Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on "Simplification"
Date: 2003-03-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU law, access to EU information, domestic market, simplification of legislation

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/5

6.4.
to study the possibility of setting up a virtual school of
consumer education, drawing on new technologies and the
experience already gained by different countries in this area.
Account should also be taken of experience gained from
education at European level in the various stages of education,
e.g. the Erasmus project;

6.5.

to develop Commission proposals that:

— help make consumer education widely available so that

all European citizens can be educated and trained as
consumers, as is their right and duty;

— enable educational actions to be coordinated more effec-
tively and proper educational material to be drawn up,
including the use of the Internet, so as to take account of
the different characteristics of European consumers;
— provide training for trainers, adult consumers and vulner-

able groups;

— ensure that the members of consumer organisations and
other consumer bodies and institutions are given high-
quality ongoing training.

Brussels, 26 March 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Simplification’

(2003/C 133/02)

On 18 July 2002 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘Simplification’ (Single Market Observatory).

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 March 2003. The rapporteur was Mr Simpson.

At its 398th plenary session on 26 and 27 March 2003 (meeting of 26 March), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 81 votes in favour and two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1. When presenting the programme of the current Com-
mission to the European Parliament in February 2000 (1),
President Romano Prodi
identified ‘the promotion of new
forms of governance’ as one of the four strategic objectives of
this Commission’s term of office. This included a greater
degree of openness on the part of the Commission, simplifying
the body of Community law and reducing its volume, the
better involvement of civil society in the legislative process and
developing connectivity through networking. The objective of
these measures, in toto, was to achieve better law-making.
However, the Commission recognised that it could not act
alone in this endeavour.

1.2.
Since October 2000, the European Economic and
Social Committee (EESC) has issued three Opinions (2) on
the subject of simplifying and improving the regulatory
environment of the European Union, reflecting the importance
that it attaches to this topic. One of these Opinions (3) was
prepared at the instigation of the President of the Commission,
Romano Prodi. The EESC has also issued an Opinion on the
Commission’s 2002 Review of the Internal Market Strategy (4)
that dealt, inter alia, with simplification issues and recognised
their quintessential importance to the completion of a true
Internal Market.

( 1) COM(2002) 705 final.

(2) OJ C 14, 16.1.2001, OJ C 48, 21.2.2002 and OJ C 125,

27.5.2002.

(3) OJ C 125, 27.5.2002, p. 105.
(4) OJ C 241, 7.10.2002.

C 133/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

1.3.
The first of these Opinions (‘Simplifying Rules in the
single market’: rapporteur Mr Vever) (1) introduced the concept
of independent impact assessments, possibly prepared by an
external body, and proposed a number of specific measures. It
also recommended the adoption of codes of conduct by the
various players and set out a Code of Conduct for the EESC.

The

1.4.
rapporteur
second Opinion (‘Simplification’:
Mr Walker) (2) reiterated these proposals and made a number
of additional recommendations, including giving legislative
texts a finite life (‘sunset’ legislation), exempting SMEs from
some regulations or some parts of some regulations, codifying
existing legislation and speeding-up the simplification process.

for an independent body at

1.5.
In its third Opinion (‘Simplifying and Improving the
Regulatory Environment’: rapporteur Mr Walker) (3): the EESC
developed its proposal
the
European level and suggested that it might be modelled on the
Office of Regulatory Affairs in the USA. It also set out an
Action Plan for the Commission, the Council, the European
Parliament, the EESC, the Committee of the Regions and the
Member States. In addition, it proposed a number of further
measures.

A synthesis of the observations and recommendations
is contained in

1.6.
contained in these previous Opinions
Appendix 1.

1.7.
In addition, the EESC held a hearing on 10 September
2002, under the auspices of its Single Market Observatory, on
the topic of,
‘Simplifying Single Market Rules — Which
Priorities?’

1.7.1.
position in earlier years:

The hearing concluded that,

in contrast

to the

— simplification is now seen as a topic of interest to all

groups in society;

1.7.2.
In connection with this hearing, the EESC sent a
questionnaire to a wide range of socio-economic organisations
this survey
and other single market-users. The results of
showed that:

— 65 % of respondents think that European legislation is

unnecessarily complex;

— 60 % support the Commission’s Action Plan but the other

40 % do not think that it goes far enough;

— 90 % think that national legislation is too complex and
that simplification measures must be undertaken at
national level if the EU simplification plan is to succeed;

— 75 % support the idea of more self-regulation or co-

regulation.

1.8.
The unsatisfactory nature of the present regulatory
environment is widely acknowledged, not least by the Com-
mission, which has committed itself to achieving real and
lasting improvements. The EESC commends and supports this
intention but considers that such a goal is beyond the reach of
the Commission alone. Its realisation will require a meaningful
level of commitment from the European Parliament, the
Council and the Member States and the concerted efforts of all
of them, acting in partnership. The Committee welcomes this
further opportunity of lending its active support to such a
process.

As Commissioner Bolkestein (4) has said,
‘Markets
1.9.
cannot work without rules but bad rules are a burden that we
cannot afford to bear.’ He advocated that, ‘Regulation should
be rolled back .... competition is our best friend .... emphasis
on rules too often suffocates competition.’ In declaring that
rules needed to be simplified as a priority he said that,
‘We
must increase the speed of rule-making; legislation lags behind
the market; we are in danger of imposing yesterday’s rules on
tomorrow’s economy.’

— the broad inclusion of actors and the harnessing of
different methodologies (including co- and self-regu-
lation) is necessary to make simplification work; and

2. The Commission’s Communication

— the over-riding question now is how to put simplification

into practice.

2.1.
Recently, the Commission has published a Communi-
cation to the European Parliament and the Council in four
documents, which makes formal proposals for changes to the
way in which the Community governs itself. The first of these

( 1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2001.
( 2) OJ C 48, 21.2.2002.
( 3) OJ C 125, 27.5.2002.

(4) Speaking at the hearing on Simplification held under the auspices

of the SMO at the EESC building on 10 September 2002.

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/7

documents is a summary Communication (1) reviewing the
basic concepts and ideas and is supported by three other more
detailed Communications (2) on particular aspects of
the
proposals.

(3)

a more systematic approach to assessing the impact of
initiatives (8).

The details of the Commission’s proposals under these

2.6.
headings are summarised in Appendix 2.

The Commission has prepared these Communications
2.2.
in the knowledge that the simplification and better governance
of the Community is, in itself, a desirable objective but that
the conclusions of the Laeken Convention and the Inter-
Governmental Conference (IGC), which will follow in 2004,
may have further implications for governance.

3. General comments

These Communications have identified improvements
2.3.
that can and should be made within the present legislative
framework without detracting from the significance of, or
waiting for, the proposals that will emerge from the Conven-
tion on the Future of Europe for submission to the IGC. The
Commission believes that the proposals in the Communi-
cations should come into force at the beginning of 2003 (3).
The Communications should be read and understood in the
context of the White Paper on European Governance (4) that
was published in July 2001.

That White Paper set out key assumptions about the
2.4.
failings and weaknesses of the present systems of governance
and the need for change. These emphasised, inter alia, a lack
of understanding by citizens of the working of the EU. The
Commission considers that the measures now proposed are
necessary to ‘strengthen the credibility of the Community in
the eyes of its citizens (5)’.

The

2.5.
approaches to improvements:

recent Communications

emphasise

three

(1)

an action plan (5) for the improvement of law making
through the European institutions (6) and Member States
by simplifying and improving the regulatory environ-
ment;

(2)

improving the process of consultation through the pro-
motion of a stronger culture of dialogue and participation
by interest groups (7); and

( 1) COM(2002) 275 final, 5.6.2002.
( 2) COM(2002) 276-278 final.
( 3) COM(2002) 275 final, para. 6.
( 4) COM(2001) 428 final.
( 5) COM(2002) 278 final — Introduction.
( 6) An apparent omission is that the Commission refers only to the
Council and the Parliament. It does not refer to the EESC or the
Committee of the Regions.

( 7) COM(2002) 277 final.

