Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on EU and national administration practices and linkages
Date: 2006-12-13
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: administrative transparency, approximation of laws, drafting of EU law, government, transparency in decision-making

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/3

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on EU and national administration prac-
tices and linkages

(2006/C 325/03)

On 19 January 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on EU and national administration practices and linkages

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 14 November 2006. The rapporteur was
Mr van Iersel.

At its 431st plenary session held on 13 and 14 December 2006 (meeting of 14 December 2006), the Euro-
to 5 with
pean Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 102 votes
48 abstentions.

1. Executive summary

which they have committed themselves to common policies and
to carry out the results of common decision-making.

1.1
The Council of Ministers is decisive in the decision-
making process in the EU. However, national coordination and
policy-making has never been deeply discussed at EU level. The
EU is unique in sharing sovereignty. As a consequence the EU
requires a transparent multilevel governance in a broad field of
areas. The EESC is of the opinion that well-defined and effective
national political and administrative procedures in Member
States are, together with better lawmaking and implementation
and enforcement, an integral part of EU good governance. They
will also enhance transparency and clarify the impact of EU law
and policies towards society at large. The analysis of national
practices reflect substantial differences among Member States
regarding political and administrative management of EU
matters. Such analysis should stimulate a discussion on govern-
mental — political and administrative — procedures dealing
with the EU. The most interesting and best practices may be
highlighted. An open debate across Europe about how to deal
best with European affairs at national level will also benefit the
debate on better lawmaking and implementation and enforce-
ment. The EESC advocates a continuous study on national
administrative practices and procedures.

2. Introduction

2.1
In 2005 the EESC adopted an opinion on Better
lawmaking together with an opinion on Implementation and
enforcement. Both opinions were based on the principle that
under the rule of law a good law is an enforceable and enforced
law (1). EU-law has to come into being in a transparent, demo-
cratic and accessible process which underpins the legitimacy of
the EU. Internal practices of governments are also part of that
process.

It is noticeable and regrettable that after many years of
2.2
European integration EU law and policy are not yet sufficiently
integrated in a number of Member States as a political and
administrative layer in domestic policy-making in those areas in

(1) OJ C 24, 31.1.2006.

In the process of lawmaking, transposition and imple-
2.3
mentation the Member States are key. This means that the way
these processes are managed by the Member States is also
crucial: the better the organisation, the better the final outcome
for the EU,
in the self-interest of the Member States and for
society at large.

An effective and transparent approach of EU matters at
2.4
national level is indispensable as 25 Member States, each with
their own administrative culture and traditions as well as
process management, have to respect the same acquis, which
includes similar requirements regarding lawmaking, transposi-
tion, implementation and enforcement of EU law.

National coordination and policy-making has never been
2.5
deeply discussed at EU level, partly because of subsidiarity,
partly because of a lack of genuine interest among the decision
making bodies in Brussels and in the capitals. Remarkably, the
academic world has so far, except a few exceptions, not paid
much attention to these aspects either. But it is clear that the
way national coordination and policy-making are organised and
functioning may well have substantial effects on decision-
making in Brussels and subsequently on transposition and
implementation of EU law. Consequently,
in discussing better
lawmaking and implementation, the organisation of national
coordination and policy-making has also to be taken into
consideration.

2.6
This is far from a purely technical matter. It is political
because of the desirable discussion on the improvement of the
organisation and internal procedures in the Member States and
on a possible redefinition of the mutual responsibilities between
Member States and Commission. Parallel to this, transparency
and accessibility of these processes in the Member States are
also needed in order to improve communication between the
EU and society and to dispel confusion and suspicion among
citizens.

C 325/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

For obvious reasons the Commission has been very
2.7
the
to discuss national procedures. Nonetheless
reluctant
Commission rightly stated in 2001 (2):
‘It is time to recognise
that the Union has moved from a diplomatic to a democratic
process, with policies that reach deep into national societies and
daily life. There is a need for the Council to develop its capacity
to coordinate all aspects of EU policy both in the Council and
at home.’

