Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "Simplification of the Union's instruments"
Date: 2002-11-21
Institutions: Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU law, consultation procedure, drafting of EU law, legislative procedure, simplification of legislation

26.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/73

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Simplification of the Union’s instruments’

(2003/C 73/18)

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 its 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 the Communication of the European Commission on European governance: Better
lawmaking (COM(2001) 275 final);

having regard to the Communication of the European Commission on an Action plan: Simplifying and
improving the regulatory environment (COM(2002) 278 final);

having regard to the report of the European Commission to the European Council on Better lawmaking
2001 (COM(2001) 728 final);

having regard to the Communication of the European Commission on Impact assessment (COM(2002)
276 final);

having regard to the Communication of the European Commission: Consultation document: Towards a
reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue: Proposal for general principles and minimum standards
for consultation of interested parties by the Commission (COM(2002) 277 final);

having regard to the recommendations of the high-level group chaired by Mr Mandelkern;

having regard to the contributions by the general secretariat of the European Convention CONV 50/02
and CONV 162/02;

having regard to its contribution to the European Convention adopted on 4 July 2002 (CdR 127/2002
fin);

having regard to its previous opinions on the implementation of EU law (CdR 51/1999 fin) (1), the
principle of subsidiarity (CdR 302/98 fin) (2), and the reports of the European Commission on Better
lawmaking 1998 and 1999 (CdR 50/1999 fin and CdR 18/2000 fin) (3) (4);

having regard to its opinion of 13 March 2001 on the White Paper on European governance (CdR 103/
2001 fin) (5);

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 121/2002 rev.) adopted on 4 October 2002 by its Commission
for Constitutional Affairs and European Governance (rapporteur: Mr Guarischi (I-EPP), Councillor for the
Lombardy Region),

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

(1) OJ C 374, 23.12.1999, p. 25.
(2) OJ C 198, 14.7.1999, p. 73.
(3) OJ C 374, 23.12.1999, p. 11.
(4) OJ C 226, 8.8.2000, p. 60.
(5) OJ C 192, 12.8.2002, p. 24.

C 73/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.3.2003

1. Views of the Committee of the Regions

1.1.

Simplification as an instrument for relevant, high-quality EU
legislation

1.1.1.
The Commission suggests the adoption of simplifi-
cation and rationalisation mechanisms such as co-regulation,
self-regulation and voluntary cooperation, and the evaluation
of existing acts. The CoR considers that these mechanisms
should be geared to the principle of high-quality legislation.
With a view to giving substance to democratic methods, which
are a benchmark for simplification, introduction of the quality
principle would open a path for bringing proceedings before
the Court of Justice under Article 230 of the EC Treaty (or
Article 232, in the event of proceedings for failure to act).

1.1.2.
As regards the monitoring stage, the Commission
has rightly raised the subject of ‘comitology’. As well as
complicating and protracting the decision-making process,
this procedure is also criticised for being insufficiently trans-
parent and too far removed from the grassroots, i.e. from the
final users for whom simplification is specifically designed.
The review of arrangements for monitoring Commission
action should give more scope to the institutional advisory
bodies.

The inclusion of a definition of

legislative and
1.1.3.
executive power in the future constitutional treaty, and the
consequent attribution of these powers to the institutions,
could provide a starting point that will open up new oppor-
tunities for simplifying and improving the regulatory frame-
work and enhance the conditions for applying the principles
of subsidiarity and proportionality, and of proximity to local
and regional situations.

1.1.4.
As moves are made to simplify and improve the
regulatory environment, questions will inevitably be raised, at
the Convention, concerning reform of the Union’s institutional
architecture, not least with a view to enlargement. In this
context, enlargement offers an opportunity to improve the
institutional set-up and regulatory environment and adapt
them to the changing situation.

1.2. A culture of consultation

The Commission’s statement (1) that ‘implementation
1.2.1.
of the common policies must be as decentralised as possible’
is to be welcomed, as are its explicit mention of ‘taking greater
account of the diversity of local situations’ and the recognition
that European rules suffer from a ‘lack of proximity’. Proper
application of the subsidiarity principle and optimum use of
the special role of the Committee of
the Regions — as
institutional advisory body — are vital in order to address the
needs explicitly recognised by the Commission.

1.2.2. When preparing and evaluating simplification
measures, decisions must be constantly guided by the prin-
ciples of subsidiarity and proportionality. The work currently
being undertaken to simplify the EU’s Structural Funds legis-
lation (1) — which has a particularly significant impact at
regional/local level — is a case in point. Both in the monitoring
committees and at
the programming stage (‘programme
complements’), the application of the subsidiarity principle
with regard to the joint management of the programmes
(partnership) has been deemed unsatisfactory. The Com-
mission’s requirement that Member States be sent clear,
unambiguous and definitive guidelines on programme man-
agement has not been met, nor has the requirement that
Member States select the implementation arrangements which
they deem most appropriate.

If the intention is to standardise and strengthen the
1.2.3.
consultation method as a key part of
the Commission’s
commitment to simplifying and improving the quality of
legislation — and this is a laudable intention — the first step
must be to strengthen the role of the Committee of the
Regions. The Commission should specify in its documents the
steps it proposes to take to enhance the role of the Com-
munity’s advisory bodies, and implement
these steps in
advance of the planned simplification exercise. For its part, the
CoR puts forward specific practical requests in the present
opinion.

This point is also relevant

1.2.4.
to the Commission’s
communication on a culture of consultation (2), in which the
Committee of the Regions is asked, under the cooperation
protocol, to organise consultations with regional and local
authorities on behalf of the Commission. The communication
also envisages direct consultation of these authorities by the
Commission. The present opinion takes a firm line on this
issue, on the principle that the CoR must not only be of
assistance in the organisation of consultations, but must
be the consulting body to which the Commission makes
reference.

1.3. Analysis based on the current treaty

Some spheres of Community activity are obvious
1.3.1.
candidates for simplification,
irrespective of the proposals
which may subsequently be adopted by the Convention and
hence included in the new constitutional treaty.

In almost fifty years, various spheres of Community activity
have seen so many pieces of Community legislation that
operators and other interested parties now recognise that ‘de-
legislation’ is necessary in order to restore a satisfactory level
of legal certainty by codifying, recasting and consolidating the
texts concerned. Operators and interested parties often use

( 1) COM(2002) 247 final.

(2) COM(2002) 277 final.

26.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/75

unofficial consolidated versions which, although of practical
use, are symptomatic of a democratic deficit. The Commission
should commit itself to specific concrete initiatives that match
the intentions voiced in the abovementioned documents,
which the Committee endorses.

2.7.
considers that simplification and improvement of the
Community acquis is desirable, particularly if it is conducted
in a manner which respects the quality of the legislative
acts concerned and is not dictated solely by quantitative
considerations;

2. Recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions

2.1.
stresses the need to simplify the treaties and the
decision-making and legislative processes of the Union, in
particular with a view to making them more efficient and, by
means of transparency, bringing the Union’s citizens closer to
their institutions;

suggests that in order to eliminate a proliferation of
2.2.
legislative instruments that could be detrimental to trans-
parency and a source of legal uncertainty, the aim should be
to approximate acts adopted under the first and third pillars
and to found the Union’s institutional system on a clear
separation of powers;

2.3.
considers that a clear distinction must be drawn
between regulatory acts and implementing acts, and that the
former should be limited to basic legislation which should
subsequently be fleshed out by more technical implementing
rules that respect the principles of subsidiarity and pro-
portionality;

2.4.
supports the establishment of a clear hierarchy of
legislation to address questions concerning the consistency of
procedures and the need for a clear distinction between
legislative and implementing measures. The constitutional
treaty should define the legislative and executive functions,
specifying which institutions are called on to exercise the
powers conferred;

stresses, therefore, the need to make more systematic
2.5.
use of (a) the regulatory instrument of the directive, which is
more in keeping with the spirit of subsidiarity, particularly for
the application of those policies where there are competing
competences; and (b)
framework legislation, as this can
guarantee the flexibility which the Member States need to
ensure that particular local and regional situations are respect-
ed, in the light of the proportionality principle;

calls for consolidation of the trend towards generalised

2.6.
qualified majority voting in the Council;

considers that

2.8.
legislation is greatly
the quality of
influenced by prior consultation (Committee of the Regions
and Economic and Social Committee as the institutional
interfaces for regional and local stakeholders and economic
and social stakeholders), and by a series of instruments such
as the open coordination method, self-regulation and co-
regulation, to be included in the constitutional treaty alongside
the legislative acts already used, only in spheres in which the
European Union has competence;

2.9.
deems ill-advised the Commission’s proposal that it
should be able to decide independently, without the agreement
of the European Parliament or the Council, to withdraw long-
standing legislative proposals for which it has not yet been
possible to complete the institutional procedures laid down in
the Treaties, even if the aim of the proposal is ultimately to
streamline the European legislative procedure; furthermore,
clauses setting a deadline for the revision of acts (‘sunset
clauses’) should in all cases be applied with the agreement of
the Union’s two legislative arms;

2.10.
welcomes the proposal for a detailed impact assess-
ment to identify the most appropriate regulatory instruments
for adoption, and proposes involving the Committee of the
Regions in the assessment procedures regarding matters of
local and regional importance; the impact assessment should
also cover the impact on the administrations and budgets of
regional and local authorities;

2.11.
proposes a considerable semantic simplification of all
the Union’s legislative processes, as the current institutional
vocabulary is a real obstacle to transparency and thus to
closeness to the Union’s citizens who would like, wherever
possible, to see the Union following the example of the
Member States, at least in terms of semantics;

2.12.
notes with interest the Commission’s proposal to set
up an internal network for better lawmaking, coordinated by
its secretary-general and involving all the directorates-general
which have regulatory responsibilities, with a view to ensuring
that texts are mutually consistent and respect subsidiarity and
proportionality from the drafting stage of the regulatory
proposal;

2.13.
proposes that during the transposition of EU legislat-
ive acts by the Member States, and in the implementing stage
of legislation, the Commission should not consider solely the
role of the Member States, but that the role of the regional and
local authorities should also be taken into account;

C 73/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.3.2003

2.14.
proposes that the institutional role of the CoR be
recognised and that all the Union’s forms of governance be
involved in decision-making processes, including the regional
and local authorities of
the Member States as they are
democratically elected and responsible for the implementation
of a large proportion of legislation;

2.15.
asks the European Commission to implement the
cooperation protocol which it signed with the CoR; and urges
the European Parliament to make the fullest possible use of its
right to consult the CoR, especially on those matters which
require co-decision, and which in any event have a specific
impact on local situations;

2.16.
deems it necessary to stress the usefulness and
necessity of the CoR exploiting its ability to initiate a legislative
proposal (outlook reports);

2.17.
proposes that it be considered as an active participant
in ‘comitology’ procedures, in cases where existing committees
within the Commission already deal with matters on which
the CoR is required to issue a mandatory opinion;

Brussels, 21 November 2002.

2.18.
proposes that the CoR be placed in a position to
establish a permanent, real-time link with regional and local
authorities; and to this end, considers it necessary that the
staffing of the CoR be increased, more specifically with persons
possessing a regional culture and training;

2.19.
proposes that the CoR, suitably equipped with the
requisite instruments and staff, become a body for monitoring
and guaranteeing the application of the subsidiarity principle;
and that in this context, the CoR should also check on the
uniform application of EU rules in the light of local and
regional situations;

2.20.
instructs its president to forward this opinion to the
European Convention, the EU Presidency, the Council, the
European Parliament and the European Commission.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE