Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Review of SLIM: Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market
Date: 2000-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU initiative, EU law, administrative formalities, legislation, single market

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 28.02.2000
COM(2000) 104 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Review of SLIM : Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Review of SLIM : Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market

INTRODUCTION

The Internal Market is founded on rules designed to remove obstacles to cross-border
trade, increasing competition and bringing the benefits of wider choice and lower
prices to the consumer. The cornerstone is the principle of mutual recognition.
Where necessary, harmonised rules have been agreed. Since one of their objectives is
to make it easier to do business in the Internal Market, they must achieve their
objectives in a way which avoids all unnecessary red tape and excessive compliance
costs.

The Commission has stepped up its efforts to improve regulatory quality and reduce
the regulatory burden. SLIM is a key initiative in this field1. Others include the
Business Test Panel and the BEST (Business Environment Simplification Task Force)
Action Plan2. Small teams of Member State officials and users of the legislation aim
to identify concrete suggestions to simplify Community legislation in a particular
sector. Fourteen such sectors have been examined since 19963.
It is now time to
examine the strengths and weaknesses of SLIM policy.

Aims of the review

The overall aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of SLIM as an
instrument for achieving legislative simplification and recommend action to improve
its effectiveness. The key areas addressed are:

•

•

•

•

1

2

3

the objectives of SLIM;

the selection of legislation for review under SLIM;

the operation and management of teams;

the implementation of recommendations.

COM(1996) 204 Final, “Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market (SLIM) : A Pilot
Project”.
COM(1998) 550 Final, “Action Plan to promote entrepreneurship and competitiveness”.
COM(1996) 559 Final, “Report of the Commission on the SLIM Pilot Project”.
COM(1997) 618 Final, “Results of the second phase of SLIM and follow-up of the
implementation of the first phase recommendations”.
COM(1999) 88 Final, “Results of the third phase of SLIM and the implementation of the
recommendations of the first and second phases”.

2

Methodology

In preparing this review, the Commission has taken account of:

•

•

•

•

•

the results of a survey of former SLIM team members from phases I to III (see
part 1 of the working document of the Commission services ”Review of SLIM:
Background material to the Communication of the Commission” – SEC(2000)
336);

interviews with Commission officials associated with SLIM exercises or involved
in the area of regulatory quality;

the views of Member States as expressed by their representatives on the Internal
Market Advisory Committee (IMAC) (Detailed submissions were received from
six Member States);

reports and Resolutions of the European Parliament;

opinions of the Economic and Social Committee.

THE OBJECTIVES OF SLIM

The broad objective is to streamline the operation of the Internal Market by
identifying ways in which relevant legislation can be simplified and improved. The
focus is on those provisions which give rise to excessive implementation costs and
administrative burdens, diverging interpretations and national application measures
and difficulties in application. Whilst every effort must be made to simplify the
Community legislative framework, SLIM recommendations must safeguard the
essential elements of the acquis communautaire and ensure a high level of safety for
consumers and protection of the environment.

Experience in the first three phases of SLIM has shown that the broad objective of the
to restate the
initiative is widely understood. Nevertheless,
objectives of SLIM and in so doing, clarify what constitutes simplification and how it
should be interpreted by teams.

it would be useful

The Commission will:

•

•

draw up a clear definition of the overall objectives of SLIM to be incorporated
into a new set of guidelines;
set out clearly the mandate of each individual team in the Working Document to
launch the relevant SLIM phase.

3

SELECTION OF LEGISLATIVE AREAS FOR SIMPLIFICATION

Areas of legislation for examination by each team are currently identified on the basis
of suggestions from Member States, the European Parliament, the Economic and
Social Committee and trade/business organisations and the services of
the
Commission. A list of all sectors proposed for simplification is set out in part 2 of the
working document ”Review of SLIM: Background material to the Communication of
the Commission”, with an indication of subsequent action.

There are no fixed criteria for selecting legislative areas for review nor firm rules for
including (or excluding) particular sectors. Selection may be due to difficulties in
implementation, ambiguities or inconsistencies in texts, complexity arising from
successive amendments, or
in some cases lengthy procedures resulting in an
unacceptable level of costs/administrative burdens being placed on business and
enforcement authorities. There is a clear danger that areas where simplification is
needed may be overlooked. There is also a risk that SLIM may be viewed as an
opportunity to reopen discussion in areas where one or more Member States originally
dissented from the majority view in Council on its adoption.

The analysis of the follow-up to SLIM reports (see below) also raises several points
to be borne in mind when selecting sectors:

• The link between the SLIM exercise and any policy review process that was
currently underway should be taken into account. Would a short, focussed
consideration of the scope for simplification contribute in streamlining any future
legislative proposals ?

• Where there is no pre-existing policy review, is simplification the real issue or

does the legislation need to be the subject of an overall review ?

•

•

Is the problem the complexity of the legislation or ineffective application and
enforcement which is not necessarily due to complexity ?

If legislative proposals are already before Council and Parliament, are they likely
to cause a long delay in implementing any new legislative recommendations from
the SLIM team ?

The “age” of the legislation to be simplified is also a relevant factor. Legislation
which has been submitted to SLIM teams is usually at least 5 years old and often the
basic legislation has been in existence for 10 or 20 years or even longer. The
Commission rejected SLIM scrutiny where legislation was too recent. Only
legislation which has been in force for a sufficiently long time to allow its strengths
and weaknesses to be identified should be subjected to SLIM : a minimum of 5 years
from the transposition deadline appears reasonable and in accordance with practice to
date.

4

Any party proposing sectors for review should indicate :

•

•

the reasons, including the problems to be addressed and the benefits that might be
anticipated from simplification,

the features of the legislation giving rise to disproportionate administrative
burden/costs and how they might be significantly reduced.

The Commission acknowledges the need to improve the selection process. However,
in keeping with its right of initiative, the Commission will make the final selection on
its own responsibility. It invites suggestions for action provided they are accompanied
by a statement of the reasons for proposing particular sectors, the key problems which
arise and the expected benefits of simplification. For its part, the Commission will
indicate the reasons for rejecting certain proposals and will discuss the selection of
sectors for review with Member States in a special formation of the Internal Market
Advisory Committee (see below). The Commission will also discuss future actions
with the European Parliament, with whom it will seek to agree appropriate
arrangements for consultation.

MANAGEMENT OF SLIM TEAMS

General principles of SLIM

Although the autonomous working methods of SLIM teams allows them to work with
speed and flexibility, a number of Member States have stressed the need to create
some type of advisory committee which could follow and help guide the work of
teams in order to :

•

•

•

•

help identify sectors for inclusion and provide a forum for discussion on the
simplification objectives of each team (see above);

provide co-ordination and bring greater transparency to the work of individual
teams;

receive minutes of team meetings and hear interim and progress reports from team
chairpersons;

ensure better links between teams and other parallel review exercises where
appropriate;

The Commission emphasises the advantages of the autonomous and informal working
methods of SLIM teams but will convene a subgroup of IMAC for the purposes of
SLIM and related regulatory quality matters. This procedural proposal must not
generate undue delays in the start up or conclusion of SLIM exercises.

5

Operation of SLIM teams

SLIM exercises are conducted within a tight timeframe (rarely exceeding six months).
Even though this is a relatively short time in which to deal with often complex issues,
it is generally considered a realistic timeframe although some indicated that there was
insufficient time (between meetings) to consult colleagues in national services and
parent organisations and insufficient
report and
recommendations.

time to draw up the final

The Commission will encourage teams to take account of such considerations.

The representativeness of teams

SLIM teams comprise officials from some but not all Member States pointing to a
problem of “ownership” when it comes to implementing recommendations which
have not been developed and agreed by all Member States4.

The Commission does not wish fundamentally to alter the nature of SLIM teams by
including representatives of all Member States in each SLIM team. This would result
in a significant increase in their size, thereby losing the advantages of flexibility and
informality. The Commission proposes to increase transparency and enhanced
interaction with relevant sectoral committees and the proposed Internal Market
Advisory subcommittee, which will be convened at the beginning and end of each
this must not
phase, before formal adoption of
their
compromise the independence of the individual teams (which will present
reports on their own responsibility) nor the right of the Commission to decide on its
response.

the team reports. However,

Team membership

Some Member States suggested that current rules be amended in two important
respects : the Chairperson (nominated by the Commission) should not necessarily be
an expert in the sector under review but rather should have appropriate experience as
a team/project leader. Secondly, provision should be made for the participation (as
team members) of experts in the field of regulatory reform. However, former team
members were almost equally divided on the usefulness of external expertise (only
52% thought it could enhance team output).

4

SLIM teams are generally composed of five Member State officials and an equal number of
user representatives and chaired by a Commission official.

6

The Commission considers that the Chairperson should ideally combine an adequate
knowledge of the legislation under review with appropriate project-leadership skills.
However, the Commission will explore with IMAC whether it would be useful for a
member of its subcommittee to be designated as a regulatory reform correspondent
(and possible participant) for each SLIM team. Such a correspondent could help the
sectoral experts on SLIM teams to keep the focus on the regulatory reform dimension
technical
of their task. The feasibility and desirability of providing independent
assistance funded by the Commission will be examined.

Transparency of the work of SLIM teams

Confidence in the SLIM initiative requires that transparency should be enshrined as a
fundamental principle. Meeting reports and discussion documents of teams must be
widely circulated. Whilst every opportunity should be given to parties not represented
to follow and contribute to discussions, participants in SLIM teams felt
that
insufficient publicity is given to the work of SLIM teams and that efforts to keep all
interested parties more fully informed should be increased. A number of suggestions
to increase transparency were made.

Transparency is clearly a key principle in the operation of SLIM. SLIM exercises
must be fully and regularly reported. This will be achieved, inter alia, by early
announcements (including on web-sites) of the sectors identified, targeted information
to those most affected in that sector and flash reports of meetings of the SLIM teams.

Tracking team recommendations

At the end of each SLIM exercise, the Commission gives broad indications on how it
intends to proceed with those recommendations it has accepted. Many have suggested
that the tracking of progress could be improved.

The Commission will publish a yearly working document which focuses exclusively
tracks the progress of legislative proposals,
on the follow-up to SLIM reports,
highlights where delays are occurring and indicates when the follow-up action has
been completed. This will provide the opportunity to give clear and detailed
information on follow-up while allowing the reports on each individual future SLIM
phase to be more succinct.

STATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The SLIM initiative is voluntary in nature : not all Member States or Commission
services participate in each individual exercise. Recommendations, though often
persuasive and carrying much weight, are not binding and must compete with other
policy perspectives.

Of the 11 sectors covered on phases I – III, the Commission has proposed Council and
Parliament legislation in 6 (Intrastat, recognition of diplomas, ornamental plants,
VAT, the combined nomenclature for external trade and social security). The average

7

length of time between the SLIM report and these proposals was about 11 months.
However, Council and Parliament have adopted only three : Intrastat (one of the two
proposals), ornamental plants and the combined nomenclature for external trade
taking 24 months, 7 months and 2 months respectively to do so. In the case of
to facilitate the
combined nomenclature for external
management of the nomenclature has also been published. In the other three sectors
and in the case of the second Intrastat proposal, discussions in Council and Parliament
continue averaging 18 months. It should be noted, however, that in November 1999
the Council reached agreement on a common position on the SLIM proposals on the
recognition of diplomas5.

trade, a code of conduct

No legislative proposal has been made on construction products (phase I) after 3
years, on fertilisers or banking (after 2 years), nor on electromagnetic compatibility or
insurance (after 11 months). In the case of construction products and banking, the
SLIM teams themselves acknowledged that there would be no immediate legislative
proposal. In the case of construction products, a number of options were identified,
and the Commission adopted a two-stage approach combining non-legislative action
(to improve implementation) with amendment of the Directive as a longer term aim.
In banking, no major simplification was considered possible by the SLIM team :
amendment needed to await codification, which has been under discussion in Council
and Parliament for over two years. A revised proposal was put forward in 1999. In the
case of fertilisers and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) further consultations with
Member States are underway in order to prepare the legislative proposals. In the case
of insurance, the Commission has concentrated initially on preparing the recasting
proposal for life assurance (for submission shortly), to be followed by the codification
of the non-life directives.

This analysis suggests that the possibility for rapid follow-up should be taken into
consideration when selecting sectors for inclusion in SLIM.

The Commission will propose a SLIM exercise only when simplification is the real
issue and where simplification proposals can be put forward within a reasonable time
(about 6 months after the SLIM report). This may depend on whether SLIM feeds into
a pre-existing review process or is the first step following which further consultation
must take place. When legislative proposals have been made within a reasonable time
by the Commission following preparatory work with the Member States, this should
be matched by their speedy adoption by Council and Parliament.

5

Part 3 of the working document of the Commission services ”Review of SLIM: Background
material
the Commission” sets out progress on SLIM
recommendations.

to the Communication of

8

SLIM AND SIMPLIFICATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL

EU legislation governing business in the Union is far outweighed by national
legislation. A recent Swedish Employers’ Confederation study found that fewer than
10% of Swedish laws and regulations are linked to the EU6. The importance of
simplifying national rules is central to the BEST Action Plan.

reviews of national
Some SLIM teams have tried to incorporate parallel
implementation of the Community legislation under examination. This has never
been successfully undertaken or completed if attempted. Small SLIM teams cannot
readily undertake this task. The solution lies in Member States’ agreeing to report on
the scope for simplifying legislation at national level affecting the sectors under
review in each SLIM exercise.

It is proposed that the 5 Member States whose officials participate in a SLIM team
dealing with a particular sector should provide a report on the scope for simplifying
national legislation in the same sector. This report could be presented by the Member
State representatives on the proposed special format of IMAC.
Ideally, at least one
such national report per sector would be prepared by means of a parallel SLIM-type
exercise organised at national level by the Member State. In addition, Member States
should report regularly in IMAC, and from time to time at Council level, on their
independent programmes of regulatory simplification.

6

“How does the EU hinder Swedish deregulation?” by Fredrik Sterzel, Swedish Employers’
Confederation (SAF), November 1999.

9

Key Action points arising from the review

• A special IMAC formation of “better regulation” specialists (like the heads of
co-ordination centres formation), which would help to steer SLIM and provide
a forum for discussion of “candidate” sectors;

•

Involvement of some of these specialists as designated “regulatory quality
correspondents” to specific SLIM teams;

• Commission to consider
experts to assist teams;

feasibility/desirability of appointing independent

• Consultation of Member States (through new IMAC formation) and of

European Parliament on the selection of sectors;

• A requirement that any party putting forward a sector for review should state
clearly the areas needing simplification and the expected benefits, while the
Commission would agree to explain its reasons for rejecting suggestions;

•

IMAC to be consulted at the beginning and end of each phase;

• Preparation of a guide for SLIM chairpersons and team members, including a

clear definition of the overall objectives;

• Clear definition of the objectives of individual teams in the working document
setting up each phase (which would be discussed in the new IMAC formation);

• More transparency with regard to the work of teams, including “flash” reports
to be provided on relevant web sites within two or three days of each meeting;

•

IMAC “better regulation” representatives of the Member States with officials
on a particular SLIM team to report on the situation regarding national
legislation in the sector in question; at least one such report per sector to be
based on a parallel national SLIM exercise;

• The Commission to set itself a target of coming forward with proposals within

6 months of a SLIM report;

• Council and Parliament called on to develop mechanisms to ensure that

simplification proposals are adopted quickly;

• The Commission to ensure the appropriate administrative support.

• Member States to report regularly to IMAC and the Internal Market Council on

independent national simplification programmes;

• The Commission to develop the coherence and synergies between its various
better regulation initiatives with a view to developing an effective ongoing
programme of simplification.

10