As for ‘transposition’ of EU law a Commission Recom-
2.8
mendation in 2004 makes practical proposals which address
directly the Member States in order to promote correct imple-
mentation and enforcement of adopted EU law (3). Several of
these proposals can also be very helpful to improve the national
mechanisms
regarding coordination and policy-making in
preparation of EU law and carrying out agreed policy objectives.

Undeniably, the need for streamlining national political
2.9
and administrative procedures in the Member States has become
more urgent since:

— the introduction of Scoreboards on implementation of EU-

law,

— the involvement of the EU in an increasing number of areas,

— the negotiations on the Constitutional Treaty, and

— the enlargement of

the Union and forthcoming new

memberships.

But a lot of work has still to be done.

3. General context

3.1
The EU is not a State nor is it on its way to becoming a
State. The Commission is a centre with the right of initiative in
well-defined areas. The Council is master in decision-making on
legislation and budget, with often an influential interference of
the EP as co-legislator and the Court of Justice as guardian of
EU-law. There is no decisive leadership. The EU is rather a very
complex reality of mutual dependencies among many actors. It
is unique in having created a grid of national and federal
responsibilities.

The EU is unique in sharing sovereignty. As a conse-
3.2
quence the EU requires a transparent multilevel governance in a
broad field of areas, but the implications of this for the manage-
ment and administration of its constituent parts, the Member
States, are far from clear (4). This is the case in matters of shared
responsibility between the Members States and ‘Brussels’, but

(2) White paper on European Governance, COM(2001) 428 final.
(3) Commission Recommendation of 12 July 2004 on the transposition
into national law of Directives affecting the internal market, (2005/
309/EC).

(4) Coordinating European Union Affairs: How do different actors manage multi-
level complexity?, Adriaan Schout and Andrew Jordan, 29 May 2006.
The study analyses practices of coordination within the Commission,
Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. It reveals a wide
range literature on sectoral aspects of this general theme, which shows
at the same time that an overall analysis of practices in 25 Member
States is still lacking.

also when independent responsibilities of the Member States
themselves are concerned, such as in implementing the Lisbon
Strategy.

3.3
During the last decades the EU has got involved in an
increasing number of areas. It is a dynamic process in which
national capitals, and increasingly regional entities, social and
‘Third
economic actors and civil society are involved. Recently,
Pillar’ issues, i.e. Justice and Home Affairs are beginning to be
implemented. So far, however, in these areas no infringement
procedures can be brought by the Commission against Member
States to remedy deficiencies in national implementation (5).

3.4
Notwithstanding the often direct consequences of EU-law
and EU decision-making for individual citizens, companies and
organisations, the EU is in many Member States still primarily
perceived as an international body outside the national State
organisation,
in some Member States even as pure foreign
policy. This tends to create confusion and a counterproductive
distance. Problems that the EU is meeting in the political and
administrative setting in Member States are largely due to this
state of mind.

3.4.1
In the political setting the position and role of the
national Parliaments are of paramount importance. There is
often still a gap between the extent to which they are informed
and committed, and the process of decision-making at EU-level.
This increases also the distance between the EU and society.

3.4.2
A second element in this context is the difference of
perceptions and commitments of politicians, national adminis-
trations and involved private actors.

3.4.3
Thirdly, when transparency in policy making is lacking,
ambiguity may arise about the way and the decisive moment at
which national points of view are defined and negotiated,
domestically as well as at EU level. Illustrative is the existence of
European sections in various ministries, which, although they
are dealing with substantive issues and not just with coordina-
tion, are more or less separated from the sections responsible
for domestic policies. This may negatively affect the sensitivity
and attention of the latter for European aspects. Comparable
problems of coordination exist between the standing commit-
tees in the national Parliaments.

