Special Report No 3/2010 ‘Impact Assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision making?’
Date: 2010-09-29
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: administration of the Institutions, institutional activity, management accounting, management audit

eUropean 
coUrt oF aUdItors

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
n
s
s

I

0
1
0
2

3
o
n

t
r
o
p
e
r

l

a
i
c
e
p
s

Impact assessments In the 
eU InstItUtIons: do they 
sUpport decIsIon-maKInG?

en

 
 
 
 
special r eport no  3 

 2010

Impact assessments  
In the  eU  InstItUtIons:
do they sUpport   
decIsIon-maKInG?

(pursuant to article 287(4), second subparagraph, tFeU)

eUropean coUrt oF  aUdItors

 
eUropean coUrt oF  aUdItors   
12, rue alcide d e Gasperi 
1615 Luxembourg 
LUXemBoUr G

tel. +352 4398-1 
Fax +352 4398-46410 
e-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu 
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

special r eport no 3 

 2010

a great deal of additional information on the european Union is available on the Internet. 

It can be accessed through the europa server (http://europa.eu).

cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication 

Luxembourg: publications office of the european Union, 2010

IsBn 978-92-9207-729-7 

doi:10.2865/14964

© european Union, 2010 

reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

contents

3

Paragraph

Glossary of terms and abbreviations

i–vi  

executive  summar y

1–12 

introduction

13–16 

audit scoPe and aPProach

17–81 

observations

17–41 

19–27 
28–33 

34–41 

42–55 
43–46 

47–50 
51–55 

56–81 
57–60 

61–71 
72–81 

 use of imPact assessments for decision-makinG at the commission,  
the euroPean Parliament and the council
Impact assessment heLps the  commIssIon to  FormULate  Its proposaLs
 the  commIssIon’s  Impact assessment reports are consIdered  By most Users at the   
eUropean  parLIament and  coUncIL  as reLevant  InFormatIon  In the  LeGIsLatIve decIsIon-
maKInG  process
 amendments to the InItIaL  commIssIon proposaL  are not sUBject to addItIonaL  assessments  
oF  potentIaL  Impact s

the commission’s Procedures for the PreParation of imPact assessments
 need  For more transparency  In the seLectIon procedUre and tar GetInG  oF  Impact assessment 
worK
consULtatIon  Is wIdeL y Used as  InpUt  For  Impact assessments,  BUt not on draFt report s
 re c e n t   Im p r o v e m e n t s   In  t h e   co m mIs sIo n ’ s   qU aL It y   r e vIe w   oF   It s   Im pa c t   a s s e s s m e n t 
r e p o r t s

content and Presentation of the commission’s imPact assessment rePorts
 need to  Improve  FUrther the presentatIon oF  how the InterventIon proposed  Is to achIeve   
Best the  Intended oUtcomes
there  Is room  For  Improvement  In the anaL ysIs oF  Impacts and the presentatIon thereoF
 InFormatIon on  ImpLementatIon aspects, enForcement costs and admInIstratIve  BUrden   
can Be  FUrther  Improved

82–87 

conclusions and recommendations

annex i 

– 

annex ii  – 

 comParison of sPecific elements of the commission’s system with ia systems 
elsewhere
 audit aPProach and evidence collection methods

 letters from the Presidents of the euroPean Parliament and the council of the   
euroPean union

rePly of  the commission

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
 
 
GLossary oF  terms and  
aBBrevIatIons

4

administrative burden: the administrative and information costs that businesses incur in order 
to comply with legal obligations.

annual policy strategy (aPs):  the commission’s annual policy strategy lays down, early in year 
n – 1, political priorities and key initiatives for year n. at the same time, it allocates the correspond-
ing financial and human resources to these priority initiatives. It serves as a basis for a political ex-
change of views on the commission’s programme with the european parliament and the council.

co-decision: Under the co-decision procedure, the council shares legislative power with the euro-
pean parliament. Both institutions can, however, only act on a proposal by the commission (which 
has the sole right of initiative).

comitology: committee system which oversees the delegated acts implemented by the european 
commission. the committees are composed of representatives of the member states and have the 
mandate to regulate certain delegated aspects of the secondary legislation adopted by the council 
and, where co-decision applies, the european parliament. the commission chairs these meetings 
and provides the secretariat.

commission’s legislative and work programme (clwP):  In this document, published in november 
of each year, the commission presents its planned legislative and other initiatives for the following 
year. the cLwp does not contain all initiatives to be brought forward in a given year, but identi-
fies policy initiatives of major importance. It thereby operationalises the political priorities and 
initiatives specified in the aps. 

council working party (wP):  a working group specialised in a given policy field at the council of 
ministers consisting of delegations of all member states. It prepares the legal act to be adopted 
by the relevant council of m inisters.

directors and experts for better regulation (debr): expert group consisting of officials in charge 
of better regulation in the eU  member states and other european countries. deBr meets twice 
per year and is chaired by the delegation of the incoming council presidency. the mandate of this 
group is to exchange ideas and to further develop existing initiatives by the eU and its  member 
states to reduce bureaucracy and improve legislation.

high level Group of independent stakeholders on administrative burdens (’stoiber Group’): 
this group advises the commission with regard to the action programme for reducing administra-
tive burden. dr  edmund stoiber, former prime minister of Bavaria, is chairman of this group. the 
other members represent important stakeholder organisations. Its mandate expires in 2010.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

5

ia: Impact assessment

impact assessment board (iab): a body attached to the commission’s secretariat-General that 
assesses the quality of each impact assessment report and publishes its opinion thereon. the 
Board consists of four directors from different dGs and the deputy secretary-General of the com-
mission.

intervention logic: Intervention logic is the conceptual link between an intervention’s inputs and 
the production of its outputs and, subsequently, its impact in terms of results and outcomes. 

mandelkern Group: high level advisory group that consisted of regulatory experts from the mem-
ber states and the european commission. this group was established by the public administra-
tion ministers of the member states in november 2000 and chaired by the Frenchman dieudonné 
mandel kern, a former member of the conseil d’état. among other proposals, the group recom-
mended in 2001 that the commission should develop a tool for assessing the social, economic and 
environmental impacts of proposed legislation.

meP: m ember of european parliament

rapporteur: term used in the european parliament to describe the mep(s) who is (are) in charge 
of a given proposal or report. meps in charge of a proposal belonging to political groups different 
from the group of the official european parliament rapporteur in charge of the same proposal are 
called shadow-rapporteurs.

roadmap:  a short document that gives an initial description of a planned  commission initiative, 
including an indication of the main areas to be assessed in the Ia and the planning of Ia work.  these 
roadmaps have two functions: they provide an estimated timetable for the proposal and set out 
how the impact assessment will be taken forward. roadmaps are published when the commission 
legislative and work programme (cLwp) is adopted.

standard cost model (scm):  method to assess costs incurred to meet information obligations 
created by legislation. calculates cost on the basis of the average unit cost of the required admin-
istrative activity multiplied by the total number of activities performed per year.

transposition: In european Union law, a process by which the member states give force to an eU 
directive in national law by adopting appropriate implementing legislation.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

i.
I m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   i s   o n e   o f   t h e   c o r n e r-
s t o n e s   o f   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   b e t t e r   re g u-
l a t i o n   p o l i c y   f o r   t h e   i m p r o v e m e n t   a n d 
s i m p l i f i c a t i o n   o f   n e w   a n d   e x i s t i n g   l e gi s-
lation.   I ts  p ur pos e  is   to   contr ib u te   to  t he 
d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g   p ro c e s s e s   by   s y s t e m a t -
i c a l l y   c o l l e c t i n g   a n d   a n a l y s i n g   i n fo r m a -
t i o n   o n   p l a n n e d   i n t e r v e n t i o n s   a n d   e s t i-
m a t i n g   t h e i r   l i k e l y   i m p a c t .   t h i s   s h o u l d 
provide the bodies involved in legislative 
decision-mak ing with a basis on which to 
d e c i d e   o n   t h e   m o s t   a p p r o p r i a t e   w a y   t o 
addres s t he pro b l em ident ified.

ii.
t h e   a u d i t   a n a l y s e d   w h e t h e r   i m p a c t 
a s s e s s m e n t s   s u p p o r te d   d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g 
i n   t h e   eU   i n s t i t u t i o n s .   I n   p a r t i c u l a r,   i t 
examin ed th e ex tent to w hic h: 

— 

impac t assessments were prepared by 
th e  co mmis sio n  w he n  fo r mu lating  it s 
p r o p o s a l s   a n d   t h e   e u r o p e a n   p a r l i a-
me nt  and  t he co unc il  con sulted th em 
dur ing   the le gisl at ive p rocess ;

—  t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s   p r o c e d u r e s   f o r   i m-
p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   a p p r o p r i a t e l y   s u p -
por ted the commission’s development 
of it s init iat ives ; and

—  t h e   c o n t e n t   o f   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s   i m-
pac t assessment repor ts was appropri-
a t e   a n d   t h e   p r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   f i n d i n g s 
was conducive to being taken into ac -
count  fo r dec ision-m ak ing.

6

eXecUtIve  
sUmmary

iii.
th e   p e r i o d   u n d e r   e x a m i n a t i o n   w a s   2 0 0 3 –
0 8   a n d   t h e   a u d i t   i n v o l v e d   i n t e r   a l i a   a n 
international comparison of impac t assess-
m e n t   s y s t e m s,   a n   a n a l y s i s   o f   a   s a m p l e   o f 
c o m m i s s i o n   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s ,   i n t e r -
v i e w s   a n d   s u r v e y s   w i t h   p e o p l e   i n v o l v e d 
i n   p e r f o r m i n g ,   r e v i e w i n g   a n d   u s i n g   t h e 
 c o m m i s s i o n’s   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s ,   b o t h 
w i t h i n   a n d   o u t s i d e   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n .   t h e 
f i n d i n g s   w e r e   e x a m i n e d   a g a i n s t   t h e   r e l-
e v a n t   i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l   a g r e e m e n t s ,   t h e 
commission’s guidelines and a set of good 
p r a c t i c e s   o b s e r v e d   i n   p o l i c y   d o c u m e n t s 
and  established  by  the oecd. throughout 
t h e   a u d i t ,   e x p e r t   gro u p s   p rov i d e d   a d v i ce 
and suppor ted the audit wor k . 

iv.
B etter regulation is a responsibilit y of all 
eU   i n s t i t u t i o n s   i n v o l v e d   i n   t h e   l e g i s l a-
t i v e   p r o c e s s.   on   b a l a n c e,   p a r t i c u l a r l y   i n 
r e c e n t   y e a r s ,   t h e   a u d i t   h a s   s h o w n   t h a t 
i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   h a s   b e e n   e f fe c t i ve   i n 
s u p p o r t i n g   d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g   w i t h i n   t h e 
eU institutions. I n par ticular, it was found 
t h a t   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   h a d   p u t   i n   p l a c e   a 
c o m p r e h e n s i v e   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   s y s-
t e m   s i n c e   2 0 0 2 .   I m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   h a s 
b e co m e   a n   i nte gra l   e l e m e nt   o f   t h e  co m-
m i s s i o n ’s   p o l i c y   d e v e l o p m e n t   a n d   h a s 
b e e n   u s e d   b y   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   t o   d e s i g n 
i t s   i n i t i a t i v e s   b e t t e r.   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s 
i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s   a r e   s y s t e m a t i c a l l y 
t r a n s m i t t e d   t o   t h e   e u r o p e a n   pa r l i a m e n t 
and council to suppor t legislative decision-
m a k i n g   a n d   u s e r s   i n   b o t h   i n s t i t u t i o n s 
f i n d   t h e m   h e l p f u l   w h e n   c o n s i d e r i n g   t h e 
c o m m i s s i o n ’s   p r o p o s a l s .   ho w e v e r,   t h e 
c o m m i s s i o n’s   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s   w e r e 
n o t   u p d ate d   a s   t h e   l e gi s l at i ve   p ro ce d u re 
p ro gre s s e d   a n d   t h e   eu ro p e a n   pa r l i a m e nt 
a n d   c o u n c i l   r a r e l y   p e r f o r m e d   i m p a c t 
ass essments  on  the ir  own amend me nts.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

7

eXecUtIve  
sUmmary

vi.
t h e   c o u r t   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   t h e   c o m m i s-
s i o n   s h o u l d   g i v e   d u e   c o n s i d e r a t i o n   t o 
t h e   p r i n c i p l e s   o f   c l a r i t y   o f   o b j e c t i v e s , 
s i m p l i f i c a t i o n ,   r e a l i s m ,   t r a n s p a r e n c y  
a n d   a c c o u n t a b i l i t y   w h e n   d e s i g n i n g   n e w 
i nte r ve nt i o n s   a n d   re v i s i n g   ex i s t i n g   o n e s. 
t h e   e u r o p e a n   p a r l i a m e n t ,   t h e   c o u n c i l 
a n d   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   m a y   w i s h   t o   c o n-
s i d e r   t h e   f i n d i n g s   a n d   re co m m e n d at i o n s 
s e t   o u t   i n   t h i s   re p o r t   w h e n   re v i s i n g   t h e i r 
i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l   a g re e m e n t s   o n  ‘ b e t t e r 
l aw - m a k i n g’  a n d   a  ‘c o m m o n   a p p ro a c h   t o 
impac t  assessment ’.

v.
t h e   a u d i t   i d e n t i f i e d   a r e a s   f o r   i m p r o v e -
m e n t   r e l a t e d   t o   t h e   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t 
p ro c e d u re s   fo l l o we d   b y   t h e   co m m i s s i o n 
a n d   t h e   c o n t e n t   a n d   p r e s e n t a t i o n   o f 
impa c t  asse ssment rep or t s:

(i)   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   d i d   n o t   p u b l i s h   a 
comp rehe ns ive  over v iew   of   t he   le gi s-
lat ive  initiat ives   ou ts id e  t he  commis-
s i o n   l e g i s l a t i ve   a n d   wo r k   p ro gr a m m e 
(cLwp) selec ted to undergo an impac t 
ass es sme nt  or exp l ain w hy  cer tai n  i n-
i t i a t i v e s   r a t h e r   t h a n   o t h e r s   w e r e   s e -
l e c t e d .   c o n s u l t a t i o n   w i t h   s t a k e h o l d-
e r s   w a s   u s e d   w i d e l y   f o r   i n i t i a l   i n p u t 
but not carried out on draft I a repor ts. 
r e c e n t   i m p ro ve m e n t s   we re   n o t e d   re -
g a r d i n g   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n ’s   i n t e r n a l 
q u a l i t y   c o n t ro l   o f   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t 
work , but the timeliness of the I mpac t 
a s s e s s m e n t   B o a r d   ( I a B )   i n t e r v e n t i o n 
coul d  b e improved ;  and

(ii)  t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t 
r e p o r t s   g e n e r a l l y   p r o v i d e d   a   s o u n d 
d e s c r i p t i o n   o f   t h e   p r o b l e m   a t   s t a k e 
an d  sp ec ified  th e  ob j ec tive s  pur s ued. 
t h e s e   a n d   o t h e r   m a n d a t o r y   s e c t i o n s 
o f   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   r e p o r t s   w e r e 
f o u n d   t o   c o m p l y   w i t h   t h e   c o m m i s-
s i o n’s   g u i d e l i n e s .   h o w e v e r,   t h e   m a i n 
results and messages of Ia repor ts are 
not always easy to gather and compar-
i n g   t h e   i m p a c t s   o f   t h e   v a r i o u s   p o l i c y 
o p t i o n s   p r e s e n t e d   i n   a n   I a   r e p o r t   i s 
s o m e t i m e s   d i f f i c u l t .   p r o b l e m s   w i t h 
q u a n t i f y i n g   a n d   m o n e t i s i n g   i m p a c t s 
c a n   b e   t ra ce d   b a c k   to   t h e   ava i l a b i l i t y 
o f   d a t a .   Fi n a l l y,   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   a n d 
e n f o r c e m e n t   c o s t s   a n d   t h e   p o t e n t i a l 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n   o f   p r o p o s e d 
legislation were not always sufficiently 
anal ys ed or qu antified.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

IntrodUctIon

8

‘B e t t e r r e g u l a t i o n’  i n  t h e eu  c o n t e x t

1. 

 the  co mm issio n’s ‘ b et ter  regulation’  polic y  ai ms   at   de signin g 
new legislation better and simplifying existing legislation 1. the 
‘ b e t t e r   r e g u l a t i o n’  i n i t i a t i v e   w a s   a   r e s p o n s e   t o   t h e   n e e d   e x -
press ed  at  the G oth enb u rg and t he  L aek e n european councils 
in 20 01 to :

1  european commission, ‘white 
paper on european governance’, 

com(2001) 428 final.

—  simplify and improve the european Union’s regulator y en-

viro nm ent ; and

—  consider the effec ts of proposals in their economic, social 

and  env iro nme ntal  d im ensions.

2. 

 si n c e   t h e n   t h e   e u ro p e a n   co m m i s s i o n   h a s   i n t ro d u c e d   s e ve r a l 
m e a s u r e s ,   i n c l u d i n g   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   ( Ia ) ,   t o   i m p r o v e   t h e 
way  it  de signs inter ventio ns (se e  B ox  1) . 

b o x   1 

be t t e r   reGu l at i o n   Po l i c y   i n s t r u m e n t s

•  simplifying existing legislation;

•  screening and, where applicable, withdrawing pending proposals;

•  monitoring and reducing ‘administrative burdens’;

•  consulting interested parties2; and

•  impact assessment (Ia).

2  commission communication, General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the commission, 
com(2002) 704 (hereinafter ‘minimum standards’).

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
9

3  european commission,  
‘Impact assessment guidelines’, 

sec(2005) 791, p. 6.

4  see european commission, 
‘report from the commission 

on the working of committees 

during 2006’, com(2007) 842, 2007; 

european parliament, working 

party on parliamentary reform, 

‘second interim report on legislative 

activities and interinstitutional 

relations’, 15 may 2008,  

pe 406.309/cpG/Gt (internal 

european parliament document), 

part B, chapter 4, p. 41).

5  oecd, ‘Indicators of regulatory 
management systems’, regulatory 

policy committee, 2009 report; 

evaluating integrated Ias (evIa), 

Final report, march 2008.

3. 

4.  

i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t  a s  a  t o o l  f o r B e t t e r r e g u l a t i o n

c o v e r a g e   o f  t h e c o m m i s s i o n’s  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t  s y s t e m

 Ia s are carried out for legislative proposals and other commis-
s i o n   i n i t i a t i v e s .   a l l   m a j o r   l e g i s l a t i v e ,   b u d g e t a r y   a n d   p o l i c y -
d e f i n i n g   i n i t i a t i ve s   w i t h   s i g n i f i c a n t   i m p a c t   m u s t   u n d e r g o   a n 
Ia.   m a j o r   p o l i c y   i n i t i at i ve s   a re   d e f i n e d   a s   a l l   t h o s e   p re s e nte d 
i n   t h e   a n n u a l   p o l i c y   s t r a t e g y   ( a p s)   o r,   l a t e r,   i n   t h e   c o m m i s-
s i o n’s   l e g i s l a t i ve   wo r k   p ro g r a m m e   ( cL w p) ,   w i t h   s o m e   c l e a r l y 
d e f i n e d   e xc e p t i o n s .   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   o t h e r   s i g n i f i c a n t   i n i t i a t i v e s 
can  be  cove re d on  a case -by- case   basis 3.

 th e   co m m i s s i o n’s   Ia  s ys te m   a l s o   a p p l i e s   to   ex i s t i n g   eU   l e gi s-
l a t i o n   w h e n   t h e r e   i s   a   r e v i s i o n   o r   a n   u p d a t e   o f   t h e   a c q u i s 
 co m mu n a u t a i re,  fo r   ex a m p l e   u n d e r   t h e  ‘ s i m p l i f i c at i o n   ro l l i n g 
p r o g r a m m e’.   Fi n a l l y,   i n   2 0 0 9 ,   t h e   s c o p e   o f   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s 
I a   s y s t e m   w a s   e x t e n d e d   t o   i m p l e m e n t i n g   r u l e s   ( o r  ‘c o m i t o l -
ogy ’ decisions). these implementing measures are a significant 
source of eU legislation, as around 250 comitology committees 
adop t  aro und  2  600  s uch  measure s  eve r y   yea r.  approximately 
1  000   of   t hem   are  b as ed   on  l egi slat ion   adopte d  un de r   t he   co -
dec isio n p ro ced ure 4.

c o m m i s s i o n’s  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t  s y s t e m  c o v e r a g e   i s  w i d e r 
t h a n  t h a t   o f  c o m p a r a B l e  n a t i o n a l  s y s t e m s

5.  

 Fully operational Ia systems are in place in only a few  m ember 
states 5.   m o reover,  t he  co mmiss ion’s  Ia  system  has  a  dif ferent 
and,  to   so me  ex tent,   w ider  scope   th an  oth er   syste ms   i n  oe cd 
count r ies  ( see A nn ex  I): 

— 

firs tl y,   ot her  Ia  systems  (such   as  i n  th e  Us a )   address  on ly 
implementing rules (i.e. regulator y measures which fur ther 
specify legislation previously adopted by congress; in the 
eU contex t, s uc h meas ure s are com parabl e to ‘comi tolo gy 
de cisio ns’); and

—  s e c o n d l y,   s o m e   e u r o p e a n   c o u n t r i e s   ( s u c h   a s   t h e   ne t h e r -
l a n d s   a n d   G e r m a n y )   f o c u s   t h e i r   a n a l y s i s   o f   f o r t h c o m i n g 
r e g u l a t i o n   o n   t h e   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n . 
I n   t h e   c a s e   o f   t h e   co m m i s s i o n ,   t h i s   i s   o n l y   o n e   o f   s e ve ra l 
as pe c t s analysed w ithin an Ia.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
  
  
 
10

6  european commission,  
‘Impact assessment guidelines’, 

sec(2005) 791.

7  european commission,  
‘Impact assessment guidelines’, 

sec(2005) 791, 15.6.2005, as 

amended on 15.3.2006;  

european commission,  

‘Impact assessment guidelines’, 

sec(2009) 92, 15.1.2009.

8 

Information note from the 

president to the commission, 

enhancing quality support and 

control for commission Ias,  

the Ia Board, 14 november 2006.

9  http://ec.europa.eu/governance/
impact/ia_carried_out/ia_carried_

out_en.htm

6. 

7. 

8. 

c o n t e n t  o f  t h e c o m m i s s i o n’s  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t  r e p o r t s

 th e   re p o r t s   re s u l t i n g   f ro m   t h e s e   Ia s   a re   e x p e c te d   to   i d e nt i f y 
a n d   a s s e s s   t h e   p ro b l e m   a t   s t a k e   a n d   t h e   o b j e c t i ve s   p u r s u e d, 
d e ve l o p   t h e   m a i n   o p t i o n s   fo r   a c h i e v i n g   t h e   p o l i c y   o b j e c t i ve, 
a n d   a n a l y s e   t h e i r   l i k e l y   e c o n o m i c ,   e nv i r o n m e n t a l   a n d   s o c i a l 
i m p a c t s .   t h e y   s h o u l d   a l s o   a n a l y s e   p o t e n t i a l   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
burd ens   res ult ing  fro m  t he  p ropos ed   o pti on s,   as se ss   pos si ble 
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   a n d   e n f o r c e m e n t   p r o b l e m s   a n d   s p e c i f y   a p -
pro pr iate mo nitor ing and  evaluati on  a r ran g eme nts  for  th e  i n-
ter ve nt ion o r p ro gram me p ropos ed 6.

o r g a n i s a t i o n a l  r e s p o n s i B i l i t y,  p r o c e d u r a l   a s p e c t s  a n d  c o s t 
o f  t h e c o m m i s s i o n’s  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t  s y s t e m

 wi t h i n   t h e   co m m i s s i o n ,   e a c h   d i re c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l   ( d G )   i s   re -
s p o n s i b l e   fo r   p re p a r i n g   i t s   I a s   i n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s 
g u i d e l i n e s.   Fo l l ow i n g   t h e   f i r s t   ve r s i o n   i n   2 0 0 2 ,   t h i s   g u i d a n ce 
mate r ial  ha s be en up dated o n  th re e occ as i on s,  wi th  t he  late st 
u p d a t e   t a k i n g   p l a c e   i n   j a n u a r y   2 0 0 9 7.   I a s   a r e   c a r r i e d   o u t   b y 
t h e   s t a f f   r e s p o n s i b l e   f o r   t h e   p o l i c y   i n i t i a t i v e ,   s u p p o r t e d   b y 
dedicated ‘Ia suppor t units’. since 2007, an I mpac t assessment 
Board (IaB) has provided quality suppor t and control for all Ia s 
wi th in t he  c o mmis sio n 8.

 a   p r e l i m i n a r y   d r a f t   I a   r e p o r t   m u s t   a c c o m p a n y   t h e   p r o p o s a l 
w h e n   g o i n g   t h ro u g h   i n t e rd e p a r t m e n t a l   c o n s u l t a t i o n .   a  f i n a l 
draf t Ia repor t will accompany the legislative proposal when it 
is  s ent   to   the  co ll e ge   o f  co mmiss ioners  for   it s  f inal  ad opti on . 
the final Ia  repor t is also sent to the european par liament and 
the council along with the definite proposal and is made avail-
able o n t he  e uro p a we bsite 9.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
11

9. 

