committing and involving all stakeholders during all phases of the process, from preparation
to enforcement;
4. Recommends that the “better regulation” programme be piloted in certain fields and be carefully asses-
sed before wider use; considers the experience with the Lamfalussy procedure in financial markets legislation,
and the dialogue between regulators and market participants, in particular, to be a valuable test case for adynamic legislative process;
5. Is of the opinion that the Lamfalussy procedure is a useful mechanism; regards the convergence of
supervisory practices as crucial; welcomes the work of the Level 3 committees in this respect and supportsthe call for an adequate toolbox; believes that, where supervisors are given room for manoeuvre, this remo-ves much of the need for technical detail in legislation and is likely to produce more appropriate rules for adynamic market; stresses, however, that this can never erode political responsibility for the final objectives
of the legislation in question; insists that legislators should carefully monitor the process and reiterates that
the legislative rights of Parliament should be fully respected;7.12.2006 129 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea
It-Tlieta, 16 ta' Mejju 2006MT
6. Notes the need for every legislative proposal to be accompanied by an impact assessment, which is defi-
ned in its above-mentioned resolution of 20 April 2004 as a straightforward mapping-out of the consequen-
ces in social, economic and environmental terms, as well as a mapping-out of the policy alternatives that areavailable to the legislature in that scenario;
7. Is of the opinion that, when a draft proposal is presented by the Commission at the request of one or
more Member States, this should be mentioned;
8. Stresses the need for the clear guidelines and structures for impact assessment, published by the Com-
mission in June 2005, to be implemented uniformly in all DGs without delay;
9. Welcomes the development of impact assessments in the preparatory phase but warns that they cannot
replace political debates about the advantages and disadvantages of laws; emphasises that the interests of
consumers, companies and citizens cannot be reduced to a mere cost-benefit analysis; is of the opinion thatlaws should be executed under the full responsibility of the institutions themselves, in accordance with theirpolitical priorities; asks for full transparency during the preparatory phase, for justifications based on theresults sought, and for further precision where necessary; insists on the importance of common guidelinesin full respect of the three Lisbon pillars; and insists on a proper budget;
10. Stresses that the Commission should include in the impact assessment, in a more precise way and in
accordance with precise guidelines, the consequences of an absence of legislation in terms of lost benefits,notably as regards health, welfare and sustainability; insists that it must also put into operation as quickly aspossible the method it has developed for calculating administrative burdens in quantitative terms as part of
the impact assessment; notes that such a method is needed in order to gain an understanding of the costs
associated with applying and implementing legislation; considers that a definitive methodology must beincorporated into the impact assessment by 2006 at the latest;
11. Considers it essential, in the interests of a uniform application by the Commission of the impact
assessment, that the quality of the latter be submitted to independent scrutiny; will not consider any propo-
sals without their being accompanied by an independently scrutinised impact assessment, unless, exceptio-
nally, this requirement is waived by Parliament in individual cases;
12. Wants “better regulation” to follow a global approach, fully involving the Parliament, the Council and
the Commission as well as the Member States, and consulting all stakeholders in order to involve citizens
who have recently shown, in some Member States, their lack of trust in the European project; recommends
an increase in the input and involvement of consumers and workers' representatives in the consultation pro-cesses;
13. Stresses that consulting stakeholders during the preparatory phase is distinct from negotiating with
stakeholders during the legislative process, and expresses its concern about the Commission's tendency to
hold bilateral negotiations with individual Member States before presenting legislative proposals, which
sometimes leads to odd, inconsistent or contradictory provisions, opt-outs or exemptions in favour of parti-cular Member States, distorting the level playing-field;
14. Considers it necessary that, during the preparation of legislation and the impact assessment, interested
parties should be given the opportunity, and adequate time, to make their reactions known, and that the
Commission should inform interested parties in what way their reactions have been processed in the propo-sal; takes the view that, in this connection, the Commission must observe maximum transparency by publis-hing the reactions of interested parties and the impact assessment in a publicly accessible register;
15. Notes that much implementing legislation comes into being via the comitology procedure; considers
that such legislation must meet the same quality requirements as implemented legislation and will therefore
be subject to impact assessment, once the necessary know-how and tools have been developed;7.12.2006 130 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea
It-Tlieta, 16 ta' Mejju 2006MT
16. Is convinced that, if the Parliament's legislative powers are respected in the context of comitology, it
will be more willing to focus on general principles and support legislative simplification and innovation;
17. Reiterates that Parliament and the Council may also make their significant amendments to Commis-
sion proposals subject to an impact assessment and stresses that such an impact assessment makes senseonly if the same methodology is used as in the case of the Commission;
18. Calls on the Council and the Commission, in the context of interinstitutional consultation, to develop
in the near future a Community method and procedure for the application of impact assessment within the
European policy process, and to arrive at concrete agreements by September 2006;
19. Warns that “better regulation” methods should respect the balance of power between and the respec-
tive roles of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission; wants the Parliament to make a wise and inte-grated contribution, building on previous experience; stresses the need for the political endorsement of inno-
vations in the legislative process;
20. Opines that highly technical legislation should not lead to the disengagement of co-legislators from
the democratic process of lawmaking but should rather encourage them to concentrate on core politicalprinciples and objectives and on how to apply the process of putting them into practice, changing from aprescriptive to a responsive and participative approach and making use of the technical know-how and capa-
cities of the regulatory authorities that have to apply the law;
21. Calls on the Member States to exchange experiences in the use of impact assessment, and also to apply
such assessments to national legislation;
22. Welcomes the increased involvement of national parliaments in the work programme of the Commis-
sion, but warns against random cherry-picking of proposals on the basis of subsidiarity and proportionality;
asks that all new proposals contain a summary of existing legislation in the relevant field and an explanationas to how the new legislation is to fit into the scheme; asks for different options to be proposed to theCouncil and Parliament, with a sound analysis of their respective implications as regards citizens' expecta-tions, the three Lisbon pillars, costs, and the administrative burden, especially for SMEs;
23. In order to guarantee an EU-wide uniform lawmaking framework, urges the Commission to ensure
that this framework is not undermined by the Council through a proliferation of derogatory provisions in
favour of individual Member States;
24. Calls on the Commission to report to Parliament, no later than three years after the entry into force
of new legislation, on the impact of the legislation in practice; is above all interested in the question whetherthe legislation has fulfilled the original purpose, what effects it has had on the international competitiveness
of the relevant sector, not least in the light of different regulations (or the absence of regulation) in compe-
ting countries, and how the legislation is complied with in practice; also calls on the Commission to subjectthe quantitative results of the impact assessment to a regular critical analysis with a view to ascertainingwhether the methodology used produces reliable predictions, and to report to Parliament on the results;
25. Stresses the need for Parliament, and in particular the rapporteur responsible, to play a more active
role in monitoring the implementation of European legislation in the Member States, and to make use of
the network between the European Parliament and the national and/or regional parliaments;
26. Is of the opinion that transposition of EC legislation should be monitored seriously and proactively in
order to avoid diverging interpretations and gold-plating; wants the Commission to play an active role intransposition, together with supervisors and expert groups, at both EU and national level, since early analy-
sis of potential pitfalls may prevent delays and unnecessary burdens on companies; suggests that Parliament
should set up a proper transposition-monitoring procedure in close cooperation with its national partners;7.12.2006 131 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea
It-Tlieta, 16 ta' Mejju 2006MT
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 for-
mal coordination and common policy measures in this context; insists that the European Parliament be fullyinformed on the development of OMC practices and calls on the Commission to submit an evaluationreporton this method; insists that the open method of coordination must not evolve into a parallel, non-transpa-rent legislative procedure which undermines the procedures laid down in the EC Treaty and compromises
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) conc-
luded between Parliament, the Council and the Commission,
—having regard to its resolution of 20 April 2004 on the impact of Community legislation and the con-
sultation 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 the-
reto (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 132 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea
It-Tlieta, 16 ta' Mejju 2006MT
(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.