3.4.4
‘Europe’
agencies, and far too aloof from regional and local entities.

level regarding
Fourthly, decision making at national
is too often separated from executive directorates or

(5) See the Informal Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial Meeting, Tampere
20-22 September 2006 on the issue of ‘Improvement of decision-
making in justice and home-affairs’.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/5

There is evidence that Member States are quite reluctant
3.5
to adapt administrative and political procedures. Should they
not be adjusted to the increasing complexity and significance of
the EU, this might lead to continuous frictions at different levels
of decision-making.

Specific political

3.6
traditions and rhetoric —
national as well as party political — are usually on the agenda.
These tend to create an artificial gap between Brussels-based
decisions and perceived national interests and procedures.

interests,

This development is the main source of

the peculiar
3.7
paradox that on the one hand governments agree in the EU —
‘Brussels’ — upon policy objectives and legislation but on the
other often rebuff them as soon as they are discussed in the
national political setting.

3.8
This gap can turn out to be very confusing for interested
parties and the public at large. It is certainly adding to the
serious legitimacy crisis of the EU, as there exists a direct rela-
tionship between the quality and reliability of management of
EU policy objectives at national level, and public opinion and
expectations.

3.8.1
The EESC points out in this connection that a possible
crisis in the legitimacy of the EU should not be attributed first
and foremost to communication problems. The first step in
winning back the confidence of citizens in the EU must
continue to be finding a solution to the urgent problems of the
Union.

3.9
In this context it is fair to say that a number of organisa-
tions of social partners and civil society at large are reflecting
more or less a similar pattern of dichotomy between handling
‘Brussels’ and national affairs.

The reputation of

3.10
the EU can be undermined as
national critics are mostly targeting ‘Brussels’ and the Commis-
sion, and rarely the Member States themselves, who are the
main actors in the integration process.

National

3.11
lobbies tend to act correspondingly when it
comes to transposition and implementation. Sometimes, their
attitude results from opportunities offered by critical compro-
mises in the Council which give room for national discretionary
power. On other occasions lobbies make simply use of unjusti-
fied opportunities created by the national legislators, which lead
to gold-plating and cherry-picking.

3.12
A national based orientation in EU affairs may also be
fostered by the tendency to use softer instruments instead of
strict legal instruments, such as the open coordination method:
the more room is provided for national interpretation, the larger
the differences per country.

4. Coordination at national level

It looks as if until recently in many Member States the
4.1
question of streamlining processes and procedures on national
level has primarily been addressed by spontaneous develop-
ments within and between ministries without looking for a
well-structured approach. All Member States are developing a
more or less structured coordination procedure (and corre-
sponding organs), but in many cases these cover only the final
stage of national decision making. The preceding stages tend to
be organised in a less orderly fashion.

4.2
Such a picture reflects a complex model of intergovern-
mental cooperation instead of the more dynamic process of EU
lawmaking with its complicated political bargaining. In reality,
the European integration has created very broad and intensive
contacts with innumerable linkages between all those in the
public and private sector who are involved in lawmaking and
administrative negotiations and procedures in Europe. There are
many interlinkages in the preparation of European legislation,
including consultations with experts and stakeholders, in nego-
tiating new legislation, in transposing, implementing and enfor-
cing approved legislation,
in maintaining European law by
national judicial authorities and the European Court of Justice,
and finally,
in discussing national experiences with European
law with the European legislator. These processes also require a
high degree of professionalism in the overall organisation of the
national administrations.

Both the need for adequate management and coordina-
4.3
level and effective international networking
tion at national
increases as EU policy objectives and decision making are inti-
mately connected and intertwined with national policy objec-
tives. The Lisbon strategy provides an illustrative example: it was
defined at EU level but,
in practice, EU decision making
concerns only a limited part of the strategy. The responsibility
for the main aspects remains with the Member States. But the
final result is dubious when, because of the lack of compelling
interactive procedures between the EU and national policies,
Member States do not carry out agreed objectives, or only
partially.

The intensification of European integration, endorsed at
4.4
successive EU-summits as well as in numerous Council meetings
in close cooperation with the European Commission, should be
reflected in the political and administrative organisation in the
Member States. But in this respect, there are substantial differ-
ences between the individual Member States (6). As a result of
historic developments
in each country differences concern
nearly all aspects of political and governmental life.

(6) ‘De Omzetting van Europese richtlijnen: Instrumenten, technieken en processen
in zes lidstaten vergeleken’ (the transposition of European directives: a
comparative study of instruments, techniques and processes in six
Member States), Prof. Dr. B. Steunenberg and Prof. Dr. W. Voermans,
University of Leyden, the Netherlands, 2006. Besides an in-depth
analysis and recommendations regarding the Dutch situation the
comparative study discusses Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain
and the United Kingdom.

C 325/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Among others,

these concern procedures and basic
4.5
concepts of government, hierarchy between ministries, quality
of ministries and centralised vs. decentralised systems.

4.6 More particularly, in relation to the EU there are sensible
political differences between the Member States concerning:

— the position and power of the Prime Minister or the Head of

Government,

— the role and function of inner-cabinet ministers,

— the relationship between the Prime Minister and the minister
of Foreign Affairs and/or the ‘junior’ minister for Europe,

— coalition governments or majority governments, and their

priorities,

— the relationship between government and Parliament and
the role of the national Parliament in the European integra-
tion process,

— the extent to which better EU lawmaking and implementa-

tion are taken seriously.

Comparable differences exist regarding the authority and

4.7
working methods between and within ministries:

Situations are becoming still more complicated when
4.9
there exists also a division of competences between national and
regional level, such as in federal systems. Complexity and some-
times lack of transparency in relationships between national and
regional levels can easily create further confusion.

4.10
Inappropriate practices on the part of the Commission
and the Council secretariat are also prohibiting efficient deci-
sion-making procedures in the Member States. For example, the
circulation of final drafts of documents by the Council at a very
late stage before the meeting at which they are to be examined
thwarts even the most efficient national decision-making proce-
dures.

4.11
The various divisions of labour between ministers and
departments in the Member States often impede effective inter-
relationships of
national networking or
responsible civil servants across Europe.

long-term personal

4.12
It still is daily experience that a substantial part of the
judges who are
legal world in general and of
supposed to take European law into full consideration are often
lacking sufficient knowledge. This does not encourage national
administrations to accept spontaneously the EU as a political
and administrative layer in domestic policy-making.

the national

— the organisation of the Office of the Prime Minister/Head of

Government and its institutional position,

5. Current developments

— the extent to which ‘Chinese Walls’ exist or not between the

‘European’ and other sections in ministries,

— the moment at which genuine interest

in a particular

proposal in the ministries starts,

— the degree and level of coordination as regards ‘Brussels’,

— the moment coordination starts as regards a particular

proposal,

— the role of the ministry of Foreign Affairs and, correspond-

ingly, the degree of independence of other ministries,

— the (ongoing) training of civil servants,

— the way stakeholders in society are consulted during negotia-

tions and in the implementation phase,

— the way directives are usually implemented, either via formal
national legislation or via governmental regulations with a
lighter touch.

4.8
Division of labour between national ministries can also
have serious consequences for the Council. To mention one
example: in the Competitiveness Council sometimes four or five
ministries per country are involved. This impedes a long-term
strategy, it blocks leadership, and it contributes to policy frag-
mentation.

5.1
A continuous number of infringement procedures, a key
function of the Commission to remedy deficiencies in national
implementation of EU legislation,
extension of
successful EU-Scoreboards regarding the transposition of EU law
in national law have raised awareness, that national procedures
must be adjusted to EU requirements.

and the

5.2
The process of introduction of the acquis communautaire
in ten new Member States by 2003 brought about similar atten-
tion for the same theme.

5.3
The proposed Constitutional Treaty aimed inter alia at
connecting national political procedures with the preparation of
EU law, among others by integrating national Parliaments at an
early stage into EU procedures.

In spite of occasional

improvements in coordination
5.4
procedures it must be acknowledged that most national admin-
istrations are hesitant to change internal bureaucratic proce-
dures, and certainly to discuss their practices among each other
or at EU level. Subsidiarity is the name of the game.

Besides subsidiarity, it is a fact of life, and often a compli-
5.5
cating factor
in the relationship between the EU and the
Member States, that EU decision making has usually a different
cycle from that of national policy making.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/7

Although adjustments in coordination procedures are
5.6
discussed in Member States (7), differences in approach and
practices between Member States persist.

sels in order to be more directly involved in EU affaires which
are relevant to them.

5.6.1
In Denmark, for instance, the Parliament is involved in
the preparation of EU law and EU policies at an early stage,
which adds to a systematic visibility of what is going on in the
EU and to transparency. At the same time effective adjustments
in administrative procedures and interrelationships in handling
national and EU law have been put in place in Denmark for
quite a long time.

5.6.2
In the UK administrative procedures have been adopted
to bring EU affairs closer to domestic policy-making, among
others by an effective coordination mechanism among the
ministries and by giving an extensive mandate to the Cabinet
Office regarding EU law. The House of Commons has an oppor-
tunity to scrutinise EU legislation and the House of Lords is
actively involved in commenting EU law and EU policies.

By contrast,

5.6.3
in France and Spain, Parliament gets
usually involved at a late stage. This influences the place of the
EU in the public debate. EU law and EU policies are primarily a
matter of concern within the national administration and of the
political leadership. It is noteworthy that the main body of the
École nationale d'administration (ENA) has been moved from
Paris to Strasbourg as a sign of the increasing impact of the EU
in France.

5.6.4
In the Netherlands some unfortunate experiences in
implementing EU law have raised increasing interest about
management and procedures regarding EU matters. Reorganisa-
tion of internal procedures in the ministries, connecting the
‘national’ and ‘European’ areas of interest, is on its way, which in
practice proves to be a difficult process. The same goes for
attempts to get Parliaments involved more effectively and in a
more timely way in EU affairs. In Luxemburg procedures in
Parliament have been adjusted successfully.

5.6.5
In the ‘new’ Member States procedures that have been
introduced or adjusted in the run-up to EU membership, when
the acquis had to be integrated in national law, bear fruit, where
they have remained intact. An extensive twinning project
between experts of ‘old’ and ‘new’ Member States adds to the
capacity of the new Member States to adopt best practices in
carrying out EU law which may as well encourage efforts to
integrate EU matters at an earlier stage of decision-making.

5.6.6
In federal systems, such as in Germany and Spain, it is
certainly not easy to bridge the gap between the regions —
Länder and Provinces — and ‘Europe’. Especially in those cases
where the regions are exclusively responsible for carrying out
EU law — which is the case in Germany anyway — sometimes
serious problems arise. All Länder have a representation in Brus-

(7) See Steunenberg en Voermans, Leyden, 2006.

The introduction and wide use of the system of ‘national
5.7
experts’ as an ongoing process of interaction between national
administrations and the Commission may help to increase a
fruitful interaction between the national level and ‘Brussels’.

support

The European Commission provides

5.8
to a
number of successful co-operation networks between Member
States' administrations and between the European Commission
and national administrations (e.g. SOLVIT, consumer networks
etc.). The Commission is also in the process of setting up the
Internal Market Information (IMI) system which aims to help
Member States' administrations to easily apply Internal Market
rules.

5.9
The system of ‘national regulators’ in various fields, such
as competition, telecommunication, energy and others, contri-
butes to convergence in carrying out agreed EU policies in
Member States.

5.10 More generally, differences of approach remain between
countries which elaborate new structures to improve the interac-
tion between the EU and national management of EU affairs
and those which abstain hitherto from rethinking organisation
and procedures. These processes are depending primarily on
political will.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

the historic development

The way national administrations are organised is the
6.1.1
result of
in each country. Conse-
quently, differences between countries concern nearly all aspects
of political and public life. To a large extent, this will remain so
in the future. But these differences should not necessarily stand
in the way of adjustment, or even convergence of procedures
and working methods regarding the preparation and implemen-
tation of EU law and agreed EU policies.

The EESC is of the opinion that well-defined and effec-
6.1.2
are,
tive national political
together with better lawmaking and implementation and enfor-
cement, an integral part of EU good governance.

and administrative procedures

6.1.3
Consequently, it would be highly desirable that adjust-
ment and improvement of national procedures be assessed in
relationship with European-level procedures and the EU priori-
ties of better lawmaking and implementation and enforcement
of EU-law, as these objectives depend to a large extent on a
satisfactory national approach in all Member States.

C 325/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

The organisation of EU matters in the Member States is
6.1.4
their own affair. However, it would be a big step forward, if poli-
tical
forces and national administrations would consider EU
affairs as an integral part of domestic policy-making, and would
acknowledge publicly that
they themselves are the EU and
would act accordingly. Political will in this direction is decisive.

Such a step would be fully in line with the special char-
6.1.5
acteristics of the relationship between EU and national policies
and their consequences which are intertwined and ever more
mutually dependent. The acknowledgement of the EU as a poli-
tical and administrative layer in domestic policy-making would
also be supportive to better EU lawmaking.

6.1.6
In some Member States, notably in Denmark, and
recently Luxemburg, proposals of the Commission are put on
the political agenda at an early stage. This includes a systematic
involvement of the Danish Parliament. In other Member States
similar adjustments are being proposed. However, it is fair to
say that most national Parliaments do not feel at ease in getting
harmoniously committed to EU policies.

The proposed ‘Constitutional Treaty’ also aimed at inte-
6.1.7
grating national Parliaments into EU procedures at an early
stage. Recently Parliaments received in line with this thinking
proposals for EU policies and legislation directly from the
Commission (8). These procedural changes are bound to foster
national discussions on European policies and legislation and its
implications in most Member States at an earlier stage than so
far.

6.1.8 More emphasis on a political discussion and consulta-
tion within the national context at an early stage can foster
commitments of governments
in negotiations on concrete
issues.

Society at

large demands transparency which may
6.1.9
foster trust and legitimacy. Consequently, it would be desirable
that administrative and political procedures in Member States
regarding EU affairs should be brought into line with this claim.
Efficient and transparent procedures would not only foster the
rule of law, but they would also add to better communication
between the EU and business circles, social partners and civil
society, creating better understanding, and eventually, participa-
tion and commitment (9).

6.1.10
Consequently, transparency and communication are
also of paramount importance for existing or newly established

consultations of interested private parties in the Member States,
which are sometimes underestimated.

Improvement of

the regulatory environment

is a
6.1.11
priority shared by all Institutions. So is the coherence of the
Single Market and, since 2000, the realisation of the Lisbon
strategy. All these objectives will be better served when national
and EU decision-making processes are effectively interconnected.

Although subsidiarity is a principle anchored in EU
6.1.12
thinking and practices,
it must be always kept in mind that
management and implementation of EU law and obligations in
Member States often have an effect on other countries and
societies in the Union. This means that public and private part-
ners have an interest
in the way each individual country
manages its own relationship to the EU. In other words, the
organisation and working methods of national administrations
are part of the management of the EU as a whole.

6.1.13
Adequate procedures and monitoring of EU affairs in
the Member States would also greatly help the Commission and
would benefit the quality of its work.

6.2 Recommendations

6.2.1
In addition to suggestions made in its Opinion Better
Implementation of EU legislation (10) the EESC recommends that
penetrating analyses of national and regional procedures and
practices regarding EU affairs, both political and administrative,
are made among the 25 in order to get a full picture.

and administrative decision-makers

All aspects related to the way in which national poli-
6.2.2
tical
involved as
mentioned in Chapter 4 ‘Coordination at national level’ deserve
specific
increasing activities
In addition to its
regarding better lawmaking and implementation and enforce-
ment of EU law, the Commission can play an initiating and
supportive role in this field.

attention.

are

6.2.3
for a
The analyses will be a fruitful starting point
discussion on the effectiveness of governmental — political and
administrative — procedures dealing with the EU. The overall
picture should be to highlight desirable and best practices. It has
to create a sound basis for an open debate across Europe about
how to deal best with European affairs at national level. This
will also benefit the debate on better lawmaking and implemen-
tation and enforcement.

(8) See conclusions European Council, June 2006.
(9) It is noteworthy that the initial reaction of public opinion in Denmark
regarding the Constitutional Treaty was rather positive, just because
more democratic and transparent procedures were foreseen in the
Treaty. By contrast, the Comité de dialogue, a platform of the govern-
ment and the social partners in France to discuss European affairs, has
no longer practical significance.

(10) OJ C 24 of 31.01.2006. In this Opinion the EESC argues that, although
Member States ‘should continue to enjoy discretion in determining
their own implementation and procedures’, the next step ‘in the coop-
eration between EU Institutions and national authorities is strength-
ening or streamlining of national administrative capacity for policy
application’, par. 4.2.1 and 4.2.4. In chapter 4 proposals are made to
that end.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/9

An overall analysis and manageable conclusions to be
6.2.4
drawn from it
is a very complicated subject. National and
regional authorities also increasingly express the need of an
exchange of views and knowledge in view of an appropriate
management of EU affairs. The EESC advocates a continuous
study of national practices and procedures.. Bilateral exchanges
of view between national authorities can also be encouraged, on
the model, for example, of the IMPEL (11) knowledge centre and
the SOLVIT network.

Comments of business, social partners and civil society
6.2.5
should also systematically be taken into account. All
these
parties have a keen interest in the process of better lawmaking
and implementation and enforcement which requires also trans-

parency and effective consultations at national level right from
the beginning.

6.2.6
facilitation of
administrations which aims at better application of
Market rules should be further developed and implemented.

The Internal Market Information (IMI) system for the
information exchange between Member States'
Internal

6.2.7
An EU Vademecum regarding national procedures and
practices would be useful. Such a Vademecum which takes into
account the results of the knowledge centre could serve as a
guidance for the process of well functioning national proce-
dures, better lawmaking and implementation and enforcement
in its entirety.

Brussels, 14 December 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(11) The ‘Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environ-
mental Law’ (IMPEL), established in 1992, is an informal network of
European regulators concerned with the implementation and enforce-
ment of environmental legislation. 30 countries — all Member States
of the European Union, the two acceding countries Bulgaria and
Romania, the two candidate countries Croatia and Turkey as well as
Norway — and the European Commission now participate in the
network.

C 325/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following Section Opinion text was rejected in favour of amendments adopted by the assembly but obtained at least
one-quarter of the votes cast:

‘1.1
The Council of Ministers is decisive in the decision making process in the EU. However, national coordination and policy-
making has never been deeply discussed at EU level. The EU is unique in sharing sovereignty. As a consequence the EU requires a
transparent multilevel governance in a broad field of areas. The EESC is of the opinion that well-defined and effective national political
and administrative procedures in Member States are, together with better lawmaking and implementation and enforcement, an integral
part of EU good governance. They will also enhance transparency and clarify the impact of EU law and policies towards society at
large. The analysis of national practices reflect substantial differences among Member States regarding political and administrative
management of EU matters. Such analysis should stimulate a discussion on governmental — political and administrative — procedures
dealing with the EU. The most interesting and best practices may be highlighted. An open debate across Europe about how to deal
best with European affairs at national level will also benefit the debate on better lawmaking and implementation and enforcement. The
EESC advocates a continuous study on national administrative practices and procedures, a publicly supported virtual knowledge centre,
in which politicians, national officials, the Commission, and academics collect data on national procedures, promote exchanges of
views, and activate the debate. Comments and views of business, social partners and civil society should also be taken into account.’

Outcome: 74 votes for amending the paragraph, 59 against and 16 abstentions.