10.  

11.  

i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l  a g r e e m e n t s  B e t w e e n   t h e e u r o p e a n   
p a r l i a m e n t,  t h e c o u n c i l  a n d  t h e c o m m i s s i o n

 I n   t h e   i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l   a g r e e m e n t   o n   b e t t e r   l a w - m a k i n g   i n 
2 0 0 3 ,   t h e   eu ro p e a n   pa r l i a m e nt ,   t h e   co u n c i l   a n d   t h e   co m m i s-
s i o n   a g r e e d   ‘. . .   o n   t h e   p o s i t i v e   c o n t r i b u t i o n   o f   I A s   i n   i m p r o v -
ing  the qua li t y of  Co mmun it y leg is lation , w ith  par tic ular  re gard  
t o   t h e   s c o p e   a n d   s u b s t a n c e   t h e r e o f ’ 1 0.   I n   2 0 0 5 ,   a   f u r t h e r  
interinstitutional agreement was signed between the european  
parliament (ep), the council and the commission on a ‘common 
app ro ach to  Ia ’ 11. 

 I n 2005 the european parliament, the council and the commis-
sion  had  agree d   th at  the  inter in st it ut io nal    agreem e nt   wa s  to 
b e   re co n s i d e re d   by   t h e   e n d   o f   2 0 0 7 1 2.  th i s   re v i e w   i s   s t i l l   o u t -
stand ing.  as  a  p rep arato r y  step,  in  2 008 ,  th e   european  par lia-
ment,   t he   co unc il   and  t he  co mmiss ion  produced ‘stoc ktak ing 
repor ts’ which set out their views on the ‘common approach to 
Ia ’ since  2005 13.

 on   s e v e r a l   o c c a s i o n s ,   t h e   e u r o p e a n   pa r l i a m e n t   h a s   a d o p t e d 
r e s o l u t i o n s   o n   b e t t e r   r e g u l a t i o n   a n d   t h e   u s e   o f   I a,   w h i c h , 
i n   g e n e r a l ,   v i e w e d   I a   a s   h e l p f u l   i n   i n f o r m i n g   e U   d e c i s i o n - 
mak in g 14.   simil ar ly,  th e  co uncil  com mit ted  itse lf,   in   its   rece nt 
c o n c l u s i o n s   o n   b e t t e r   re g u l a t i o n ,   t o w a rd s   c o n t i n u i n g   t o   u s e 
the commission’s Ia repor ts and the accompanying IaB opinions  
throughout the negotiating process 15. the european parliament 
a n d   t h e   co u n c i l   h ave   co m m u n i c ate d   to   t h e   co u r t   t h e i r   v i e ws 
o n   t o p i c s   c o v e r e d   i n   t h i s   r e p o r t   ( l e t t e r s   f r o m   t h e   pr e s i d e n t s 
o f   t h e   e u r o p e a n   pa r l i a m e n t   a n d   t h e   c o u n c i l   a r e   a t t a c h e d   t o 
th is re p or t).

10  Interinstitutional agreement  
on better law-making  

(oj c 321, 31.12.2003), paragraph 28.

11  Interinstitutional agreement on a 
common approach to Ia (14901/05 

jUr, adopted on 29.11.2005).

12  Interinstitutional agreement on a 
common approach to Ia (14901/05 

jUr, adopted on 29.11.2005), 

point 19.

13  ep: the conference of committee 
chairs, Ia: the european parliament’s 

experience, a stocktaking report 

of the common approach to Ia. 

council: note from the director of 

the General secretariat directorate-

General, directorate I, ‘review of 

the interinstitutional common 

approach to Ia — state of play of 

the handling of Ia in the council, 

Brussels, 3.11.2008. commission: 

review of the interinstitutional 

common approach to Ia (Ia) — 

Implementation of the common 

approach by the commission. a 

working document of the secretariat 

General sG.c.2 d(2008) 9524.

14  resolution of 24 march 2004 on the assessment of the impact of community legislation and the consultation procedures (2003/2079(InI)); 
resolution of 10 july 2005 on minimising administrative costs imposed by legislation (2005/2140(InI)); resolution of 16 may 2006 on the 

implementation, consequences and impact of the internal market legislation in force (2004/2224(InI)); resolution of 16 may 2006 on better 

law-making 2004: application of the principle of subsidiarity — 12th annual report (2005/2055(InI)); resolution of 4 september 2007 on  

better law-making 2005: application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality — 13th annual report (2006/2279(InI)); resolution of  

4 september 2007 on the single market review (2007/2024(InI)); resolution of 4 september 2007 on better regulation in the european Union 

(2007/2095(InI)); resolution of 21 october 2008 on better law-making 2006: application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality — 

14th annual report (2008/2045(InI)); european parliament, committee on Legal affairs, ‘report on better regulation in the eU’ (2007/2095(InI)); 

a6-0273/2007 final, 2.7.2007: see explanatory statement and points 5 to 15, 21, 26, 30, 42 to 43.

15  council of the european Union, competitiveness council conclusions on ‘better regulation’, 17076/09, 4.12.2009, point 6.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
12

12.  

 Figure 1 provides an over view of the role of impac t assessment 
in developing and deciding on the commission’s initiatives and 
legisl ative p ro pos als.

f i G u r e   1

t h e   r o l e   o f   i m Pac t   a s s e s s m e n t   i n   d e v e lo P i n G   a n d   d e c i d i n G 
o n  t h e   co m m i s s i o n ’s   i n i t i at i v e s   a n d   l e G i s l at i v e   P r o P o s a l s

IA provides support 
for decision-making ...

Final legislation

... in the European
Parliament and
Council

Legislative decision-making: 
Appreciation of IA reports, discussion of IA reports, impacts of amendments  
to Commission proposals are assessed

IA report

Commission legislative 
proposal/initiative

Development of  Commission proposal: 
Coverage of most relevant initiatives, IA part of policy development, IA as 
support for decision-making

Selection of
initiative to
undergo IA

Consultation of
interested
parties for IA

Quality control
of IA

Description of 
policy problem, 
objectives and 
intervention logic

Comparison of policy 
options through
assessment of impacts

Implementation,
enforcement,
monitoring and 
evaluation of initiative

... in the 
Commission

Procedures 
for IA in the
Commission

Content and 
presentation of 
the Commission’s 
IA reports

special report no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special report no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
aUdIt scope and approach

13

13.  

 t h e   a u d i t   a s s e s s e d   w h e t h e r   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   Ia s   s u p p o r t e d 
dec isio n-mak in g  in  the  eU  inst itutions.  I n   par ticular,  it  exa m-
ined t he ex tent  to w hich:

16  Interinstitutional agreement on 
better law-making; Interinstitutional 

common approach to Ia (Ia), 2005.

— 

Ia s   w e r e   p r e p a r e d   b y   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   w h e n   fo r m u l a t i n g 
its proposals and the european parliament and the council 
co nsu l ted  t hem  dur ing th e le gislati ve  pro ce ss;

— 

the commission’s procedures for Ia appropriately suppor t -
ed  the  c o mmis sio n’s developm ent  of its  i ni ti ati ve s;  a n d

— 

the content of the commission’s Ia repor ts was appropriate 
a n d   t h e   p re s e nt at i o n   o f   f i n d i n g s   wa s   co n d u c i ve   to   b e i n g 
t aken  into  acco unt for dec ision - mak i ng.

14.  

 the per iod under review was 2003 to 2008. the audit involved 
inter  al ia:

17  european commission, 
communication on impact 

assessment, com(2002) 276 

final; european commission, 

communication on ‘towards a 

reinforced culture of consultation 

and dialogue — General principles 

and minimum standards for 

consultation of interested parties 

by the commission’, com(2002) 

704 final; Information note from 

the president to the commission, 

enhancing quality support and 

control for commission Ias, the 

Ia Board, 14 november 2006, 

european commission, 2005/2006 

—  a comparison of specific elements of the commission’s sys-

‘Impact assessment guidelines’, 

te m w ith Ia s ystem s  el s ewhere;

sec(2005) 791.

—  a n   a n a l ys i s   o f   I a   p ro d u c t i o n   s t at i s t i c s   a n d   o f   a   s a m p l e   o f 
Ia re p or ts  (s corec ard an alysis related  to  fi ve   dGs  an d cor -
responding to around a quar ter of all Ia s produced during 
t he p er io d audited);  an d

—  enquiries and sur veys with people involved in per forming, 
reviewing and using the commission’s Ia s both within and 
o ut sid e the c o mmis sio n.

 A nn ex  II co nta in s a more detailed de scr i pti on  of  th e me th od-
olo gy  u sed for th e aud it.

18  mandelkern Group on Better 
regulation, Final report,  

13 november 2001.

19  oecd, Regulatory impact analysis 
— Best practices in OECD countries, 

1997; oecd, apec–oecd integrated 

checklist on regulatory reform: 

Final draft, 2005; oecd, Indicators 

of regulatory management systems, 

2009.

15.  

 the   finding s  were  examined  agai ns t  t he   re levant  i nte r i ns ti tu-
tional agreements 16, the commission’s guidelines 17 and a set of 
good prac tices obser ved in polic y documents 18 and established 
by the oecd 19. exper t groups composed of prac titioners in the 
f i e l d   o f   Ia  a n d   b e t te r   re g u l at i o n   we re   i nv i te d   by   t h e   co u r t   to 
provid e su pp o r t  an d advice throug ho ut  th e aud it. 

16.  

 the analysis of the qualit y of individual pieces of legislation or 
t h e   p ro ce s s   o f   l aw- m a k i n g   a s   s u c h   we re   n o t   w i t h i n   t h e   s co p e 
of the  audit.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
 
 
 
20  european commission, 
‘communication from the 

commission on Ia’, com(2002) 276 

final of 2.6.2002, paragraph 1.2.:  

Ia is ‘... the process of [the] systematic 

analysis of the likely impacts of 

intervention by public authorities.

oBservatIons

14

us e   o f   i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t s   f o r   d e c i s i o n -
m a k i nG   at  t h e   co m m i s s i o n ,  t h e   eu r oPe a n 
Pa r l i a m e n t   a n d  t h e   co u n c i l

17.  

 Ia s   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   t h e   d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g   p r o c e s s e s   b y   s y s t e m-
a t i c a l l y   c o l l e c t i n g   a n d   a n a l y s i n g   i n fo r m a t i o n   o n   p l a n n e d   i n -
te r ve nt i o n s   a n d   e s t i m at i n g   t h e i r   l i k e l y   i m p a c t 2 0.  th e   re l e va nt 
i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l   a g r e e m e n t s   b e t w e e n   t h e   e u r o p e a n   pa r l i a-
ment,   t he   co unc il   and  t he  co mmiss ion   def ine  th at  Ia s  sh ould 
first of all help the commission to develop its polic y initiatives 
and legislative proposals. subsequently, during the legislative 
p ro c e d u re,   Ia s   p re s e n t e d   b y   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   a n d,   w h e r e   a p -
propriate, those prepared by the european par liament and the 
co u n c i l,   s h o u l d   p ro v i d e   t h e   i n fo r m a t i o n   b a s e d   o n   w h i c h   t h e 
legislators can decide on the most appropr iate way to address 
th e p ro b lem  ident ified.

18.  

 For t his p ur po se,  t he audit  exam in e d:

— 

the ex tent to which the commission has carried out Ia s for 
its legislative proposals and other initiatives and whether 
Ia s were ac tively used in the commission’s polic y develop-
me nt  and it s prep aration of  le gis lati ve  propos als; 

—  w h e t h e r   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   Ia s   we re   p e rce i ve d   by   u s e r s   at 
t h e   eu ro p e a n   pa r l i a m e nt   a n d   t h e   co u n c i l   a s   co nt r i b u t i n g 
t o   t h e   l e g i s l a t i v e   d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g   p r o c e s s   a n d   w h e t h e r 
Ia s   a f fe c t e d   t h e   w a y   i n   w h i c h   l e g i s l a t i ve   p r o p o s a l s   we re 
discussed in the relevant committees and work ing par ties; 
and

— 

t he ex tent  to  w hic h th e l e gislator s  c ar r ie d o ut  Ia s of t heir 
own substantive amendments or requested the commission 
t o   p re s e n t   u p d a t e s   o f   i t s   Ia s   i n   t h e   l i g h t   o f   s u c h   a m e n d-
m e n t s   a n d   w h e t h e r   n a t i o n a l   b o d i e s   p r o v i d e d   a d d i t i o n a l 
i n fo r m a t i o n   t o   i n fo r m   l e g i s l a t i ve   d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g   a t   t h e 
eU l evel.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
imP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t   h e lPs  t h e   co m m i s s i o n  to 
f o r m u l at e   i t s   Pr oPo s a l s 

s i g n i f i c a n t  i n c r e a s e  i n  t h e  n u m B e r  o f  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t s 
c a r r i e d  o u t  s i n c e 2003

19.  

 during the period audited Ia s had strong institutional back ing 
a n d   we re   i n c re a s i n g l y   u s e d   t o   p r o v i d e   i n p u t   t o   t h e   co m m i s-
sion’s development of polic y initiatives and legislative propos -
a l s 2 1.   o ve r a l l ,   4 0 4   Ia  re p o r t s   we re   p u b l i s h e d   b y   t h e   co m m i s-
sion du r ing  t he p er iod au dited. s in ce 20 03 , the  n um ber  of I as 
car r ied  o ut  annual ly  has inc rease d to 12 1 repo r t s i n 2 0 0 8  ( se e 
Figu r e  2).

15

21  josé manuel Barroso — president 
of the european commission: 

response to UK presidency 

programme, european parliament —  

plenary session, Brussels, 23 june 

2005; ‘Uniting in peace: the role of 

Law in the european Union’, jean 

monnet lecture, eUI Florence,  

31 march 2006; ‘qualité de la 

législation européenne : le 

temps des résultats’, european 

parliament, strasbourg, 4 april 2006; 

presentation of the european 

commission’s 2007 work 

programme, european parliament, 

strasbourg, 14 november 2006; 

‘alive and kicking: the renewed 

Lisbon strategy is starting to pay 

off’, Brussels, 5 march 2007; ‘we are 

all new europeans now’, Lithuanian 

parliament (seimas), vilnius, 

29 march 2007. Günther verheugen, 

‘Better regulation’ conference of 

the slovenian presidency, Lubljana, 

17 april 2008.

f iGu r e   2

nu m b e r   o f   i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t s   Pe r f o r m e d   e ac h  y e a r

Total of 404 IA reports

121

72

67

93

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

21

30

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

S o urce: european commission. 

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
16

20.  

21.  

c o m m i s s i o n’s  o B j e c t i v e  o f clwp  c o v e r a g e   a t t a i n e d…

 the selec tion of initiatives to undergo an Ia is a significant de -
cision, in terms of political implications and resources needed. 
during the period audited the main condition for selec tion was 
th e incl us io n of t he in itiative in  th e cL w p, wh ich contain s the 
com mis sio n’s  major   pol ic y   initiat i ve s  as  s et  out  in   t he  an nual 
polic y s t rateg y  (a ps; s ee B ox  2) .

 Fro m   2 0 0 3   to   2 0 0 8 ,   Ia s   we re   c a r r i e d   o u t   fo r   6 9   %   o f   a l l   cL w p 
initiatives. since 2005, in accordance with the criteria   specified 
b y   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a t   t h e   t i m e ,   Ia s   w e r e   u n d e r t a k e n   f o r   a l l 
relevant items on its cLwp, i.e. those initiatives that were con -
side red  to have  significant impa c t.

b o x   2

 se t   o f   co n d i t i o n s   f o r   s e l e c t i nG   i n i t i at i v e s  t h at   a r e  to 
u n d e r Go   i a

In 2003, the first year of the implementation of the Ia system, the commission decided to select a certain 
number of proposals that should undergo Ia.  the commission based its selection on the importance 
of the proposals selected in relation to the political priorities, the feasibility for its departments to per-
form the assessments in the short term, and the need to maintain a balance between different types of 
proposal and the involvement of a broad range of departments. 2004 was the first year in which the Ia 
procedure was fully integrated into the programming cycle and the use of Ias was extended to cover a set 
of proposals listed in the cLwp which were considered to have significant impacts 22. since 2005, Ia s have 
been required for all initiatives set out in the cLwp23, with some types of initiatives being exempted24. 

22  see aps 2005; com(2004) 133 final, 25.2.2004. cLwp 2004, com(2003) 645 final, annex 2: these initiatives included major policy-defining,  
pre-legislative and legislative proposals.

23  european commission, ‘Impact assessment guidelines’, sec(2005) 791, 15.6.2005, as amended on 15.3.2006, procedural rules (II.1).

24  ‘Green papers’, proposals for consultation with ‘social partners’, periodic commission decisions and reports, proposals following international 
obligations and com measures deriving from it’s power to oversee the correct implementation of ec law and executive decisions are 

exempted.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
17

...  a n d  i n c r e a s i n g  t r e n d  t o  a l s o  c a r r y  o u t  i m p a c t   
a s s e s s m e n t s  f o r  i n i t i a t i v e s  o u t s i d e  t h e clwp 

22.  

 I n l ine w it h it s  rul es  and  b ased on  a c as e -by- c as e as se ss me nt, 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   h a s   a l s o   p r o d u c e d   Ia s   fo r   i n i t i a t i v e s   n o t   i n-
cluded in the cLwp 25. In 2008, such Ia s accounted for a majority 
of Ia s c ar r ied  o u t in t hat  year  (se e Fig ur e  3). 

c o n d u c t i n g  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t s  i s  B e c o m i n g  s t a n d a r d   
p r a c t i c e  i n  t h e c o m m i s s i o n’s  p o l i c y  d e v e l o p m e n t 

23.  

 I a   i s   i n c r e a s i n g l y   b e c o m i n g   p a r t   o f   t h e   p o l i c y   d e v e l o p m e n t 
c u l t u re   at   t h e   co m m i s s i o n .   o ve r   t h e   p a s t   fe w   ye a r s   t h e   co m-
mission has provided extensive training in Ia methodology.  the 
way  in   w hic h  Ia s  a re  to   be   p roduced  is   s et   ou t  i n  commiss ion 
Ia guidelines issued by the  s ecretar iat- G eneral that are appli-
cable in all depar tments and ser vices. since 2002, this material 
h a s   b e e n   u p d a te d   o n   t h re e   o cc a s i o n s,   w i t h   t h e   l a te s t   u p d a te 
ta k ing  pl ace in janu ar y 2009 26.

25  these initiatives (which are to 
have potentially significant impacts, 

address novel or sensitive issues or 

affect stakeholders particularly and 

for which an Ia should therefore 

be carried out) are determined 

on a basis of a screening by the 

secretariat-General, with the 

support of the Impact assessment 

Board (IaB).

26  european commission,  
‘Impact assessment guidelines’, 

sec(2005) 791, 15.6.2005, as 

amended on 15.3.2006; european 

commission, ‘Impact assessment 

guidelines’, sec(2009) 92, 15.1.2009.

fiGu r e   3

br e a k d o w n   o f   i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t s   b e t w e e n  2 0 0 5   a n d   2 0 08  — 
c lwP  v s   n o n -c lwP

14 %

86 %

10

62

2005

30 %

70 %

20

47

2006

48 %

52 %

45

48

2007

67

55 %

54

45 %

2008

Commission's legislative and work programme

Non-Commission's legislative and work programme

S o urce: eca analysis of commission data. 

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
18

24.  

 si n c e   2 0 0 7 ,   a n   I m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   B o a r d   ( IaB )   s u p p o r t e d   b y 
the  co mm issio n’s s ec ret ar iat- G en eral (sG)  revie ws t he  qual it y 
of the Ia s car r ied out by the direc torates- general. I n addition, 
the Ia  guidelines have recently specified that direc tors- general 
must assume responsibilit y for the methodological soundness 
of  t he  Ia  d ocu ments  by  s igning  t he   d raf t   Ia  re por t  subm it te d 
fo r   t h e   IaB   q u a l i t y   c h e c k 2 7.  t h e   g u i d e l i n e s   a l s o   p re s c r i b e   t h e 
u s e   o f   Ia  s t e e r i n g   g r o u p s   w h i c h   a i m   t o   e n s u r e   c o n s i s t e n c y 
 bet we en p o lic y  areas  in the Ia exe rci se.

27  european commission,  
‘Impact assessment guidelines’, 

sec(2009) 92.

i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t s  p r i m a r i l y  h e l p  t o  s h a p e c o m m i s s i o n 
p r o p o s a l s

25.  

 t h e   a u d i t   f o u n d   t h a t   Ia s   w e r e   n o t   u s e d   b y   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n 
to   d e c i d e   w h e t h e r   to   g o   a h e a d   w i t h   a   p ro p o s a l.  th e   d e c i s i o n 
w h e t h e r   t o   l a u n c h   a n   i n i t i a t i v e   i s   g e n e r a l l y   t a k e n   b e f o r e   a n 
imp ac t   a ssessm ent   rep o r t  is   f in alis ed. th e  commiss ion  rath er 
uses Ia to gather and analyse evidence that, dur ing the polic y 
development process, is used to improve its proposed initiative 
(see B ox   3 fo r an examp l e) . 

b o x   3

 imP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t   h e lPs  to   i mPr o v e  t h e   Pr oPo s e d 
i n i t i at i v e : ‘ r o a m i nG   i ’

In the ‘r oaming I’ case28, the decision to legislate by means of a regulation29 (rather than through a 
directive or not to legislate at all) was upheld, but the legislative proposal was adjusted throughout 
the Ia process. In its second phase consultation, the commission had proposed a regulatory approach 
called the ‘home  pricing principle’ as a possible means to address the problems in the roaming market. 
In the Ia, which followed the public consultation process, the  commission took on board the view of 
the majority of respondents, and ultimately proposed an alternative approach (i.e. the european home 
market approach) which provided a better solution to the problems in the roaming market. 

28  com(2006) 382.

29  commissioner reding speech before the european regulators Group on 8 February 2006.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
19

26.  

 the audit also showed that, in par ticular for recent years, I a is 
b e c o m i n g   b ro a d e r   i n   t e r m s   o f   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   a l t e r n a t i ve   o p -
t i o n s   a n a l ys e d   a n d   t h at   re s o u rce s   a re   t a rg e te d   to   t h e   a s s e s s-
ment  o f initiat ives  acco rding  to  th ei r  i mpo r t an ce:

30  european commission, 2009  
‘Impact assessment guidelines’, 

sec(2009) 92, chapter 3, pp. 12–16.

—  analysis of an increasingly wide range of polic y alternatives: 
commission staff in charge of drafting legislative proposals 
a n d   t h e   re l ate d   Ia s   re p o r te d   t h at   t h e   Ia  p ro ce s s   re q u i re d 
t hem  to  co nsider  more  al ter n ati ve s  th an  prev i ously   wh en 
p re p a r i n g   a   p o l i c y   i n i t i a t i ve.   I t   w a s   fo u n d   t h a t ,   t h ro u g h-
out the per iod audited, the number of alter native options 
presented in the Ia repor ts increased. I n par ticular, for Ias 
p ro d u c e d   i n   2 0 0 7   a n d   2 0 0 8 ,   t h e   co u r t ’s   a n a l y s i s   s h o we d 
that the commission increasingly analysed several feasible 
reg u lato r y  alter natives dur ing  its  Ia s;  and

—  prioritisation of resources on legislative proposals and CLWP 
initiatives:  the commission considers that more resources 
sh ou l d  b e  de vo ted  to  t he  analysis   of   t he   m os t  s i gn if ic ant 
i n i t i a t i v e s   t h a n   t o   t h e   l e s s   s i g n i f i c a n t   i n i t i a t i v e s .   I n   t h e 
co mmis sio n  g uidel ines   th is  is  c alle d  th e  pr in ci ple  of   pro -
p o r t ion ate  analysis 30.  Ba sed on  estim ates provide d by th e 
commission, it can be shown that more time is devoted to 
t h o s e   I a s   w h i c h   a re   u n d e r t a k e n   fo r   l e g i s l a t i ve   p ro p o s a l s 
(as  co mp ared  to non-l egislat ive  ini ti ati ve s)  and  wh ic h  a re 
included in the cL wp (as compared to those which are not) 
(see Figure 4).  this indicates that the commission focuses 
i t s   r e s o u r c e s   i n   a c c o r d a n c e   w i t h   t h e   p r e - d e f i n e d   p r i o r i-
t ies.

fiGu r e   4

av e r aGe   s ta f f   r e s o u r c e s   u s e d   f o r  t h e   Pr o d u c t i o n   o f 
i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t   r ePo r t s

Legislative

Non-legislative

CLWP item

Non-CLWP item

0

2

4

6

8

10

Average staff resources per IA in person-months

No te: 52 Ia reports. 
S o urce: eca analysis of commission data (2009).

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
20

i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t s  a r e   a c t i v e l y  u s e d  f o r  d e c i s i o n- m a k i n g 
a t   t h e  l e v e l   o f  t h e c o l l e g e  o f c o m m i s s i o n e r s

27.  

 a t   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n ,   i n i t i a t i v e s   a r e   d e s i g n e d   a n d   i m p a c t   a s-
sessments are prepared within the direc torates- general under 
th e aut ho r it y o f  the co mm issioner  in  ch arge of a give n poli c y 
field. subsequently,  commission proposals are adopted by the 
c o l l e g e   o f   c o m m i s s i o n e r s   a n d   t h e s e   d e c i s i o n s   a r e   g e n e r a l l y 
p re p a re d   at   we e k l y   m e e t i n g s   o f   t h e i r   pr i vate   o f f i ce   s t a f f.   ac -
c o r d i n g   t o   c o m m i s s i o n   p r i v a t e   o f f i c e   s t a f f   w h o   w e r e   i n t e r -
v i e w e d ,   Ia  r e p o r t s   p r o v i d e   a   v a l u a b l e   s o u r c e   o f   i n f o r m a t i o n 
about proposals put for ward by commissioners other than their 
ow n   a n d   I as   ( a n d   t h e   re l a te d   I a B   o p i n i o n s )   a re   re g u l a r l y   d i s -
cuss ed at  the  week ly p rep arator y  me e ti ng s.

31  Interinstitutional agreement on 
better law-making: in particular 

points 25 and 29; Interinstitutional 

agreement on a common approach 

to Ia (14901/05 jUr, adopted on 

29.11.2005): in particular points 5, 6 

and 13.

th e   co m m i s s i o n ’s   i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t 
r ePo r t s   a r e   co n s i d e r e d   by   m o s t   u s e r s   at 
t h e   eu r oPe a n   Pa r l i a m e n t   a n d   co u n c i l   a s 
r e l e va n t   i n f o r m at i o n   i n  t h e   l eGi s l at i v e 
d e c i s i o n - m a k i nG   Pr o c e s s

c o m m i s s i o n  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t  r e p o r t s  a r e   t r a n s m i t t e d  t o 
t h e e u r o p e a n p a r l i a m e n t  a n d c o u n c i l  t o g e t h e r  w i t h  t h e 
p o l i c y  i n i t i a t i v e

 Ia repor ts should be made available to the  european parliament 
a n d   t h e   c o u n c i l  ‘ f u l l y   a n d   f r e e l y ’  s o   t h a t   t h e   l e g i s l a t o r s   c a n 
o b t a i n   a   c o m p re h e n s i ve   v i e w   o f   t h e   e v i d e n c e   b a s e   p r o v i d e d 
i n   t h e   Ia  r e p o r t 3 1.   d u r i n g   t h e   p e r i o d   a u d i t e d ,   a l l   I a   r e p o r t s 
a c c o m p a ny i n g   l e g i s l a t i v e   p r o p o s a l s   w e r e   fo r w a r d e d   t o   b o t h 
instit ut ion s. 

28.  

b o x   4

’G o o d   Pr ac t i c e ’  e x a mPl e   o f   a n   i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t   b e i nG  
Pr e s e n t e d   a n d   d i s c u s s e d   i n   a   eu r oPe a n   Pa r l i a m e n ta r y 
co m m i t t e e  w o r k i nG   Gr o uP

at the Internal market and consumer protection committee, a working group meeting was dedicated to 
the presentation and discussion of the Ia on the proposed directive on consumer rights 32. after a short 
presentation of the Ia by a representative of the commission, several meps commented on the substance 
of the Ia report and made suggestions as to what aspects would merit further attention by the  commis-
sion. this example demonstrates that Ias can play a role in informing legislators and discussing Ia reports 
with meps can provide relevant feedback to the commission with regard to the legislative proposal.

32  com(2008) 614.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
21

t h e c o m m i s s i o n’s  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t s  r a r e l y   d i s c u s s e d  a t 
m e e t i n g s  o f e u r o p e a n p a r l i a m e n t  c o m m i t t e e s  a n d   
c o u n c i l  w o r k i n g   p a r t i e s 

29.  

 I n   t h e   e u r o p e a n   pa r l i a m e n t   a n d   c o u n c i l ,   i t   i s   r e c o m m e n d e d 
p ra c t i ce   to   d i s c u s s   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   Ia  w h e n e ve r   a   p ro p o s a l 
is submitted 33. however, current prac tice obser ved in both the 
par l iam ent  and  co unc il   f all s  sign ific ant ly  s h or t   of  th is   re com-
men de d a pp ro ac h: 

—  at the european parliament, the commission’s Ia repor ts are 
no t  systemat ical l y  p resented  an d  d i sc us s e d  at   co mmit te e 
m e e t i n g s.  th e   a u d i t   fo u n d   t h at   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   wa s   o n l y 
i nv i t e d   t o   p re s e n t   i t s   Ia s   i n   e xc e p t i o n a l   c a s e s   ( s e e   B ox   4  
fo r   a  ‘g o o d   p ra c t i ce’  ex a m p l e ) .   an   a n a l ys i s   o f   ove r   1 2   0 0 0 
p ub l ic  eu rop ea n  par l ia me nt  commit tee   document s  of  the 
2004–09  p ar liament ar y ter m reveal ed  t hat  on ly  on e docu-
me nt  m ade exp l icit  reference  to a c ommiss ion  Ia 34; an d

— 

internal council guidance suggests discussion of the com-
m i s s i o n’s   Ia s   a t  wo r k i n g   pa r t y   ( w p)   l e v e l 3 5.   ac c o r d i n g   t o 
inter views car r ied  ou t wit h counc il offic ials, a for mal di s-
c u s s i o n   o f   t h e   Ia  a n d   w h e r e   a p p r o p r i a t e   a   c o m m i s s i o n 
presentation is decided on a case -by- case basis (see Box 5  
fo r   a  ‘g o o d   p ra c t i ce’  e x a m p l e ) .   a n   a n a l ys i s   o f   t h e   co u n c i l 
public register for the 2004–2009 period showed that only 
fo u r   d o c u m e nt s   m a d e   ex p l i c i t   re fe re n ce   to   a   co m m i s s i o n 
Ia.

33  ep conference of committee 
chairmen, ‘Ia handbook’, 17 july 

2008; council of the european 

Union, General secretariat,  

‘handling Ias in council — Indicative 

guidance for working party chairs’, 

Luxembourg, 2007.

34  european parliament, committee 
on Industry, research and energy, 

Itre(2008)0123_1; 23 january 

2008, meeting 17:00–18:00; Letter 

of commissioner piebalgs on the 

commission’s Ia, continuation of the 

exchange of views on the energy 

package electricity and Gas.

35  council of the eU, General 
secretariat, ‘handling Ias in council 

— Indicative guidance for working 

party chairs’, 2007.

b o x   5

’G o o d   Pr ac t i c e ’  e x a mPl e s   o f   i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t s   b e i nG  
d i s c u s s e d   i n   co u n c i l  w o r k i nG   Pa r t y

during the period audited, two Ia s in the energy policy field were presented in the council working 
party: the legislative package on the internal market for electricity and gas36 and the package of imple-
mentation measures for the eU’s objectives on climate change and renewable energy for 2020 37. In both 
cases the discussion took place at the commission’s suggestion. It was not limited to one wp meeting 
but informed the debate at the council throughout the legislative decision-making process.

36  com(2007) 528, com(2007) 529, com(2007) 530, com(2007) 531 and com(2007) 532.

37  com(2008) 16, com(2008) 17 and com(2008) 19.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
22

c o m m i s s i o n  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t s  p r o v i d e  r e l e v a n t   a n d   
i n f o r m a t i v e  d o c u m e n t a t i o n  s u p p o r t i n g  t h e  p r o p o s a l  t o   
t h e e u r o p e a n p a r l i a m e n t  a n d c o u n c i l

30.  

 alt ho ug h t he co mm issio n’s Ia s are in  alm ost  all c ase s n ot  fo r-
m a l l y   re fe re n ce d   i n   eu ro p e a n   pa r l i a m e n t   a n d   co u n c i l   o f f i c i a l 
d o c u m e n t s ,   u s e r s   o f   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s   Ia  r e p o r t s   a t   b o t h   i n-
s t i t u t i o n s   s t a t e d   t h a t   t h e   re p o r t s   a re   p e rc e i ve d   a s   p ro v i d i n g 
relevant additional information in suppor t of the commission’s 
pro po s al (see Figu r e 5). 

f iGu r e   5

co u n c i l  w o r k i nG   Pa r t y   su r v e y:  th e   co m m i s s i o n ’s   i mP ac t 
a s s e s s m e n t   r o l e   i n   i n f o r m i nG   d e c i s i o n - m a k i nG  w i t h i n  t h e 
co u n c i l

The Commission’s IA plays an important role in  
informing decision-making within the Council

Agree

53 %

Disagree

Don’t know

35 %

12 %

Always/Mostly/
Often

Rarely/Never

Don’t know

IA has informed decisions or positions taken by the 
delegation

Delegations comment on the substance of the IA during 
the WP meetings

Delegations ask the Commission for further details on its 
assessment

50 %

38 %

35 %

42 %

55 %

57 %

8 %

7 %

8 %

S o urce: eca council working party survey (2009).

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
23

u s e r s  B e l i e v e   t h a t   i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t s  h a d  a  p o s i t i v e  e f f e c t 
o n  t h e  q u a l i t y  o f eu  l e g i s l a t i o n 

31.  

 d u r i n g   t h e   a u d i t ,   u s e r s   i n t e r v i e w e d   a t   t h e   e u r o p e a n   pa r l i a-
m e n t   a n d   t h e   c o u n c i l   g e n e r a l l y   i n d i c a t e d   t h e i r   s u p p o r t   f o r 
Ia.   a  l a rg e   m a j o r i t y   o f   re s p o n d e n t s   to   t h e   co u n c i l  w p  s u r ve y 
(68 %) felt that the Ia repor ts they had reviewed had a positive 
effec t on the qualit y of the final legal ac t. this positive view of 
the commission’s Ia system was also cor roborated by national 
e x p e r t s   o n   b e t t e r   r e g u l a t i o n   s u r v e y e d   a t   t h e   d eBr  m e e t i n g 
i n   j u n e   2 0 0 9 .   m o r e   t h a n   8   o u t   o f   1 0   r e s p o n d e n t s   ( 8 5   % )   s a w 
Ia  as  a  cont r ib utio n  towards  the   eU   polic y   obj ec tive   of  bette r 
reg u lat ion (se e Fig ure  6).

f iGu r e   6 

su r v e ys :  co n t r i b u t i o n   o f   i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t  to   
‘ be t t e r   reGu l at i o n ’ 

Directors and experts  for ‘better 
regulation’ surveyed:
Is the Commission’s  IA system  effectively 
leading  to ‘better regulation’?

85 %

Delegates in Council WP surveyed:
For those IA reports I have personally analysed, I consider
that they have positively contributed to the quality of the
final legislative act.

68 %

15 %

20 %

12 %

100 %

75 %

50 %

25 %

0 %

yes/rather yes

no/rather no

strongly agree/agree

strongly 
disagree/disagree

don't know

No te: 26 / 90 responses.
S o urce: eca council working party survey/ directors and experts for Better regulation survey (2009). 

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
24

32.  

33.  

i n t e r e s t  g r o u p s  a n d  c i v i l  s o c i e t y  o r g a n i s a t i o n s  t a k e   
i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t s  i n t o  a c c o u n t   w h e n  c o n t r i B u t i n g  t o   
t h e  d i s c u s s i o n  o f  l e g i s l a t i v e  p r o p o s a l s

 public scrutiny of legislative proposals is of the utmost impor t-
a n c e   i n   re l a t i o n   t o   t h e   p o l i c y   o b j e c t i ve   o f   b e t t e r   re g u l a t i o n . 
the  co mmis sio n’s final  Ia rep or ts  are  publi c doc ume nt s avail-
able online to all interested par ties once the related polic y ini-
tiative  has b ee n p ro p os ed.  this is  inter n ation al good prac t ice 
(see A n nex  I) . 

38  Business europe, eurochambers, 
european consumers’ organisation, 

european environmental Bureau, 

european Federations for transport 

and environment, european trade 

Union Federation, social Forum, 

world wide Fund for nature (wwF).

 I nter views  w ith s takeh ol der  organ i sat ion s  re pre se ntin g  inter-
est groups and civil society 38 showed that their representatives 
systematically took Ia s into account. however, some indicated 
t h a t   t h e y   s a w   t h e   I a   r e p o r t s   a s   a   p o l i c y   j u s t i f i c a t i o n   o f   t h e 
commission’s proposal rather than an independent assessment 
o f   i t s   p o s s i b l e   i m p a c t s .   t h i s   c r i t i c i s m   w a s   m o r e   p r o n o u n c e d 
with regard to Ia s under taken in the early years of the system’s 
operatio n and  has  s ince b ecom e le ss  of  a  con cer n . 

am e n d m e n t s  to  t h e   i n i t i a l   co m m i s s i o n 
Pr oPo s a l   a r e   n ot   s u b j e c t  to   a d d i t i o n a l 
a s s e s s m e n t s   o f   Pot e n t i a l   i mP ac t s

t h e p a r l i a m e n t  a n d c o u n c i l  c a r r i e d  o u t  e i g h t  i m p a c t   
a s s e s s m e n t s  o f  a m e n d m e n t s  t o  t h e c o m m i s s i o n  p r o p o s a l

34.  

 t h e   i n s t i t u t i o n a l   s e t - u p   o f   t h e   e u r o p e a n   U n i o n   m e a n s   t h a t 
legis l at ive  dec isio n-m ak ing  diffe r s   f rom   th at   in   mo st   m ember 
states. according to the treat y, while the european parliament 
a n d   t h e   c o u n c i l   a c t   a s   l e g i s l a t o r s ,   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   h a s   t h e 
sole right of initiative. Under the Lisbon treaty co - decision has 
been  ex tend ed to mo re p ol ic y  are as. 

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
25

35.  

 I n   p r a c t i c e ,   n e a r l y   a l l   c o m m i s s i o n   p r o p o s a l s   a r e   m o d i f i e d 
(sometimes to a significant ex tent) by the legislator during the 
legislative procedure. therefore, the european par liament and 
the council have agreed that, where the co - decision procedure 
a p p l i e s ,   t h e y   m a y,  ‘…   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   j o i n t l y   d e f i n e d   c r i t e r i a 
an d  p ro cedu re s,   have  Ias  c ar r ied  out  pr ior  to  th e  adopti on   of 
a ny   s u b s t a n t i ve   a m e n d m e n t ,   e i t h e r   a t   f i r s t   re a d i n g   o r   a t   t h e 
c o n c i l i a t i o n   s t a g e’ 3 9.  t h i s   c o m m i t m e n t   w a s   re a f f i r m e d   i n   t h e 
2005 I nter-institutional agreement on a ‘common approach to 
Ia’ 40. 

36.  

 h o we ve r,   t h i s   a s p e c t   o f   t h e   i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l   a g re e m e n t   h a s 
o n l y   b e e n   p a r t i a l l y   i m p l e m e nte d   by   t h e   eu ro p e a n   pa r l i a m e nt 
and the council. B et ween 2005 and 2008, the european par lia-
ment adopted 377 ac ts of secondar y legislation and the coun-
cil 1 946 41.  the  audit  fo u nd t hat dur ing  th is  pe r i od:

— 

t h e   e u r o p e a n   pa r l i a m e n t   h a d   c a r r i e d   o u t   Ia s   fo r   a m e n d-
me nt s  on seven p ro p os al s 42, an d

— 

t he c o unc il  had car r ied out one Ia 43.

37.  

 the   eu rop ea n  par l iament 44  and   counc il 45  h ave  recent ly   recon-
f i r m e d   t h e i r   c o m m i t m e n t   t o   c a r r y i n g   o u t   Ia s   o n   t h e i r   o w n 
s u b s t a n t i v e   a m e n d m e n t s .   ho w e v e r,   w h e r e a s   t h e   e u r o p e a n 
pa r l i a m e n t   h a s   c re a t e d   t h e   c o n d i t i o n s   fo r   p ro d u c i n g   i t s   o w n 
Ia studies by putting a framework contrac t for the related pro -
ced ures  in pl ace, t his is not  yet  th e c as e  at  t he  c ouncil 46.

39  Interinstitutional agreement on 
better law-making (2003/c 321/01, 

article 30).

40  Interinstitutional agreement  
on a common approach to Ia  

(14901/05 jUr, adopted on 

29.11.2005).

41  see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
rech_menu.do?ihmlang=en last 

viewed on 15 june 2009.

42  Ia: ‘the european parliament’s 
experience — a stocktaking report 

of the common approach to Ia’, 

the conference of committee 

chairs, december 2008 (Ias on 

amendments: (1) priority substances 

in water (February 2008);  

(2) certain aspects of the working 

time directive (july 2007);  

(3) the ‘Interoperability of the 

community railway system II’  

(april 2007); (4) proposed air quality 

directive (september 2006);  

(5) nominal quantities for   

pre-packed products  

(november 2005); (6) Ia of recycling 

targets in the waste framework 

directive (may 2008);  

(7) directive 2006/66/ec on batteries 

and accumulators and waste 

batteries and accumulators and 

repealing directive 91/157/eec 

(november 2005).

43  directive 2006/66/ec of the european parliament and of the council of 6 september 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste 
batteries and accumulators and repealing directive 91/157/eec (oj L 266, 26.9.2006, p. 1).

44  european parliament, committee on Legal affairs, rapporteur Katalin Lévai, ‘report on better regulation in the eU’ (2007/2095(InI));  
a6-0280/2007 final, 2.7.2007: in particular, see explanatory statement and paragraphs 5–15, 21, 26, 30 and 42–43; european parliament,  

working party on parliamentary reform, ‘second interim report on legislative activities and interinstitutional relations’, 21 may 2008,  

pe 406.309/cpG/Gt (Internal european parliament document), part a, paragraph 1.3, pp. 13–14).

45  council, General secretariat, competitiveness council conclusions on ‘Better regulation’, 9663/09 compet 264, 13.5.2009; paragraph 13.

46  note from the director of General secretariat, directorate-General c, directorate I, review of the interinstitutional common approach to Ia — 
state of play of the handling of Ia in the council, Brussels, 3.11.2008.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
26

47  Interinstitutional agreement on  
a common approach to Ia  

(14901/05 jUr, adopted on 

29.11.2005), point 12.

48  Inter-Institutional agreement on 
better law-making (2003/c 321/01): 

in particular point 30.

i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t s  r e l e a s e d  B y  t h e c o m m i s s i o n  a r e   n o t 
u p d a t e d  d u r i n g  t h e  l e g i s l a t i v e  p r o c e d u r e

 I n   a d d i t i o n   t o   Ia s   c a r r i e d   o u t   b y   t h e   e u ro p e a n   pa r l i a m e n t   o r 
the council, the interinstitutional agreements provide that the 
legislators can invite the commission to update its initial Ia in 
light of the amendments adopted by the european par liament 
or  th e c o unc il 47. 

 U p d at i n g   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   Ia  re p o r t   wo u l d   b e   m o s t   re l e va nt 
f o r   s i g n i f i c a n t   p i e c e s   o f   l e g i s l a t i o n   o r   i n   t h o s e   c a s e s   w h e r e 
significant changes to the initial commission proposal (for in-
s t a n c e   w i t h   r e g a r d   t o   t h e   i n t e r v e n t i o n   l o g i c   o r   i n s t r u m e n t s 
used ) had b een  p rop o sed for ad opt io n 48. 

 however, the audit found that Ia s carried out by the commis-
s i o n   h ave   n o t   b e e n   u p d ate d   d u r i n g   t h e   p e r i o d   a u d i te d.  th i s 
wa s   n o t   e ve n   t h e   c a s e   fo r   t h e  ‘s e r v i ce s   di re c t i ve’,   w h i c h   wa s 
s u b s t a n t i a l l y   a l t e r e d   d u r i n g   t h e   l e g i s l a t i v e   p r o c e d u r e   ( s e e 
B ox   6) .

38.  

39.  

4 0 .  

b o x   6

 ex a mPl e   o f  t h e   co m m i s s i o n ’s   Pr oPo s a l s   f o r   a  ‘ di r e c t i v e   o n 
s e r v i c e s   i n  t h e   i n t e r n a l   m a r k e t ’

with its legislative proposal, the commission aimed at reducing barriers to cross-border trade in services 
within the eU. the initial commission proposal was presented in march 200450, and the related Ia report in 
january 2004 49. on 22 march 2005 the european council considered that the commission needed to carry 
out a far reaching revision of its initial proposal to better preserve the european social model. on 5 april 
2006 the commission presented a modified proposal to the council, including most of the modifications 
voted by the european parliament, in accordance to the co-decision procedure in the first reading. on 
29 may 2006 the council approved the amended text51. however, no revised Ia was presented to reflect 
the impacts of the changes made to the initial proposal. the revised proposal was finally adopted on 
12 d ecember 2006 by the european parliament and council, as directive 2006/123/ec.

49  european commission, ‘proposal for a directive of the european parliament and of the council on services in the internal market’,  
com(2004) 2 final/3, 5.3.2004.

50  sec(2004) 21.

51  opinion of the european parliament of 16 February 2006, council common position of 24 july 2006 (oj c 270 e, 7.11.2006, p. 1) and position 
of the european parliament of 15 november 2006. council decision of 11 december 2006.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
27

u s e  o f  n a t i o n a l  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t s  B y m e m B e r s t a t e s   
d u r i n g  t h e  l e g i s l a t i v e  p r o c e d u r e : u n i t e d k i n g d o m   
‘g o o d   p r a c t i c e’

41.  

 I n   a d d i t i o n ,   Ia s   o f   c o m m i s s i o n   p r o p o s a l s   c o u l d   a l s o   b e   p e r -
formed by national administrations to build their government ’s 
negotiating position at the council. the audit found, however, 
th at  in p rac tice o nl y  the U nited  K ing dom  s ee ks  syste mat icall y 
to u se  it s natio nal  Ia s ys tem for   th is  pur po se  (s ee  B ox   7) . 

b o x   7

nat i o n a l   i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t s   o n   co m m i s s i o n   Pr oPo s a l s   — 
i n t e r n at i o n a l  ‘Go o d   Pr ac t i c e ’

the United Kingdom carries out national Ias on significant commission initiatives to support the nego-
tiating position of its permanent representation52. It carries out its own Ia, generally using data related 
to the United Kingdom, and thereby challenges the analysis provided in the commission’s Ia. In Germany, 
the Bundestag has introduced a requirement to assess the implications of proposed eU legislation, but 
in actual fact this has not yet been implemented53. In poland, the authorities also have the mandate to 
prepare a national Ia in the event of a significant legislative proposal, but this has not yet resulted in 
a formal Ia.

52  UK Better regulation executive, Ia guidance, http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file44544.pdf.

53  agreement between the German Bundestag and the federal government on cooperation in matters concerning the eU in implementation of 
section 6 of the act on cooperation between the federal government and the German Bundestag in matters concerning the eU (Vereinbarung 

zwischen dem Deutschen Bundestag und der Bundesregierung über die Zusammenarbeit in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union in Ausführung 

des § 6 des Gesetzes über die Zusammenarbeit von Bundesregierung und Deutschem Bundestag in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union); 

paragraph I.5.; Bundesgesetzblatt 2006 part I no 44 Bonn, 30 september 2006.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
28

th e   co m m i s s i o n ’s   Pr o c e d u r e s   f o r  t h e 
Pr eP a r at i o n   o f   i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t s 

42.  

 the commission’s procedures for Ia determine the way in which 
Ia s   p r o v i d e   s u p p o r t   f o r   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s   i n t e r n a l   d e c i s i o n -
m a k i n g .   Fo r   t h i s   p u r p o s e ,   t h e   a u d i t   e x a m i n e d   w h e t h e r   t h e 
com m issio n’s ap p ro ac h ens ured:

—  selec tion of those initiatives to undergo Ia which have the 
m o s t   s i gn i f i c a nt   i m p a c t   o r   a re   p o l i t i c a l l y   t h e   m o s t   s e n s i-
t ive;

—  c o n s u l t a t i o n   w i t h   s t a k e h o l d e r s   f o r   t h e   m o s t   i m p o r t a n t 

st ag es  of  t he I a  p roce ss;  and 

—  qu al it y  review  o f its Ia wor k .

ne e d   f o r   m o r e  t r a n sP a r e n c y   i n  t h e   
s e l e c t i o n   Pr o c e d u r e   a n d  ta r Ge t i nG   o f   
i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t  w o r k

43.  

 the commission specifies, in its guidance material, the criteria 
accord ing  to  w hic h  its   d epar t me nt s  ( tog e th e r   w it h  t he   s ec re -
t a r i a t - G e n e r a l )   s h o u l d   d e t e r m i n e   t h e   i n i t i a t i v e s   t h a t   r e q u i r e 
an Ia .  I n  p ar tic ular,  I as sho u ld be targeted at t hose in i tiati ve s 
that have t he mo st s ignific ant  im pac ts  on  c i ti ze ns, busi n es se s 
an d ad minist rat ions o r th at are poli ti c ally  s e ns it ive.

t h e c o m m i s s i o n’s  s e l e c t i o n  o f  i n i t i a t i v e s  f o r  w h i c h  i m p a c t 
a s s e s s m e n t s  a r e   u n d e r t a k e n  i s  B a s e d  o n  a  c a s e - B y- c a s e 
a n a l y s i s

44.  

 the decision on whether to car r y out an Ia is based on a case -
b y - c a s e   a n a l y s i s .   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   d o e s   n o t   u s e   q u a n t i f i a b l e 
i n d i c ato r s   ( s u c h   a s   e s t i m ate d   m o n e t i s e d   i m p a c t )   to   e s t a b l i s h 
thresholds above which Ia s need to be carried out. an approach 
using such thresholds is followed in some oecd countries (see 
A n n ex   I) .   Fo r   Ia s   re l at i n g   to   l e gi s l at i ve   p ro p o s a l s   o u t s i d e   t h e 
cL wp, the reasons for the selec tion of initiatives to be analysed 
are  not  mad e pub l ic.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
29

54  planning and monitoring 
regulatory activity in the Usa: 

every six months, the office for 

Information and regulatory affairs 

(oIra) at the president’s office for 

management and Budget (omB) 

prepares a ‘regulatory agenda and 

plan’, compiling information on 

forthcoming regulatory activity 

from all federal agencies and its 

anticipated gross impact in terms 

of costs and/or benefits. this plan 

identifies for which implementing 

rules proposed by agencies Ias are 

to be carried out. the plan is made 

public.

55  european commission, 
communication on ‘towards a 

reinforced culture of consultation 

and dialogue — General principles 

and minimum standards for 

consultation of interested parties  

by the commission’,  

com(2002) 704 final.

c o m m i s s i o n’s  m o n t h l y  r e p o r t i n g  o n  l e g i s l a t i v e  a c t i v i t y 
d o e s  n o t  i n d i c a t e   p l a n n e d  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t  w o r k

45.  

 a n   o v e r v i e w   o f   a l l   l e g i s l a t i v e   p r o p o s a l s   u n d e r   d e v e l o p m e n t 
within the commission (for ward planning repor t) is  submitted 
e a c h   m o n t h   to   t h e   eu ro p e a n   pa r l i a m e n t   a n d   t h e   co u n c i l   a n d 
is  m ade   pu b lic  o n  t he  eu rop a   website.  howe ver,  t his  mont hly 
repor t does not indicate the initiatives for which an I a is to be 
u n d e r t a k e n .  th i s   s i t u a t i o n   d i f fe r s   f ro m   t h e   Us  s y s te m ,   w h e re 
such initiatives are clearly highlighted in the overall catalogue 
o f   fo r t h c o m i n g   r e g u l a t o r y   a c t i v i t y 5 4.   s i m i l a r l y,   i n   t h e   U n i t e d 
K i n g d o m ,   g o v e r n m e n t   d e p a r t m e n t s   a r e   r e q u i r e d   t o   p u b l i s h 
a list of all planned regulator y proposals for the next three years 
wh ich  are to  be acco mp anied by  an  Ia  ( se e  A nn ex I) .

46.  

 I n   t h e   a u d i t e d   p e r i o d ,   t h e   r o a d m a p s   a t t a c h e d   t o   t h e   cL w p 
were the only documents that provided an indication for which 
i n i t i at i ve s   Ia s   a re   to   b e   c a r r i e d   o u t.   Ia s   t h at   we re   n o t   re l ate d 
to   i n i t i a t i ve s   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e   cL w p  ( i . e.   t h e   m a j o r i t y   o f   Ia s   i n 
200 8) were no t visib l e b efo reha n d  ou ts ide  th e  c ommiss ion. 

co n s u ltat i o n   i s  w i d e ly   u s e d   a s   i nPu t   f o r 
i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t s ,  b u t   n ot   o n   d r a f t 
r ePo r t s 

47.  

 the Ia process should be transparent and draw on the exper tise 
and  views  of  o th ers.  pub l ic  scr ut iny is as  an effe c t ive ve r if ic a-
t i o n   m e c h a n i s m   to   e n s u re   t h at   I as   a d d re s s   t h e   m o s t   re l e va nt 
i s s u e s,   i n c l u d e   a l l   fe a s i b l e   p o l i c y   o p t i o n s   a n d   p ro v i d e   a   b a l-
a n c e d   v i e w.   c o n s u l t a t i o n s   e n a b l e   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   t o   g a t h e r 
t h e   o p i n i o n s   o f   i n t e r e s t e d   p a r t i e s   a n d   t o   t a k e   i n t o   a c c o u n t 
va r i o u s   p o i nt s   o f   v i e w.  th e s e   co n s u l t at i o n s   s h o u l d   b e   c a r r i e d 
out in accordance with the commission’s own standards in this 
matter 55. 

48.  

 co n s u l t at i o n s   w i t h   s t a k e h o l d e r s   a re   w i d e l y   u s e d   by   t h e   co m-
m i s s i o n ,   a n d   t h e   c o n t r i b u t i o n s   s u b m i t t e d   a r e   i n c r e a s i n g l y 
m a d e   p u b l i c   o n   t h e   eu ro p a   we b s i te.  th e   a u d i t   fo u n d   t h at   t h e 
minim um  co nsu l tatio n p er io ds we re  g e ne ral ly  res pec te d.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
 
30

49.  

 c o n s u l t i n g   o n   d r a f t   I a   r e p o r t s   i s   u s e f u l   i n   e n s u r i n g   t h a t   t h e 
an al ysis  is  co mp l ete,  co ns is tent   an d  accurate.   I n   par ti cula r,   i t 
provides a basis for identifying and quantifying potential costs 
a n d   b e n e f i t s,   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n s   a n d   p r o b l e m s   w i t h   i m -
plem entatio n  and  enfo rcement.  h owe ver,  t he   cour t ’s  a na lysi s 
indicated that the commission never consulted on draf t Ia re -
por ts. whereas consultations were sometimes used to identify 
p o s s i b l e   p o l i c y   o p t i o n s   e a r l y   i n   t h e   p ro ce s s   ( 2 1   %   o f   c a s e s   o f 
Ias reviewed), they vir tually never concerned the commission’s 
p r e l i m i n a r y   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   a l t e r n a t i v e   p o l i c y   o p t i o n s .   I n   t h e 
sur ve y w ith  council  w ps,  72  % of  re spon d ents  s aid  th at  an  in -
ter i m d raf t  repo r t  s ho ul d be ma de  avail able  s ome  t ime  be fore 
the  co mmissio n  p rop o sal  was publi sh e d ( se e  Fi gu r e  7) .

50.  

 th e   co u r t   n o te s   t h at   i n   s o m e   o e c d   co u nt r i e s   l i k e   au s t ra l i a 5 6, 
t h e   U s a 5 7  a n d   t h e   U n i t e d   K i n g d o m 5 8  d r a f t   I a   re p o r t s   a re   s y s -
t e m a t i c a l l y   p u b l i s h e d   fo r   i n fo r m a t i o n   a n d   c o m m e n t   o r   d r a f t 
versions of a proposed legal ac t are discussed with stakeholder 
orga nisatio ns  ( see A nnex  I). 

56  council of australian 
Governments: ‘Best practice 

regulation — a guide for ministerial 

councils and national standards 

setting bodies’, october 2007.

57  o´connor close, c.; mancini d. j.: 
‘comparison of Us and european 

commission guidelines on 

regulatory Ia/analysis’, Industrial 

Policy and Economic Reforms Papers 

no 3, april 2007. 

58  United Kingdom cabinet offi  ce, 
Better regulation executive, 

‘Ia guidance’, London, may 2007.

f i G u r e   7

co u n c i l  w o r k i n G   Pa r t y   s u r v e y:  a n   i n t e r i m   i m Pac t 
a s s e s s m e n t   r e P o r t   s h o u l d   b e   m a d e   ava i l a b l e   s o m e  t i m e 
b e f o r e  t h e   P r o P o s a l

‘don’t know’
16 %

‘disagree’ or 
‘strongly disagree’
11 %

No te: 91 responses.
S o urce: eca council working party survey (2009).

‘strongly agree’
26 %

‘agree’
47 %

special report no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special report no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
31

51.  

52.  

53.  

re c e n t   i mPr o v e m e n t s   i n  t h e   co m m i s s i o n ’s 
q ua l i t y   r e v i e w   o f   i t s   i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t 
r ePo r t s

i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t B o a r d   r e v i e w s   q u a l i t y  o f  i m p a c t   
a s s e s s m e n t s  w i t h i n  t h e c o m m i s s i o n

 since 2008, the IaB has reviewed prac tically all draft Ia repor ts. 
I ts qualit y control covers all aspec ts dealt with in an Ia and all 
stages of the process, star ting with a preliminar y review of the 
roa dm ap. I n c ases w here t he IaB  cons i de r s t he  Ia repo r t  to be 
of insufficient quality, it can request resubmission. In 2008, this 
happened in 43 out of 135 cases. Four of these 43 resubmitted 
rep o r ts  even had to b e revised  an d res ubm it ted  a  th ird  t im e. 

 acco rding   to  th e  co mm issio n  staff   inter viewe d  in  con ne c ti on 
w i t h   t h e   i n - d e p t h   c a s e   s t u d i e s,   t h e   c re a t i o n   o f   t h e   IaB   a s   a n 
i n t e r n a l   q u a l i t y   r e v i e w   b o d y   h a s   p u t   p r e s s u r e   o n   t h e   d G s   t o 
present good qualit y draf t repor ts. I t has also added transpar-
enc y to the system since all IaB opinions are published on the 
europ a web site.

e f f e c t i v e n e s s  o f  q u a l i t y  r e v i e w   s u B j e c t  t o  t i m e l y   
a v a i l a B i l i t y  o f iaB  o p i n i o n

 cons ider ing  t hat   t he  co mm ission  in itiative   h as  to  go  th roug h 
interdepar tmental consultation, decision-mak ing by the m em-
b e r s   o f   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   a n d   t r a n s l a t i o n ,   t h e   IaB   o p i n i o n   c a n 
only have a substantive effect on the final version of the under-
lying initiative if the IaB review takes place early enough in the 
p ro c e s s.   IaB   re c o m m e n d a t i o n s   a re   i n   m a ny   c a s e s   s u b s t a n t i a l 
and, if followed, would imply significant additional Ia work and 
potential  c han ges  to th e init iative.  th is in  2 00 7 and 2 008  rep -
res ented  a  ch all enge,   since   in  on e  th ird   of   th e  c ase s  a na lyse d 
the time between the final I aB opinion and the adoption of the 
p ro p o s a l   wa s   l e s s   t h a n   6   we e k s.   ne ve r t h e l e s s,   a s   i n d i c ate d   i n 
th e IaB re po r t s examined,  the B o ard ’s  recom men dat ion s we re 
foll owed  u p at  l eas t  to  so me ex tent  in  t he   fi nal  Ia re po r t.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
32

54.  

55.  

t h e iaB  d o e s  n o t  h a v e  a  m a n d a t e  t o  r e q u i r e   t h a t  ia s  a r e 
c a r r i e d  o u t  B u t  a d v i s e s  t h e sg  a n d  t h e dg s  i n  s e l e c t i n g 
i n i t i a t i v e s  f o r  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t

 the  IaB do es no t  have a mandate  to  req ui re  dGs  to in i ti ate Ia  
wor k   in   re s pe c t   o f   a   p a r t i c u l a r   p rop o s al   ( s e e   A nn ex  I ) .  ne ve r -
th el ess, t he IaB advis es  the  sG and the  dGs  in ide nt ify in g ini-
t i a t i v e s   t h a t   s h o u l d   u n d e r g o   Ia 5 9.   on   t h i s   b a s i s ,   i n   2 0 0 8 ,   t h e 
sG   i n i t i a l l y   s aw   a   n e e d   fo r   5 5   a d d i t i o n a l   Ia s.   af te r   co n s u l t i n g 
wi th  t he  dGs,  t he  sG  agre ed  t hat   an  Ia  was  n ecessar y  in  2 1  of 
th es e cas es. 

59  Information note from the 
president to the commission, 

enhancing quality support and 

control for commission Ias,  

the Impact assessment Board,  

14 november 2006.

 m o r e o v e r,   t h e   IaB   c a n n o t   p u t   t h e   Ia  r e p o r t   ( a n d   t h e   r e l a t e d 
legis l at ive p ropo s al)  on ho l d: in s te ad, th e s ec retar iat- G en eral 
may  inte r ve ne  at  the  interdepar tm e nt al  cons ult at ion   s tag e   in 
relatio n to  e it her doc u ment. however, n o inter vention spec if-
icall y addres sing  the f in al Ia repor t had  be e n obs e r ve d in  t he 
aud ite d p er io d.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
33

co n t e n t   a n d   Pr e s e n tat i o n   o f  t h e 
co m m i s s i o n ’s   i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t   r ePo r t s

56.  

 the results of the Ia process are summarised in Ia repor ts which 
should provide information based on which the legislators can 
d e c i d e   o n   t h e   m o s t   a p p ro p r i a t e   w a y   t o   a d d r e s s   t h e   p r o b l e m 
ide nt ified. the refore,  t he  co mmiss ion’s  Ia  repor ts   are  expe c t -
e d   t o   p ro v i d e   a   c o m p re h e n s i ve   a n d   c o m p a r a t i v e   a s s e s s m e n t 
o f   t h e   d i f f e r e n t   f e a s i b l e   p o l i c y   o p t i o n s .  t h e   a u d i t   e x a m i n e d 
wh et her :

— 

— 

— 

t h e   Ia  r e p o r t s   p r o v i d e d   a   d e s c r i p t i o n   o f   t h e   i s s u e   t o   b e 
a d d r e s s e d   a n d   e x p l a i n e d   h o w   t h e   b e n e f i t s   o f   a   p l a n n e d 
inter ventio n wou l d b e attaine d; 

t he  info r matio n  p rovided  in  the   Ia  repor ts   was   pre se nte d 
i n   a   u s e r - f r i e n d l y   w a y   a n d   a l l o w e d   a   c o m p a r i s o n   o f   t h e 
al ter nat ive  o p tio ns  anal ys ed; an d

Ias provided the content that is relevant to polic y-makers 
( s u c h   a s   i n fo r m a t i o n   o n   p o t e n t i a l   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   p r o b -
l ems, e nfo rcement  is s ues  and ad mi n is trati ve  bu rde ns ) .

 I n   t h i s   c o n t e x t   t h e   co u r t   re c o g n i s e s   t h a t   a ny   a n a l y s i s   o f   p o -
tential future impac ts is necessarily uncer tain, incomplete and 
sim pl if ie d. 

ne e d  to   i mPr o v e   f u r t h e r  t h e   Pr e s e n tat i o n   o f 
h o w  t h e   i n t e r v e n t i o n   Pr oPo s e d   i s  to   ac h i e v e 
b e s t  t h e   i n t e n d e d   o u tco m e s

57.  

 Ia repor ts should provide a description of the problem at stake, 
s p e c i f y   re l e v a n t   p o l i c y   o b j e c t i ve s   a n d   s e t   o u t   a   r a n g e   o f   a p -
p ro p r i ate   o p t i o n s   to   a d d re s s   t h e   p ro b l e m   i d e nt i f i e d.   Fu r t h e r, 
th ey s ho uld  illu strate how  t he inte nde d outcome s an d re sults 
can  be  achie ve d w ith  t he p ro pose d  de liver y  mec h ani sm .

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
 
34

60  see also european court of 
auditors: Special Report no 9/2007, 

‘evaluating the eU research and 

technological development (rtd)  

framework programmes — could 

the commission’s approach be 

improved?’; Special Report  

no 7/2008, ‘Intelligent energy  

(2003–2006)’, Special Report  

no 2/2009, ‘the european Union’s 

public health programme (2003–07): 

an effective way to improve health?’

58.  

59.  

i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t  r e p o r t s  p r o v i d e  a  s o u n d  d e s c r i p t i o n  o f 
t h e  p r o B l e m  a n d  s p e c i f y  p o l i c y  o B j e c t i v e s 

 si n ce   2 0 0 3 ,   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   g u i d e l i n e s   h ave   re q u i re d   Ia s   to 
ide nt ify t he p rob lem  to be addre ss ed  and  es tabl ish  polic y ob-
j e c t i v e s   c o r r e s p o n d i n g   t o   t h e   p r o b l e m   a n d   i t s   c a u s e s .   a l l   I a 
r e p o r t s   r e v i e w e d   i n   t h e   c o u r t ’s   a n a l y s i s   c o n t a i n e d   s e c t i o n s 
on   p ro bl em  identific atio n  and  polic y   obj e c ti ve s.   as  f ar  as   th e 
in- d ep th   c ases  are  concer ned,  t he se   s ec t io ns   prov ide d  an  ad-
equate over view of the problem and specified a set of reason-
able p o lic y o b jec tives. 

 this was corroborated by the enquiries with users of Ia repor ts 
i n   t h e   o t h e r   i n s t i t u t i o n s,   m e m b e r   s t a t e s   a n d   s t a k e h o l d e r   o r -
ganisations. they repor ted that these sec tions of the Ia repor ts 
o f t e n   e n a b l e d   t h e m   t o   u n d e r s t a n d   b e t t e r   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s 
re a s o n s   fo r   i n i t i at i n g   a   p ro p o s a l.   acco rd i n g   to   t h e   i nte r v i e w-
ees, these sec tions were the most read par ts of the I a repor ts. 
also, 84 % of respondents to the council wp sur vey ‘agreed ’ or 
‘s t ro n g l y   a gre e d ’  t h a t   t h e   p ro b l e m   d e s c r i p t i o n   e n a b l e d   t h e m 
t o   h a v e   a   b e t t e r   u n d e r s t a n d i n g   o f   t h e   r e a s o n i n g   b e h i n d   t h e 
prop o sal.

i n t e r v e n t i o n  l o g i c  n o t  u s e d  t o  i l l u s t r a t e  h o w  e x p e c t e d   
B e n e f i t s  a r e   t o  B e   a t t a i n e d

60.  

 I n   n o n e   o f   t h e   c a s e s   re v i e we d   i n   t h e   co u r t ’s   a n a l y s i s   d i d   t h e 
Ia provide an explicit illustration of the inter vention logic un -
d e r l y i n g   t h e   i n i t i a t i v e .   a s   a   c o n s e q u e n c e ,   t h e   Ia  r e p o r t s   d o 
not provide a standardised presentation of how the objec tives 
a n d   e x p e c te d   o u tco m e s   o f   t h e   p ro p o s e d   i n te r ve n t i o n   c a n   b e 
achieved with the intended deliver y mechanisms and, with re -
gard to expe nditu re programmes,  t h e  es ti mated  budg e t 60.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
35

61  european commission, 
2005/2006 ‘Impact assessment 

guidelines’, sec(2005) 791.

th e r e   i s   r o o m   f o r   i mPr o v e m e n t   i n  t h e 
a n a lys i s   o f   i mP ac t s   a n d  t h e   Pr e s e n tat i o n 
t h e r e o f

61.  

 Ias must be easily accessible and understandable to non- exper t 
readers in order to be used in polic y-mak ing. they should help 
to   i d e nt i f y   t h e   p o l i c y   o p t i o n   a n d   d e l i ve r y   m e c h a n i s m s   w h i c h 
best address the problem, by providing a comparative analysis 
of the options. this can of ten be facilitated by providing infor-
mat ion  in  q uantitat ive  and  mon et ar y   te r m s.   Ia s  sh ould  t here -
fore specify the costs and benefits of proposals, how they occur 
and who is affec ted. according to the commission’s guidelines, 
a l l   i m p a c t s   s h o u l d   b e   q u a n t i f i e d   a n d   m o n e t i s e d   w h e r e   p o s-
s i b l e   a n d   a p p ro p r i a te,   b a s e d   o n   ro b u s t   m e t h o d s   a n d   re l i a b l e 
data 61.

m a i n  r e s u l t s  a n d  m e s s a g e s  o f  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t  r e p o r t s 
n o t  a l w a y s  e a s y  t o  g a t h e r

62.  

 a l t h o u g h   t h e   p r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   Ia  r e p o r t s   f o l l o w s   a   c o m m o n 
s t r u c t u re   s e t   o u t   i n   t h e   Ia  g u i d e l i n e s,   i t   i s   n o t   a l ways   e a s y   to 
gath er the ir main res ult s  an d me s sag e s.  accordin g to th e s ur-
ve y   c a r r i e d   o u t   a s   p a r t   o f   t h e   a u d i t ,   t h i s   i s   m a i n l y   e x p l a i n e d 
b y   t h e i r   l e n g t h   a n d   t e c h n i c a l   n a t u r e ,   t h e   c o m p l e x i t y   o f   t h e 
l a n g u a g e   u s e d   ( s e e   F i g u r e   8 )   a n d   b y   t h e   o t h e r   w e a k n e s s e s 
des cr ib ed b elow.

f iGu r e   8 

co u n c i l  w o r k i nG   Pa r t y   su r v e y:  m a i n   o b s tac l e s  to   a n 
e f f e c t i v e   u s e   o f   co m m i s s i o n   i mP ac t   a s s e s s m e n t s

Lack of  summary

Language  availability

Use of technical language

Length of  the document

No te: 9 3 responses. 
S o urce: eca council working party survey (2009).

33 %

35 %

37 %

48 %

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
36

a n a l y s i n g  a l l  e c o n o m i c,  s o c i a l  a n d  e n v i r o n m e n t a l  i m p a c t s 
i s  a  c h a l l e n g e

 th e   co m m i s s i o n’s   s e l f - i m p o s e d   re q u i re m e nt   to   a s s e s s   a l l   s i g-
nificant economic, social and environmental impacts (the ‘three 
pill ars’ )  is   amb itio us.  the  inter nat ion al  compar ison   identi fi ed 
no other system where a similarly comprehensive approach was 
followed (see  A nnex  I) . 

62  national audit office, Delivering 
high quality impact assessments, 

30.1.2009, p. 14.

 the cour t ’s analysis showed that, in prac tice, the commission’s 
Ia work was asymmetric between the three pillars and between 
costs and benefits (see Figure 9). this reflec ts the fac t that not 
all t ypes of impac ts are equally relevant for any par ticular ini-
tiative. according to the sur vey of the council wps, a major it y 
of respondents thought that there was an appropriate balance 
b e t we e n   t h e   e c o n o m i c,   e nv i ro n m e n t a l   a n d   s o c i a l   i m p a c t s   o f 
th e d if fe rent  po l ic y op t io ns (se e Fi g ur e  1 0) .

d i r e c t  c o m p a r i s o n  B e t w e e n   a l t e r n a t i v e  o p t i o n s  i s  s o m e t i m e s 
d i f f i c u l t

 I a   s h o u l d   p r o v i d e   a   b a s i s   f o r   c o m p a r i s o n   o f   a l t e r n a t i v e   o p -
tions. the cour t ’s analysis found that this was the case for t wo 
thirds of the Ia repor ts examined. In the remaining Ia repor ts it 
wa s  diffic ul t  to comp are al ter n at ive opt io ns  be c aus e of a lack 
o f   q u a n t i f i e d   i m p a c t   a n a l y s i s,   i n s u f f i c i e n t   u s e   o f   m e t h o d s   t o 
co m p a re   a n d   p re s e nt   q u a l i t at i ve   e v i d e n ce   a n d   a n   a s y m m e t r y 
in t he  dep th of  an al ys is  bet ween  dif fe re nt  opt ion s.

 Firs t ly,   impa c t s  are  o f ten  no t  qua nt if i ed  an d  mon e ti se d  to  fa-
c i l i t a t e   a   c o m p a r i s o n   o f   o p t i o n s   ( s e e   Fi g u r e   1 1) .   t h i s   i s   a l s o 
w h a t   r e s p o n d e n t s   t o   t h e   s u r v e y   r e p o r t e d :   n e a r l y   h a l f   ( 4 8   % ) 
‘d i s a g re e d ’  o r  ‘s t ro n g l y   d i s a g re e d ’  t h a t   a n   a p p ro p r i a t e   q u a n-
t i f i c a t i o n   a n d   m o n e t i s a t i o n   o f   t h e   c o s t s   a n d   b e n e f i t s   o f   t h e 
impac ts of the different polic y options had been achieved (see 
Figure 12).  some oecd countries have a stricter requirement to 
quantify costs and benefits (see A nnex I), although quantifica-
tion  is no t  always achieved (such  as fo r  example  in  th e U ni ted 
K ing d om 62).

63.  

64.  

65.  

66.  

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
 
37

f iGu r e   9

wh at   i mP ac t s  w e r e   a s s e s s e d   —   e co n o m i c ,  e n v i r o n m e n ta l   o r 
s o c i a l   ( s e l e c t e d   dG s ;  Pe r i o d   2 00 3 – 0 8 ) ?

86 %

84 %

84 %

63 %

62 %

45 %

s
A

I

f
o
%

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %

Economic

Environmental

Social

Type of impact

Cost 

Benefit

S o urce: eca ‘s corecard analysis’ (2003–2008).

f iGu r e   1 0

co u n c i l  w o r k i nG   Pa r t y   su r v e y:  in  t h e   co m m i s s i o n ’s   i mP ac t 
a s s e s s m e n t   r ePo r t s  t h e r e   i s   a n   aP Pr oPr i at e   b a l a n c e 
b e t w e e n   e co n o m i c ,  s o c i a l   a n d   e n v i r o n m e n ta l   i mP ac t s

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %

58 %

25 %

17 %

0 %

0 %

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

don’t know

No te: 74 responses.
S o urce: eca council working party survey (2009). 

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
38

f iGu r e   1 1

wh at   i mP ac t s  w e r e   q ua n t i f i e d   o r   m o n e t i s e d   ( s e l e c t e d   dG s ; 
P e r i o d  2003 – 08 ) ?

s
A

I

f
o
%

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %

53 %

41 %

22 %

12 %

23 %

12 %

Economic

Environmental

Social

Type of impact

Cost 

Benefit

S o urce: eca ‘s corecard analysis’ (2003–08).

f iGu r e   1 2

co u n c i l  w o r k i nG   Pa r t y   su r v e y:  in  t h e   co m m i s s i o n ’s   i mP ac t 
a s s e s s m e n t   r ePo r t s  t h e r e   i s   a n   aP Pr oPr i at e   q ua n t i f i c at i o n 
a n d   m o n e t i s at i o n   o f   co s t s   a n d   b e n e f i t s

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %

0 %

38 %

42 %

14 %

6 %

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

don’t know

No te: 71 responses. 
S o urce: eca council working party survey (2009).

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
39

67.  

68.  

69.  

 I n   t h o s e   c a s e s   w h e re   q u a n t i f i c a t i o n   a n d   m o n e t i s a t i o n   i s   d i f-
ficult, a robust analysis of qualitative aspec ts can help to com-
pare  a l ter nat ive  o p tio ns.   a  q ualitat ive  compar ison  of  opti on s 
i s   d o n e   i n   a l l   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s .   ho w e v e r,   i n   t e r m s   o f   t h e 
methods used, the cour t ’s analysis showed that ‘multi- cr iter ia 
analysis’ was used in 44 % of Ia repor ts, ‘sensitivit y analysis’ in 
12 % and ‘risk analysis’ in 11 %. all these three methods feature 
in t he  Ia gu idel ines  as  metho ds  for   compar i n g  im pac ts 63.

63  annexes to ‘Impact assessment 
guidelines’, sec(2005) 791,  

pp. 58–59.

 Finally, a consistent depth of analysis facilitates comparison be -
t we en o p tio ns. however,  t he  cour t ’s an alysis reveale d th at,  in 
approximately half of the cases reviewed, the depth of analysis 
for t he  d if fere nt  op t io ns  was  no t balanced. sign ificantly  more 
infor m at io n  was  p resented   fo r  a  s ubgroup  of   t he   o ption s   an d 
o f t e n   o n l y   fo r   t h e   s p e c i f i c   o p t i o n   t h a t   w a s   l a t e r   re t a i n e d   fo r 
th e c o mmis sio n pro p os al.

av a i l a B i l i t y  o f  d a t a   f o r  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t s  r e m a i n s   
a  p r o B l e m

 m a n y   o f   t h e   c h a l l e n g e s   w i t h   t h e   a n a l y s i s   o f   i m p a c t s   c a n   b e 
t r a c e d   b a c k   t o   t h e   p r o b l e m   o f   d a t a   a v a i l a b i l i t y.   a c c o r d i n g 
to   i n te r v i e w s   w i t h   co m m i s s i o n   s t a f f,   t h e   t i m e l y   c o l l e c t i o n   o f 
standardised and comparable data poses a par ticular problem. 
d i f fe re n ce s   i n   t h e   ava i l a b i l i t y   a n d   re l i a b i l i t y   o f   d at a   b e t we e n 
m e m b e r   s t a t e s   co m p o u n d   t h i s   i s s u e,   a s   i l l u s t r a t e d   i n   t h e   e x -
ampl e b el ow (se e  B ox 8) .

b o x   8

ex a mPl e   o f   Pr o b l e m s  w i t h   d ata   q ua l i t y   a n d   ava i l a b i l i t y 

In the case of ‘equal opportunities’ the Ia, report acknowledges a ‘lack of reliable data on discrimination’ 
and points to the fact that ‘collecting data on certain grounds of discrimination […] is not undertaken 
systematically by the member states’64. In order to mitigate these problems the commission comple-
mented existing data with opinion surveys on people’s perception and experience of discrimination.

64  european commission, Ia for the proposal for a council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons 
irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, sec(2008) 2180, p. 11.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
40

70.  

 during the period audited, increasing use was made of external 
s t u d i e s   t o   g a t h e r   d a t a   a n d   t h i s   i s   f u r t h e r   e n c o u r a g e d   i n   t h e 
2 0 0 9   r e v i s i o n   o f   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   g u i d e l i n e s 6 5.   on   t h e   o t h e r 
h a n d,   t h e   a u d i t   fo u n d   t h at   i nte r n a l   s o u rce s   s u c h   a s   t h e   co m-
mission’s joint research centre ( jrc ) or eurostat (the commis-
sion’s statistics depar tment) are not ac tively used to determine 
th e  avail ab ilit y  of  m em b er  st ate  spe cific   data  for   Ia  pur poses 
a n d   t o   p r o v i d e   s u c h   d a t a   ( f o r   e x a m p l e   i n   c o o p e r a t i o n   w i t h 
national statistics offices). the network of bodies like the com-
mittee of regions, the european economic and s ocial commit-
tee o r t he  h ig h Le vel  G rou p  for B e tter  r eg ulation are also n ot 
used  to t hat e nd. 

65  european commission, 2009  
‘Impact assessment guidelines’, 

sec(2009) 92, p. 17.

66  council, General secretariat, 
competitiveness council 

conclusions on ‘better regulation’, 

9663/09 compet 264, 13.5.2009; 

point 18.

71.  

 I n   i t s   r e c e n t   c o n c l u s i o n s   o n   b e t t e r   r e g u l a t i o n ,   t h e   c o m p e t i-
t i v e n e s s   c o u n c i l   i n v i t e d   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   t o   c o o p e r a t e   w i t h 
m e m b e r   st ate s   at   a n   e a r l y   s t a g e   w h e n   g at h e r i n g   d at a   fo r   t h e 
prep arat io n o f Ia s in ord er to  tak e into account m ember  state 
spec ific ities in it s su b sequ ent preparator y  wor k 66.

in f o r m at i o n   o n   i mPl e m e n tat i o n   a sPe c t s , 
e n f o r c e m e n t   co s t s   a n d   a d m i n i s t r at i v e 
b u r d e n   c a n   b e   f u r t h e r   i mPr o v e d

72.  

 t h e   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   a n   i n t e r v e n t i o n   a n d   i t s   c o s t s   a r e   i n f l u-
enced  by   t he  way  in  wh ich  it  is  im ple mented   an d  e nforce d  by 
the commission, and ultimately by the member states. m issing 
i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   p r o b l e m s   e n c o u n t e r e d   w i t h 
e x i s t i n g   l e g i s l a t i o n   i s   p r o b l e m a t i c   s i n c e   k n o w l e d g e   o f   s u c h 
aspe c t s is rel evant to  p revent sim ilar  pro ble ms  af te r  a re v ie w. 
th i s   i s   w hy   i m p l e m e nt at i o n   a s p e c t s   s h o u l d   b e   a n a l ys e d   i n   a n 
Ia,  and   info r matio n  o n  the  t ran sp os i ti on   an d  im ple me ntati on 
of existing regulator y measures needs to be collec ted. this in-
formation can be provided inter alia through the ex post evalu-
atio n o f exist ing p o l icies  and programme s.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
41

67  algemene rekenkamer, 
‘european legislation:  

the implementation of european 

directives and the enforcement 

of european regulations in the 

netherlands’, 17 june 2008.

73.  

74.  

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  a s p e c t s  a r e   n o t  a l w a y s  s u f f i c i e n t l y   
a n a l y s e d  i n  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t s

 while implementation aspects are addressed in the commission 
Ia s,   t h e   a u d i t   fo u n d   t h a t   t h e y   d o   n o t ,   i n   a l l   c a s e s,   g i ve   s u f f i-
c i e nt   e m p h a s i s   to   i m p l e m e nt at i o n   a r ra n g e m e nt s.  th e   co u r t ’s 
anal ys is  indic ates  that  at  l e ast   a  re fe re nce  to   an  i mple me nt a-
tion  p l an was p rovided in n o mo re  th an  approx im ately  h alf  of 
all repor ts reviewed. several cases were found where impor tant 
imp l em ent atio n as p ec t s had not be e n ad equ ate ly  ana lys ed i n 
t h e   Ia  re p o r t s.   on c e   t h e   l e g i s l a t i ve   p ro p o s a l   i s   s u b m i t t e d   t o 
the   eu rop ea n  par l ia ment   and  th e  council,   a  more  detailed  as-
sessment of these aspec ts is summarised in specific implemen-
t a t i o n   p l a n s.   Fu r t h e r m o re,   co r re l a t i o n   t a b l e s   a re   u s e d   by   t h e 
co m m i s s i o n   t o   m o n i t o r   l e g a l   a c t s   t h ro u g h   w h i c h   s p e c i f i c   eU 
provis ion s have  b een tran sp o sed  into n at ion al  legis l ati on.

 en q u i r i e s   w i t h   u s e r s   o f   Ia  r e p o r t s   o u t s i d e   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n 
(m e p s ,   m e m b e r   s t a t e   r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s   a n d   o f f i c i a l s   o f   t h e  
european parliament and council) indicated that the implications 
o f   t ra n s p o s i t i o n   a n d   i m p l e m e nt at i o n   we re   o f   gre at   re l e va n ce 
d u r i n g   t h e   l e g i s l a t i v e   d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g   p r o c e s s .   t h i s   i s   a l s o 
cor ro b o rated  by   t he  wor k  of  n ati on al  audit   bodi e s   i n   m ember 
states 67. the example in Box 9 illustrates possible consequences 
of an inadequate analysis of implementation aspects during the 
legis l at ive dec ision-mak ing p roce ss.

b o x   9

as s e s s m e n t  o f  i mPl e m e n tat i o n  a sPe c t s :  
o n  ‘co n s u m e r   r iGh t s’

imP ac t  a s s e s s m e n t s 

the Ia on ‘consumer rights’68 did not contain a robust analysis of the european harmonisation effect that 
would ensue in the different member states from the proposed directive69. In particular, the Ia lacked an 
analysis of the differences between the existing national legislation and the new proposed harmonised 
rules on consumer rights legislation. this was also noted by the consumer protection working Group 
composed of meps from the european parliament’s committee on the Internal market70. as a conse-
quence, the initial commission proposal is expected to be significantly modified during the legislative 
procedure to better take the specific situation of m ember states into account. 

68  european commission, Ia on ‘consumer rights’, sec(2008) 2544.

69  european commission, proposal for a directive on consumer rights, com(2008) 614.

70  the presentation of the commission’s Ia and the subsequent discussion during the consumer protection working Group meeting on  
4 February 2009 was observed as part of the audit evidence collection procedures.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
42

71  european commission, 
‘Impact assessment guidelines’, 

sec(2005) 791, p. 45 and european 

commission, ‘Impact assessment 

guidelines’, sec(2009) 92, pp. 48–49.

72  european commission, 
‘evaluation in the commission 

— reporting on results: annual 

evaluation review 2007 — 

conclusions and findings from 

evaluations in the commission’, 

com(2008) 300, may 2008; 

annexes I and II.

73  Breugel, Memos to the new 
Commission — Europe’s economic 

priorities 2010–2015, edited by andré 

sapir, 2009, p. 17.

75.  

76.  

77.  

 co m m i s s i o n   s t a f f   i n   c h a rg e   o f   Ia s   i n d i c ate d   d i f f i c u l t i e s   i n   a s-
s e s s i n g   s u c h   s p e c i f i c   a s p e c t s   fo r   a   e u r o p e a n   U n i o n   i n   w h i c h 
l e g i s l a t i o n   i s   i n c o r p o r a t e d   i n t o   2 7   l e g a l   s y s t e m s   a n d   i m p l e -
mented and enforced by an even higher number of national and 
regional   b odies. they   al so   po inted  to  th e  absence   of   n ati on a l 
Ias for eU initiatives, which could provide a valuable source of 
information on potential obstacles to effec tive implementation 
resulting from specific national contex ts and reliable estimates 
fo r   t h e   p o t e n t i a l   e n fo rc e m e n t   c o s t s   o f   a   l e g i s l a t i ve   p ro p o s a l 
(see p a ragrap h 41) .

E x  p o s t  e v a l u a t i o n s  o f  e x i s t i n g  p o l i c i e s  a n d  p r o g r a m m e s  a r e 
n o t  c a r r i e d  o u t  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y  a c r o s s  a l l  l e g i s l a t i v e  a r e a s

 a public inter vention (and its actual impact) should be assessed 
through ongoing monitoring and ex post evaluation to improve 
fur the r  develo p ment   o f  inter venti on s.  to  en able   le ar nin g  an d 
feedback for future initiatives, ex post evaluations would need 
to collec t relevant infor mation on compliance with legislation 
and the effec tiveness of the rules as compared with the envis-
aged  res ult s initial l y s et  ou t in  t h e  Ia 71. 

 a n   u n d e r s t a n d i n g   o f   h ow   e f fe c t i ve l y   e U   l e gi s l a t i o n   h a s   b e e n 
t r a n s p o s e d   a n d   i m p l e m e n t e d   i s   a   s i g n i f i c a n t   e l e m e n t   t o   b e 
c o n s i d e r e d   b y   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   w h e n e v e r   p u t t i n g   f o r w a r d 
p ro p o s a l s   fo r   re v i s e d   l e gi s l at i o n .  th e   a u d i t   s h owe d   t h at,   d u r-
ing   t he  p er io d  au dited,  th e  focus  of   th e   commiss ion’s  ex  p ost 
e va l u at i o n s   d i f fe re d   s i gn i f i c a nt l y   f ro m   t h at   o f   Ia.   an   a n a l ys i s 
o f   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   ove r v i e w   o f   i t s   2 0 0 7   e va l u at i o n s 7 2  s h ows 
th at  o nl y 24 % of ex p os t e val uation s address ed issues  relate d 
to the review of existing (sec toral or cross- cutting) legislation. 
thi s fa c t was  al so  noted  in a recent s tudy 73.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
43

e n f o r c e m e n t  c o s t s  a n d  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  B u r d e n s  n o t   
s u f f i c i e n t l y  q u a n t i f i e d 

e n f o r c e m e n t  c o s t s

78.  

 draf ting enforcement-friendly legislation is the most effec tive 
way to prevent excessive enforcement costs 74. the commission 
q u a n t i f i e s   e n f o r c e m e n t   c o s t s   i n   t h e   I a   r e p o r t s   i n   t h e   c a s e s 
where they deem them relevant and significant. the cour t ob -
ser ve d t hat, in p rac tice, w hil s t e nfo rce ment cos ts  are  re fer red 
to in many  Ia rep or t s,  q uantified  e st im ate s  of s uc h  cost s we re 
thoroughly analysed in only few cases. For eU expenditure pro -
g r a m m e s ,   s u c h   c o s t s   a r e   e i t h e r   i n c u r r e d   a t   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n 
i t s e l f   ( i n   t h e   c a s e   o f   d i r e c t   m a n a g e m e n t )   o r   j o i n t l y   w i t h   t h e 
member states (in the case of shared or decentralised manage -
ment ).  the  in - dep th review  of  the  Ia s related to t wo maj or eU  
e x p e n d i t u r e   p r o g r a m m e s   ( i . e .   t h e   Ia s   o n   c o h e s i o n   a n d   t h e  
s e v e n t h   r t d  f r a m e w o r k   p r o g r a m m e   ( Fp7 ) 7 5)   s h o w e d   t h a t   i n 
t h e s e   c a s e s   e n f o r c e m e n t   c o s t s   h a d   n o t   b e e n   q u a n t i f i e d   i n 
 detail.

74  european commission, ‘a europe 
of results — applying community 

law’, com(2007) 502, p. 6.

75  sec(2005) 430 and sec(2004) 924 
respectively.

76  european commission: 
communication from the 

commission to the council, 

the ep, the eesc and the cor: 

‘action programme for reducing 

administrative burdens in the 

european Union’, com(2007) 23 final, 

24.1.2007.

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  B u r d e n  o f  e x i s t i n g  l e g i s l a t i o n:  r e d u c t i o n 
a c t i o n  p r o g r a m m e

79.  

 I n   m a rc h   2 0 0 7 ,   u n d e r   t h e   eU  ‘ b e t te r   re g u l at i o n’  i n i t i at i ve,   t h e 
co m m i s s i o n   a n d   t h e   he a d s   o f   s t a te   o r   G ove r n m e n t   o f   a l l   t h e 
member states agreed to reduce the administrative burden re -
sulting from existing eU law by 25 % by 2012.  the commission 
sub seq uent ly   init iated  a  s ys temati c   mea s ure m ent  of   in for ma-
t i o n   c o s t s   fo r   b u s i n e s s e s   re s u l t i n g   f r o m   eU   l e g i s l a t i o n 7 6  ( s e e 
B ox   1 0) .   I n   au g u s t   2 0 0 7 ,   a   h i g h   Le ve l   G ro u p   o f   I n d e p e n d e n t 
stakeholders on administrative Burdens was set up to provide 
advice to  t he c o mm issio n in  th is are a.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
44

80.  

81.  

scm  r a r e l y   u s e d  t o  q u a n t i f y  p o t e n t i a l  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   
B u r d e n s  o f  n e w   l e g i s l a t i o n 

 I n   t h e   c o n t e x t   o f   a n   Ia  fo r   n e w   l e g i s l a t i o n ,   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s 
guidelines require that the standard cost m odel (scm) is used 
to quantify administrative burden, where this is expec ted to be 
s i gn i f i c a n t 7 7.  th e   s c m  i s   a   re l a t i ve l y   s i m p l e   a n d   s t a n d a rd i s e d 
met ho dol o gy   that  is   app l ied  in   m any   countr i es   ( se e  A nn ex  I). 
the assessment of such costs is less complex than determining 
all  eco no mic,  social  and env iron me ntal  i mpac t s. 

77  european commission, 
2005/2006 ‘Impact assessment 

guidelines’, sec(2005) 791, annex 20.

 o u t   o f   t h e   3 9   Ia  r e p o r t s   i n   2 0 0 8   e x a m i n e d   b y   t h e   c o u r t ,   t h e 
c o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r e d   a s s e s s i n g   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n s   i n 
3 5   c a s e s .   I n   1 4   o f   t h e s e   3 5   c a s e s   t h e   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n 
w a s   a l s o   q u a n t i f i e d.   howe ve r,   t h e   s c m  w a s   u s e d   i n   o n l y   fo u r 
of t hes e.

b o x   1 0

 co m m i s s i o n ’s   ac t i o n   P r oGr a m m e   a i m e d   at   c u t t i nG   r e d  taPe

In october 2009, the commission finalised its measurement of the administrative burdens78 that busi-
nesses incur in meeting eU legal obligations to provide information on their products or activities, either 
to public authorities or to private parties79. this study estimated the costs imposed by the 72 acts covered 
by the action programme and its 13 priority areas at 123,8 billion euro in 2005 80. the commission has 
identified a total of 486 eU information obligations, and more than 10 000 national obligations which 
transpose or implement these eU obligations (of which more than 700 go beyond eU legal requirements). 
Based on this analysis, and in addition to measures that are under its own responsibility, the commission 
has initiated a number of legislative proposals to remove or reduce administrative burdens: so far, the 
european parliament and the council have adopted 33 acts (with an estimated reduction of 5,7 billion 
euro) proposed by the commission. a further 18 measures that could bring an estimated reduction of 
30,7 billion euro are still pending.

78  european commission: communication from the commission to the council and the european parliament ‘action programme for reducing 
administrative burdens in the eU — sectoral reduction plans and 2009 actions’, com(2009) 544 final, 22.10.2009.

79  Information costs include labelling, reporting, registration, monitoring and assessment needed to provide the information. In some cases, 
the information has to be transferred to public authorities or private parties. In others, it only has to be available for inspection or supply on 

request.

80  agriculture and agricultural subsidies, annual accounts and company law, cohesion policy, environment, financial services, fisheries, food 
safety, pharmaceutical legislation, public procurement, statistics, taxation and customs, transport, working environment and employment 

relations.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
concLUsIons and 
recommendatIons

45

82.  

83.  

u s e  o f  i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t s  f o r  d e c i s i o n- m a k i n g  a t   t h e   
c o m m i s s i o n,  t h e e u r o p e a n p a r l i a m e n t  a n d  t h e c o u n c i l

 since  2 00 2,  t he  co mm issio n has put in  place a com pre he n s ive 
i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   s y s t e m ,   w h i c h ,   fo r   s e v e r a l   o f   t h e   a s p e c t s 
r e v i e w e d   b y   t h e   c o u r t ,   c a n   b e   c o n s i d e r e d   a s   g o o d   p r a c t i c e 
within the eU.  the cour t also noted improvements in the com-
m i s s i o n’s   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e nt s   d u r i n g   t h e   p e r i o d   a u d i te d.   pa r-
t i c u l a r l y   i n   re c e n t   ye a r s,   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s   h a ve   h e l p e d   t o 
i m p ro ve   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   a b i l i t y   t o   fo r m u l a t e   i t s   p ro p o s a l s. 
the audit found evidence that the I a procedures have become 
a n   i n t e g r a l   e l e m e n t   o f   t h e   p o l i c y   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o c e s s   a n d 
that Ia repor ts are ac tively used by decision-makers within the 
com m issio n. 

 r egu l ator y qu al it y  is  t he res po nsibi li t y  of  all th re e  eU  in stitu-
tions involved in the legislative process. the commission’s Ia s 
a re   s ys te m at i c a l l y   fo r wa rd e d   to   t h e   eu ro p e a n   pa r l i a m e nt   a n d 
council and users within both institutions consider them help -
f u l   w h e n   co n s i d e r i n g   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   l e gi s l at i ve   p ro p o s a l s. 
however, Ia s are not updated dur ing the legislative procedure 
as amendments are proposed. once the initial  commission pro-
p o s a l   i s   a m e n d e d,   n e i t h e r   t h e   co m m i s s i o n ,   n o r   t h e   eu ro p e a n 
pa r l i a m e n t   o r   t h e   c o u n c i l   s y s t e m a t i c a l l y   a n a l y s e   t h e   i m p a c t 
of those amendments. therefore, the estimated impac ts of the 
 final legislative ac t are not k nown if there have been substan-
tial a mendment s.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
46

84.  

t h e c o m m i s s i o n’s  p r o c e d u r e s   f o r  t h e  p r e p a r a t i o n  o f  i m p a c t 
a s s e s s m e n t s

 transparenc y lends credibilit y, and the commission’s approach 
to impact assessment is strongest where it provides such trans-
parenc y. examples are the publication of the cLwp, roadmaps, 
full version of the final Ia repor t and, since 2007, the IaB opin -
ions. however, this repor t identifies the following weak nesses 
wi th   reg ard  to   the  co mmis sion’s  proced ures   for  se lec t in g   in i-
tiatives to undergo Ia, for consultation with interested par ties 
and  fo r t he qu alit y  review of  draf t  Ia re por t s:

— 

t he co mm issio n did no t in dicate in advan ce  a ll th e  i nit ia-
t ives   w hich  were  to   un dergo  an   Ia  an d,   fo r   Ia s  relat ing  to 
legislative proposals outside the cL wp, the reasons for the 
selec tion of which initiatives were to be analysed were not 
ma de p u blic ;

—  c o n s u l t a t i o n s   w i t h   s t a k e h o l d e r s   we re   n o t   c a r r i e d   o u t   o n 
draft Ia repor ts.  as a result, the potential benefits of public 
scrutiny before the proposal is finalised (i.e. gathering the 
v i e w s   o f   a l l   p a r t i e s   c o n c e r n e d   a t   a n   e a r l y   s t a g e   a n d   t h e 
increased acceptance of the resulting legislative proposal) 
have  not  ful l y mater ial ised;  and

— 

the IaB was found to contribute to the qualit y of Ia s. how -
e ve r,   i n   s o m e   c a s e s,   q u a l i t y   re v i e w   to o k   p l a ce   to o   l ate   i n 
t he p ro cess.

re c o m m e n d at i o n   1

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   e n h a n c e   t h e   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t 
p ro ce ss  by :

—   providing an over view of all legislative initiatives (includ-
ing the review of existing legislation) for which it intends 
t o   u n d e r t a k e   a n   I a .   a  r e a s o n e d   j u s t i f i c a t i o n   s h o u l d   b e 
p rov i d e d w h e n  an Ia is n ot  p e r f o r m e d;

—   p ub lishin g , f o r inf o r mati o n an d co mm e nt , inte r im d o cu -
m e n t s   (s u c h   a s   r o a d m a p s   a n d   a   d r a f t   v e r s i o n   o f   t h e   I a 
re p o r t); an d

—   e n s u r i n g   t h a t   t h e   I a B ’s   q u a l i t y   r e v i e w   o f   I a  w o r k   t a k e s 

p l a ce  o n a tim e l y b asis .

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
47

c o n t e n t  a n d  p r e s e n t a t i o n  o f  t h e c o m m i s s i o n’s  i m p a c t   
a s s e s s m e n t  r e p o r t s

85.  

 the   co mm issio n  h as  adop ted  an   ambi tio us   approa ch   to  Ia  by 
aiming to analyse all significant economic, social and environ-
m e n t a l   i m p a c t s   i n   o n e   s i n g l e   a s s e s s m e n t .   Ia  r e p o r t s   s h o u l d 
contain a descr iption of the problem at stake, analyse all feas-
i b l e   p o l i c y   o p t i o n s   i n   t e r m s   o f   c o s t s   a n d   b e n e f i t s   a n d   p r o -
vide an assessment of implementation and enforcement issues 
a n d   a n   e s t i m a t e   o f   t h e   a d m i n i s t r a t i ve   b u rd e n   re s u l t i n g   f ro m 
p r o p o s e d   l e g i s l a t i o n .   I t   a l s o   s e t s   o u t   a   f r a m e w o r k   fo r   f u t u r e 
m o n i t o r i n g   a n d   e v a l u a t i o n .   t h i s   c o m p r e h e n s i v e   a s s e s s m e n t 
comp ares  f avo u rab l y to  ot her  Ia s ys tem s. 

86.  

 o ve ra l l,   t h e   Ia  re p o r t s   we re   fo u n d   to   h ave   co m p l i e d   w i t h   t h e 
re q u i re m e nt s   s p e c i f i e d   i n   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   g u i d e l i n e s.   how -
ever, the audit identified a number of weak nesses with regard 
to co ntent  and  p res entation o f  Ia  re por ts :

— 

the main results and messages of Ia repor ts are not always 
eas y to g at her, in clu ding  how an  inter ve nt ion  is  expe c te d 
to attain its objec tives. comparing the impac ts of the vari-
o us  p ol ic y o pt ions  p resented in  a n Ia repor t  is sometimes 
dif fic ul t ;

—  dif fic ul t ie s  in  quantify ing  and  mo ne t isi n g  im pac ts   c an   be 
t r a c e d   b a c k   t o   t h e   a v a i l a b i l i t y   o f   d a t a .   t h i s   i s   a n   a r e a   i n 
w h i c h   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   d o e s   n o t   y e t   f u l l y   e x p l o i t   e i t h e r 
inter nal  c ap acit ies or those  of m ember  s tates ;

— 

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   a s p e c t s   a r e   n o t   a l w a y s   s u f f i c i e n t l y   a n a-
lysed in impact assessments. Ex post evaluations that could 
provide relevant information on existing policies and pro -
grammes for use in the contex t of an Ia are often not avail-
ab l e fo r l egis lative meas ure s; an d

—  p o t e n t i a l   e n f o r c e m e n t   c o s t s   a n d   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n 
re s u l t i n g   f ro m   e u ro p e a n   l e g i s l a t i o n   a re   n o t   a l w a y s   s u f f i-
cie nt l y  quantifie d.  the  scm   is  rarely  used  to  q uantif y   po -
te nt ial  adminis trat ive b urden s.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
48

81  see court’s response to the 
commission’s communication 

‘reforming the budget, changing 

europe’; eca opinion no 1/2010 

‘Improving the financial 

management of the european Union 

budget: risks and challenges’.

re c o m m e n d at i o n   2

t he commission should enhance the presentation of impac t 
ass e ssm e nt  re p o r t s  an d i t s  co nte nt by : 

—    preparing Ia repor ts in a way that facilitates the compari -
son of alternative options in terms of their es timate d im -
p a c t s by imp rov in g th e qu anti f i c ati o n an d m o n e tis ati o n 
o f imp a c t s an d th e p re s e nt ati o n  o f  quali t ati ve  ana l y sis;

—   d e v e l o p i n g   a   s t r a t e g y   t o   i m p r o v e   t h e   q u a l i t y   o f   d a t a 
av a i l a b l e   f o r   I a ,   t a k i n g   i n t o   a c c o u n t   t h e   s p e c i f i c   s i t u a -
ti o ns  in in d i v i du al m e m b e r s t ate s; 

—   p u t t i n g   m o r e   e m p h asis   o n   i m p l e m e nt ati o n   asp e c t s   a n d 
m a k i n g   m o r e   u s e   o f   e x   p o s t   e v a l u a t i o n s   o f   i m p l e m e n -
t a t i o n   o f   e U   l e g i s l a t i o n   a s   a n   i n p u t   f o r   t h e   I a   p r o c e s s ; 
an d

—    a n a l y s i n g   t h e   e n f o r c e m e n t   c o s t s   o f   i t s   l e g i s l a t i v e   p r o -
p os als   in  m o re  d e t ail  an d   w h e re  a dminis tr ati ve   b ur d e ns 
a r e   q u a n t i f i e d   c o n s i s t e n t l y   u s i n g   t h e   s t a n d a r d   c o s t 
 m o d e l .

i m p a c t  a s s e s s m e n t  i n  t h e eu  i n s t i t u t i o n s:  a n  e f f e c t i v e   
s u p p o r t  f o r  d e c i s i o n- m a k i n g

87.  

 the cour t considers that the commission should give due con-
sideration to the pr inciples of clar it y of objec tives, simplifica-
tion, realism, transparenc y and accountabilit y when designing 
new and revising existing inter ventions 81. on balance, the audit 
has shown that, par ticularly in recent years, Ia has been effec -
tive in suppor ting decision-mak ing within the eU institutions. 
the european parliament, the council and the commission may 
wish to consider the findings and recommendations set out in 
t h i s   re p o r t   w h e n   re v i s i n g   t h e i r   i n te r i n s t i t u t i o n a l   a gre e m e n t s 
on  ‘ be tte r reg ul at ion’ and a ‘comm on  approac h  to  Ia ’. th is will 
a l s o   p r o v i d e   a n   o p p o r t u n i t y   t o   t a k e   a c c o u n t   o f   t h e   c h a n g e s 
resulting from the Lisbon treat y that came into force on 1 d e -
ce m b e r   2 0 0 9 ,   s u c h   a s   t h e   g e n e r a l i s e d   r i g h t   o f   i n i t i a t i ve   fo r   a 
gro u p   o f   m e m b e r   st ate s   a n d   t h e   ro l e   o f   n at i o n a l   p a r l i a m e nt s 
in eU dec isio n- mak in g.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
49

 this repor t was adopted by the cour t of auditors in Luxembourg 
at its meeting of 19 m ay 2010.

Fo r  th e  Co u r t  o f  Au d ito r s

vítor m anuel da sILva caLdeIra 
Presi d e nt

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
50

a n n ex   i

comP arison of sPecific elements of 
ia systems else where

the commission’ s system  wi th 

Scope of IA system

Legislative proposals*

Implementing measures*

Other non-regulatory initiatives

Clear threshold for applying IA to new regulatory 
proposals*

Analysis of impacts

Integrated approach to economic, social and  
environmental impacts

Cost: quantitative assessment*

Benefits: quantitative assessment*

Use of Standard Cost Model (SCM) for administrative 
burden*

Quality control body

External to the administration

Can prompt IA work

Can block regulatory proposals*

Publication of IA work

List of forthcoming IAs

Interim IA documents

Final IA reports

Ex post comparisons of the actual vs predicted 
impacts of regulations*

European  
Commission

Germany 
(federal level)

France

Always

For major regulation

Yes

No

Yes

Always

Always

No

No

Yes

For major regulation

In some cases

No

No

No

In some cases

In some cases

Always

For major regulation

In some cases

For major regulation

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Always

No

Yes

Yes (only admin. burden)

No

Yes

No

In some cases

Always

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

* Sources: OECD, ‘Indicators of regulatory management systems’, Regulatory Policy Committee, 2009 report; additional ECA country 
analysis.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

51

a n n ex   i

comP arison of sPecific elements of 
ia systems else where

the commission’ s system  wi th 

The Netherlands

United Kingdom

Scope of IA system

Legislative proposals*

Implementing measures*

Other non-regulatory initiatives

Clear threshold for applying IA to new regulatory 
proposals*

Analysis of impacts

Integrated approach to economic, social and  
environmental impacts

Cost: quantitative assessment*

Benefits: quantitative assessment*

Use of Standard Cost Model (SCM) for administrative 
burden*

For major regulation

For major regulation

No

No

No

Always

Always

Yes

Always

Always

Yes

Yes

No

Always

Always

Yes

Quality control body

External to the administration

Can prompt IA work

Can block regulatory proposals*

Publication of IA work

List of forthcoming IAs

Interim IA documents

Final IA reports

Ex post comparisons of the actual vs predicted 
impacts of regulations*

Yes (only admin. burden)

Yes (only admin. burden)

No

No

No

No

In some cases

No

No

Yes

Always

Always

Always

Yes

United States 
(federal level)

No

For major regulation

No

Yes

No

For major regulation

For major regulation

No

No

Yes

Yes

Always

Always

Always

Yes

* Sources: OECD, ‘Indicators of regulatory management systems’, Regulatory Policy Committee, 2009 report; additional ECA country 
analysis.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

52

a n n ex   i i

audit aPProach and e vidence collec tion me thods

1. 

2. 

3. 

id e n t i f y i nG  t h e   au d i t   s u b j e c t   a n d   Pl a n n i nG  t h e   au d i t   f i e l d w o r k 

 the european cour t of auditors identified in november 2007, in its annual work programme 
for  20 08,  th e ‘B etter  regu lation’  pro gramm e   a nd  i mpac t   asse ss me nt s  as   a  relevant   audit 
subjec t 1. I n m ay and june 2008 a preliminar y study was conduc ted which deter mined the 
sco pe   o f  this  au dit.  the  au dit   fieldwor k  was   c ar r ied  out   be t we en   o c tobe r  200 8   and  july 
200 9, b ase d o n a sp ec ific au dit  plann i ng  m e mo ran d um  an d e v iden ce  collec t ion   plan.

o v e r v i e w   o f   e v i d e n c e   co l l e c t i o n   m e t h o d s   u t i l i s e d   d u r i nG  t h e 
au d i t

 Fi r s t ,   t h e   a u d i t   t e a m   r e v i e w e d   r e l e v a n t   p o l i c y   d e c i s i o n s ,   a p p l i c a b l e   g u i d e l i n e s   o f   t h e 
european institutions (commission, ep, council), the oecd, the m ember states and coun-
tries outside the eU (Usa,  australia), previous evaluations of the commission’s Ia system 2, 
studies and academic literature in the fields of ‘B etter r egulation’ and regulator y impac t 
anal ys is 3 and  p ar t icip ated in conference s rel ate d to t he   subj e c t 4.

 m oreover, t he au dit wo r k  com pr ise d  th e  followin g  fi ve  wor k  pa ck ages :

—  a co mp ar iso n o f the c o mmiss ion’s Ia system wit h s yste ms  e ls ew h ere ( w p 1 );

—  a quantitative analysis of the extent to which commission initiatives during the period 
a u d i te d   h a d   b e e n   s u b j e c t   to   Ia,   a n d   h ow   t h e s e   Ia s   h a d   b e e n   u s e d   by   t h e   eu ro p e a n 
par l ia ment  a nd t he c o unc il dur ing  t he legislative  proce dure ( w p 2 );

—  a  ‘s c o r e c a r d ’  a n a l y s i s   o f   a   s a m p l e   o f   Ia  r e p o r t s   t o   v e r i f y   w h e t h e r   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n 
had   car r ie d  ou t  its   asses s ment s  i n   acco rdan ce   wi th   it s  ow n  i nte r n al  p rocedu res  and 
methodological guidance, together with an ‘in- depth’ review of a sample of I a repor ts 
( wp 3) ; 

—  enquiries with people involved in per for ming, reviewing and using the commission’s 

Ia s b o t h w it hin and ou tside t he c ommiss ion  ( w p 4 );  and

—  sur veys among members of council wor k ing par ties and the direc tors and exper ts of 

B et te r r eg u lat ion ( wp 5) .

4. 

 d eta il e d info r m atio n o n t he content  of  th e  f ive  wor k  pack ag e s  is   prov id ed   hereaf ter.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
 
53

a n n ex   i i

wp  1 — i n t e r n a t i o n a l  c o m p a r i s o n
sp e c i f i c   a s p e c t s   o f   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   Ia  s ys te m   we re   co m p a re d   to   a p p ro a c h e s   fo l l owe d 
e l s e w h e r e   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   p u b l i c l y   a v a i l a b l e   d o c u m e n t a t i o n   ( s u c h   a s   o e c d  d o c u m e n-
t a t i o n 5,   a c a d e m i c   l i t e r a t u r e   a n d   c o m p a r a t i v e   s t u d i e s   b y   b o d i e s   r e s p o n s i b l e   fo r  ‘ b e t t e r 
regu l at io n’ in th e m em be r s t ates 6 or cofun ded by  the e uropean c ommiss ion 7. 
corroborative evidence was gained through countr y visits to the Usa and seven  eU  mem-
ber states (B elgium, G er many, France, the nether lands,  por tugal, sweden and the United 
K ing d om ).

wp  2 — q u a n t i t a t i v e   a n a l y s i s
a n   a n a l ys i s   o f   t h e   cove ra g e   o f   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   Ia  s ys te m   a s   a   w h o l e   to   ve r i f y   to   w h at 
ex te nt  imp ac t  ass es sments were  applie d to commiss ion  in it iatives  publish ed  d ur i ng the 
p e r i o d   a u d i t e d   a n d   t h e   i t e m s   c o n t a i n e d   i n   t h e   c Lw ps .   Fo r   t h i s   p u r p o s e,   a   d a t a b a s e   o f 
almo st  5 000 c o mmis sio n initiat ives  was  es tabli s he d  and  an al ys ed. 
the   aud it  team  al s o  ass es sed  t he   ex tent  to  wh ic h   t he   e p  and   th e  council  used   th e  com-
mission’s Ias, on the basis of the publicly available documentation of the t wo institutions 
(such  as mee t ing  ag endas, minu te s,  refe re n ces  i n  re sol ut ion s,  e tc.) .
m o re o ve r,   t h e   a u d i t   c o m p r i s e d   a   c o m p a r a t i ve   a n a l y s i s   o f   t h e   s c o p e   a n d   n u m b e r   o f   I a s 
and  ret ro sp ec t ive eval u atio ns  un d er t aken  i n  2 0 0 8 .

wp  3 — ‘ s c o r e c a r d ’  a n a l y s i s  a n d ‘ i n- d e p t h’  r e v i e w
the  ‘s co re ca rd   an a l ys is’  wa s   c a r r ie d  ou t   for   a ll   Ia   re po r ts   p rod uced   by   f i ve   d i rec to rate s -
general: energy and  transpor t (dG  tren) 8; regional polic y (dG  reGIo ); employment,  social 
affairs   and  equ al   op po r t unities  (dG  e mpL) ;  r ese arch   (dG  r td) ;  I nfor mation  s oc iet y  and 
m e d i a   (d G   I n Fs o ) .  t h i s   c o r re s p o n d s   t o   1 1 5   ( o u t   o f   a   t o t a l   o f   4 0 4 )   Ia  re p o r t s   p u b l i s h e d 
bet ween 2003 and 2008.
the   s co rec ard  was  es t ab l is hed  on   th e   bas is   of  t h e  commiss ion’s  Ia  g uide lines,  an d  took 
acco u nt   o f  th e  requ irements   applic able   at   t he   date   of  publi c ati on   of   t he  Ia  rep or t 9. the 
c h e c k l i s t s   u s e d   b y   t h e   U n i t e d   K i n g d o m   n ao  i n   a   s i m i l a r   e xe rc i s e   re l a t e d   t o   t h e   U n i t e d 
K i n g d o m   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   s y s t e m 1 0  a n d   t h o s e   u s e d   b y   a   p r e v i o u s   e v a l u a t i o n   o f   t h e 
commission’s I a system 11 were taken into consideration for the preparation of the score -
card. Fur ther questions such as cer tain aspec ts related to the I mpac t assessment B oard ’s 
qual it y contro l  were added. 
I n  add itio n,  an  in- dep th  review  wa s  c ar r i ed  out  to  obs er ve  th e   com p lete  life - c yc le  from 
t h e   l e gi s l a t i ve   p ro p o s a l   to   t h e   m o n i to r i n g   a n d   e v a l u a t i o n   o f   p o l i c i e s   a n d   p ro gra m m e s. 
the sample included not only recent cases (in par ticular to assess the IaB ’s role), but also 
re p o r t s   d a t i n g   b a c k   t wo   ye a r s   o r   m o re.   I t   i n c l u d e d   b o t h   re p o r t s   fo r   p ro p o s a l s   w i t h   a n d 
without budgetar y implications and Ias related to direc tly applicable legislative pro posals 
(decisions and regulations) and those requir ing transposition and implementation in the 
m emb er s t ate s (d ire c t ive s ) 12. 
some additional cases from outside the remit of the five dGs in the sample were included 
in  t his  review   to   ob t ain  a  cor robo rat ive  v ie w  on   t he   s it uati on  ac ros s  t h e  commiss ion  as 
a w ho l e.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

54

a n n ex   i i

wp  4 — i n t e r v i e w s
d ur ing the audit, around 190 people were inter viewed to obtain their views on the com-
mis sio n’s  Ia sys tem.
th e s e   we re   p ro d u ce r s   (co m m i s s i o n   s t a f f   i n   t h e   p o l i c y   u n i t s   re s p o n s i b l e,   t h e   Ia  s u p p o r t 
unit s  in  th e  dG s,   and  the  s ec retar iat  G eneral)   and  use rs  wit hin   th e  e U  I n stitution s  (such 
as staff from the commissioners’ private offices, meps, ep and  council staff, and staff from 
th e p er ma nent r ep re sentat ions). 
they also included representatives from international and national organisations involved 
in ‘better regulation’ (such as the oecd and agencies in the member states), other bodies 
and  grou ps ( such as  the ‘h ig h Level G roup of nationa l  r eg ulator y exper ts’ and t he ‘h igh 
Level  exper t  Gro up  on a dm inistrat ive Burden s’) . 
In addition, inter views were carried out with representatives of stakeholder organisations: 
B u s i n e s s   eu ro p e,   eu ro c h a m b e r s,   eu ro p e a n   co n s u m e r s’  org a n i s at i o n ,   eu ro p e a n   env i ro n-
m e n t a l   B u r e a u ,   e u r o p e a n   Fe d e r a t i o n s   fo r  tr a n s p o r t   a n d   en v i r o n m e n t ,   e u r o p e a n  tr a d e 
Unio n Fed eratio n,  s o cial  Fo ru m, wor ld wide Fund for nature ( w wF) .

wp  5 — s u r v e y s
two   s u r ve y s   we re   p e r fo r m e d   d u r i n g   t h i s   a u d i t :   t h e   f i r s t ,   i n   m ay /ju n e   2 0 0 9 ,   a m o n g   t h e 
mem b ers  of  se ven  co un cil   wor k in g  par ties  on   social  que st io ns,  infor mati on   so c ie t y,  en-
erg y, transpo r t  (mar itime t ran spor t; l and tra nspo r t ;  t ran spor t, inter m odal qu es t ions and 
networks), research, struc tural ac tions, and better regulation, concerning their perception 
and  us e o f t he co mmis sio n’s impac t as sess me nts ;  t he  se con d,  amo ng  th e  de le gat i ons of 
25 m ember states and nor way at the  direc tors and  exper ts of B etter  r egulation meeting 
of 3– 5 june  20 09  in s and hamn (s wed en) .

in t e r n at i o n a l   e xPe r t s   i n  t h e   f i e l d   o f  ‘ be t t e r   reGu l at i o n ’ 
Pr o v i d e d   s uP Po r t  t h r o uGh o u t  t h e   au d i t

a d v i s o r y  p a n e l

5. 

 an advis o r y pan el  o f exp er ts in  th e f i eld  of ‘ be tter  reg ulati on’ an d i m pac t  as ses sm ent in 
nove m b e r   2 0 0 8   a n d   m a rc h   2 0 0 9   w a s   s e t   u p   to   p rov i d e   s u p p o r t   t h ro u g h o u t   t h e   a u d i t 1 3. 
the  exp e r ts’  ma i n   in p u t   wa s   to  contr ibute   to   the   cour t ’s  met hodo logy   and   an a lys i s  a nd 
e n d o r s e   t h e   o v e r a l l   s t r u c t u r e   f o r   p r e s e n t i n g   t h e   a u d i t   o b s e r v a t i o n s ,   c o n c l u s i o n s   a n d 
reco mm endatio ns  s et out  in t his  re por t.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
55

a n n ex   i i

6. 

 I n par t icul ar, t he exp er t s  p rovide d th e ir  in put to th e  s pe cif icat ion  of robu st  a udi t  stand-
a rd s   a g a i n s t   w h i c h   t h e   o b s e r v a t i o n s   i n   t h i s   re p o r t   a re   m a d e.  th e s e   s t a n d a rd s   we re   d e -
veloped on the basis of a meta-analysis of documents issued by the m andelker n Group 14, 
the oecd 15 and the commission 16 and of agreements between the latter and the european 
pa r l i a m e n t   a n d   t h e   c o u n c i l 1 7  t o   s p e c i f y   a   s e t   o f   c o n d i t i o n s   ( o r  ‘g o o d   p r a c t i c e s’ )   w h i c h  
illust rate  what  s ho ul d b e exp ec ted  f ro m an  e f fec ti ve i mpac t  as ses sm ent   s ys tem 18.

f o c u s  g r o u p

7. 

 an   i m p o r t a nt   s te p   i n   t h i s   a u d i t   wa s   t h e   re v i e w   o f   t h e   p re l i m i n a r y   a u d i t   f i n d i n g s   d u r i n g 
a   s e r i e s   o f   f a c i l i t ate d   fo c u s   gro u p s   f ro m   8   to   1 0   ju l y   2 0 0 9   i n   Lu xe m b o u rg   w i t h   i nte r n a-
tional exper ts in the field of ‘ better regulation’ and Ia.  these focus groups constituted an 
i nte gra l   p a r t   o f   t h e   a u d i t   p ro ce s s   a n d   we re   d e s i gn e d   to   p rov i d e   a   fo r u m   fo r   t h e   c r i t i c a l 
r e v i e w   o f   t h e   c o u r t ’s   p r e l i m i n a r y   c o n c l u s i o n s   a n d   p o s s i b l e   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s.   e x p e r t s 
i n c l u d e d   r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s   o f   t h e   o e c d,   t h e   wo r l d   B a n k ,   a g e n c i e s   i n   c h a r g e   o f   I a   w o r k 
( o r   q u a l i t y   c o n t r o l )   i n   t h e   Us a  a n d   s e v e r a l   eU   m e m b e r   s t a t e s ,   n a t i o n a l   a u d i t   b o d i e s , 
b u t   a l s o   a c a d e m i c s,   e va l u ato r s   o f   Ia  s ys te m s   a n d   re p re s e nt at i ve s   o f   t h e  ‘h i g h   Le ve l   ex -
per t   Gro u p  o n  adm inist rative  Burdens’.  r epresent atives  of  t he  commiss ion   par t icipated 
a s   o b s e r v e r s .   m o r e   i n fo r m a t i o n   o n   t h e   p u r p o s e   o f   fo c u s   g r o u p s   i s   p r o v i d e d   h e r e a f t e r. 

w h a t   i s  a  f o c u s  g r o u p?   

Focus groups bring together a group of individuals with a common interest in the form of 
a collec tive inter view or a struc tured discussion in which open- ended, but focused, ques-
tions  are aske d so  as to tr ig ger  a  d ebate am on gst  th e  par t ic ipant s.  th ey are par tic ular ly 
well-suited for obtaining a number of views on the same subjec t. the use of focus groups 
is common in marketing and, increasingly, in politics and opinion polling in order to elicit 
responses and reveal new perspec tives from a group of people held to be representative 
of  co ns ume rs  o r   target  grou ps.  th e  par tic ipants  ne ed  to  h ave   an  i nte re st   in   th e   sub jec t 
a n d   i d e a l l y   t h e re   s h o u l d   b e   a   m i x t u re   o f   b a c k g ro u n d s.   d u r i n g   a   fo c u s   g ro u p   s e s s i o n   i t 
c a n   b e   e x p e c t e d   t h a t   t h e   d i s c u s s i o n   w i l l   s t i m u l a t e   v i e w s   t h a t ,   a t   f i r s t ,   a re   d i ve r s e   a n d 
e ve n   d i ve rg e nt.   o n e   k e y   ro l e   o f   t h e   f a c i l i t ato r   i s   t h e re fo re   to   m a n a g e   t h e   d i s c u s s i o n   i n 
s u c h   a   w ay   t h a t   c o m m o n   g ro u n d   c a n   b e   fo u n d   a n d   v i e w s   b e g i n   t o   c o nve rg e,   a l t h o u g h 
full  cons ensu s of  views is not th e  aim  of  a  fo c us  group d is c us s ion .

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
 
 
 
 
56

a n n ex   i i

8. 

 the exper ts were asked by ex ternal facilitators to scrutinise the audit work : the standards 
that we re ap plied, th e fac ts and  f in di ng s  re por ted, th e  con clusion s  drawn  f rom  t h i s and, 
finally, whether the recommendations would help to mitigate the challenges obser ved by 
the audit. their review significantly contributed to the quality, relevance and legitimac y of 
the overall outcome of the audit process. a repor t summar ising the proceedings and the 
outcome of the discussions by the ex ter nal facilitators was submitted to all par ticipants, 
and  th e c o mmis sio n, in a u gu st  20 09 19.

1  eca, 2008 annual work programme, p. 3; eca, annual activity report, p. 35.

2  the  evaluation  partnership,  evaluation  of  the  commission’s  impact  assessment  system,  
contract sG-02/2006 on behalf of the european commission, april 2007.

3  radaelli, c., ‘what does regulatory impact assessment mean in europe?’, aeI-Brookings joint 
center for regulatory studies, Usa, january 2005; rowe, G. c., ‘tools for the control of political and 

administrative agents: impact assessment and administrative governance in the european Union‘  

in hoffman, h. c. h. and turk, a. h. (eds), EU administrative governance, edward elgar publishing,  

p. 452, 2006; renda, a., Impact assessment in the EU — The state of the art and the art of the state, 

ceps paperbacks, 2006; mather, G. and vibert, F., Evaluating better regulation: building the system, City 

Research Series, european policy Forum, London, 2006; wiener, j. B., ‘Better regulation in europe’, in 

Current Legal Problems, 2006, vol. 56; Kirkpatrick, c., parker, d. et al., ‘regulatory impact assessment. 

towards better regulation?’, The CRC Series on Competition, Regulation and Development, edward 

elgar  publishing, Inc., massachusetts, Usa, 2007;  meuwese, a.  c.  m., ‘Impact assessment in  eU 

lawmaking’, Kluwer Law International Bv, the netherlands, 2008; open europe, ‘out of control? 

measuring a decade of eU regulation’, 2009; hertin, j. et al., ‘the production and use of knowledge 

in regulatory impact assessment — an empirical analysis’ in Forest Policy and Economics, 2009;  

centre for european policy studies (ceps); Policy-making in the EU — Achievements, challenges and 

proposals for reform, 2009.

4 

International regulatory reform conference, Berlin, november 2008; Zwischenbilanz nationaler 

normenkontrollrat (nKr), Berlin, may 2009.

5  oecd, regulatory impact analysis (rIa) inventory, april 2004; oecd, Regulatory impact analysis — Best 
practices in EU countries, 1997; oecd, ‘apec–oecd integrated checklist on regulatory reform: final draft, 

2005; oecd, Indicators of regulatory management systems, december 2009.

6  deBr, report to the ministers responsible for public administration in the eU member states on the 
progress of the implementation of the mandelkern report’s action plan on better regulation, athens, 

2003; eU directors of Better regulation Group, a comparative analysis of regulatory impact assessment 

in 10 eU countries, may 2004.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
57

a n n ex   i i

notes continued ...

7  european network for Better regulation (enBr) (see http://www.enbr.org/home.php); evaluating 
integrated impact assessments (evIa) (see http://web.fu-berlin.de/ffu/evia/contact.htm). the evIa 

project was funded by the commission under Fp6. It was coordinated by the Freie Universität Berlin and 

the research partners were the centre for european economic research (Zew), the Institute for european 

environmental policy (Ieep), avanzi, the Institute for prospective technological studies (jrc-Ipts), the 

centre for regulatory Governance at the University of exeter and the Institute for environmental studies 

at the vrije Universiteit amsterdam.

8  this dG was split into the energy dG (dG ener) and the mobility and transport dG (dG move) on 
 17 February 2010.

9  european commission, communication on ‘Impact assessment’ — 2002 Ia guidelines, com(2002) 276 
final; european commission, ‘Impact assessment guidelines’, sec(2005) 791 (unless otherwise stated); 

european commission, ‘Impact assessment guidelines’, sec(2009) 92.

10  national audit office (nao), ‘delivering high quality impact assessments’, 30.1.2009, pp. 22–23.

11  evaluation partnership Ltd (tep), ‘evaluation of the commission’s impact assessment system’,  
april 2007.

12  council regulation laying down general provisions on the european regional development Fund, 
the european social Fund and the cohesion Fund (sec(2004) 924); decision of the european parliament 

and of the council concerning the seventh framework programme of the european community for 

research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007–2013) (sec(2005) 430); 

directive of the european parliament and of the council amending directive 2002/59/ec establishing 

a community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (sec(2005) 1514); regulation on ‘roaming’ 

(sec(2006) 925); decision on effort of member states to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 

meet the community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020 (sec(2008) 85/3); 

proposal for a directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective 

of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (sec(2008) 2180 and sec(2008) 2181/2).

13  the members of the advisory panel were erwin de  pue (director-General of  dienst voor de 
administratieve vereenvoudiging), Gisela Färber (member of the German ‘normenkontrollrat’ and 

professor at dhv speyer), Klaus jacob (evIa project coordinator at FU Berlin), claudio radaelli (University 

of exeter), alberto alemanno (Law clerk at the european court of justice and professor at hec paris) and 

jeroen nijland (director-General of the regulatory reform Group).

14  mandelkern Group on Better regulation, Final report, 13 november 2001.

15  oecd (1997) Regulatory impact analysis — Best practices in EU countries, paris; oecd (2005) apec-oecd 
integrated checklist on regulatory reform: final draft, oecd, paris. 

16  european commission, communication on ‘Impact assessment’, com(2002) 276 final; european 
commission, communication on ‘towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue — 

General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the commission’, 

com(2002)  704  final;  Information  note  from  the  president  to  the  commission,  enhancing 

quality support and control for commission impact assessments, the Impact assessment Board,  

14 november 2006; european commission, ‘Impact assessment guidelines’, sec(2005) 791; european 

commission, ‘Impact assessment guidelines’, sec(2009) 92.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

58

a n n ex   i i

notes continued ...

17  Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making (2003/c 321/01); Interinstitutional common 
approach to impact assessment (Ia), 2005.

18  these ‘good practices’ were first discussed at the second meeting of the ‘expert advisory panel’  
on 27 march 2009 and subsequently reviewed by the participants of the ‘Focus Group’ meeting  

from 8 to 10 july 2009.

19  cm International, meirion thomas, report on the focus groups held in support of audit task 08tr2203, 
august 2009.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

59

le t ter from  the President of  the euroPean P arliament

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

60

le t ter from  the President of  the council of  the euroPean union

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

61

le t ter from  the President of  the council of  the euroPean union

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

62

repLy oF the 
commIssIon

executive summary

i.
I m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   ( Ia )   i s   a   k e y   t o o l   f o r 
e n s u r i n g   b e t t e r   r e g u l a t i o n .   I n   r e c e n t 
ye a r s,   t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   a i m   h a s   b e e n   to 
e n s u re   t h a t   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   b e co m e s 
f i r m l y   e m b e d d e d   i n   t h e   wo r k i n g   c u l t u re 
o f   t h e   i n s t i t u t i o n   a n d   i s   d e l i v e r i n g   t h e 
e x p e c t e d   r e s u l t s .   t h e   c o u r t ’s   f i n d i n g s 
e n c o u r a g e   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   t o   c o n t i n u e 
w i t h   i t s   a p p r o a c h   a n d   i t s   r e c o m m e n d a-
t i o n s   w i l l   h e l p   to   s t re n g t h e n   f u r t h e r   t h e 
e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   t h e   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t 
system.

introduction

5 . s econ d  indent
th e re   a re   fe w   n a t i o n a l   Ia  s y s t e m s   w h i c h 
h a v e   t h e   s a m e   l e v e l   o f   a m b i t i o n   a n d 
scope as the system that the commission 
h as put in place. 

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

observations

26. f irst indent
analysis  of  an  increasingly  wide  range  of 
polic y  alter natives: the  commission  wel-
c o m e s   t h e   f i n d i n g   t h a t   t h e   n u m b e r   o f 
a l t e r n a t i v e   o p t i o n s   p r e s e n t e d   i n   t h e   I a 
r e p o r t s   i n c r e a s e d   a n d   b e l i e v e s   t h a t   t h e 
p a r t i c u l a r l y   p o s i t i ve   d e ve l o p m e nt   i n   t h e 
q u a l i t y   o f   t h e   I a s   p r e p a r e d   i n   2 0 0 7   a n d 
2 0 0 8   c a n   b e   at t r i b u te d   to   t h e   s u cce s s f u l 
q u a l i t y   c o n t r o l   a n d   s u p p o r t   f u n c t i o n   o f 
the Impac t a ssessment Board (IaB).

40 .
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   r e c a l l s   t h a t   i n   t h e 
common approach to impac t assessment, 
t h e   e u r o p e a n   p a r l i a m e n t   a n d   c o u n c i l 
have  accepted  the  responsibilit y  to  carr y 
o u t   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s   o n   s u b s t a n t i v e 
a m e n d m e n t s   t h e y   m a k e .   t h e y   c a n   a l s o 
invite the c ommission to do so.

41 .
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   n a t i o n a l 
i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s   c o u l d   e f f e c t i v e l y 
c o m p l e m e n t   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n ’s   i m p a c t 
i n f o r m 
a s s e s s m e n t s .   t h e y   c o u l d  
d i s c u s s i o n s   i n   c o u n c i l   o n   p r o p o s e d 
c h a n g e s   t o   c o m m i s s i o n   p r o p o s a l s ,   a n d 
c o u l d   a l s o   h e l p   m e m b e r   s t a t e s   w i t h 
transposition and enforcement issues.

6363

repLy oF the 
commIssIon

4 4.
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   d o e s   n o t   u s e   q u a n t i-
f i a b l e   i n d i c a t o r s   f o r   a   n u m b e r   o f   r e a-
s o n s .   Fi r s t ,   t h e   i n t e g r a t e d   a p p r o a c h   t o 
Ia  re q u i re s   t h a t   e ve n   w h e n   i m p a c t s   c a n-
n o t   b e   e a s i l y   q u a n t i f i e d ,   o r   a r e   l i m i t e d 
i n   s i z e ,   t h e y   s h o u l d   b e   a n a l y s e d   i f   t h e y 
have impor tant repercussions for specific 
g r o u p s ,   s e c t o r s   o r   r e g i o n s .   s e c o n d ,   i t 
wo u l d   b e   d i f f i c u l t   to   d e ve l o p   e x   a n te  c r i -
ter ia to reflec t the diversit y of initiatives, 
b o t h   l e g i s l a t i v e   a n d   n o n - l e g i s l a t i v e ,   fo r 
w h i c h   Ia s   a re   c a r r i e d   o u t.  th i rd,   i t   wo u l d 
b e   d i f f i c u l t   to   m a k e   q u a n t i t a t i ve   t h re s h-
o l d s   o p e r a t i o n a l,   b e c a u s e   t h e   n e c e s s a r y 
d at a   o f te n   o n l y   b e co m e   ava i l a b l e   d u r i n g 
th e process of doing  th e Ia. 

4 9.
t h e   co m m i s s i o n   i s   o f   t h e   v i e w   t h a t   c o n-
s u l t i n g   o n   t h e   d r a f t   Ia  r e p o r t   i s   n o t   t h e 
o n l y   w a y   o f   e n s u r i n g   t h a t   t h e   a n a l y s i s 
i s   c o m p l e t e ,   c o n s i s t e n t   a n d   a c c u r a t e . 
co m m i s s i o n   s e r v i ce s   co n s u l t   a n d   i n fo r m 
s t a k e h o l d e r s   a t   d i f f e r e n t   s t a g e s   o f   Ia  
wo r k   u s i n g   ro a d m a p s,   s p e c i f i c   c o n s u l t a-
t i o n   d o c u m e nt s / i n s t r u m e nt s   ( e. g.   re s u l t s 
o f   e x t e r n a l   s t u d i e s )   o r   G r e e n   o r   w h i t e 
paper s to en sure that this  is  th e cas e.

5 0.
I n   t h e   U K   a n d   Us a  ( fo r   t h e   l at te r   o n l y   fo r 
i m p l e m e nt i n g   m e a s u re s )   d ra f t   Ia  re p o r t s 
are published alongside a draf t proposal. 
t h i s   p r a c t i c e   i s   c o m p a r a b l e   t o   t h e   eU 
s i t u at i o n   w h e re   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   m a k e s   a 
p r o p o s a l   ( i t   d o e s   n o t   a d o p t   a   l a w ) ,   a n d 
t h e   p r o p o s a l   a n d   t h e   Ia  r e p o r t   a r e   p u b -
l i s h e d   a n d   t ra n s m i t te d   to   t h e   l e gi s l ato r s 
( c o u n c i l   a n d   e u r o p e a n   pa r l i a m e n t ) .  t h e 
p u b l i c   i s   a b l e   t o   e n g a g e   i n   t h e   o n g o i n g 
d e b ate   gi ve n   t h at   b o t h   t h e   p ro p o s a l   a n d 
impac t  assessment analysis  are  pu blic.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

64

repLy oF the 
commIssIon

6 3.
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   i s   c o n v i n c e d   t h a t   a n 
i n t e g r a t e d   a p p r o a c h   t o   i m p a c t   a s s e s s-
m e n t ,   e n s u r i n g   t h a t   a l l   r e l e v a n t   e c o -
n o m i c,   s o c i a l   a n d   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   i m p a c t s 
i n   t e r m s   o f   b e n e f i t s   a n d   c o s t s   a r e   a n a-
l ys e d   a n d   p re s e nte d   to g e t h e r   i n   o n e   s i n-
g l e   d o c u m e n t ,   i s   t h e   m o s t   a p p r o p r i a t e 
way   o f   a r r i v i n g   at   a   b a l a n ce d   a s s e s s m e nt 
o f   a ny   p o te nt i a l   l e gi s l at i ve   o r   n o n - l e gi s-
lative in itiative. 

6 4.
th e   co m m i s s i o n   s t re s s e s   t h at   i t   d o e s   n o t 
ex p e c t   t h e   d e p t h   o f   a n a l ys i s   o f   t h e   t h re e 
pillars always to be the same in an impac t 
a s s e s s m e n t .   Fo r   e x a m p l e,   w h e re   t h e re   i s 
n o   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   i m p a c t,   t h e n   n o   e nv i r-
onmental analysis will be repor ted in the 
Ia  r e p o r t .   t h e  ‘a s y m m e t r y ’  a s   t h e   c o u r t 
ter ms  it, is th erefore nor m al. 

6 8.
t h e   p r i n c i p l e   o f   p r o p o r t i o n a t e   a n a l y -
s i s   a p p l i e s   t o   t h e   e n t i r e   Ia  p r o c e s s .   t h e 
guidelines make clear that not all options 
h a ve   t o   b e   a s s e s s e d   w i t h   t h e   s a m e   l e ve l 
of detail and that a screening process can 
b e   a p p l i e d .   Fo r   e x a m p l e ,   i n   s o m e   c a s e s 
t h e   s c o p e   o f   r e a l i s t i c / f e a s i b l e   ( ‘ h i g h 
level ’) options is limited because of limits 
t o   eU   c o m p e t e n c e ,   e x i s t i n g   l e g i s l a t i o n , 
re s u l t s   o f   c a s e - l a w,   o r   l e g a l   o b l i g a t i o n s. 
su c h  ‘ h i g h   l e v e l ’  o p t i o n s   c a n   b e   e l i m i n-
a te d   a t   a n   e a r l y   s t a g e   o f   Ia  wo r k   a s   l o n g 
as t his  is don e t rans parently.

53 .
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   i s   a w a r e   t h a t   f u r t h e r 
e f f o r t s   b y   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s   a r e 
n e ce s s a r y   to   e n s u re   p ro p e r   p l a n n i n g   a n d 
s u f f i c i e n t   t i m e   f o r   t h e   IaB   s c r u t i n y   p r o -
cess. 

55 .
t h e   r o l e   o f   t h e   IaB   h a s   b e e n   f u r t h e r 
s t re n g t h e n e d   i n   t h e   pre s i d e n t ’s   c o m m u-
n i c a t i o n   o n   t h e   wo r k i n g   m e t h o d s   o f   t h e 
c o m m i s s i o n   2 0 1 0 – 2 0 1 4   ( c( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 0 0 
o f   1 0 . 2 . 2 0 1 0 ) ,   w h i c h   s t a t e s   t h a t  ‘i n   p r i n-
c i p l e ,   t h e   p o s i t i v e   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   t h e 
I m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   B o a r d   i s   r e q u i r e d 
b e fo re   a n   i n t e r - s e r v i c e   c o n s u l t a t i o n   c a n 
be launc hed ’.

60 .
I m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s   a r e   a   s e t   o f   l o g i c a l 
s t e p s   f r o m   p r o b l e m   d e f i n i t i o n   t o   i d e n-
t i f i c a t i o n   o f   t h e   m o s t   a p p r o p r i a t e   f o r m 
o f   p o l i c y   a c t i o n ,   a n d   t h e   g u i d e l i n e s 
e n c o u r a g e   s e r v i c e s   t o   p re s e n t   t h i s   l o g i c 
a s   c l e a r l y   a s   p o s s i b l e   u s i n g,   fo r   ex a m p l e, 
p r o b l e m   t r e e s ,   t a b l e s ,   m a p s   a n d   o t h e r 
illustrative  tec h niqu es.

61 .
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   i t   i s   n o t 
always possible or propor tionate to quan-
tify or m on etise imp ac ts.

62 .
the commission is aware that it can facili-
tate fur ther the use of impac t assessments 
b y   e n s u r i n g   t h a t   t h e y   a r e   c l e a r l y   p r e -
sented and accessible. the measures it has 
t a k e n   a r e   d e s c r i b e d   i n   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s 
reply to recommendation 2, first indent). 

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

70 .
G i ve n   t h e   w i d e   s co p e   o f   co m m i s s i o n   Ia s 
a n d   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   i n fo r m a t i o n   n e e d s   a r e 
o f t e n   s p e c i f i c   a n d   o n e - o f f,   i t   w i l l   o f t e n 
re m a i n   t h e   c a s e   t h at   i t   i s   n o t   p o s s i b l e   to 
u s e   b o d i e s   s u c h   a s   e u r o s t a t   f o r   a d   h o c 
solutions for data needs.

71 .
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   w o u l d   w e l c o m e   m o r e 
a c t i ve   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   o f   m e m b e r   s t a te s   i n 
t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   Ia  d at a   co l l e c t i o n   co n-
s u l t a t i o n   p r o c e s s e s ,   a n d   m o r e   a c t i v e   Ia  
wo r k   b y   m e m b e r   s t a t e s   t o   fe e d   i n t o   a n d 
c o m p l e m e n t   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n ’s   o w n   Ia  
repor t s.

72 .
co m m i s s i o n   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e nt s   a d d re s s 
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   a n d   e n fo rc e m e n t   i s s u e s 
a t   a   g e n e r a l   l e ve l   d u r i n g   t h e   I a   p ro c e s s, 
ex a m i n i n g   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   w h at   h a s   wo r k e d 
i n   t h e   p a s t ,   w h a t   f a i l e d   o r   w h a t   re q u i re s 
c o r r e c t i o n .   t h e   c o n c r e t e   o p e r a t i o n a l 
t ra n s p o s i t i o n   a n d   e n fo rce m e nt   wo r k   c a n 
o n l y   b e   b a s e d   o n   t h e   a d o p t e d   p r o p o s a l 
itself,  a nd  no t  o n  the  imp ac t  ass es sm ent. 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   h a s   d e v e l o p e d   s p e c i f i c 
instr um ent s fo r t his p u r p o se. 

73 .
the commission recalls that implementa-
t i o n   p l a n s   a r e   a   s e p a r a t e   i n s t r u m e n t   t o 
i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   a n d   a r e   n o t   p a r t   o f 
t h e   Ia  s y s t e m .   t h e   Ia  g u i d e l i n e s   d o   n o t 
require impac t assessments to include an 
implementat io n p l an.

6565

repLy oF the 
commIssIon

7 5.
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   b e l i e v e s   t h a t   n a t i o n a l 
Ia s   f o r   eU   i n i t i a t i v e s   c o u l d   p r o v i d e   a 
v a l u a b l e   s o u r c e   o f   i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   h o w 
b e s t   t o   i m p l e m e n t   l e g i s l a t i o n   i n   s p e -
c i f i c   n a t i o n a l   c o n t e x t s ,   a n d   o f   r e l i a b l e 
e s t i m a t e s   fo r   t h e   p o t e n t i a l   e n fo rc e m e n t 
c o s t s   o f   a   l e g i s l a t i v e   p r o p o s a l .   I t   t h u s 
would we lcome if m ember  states  were to 
p r e p a r e   s u c h   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s   m o r e 
systemat ic ally.

7 7.
th e   co m m i s s i o n’s   e x   p o s t  e va l u at i o n   s ys-
t e m   h a s   t r a d i t i o n a l l y   fo c u s e d   o n   s p e n d-
i n g   p r o g r a m m e s ,   a n d   t h i s   i s   d i f f e r e n t 
from the approach to impac t assessment. 
t h i s   s i t u a t i o n   h a s   i t s   o r i g i n s   i n   t h e   f a c t 
t h a t   t h e r e   i s   a   l e g a l   o b l i g a t i o n   t o   c a r r y 
out ex p ost  evaluations only for spending 
p ro g r a m m e   m e a s u re s   ( s e e   a r t .   2 7   o f   t h e 
Fi n a n c i a l   r e g u l a t i o n ) .  t h e   m e a s u r e s   t h e 
c o m m i s s i o n   h a s   a l r e a d y   t a k e n   t o   f o c u s 
its evaluation  wor k inc reasin gly on  ex ist-
i n g   l e gi s l at i o n   a re   d e s c r i b e d   i n   t h e  co m-
mission comments to recommendation 2, 
th ird in dent. 

7 8.
t h e   p r i n c i p l e   o f   p r o p o r t i o n a t e   a n a l y s i s 
applies to the assessment of enforcement 
costs. these need only be assessed if they 
a re   re l e v a n t ,   a n d   q u a n t i f i e d   o n l y   i f   t h e y 
a r e   s i g n i f i c a n t .   a  c o m m i s s i o n   a n a l y s i s 
o f   t h e   2 0 0 8   Ia  c a s e s   s h ows   t h a t   t h i s   w a s 
d o n e .   a s   eU   r u l e s   a r e   i n   g e n e r a l   i m p l e -
m e n t e d   a n d   e n f o r c e d   b y   m e m b e r   s t a t e 
author ities, precise estimates of enforce -
m e nt   co s t s   d e p e n d   o n   e a c h   n at i o n a l   s ys-
te m .   en fo rce m e nt   co s t s   c a n n o t   t h e re fo re 
a l ways   b e   a s s e s s e d   co m p re h e n s i ve l y   i n   a 
commiss ion Ia. 

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

conclusions and  
recommendations

83 .
I n   t h e   c o m m o n   a p p r o a c h   t o   i m p a c t 
a s s e s s m e n t ,   t h e   c o u n c i l   a n d   e u r o p e a n 
p a r l i a m e n t   a c c e p t e d   t h a t   i t   i s   t h e i r 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   t o   a s s e s s   t h e   i m p a c t s   o f 
t h e   s u b s t a nt i ve   a m e n d m e nt s   t h e y   m a k e. 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   c o n f i r m e d   i n   t h e   s e c -
o n d   a n d   t h i r d   s t r a t e g i c   r e v i e w s   o f   b e t -
t e r   r e g u l a t i o n ,   t h a t   i t   w i l l   r e s p o n d   c o n-
struc tively and on a case -by- case basis to 
re q u e s t s   f ro m   co u n c i l   a n d   pa r l i a m e nt   to 
e x p a n d   o n   a s p e c t s   o f   i t s   o r i gi n a l   i m p a c t 
assess ments. 

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   u n d e r l i n e s   t h a t   i t s 
i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s ,   e v e n   w h e n   n o t 
u p d a t e d   b y   c o u n c i l   a n d   e u r o p e a n   p a r -
l i a m e n t ,   c o ve r   e s s e n t i a l   e l e m e n t s   o f   t h e 
f i n a l   l e g a l   a c t   a n d   t h e re fo re   re m a i n   re l e -
vant.

84 . f irs t inde nt
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   i n d i c a t e d   i n   t h e   r o a d-
m a p s   a t t a c h e d   t o   i t s   w o r k   p r o g r a m m e 
w h i c h   i n i t i a t i v e s   w o u l d   h a v e   a n   Ia  a n d 
e x p l a i n e d   w h y   f o r   c e r t a i n   w o r k   p r o -
gramme  p rop o sal s no Ia was  car r i ed  out.

66

repLy oF the 
commIssIon

8 4. s econ d  indent
t h e   co m m i s s i o n   i s   o f   t h e   v i e w   t h a t   c o n-
s u l t i n g   o n   t h e   d r a f t   Ia  r e p o r t   i s   n o t   t h e 
o n l y   w a y   o f   e n s u r i n g   t h a t   t h e   a n a l y s i s 
i s   c o m p l e t e ,   c o n s i s t e n t   a n d   a c c u r a t e . 
co m m i s s i o n   s e r v i ce s   co n s u l t   a n d   i n fo r m 
s t a k e h o l d e r s   a t   d i f f e r e n t   s t a g e s   o f   Ia  
wo r k   u s i n g   ro a d m a p s,   s p e c i f i c   c o n s u l t a-
t i o n   d o c u m e nt s / i n s t r u m e nt s   ( e. g.   re s u l t s 
o f   e x t e r n a l   s t u d i e s )   o r   G r e e n   o r   w h i t e 
paper s to en sure that this  is  th e cas e.

reco mmend at ion  1 ,  firs t ind ent
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   h a s   a l r e a d y   i d e n t i f i e d 
t wo   ways   o f   e n h a n c i n g   t h e   t ra n s p a re n c y 
o f   t h e   Ia  p l a n n i n g   p ro c e s s   fo r   t h e   o t h e r 
i n s t i t u t i o n s ,   m e m b e r   s t a t e s   a n d   s t a k e -
h o l d e r s .   Fi r s t ,   i n   t h e   2 0 0 9   Ia  g u i d e l i n e s 
t h e   co m m i s s i o n   h a s   m a d e   a   co m m i t m e nt 
t o   p r e p a r e   r o a d m a p s   f o r   a l l   p r o p o s a l s 
l i k e l y   t o   h ave   s i g n i f i c a n t   i m p a c t s / p o l i c y 
i m p l i c a t i o n s,   a n d   n o t   o n l y   fo r   t h e   i n i t i a-
t i v e s   c o n t a i n e d   i n   i t s   a n n u a l   w o r k   p r o -
gra m m e.   I f   a n   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e nt   i s   co n-
sidered not to be necessar y, the roadmap 
w i l l   e x p l a i n   w hy.   as   h a s   a l ways   b e e n   t h e 
c a s e,   t h e s e   ro a d m a p s   w i l l   b e   p u b l i s h e d. 
s e c o n d ,   f o l l o w i n g   c o m m e n t s   f r o m   t h e 
e u r o p e a n   pa r l i a m e n t   i n   i t s   c o n t r i b u t i o n 
t o   t h e   r e v i e w   o f   t h e   c o m m o n   a p p r o a c h , 
the commission will publish shor tly af ter 
t h e   w o r k   p r o g r a m m e   i s   a d o p t e d   ( n o r -
m a l l y   a t   t h e   b e g i n n i n g   o f   e a c h   y e a r )   a 
f u l l   l i s t   o f   u p co m i n g   i n i t i at i ve s   fo r   w h i c h 
Ia s   a re   p l a n n e d   fo r   t h at   ye a r.  th i s   w i l l   b e 
updated regular ly.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

recomm end at ion  1,  s econd  ind ent
th e   co m m i s s i o n’s   p u b l i c   co n s u l t at i o n   o n 
t h e   d ra f t   Ia  g u i d e l i n e s   i n   2 0 0 8   i n d i c ate d 
that  this   is  an   area  w here  a  l arge   n um ber 
o f   s t a k e h o l d e r s   s aw   a   n e e d   fo r   i m p rove -
ment. consequently in the 2009 Ia guide -
l i n e s   t h e   g u i d a n c e   a n d   re q u i re m e n t s   fo r 
consultations have been strengthened. as 
explained above, the commission will not 
produce roadmaps for all proposals likely 
to   h ave   s i gn i f i c a nt   i m p a c t s / p o l i c y   i m p l i-
c at i o n s.  th e   2 0 0 9   Ia  g u i d e l i n e s   s t i p u l ate 
that  co mmis sio n  ser vices   s houl d  enco ur-
a g e   s t a k e h o l d e r s   t o   e x a m i n e   r o a d m a p s 
a n d   gi ve   e a r l y   fe e d b a c k   o n   t h e   p l a n s   fo r 
i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s.  th e   n e w   g u i d e l i n e s 
a l s o   i n t r o d u c e d   t h e   r e q u i r e m e n t   t h a t 
s t a k e h o l d e r s   s h o u l d   b e   a b l e   to   co m m e nt 
o n   a   c l e a r   p r o b l e m   d e f i n i t i o n ,   s u b s i d i-
a r i t y   a n a l y s i s ,   d e s c r i p t i o n   o f   t h e   p o s s i -
b l e   o p t i o n s   a n d   t h e i r   i m p a c t s .   t h e   IaB 
w i l l   co nt i n u e   to   c h e c k   s ys te m at i c a l l y   t h e 
q u a l i t y   o f   t h e   re p o r t i n g   o f   t h e   re s u l t s   o f 
t h e   s t a k e h o l d e r   c o n s u l t a t i o n .   t h e   p r o -
a c t i v e   u s e   o f   r o a d m a p s   a v a i l a b l e   f o r   a l l 
impor tant commission initiatives and the 
s t re n g t h e n e d   re q u i re m e nt s   fo r   co n s u l t a-
tion together provide for improved trans-
p a re n c y   a n d   s t a k e h o l d e r   i nvo l ve m e n t .   a 
co n s u l t a t i o n   o n   a   d r a f t   ve r s i o n   o f   t h e   Ia  
repor t  is t he re fo re su p er fl uo u s.

6767

repLy oF the 
commIssIon

reco mmend at ion  1 ,  third  ind ent
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   i s   a w a r e   t h a t   f u r t h e r 
e f f o r t s   b y   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s   a r e 
n e ce s s a r y   to   e n s u re   p ro p e r   p l a n n i n g   a n d 
s u f f i c i e n t   t i m e   f o r   t h e   IaB   s c r u t i n y   p r o -
c e s s.  t h e   2 0 0 9   I a   g u i d e l i n e s   h a v e   i n t r o -
d u c e d   n e w   r e q u i r e m e n t s   o n   t h i s .   t h e 
guidelines also make clear that sufficient 
time needs to be foreseen in case the IaB 
a s k s   f o r   f u r t h e r   w o r k   o r   f o r   t h e   r e v i s e d 
i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e nt   to   b e   re s u b m i t te d.   I n 
the communication on the wor k ing m eth-
o d s   o f   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   fo r   2 0 1 0 – 1 4   i t   i s 
e x p l i c i t l y   h i g h l i g h t e d   t h a t   t h e   p l a n n i n g 
o f   a d o p t i o n s   s h o u l d   t a k e   f u l l   a c c o u n t   o f 
t h e   n e e d   to   co m p l e te   t h e   i m p a c t   a s s e s s-
m e n t   p r o c e s s   i n   g o o d   t i m e   a n d   t h a t   i n 
p r i n c i p l e   t h e   p o s i t i ve   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   t h e 
IaB   i s   r e q u i r e d   b e f o r e   a n   i n t e r - s e r v i c e 
cons ult ation  c an  be  launc he d 1.

8 6. f irst   indent
th e   co m m i s s i o n   i s   o f   t h e   v i e w   t h at   co m-
p a r i s o n s   b e t w e e n   o p t i o n s   a r e   p o s s i b l e 
a n d   t h a t   t h e   i d e a   o f   i n t e r v e n t i o n   l o g i c 
i s   i n t r i n s i c   t o   t h e   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t 
p ro ce s s.  th e   co m m i s s i o n   i s   n e ve r t h e l e s s 
aware of the need to continue to improve 
t h e   p r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   i t s   r e a s o n i n g ,   a n d 
t h e   2 0 0 9   G u i d e l i n e s   e n c o u r a g e   s e r v i c e s 
t o   p r e s e n t   t h e   l o g i c   o f   t h e   a n a l y s i s   a s 
c l e a r l y   a s   p o s s i b l e   u s i n g ,   f o r   e x a m p l e , 
p r o b l e m   t r e e s ,   t a b l e s ,   m a p s   a n d   o t h e r 
illus trative te ch niques.

1  c(2010)1100 — communication from the president — the 
working methods of the commission 2010–2014, page 7.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

 
68

repLy oF the 
commIssIon

reco mmend at ion  2 ,  third  ind ent
the revised impac t assessment guidelines 
o f   ja n u a r y   2 0 0 9   p u t   i n c r e a s e d   e m p h a-
s i s   o n   t h e   n e e d   t o   t a k e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
i s s u e s   i n to   a cco u n t   w h e n   p re p a r i n g   n e w 
legislation, while recognising that impac t 
assessments can address implementation 
a n d   e n fo r c e m e n t   i s s u e s   o n l y   a t   a   r a t h e r 
ge neral level. 

the commission identified the need to do 
e x   p o s t  e v a l u a t i o n   f o r   l e g i s l a t i o n   i n   t h e 
communication on ‘r esponding to strate -
gi c   n e e d s :   re i n fo rc i n g   t h e   u s e   o f   e v a l u a-
tion’ (sec(2007) 213 of 21 Februar y 2007). 
si n c e   ja n u a r y   2 0 0 9 ,   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n ’s 
i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   s y s t e m   a n d   e v a l u a-
t i o n   s y s t e m   h a v e   b e e n   p l a c e d   t o g e t h e r 
i n   t h e   B e t t e r   r e g u l a t i o n   di r e c t o r a t e   o f 
t h e   s e c r e t a r i a t - G e n e r a l   t o   e n s u r e   t h a t 
t h e   s t r a t e g i c   a n d   o p e r a t i o n a l   s y n e r -
g i e s   b e t w e e n   t h e   t w o   s y s t e m s   a r e   f u l l y 
e x p l o i t e d.   pre s i d e n t   B a r ro s o   a n n o u n c e d 
h i s   i n t e n t i o n   i n   t h e   p o l i t i c a l   g u i d e l i n e s 
f o r   t h e   n e w   c o m m i s s i o n   o f   s e p t e m b e r 
2009 to intensify effor ts on  ex p ost evalu -
a t i o n .   t h e   a i m   i s   t o   c h e c k   w h e t h e r   t h e 
commission’s proposals deliver what they 
p r o m i s e   a n d   t o   e n a b l e   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n 
t o   r e v i s e   a n d   c o r r e c t   t h e m   w h e r e   t h e y 
f a i l   t o   w o r k   a s   e x p e c t e d .   L i n k s   b e t w e e n 
impac t assessment and ex post evaluation 
w i l l   b e   re i n fo rce d.  th e   e va l u at i o n   s h o u l d 
be a realit y check for the previous impac t 
asse ssment. 

o v e r   t i m e   a   f u l l   e x   p o s t  e v a l u a t i o n   w i l l 
become a re quirement for th e rev isi on  of 
impor t ant  le gislative ac ts. 

86 . s e cond i ndent
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   d i f f i c u l t i e s 
i n   q u a n t i f y i n g   a n d   m o n e t i s i n g   i m p a c t s 
c a n   b e   t r a c e d   b a c k   t o   t h e   a v a i l a b i l i t y   o f 
d a t a   a n d   t h a t   t h i s   i s   a n   i s s u e   w h i c h   i s   a 
c h a l l e n g e   fo r   a l l   a d v a n ce d   Ia  s ys te m s.   I t 
recalls that the of ten case -specific nature 
o f   t h e   i n fo r m at i o n   n e e d e d   a n d   t h e   l i k e l y 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n s   l i m i t   t h e   s c o p e 
for creating more per manent data collec -
tion struc t u re s. 

recomm end at ion  2,  f irst ind ent
t h e   2 0 0 9   Ia   g u i d e l i n e s   h a v e   f u r t h e r 
s t r e n g t h e n e d   t h e   g u i d a n c e   o n   h o w   t o 
c o m p a r e   o p t i o n s ,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   b y   p r o -
v i d i n g   m o re   co n c re te   g u i d a n ce   o n   co s t –
b e n e f i t   a n d   m u l t i - c r i te r i a   a n a l ys i s.   how -
ever, quantification is not always feasible 
or  prop or tio nate. 

recomm end at ion  2,  s econd  ind ent
th e   co m m i s s i o n’s   ex p e r i e n ce   s h ows   t h at 
t h e   k i n d   o f   d a t a   n e e d e d   f o r   Ia s   i s   o f t e n 
ve r y   s p e c i f i c,   a n d   i s   n o t   re a d i l y   ava i l a b l e 
f r o m   s t a t i s t i c a l   o f f i c e s   o r   g o v e r n m e n t 
a u t h o r i t i e s.   I t   w i l l   n e ve r t h e l e s s   co n s i d e r 
w h e t h e r   p r a c t i c a l   w a y s   e x i s t   t o   i m p ro ve 
d at a   ava i l a b i l i t y   a n d   m o re   g e n e ra l l y   h ow 
t o   e n c o u r a g e   m e m b e r   s t a t e   a u t h o r i t i e s 
to   b e   m o re   a c t i ve   i n   p rov i d i n g   n e ce s s a r y 
infor m atio n. 

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   i s   a l r e a d y   d e v e l o p -
i n g   c o o p e r a t i o n   w i t h   t h e   c o m m i t t e e   o f 
r e gi o n s   to   u s e   t h e i r   n e t wo r k   o f   co n s u l t-
i n g   l o c a l   a n d   re g i o n a l   a u t h o r i t i e s   i n   t h e 
framewor k o f Ia wo r k .

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

6969

repLy oF the 
commIssIon

recomm end at ion  2,  four t h ind ent
to   e n s u r e   f u r t h e r   i m p r o v e m e n t s   i n   t h e 
a n a l y s i s   o f   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n s ,   t h e 
c o m m i s s i o n   h a s   p l a c e d   t h e   a d m i n i s t r a -
t i ve   b u rd e n   ex p e r t s   a l o n g s i d e   t h e   te a m s 
d e a l i n g   w i t h   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   a n d   e x 
p o s t  e va l u at i o n .   th i s   w i l l   e n s u re   t h at   t h e 
e x p e r t i s e   w h i c h   h a s   b e e n   d e v e l o p e d   i n 
i m p l e m e n t i n g   t h e   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r -
d e n   p ro gra m m e   w i l l   b e   at   t h e   d i re c t   d i s-
p o s a l   o f   t h e   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   s y s t e m . 
th e   co m m i s s i o n   w i l l   p rov i d e   a   h e l p d e s k 
f u n c t i o n   a d v i s i n g   o n   a l l   q u e s t i o n s / i s s u e s 
relat ing  to  th e ass es sment o f ad mi ni st ra-
t i v e   b u r d e n s ,   i n c l u d i n g   a p p r o p r i a t e   u s e 
of t he s t andard  c o st  m o del.

87.
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   c o u r t ’s 
finding   t hat  Ia  h as   b een  effec tive   i n   sup -
p o r t i n g   d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g   w i t h i n   t h e   eU 
institu tio ns par ticul ar l y in recent  ye ar s.

t h e   e u r o p e a n   p a r l i a m e n t   a n d   c o u n -
c i l   h a v e   a c k n o w l e d g e d   i n   t h e   c o m m o n 
a p p r o a c h   t o   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   t h a t   i t 
i s   t h e i r   re s p o n s i b i l i t y   t o   a s s e s s   a ny   s u b -
s t a n t i v e   a m e n d m e n t s   t h e y   p u t   f o r w a r d . 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   l a u n c h e d   t h e   r e v i e w 
o f   t h e   c o m m o n   a p p r o a c h   a t   t e c h n i c a l 
l e v e l   i n   a p r i l   2 0 0 8   t o   i d e n t i f y   c o n c r e t e 
w a y s   i n   w h i c h   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   c o u l d   b e 
approved.

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

special r eport no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?

european court of auditors

special report no 3/2010

impact assessments in the eu institutions: do they support decision-making?

Luxembourg: publications office of the european Union

2010 — 69 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm

IsBn 978-92-9207-729-7

doi:10.2865/14964

how to obtain eu publications

free publications:

•	

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

	at	the	European	Union’s	representations	or	delegations.	You	can	obtain	their	contact	details	 
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced publications:

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports 
of cases before the court of justice of the european union):

•	

	via	one	of	the	sales	agents	of	the	Publications	Office	of	the	European	Union	 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

q
j
-
a
B
-
1
0
-
0
0
3
-
e
n

-
c

Impac t  assessment  Is  one  oF  the  cornerstones  oF  the 

e U r o p e a n   co m m I s s I o n ’s   w o r K   I n   t h e   F I e L d   o F   B e t t e r 

reGULatIon.  In thIs  report, thIs  coUrt  eXamInes whether 

t h e   co m m I s s I o n   p r e pa r e d   I m pa c t   a s s e s s m e n t s   w h e n 

FormULatInG  Its  proposaLs,  whe ther  the  commIssIon’s 

Impac t  assessment  procedUres  approprIateLy  sUpported 

t h e   d e v e Lo pm e n t   o F   I t s   I n I t I at I v e s ,  a n d   w h e t h e r   t h e 

content  and  presentatIon  oF  the  commIssIon’s  Impac t 

assessment reports was approprIate.

eUropean coUrt oF aUdItors