3.1.
In its previous opinions, the EESC has indicated its
acceptance of the need for regulation and made plain the fact
that it does not necessarily equate improving the regulatory
environment with a process of deregulation. It does, however,
share the Commission’s concerns that poor-quality regulation
is hindering economic development and undermining the
quest for full employment by imposing unnecessary com-
pliance burdens on business, and especially small businesses.

3.1.1.
Frequently, poor-quality regulation also has the
defect of failing to meet its regulatory objectives. Additionally,
poor-quality regulations (or legislation) may mean that the
Courts are asked to make an interpretation which can be an
expensive process, time consuming, and may not meet the
original intentions of those who developed the legislation.

3.2.
As the EESC has pointed out in its Opinion on the
2002 Review of the Internal Market Strategy (‘Delivering the
promise’) (9), poor quality regulation is costing the European
Union upwards of EUR 1 000 billion per annum.

It is not just businesses that suffer the negative impact
3.3.
of poor-quality regulation; national administrations and citi-
zens in their daily lives are also adversely affected. These
undesirable consequences stem primarily from the complexity
of
in turn, derives
from two sources, which constitute separate but related
simplification issues that need to be tackled in different ways.

the regulatory environment and this,

The first of these stems from the obscure, convoluted
3.3.1.
and sometimes downright contradictory nature of legislative
texts. This may be due on occasion to poor legal draughts-
manship in the original document, sometimes even requiring
the intervention of the courts to interpret the legislators’
intentions. More often, it is attributable to the piecemeal way
in which a large body of European legislation has evolved,
with amendments to legal texts, amendments to the amend-
ments and legislation which is seen to be needed to meet
specific circumstances being tacked on to instruments which
were not conceived for that purpose in the first place.

(8) COM(2002) 276 final.
(9) OJ C 241, 7.10.2002, p. 180.

C 133/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

3.3.1.1. Most often, it emanates from the amendments to
the original texts that are promulgated in the European
Parliament and/or the Council in an attempt to obtain sufficient
consensus to ensure that the legislation is enacted. These
amendments frequently have the additional effect of negating
the impact assessments that were carried out in relation to the
original proposals.

The net effect of all this is to create distortions of
3.3.4.
competition and discourage intra-Community trade.
It is
virtually impossible for businesses, and especially small busi-
nesses, to understand the extent of their legal obligations when
trading with a Member State in which they are not established;
too often, faced with the complexities and risks involved, they
simply prefer not to avail themselves of the opportunity.

3.3.1.2.
Another major constituent of this complexity is
the sheer volume of the corpus of legislation, both at European
and national levels, which makes it difficult to access for all
but the most specialised legal experts.

The second source of complexity comes from the
3.3.2.
widespread differences in the regulatory regimes of the Member
States, which have the effect of fragmenting the supposedly
single market into fifteen discrete legal
jurisdictions. This
results:

— partly from delays by the Member States in the transpos-

ing of Community legislation into national law;

The EESC has previously argued in two separate
3.4.
opinions (2) that the volume of direct EU legislation is relatively
low. The proportion of legislation which emanates directly
from the EU and directly affects individual citizens will vary
from country to country. However, the vast majority of
laws,
legislation is composed of a hierarchy of national
government ordinances, agency regulations, collectively-
agreed regulations and byelaws at regional, municipal and
local levels. This hierarchy is pyramidal in shape; the further
down one goes, so the volume of legislation increases, the
transparency diminishes and the consistency declines.

— partly from the fact that, in the process of transposition,
Member States interpret the legislation in the light of
their own legal customs and usage, in other words they
put a national ‘spin’ on it;

3.5.
Logically, therefore, the EESC supports the thrust of
the Commission proposals for a more informed decision-
making process based on more rigorous preliminary assess-
ments.

— partly from variations between Member States in the level

of enforcement of enacted legislation;

— partly from the derogations and exemptions which
Member States extract
from the negotiating process
which precedes the enactment of much Community
legislation; and

— partly from the insistence by Member States on the
observance of national agency regulations, established
business practices and traditions which, while they may
not have the force of law, are nevertheless treated as
mandatory.

In this context, the EESC notes with regret

the
3.3.3.
disappointing progress which has been made in the transpo-
sition of EU legislation into national
law in the Member
States (1). While transposition deficits have decreased markedly
over the last ten years, this trend has been reversed in the last
six months and two-thirds of Member States fail to meet the
target of a deficit of 1,5 %. The majority of them will have
their work cut out to meet the target of zero overdue Directives
by the Spring Council meeting of 2003. Meanwhile, the
number of infringement cases has increased considerably over
the last ten years and there has been little progress in reducing
the infringement cases involving misapplication of legislation.

The EESC has reservations about some aspects of the

3.6.
processes now being introduced.

3.6.1.
The introduction of the impact-assessment measures
and the wider consultation network has been presented in the
context of a European Union of 15 Member States. The
enlargement of the EU will make these changes more wide-
ranging and complex. In the early years, an expectation of
simplification may be blurred by the consequence of expan-
sion. Nevertheless, an improved understanding of the rationale
of EU regulation and legislation will be just as important in
the new Member States as for the present Members.

3.6.2.
Similarly, there is a danger that improved decision-
making at the centre of the Community may be achieved at
the risk of enhancing the perception of further centralisation
unless there are safeguards to ensure that the principle of
subsidiarity is protected and strengthened.

( 1) Internal Market Scoreboard No 11, November 2002.

(2) OJ C 48, 21.2.2002, p. 130 and OJ C 125, 27.5.2002, p. 105.

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/9

3.6.3.
The EESC notes that, whilst the proposed changes
may codify the preparation of legislation and regulation, these
changes (in themselves) do not introduce any steps to reduce
the amount of, and impact of, existing legislation. Simplifi-
cation through deregulation will call
for other proposed
actions.

3.7.
The EESC is well established as a conduit between
many aspects of organised civil society, the social partners
and the Commission. This relationship has proved mutually
beneficial to all the parties involved. The Commission has now
created an enhanced mechanism for consultation and is, in
part, relying on the new media/internet
to facilitate this
process.

To maximise the benefit

3.8.
to be gained, the EESC
recommends that the Commission should ensure that the
appropriate specialist sections of the EESC are able to draw on
consultative responses to strengthen the work of the Com-
mittee in preparing its opinions for the Commission. Possibly
the Parliament would wish to make a similar suggestion.

3.9.
This suggestion would call for appropriate administrat-
ive arrangements and also an acknowledgement of the impli-
cations for the time-tabling of the various stages of legislative
preparation.

3.10.
The EESC notes that it is encouraged by the Com-
mission to take a more proactive role (1) and signifies its
willingness to do so.

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission has
3.11.
committed itself (2) to be more transparent in the way in which
it exercises its right of initiative and take greater account
of diversities. In particular,
it welcomes the Commission’s
assurance (2) that it will endeavour to ensure that ‘the substance
of its legislative proposals are restricted to the bare essentials.’

3.12.
The EESC would stress the need to implement the
Commission’s proposals within the shortest possible time-
frame.

The Committee would point out that in the context
3.13.
of the simplification process the existing levels of European
standards,
including social, environmental and consumer
protection, should not be lowered. These standards should not
fall victim to the simplification process either through their
cancellation or through any changes to them.

4. Specific comments

4.1.
The EESC has consistently supported Commission
proposals for wider consultation. However, the formal consul-
tation process should not be limited to interlocutors of the
Commission’s own choosing. There is a need to engage all
stakeholders in the process. It is important to avoid a situation
where Commission proposals merely represent the shopping
lists of the most influential lobby groups. The consultation
the actors throw their
process will not work unless all
weight behind it. Small businesses and their representative
organisations need to be more pro-active and put more
resources into the process. Simplification will only work if it
takes into account the views of those who are affected by it.

if

4.1.1.
To ensure that the views of all the civil society players
concerned are taken into consideration, it is very important
not to exclude a priori specific organisations, and consequently
the people whom they represent, from the Commission’s
consultations. In other words, consultation should not be
limited solely to organisations with a European structure;
otherwise, civil society bodies will not be able to make an
input
there is no European umbrella organisation for
their sector or if they do not belong to such an umbrella
organisation. Rather,
the Commission should give greater
publicity to its legislative proposals and actively encourage
views from all directly concerned organisations (local, regional,
national and pan-European). All persons, organisations or
businesses which are, or are likely to be, affected by proposed
legislation have a legitimate locus in the consultation process
and the right to make their voice heard.

The EESC has already recommended (3) that the
4.1.1.1.
consultation process should be widened by inviting sub-
missions from all interested parties so that consultation should
be effectively at the option of the consultee. It advocates that
full use should be made of the Internet to provide ease of
access for this purpose.

4.1.1.2.

The EESC shares the Commissions concerns (2):

— to ensure the quality and particularly the equity of
consultations leading up to major political proposals;

— to systematise and rationalise the wide range of consul-

tation practices;

— to guarantee the feasibility and effectiveness of

the

process;

( 1) COM(2002) 277 final, Section II.
( 2) COM(2002) 275 final.

(3) OJ C 125, 27.5.2002.

C 133/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

— to ensure the transparency of consultation from the point

of view of the bodies or persons consulted; and

a revision clause, to its legislative proposals. It endorses the
Commission’s concern to preserve legal certainty for operators
when applying this process.

— to demonstrate accountability by making public, as far as
possible, the results of the consultation and the lessons
that have been learned.

4.2.
The EESC accepts that a process of wider consultation
may extend the time interval between the introduction of a
legislative proposal and its eventual enactment but considers
that time spent in ex-ante consultation is time gained, not lost,
because it leads to a greater degree of consensus and wider
acceptability of legislative proposals.

4.3.
Presumably, it is implicit in the new system that the
EESC would be consulted about the content of the main
policy-impact assessments but the Committee suggests that
this should be acknowledged explicitly.

The EESC reiterates its conviction that impact assess-
4.4.
ments should be prepared for all legislative proposals but, as it
has already indicated (1), the impact assessments prepared by
the Commission are frequently invalidated by amendments to
the draft legislation that are introduced in the European
Parliament or the Council. There is no point in improving the
quality of Commission impact assessments, and requiring their
universal application,
they are negated by subsequent
amendments to the text. It is, therefore, essential that both in
the Parliament and the Council, where a proposed amendment
would introduce changes not covered by the impact assess-
ment, it should be supported by an impact assessment and
that these assessments should be drawn up at least to the same
standards as those submitted by the Commission.

if

4.4.1.
The EESC reiterates its position that there is a need
for an independent, inter-institutional body to monitor the
process of impact assessment. It also considers that this process
should be based on a system of Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA).

4.4.2.
The EESC endorses the Council’s recommendation
that impact assessments should be made publicly available. It
also welcomes the Commission’s intention (1)
to prepare
impact assessments in line with the European sustainable
development strategy.

The EESC warmly welcomes

4.5.
the Commission’s
decision (2) to add, where appropriate, a review clause, or even

In addition to widespread consultation in the formu-
4.6.
lation stage of the legislative process there is a need for
systematic and formalised ex-post consultation procedures.
Small businesses, in particular, are unlikely to get involved in
ex-ante consultations because most of them are too concerned
with their day-to-day problems to be aware of the existence of
pending legislation but they will provide feedback on the
impact of legislation once it has come into force; much the
same applies to the smaller and less well-organised civil society
bodies. This ex-post feedback should then be used to refine
and improve the process of preparing subsequent impact
assessments.

4.7.
This year marks the tenth anniversary of the introduc-
tion of the single market and simplification has been on the
European agenda for the whole of that time but there is very
little evidence of any practical progress. This is particularly
true in relation to the acquis communautaire, which currently
runs to some 85 000 pages. Much of this is of such impen-
etrable obscurity that it leaves many people confused and
contributes in no small measure to a feeling of disenchantment
with the concept of ‘Europe’. The process of codification could
reduce this text to around 22 000 pages, a reduction of the
order of 75 %.

4.7.1.
It is regrettable that this work was not initiated in the
earliest stages of the enlargement process in order to reduce
the burden imposed on the candidate countries in fulfilling
their obligation to adopt the acquis. The Commission needs to
embark on a concerted programme of codification as a matter
of urgency. As Mr Patrick Cox, the President of the European
Parliament, has said (3), ‘We have created a legal jungle ... there
is no single area of public policy which has been subjected to
a single act of codification.’ Despite the Commission’s good
intentions, one is left with the impression that they are too
busy adding to the acquis to have any time for codifying or
simplifying it.

4.8.
In the context of the single market it is preferable
that European legislation should be promulgated by way of
Regulations rather than Directives because the former, being
binding, are not susceptible to mutation in the transposition
process and therefore do not give rise to distortions in intra-
Community trade, as is the case with Directives. The EESC is

( 1) COM(2002) 275 final.
( 2) COM(2002) 278 final.

(3) In an address to the Plenary Session of the EESC on 19 September

2002.

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/11

aware that it is frequently more difficult and protracted to
secure agreement in the Council for Regulations, because of
their binding nature, but considers that the measure of success
is not the speed of passing legislation but its impact on the
real economy. The EESC hopes that the Laeken Convention on
the Future of Europe will address this issue.

4.9.
The EESC is pleased to note that a rolling programme
of review for simplification and the reduction in volume of the
acquis is about to be launched (1) and it calls upon the Council,
the European Parliament and the Member States to cooperate
fully in this programme in order to deliver meaningful results
within the shortest possible timescale.

4.10.
In order to be effective, this programme will require
the active cooperation of the Council, the European Parliament
and the Member States to process the amending legislation in
a timely and accurate manner. As the latest Internal Market
Scoreboard shows (1), the record of the Member States in this
regard does not augur well for the prospects of persuading
them to cooperate effectively in a process of simplification and
reform of the regulatory environment; if their performance
does not improve, attempts to reduce the volume of the acquis
by a process of codification or recasting of legislation are likely
to worsen the situation rather than improve it.

4.11.
The EESC finds it unconscionable that, on average,
the elapsed time between the introduction of a legislative
proposal by the Commission and its eventual incorporation in
the statute books of the Member States is eight years (2). It
therefore agrees with the Commission on the desirability of
speeding up the process of law-making.

In its previous Opinions, the EESC has consistently
4.12.
stressed the need for legislation to be accessible to those whom
it affects. It is therefore pleased to note the Commission’s
intention to improve the accessibility and transparency of
Community legislation, whether in preparation or already
adopted, by expanding public access to EUR-Lex (3) and
exploring other options, such as Internet forums.

( 1) COM(2002) 705 final.
( 2) Commission presentation to the EESC’s Single Market Observ-

atory, 18 December 2002.

( 3) http:/www.Europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html

5. Debate in the Council of Ministers

5.1.
The Commission proposals, as outlined in the four
documents of the Communications, have now been considered
by the Council of Ministers in the format of the Competi-
tiveness Council (4). In a discussion and resolution on Simpler
Legislation, the Council has welcomed the Action Plan, the
proposals for systematic consultation of interested parties and
the use from 2003 of impact assessments to be attached to all
substantial regulatory proposals. The Council recommends
these impact assessments should be made publicly
that
available.

The Council also endorsed the call for Member States

5.2.
to play their full parts in the processes.

Perhaps with some significance,

5.3.
the Council con-
clusions are less than explicit in reference to the actions and
commitments of the Council itself. In a rather more general
statement the Council states its intention to provide ‘fresh
impetus’ and requests the Permanent Representatives Com-
mittee to ‘give due consideration to setting up a working party
on better regulation’ (et al).

The Council may be understandably reluctant

5.4.
to
comment on, or make decisions on, the current decision-
making relationships between the Council and the Com-
mission before there is greater clarity in the conclusions
expected from the Convention on the Future of Europe and
the following IGC.

5.5.
The EESC would, however, wish to restate its support
for a more streamlined executive decision-making structure
within the European institutions and, in particular, improved
systems within the Commission, including a strong degree of
internal monitoring. The proposed Action Plan outlines poss-
ible administrative changes that would command support.

5.6.
The debate on simplification of the means of govern-
ance and better regulation has moved dramatically in the past
year. This momentum must be continued in the preparation
and follow through to the IGC in 2004.

6. The need for Partnership Agreements

6.1.
One of the reasons why there has been so little progress
to date has been the failure to create partnership. What is
needed are not only partnerships at the Council level, where
they will be difficult to achieve, but also with the other
institutions. Further agreement is needed at the administrative
level within and between the institutions and the Member
States to implement the principles of simplification.

(4) Press statement on the conclusions of the Council on 30 Septem-

ber 2002.

C 133/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

6.1.1.
It has to be recognised that not everyone shares the
same objectives but this should not be allowed to inhibit the
development of an atmosphere of trust, cooperation and
mutual confidence between the various players. This spirit
needs to be formalised and encapsulated in partnership
agreements. The various players need to enter into commit-
ments to consult and liaise with each other.

6.2.
In order to make a positive contribution to the
implementation of the process of simplifying and improving
the regulatory environment, objectives which have too often
been frustrated in the past by a combination of indifference
and self-interest, these agreements must involve the acceptance
of binding commitments by all the signatories to work actively
and expeditiously for the achievement of the agreed objectives.
There is a need to inculcate a culture of dialogue and
participation.

7. Conclusions

The EESC wishes to stress the seriousness of the issues
7.1.
related to simplification, better
regulation and improved
governance and the importance of finding an effective solution
to the identified problems in this area within the near future.
It reiterates that it does not see this primarily as a deregulatory
issue. The choice is not only between regulation and self-
regulation but between good, harmonised regulation and
poor-quality, fragmented regulation at both the European and
Member State levels.

7.1.1.
It is not just a question of simplification but of
legislative effectiveness and legal certainty. Simplification needs
to be implemented as a matter of urgency but,
to be
effective, it must be a continuous and permanent process and
transparency is the key to its success. There is a need to engage
all the stakeholders in every aspect of the process. The EESC
therefore strongly supports the Commission’s proposals for
wider consultation; this should include ex post consultation
and a preparedness to use this feedback to improve the process
of preparing subsequent periodic impact assessments.

7.1.2.
The EESC broadly supports the proposals contained
in the Commission documents and particularly welcomes the
extension of regular impact assessments to the Commission’s
annual work programme.

Brussels, 26 March 2003.

7.2.
The codification of the acquis communautaire, which
could bring about a dramatic reduction in its volume and a
commensurate improvement in its clarity, coherence, accessi-
bility and effectiveness, is a process that is long overdue. It
should be initiated without further delay and prosecuted with
determination and perseverance.

The success of the simplification initiative will depend,
7.3.
inter alia on the formation and execution of an effective
partnership agreement between all the players involved in the
legislative process at both the European and Member State
levels and a resolve to use their best endeavours to achieve the
stated objectives.

7.4.
The EESC advocates that impact assessments should be
based on a formal system of Regulatory Impact Analysis. Their
preparation should be a mandatory requirement for all bodies
that exercise legislative powers, whether of
initiation or
amendment, at both the European and Member State levels. If
amendments to the draft legislation invalidate the original
impact assessment, these amendments should be supported by
an amended impact assessment.

The EESC applauds the Commission’s resolution (1)
7.5.
to bring the principles of accountability, proportionality,
transparency and legal certainty to bear in improving the
regulatory environment. Governance which lacks these prin-
ciples cannot be truly democratic. The EESC calls upon the
European Parliament and the Council to commit themselves
firmly in the same direction. As the Commission says (1),
the achievement of better law-making is a veritable ethical
requirement.

7.6.
At the Lisbon Summit meeting in March 2000, the
European Union adopted the mission statement, to become
within ten years, the most competitive and dynamic know-
ledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustaining
economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social
cohesion. The improvement of the regulatory environment
and the removal of distortions in the single market caused by
differences in regulatory regimes are essential to the realisation
of that ambition.

In the final analysis, the success of this project will
7.7.
depend upon the existence of the necessary political will to
carry it through. It is to be hoped that this political will exists.

(1) COM(2002) 275 final.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH