COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU Regulatory Fitness
Date: 2012-12-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, collective interest, consolidation of EU law, drafting of EU law

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Strasbourg, 12.12.2012  
COM(2012) 746 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

EU Regulatory Fitness 

{SWD(2012) 422 final} 
{SWD(2012) 423 final}

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

EU Regulatory Fitness 

1. 

SMART REGULATION: RESPONDING TO THE ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE 

EU legislation is essential to achieve the objectives of the EU Treaty and to set the 
conditions  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth,  benefitting  citizens, 
businesses and workers. Achieving these goals is a shared responsibility between the 
Commission,  the  other  European  Institutions  and  the  Member  States.  The  economic 
and  financial  crisis  has  revealed  costs  of  non-action,  weak  legislation  and 
enforcement  in  some  areas.  It  has  prompted  a  call  for  strengthened  economic 
governance  and  financial  regulation  at  EU  level.  At  the  same  time,  the  crisis  has 
focused attention on the costs of EU legislation and the challenges of implementing 
and  enforcing  the  laws  already  on  the  statute  books.  National  administrations, 
already under strain, find it difficult to keep up with the transposition and application 
of  EU  legislation.  Businesses  and  citizens  raise  concerns  about  the  complexity  and 
administrative  load  of  laws.  The  European  Council  has  called  for  further  efforts  to 
reduce the overall regulatory burden at EU and national level. 

The Commission is responding to these concerns. Since outlining new initiatives two 
years  ago1,  it  has  consolidated  its  impact  assessment  system.  The  25%  target  set 
under the Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens has been met and 
exceeded.  Legislation  has  been  simplified  and  codified.  Significant  simplification 
proposals in several policy areas are being examined by the European Parliament and 
Council.  For example, the Commission proposed an ambitious simplification agenda 
covering    the  next  Multi-annual  Financial  Framework2.  The  Commission  has  been 
applying  a  ‘Think  Small  First’  principle  and  is  using  the  full  set  of  regulatory 
instruments  (from  enhanced  consultations  and  impact  assessment  to  specific 
implementation  monitoring)  to  adapt  EU  regulation  to  the  needs  of  micro-
enterprises3.  Pilot  policy  evaluations  (‘fitness  checks’)  have  been  launched4.  Many 
problems  on  the  correct  application  of  EU  legislation  are  being  solved  without 
is  being 
having 
systematically consulted on policy initiatives. 

infringement  procedures.  The  public 

to  formal 

to  resort 

1 
2  

3 

4 

COM(2010) 543 ‘Smart Regulation in the EU’.  
See  COM(2011)500  ‘A  budget  for  Europe  2020’,  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No  966/2012  and  
COM(2012) 42 ‘Simplification Agenda for the MFF 2014-2020’. 
COM(2011) 803 ‘ Minimising regulatory burden for SMEs’ - In early 2013, the Commission will 
present a first progress report and scoreboard focusing in particular on the priorities identified by small 
businesses in the conferences held in Member States and in the EU-wide consultations running up to 
late 2012. 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/evaluation/docs/fitness_check_en.pdf.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Commission will continue these activities and is determined to meet policy goals 
at  minimum  cost,  achieving  the  benefits  that  only  EU  legislation  can  bring  and 
eliminating  all  unnecessary  regulatory  burden.  It  will  continue  to  strengthen  its 
regulatory tools and to apply them systematically across its regulatory activities. The 
Commission  will  also  step  up  its  implementation  and  enforcement  in  close 
cooperation  with  the  other  European  institutions  and  the  Member  States.  It  will 
combine  various 
into  a  Regulatory  Fitness  and 
Performance Programme (REFIT) aimed at eliminating unnecessary regulatory costs 
(i.e. burden) and ensuring that the body of EU legislation remains fit for purpose. 

initiatives  now  underway 

The  Commission  does  not  believe  that  setting  global  targets  and/or  quantitative 
formulae for managing the stock of legislation will produce the desired results. This 
requires a more tailored approach with an assessment of actual benefits and costs — 
identifying  whether  they  are  directly  related  to  EU  legislation  or  to  the 
implementation choices made by the Member States. Such an approach would make 
it possible to more accurately target cost reduction and regulatory improvements and 
would be better suited to the specificities of EU policy making.  

In strengthening its approach to Smart Regulation, the Commission has drawn upon 
inputs  from  the  European  Parliament5,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions6,  a  public 
consultation7, the Impact Assessment Board8, the work of the High-Level Groups of 
National  Regulatory  Experts  and  on  Administrative  Burdens,  and  the  2012  OECD 
‘Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance’9. 

2. 

A REGULATORY FITNESS AND PERFORMANCE PROGRAMME 

The current economic situation demands that EU legislation be even more effective 
and  efficient  in  achieving  its  public  policy  objectives:  demonstrating  clear  added 
value,  delivering  full  benefits  at  minimum  cost  and  respecting  the  principles  of 
subsidiarity and proportionality. The final result must be a simple, clear, stable and 
predictable regulatory framework for businesses, workers and citizens. 

To move further towards this goal, the Commission will launch a Regulatory Fitness 
and  Performance  Programme  (REFIT)  building  on  its  experience  in  evaluating  and 
reducing  administrative  burden.  REFIT  will  identify  burdens,  inconsistencies,  gaps 
and ineffective measures. Attention will be paid to possible regulatory burden related 
to  how  EU  legislation  is  implemented  at  the  national  and  sub-national  level10. 
Through  REFIT,  the  Commission  will  identify,  assess,  adopt,  and  monitor 

5 

6 
7

8 
9 
10 

Report on the 18th report on better legislation and report on the 28th annual report on monitoring the 
implementation of EU legislation. 
Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Smart Regulation’ 2012/C 9/04. 

  http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/smart_regulation/consultation_2012/docs/consultatio
n_en.pdf. 
SEC(2012) 101 ‘Impact Assessment Board Report for 2011’.  
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatorypolicy/49990817.pdf. 
The administrative burden added during implementation of EU legislation at the national level is 
estimated to be roughly a third of the total. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
implementation  of,  initiatives  which  will  result  in  significant  regulatory  cost 
reduction or simplification.  

The REFIT Programme builds upon a broader approach to policy evaluation piloted 
through the ‘fitness checks’ launched since 201011. Experience thus far demonstrates 
the need for a common framework for conducting these assessments — to show how 
they  fit  into  the  overall  objective  of  ensuring  smart  regulation  and  eliminating 
burdens,  to  involve  all  relevant  levels  of  government  and  to  facilitate  wide 
stakeholder participation.  

The REFIT process will start with a mapping exercise to identify the regulatory areas 
and pieces of legislation with the greatest potential for simplifying rules and reducing 
regulatory  cost  for  businesses  and  citizens  without  compromising  public  policy 
objectives.  Normally,  the  mapping  will  point  to  areas  where  further  evaluation, 
including of costs and benefits, is needed. These evaluations will also assess whether 
quantitative targets for burden reduction should be examined in the concerned field 
and  in  relation  to  EU  and  Member  States  responsibilities  respectively.  Where  the 
mapping  provides  sufficient  evidence  that  more  immediate  action  is  needed,  an 
impact assessment process for the proposals will be launched. Stakeholders will be 
informed  throughout  the  process  and  their  views  will  be  essential  for  the 
prioritisation of activities.  

The REFIT programme will be implemented in a transparent manner. In line with its 
"evaluate  first"  policy,  in  principle,  the  Commission  will  not  examine  proposals  in 
areas of existing legislation until the regulatory mapping and appropriate subsequent 
evaluation work has been conducted. Planning will be public. REFIT evaluations will 
be publicly flagged in strengthened multiannual evaluation plans starting from 2014. 
A dedicated annex in the Commission work programme will list all planned REFIT 
initiatives starting from the 2014 work programme. A tracking system (scoreboard) 
will be set up to assess the progress of proposals through the EU institutions and at 
the implementation stage.  

Possible  areas  for  REFIT  evaluation  planning  will  also  come  from  activities  which 
are already on-going or in the pipeline. These include the results of the current EU-
wide  consultation  of  SMEs  on  what  they  consider  to  be  the  Top  Ten  most 
burdensome EU regulations and the outcomes of ongoing ‘fitness checks’ and other 
regulatory  evaluation  work12.  The  ongoing  rolling  simplification  programme  and 
work on reducing regulatory burdens for smaller businesses will also be immediately 
merged  into  the  new  programme.  Further  indications  will  be  provided  by  the 
finalisation  of  assessments  of  the  information  and  consultation  of  workers  in  the 
social  field,  type-approval  of  motor  vehicles,  internal  aviation-market  policy  and 
food  chain  legislation.  Reviews  of  waste  legislation,  the  retail  sector,  occupational 
health  and  safety,  petroleum  refining,  aluminium  and  other  industrial  products  are 
also already planned.  

11 

12 

On EU freshwater policy in the environment area, on information and consultation of workers in the 
social field, on type-approval of motor vehicles, on food chain legislation  and on internal aviation-
market policy. 
Notably the already available results for construction, business and tourist services.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Finally,  REFIT  will  include  a  follow-on  to  the  Administrative  Burden  Reduction 
Programme (ABR) — ABR Plus. The 2007 Programme aimed to reduce burdens on 
business stemming from EU legislation by 25 % by 2012. It covered around 80 % of 
the  main  sources  of  administrative  burden.  The  Commission  has  gone  beyond  the 
target by presenting proposals to cut the administrative burden by over 30 %, while 
measures  equalling  25 %  have  been  adopted  by  the  co-legislators.  The  detailed 
results  of  the  Action  Programme  are  presented  in  an  accompanying  Staff  Working 
Document13.  

Benefits will not materialize until the ABR is successfully implemented. ABR Plus 
will therefore focus on follow-up in the Member States. Member States will be asked 
to report by 31 December 2013 on how they implemented ABR measures. The High 
Level Group on Administrative Burden will be tasked with assisting and advising on 
this follow-up, comparing estimated results with the initial estimates and facilitating 
best practice exchange between Member States. It will also follow up with business 
and  Member  States  on  Member  State  implementation  of  EU  measures  reducing 
unnecessary  administrative  burden  particularly  for  smaller  businesses.  The  High 
Level  Group  mandate  is  therefore  being  extended  till  the  end  of  the  current 
Commission’s term of office. 

3. 

SMART REGULATION TOOLS: SHARPENING PERFORMANCE 

The Commission deploys a number of different tools in its Smart Regulation policy. 
These are continually being improved.  

3.1. 

Impact assessment 

The  Commission’s  impact  assessment  (IA)  system  has  been  judged  first  class14  — 
transparently  assessing  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  by  comparing 
both  potential  benefits  and  costs  in  economic,  social  and  environmental  terms.  The 
system is comprehensive, transparent and subject to independent scrutiny.15 IAs are 
performed  for  all  proposals  with  significant  direct  impacts.  Within  the  past  two 
years,  operational  guidance  has  been  issued  for  analysing  impacts  on  fundamental 
rights16, competitiveness17 and micro-enterprises18. The independent scrutiny by the 
Impact Assessment Board (IAB)19 enhances the reports’ quality and a positive IAB 
opinion is needed in principle before a proposal can be submitted to the Commission 
for a decision. The IAB’s scrutiny has been strengthened through targeted changes in 

13 
14 

15 

16 
17 
18 
19 

SWD(2012) 422 ‘Review of the Commission Consultation Policy’.  
OECD 2011 ‘Sustainability in Impact Assessments — A review of Impact Assessment Systems in 
selected OECD Countries and the European Commission’, European Parliament 2011, ‘Comparative 
study on the purpose, scope and procedures of impact assessments carried out in the Member States of 
the EU’, CEPS/University of Exeter 2012, ‘Regulatory Quality in the European Commission and the 
UK: Old questions and new findings’.  
European Court of Auditors Special report N° 3/2010 ‘Impact Assessments in the EU institutions: do 
they support decision making?’. 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_docs/docs/sec_2011_0567_en.pdf. 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_docs/docs/sec_2012_0091_en.pdf. 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_docs/docs/meg_guidelines.pdf. 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab/iab_en.htm. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
its  mandate  and  rules  of  procedure20.  Whether  or  not  an  IA  will  be  conducted  is 
stated in  roadmaps which are publicly available.21 IAs  as well as  IAB opinions are 
publicly  available.  Since  the  IAB’s  establishment  in  2006,  more  than  700  opinions 
have  been  issued.  The  creation  of  a  new  Directorate  for  Impact  Assessment  in  the 
European Parliament is adding a further external level of scrutiny and quality control. 

Most  respondents  to  the  stakeholder  consultation  support  the  Commission’s 
integrated approach. The most frequent suggestions for achieving even higher quality 
more consistently include: a greater effort to quantify impacts, a clearer presentation 
of headline results, consultation on draft impact assessments, external IAB members 
and a binding requirement for positive IAB opinions. 

The  evidence  and  existing  studies  show  that  the  current  set  up  is  delivering  results 
efficiently.  According  to  a  study  by  the  European  Parliament22,  ‘the  EU  system  is 
comparatively well-developed with  both internal  and external checks and balances’ 
and ‘there is general consensus that the IAB contributes to improved quality of IAs. 
According  to  a  CEPS/University  of  Exeter  analysis23,  quantification  of  costs  and 
benefits is as frequent, or more frequent, than in other systems. In no system is the 
opinion  of  independent  scrutiny  bodies  binding  on  political  decision-makers.  The 
Commission therefore considers that neither external IAB members nor binding IAB 
opinions are necessary and that they would not be compatible with its own right of 
initiative,  the  institutional  roles  of  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  and 
accountability to the public at large. 

improvements 

Regarding  the calls for consultation on draft  IA  reports, it should  be noted that the 
Commission  already  requires  stakeholders  to  be  consulted  on  all  key  aspects  of  an 
impact  assessment  and  further 
to  consultation  are  planned. 
Consultation  normally  takes  place  early  in  the  impact  assessment  process  to  allow 
stakeholders to influence the framing of the problems and the choice of options early 
in the process. If consultation were to take place only once on draft IAs, the options 
would  already  have  been  identified,  reducing  the  scope  for  meaningful  stakeholder 
inputs. If two consultations were to be held, the policy cycle would be even lengthier. 
Furthermore,  IA  reports  accompanying  Commission  proposals  are  public.  This 
means that stakeholders can also provide their views in the course of the legislative 
process. 

There  remains,  nevertheless,  scope  to  further  improve  the  quality  and  clarity  of  IA 
reports  and  better  exploit  IA  processes  for  REFIT.  The  Commission  will  further 
improve  the  ex  ante  assessment  of  costs  and  benefits.  It  will  also  include  a 
standardised  two-page  summary  sheet  in  its  IA  reports  to  facilitate  quick 
identification  of  key  results  of  the  impact  assessment,  including  estimated  benefits 
and  costs.  It  will  review  and  update  its  IA  guidelines  in  2014,  following  a  public 
consultation. 

20 
21 
22 
23 

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab/members_en.htm. 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/planned_ia_en.htm.  
See footnote 14. 
See CEPS/University of Exeter 2012 in footnote 14. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2. 

Evaluation 

Evaluation  is  an  integral  part  of  the  Commission’s  effort  to  maximise  the  benefits 
and  minimise  the  costs  of  EU  policies,  as  already  highlighted  in  the  2010  Smart 
Regulation  communication.  The  strengthening  of  the  evaluation  of  EU  regulatory 
measures  goes  hand-in-hand  with  increased  attention  to  the  evaluation  of  financial 
programmes.  Article  318  of  the  Treaty  on  the  functioning  of  the  EU  (TFEU) 
introduced  a  new  requirement  for  the  Commission  to  submit  to  the  European 
Parliament and the Council an evaluation report on the Union’s finances based on the 
results achieved. 

The  Commission  is  strengthening  its  evaluation  system  and  applying  its  ‘evaluate 
first’  principle.  The  share  of  significant  proposals  in  the  Commission  Work 
Programme  supported  by  available  or  ongoing  evaluations  rose  from  32 %  to  44 % 
between 2011 and 2012.  

Various issues have come to the fore in the effort to strengthen evaluation and in the 
public  consultation  responses.  Evaluations  have  traditionally  examined  individual 
funding  programmes  or  pieces  of  legislation,  with  less  attention  being  paid  to 
evaluation  of  broad  areas  of  legislation  and  cross-cutting  issues.  There  is  also  a 
timing  issue  with  impacts  of  both  programmes  and  policies  being  measurable  only 
many years after their inception.  

With a view to improving the political relevance and ownership of evaluation results, 
the  Commission  is  reviewing  its  evaluation  system  and  will  set  out  a  revised 
framework  for  policy  and  programme  evaluation  in  2013.  The  new  approach  will 
examine how evaluation results could be better anchored in the policy development 
cycle.  The  evaluation  process  could  be  designed  alongside  the  policy  itself  with 
better  monitoring  and  reporting.  There  is  room  for  increased  transparency  in 
planning and greater stakeholder involvement. An end-of-Commission review based 
on evaluation results could be considered.  

The evaluation guidelines, including guidance on the evaluations under REFIT, will 
be  revised  following  a  public  consultation.  Finally,  given  the  importance  of 
implementation  for  regulatory  effectiveness  and  efficiency,  the  new  approach  will 
also  launch  on  a  pilot  basis  joint  evaluations  with  interested  Member  States.  The 
High Level  Group of National  Regulatory Experts will be encouraged to advise on 
these pilots and on the means of Member State involvement. The Group's mandate is 
being  extended  till  the  end  of  the  current  Commission’s  term  of  office  in  order  to 
provide advice and exchange of best practice on Smart Regulation activities. 

The Commission is furthermore examining how to redesign and improve the Article 
318  TFEU  report.  A  reliable  method  of  annual  reporting  on  results  achieved  is 
needed drawing from the assessment frameworks under the current and future Multi-
annual Financial Frameworks and from the monitoring data from the Commission’s 
annual reporting instruments24.  

24 

That is: the Commission’s Strategic Planning and Programming Cycle — the Annual Activity Reports, 
Annual Budget Statements, etc.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

Consulting citizens and stakeholders 

Listening  to  citizens  and  stakeholders  is  fundamental  for  smart  regulation  at  all 
stages  of  the  policy  cycle.  The  Commission  has  a  variety  of  means  set  out  in  the 
Treaties and policy documents to interact with stakeholders25. A wide set of tools — 
from  roadmaps  to  open  and  targeted  public  consultations  —  are  available  for  the 
Commission to dialogue with interested parties at various stages. 

Since  the  beginning  of  2012,  the  Commission  has  strengthened  the  voice  of 
stakeholders by extending the minimum period for public consultation from eight to 
twelve  weeks26.  Also,  SMEs  and  micro  companies  have  directly  voiced  their 
problems  and  concerns  in  dedicated  conferences  organised  in  Member  States.  A 
review  of  consultation  policy  has  been  finalised  and  its  results  are  detailed  in  an 
accompanying Staff Working Document27. 

The Commission consults widely, respecting principles of openness and transparency 
and following minimum standards which are generally acknowledged as appropriate, 
respond  to  international  best  practice  and  are  usually  respected.  Over  the  last  three 
years,  stakeholders  views  were  sought  through  more  than  300  open  consultations 
published  on  the  ‘Your  Voice  in  Europe’  website.  All  impact  assessment  reports 
completed over the same period relied on extensive open or targeted consultations. In 
nine open consultations out of ten, the minimum period was respected.  

The  review  confirmed  the  validity  of  the  Commission’s  consultation  policy  and 
tools,  as  well  as  the  progress  in  implementation  achieved  over  the  years. 
Nevertheless,  the  review  and  stakeholders’  views  pointed  to  areas  where  further 
improvements in implementation could be made. Consultations do not always ask the 
right  questions  at  the  right  time  and  sometimes  fail  to  reach  those  directly  affected 
who cannot always be addressed in their native languages. The accompanying Staff 
Working Document details the measures planned to address these issues. 

The  Commission  will  extend  the  reach  of  consultations  by  publishing  a  rolling 
calendar of planned consultations on the ‘Your Voice in Europe’ website, by better 
mobilising  Member  States’  communication  channels,  by  exploring  the  use  of 
innovative  consultation  tools,  by  improving  the  quality  of  feedback  and  by 
examining if consultation documents and summaries could be more widely translated 
within  existing  budgetary  limits.  It  will  also  update  and  clarify  the  minimum 
standards  by  including  clearer  operational  criteria.  Finally,  to  foster  improved 
quality,  internal  control  and  support  mechanisms  (such  as  guidelines  and  best-
practice  libraries)  will  be  strengthened.  Together,  these  measures  will  allow  public 
consultations  to  better  support  all  phases  of  the  evaluation,  impact  assessment  and 
decision-making processes. 

25 
26

27 

EN 

See SWD(2012) 422.. 

  http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/1&format=HTML&aged=0&language
=EN&guiLanguage=en . 
SWD(2012) 423 ‘Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU – Final Report’.   

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

SMART REGULATION GOVERNANCE: IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION 

EU  legislation  cannot  serve  its  purpose  if  it  is  not  effectively  implemented  and 
enforced. An implementation perspective is essential at all points in the policy cycle. 
Moreover  progress  in  implementation  will  be  a  key  factor  in  the  assessment  of 
regulatory fitness. 

4.1. 

Supporting the implementation of EU legislation  

Member  States  bear  the  primary  responsibility  for  the  implementation  of  EU 
legislation.  The  Commission  supports  them  through  a  variety  of  measures: 
implementation plans that identify the main implementation challenges and suggest 
support measures, problem-solving mechanisms such as EU Pilot28 and best-practice 
exchanges (e.g. the Best Practice Report of the High Level Group on Administrative 
Burden29). Inter-institutional dialogue and transparency have also been enhanced30. 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  monitor  progress  in  the  implementation  of  key 
areas of EU legislation, focussing on identified single-market priority areas31. It will 
take a more systematic and risk-based approach to conformity assessment which will 
strengthen compliance verification and provide valuable input for ex post evaluation. 
The  Commission  will  also  prepare  implementation  plans  for  Directives  on  a  more 
systematic  basis  and  apply  the  use  of  common  commencement  dates  for  EU 
regulations  and  decisions  affecting  business  more  widely.  Finally,  the  Commission 
will do its utmost to ensure that appropriate time is provided between adoption and 
transposition date.  

4.2.  Making legislation clearer and more accessible  

Managing  the  quality  of  the  legislation  also  means  making  sure  it  is  as  clear, 
accessible  and  easy  to  comply  with  as  possible.  Ongoing  efforts  to  this  end  will 
continue.  These  include  the  simplification, codification,  recast  and  consolidation  of 
legal  texts  as  well  as  reducing  the  volume  of  legislation  by  repealing  obsolete 
provisions.  Since  2005,  the  Commission  approved  640  initiatives  aimed  at 
simplification,  codification  or  recasting.  More  than  4 450  legal  acts  have  been 
repealed,  of  which  1750  as  a  result  of  codification  and  recasting.  All  amended 
regulations and directives as well as a selection of decisions have been consolidated 
in  all  languages  originally  translated  and  are  available  via  the  EUR-Lex  website.  
Electronic access to the full body of EU legislation is also being improved: the new 
e-Justice  Portal  was  launched  in  2011  and  the  new  EUR-Lex  Common  Portal  will 
become operational on-line in 2013. In 2011, the Commission proposed to give legal 
effect to the electronic publication of the Official Journal32. Finally, the Commission 
will continue its efforts to improve the quality of drafting to ensure more concise and 

28 
29

30 
31 
32 

http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/infringements/application_monitoring_en.htm. 

  http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/admin_burden/best_practice_report/docs/bp_report_signatu
re_en.pdf. 
See OJ L304/47 and OJ C369/14. 
See COM(2012) 259 ‘Better governance for the single market’. 
COM(2011) 162 ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on electronic publication of the Official Journal of 
the European Union’. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
readable texts. These measures will support the integrated evaluation of policy areas, 
facilitate  public  consultation  and  help  national  administrations  in  transposition  and 
implementation.  

5. 

SMART REGULATION: A SHARED MISSION 

5.1. 

The European Parliament, Council and advisory bodies 

In its 2010 Communication, the Commission called on the European Parliament and 
Council to make better use of impact assessments in their decision-making processes 
and  to  analyse  impacts  when  discussing  any  substantive  amendments  in  line  with 
their commitments under the inter-institutional agreement on better lawmaking. 

The Commission notes that only limited progress has so far has been achieved with 
regard to the analysis of impacts of substantive amendments. 

However,  the  Commission  welcomes  the  establishment  of  a  new  directorate  for 
Impact Assessment in the European Parliament. The Commission supports the good 
practice of some Committees which make the Commission's  impact assessment  the 
starting  point  for  further  analytical  work  by  the  European  Parliament.  This  should 
ensure  comparability  with  the  Commission’s  own  impact  assessment  approach  and 
avoid any duplication of effort. 

The  Council  has  not  established  an  impact  assessment  capability.  The  Commission 
considers that it could make greater use of impact assessments in its decision-making 
processes,  for  example  by  taking  into  full  account  the  Commission’s  impact 
assessments when starting work on the accompanying proposals.  

The  Commission  will  continue  to  respond  constructively  to  requests  to  expand  on 
aspects of its impact assessments and/or to share its data and methodology on a case 
by  case  basis.  It  invites  both  Institutions  to  focus  on  delivery,  so  that  a  more 
significant  proportion  of  the  amendments  they  make  have  directly  benefited  from 
evidence-based impact analysis. 

The Commission also welcomes the support and endorsement of the Institutions for 
its  work  to  reduce  and  minimise  administrative  and  regulatory  burden  and  invites 
them  to  support  the  simplification  proposals  under  discussion  and  to  endorse  and 
support the REFIT programme.  

Finally,  the  Commission  welcomes  the  support  of  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and of the Committee of the Regions. Their platforms and networks can 
be  an  important  source  of  information  for  preparing  evaluations  and  impact 
assessments. 

5.2.  Member States 

Cooperation between the Commission and Member States is crucial if EU legislation 
is  to  deliver  its  full  benefits  at  minimum  cost  to  citizens,  workers  and  enterprises. 
The strength of national administrative capacity and national regulatory quality have 
a  direct  impact  on  whether  EU  public  policy  aims  can  be  achieved  on  the  ground. 
Inputs  from  Member  States’  administrations  and  institutions  are  of  critical 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
importance  for  the  design  and  evaluation  of  EU  legislation.  In  transposing  and 
implementing EU legislation, including the rules governing activities funded by the 
EU  budget,  Member  States  are  responsible  for  ensuring  that  their  regulatory 
framework is clear and accessible. National Parliaments play a key role in checking 
that the subsidiarity principle is correctly applied.  

The Commission encourages Member State authorities to participate more actively in 
its  public  consultations  and  evaluations,  including  by  mobilising  their  national 
dedicated  networks,  so  as  to  improve  the  evidence  basis  for  policy-making.  It 
stresses that, in this context, early feedback from Member States is fundamental for 
robust subsidiarity analysis. 

The  Commission  also  underlines  that  national  impact  assessment  can  be  of  use  to 
help  discussions  in  Council  on  changes  to  its  proposal  and  to  help  Member  States 
with transposition and enforcement issues. 

The Commission invites Member States to ensure effective delivery at national level 
of  the  ongoing  initiatives  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden,  and  to  take  due 
account  of  the  recommendations  of  the  February  2012  report  on  best  practices,  to 
implement EU legislation in the least burdensome way and to participate actively in 
the exchange of information on efficient methods of implementing EU regulation33. 
It also invites them to take full advantage of the simplification possibilities offered 
by  EU  legislation  and  to  ensure  the  clarity  and  accessibility  of  national  rules 
transposing EU legislation.  

the  Commission  emphasises 

Finally, 
importance  of  efficient  public 
administration  for  the  timely  transposition,  implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU 
legislation.  

the 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

To  guarantee  EU  regulatory  quality,  EU  legislation  and  the  national  rules  that 
implement  it,  must  be  managed  in  a  manner  that  ensures  it  continues  to  efficiently 
achieve its public policy objectives. Regulatory frameworks must be fit for purpose 
and  remain  so  as  problems  evolve,  new  solutions  emerge  and  political  priorities 
change.  To  this  end,  the  Commission  will  make  the  identification  of  unnecessary 
costs and areas  for performance improvement an  integral and permanent  part of  its 
policy-making and programming across all EU legislation.  

33

EN 

  http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/admin_burden/best_practice_report/best_practice_report_en
.htm  

11 

   EN