Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "More democracy, transparency and efficiency in the European Union"
Date: 2002-11-21
Institutions: Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU competence, European Union, administrative transparency, democracy, governance, regional and local authorities

C 73/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.3.2003

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘More democracy, transparency and efficiency in
the European Union’

(2003/C 73/17)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 14 May 2002, under the fifth paragraph of Article 265 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community, to instruct the Commission for Constitutional Affairs
and European Governance to draw up an opinion on this subject;

having regard to the presidency conclusions of the Laeken European Council of 14 and 15 December
2001, and in particular the Laeken Declaration on the future of the Union;

having regard to the White Paper on European Governance of 25 July 2001 (COM(2001) 428 final);

having regard to its contribution to the Convention adopted on 4 July 2002, which summarised its main
expectations regarding the future of the European Union and deals with a number of points on the
Convention’s agenda (CdR 127/2002 fin);

having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2001 on the preparation for the Laeken European
Council and the further development of the European Union in the context of the next intergovernmental
conference in 2004 (CdR 104/2001 fin) (1);

having regard to its report on proximity of 20 September 2001 (CdR 436/2000 fin) and the Salamanca
Declaration of 22 June 2001 (CdR 107/2001 fin);

having regard to its resolution of 4 April 2001 on the outcome of the 2000 intergovernmental conference
and the discussion on the future of the European Union (CdR 430/2000 fin) (2);

having regard to its opinions of 14 December 2000 on new forms of governance: Europe, a framework
for citizens’ initiative (CdR 182/2000 fin) (3) and of 13 March 2002 on the White Paper on European
Governance (CdR 103/2001 fin) (4);

having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 120/2002 rev. 2) adopted on 4 October 2002 by the Commission
for Constitutional Affairs and European Governance (rapporteur: Mr McConnell (UK-PES), First Minister
of Scotland);

whereas it was given active observer status on the Convention established by the Laeken European
Council, which also considered more democracy, transparency and efficiency in the EU to be an issue
which must be addressed with a view to achieving a renewed Union;

whereas with a view to creating more democracy, transparency and efficiency in the European Union, in
the Laeken Declaration the Heads of State or Government referred on several occasions to the need to
reform the workings of the European institutions and the EU’s decision-making processes, in order to
bring them closer to citizens;

whereas regions and local authorities are, by their nature, closer to citizens than any other decision-
making level and day-to-day implement the greatest number of Community decisions, making Europe
relevant to the lives of their inhabitants;

whereas Europe’s local and regional authorities wish to participate fully in the post-Nice debate on the
future of the European Union, in preparation for future reform of the Union,

adopted unanimously the following opinion at its 47th plenary session held on 20 and 21 November
2002 (meeting of 21 November).

(1) OJ C 107, 3.5.2002, p. 36.
(2) OJ C 253, 12.9.2001, p. 25.
(3) OJ C 144, 16.5.2001, p. 1.
(4) OJ C 192, 12.8.2002, p. 24.

26.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/69

1. The Committee of the Regions’ views

The Committee of the Regions

1.7.1.
firstly, the views of all parts of the EU are not
reflected, which risks the imposition of inappropriate and
costly decisions and the possible need to introduce costly
measures to reverse mistakes;

considers the Future of Europe debate to be of the
1.1.
utmost importance, given the challenges the European Union
is due to face;

believes that, while the European Union has been a
1.2.
success, there are a range of issues which must be addressed to
ensure that this success is sustained. This is a fact that has been
recognised by the institutions of the EU, the Member States,
sub-Member State administrations and local authorities. The
low turnouts at European elections suggest that the citizens of
the Europe are becoming disengaged from the European
Union. There is also a growing perception that the EU becomes
involved in matters which might better be the responsibility of
Member States, sub-member state administrations or local
government;

secondly, citizens often first encounter an EU law at
1.7.2.
a stage when they have no option but to obey it, leading to
dissatisfaction and a sense of disempowerment. This creates
the risk that legislation does not receive the wholehearted
support of those whose support is crucial to its successful
implementation;

considers therefore that the task for the Committee of
1.8.
the Regions is to identify ways of promoting greater trans-
parency in the EU decision-making process and foster greater
involvement of local and regional authorities (who are the
bodies closest to citizens), while at the same time promoting
more efficient decision-making;

recognises that reform is all the more essential given
the

the imminent enlargement of

1.3.
the likely impacts of
European Union;

welcomes the Convention on the Future of Europe as
1.4.
an innovative and inclusive means of developing proposals for
the way forward;

stresses the need to focus on what citizens really want
1.5.
from the European Union. The EU can and does deliver
significant, tangible benefits, such as economic prosperity,
increased security, social
justice, a better environment, an
improved quality of life and increasing global influence;

importantly,

1.6.
emphasises that there is a need to ensure that the
European Union is able to deliver such outcomes as efficiently
is seen and
and effectively as possible and,
understood by its citizens to deliver them. For the citizens of
the EU to recognise the benefits it brings to their everyday
lives, there is a need to introduce greater democracy, trans-
parency and efficiency into the way in which the EU operates.
There is a need for the EU to involve and engage with
individual citizens, so that they feel empowered, rather than
detached from it;

1.7.
believes that while, on the face of it, measures to
promote democracy and transparency may conflict with
measures to improve the efficiency of decision-making, it is
possible to select measures which will reinforce both —
democracy and efficiency. Much of the perceived democratic
deficit arises because citizens are not aware of the issues or
dossiers being considered/debated in the EU institutions and
often cannot clearly see who is responsible for what. As a
result of this, the normal democratic process, whereby public/
stakeholder opinion is brought to bear on the decision-making
process, does not occur. This can have two key impacts:

is convinced that the citizens of the European Union
1.9.
need a clearer understanding of the EU’s vision and objectives.
Citizens need to feel able to influence the actions and decisions
the EU takes. Citizens need to feel that the EU is open and
accountable, that the decision-making process is clear and
transparent. The EU needs to show better that it deals with
issues that are relevant to individual citizens, and that it is
more concerned with outputs, than with the machinery of
government. The EU needs to reaffirm to its citizens that it is
ready to introduce new measures in a way that is sympathetic
and responsive to the institutional diversity that exists at a
Member State, sub-Member State and local level;

1.10.
believes that one way of making this happen is to
reform the European Union’s institutional architecture and its
legislative and decision-making processes. There are a large
number of potential reforms that should be considered during
the works of the Convention on the future of the Union
and the 2004 inter-governmental conference. The Laeken
Declaration set out a number of questions relating to democ-
racy, transparency and efficiency. This opinion focuses on two
areas. It considers the particular way in which sub-Member
State administrations, local authorities and the Committee of
the Regions can play an important part
in realising the
objective of closing the democratic gap between the European
Union and its citizens. And it sets out reforms that are needed
to the EU institutions that would enable them to better
address and reflect the important role of regional and local
government;

1.11.
recalls the contribution to the Future of Europe
Convention adopted by the Committee of the Regions on
4 July 2002 (CdR 127/2002 fin), which called for the CoR to
be recognised as an institution of the EU, with all the rights
such status would afford, and for a strengthening of
its
functions;

C 73/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.3.2003

1.12.
draws attention to the opinion adopted on (20-
21 November 2002) on A better division and definition of
powers in the European Union, and welcomes the proposals it
makes on setting as key horizontal EU objectives economic,
social and territorial cohesion, sustainable development and
equal opportunities;

1.13.
draws attention to the opinion adopted on (20-
21 November 2002) on Simplification of the Union’s instru-
ments, and welcomes the proposals it makes on regional and
local involvement and a greater transparency in the bodies of
comitology, the application of the principle of subsidiarity
when implementing simplification measures, and the use of
preceding impact assessments;

2.3.
considers that if the EU is genuinely to increase its
democratic legitimacy, there is also a need for greater direct
involvement in the EU’s legislative and decision-making pro-
cesses for sub-Member State administrations and local auth-
orities. Effective governance should facilitate citizens’ partici-
pation and influence over policymaking, by better engaging
regional and local government. Regional and local government
implement (and in some cases enact) EU legislation; they
are also democratically elected and represent the levels of
government that are closest to the citizen. It is this proximity
to the citizen that should lead to an enhanced role and
involvement within EU processes;

1.14.
draws attention to the opinion adopted on (20-
21 November 2002) on Towards a Constitution for European
citizens and welcomes the proposals it makes on better
protecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality,
and for the inclusion in a constitutional treaty of explicit
reference to the principle of flexible implementation at the
national, regional or sub-regional level;

2.4.
believes that in addition to these specific relationships,
it should be recognised that debate on democracy, trans-
parency and efficiency should not only focus on what the
Laeken Declaration describes as the ‘present institutions’, but
also on the role and functions of the Committee of the
Regions, given its role in coordinating and representing the
views of regional and local government and on the CoR’s
future place in the institutional framework;

2. The Committee of the Regions’ recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

— General principles

2.5.
believes that if the EU is to set its objectives and
priorities more effectively, there is a need to clarify medium
and long-term goals and to demonstrate a clear link between
EU legislation and the priorities agreed by Heads of State and
Government within the European Council. This process would
be assisted by providing for a greater openness in all forms of
EU governance, including measures that would provide further
scope for local and regional input. The workings of the Council
should be more transparent and accessible to all citizens, by
building on the good progress made at the Seville Council,
including agreement to make various stages in the codecision
process more open to the public;

2.1.
proposes that in framing any reform, which seeks to
increase democracy, transparency and efficiency, the European
Union should build on the following principles:

considers that in the interests of greater transparency,
2.2.
there is a need to clarify which body does what in the European
Union and to make more explicit the understanding that
powers not delegated to the EU remain the preserve of the
Member States, sub-Member State administrations and local
authorities. Clearer roles and responsibilities mean simpler and
more efficient procedures and more effective policies. The
European Commission, to enhance democracy in the EU,
should act according to the limits of the Treaties, subsidiarity,
proportionality, with respect for the national, regional and
local cultural identities. The EU must also respect Member
States’ role in deciding internal allocation of competences;

2.6.
considers that there is a need for more flexible means
of implementation, to take into account local and regional
circumstances, with greater collaboration between the Com-
mission and implementing authorities. Although the Com-
mittee is to produce a separate opinion on this matter, any
discussion of enhancing the authority and efficiency of the
Commission must also refer to this issue. Unless implementing
authorities have sufficient scope to put EU measures into
practice in a way that is appropriate to their own particular
circumstances, or have the opportunity to work in closer
partnership with the Commission on these matters, there
remains a greater possibility that implementation may be slow
or incomplete and that the authority of the Commission will
be called into question;

26.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/71

— Specific measures

2.7.
welcomes the commitment shown by all the insti-
tutions of the European Union to improving democracy,
transparency and efficiency in the EU. This opinion has set out
a number of principles which the Committee of the Regions
consider to be of critical
importance to delivering such
improvements The Laeken Declaration sought views on a
number of specific measures and suggestions. Some of these
concern issues which are not of direct relevance to the CoR
and its member authorities. This opinion therefore focuses on
measures which can address particular issues set out in the
Laeken Declaration by delivering the aspirations expressed in
the principles set out above, through the role of the CoR, sub-
Member State administrations and local authorities;

2.8.
calls upon the Convention on the Future of Europe to
acknowledge the importance of these principles and to con-
sider the following specific measures as means of reforming
the European Union in accordance with them.

2.8.1. T r a n s p a r e n c y o f
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

f u n c t i o n s , r o l e s a n d

— The production of an expanded Statement of Subsidiarity
Principles preferably enshrined in the EU Treaties, which
will enhance and clarify the transparency of the Union.

— The establishment of an effective system of policing
subsidiarity. A number of models — ranging from the
use of the ECJ to creating a body similar to the Conseil
Constitutionnel in France — have been proposed by
contributors to the debate. It would not be appropriate
in this opinion to set out final, detailed views. Neverthe-
less, such a system should have both an ex-ante and ex-
post component. It should be able to act quickly and
should not add burdensome extra layers of bureaucracy
to the EU’s operating processes. To be effective, the
system must involve substate government, given the role
of regions with legislative powers in adopting legislation,
and the role of regional and local authorities in the
implementation and enactment of much EU legislation.
However, this should not obscure the fact that a clearer
allocation of tasks between the EU and Member States
would contribute to the effective enforcement of the
subsidiarity principle.

— Greater use of information technology would help to
speed up some of the EU’s processes, such as consultation,
and improve the accessibility of information.

— Those involved in the attainment of targets, including
regional and local government, should be involved in
setting them.

— The introduction of a Code of Practice on consultation,
now proposed by the Commission. This should allow for
systematic, early dialogue between the Commission and
sub-Member State administrations or local authorities,
and should allow sufficient time for effective consultation,
if it is to achieve its objectives.

2.8.3. R o l e o f t h e C o m m i t t e e o f t h e R e g i o n s

— On the grounds of increasing both transparency and
democracy, in cases where institutions adopt a measure
without taking account of the Committee’s opinion, there
should be a minimum obligation to explain to the CoR
why it has been decided to do so.

— Just as individual sub-Member States and local authorities
would wish to be consulted on all matters which affect
their competences, the list of subjects on which consul-
tation of the Committee of the Regions is mandatory
should be extended to all areas relating to the powers of
its member authorities, such as, for example, agriculture
and research and technological development.

— The Committee of the Regions should have the right to
address written and oral questions to the European
Commission.

— The Committee of the Regions recognises that, in the
context of these reforms, it should aim to secure legit-
imacy and maximise the benefits, by considering how it
can best ensure that its activity bears the strongest
possible relevance to the concerns of the regional and
local authorities of Europe.

— The Committee of the Regions should play a full part in
any mechanism established to enforce the principle of
subsidiarity.

2.8.2. R e g i o n a l a n d l o c a l i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e

d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s

2.8.4.

E U s t r a t e g i c o b j e c t i v e s a n d p r i o r i t i e s

— The early implementation of the Action Plan for Better
Regulation as a means of improving the EU’s effectiveness.
In implementing such measures, the Commission is called
upon to recognise the input that regional and local
government can make.

— The periodic production of a statement of the objectives

of the European Union.

— The Council should meet in public when in its legislative

role.

C 73/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.3.2003

— A review of the way in which education and the media
contribute to an understanding of the objectives and
processes of the European Union.

2.8.5. M o r e

f l e x i b l e m e a n s o f

i m p l e m e n -

t a t i o n

— As a general rule, greater use should be made of short,

strategic laws.

— Where possible, greater use should be made of non-legal

instruments.

— An interpretation of what the implementation of EU
directives means should be agreed at the outset by all
parties involved in their delivery, including regional and
local government. One way of achieving this would be
through the use of ‘tri-partite contracts’, as proposed in

the Commission’s White Paper on Governance, and now
being piloted in the environmental field. Such contracts
(between the Commission, Member States and sub-
Member State administrations), should aim to implement
EU policies in a way that is most appropriate to local
circumstances.

— Where there has been a failure in good faith on the part
of an implementing or enacting authority to deliver an
objective the Commission should consider constructive
alternatives before resorting to infractions proceedings.

— Where possible, reduce the number of procedures and
adopt terminology corresponding to words commonly
used in the Member States and more easily known to the
citizens, namely laws and framework laws.

Instructs its President to forward this opinion to the
2.9.
European Convention, the EU Presidency, the Council, the
European Parliament and the European Commission.

Brussels, 21 November 2002.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE