Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Commission report to the European Council 'Better lawmaking 1998 - a shared responsibility''
Date: 1999-09-15
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, principle of subsidiarity

23.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374/11

The Committee of the Regions also supports the proposal that
the financial control of the European Environment Agency

should be exercised by the Commission’s Financial Controller,
to secure an independent and uniform system.

Brussels, 15 September 1999.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Commission report to the European Council
“Better lawmaking 1998 — a shared responsibility”’

(1999/C 374/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) and, in particular, Article 5
thereof;

having regard to the Amsterdam Treaty, and in particular, Protocol No 7 on the implementation of the
principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and Declaration No 39 on the quality of the drafting of
Community legislation;

having regard to the conclusions of the Vienna European Council of 11 and 12 December 1998, which
stated that the future ‘Better lawmaking’ reports should be submitted in time to allow an detailed analysis,
not least within the Committee of the Regions;

having regard to the Commission’s report to the European Council ‘Better lawmaking 1998 — a shared
responsibility’ COM(1998) 715 final;

having regard to the European Parliament resolution on the Commission’s report to the Council ‘Better
lawmaking 1997’, adopted on 18 December 1998;

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 10 March 1999, in accordance with Article 198c para. 4 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community, to issue an opinion on this matter and to instruct the
Commission for Institutional Affairs to draw up this opinion;

having regard to its opinion of 11 March 1999 on the principle of subsidiarity ‘Developing a genuine
culture of subsidiarity. An appeal by the Committee of the Regions’ (CdR 302/98 fin) (1);

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by the Commission for Institutional Affairs on 27 April 1999
(CdR 50/99 rev. 1) (rapporteur: Mercedes Bresso);

whereas the principle of subsidiarity, introduced into the present Article 5 of the EC Treaty by the 1992
Maastricht Treaty, is a dynamic constitutional principle designed to ensure that decisions are taken as
close to the citizens of Europe as possible;

(1) OJ C 198, 14.7.1999, p. 73.

C 374/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.12.1999

whereas the principle of subsidiarity, as outlined in the Treaties and in Protocol No 7 to the Amsterdam
Treaty, relates to areas that are not the sole responsibility of the Communities and offers guidance on
how such areas should be dealt with at Community level, while upholding the existing corpus of
Community law and keeping an institutional balance;

whereas compliance with the principle of subsidiarity is currently more important than ever in the drive
to establish and confirm fuller European citizenship,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 30th plenary session on 15 and 16 September 1999
(meeting of 15 September).

1.

Introduction

In 1995, the scope of the Commission report to the
1.1.
European Council on the application of the principle of
subsidiarity, presented every year since 1992, was extended.
Now, in a single document, the Commission examines the
efforts made to improve Community legislation, and refers
both to the application of the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality, and to the issue of the quality of the drafting
of texts and their dissemination.

1.2.
The Commission considers that with the incorporation
of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality into the
new Article 5 of the EC Treaty, and the adoption of the
associated protocol to the Final Act of the Treaty of Amster-
dam, there are now clear rules regarding their implementation;
rules that the Commission is applying in advance of ratification
of the protocol.

1.3.
During 1998, better lawmaking was a constant con-
the Commission, which believes its efforts have
cern of
produced tangible results. The overall number of legislative
proposals has shrunk and the Commission has used its power
of initiative to concentrate on priority policy objectives, by
consulting the interested parties, partly via white and green
papers, and communications, and by drafting provisions in
the clearest, simplest and most accessible way possible.

1.4.
Against that backdrop, and following the adoption
of Protocol No 7 on subsidiarity and proportionality and
Declaration No 39 on the quality of the drafting of Community
legislation, both annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, political
interest in the legislative process has grown substantially. Both
the Cardiff European Council meeting in June 1998 and
the informal meeting of Heads of State or Government in
Pörtschach in October underlined the central role of subsidiar-
ity in the Union ’s democratic credentials.

to the public. That responsibility also involves the Member
States, which should redouble their efforts to simplify national
legislation and to adopt Community directives properly and
swiftly.

1.6.
If the work done on better lawmaking is to be taken
up across the board, an effort must also be made in the area of
information and PR, using the new technologies to the full.

1.7.
All the parties actively involved in the Community’s
legislative process should work together to explain who does
what
in the European Union, so as to help the public
understand the value of taking action on a European scale.
Support from the public for European integration depends on
the transparency of authority and the ability to pinpoint where
responsibility lies.

2. General comments

2.1. An opinion to pave the way ahead

2.1.1.
Following the conclusions of the Vienna European
Council meeting of 11 and 12 December 1998, where it was
agreed that the Commission’s future reports on subsidiarity
should be produced in time to allow for detailed discussions,
not least within the Committee of the Regions, the Committee
has had its first opportunity to study the Commission’s annual
‘Better lawmaking’ report to the European Council.

The Committee stresses the importance of

2.1.2.
this
opinion, which paves the way ahead and is essentially the
forerunner of the future consultation procedure on the annual
subsidiarity report provided for in the Vienna conclusions.

As reflected in the title to the Commission report, better
1.5.
lawmaking is the joint responsibility of all the Community’s
legislative bodies, and none of them can shirk accountability

Application of the principles of subsidiarity and
2.1.3.
proportionality is now the benchmark for all EU legislation in
areas that are not the sole responsibility of the Union.

23.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374/13

2.1.4.
In its own-initiative Opinion of 11 March 1999 on
the principle of subsidiarity, ‘Developing a genuine culture of
subsidiarity. An appeal by the Committee of the Regions’ (1)
(CdR 302/98 fin) the Committee recalled that, from the start,
it has aimed to be the guardian of subsidiarity. The Committee
has always argued the case for strong but lean and efficient
European institutions, focused on areas of responsibility that
other levels of government, directly accountable to the public,
are unable to address effectively.

2.1.5.
the
It would therefore make no sense at all
institution that brings together representatives of local and
regional authorities, and is the natural champion of subsidiar-
ity, were not consulted on a report about a legislative process
inspired by and applied on the basis of subsidiarity.

if

2.1.6.
of this anomaly in the consultation procedure.

The Committee therefore welcomes the elimination

2.2. The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality

In the ‘Better lawmaking — a shared responsibility’
2.2.1.
report,
subsidiarity and pro-
the Commission describes
portionality as ‘clear and codified principles’. Before explaining
what subsidiarity is, it begins by describing what it is not.

2.2.2.
The report states that these are evolutionary prin-
ciples, and that the Union’s areas of responsibility should not
be set in stone. New dynamism should be injected, i.e. action
should be taken or not taken, reasons for that action or
abstention should be specified, and more detailed information
should be provided on the terms and extent of action.

2.2.3.
The Committee agrees with the Commission on the
dynamic nature of subsidiarity, in that the Community’s action
may be expanded or reduced in line with circumstances,
always remaining within the limits of the objectives and
powers laid down by the Treaties.

In this connection the Committee considers that a debate
should be launched as soon as possible on the division of
responsibilities so as to ensure that scope remains to develop
the discretionary powers of local and regional authorities in
the Member States, and calls for this matter to be addressed at
the next intergovernmental conference.

2.2.4.
The Committee believes that the subsidiarity prin-
ciple is a governing principle of the relationship between the
European Union, the Member States and local and regional
authorities. The definition contained in Article 5 should there-
fore apply to relations between the Community, the Member
States and the local and regional authorities, without prejudice

(1) OJ C 198, 14.7.1999, p. 73.

to the fact that the relations between regional and local
authorities and the Member States is governed by individual
constitutions.

2.2.5.
On the other hand, the treaty provides for decisions
to be taken at the level closest to the public, and that does not
necessarily mean the national level. Subsidiarity has thus been
confirmed as the principle of proximity and efficacy. It follows
that subsidiarity should apply also to the relationship with
local and regional authorities, the implication being that
Member States should leave to local and regional authorities
responsibilities and decisions that the latter are best placed to
take.

2.2.6.
Time and again, during the revision of the Treaties,
the Committee has called for the establishment of legal and
political guarantees of the full application of the principle of
subsidiarity. But so far it has gone unheeded, even in the Treaty
of Amsterdam.

2.2.7.
In the Committee’s view, guarantees encompassing
regional and local authorities would guard against the risk of
Member States using subsidiarity as an excuse for renationalis-
ing Community policies.

2.2.8.
The Committee believes that the principles of prox-
imity and efficacy could be reached by redefining the powers
of the European Union, so that responsibility can be redistrib-
uted or shared, not just between the Community and Member
States, but also between the other levels. Preference should be
given to the level best able to make effective decisions and
involve ordinary people in European integration. Here it must
be remembered that the administrative implementation of
Community law is primarily the task of the Member States, in
accordance with their constitutional provisions.

We must examine how powers are allocated to and shared
between all parties concerned, in order to guarantee consist-
ency and to give subsidiarity a genuinely developing and
proactive dimension.

The Committee remains convinced that assiduous
2.2.9.
application of the subsidiarity principle is more important
than ever, given the need to establish and assert fuller European
citizenship.

2.2.10.
The Committee reiterates its belief that European
solidarity complements the subsidiarity principle and is a
fundamental value of the European Social Model.

3. Specific comments

The Committee holds that using one and the same
3.1.
document
to address the application of subsidiarity and
proportionality and problems relating to the form of legal
instruments diminishes the scope for detailed analysis and
discussion of the two issues, which are barely related though
equally essential for bringing the European Union closer to the
general public.

C 374/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.12.1999

3.2.
The Committee appreciates the efforts made by the
Commission to comply with the subsidiarity principle, in the
exercise of its legislative and regulatory powers, by with-
drawing many proposals and reducing the number of new
proposals. The Commission should therefore concentrate on
the truly European issues assigned to it by the Treaties and
refrain from intervening in fields which are a matter for
regional or local authorities and which are clearly better dealt
with by levels of government closer to citizens.

3.3.
European decisions must be taken in such a way that
the greatest possible scope is left for Member States, regional
and local decision-making: the Committee stresses the need to
limit European legislation as far as possible to framework
directives, which, while laying down harmonization objectives,
leave the regulatory aspects to lower levels. Harmonisation
that is too precise at a European level may have major
repercussions on local authorities both in terms of their
powers and their capacity to adapt.

3.4.
In this respect, the Committee repeats the need to give
priority to directives over regulations, thus enabling Member
States and local and regional authorities to choose the most
appropriate legislative instruments with which to achieve the
objectives set at European level, on the basis of their respective
situations.

3.5.
The Committee points out that it would be a good idea
to review the nomenclature of Community acts and introduce
a hierarchy of rules. This point was also made by the European
Parliament resolution of 18 December 1998 on the 1997
‘Better lawmaking’ report.

The Committee takes the view that,

3.6.
formally, the
regions and local authorities are concerned by Community
legislation by virtue of their dual position as executors of the
acts, empowered in some cases to implement legislation, and
as conduits of information for local authorities lower down
the ladder and for the public.

3.7.
The Green Paper on public sector information in the
information society reiterates the importance of public access
to information and the role of the public sector. Increasingly,
local authorities are required to ensure a general access to
information responding to the public desire to know more
about the European Union; a desire confirmed by Eurobaro-
meter surveys.

Here the Committee would refer to the opinion on ‘Eurotrain-
ing for Local and Regional Authorities in Europe’ (1),
in
which it calls on the Commission to establish a programme
specifically to ensure that regional and local politicians and
officials receive further training so as to place them in a
position to meet their information obligations.

3.8.
The Committee welcomes the Commission’s reference
to fostering broad, open and constructive dialogue with the
parties directly affected by Community legislation, but regrets
that regional and local government are not referred to in the
list of partners, despite the key role that our spheres of
government play in European life. The Committee believes
that it and the recognised associations of regional and local
government should be consulted, as a matter of duty and
course, on all major issues that affect us and the citizens whom
we represent.

3.9.
It is therefore with great interest that the Committee
notes the common guidelines for the drafting quality of
legislative instruments (2).

appreciates

The Committee

3.10.
simplification
measures taken since the Edinburgh Council with the SLIM
programme and the BEST taskforce, but believes that a further
effort is required in conjunction with the Member States, if
rapid progress is to be made in this area.

the

In many cases codification and consolidation is
3.11.
essential
to render Community legislation accessible. The
Committee invites the Commission to speed up this process
and to do its utmost to conclude the interinstitutional agree-
ment it wants as rapidly as possible.

3.12.
The Committee would stress that the full potential of
advanced technological equipment must be developed rapidly.
As the figures in the Commission report show, the highly
useful Europa server has reached saturation point owing to the
massive number of hits, making it almost inaccessible within
a reasonable time frame, via the facilities generally available to
the public. The same applies to a number of service databases.
On the other hand, fees to access these databanks should not
exceed production costs.

3.13.
The Committee calls on the Commission to tailor
these tools to meet the desire of a growing number of people
to establish contact with the European Union through its
server.

The Committee maintains that the growing role of the regions
and local authorities as information channels should be taken
into account in future Commission documents.

(1) CdR 404/98 fin — OJ C 198, 14.7.1999, p. 68.
(2) OJ C 73, 17.3.1999.

23.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374/15

3.14.
It is also essential that EU technological choices
comply fully with the rules of free competition and guarantee
access to all citizens, regardless of their IT systems.

3.15.
The Committee reiterates the need to redouble efforts
to upgrade information networks, working, as is often already
the case, with local authorities, and stepping up the dissemi-

nation of publications and information through those chan-
nels.

The Committee supports the Commission’s emphasis
3.16.
on interinstitutional cooperation for the purposes of improv-
ing lawmaking; but believes that this requires a revision of the
Union’s legislative procedures and a clarification of the powers
of each institution.

Brussels, 15 September 1999.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Institutional Aspects of Enlargement “Local
and Regional Government at the heart of Europe”’

(1999/C 374/05)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 15 July 1998, in accordance with Article 198c(4) of
the Treaty establishing the European Community, to issue an opinion on this subject and to instruct the
Commission for Institutional Affairs to prepare this opinion;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 52/99 rev. 2) adopted by the Commission for Institutional Affairs
on 6 July 1999 (rapporteurs: Lord Hanningfield DL and Mrs Louppen-Laurant),

adopted the following opinion at its 30th plenary session on 15 and 16 September 1999 (meeting of
15 September).

1.

Introduction

The forthcoming accession of new Member States will consti-
tute the biggest enlargement round in the history of the Union,
both in terms of the number of new Member States, as well as
of population increase.

It is generally recognized that the structures that were created
four decades ago for an economic Union of six, are no longer
adequate for a Union of fifteen, let alone twenty or more.
Recent events have clearly shown the urgent need for a
radical overhaul of the European Union’s institutions and
administration, and for more democracy and transparency.

In addition the ‘fabric’ of the Union of today is much more
closely woven than forty years ago. The Union is no longer an
association of capitals, but it has also become a Europe of
regions and municipalities. The establishment of the COR is
the ultimate recognition of that. Regions and towns can be
considered constituent parts of the Union, and they play a

crucial role in the ongoing process of European Union
development.

Intergovernmental Conference must result

The next
in a
democratic, decentralized and efficient European Union, with
institutions well equipped to serve the needs of over 500 milli-
on European citizens in the 21st century.

With the likelihood of further enlargement of the EU there is
clearly scope to review the roles of the various EU institutions,
including that of the COR.

1.1.
This opinion reports on the institutional aspects of
enlargement with regard to the Committee of the Regions
(COR).

Two principle areas of concern are addressed:

— The impact of enlargement on the workings of the COR

directly