Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on  Better lawmaking
Date: 2005-09-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU law, drafting of EU law, simplification of legislation

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/39

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Better lawmaking’

(2006/C 24/12)

On 7 February 2005, Denis McShane, the United Kingdom Minister of State for Europe, on behalf of the
UK presidency of the EU Council, asked the European Economic and Social Committee to draw up an
exploratory opinion on: Better Lawmaking.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 27 July 2005 (rapporteur: Mr Daniel Retureau).

At its 420th plenary session, held on 28 and 29 September 2005 (meeting of 28 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 105 votes to three with eight absten-
tions.

1. Summary of the opinion

1.2 How to improve the quality of Community legislation

1.1 What is meant by ‘Better lawmaking’?

1.1.1
Better lawmaking is a real social requirement, and the
EESC will relay to the European institutions and governments
the needs of civil society and users of the law in this regard.

1.1.2
Better lawmaking means, primarily, looking at a situa-
tion from the viewpoint of the user of the legal instrument.
This explains the importance of a participatory approach,
involving preliminary consultation and taking account of the
representative nature of civil society organisations and social
partners — the groups directly affected by legislation — and
constructively employing the resources and expertise of consul-
tative institutions.

1.1.3
It also means less lawmaking, combating legislative
inflation and simplifying the acquis since too much legislation
makes the law difficult to understand, thus creating barriers to
trade; it also means ensuring that implementation of the rules
will be effective and simple.

1.1.4
Better lawmaking means reducing legislation to its
essentials and concentrating on the objectives. It also means
designing flexible, adaptable legislation that
sufficiently
durable and that also requires a disciplined approach and,
above all, consistency in drafting and implementation.

is

1.1.5
Simplifying means reducing the complexity of the law
as much as possible, but it does not necessarily have to mean a
drastic cut-back in the body of Community law or deregulation,
which would run counter
society's expectations
regarding security and the need, voiced by business, particularly
SMEs, for legal certainty and stability.

to civil

1.1.6
explicitly repealed.

All laws or parts of laws that are obsolete must be

1.2.1
Every DG of the Commission, in proportion to the
number of texts falling within its remit and their complexity
(measurable, for example, by the total number of lines and
references to other previous legislation and the attendant
administrative obligations), should propose a simplification
programme to be included in the Commission's overall
programme, explaining the need for and the foreseeable impact
of its proposals on users of the proposed simplifying legisla-
tion. This programme will propose measures for each group of
adopted texts (repeal, revision, coordination, …), as well as the
estimated resources necessary for its implementation.

An annual consolidated report by the Commission on
1.2.2
Simplifying the acquis and better lawmaking will report on the
programme adopted for the year and on the effective imple-
mentation of the previous year's programme, as well as the
situation resulting from its rolling mid-term simplification
programme and its work programme. EU and national develop-
ments in simplification and better legislation will be analysed
and accompanied by new proposals and recommendations, if
necessary. A proliferation of reports and communications —
that coincide or overlap — should be avoided.

1.2.3
The power of initiative is not neutral; it has a deter-
mining influence on the choice of priorities and purposes of
the legislation, its preparation and adoption, its reformulation if
the legislative authorities put forward amendments; the quality
and relevance of the legislative proposals have direct conse-
quences on the duration and outcome of the adoption proce-
dure. If an initiative is badly prepared, it entails a significant
waste of time and resources for all the institutions concerned,
as well as the organisations consulted.

1.2.4
The quality of the adopted text at the end of the legis-
lative procedure and that of the transposition of directives also
have consequences in terms of disputes and the need for the
intervention of national and Community judicial authorities,
additional costs for national administrations and parties to the
proceedings, if there are deficiencies or lead to difficulties of
interpretation.

C 24/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

1.2.5
The Commission and the legislative authorities are not
omniscient: the social, economic and technological situation is
complex and changing. Furthermore, radically changing a law
or making it more flexible, where its practical effects differ
from the desired objectives or where the cost of implementa-
tion is excessive for administration or users, does not mean
weakening the legislative authority; quite the opposite — it
demonstrates political
intelligence likely to build confidence
among users and foster respect for the law.

1.2.6
Assessment, launched ahead of the legislative process,
must therefore come to a close with an impact assessment or
study, which assesses how the legislation can actually be
received, how it fits in with the existing body of law, and any
potential implementation difficulties.

1.2.7 Where the European Commission withdraws legisla-
tive proposals that are already being examined, it should justify
its decision to end the legislative procedure already underway
and consult legislative and consultative institutions as well as
the civil society organisations involved in the process or whose
interests are affected by withdrawal.

1.2.8
Legislative assessment, both ex ante and ex post, must
be an inclusive and participatory exercise if it is to have undis-
puted political and practical
legitimacy. While ex ante assess-
ment precedes, then accompanies the drafting process, ex post
assessment takes place in two stages: first during the transposi-
tion of directives or enforcement of regulations, during which
the first acceptance and enforcement difficulties become
apparent; then during the actual impact assessment which takes
place after a predetermined period of implementation on the
ground and which may highlight unforeseeable or undesirable
consequences.
Impact assessments may involve feedback on
legislation and the ways in which it is implemented (1).

Negative or unforeseen consequences

1.2.9
can differ
widely: their evaluation in terms of excessive costs on the part
of administration or users must be complemented by a study of
impact, or in the
their social, economic and environmental
light of fundamental rights.

It

is necessary to evaluate the exercise of

imple-
1.2.10
menting powers: both Community (direct application, comi-
tology of regulation, regulatory agencies) and national (minis-
tries, devolved authorities, independent administrative authori-
ties), their impact (administrative formalities required of users,
cost, complexity) and the effectiveness of monitoring or any
sanctions. The legislative authorities must be able to carry out a
follow-up to this exercise which combines regulation and
implementation.

(1) The method proposed here differs from that of the Commission,
which plans to carry out impact assessments essentially during the
planning and drafting of legislation. The EESC believes that a partici-
patory assessment of national transpositions and of the real impact
of the legislation after being implemented for some time could
complement and strengthen the assessment system, by providing
better information about the situation on the ground. It will thus be
possible to establish whether the legislative action has achieved its
intended objectives.

1.2.11 Member States must also develop and perfect their
own instruments
to the
Commission and the national
legislative authority on the
results, highlighting the successes and problems encountered.

for evaluation, and then report

1.2.12
A policy for coordination, information and exchange
of national best practice, the regular publication of transposi-
tion tables, as stipulated in the Commission decision, as well as
the scoreboard showing the progress of the internal market,
will permit effective follow-up and corrections.

1.2.13
The European Economic and Social Committee, as it
undertook in October 2000 (Code of Conduct), will continue
to issue an annual opinion to the Commission on the global
report Simplifying the acquis and better lawmaking as well as on
the communications and various sectoral reports presented by
the Commission on simplifying the acquis and the quality of
legislation.

1.3 Conclusion

1.3.1
The EESC considers the task of simplifying the Com-
munity body of law and making it more consistent and relevant
not only to be a matter of methods and techniques, but a
issue that requires intense interinstitutional
deeply political
involvement, with just as high a degree of participation and
support from organised civil society.

OPINION

2. Introduction

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)
2.1
has been asked by the UK EU Presidency for an opinion on
Better Lawmaking; it has also been asked to issue an opinion on
the Commission's 12th report on simplifying Community law,
and it has taken into account the Communication on Better
Lawmaking, Growth and Employment which followed on from the
European Council on the review of the Lisbon Strategy, as well
as the recent Commission decision on the transposition of
Directives.

The EESC's suggestions do not call

2.2
into question the
Community method, based on the rule of law; this method has
been reaffirmed and consolidated in the draft Constitutional
Treaty,
in addition to being enhanced by the addition of a
procedure for the direct involvement of civil society in the
power of initiative. The suggestions are essentially based on the
Conclusions of 1992 Edinburgh European Council, the White
Paper on Governance and the Lisbon Strategy (2000-2001),
and the interinstitutional agreement of 16 December 2003 and
they take into account the work done on the initiative of six
presidencies and the Council.

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/41

2.3
However, the suggestions stress participation by civil
society in the process of drawing up, assessing and subse-
quently revising legislation. The EESC's views and proposals on
the subject and the quality of draft legislation seek to contribute
constructively to the improvement of the legal and administra-
tive environment for business and the general public.

2.4
The EESC recognises the need for better lawmaking and
welcomes every initiative to this end. It stresses, however, that
not all legislation should be considered pointless or an impedi-
ment to the EU adapting to the challenges that face it. More-
over,
the Commission is the guardian of the Community's
interest and the engine of European integration, and the EESC
could not support any process which would result
in the
Commission renouncing the right of initiative which it uses to
promote an 'ever closer union among the peoples of Europe'.

I. BETTER LAWMAKING: WHAT DOES IT INVOLVE?

3. Better lawmaking: a priority Community strategy

3.1
Better lawmaking means contributing to better govern-
ance and simpler, more understandable legislation, that gives
the European institutions a better image in the eyes of civil
society in terms of their ability to act effectively; it thus means
re-establishing civil society's confidence in those institutions
that make the rules.

3.2
The principle of equality before the law is at present
under threat from the complexity and number of rules in force
and difficult access to applicable law and law in preparation;
however, the need for legislation to be intelligible and acces-
sible must be the guiding principle in both simplifying the
acquis and drafting new legislative proposals.

end-users,

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as solemnly
3.3
proclaimed in Nice in 2000, asserts the right of European citi-
zens to good administration; provision of information to, and
participation of,
legislative
proposal
recourse to independent and reliable
implementation of the principles of proportionality
experts,
and subsidiarity, quality of the legislation, its implementation
or execution, and administrative simplification — these are
vital prerequisites if a law is to be effective in the eyes of those
affected by it.

ensuring that

is needed,

the

3.4
The two priorities — simplification of the acquis and
better lawmaking — alongside the EU actions undertaken to
this end, share the same objective — good governance — and
require sufficient resources; they should be integrated into the
law-making process and implementation of the law. Once the

process is well-established, it must be supported politically with
adequate resources.

3.5
Simplification of the acquis and improvement of the
quality and effectiveness of legislation have become a top Com-
munity priority for competitiveness, growth and employment,
sustainable development, quality of life for the people of the
European Union and in order to facilitate the activities of Euro-
pean businesses in the internal market and in trade with third
countries.

3.6
However, the work and the initiatives undertaken are
still far from bearing full fruit; the lack of success of the Lisbon
Strategy up till now, the acknowledgements and proposals of
the Wim Kok report, and its revival on the part of the Euro-
pean Council have necessarily led to a re-assessment of the
strategy followed since 1992, which has been enhanced since
2001 by the institutions and Member States in order to
improve legislation and its execution.

The EESC shares the Commission's opinion that an
is
re-assessment of needs and available resources

3.7
overall
required. This also applies at national level.

Europe's

difficulties

in terms of

3.8
competitiveness,
achieving a knowledge-based economy and on the political
front in terms of transparency, participation, effectiveness and
acceptance of legislation at grass-roots level and by businesses
require decisive strengthening, even — in some aspects — a
redefinition of the methods used alongside a reallocation of
resources earmarked for better lawmaking in the Europe of 25,
which will, incidentally, continue to enlarge in the future.

3.9
The Commission's current strategy is clearly based on
two communications published in March 2005 (2) and should
be completed over the current year by the proposal for an
operating framework for agencies. This framework should, in
the EESC's view, be limited to issuing guidelines, without
impinging on the autonomy of agencies which are already
monitored by the Court of Auditors in implementing their
budgets and by the courts in the event of disputes.

The 12th report on Better lawmaking 2004 (3) refers to:
3.10
the Commission's action plan on simplifying and improving
the regulatory environment, the interinstitutional agreement on
better law-making of December 2003 (4) and the Member
States'
intergovernmental action
in the
programme adopted in May 2002 by ministers of public
administration. In its 11th report Better lawmaking 2003 (5), the
Commission stated its aims, which — moreover — are given in
detail in eight thematic communications (6).

strategy set out

(2) COM(2005) 97 final of 16.3.2005 and COM(2005) 98 final of

21.3.2005.

(3) COM(2005) 98 final of 21.3.2005.
(4) OJ C 321, 31.12.2003.
(5) COM(2003) 770 final of 12.12.2003.
(6) In particular The operating framework for the European Regulatory Agen-

cies COM(2002) 718 final.

C 24/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

3.11
The Commission's action plan stems from experts'
preparatory work and the 2001 White Paper on European
governance, and the group's work on the quality of the regu-
lation implemented in 2000 by the ministers of public adminis-
tration; a sufficiently broad consensus now exists.

Improvement of the Community acquis through simpli-
3.12
fication is an essential objective for the Commission, which has
adopted a methodology and the means to achieve it.

3.13
Since the process launched by the 1992 Edinburgh
Council on simplification and observance of the proportionality
and subsidiarity principles began, the follow-up and progress of
which have already been recorded in twelve annual reports, the
Commission has also made outline provisions for prior consul-
tation procedures, the management of impact assessments and
the quality and procedures for drafting new legislation. Yet
progress — however real — is still felt to be far from sufficient
for users of the law.

3.14
The Council's initiative for better lawmaking, underway
since the Irish presidency, was addressed in the 2004 declara-
tion by the six presidencies on better lawmaking (7). November
2004's Competitiveness Council identified twenty or so legisla-
tive acts
simplification and
continued its work on this in February 2005; the Commission
undertook the task of fleshing out these guidelines; success is
essential.

into 15 priorities)

(split

for

Member States, which can make use of a greater variety of
measures.

4.2
Improvements in legislation (both existing and future)
should focus not only on simplification, but also the consistent
use of legal concepts and clarity of drafting, particularly in
areas where the law is developing most rapidly, and in heavily
legislated or complex areas, for example internal market and
environmental legislation, transport policy and statistics.

4.3
The Lisbon Strategy, particularly the need to improve
competitiveness and the objective of better European govern-
ance (10), makes it necessary to examine the regulatory function
and its exercise as well as the impact of European legislation
on Member States (legislation and administration), in order to
ensure more uniform application of the law and legislative
consistency,
in turn ensuring a level playing field for the
internal market. For this to happen, transpositions must not
add unnecessary provisions or complicate directives.

4.4
The Lisbon European Council had already asked the
Commission, the Council and the Member States to draw up
for 2001 a strategy aiming — by coordinated action — to
simplify the regulatory environment (11). It also highlighted the
need for new, more flexible methods of regulation.

In its communication Better Regulation for Growth and
3.15
Jobs in the European Union (8)
the Commission redefined its
2002 approach in connection with the revision of the Lisbon
Strategy.

The EESC believes that these new methods of regulation
4.5
— which it supports (12) — will entail more direct and more
permanent participation by civil society in legislative action,
either in cooperation with the institutions, or more autono-
mously (co-regulation and self-regulation), as provided for in
the interinstitutional agreement of December 2003.

3.16
The ESSC — as institutional representative of organised
civil society — is also determined to contribute from the outset
and much more actively to the initiative to give Europe better,
clearer, more coherent and effective legislation in order to
respond to the legitimate expectations of the general public
and businesses. The protocol (9) concluded with the Commis-
sion enables it to hold consultations on legislative proposals. In
this respect its opinions must be more incisive and primarily
adopt the perspective of those affected by legislation.

4. Basis for a strategy for better lawmaking in Europe

4.1
under the legal

Legislation is the main means of Community action,
framework set out by the Treaties, unlike

(7) Advancing Regulatory Reform in Europe,

December 2004.
(8) COM(2005) 97.
(9) Concluded 24 September 2001.

joint

statement 7

Since the economy is becoming more globalised and
4.6
less dependent on manufacturing (the digital economy and
knowledge-based society, patent and copyright issues, company
instruments and services) (13), new
audits and new financial
partnerships will be needed with social and economic players
(better use of employment committees, social dialogue, but also
perhaps to set up sectoral committees, or thematic working
groups, for instance), which would make it necessary to recon-
sider traditional procedures and instruments, or would imply
their simplification and adaptation to rapid market change and
needs in terms of innovation and investment and training and
research.

(10) Commission White Paper on European Governance, COM(2001)

428 final.

(11) The Commission responded to the Council's request in Communi-
cations COM(2002) 275 European Governance: Better lawmaking and
COM(2002) 278 Action plan on Simplifying and improving the regu-
latory environment of 6 February 2002.

(12) See the Information Report adopted by the EESC in February 2005
on the Current state of co-regulation and self-regulation in the Single
Market CESE 1182/2004 fin of 10.02.2005.

(13) Example of the Lamfalussy procedure in the regulation of financial

markets.

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/43

The Commission already practises consultation proce-
4.7
dures and impact assessments,
for which a road-map is
published annually, with the emphasis on costs/benefit analysis,
such as multi-criteria
but also including other methods,
analysis. The EESC feels that cost/benefit analysis alone is not
really an ideal tool for all areas and all consequences of legisla-
tion (e.g. public health, the environment). Indeed, the imple-
mentation of fundamental rights or general interest considera-
tions which by definition are difficult to assess in terms of cost-
benefit, is to be included in the analysis for certain projects.

4.12
It is difficult to estimate the costs of producing and
enforcing legislation, as well as its administrative and bureau-
cratic implications, but there is growing criticism, especially
from business, of the resulting — sometimes unnecessary —
requirements, difficulties, obstacles and procedures, which
some see as a serious hindrance to European competitiveness,
which thus echo the concerns of the Council and the Commis-
sion. These costs should be assessed for an objective approach
to the quality of legislation. The OECD estimates the cost of
implementing the law as between three and four per cent of
European GDP (21).

4.8
In addition to the Communication on Updating and
simplifying the Community acquis (14) which sets the frame-
work for action,
two more specific initiatives have been
launched on agricultural (15) and fisheries (2004) (16) legislation
respectively, which are particularly complex and undergoing
rapid development, also the Simplification of Legislation in the
Internal Market programme (SLIM) which has been in opera-
tion since 1996 and has yielded incomplete but encouraging
results, although rarely monitored by the Council and the
Parliament, to the point of seeming to have since been aban-
doned (17).

4.9
The interinstitutional agreement of 16 December 2003
between the Commission, the Parliament and the Council (18),
sets out to establish a new approach to the legislative function
among the institutions which opens up increased possibilities
in support of contract, co-regulation and self-regulation.
Arising from this agreement, the EESC has adopted an opinion
on simplification (19), and the above-mentioned information
report on alternative forms of regulation (20). Previously, the
EESC had particularly concentrated its attention on SLIM. The
implementation of the interinstitutional agreement should take
place, according to the Committee, by paying particular atten-
tion towards SMEs and by putting into practice the European
Charter for Small Enterprises.

4.10
It is sometimes claimed that more than half of the
legislation applicable in the Member States is of EU origin. In
2000, when preparatory work on governance was underway, it
was suggested that the acquis communautaire totalled 80,000
pages; today, other studies show a more moderate development
of the order of 10 % of new domestic legislation.

4.11
In any case, this legislation carries a cost in terms of
preparation, adaptation and implementation, not only for the
Union and its Member States, but also for businesses and indi-
viduals who are expected to know the law, to obey it, and to
follow specific
(implementation
administrative procedures
costs).

(14) COM(2003) 71 final of 11.2.2003.
(15) COM(2001) 48 final, report on simplification of agricultural legisla-

tion.

(16) COM(2004) 820 final of 15.12.2004.
(17) SLIM deals with the internal market only: the Commission plans to
define a horizontal methodology for all sectors; the publication of
new indications is planned for October 2005.

(18) OJ C 321 of 31.12.2003.
(19) OJ C 112, 30.4.2004, p. 4.
(20) CESE 1182/2004 fin.

But

legislation;

4.13
focussing solely on compliance costs and the
impact on competitiveness touches on only one aspect, a signif-
icant one admittedly, but not the only one or even the most
important (22). Nevertheless, it would be possible to envisage an
approach based on the best
this would entail
minimal implementation and compliance costs for the achieve-
ment of its objectives; this is a suggestion from the Mandelkern
report that the EESC would like to see applied, on an experi-
mental basis, to proposals with an impact on businesses, in par-
ticular SMEs. The Commission is already including the issue of
administrative costs in its approach and is currently working
on a pilot project to model such costs (EU Net Admin. Costs
model).

4.14
Legislating is a political action which — beyond the
EU institutions and governments — also affects organised civil
society and all Europeans. There is a great deal of criticism of
the opaqueness and complexity of procedures for drawing up
European law and their lack of transparency, as well as the
useless, unnecessary introduction of requirements or proce-
dures during the transposition of a directive (gold-plating).
These are convoluted administrative procedures which multiply
the obstacles, paperwork and costs for law end-users (red tape).
Moreover, NGOs and the social partners often complain about
the formal nature and the limitations of prior consultation
procedures, even though these require large-scale and costly
investment in terms of both time and expertise.

There are problems of institutional profile, governance
4.15
and democracy — as much for the institutions as for the
Member States; Europe's image and that of its institutions is at
stake; the institutions need to find quick and effective solutions;
at the same time the task is better to meet the challenges of
growth, employment and competitiveness
in Europe. The
Member States must also consider a reform of the state and its
administration, as they are also the target of criticism, and as
their active contribution to better global governance is vital.

(21) The IMF estimates it as 3 % of GDP; a study carried out by the
Federal Planning Bureau in 2000 put it at 2.6 % for Belgium. But
the Less is More report 8 March 2005) of the Better Regulation
Task Force puts it at 10 to 12 % of UK GDP, of which approx.
30 % of the total cost of regulation of administrative costs.

(22) Choosing not to legislate could also come at a cost, but this could
not be examined by an impact assessment. A recent Commission
document (staff paper) assesses the cost of the non-implementation
of the guidelines of the Lisbon Strategy.

C 24/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

4.16
This has a direct effect on the progress of the European
idea and EU integration, especially at a moment when the poli-
tical debate on the Constitutional Treaty is at the forefront of
public attention; we need to meet people's and civil society's
wish for clearer, higher-quality EU legislation and to strive to
make it simpler, while assessing of the bureaucratic burden of
implementation of the law on both administrations and busi-
ness.

typographic format — in subsidiary texts, with reference to the
main text.

5.7
If consolidation reveals internal contradictions, such as
definitions or wording that differ from one text to another, an
overall reformulation replacing the consolidated text should
therefore be submitted to the legislative authorities as quickly
as possible.

II. IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF EU LEGISLATION

5. Simplifying the acquis

5.1
In February 2003, the Commission launched a frame-
work of actions to reduce the volume of the Community acquis,
legislation and to simplify
to improve the accessibility of
existing legislation. On this basis, the Commission has devel-
oped a rolling programme for simplification and presented
about 30 initiatives which have simplification impacts for
economic operators, citizens and national administrations.
Today, 15 legislative proposals are still being considered for
adoption.

The EESC looks forward to the start of a new phase of
5.2
the Commission's simplification programme in October 2005.
This new phase should take account into the opinions of inter-
ested parties (see the public consultation opened on 1 June
2005 on the EUROPA website) and take a sectoral approach.

5.3
The EESC notes the importance of the implementation
of the Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making adopted in
in particular paragraph 36 concerning the
December 2003,
working methods used by the Council and the European Parlia-
ment in the discussion of proposals for simplified acts.

Any repeal or consolidation errors must be corrected

5.8
and published as rapidly as possible.

5.9
Routine use of consolidation is a continuous and effec-
tive means of simplification that can highlight the need to
consolidate or revise legislation to make it clearer and more
consistent; this greatly facilitates access to the law in force.

5.10
The EURlex and PRElex websites should allow access
to all applicable law; all consolidated texts with current force of
law must continue to be permanently included in EURlex.

However, after a certain time,

5.11
texts in force
become difficult to consult, because of the method of accessing
the Official Journals; this can hinder a thorough knowledge of
the acquis: this technical problem must be solved.

legal

6. The EESC's proposals for better lawmaking

6.1
law in
The PRElex website should allow access to all
preparation, while also placing the latter in its appropriate
context (the text of the law should be accompanied by assess-
ments, consultations, studies and explanations); when legisla-
tion in preparation refers to other directives or rules, a hyper-
link should be provided, irrespective of the publication date of
the Official Journal.

the consolidated version undoubted legal

Consolidation, essential to simplification, should legally
5.4
replace the scattered laws, assembling and harmonising them.
These previous laws should be explicitly repealed in order to
give
force, as
expected by those affected by the law. This requires formal
adoption of the consolidated texts by the legislative authorities,
unlike the consolidation carried out by the European Official
Publications Office, which is technical in nature and does not
offer the same guarantees of legal security, although it does
make the law easier to understand. Technical consolidation is
in fact preparation for legal consolidation.

All prior provisions which are in contradiction with

6.2
new legislation must be explicitly repealed or amended.

6.3 Most of the methods for improving lawmaking already
exist and are in use, but some of them need to be furthered
developed. Other methods or adjustments could be envisaged,
but
implementation should not unduly over-
burden or delay already complicated drafting procedures, parti-
cularly as the Constitutional Treaty makes co-decision the
ordinary legislative procedure.

their overall

5.5
The area of the law consolidated needs to be fairly
complete and stable, if it is carried out without any change to
the law; in some areas another form of consolidation can be
carried out when a partial recasting of the law in question has
become necessary.

Thus, the Commission proposes (COM 2005/097) to set

6.4
up two working bodies:

— a high-level group of national regulatory experts, helping to

implement the Better lawmaking process;

5.6
If a legal provision appears in more than one text, that
it appears in the main piece of legislation and — in a specific

— a network of scientific experts providing opinions on
in particular),

selected methodology (impact assessments,
on a case-by-case basis.

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/45

The Commission already has access to this kind of
6.5
expertise,
in terms of draft legislation; experience will show
whether formalising the access to expertise will bring added
value, compared to current practices.

7. Before legislation is drafted:

f) participatory democracy: alternative forms of regulation that
directly involve those affected by legislation; for legal instru-
ments, consultation mainly involving those civil society
stakeholders most directly concerned, effectively and to a
sufficient extent, both directly and via their representative
organisations, possibly requesting exploratory opinions
from the European Economic and Social Committee and/or
the Committee of
the Regions; using green and white
papers as preparatory tools, and using widespread consulta-
tion of civil society and the institutions; creating partner-
ships with civil society organisations; using methods of
communication to explain the objectives and the content of
the planned instruments.

a) defining the objectives of the legislation, on the basis of its
origin and existing law, including case-law of the European
Court of Justice (ECJ) in the relevant area; examining ways
of best achieving the planned objectives, while avoiding
legislative inflation and respecting the principles of propor-
tionality and subsidiarity;

8. Drawing up the draft legislation — the EESC's view

8.1 Impact assessments:

b) prioritising the objectives and defining priorities via sectoral
or horizontal measures;
in this
process; examining the need to legislate if the Treaties or
derived law do not provide the means to achieve the same
objectives;

the role of the Council

The EESC notes the adoption of new internal impact
8.1.1
analysis guidelines at the Commission, in force since 15 June
2005.

c) a medium-term plan (timetable, work plan) for achieving

the objectives set, using new partnerships;

d) deciding on the most appropriate legal act or acts for
achieving the objectives: directive (framework-law), regu-
lation (law), simplification (integrating new and existing law,
unifying legal concepts and definitions, systematic consoli-
dation of changes with the previous text, consolidation,
restatement: merging fragmented legislation in a revised and
simplified instrument), or regulation by alternative methods
supervised or non-supervised
(co-decision, coregulation,
self-regulation, contractual regulation);
integrating the aim
of simplification and clarification into every new legislative
procedure;

and their

foreseeable

to quantify in this way (e.g.

e) preliminary impact studies going beyond the cost/benefit
method in purely financial terms, particularly in those areas
difficult
environmental
measures: the impact on public health, biodiversity, air or
living and
water quality; social measures: participation,
working conditions
impact on
economic productivity and efficiency and social welfare); the
impact must be positive in terms of public or
overall
general interest (effectiveness of economic and social entitle-
ments,
the implementing procedures
should as far as possible avoid excessive constraints, dispro-
portionate costs (compliance costs) or controls and provi-
sions disproportionate to the goals set; although the finan-
cial calculation remains essential, it can in some cases be
reconsidered from the point of view of certain key political
objectives;

for example), but

Preliminary impact assessments, in line with the scope
8.1.2
and complexity of
the objectives pursued, should first be
tackled using the human resources and existing competences of
the DG or DGs carrying forward an initiative, as soon as the
objectives to be achieved by the legislation have been deter-
mined politically. This then would constitute the first approach
of the assessment.

8.1.3
The methodology and criteria used may reflect a
predefined standard, but which is also adapted to the require-
ments of each DG and of
Informal
consultations — on rules of application, objectives, the nature
of the instrument and its foreseeable impact — with some of
the most representative or affected organisations and national
experts can be considered at this stage, without jeopardising
the principle of open consultation as much.

in question.

the draft

8.1.4 What
the EESC describes as a ‘preliminary impact
assessment’ (23) could then be fine-tuned, either in-house or by
resorting to independent external expertise or national experts
according to the model proposed by the Commission (24).

The Committee insists that

8.1.5
give equal weight
Strategy — economic, social and environmental.

to the three dimensions of

impact analyses should
the Lisbon

(23) The difference between the EESC's

terminology (‘preliminary
impact assessment’) and that of the Commission (‘impact assess-
ment’) illustrates the different methodology proposed by the EESC.

(24) COM(2005) 97 final of 16.03.2005.

C 24/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

8.1.6
The EESC believes that in the process of drawing up
and applying legislation, core importance should be attached to
impact studies; these studies must no longer serve as necessary
administrative exercises, or having no added value.

consulted directly through traditional
(hearings, conferences,
requests for opinions) and electronic means (e-mail, question-
naire on the website of the relevant DG). Under protocols
concluded with them, consultative bodies could organise
certain consultation procedures: this practice should be devel-
oped.

It insists on the need for an impact assessment at least
8.1.7
for all draft
legislation affecting businesses or workers in
various economic sectors, and for all proposals relating to
codecision. It is necessary to substantiate the choice of legisla-
tive instrument or potential alternative to legislation (co-regu-
lation, contracts, self-regulation) as stipulated in the interinstitu-
tional agreement of December 2003 on Better lawmaking, and
from the viewpoint of its contribution to legal or administrative
simplification for end-users. Nevertheless, the results of impact
analyses are not in themselves sufficient to justify instigating a
proposal for legislation.

8.2 Consultation and drafting:

8.2.5
Launching an open consultation procedure via a Com-
munity website requires the use of appropriate means of
communication and publicity to ensure that the draft legisla-
tion, its nature, its outline content and the site itself are familiar
to the largest possible number of people, socio-economic
players, businesses and local authorities affected by the draft
legislation; a register of European and national organisations,
local authorities, national and regional ESCs, could be set up in
order to notify by email when a consultation procedure is
initiated; relevant communication bodies could also be alerted
(the general, specialised and trade press…) in order to distribute
information.

8.2.1
The next stage, the actual drafting of the legislation,
would also initially be carried out in-house, in accordance with
the Commission's working methods, in particular its drafting
guide, which could be fine-tuned with the help of the Commis-
sion's committees of legal experts. The drafting stage should
leave certain options open; the aim of the consultation stage, is
not to produce a definitive text, but interested parties should be
consulted on various possible political options.

8.2.6
An objective summary of any outcomes from consul-
tations must be published at the end of the process, together
with the outcomes themselves, on the Commission website.
This will have to be unbiased and avoid leaning towards the
Commission's original plans or yielding to the pressure of
lobbies, to ensure that the general interest prevails over indivi-
dual
interests, and that practical considerations prevail over
ideological approaches.

8.2.2
From this point forward, drafts of a certain importance
should be submitted to the EU's consultative bodies, or they
should do this on their own initiative; for example, as well as
in the case of green and white papers, it should be possible to
ask the Committee of the Regions, representing local adminis-
trations and authorities, and the EESC, representing organised
civil society, to produce exploratory opinions on legislative
proposals concerning, for example, the internal market, the
economy, businesses, world trade, external relations, the envir-
onment, social issues and immigration, consumption and the
reform of agricultural
law. The opinion should focus on the
preliminary impact study, the objectives set and the ways to
achieve them.

8.2.3
Opinions on texts that have already been drawn up in
detail and have been the subject of initial negotiations are
produced too late to have any significant effect on the texts'
general structure; the Committees' expertise could therefore be
used upstream much more constructively to promote better
lawmaking and to make the law easier to understand and more
acceptable to those to whom it is addressed.

8.2.4
organisations and national and local

During this stage interested parties,

institutions and
institutions should be

Otherwise, there would be difficult obstacles to over-
8.2.7
come later, such as those surrounding the two ports package
proposals (no impact assessment,
lack of references to ILO
international maritime conventions ratified by the Member
States), the proposal for a directive on services in the internal
market (abandonment of harmonisation) or the proposed direc-
tive on patents on computer-implemented inventions (which
was causing serious legal confusion and uncertainty and on
which the EESC had expressed strong reservations, it was even-
tually rejected at the second reading by the Parliament) (25).

As regards the impact on national authorities,

8.2.8
to
which the main responsibility for implementing Community
legislation falls,
it would be advisable to use the methods
already in place in many countries by setting up links between
the relevant DG and the appropriate national authorities, legal
services and technical services concerned. Cooperation and
evaluations of in-house impact assessment procedures (bench-
marking should be envisaged in order to establish comparable
criteria while taking account of those to whom the legislation
is addressed.

(25) OJ C 61 of 14.3.2003 and OJ C 294 of 25.11.2005.

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/47

8.2.9
Criteria to establish the quality and impact of legisla-
tion will have to be simple, such as those proposed in the
Mandelkern report (26), and make the best use of existing Euro-
pean and national statistical resources and the expertise of the
supervisory or inspection services. Staff involved in the enforce-
ment and monitoring of legislation, those who will be respon-
sible for ensuring that it will be applied in practice, will also
have to be consulted. Information needs and, where necessary,
additional training or recruitment/redeployment requirements
will also be considered for effective on-the-ground implementa-
tion.

8.2.10
It will be a matter of establishing, at each level, the
cost of implementation and the technical prerequisites as accu-
rately as possible, in the light of existing law in the area in
question. In this way it will be possible to gain a better under-
standing of the various aspects of the impact of the planned
legislation and thus minimise implementation costs.

8.2.11
The scientific expert network set up at the Commis-
sion could fine-tune the current method followed by the
Commission in order to enhance its effectiveness. It might also
need to analyse specific impact assessments related to a
proposal and any amendments tabled to it.

Planning is necessary for each project to establish the
8.2.12
various phases and establish the time-frame which must allow
a reasonable time for preparing the legislation, taking account
of any imperatives and time constraints.

8.2.13
It should be possible to revise impact assessments
which are incomplete or insufficient, by resorting to external
experts, if necessary. The European Parliament has just added a
new section to its ŒIL (27) webpage on the evaluation of
impact assessments, which could complement, and where
necessary criticise Commission publications
(roadmap and
specific evaluations of all co-decision proposals to be submitted
by the Commission from 2005).

Once these stages are complete,

8.2.14
it would thus be
possible to finalise the legislative proposal, the impact assess-
ment (28), financial statement and explanations so that users,
practitioners and Community and national legislative authori-
ties will be able to familiarise themselves — in as simple terms
as possible — with the objectives, scope and practical conse-
‘Quality control’ of the
quences of the legislative proposal.
legislation, should take action particularly during this stage; it
only remains to determine the practical arrangements.

length of

(26) Drawing up cost indicators for users and administrations in respect
of homogeneous bodies of regulations; using a small number of
headings: complexity;
texts; referrals to other texts;
number and importance of declaration obligations for users and
third parties making declarations; number of staff required to
administer the arrangements, volume of litigation generated.
(http://www.europarl.eu.int/œil/);
‘impact assessment’ page is at present still under construction.
(28) It is already possible for the Commission to update its impact
assessment in the light of new or previously unavailable informa-
tion.

(27) Legislative

observatory

the

8.2.15
The Commission communication to the legislative
authorities, the Community and national advisory bodies and
local bodies responsible for applying and monitoring legislation
should incorporate all these elements.

8.2.16
it will be
Once the instrument has been chosen,
important to define its scope of application in detail by distin-
guishing matters than can best be dealt with by the proposed
instrument (directive) from matters that could be dealt with in
a different instrument (regulation), or via an alternative method
of regulation.

8.2.17
The wording will have to be clear, unambiguous and
must, apart from stating the legal basis, make explicit reference
to other relevant articles of the Treaties and to previous legisla-
tion: simply quoting EU Official Journal reference will not be
enough. Quite the opposite, in fact — the complete title of the
instruments referred to will have to be quoted and their
content briefly summarised, to make the law easier to under-
stand for its users, and not only for specialised lawyers. A well
drafted preamble without unnecessary verbiage will be particu-
larly important in making the content and objectives of the
legislation clear.

8.2.18
Subsequent changes to the legislation could be incor-
porated into the legislation itself (a Commission report after the
new law has been in force for a certain time — already
common practice — or, better
still, a standard revision
(‘sunset’) clause — applicable after a certain time period, e.g.
three years) (29), which will require an information or feedback
from civil
system, based on information and suggestions
society, which would need an EU contact for this purpose (a
single EU contact point at the EU representative offices in the
Member States, or the Commission department responsible for
the legislation itself).

8.2.19
The Commission should then, in applying the revi-
sion clause, either propose changes or an initiative within a set
deadline, or — within the same deadline — explain why, in its
opinion, no changes are necessary.

8.2.20
Certain ‘think tanks’ recommend establishing a Euro-
pean agency to monitor quality or to determine the relevance
of legislation. It would be disproportionate, and against the
letter and spirit of the Treaties, to create a superior authority to
supervise legislation with the power to make changes. This
would undermine the Commission's power — and duty — of
initiative. At all events, the Committee is not in favour of
setting up this kind of ‘super-agency’ to monitor the exercise of
the Commission's power of initiative. The Committee would
instead stress the ex ante consultation procedures, the quality of
preliminary impact assessments and the ex post assessments and
consultation procedures.

(29) Since the 2002 presentation of the Action plan on improving the
regulatory environment [COM (2002) 278], the Commission has
included, where appropriate, a revision/review clause in its legisla-
tive proposals. The legislative authorities should ensure this provi-
sion is kept when legislative texts are adopted.

C 24/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

8.2.21
Since, in comparison with ordinary legislative proce-
dures, the working methods of legislative committees and regu-
latory agencies are relatively opaque, autonomous and dele-
gated regulatory powers must also be subject to assessment.
The legislative authorities need to be able to monitor the exer-
cise of these powers. Furthermore, the social partners should be
equally represented on the executive bodies of the agencies.

method drawn up by the Commission — but without unduly
extending adjustment procedures.
In this context, the EESC
hopes that the three institutions will be able to find a common
approach to impact assessments of the implementation of the
Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making.

8.2.22
Occasionally, the quality of translation into the offi-
cial EU languages is a problem: the number and skills of the
lawyer-linguists must be increased to take
Commission's
account of enlargements. Expertise in drafting and evaluating
legislation will have to be developed internally for officials
involved in drawing up legislative proposals and in the drive
for simplification, and it must be enhanced within national
university legal training in order to allow the recruitment of
future European and national officials. Certain universities
already provide this kind of training and carry out research in
these areas; their expertise can be put to good use.

8.2.23
Ad hoc expert committees, at or attached to the
Commission, must make suggestions — before an initiative is
published — concerning the clarity, consistency and relevance
of the content and wording of documents, as well as the consis-
tency of the legal concepts used, also in the light of laws
already in force. The Commission has already devised a joint
practical guide for persons contributing to the drafting of legis-
in order to maintain the uniformity of the
lative proposals,
legal ideas and concepts used and consistency of the law; these
drafting standards need to be implemented correctly.

The quality of

the legislation will

8.2.24
therefore also
depend heavily on impact assessments and preliminary consul-
tation procedures which are likely to prevent amendments that
are too numerous or have too wide a scope in comparison
with the initial draft; the quality of amendments is also liable to
influence the quality of the final text. If amendments are delib-
erately vague so as to keep everyone happy, the law's effective-
ness and clarity could be adversely affected. A terminology
could help the
committee
Commission reformulate proposed changes in order to main-
tain clarity and consistency within modifications, so that it is
able to accept them following a re-reading.

(lawyer-linguists

and experts)

8.2.25
The Committee notes with interest that the Commis-
sion is revamping its guidelines for impact assessment by
setting clearer pointers for the economy and competitiveness,
and moreover that it is making arrangements for examining
compatibility with the Charter of Fundamental Rights (30). The
revised approach meets
in this
some of
opinion, and the Committee will follow up their implementa-
tion.

the suggestions

9. Contribution of the European Court of Justice

legislation does not bode well

The need for analysis in order to understand legislation
9.1
should be limited as much as possible, although analysis by the
court, together with legal literature and legal practitioners, is
still vital for applying the law in specific cases. But vague or
security,
unclear
increases implementation costs (because of constantly having
to resort to legal, technical and expert opinion or even the
court), and causes delays and incorrect implementation. The
court is obliged to do the job of the legislature, while cases
mount up to a point where the effectiveness of right of access
to the court, or at least to a fair trial within a reasonable time-
frame, is harmed.

legal

for

In its responses to requests for preliminary rulings, the
9.2
Court of Justice promotes the standardisation of national laws.
However, the court is compelled by poor-quality legislation to
clarify the meaning and legal scope of unclear provisions, by
thus making up for legislative failings.

9.3
Lastly, specialised courts of first instance should be set
up to enable the ECJ to give an initial ruling to the optimal
(in the second
extent as quickly as possible and then act
instance) rapidly and effectively to perform its function of stan-
dardising case law and clarifying primary and secondary Com-
munity law.

10. The role of Member States

10.1
Governments and their representatives on COREPER,
the Council in its various formations and legislative committees
have a particular responsibility for drawing up and applying
legislation, as both legislative authority and joint executive
authority with the Commission.

The negotiating parties and ministerial departments
10.2
involved in implementing and applying legislation should coop-
erate more closely starting from the proposal assessment stage
in order to anticipate and better prepare the implementing
provisions and reduce completion time.

8.2.26
Impact assessments on the amendments put forward
by the European legislature should also be considered when the
amendments are substantial in nature — by making use of the

(30) IP/05/733.

10.3
Apart from its inclusion in the Community institu-
tional system and transfers of responsibility or arrangements
for joint exercise of these responsibilities — the Member State
has also developed internally;
it has seen the emergence of
multiple decision-making centres, through devolution or the
dispersal of state administrations and departments, the transfer

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/49

of responsibilities to local or regional authorities or indepen-
dent administrative bodies and agencies with regulatory and
administrative powers, with the budgetary consequences that
this entails. Outside the European Union the State is also
subject to supra-national legal orders (accepted and obligatory
according to the pacta sunt servanda rule), and its authority over
economic governance has also been weakened in certain areas
(globalisation and WTO, single market, privatisation).

10.4
However, state and administrative reform does not
always proceed at the desired pace, and overlapping responsi-
bilities create uncertainty or adverse legal difficulties for busi-
ness and for state and local authority departments responsible
for implementing the law.

10.5
The state is no longer the only source of law; it incor-
porates Community law according to its application and moni-
toring rules, not always sharing them clearly with local or
devolved authorities. This sometimes leads to major diver-
gences from one country to another in application of the law
and Community administrative requirements, to the detriment
of necessary harmonisation, in the internal market which risks
creating distortions of competition.

the active and resolute participation of
10.6 Without
Member States in the process of simplifying and improving
European legislation, on both a political and practical level, this
process will not take the general public's concerns sufficiently
into consideration, and efforts will be ultimately in vain. The
principles of a one-stop shop, of e-administration, simplifica-
tion and unification of forms are progressing, e.g. for customs
issues, but too slowly. The digital divide in the way information
is disseminated to users of the legal provisions must also be
borne in mind.

Nevertheless, a significant number of governments and
10.7
national parliaments have recognised the need for better
lawmaking and better administration, often by creating specia-
lised bodies in touch with certain sectors of civil society and
responsible for ensuring the quality of legislation being drawn
up or implemented. It would be worth taking stock of these
experiments which should give rise to an exchange of experi-
ence and better harmonisation of the criteria and methods
used.

10.8
The role of the national courts and their requests for
preliminary rulings must also be considered and, on the whole,
the justice system must generally be improved in terms of the
length of proceedings and,
in terms of the
costs incurred by those seeking access to the courts.

in certain cases,

10.9
the network of

The remit of experts (the group of national experts and
the

experts proposed by

independent

Commission (31)) which are to be set up within the Commission
to help improve the quality of legislation could potentially
extend, on a consultative basis, to checking the quality of
implementation. An early warning system involving national
civil society organisations and those affected could be set up
(specific point of contact, Info-Eurocentres …).

10.10
The EESC could also consider setting up a contact
point for civil society organisations in the EESC's specialised
sections (primarily the Section for Agriculture, Rural Develop-
ment and the Environment and the Section for the Single
for example, via its
Market, Production and Consumption,
Single Market Observatory and its updated PRISM database). It
could thus assess Commission reports on simplification and
better lawmaking, remaining as faithful as possible to the needs
expressed by those affected, and put forward more effective
suggestions for improvement.

11. Final considerations

11.1
The Member States will also be engaged in improving
lawmaking with a view to greater competitiveness within the
OECD. Various OECD reports show that in most cases the
results attained fall short of the objectives pursued; but some
even overlap with Community requirements (quality of regu-
lation, simplifying relations with administrative departments
and initiatives (one-stop shops), establishing new decision-
support
tools and more open decision-making procedures
(transparency, participation) e-administration, devolution …).

11.2
The OECD is promoting the establishment of a unit
responsible for assessing the cost, quality and impact of new
regulations in each Member State. Although the initiatives and
criteria to be promoted in connection with Community legisla-
tion may not entirely tally with those of the OECD, owing to
the diversity of the powers pooled by the EU-25 and the objec-
the two approaches (32) are
tives of Community legislation,
nevertheless mutually reinforcing.

11.2.1
An EU-OECD project on incorporating EU legislation
in the ten new Member States is being prepared. Greater
synergy between the EU and the OECD should therefore be
considered.

The problems of

11.3
incorporation emanate essentially
from national governments and central administration. In this
area, quality should be the overriding priority. Meeting dead-
lines appears just as important in order to avoid temporary
disruptions of the internal market.

(31) COM(2005) 97 final of 16.3.2005.
(32) The OECD calls for the privatisation of public services and the
reform of the state (less administration). These recommendations
are often ideological rather than practical; national administration
must indeed become more efficient, but reform must not aim to
substitute the market for the state, which must still be able to fulfil
its responsibilities.

C 24/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

the consultation and participation of socio-economic organisa-
tions and other components of civil society must also be able
to practice, at both national and Community level. Principles
and methods to this end need to be considered.

11.8
Simplifying the acquis and improving the quality of
legislation should not be confused with any economic and
social deregulation ideology; they contribute to a strategy of
good governance, which aims to better overcome, both techni-
cally and politically, the complexity of drafting legislation for a
Union of states, according to democratic, participatory and
rational procedures.

11.9
The problems and prospects for a solution have been
clearly stated; the action taken is suitable for the achievement
of the objectives set. So why has so little practical progress
been made? Do all the interested parties have the political will
to succeed? Can the obstacles be overcome? These questions
remain open but if the overall task of ‘Simplifying the acquis and
better lawmaking in Europe’ is to be successfully achieved, a firm
political will, backed up by action in the long term, appear to
be essential requirements.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

the

The

extension of

co-decision procedure,
is significant

as
11.4
provided for in the Constitutional Treaty,
in
democratic terms: the consultation and assessment procedures
carried out at different times and levels mean that procedures
risk becoming longer and complex. Furthermore, the initial
quality of proposals and of the implementation of directives
can justify this potential time extension. The drawing-up of
quality indicators for legislation is therefore vitally impor-
tant (33).

11.5
The most difficult issue is simplification of the acquis.
The task is considerable and the EESC doubts that the necessary
resources can be allocated unless the relevant political decisions
and their financial consequences enjoy the full support of the
Member States. The EESC appeals for this support.

11.6
It is worth stressing that the participatory approach
places significant demands on civil society organisations, insti-
tutions and their agents, and on governments and their admin-
istrations. Formal or
technocratic methods alone cannot
possibly work, even if the technical drafting instruments and
impact assessment indicators are perfectly developed.

11.7 When the Commission has the authority to conclude
international treaties on behalf of the Community (WTO, …),

Brussels, 28 September 2005

(33) The Commission has funded a study on these indicators by the
University of Bradford; the EESC is awaiting its publication with
interest. A draft is available on the university's website (http://
www.bradford.ac.uk).

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/51

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendment, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, was defeated in the course of the debates:

Point 8.2.7

Delete.

Reason

The fact that that these proposals have not been adopted has nothing to do with any shortcomings in the comments
made in the previous paragraphs. In my view — a view shared by many — it is not a lack of impact assessments or
objective summaries of consultations that have created these problems. In the case of the port directives it is small, but
extremely powerful vested interests that have so far managed to prevent the directives from being adopted. Failure to
adopt the services directive is also due to the fact that powerful vested interests have formed protectionist, unholy alli-
ances and are trying to thwart the public interest (free movement). The difficulties the Commission is experiencing with
its proposals on patents can be said to stem from the fact that it underestimated the risk of a limited vested interest
interfering in the political process and exploiting the fact that the legislative proposal (which was put forward in order
to harmonise and determine existing law) is very technical and complicated.

Others may take a different view of why different interests managed to delay or block these legislative proposals. In all
these cases, when the EESC has addressed them it has discovered that the proposals were highly controversial.

The highly controversial wording of point 8.2.7 adds nothing of value to the opinion, which is in all other respects
balanced, good and in some parts excellent. Consequently, the point should be deleted. This would enable more people
to endorse the opinion.

Voting

For: 31

Against: 61

Abstentions: 13