Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — EU agenda on better regulation
Date: 2015-10-14
Institutions: Commission for Citizenship, Governance, Institutional and External Affairs, European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU act, EU institution, approximation of laws, drafting of EU law, institutional cooperation, public consultation, transparency in decision-making








C_2015423EN.01004101.xml










17.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/41





Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — EU agenda on better regulation
(2015/C 423/08)












Rapporteur-General:



Spyros SPYRIDON (Greece/EPP), Municipal Councillor of Poros





Reference document:



Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Better regulation for better results — An EU agenda’
COM(2015) 215 final








I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,








1.


considers it important that the Commission makes better regulation a policy priority in order to deliver better results for citizens. Innovative methods of consultation between the institutions can help to build a body of clear and effective EU legislation that will uphold the fundamental principles of the EU;












2.


believes that better regulation, i.e. simple, quality legislative acts that are clear, properly incorporated into the legislation of the Member States and revised where necessary, contributes to deepening the single market, reducing red tape and creating added value for citizens and businesses;












3.


is convinced that the majority of European citizens look to the EU as the institution that consolidates and safeguards the right to quality of life, environmental security, and economic, social and territorial cohesion;












4.


endorses the Commission’s heightened commitment to improving the quality of lawmaking, starting with the regulatory fitness and performance programme and the aim to cut red tape and remove regulatory burdens, thereby contributing to a favourable investment climate; endorses moves to simplify and reduce administrative burdens for private operators, whilst respecting, however, the need to strike a balance between simplification and maintaining environmental quality and protecting the rights and interests of individuals, workers, consumers and users. It stresses that better regulation and reducing unnecessary administrative burdens should not be used as a pretext for deregulation or non-regulation in sectors where citizens have legitimate expectations, as referred to above, or to avoid action in areas where the EU Treaties create clear ‘obligations to act’ for the EU institutions;












5.


reiterates that better regulation should be carried out in the spirit of multilevel governance, through coordinated action by the EU, national, regional and local levels;












6.


welcomes the way that better regulation has been upgraded politically, by putting the first Vice-President of the Commission in charge of the procedure, and anticipates an improvement in quality by producing legislation that lives up to the expectations of European citizens for achieving the ambitious goal we have set in respect of fundamental principles and the high standards of EU policy;












7.


takes a positive view of the fact that the Commission has been at the forefront of efforts to implement the principles of good lawmaking throughout the entire legislative cycle, including a large part of secondary legislation, by means of innovative methods and procedures that are now internationally recognised good practice and set an example for the Member States;












8.


would welcome closer involvement of regional and local authorities, through the CoR, in specific consultations at the legislative initiative stage, taking into account the territorial dimension. This will provide a practical response to the economic recession, making it possible to establish sub-national objectives tailored to differing local and regional situations; would welcome the involvement of regional and local authorities, through the CoR, in drawing up the actual objectives and implementing the strategies, given that their role is to implement and apply EU legislation while safeguarding local characteristics, in compliance with the subsidiarity principle;





Broad consultations









9.


welcomes the extension of consultations to include stakeholders, local authorities and citizens in the preliminary legislative stages and in the implementation of legislation; their involvement from the early stages of the development of regulatory initiatives can lead to greater acceptance of the final regulations and can make transposition and application easier for national, regional and local authorities;












10.


trusts that the Commission will make a distinction between institutions representing regional and local bodies (institutional stakeholders) and those representing private interests (private stakeholders), bearing in mind that only the former are democratically elected and thus democratically embody the real needs of the people, including those who are not individually able to make their voices heard. It would seem, therefore, that there is a need to strengthen the Commission’s structured dialogue with the Committee of Regions as well as with representatives of regional and local authorities, so as to safeguard the democratic nature of the participatory process when drafting EU legislation. This stems from the conviction that the EU institutions should give priority to local and regional authorities, which champion the interests of all economic and social groups, over large corporations, including in consultations;












11.


particularly commends the new ‘Lighten the Load — Have your Say’ platform and the Commission’s commitment to expanding its functions and services. The Committee notes that whilst open online consultations can work in favour of organised groups and participants with advanced computer skills, they often have the effect of restricting the nature and scope of the proposal under discussion, and traditional methods of communication with the Commission, apart from the platform, should therefore not be excluded;












12.


proposes that effective use be made of other instruments for targeted consultations (conferences, expert panels, workshops and meetings with stakeholders), as these will also ensure direct participation of the parties involved, and encourages the Commission to broaden their format and use (by introducing focus or user groups and test panels, etc.);












13.


points out that public hearings must complement, rather than replace, the consultation of the social partners enshrined in TFEU Article 154(2);












14.


as the consultation process is directly dependent on the representativeness of the participants and the quality of their contribution, consultations should in practice be conducted in such a way as to facilitate participation by stakeholders who are directly involved and the dissemination of information on the decision to be taken, particularly in the case of highly technical, knowledge-intensive legislative provisions;












15.


notes the need for translation of at least the basic documents at each stage of consultation in all official EU languages, as this will facilitate the participation of more stakeholders and citizens in the process;












16.


calls on the Commission to ensure greater transparency regarding the use of expert groups, when they are being set up, in what policy areas, who they represent and, in particular, the Commission’s selection procedure for setting up such groups;












17.


points out that, as has also been noted in a recent CoR opinion on REFIT (CIVEX-V-040), there is room for improvement as regards the consultation process, including providing more adequate feedback, better visibility of the process and the need to devote greater efforts to quantify the results. It urges the Commission to take the CoR’s recommendations into account in the new procedure;












18.


stresses that the involvement of local and regional authorities, stakeholders or citizens in consultations through their institutional representatives, such as the CoR and the EESC, which must be clearly distinguished from other stakeholders, will contribute to the objective of better regulation, particularly in view of the fact that time-frames are often limited and it is easier to obtain a response from the above bodies, which have extensive networks. Their active and meaningful involvement in the process of better regulation is a prerequisite for high-quality results;












19.


if the objective of partnership and better and more effective legislation is to be achieved, a number of operational guidelines should be drawn up, to be applied when assessing the subsidiarity principle in the preparation of new legislation;





Impact assessments throughout the entire legislative cycle









20.


welcomes the Commission’s commitment to extensive scrutiny in the form of impact assessments throughout the legislative cycle;












21.


proposes that the Commission publish all ex ante impact assessments, even for initiatives that are not translated into legislative proposals, in the interests of transparency and strengthening accountability; the publication of the inception impact assessments at the start of the policy cycle is regarded as a good first step to provide feedback and bring forward concerns on subsidiarity;












22.


considers multifaceted impact assessments to be useful, as they are not confined only to the economic dimension, but equally encompass protection of the environment and nature, consumers, health and employment, social protection and labour law. They also include both the possibility of non-regulation and, in the case of regulation, an exploration of the implications in terms of safeguarding the fundamental principles of the EU and their impact on social and territorial cohesion;












23.


in particular, for each piece of new or secondary legislation, it insists on the need to carry out territorial impact assessments. The CoR, with its know-how, will actively contribute to this, including through its platforms and networks which provide a good access point to regional and local authorities. Following the Commission’s commitment to ‘keeping the EU competitive and the EU’s development sustainable’ (1), it also calls for competitiveness and sustainability proofing;












24.


while acknowledging the importance of SMEs as a motor for growth in the EU, it regrets the lack of care in assessing the effects of legislation, in particular as regards reducing the administrative burden for local and regional authorities, which are required to implement the bulk of EU legislation;












25.


takes the view that modernisation of legislation must be in line with the EU’s acquis regarding the safeguarding of EU principles. It therefore calls for care to be taken when implementing the regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT) so as to comply with the obligation to maintain the EU’s high standards in social and environmental matters and achieve the objective of deepening the single market. It would emphasise that the objective of the REFIT programme is not deregulation but improved and more effective regulation through the reduction of unnecessary administrative burdens, better interconnection between means and objectives, and the participation wherever possible of stakeholders in the decision-making process;












26.


insists that in carrying out impact assessments there should be less reliance in contracting them out to external consultants, particularly on issues of direct local and regional concern. Instead, CoR and representative bodies of local and regional authorities are better placed to provide evidence of what is the situation on the ground;












27.


particularly in the case of SMEs, stresses that exceptions to the general rule must strike a careful balance between the benefit to recipients and protecting the common European interest and must not risk undermining high standards of protection (of workers or the environment);












28.


calls on the development of a more structured form of consultation to local and regional representatives in the pre-legislative phase, taking perhaps inspiration from the existing methodology of the European Social Dialogue that involves the Commission and the social organisations in preparing EU legislation directly concerning them;












29.


takes a positive view of the Commission’s announcement that it intends to consider simplification of regulations relating to the common agricultural policy and the European Structural and Investment Funds, and reiterates its proposal for a fitness check of legislation in the relevant areas for local and regional authorities, including urban policy, environmental legislation, the transport sector, and for action to reduce administrative burdens such as licensing procedures and authorisations;












30.


notes that the REFIT programme can also contribute to improving the cost-benefit ratio for local and regional authorities, as well as for businesses, by freeing up human and financial resources and promoting the competitiveness of the EU;





The role of the CoR









31.


considers that, because of its permanent nature and composition, the new Regulatory Scrutiny Board with its extended mandate partially addresses the concerns of the CoR regarding its effectiveness and, insists that while respecting the independence of the Commission which represents the general interest, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board could ideally be made of independent external experts, as it is the case of similar bodies in some Member States;












32.


emphasises that at least one of the external experts of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board should have experience in local/regional governance and administration;












33.


welcomes the Commission’s decision to include a CoR representative on the new REFIT platform, in response to a previous request from the CoR. However, it would reiterate that the institutional role of the Committee should not be confused with the role of other stakeholders involved in the platform;












34.


recalls that the Treaties recognise the local and regional dimensions of the subsidiarity principle as well as the role of the CoR, and calls for the inclusion of the Committee of the Regions in the new Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Regulation. Repeats its concerns about the degree of consultation of local and regional authorities in shaping the EU’s policies and about the need for timely and comprehensive information in order to express itself. Some members of the European Parliament have asked for a more active participation of the CoR and its experience and know-how at the early stages of the preparation of legislative proposals;












35.


welcomes that the REFIT platform is being formed through an open call process. Nevertheless the Committee of the Regions requests that this open call is widened so that it specifically allows representatives of European and national organisations of local and regional authorities to be able to directly apply and be represented in it;












36.


calls on the directorates-general of the Commission and the co-legislators to recognise the role of the CoR and its members as an institutional partner and to consult both the CoR and the local and regional authorities more closely when carrying out impact assessments;





Better regulation requires the active participation of all tiers of government









37.


notes the uneven application of procedures for better regulation by Member States. This means that a clear distinction cannot be made between the effects of EU legislation due to the way in which it is implemented, and the effects that stem directly from the EU legislation itself, making it difficult to comprehensively monitor the life cycle of legislative acts;












38.


calls on the Member States to heed the Commission’s calls for better implementation of the procedures of better regulation, both in the Council and in national administrations;












39.


calls on the Member States concerned to provide a national EU consultation process that involves local and regional authorities, including through their national organisations, in a timely manner and at all stages. These authorities have considerable technical knowledge, expertise and experience in implementing legislation;












40.


urges the Commission to examine the causes leading to late or poor application by Member States of EU legislation and to seek solutions to this important problem, including giving reasons for the choice between directives and regulations, and to step up its efforts by strengthening the support, control and enforcement mechanisms;












41.


emphasises that the transposition of directives into national law is a national process where both national and regional and local administrative arrangements have to be adapted. This requires both sufficient time and room for manoeuvre. The CoR believes that the Commission’s intention to publish implementation plans for legislation and guidelines, in addition to controls not only for the formal but also for the practical transposition of provisions into national law are a step in the right direction;












42.


points out that legislation that is simple, understandable and easy to comply with, and is accompanied by a thorough impact assessment and roadmap for implementation, will make for speedier and more efficient transposition into national law and enhance compliance;












43.


recognises the right of countries to ensure higher standards than those laid down by the actual EU legislation. This should not, however, be confused with the practice of the so-called ‘gold-plating’ where Member States add additional legal or administrative requirements in the process of transposing EU legislation into national law. It is important for the public to understand clearly which obligations derive from the EU and which are a result of legislative ‘gold-plating’ by Member States and the Committee of the Regions therefore asks Member States to identify and justify clearly any additional provisions made by them when transposing EU legislation;












44.


notes that ‘gold-plating’ has been defined in a variety of ways, by the institutions (such as the CoR (2) and the European Commission) and by other organisations. The Committee reiterates its proposal for a common definition to be adopted, to assure legal clarity in the transposition and implementation of EU law and to enable benchmarking between Member States;












45.


stresses the need for timely, accurate and effective transposition of EU law into national law;












46.


expresses its satisfaction with the Commission’s commitment to thorough scrutiny of the proportionality and subsidiarity principles in legislative proposals and reiterates, in this respect, that the role of the CoR and national parliaments is legally enshrined;












47.


points out that national, regional and local administrations enact a number of rules and laws based on EU legislation, which is why it is essential to ensure that implementation of new EU legislation is assessed to make it as simple and administratively straightforward as possible, so that individual tiers of government do not use unnecessary resources and expenditure when it comes to implementation;












48.


regrets that the ‘better regulation’ package does not appear to improve the assessment of the subsidiarity principle so as to ensure that decisions can be taken in the lowest tier of government as possible, in line with the Committee of the Regions subsidiarity assessment toolkit;





Good quality regulation calls for enhanced institutional cooperation









49.


is aware that there continues to be a lack of participation in the EU decision-making process in many Member States. Therefore stresses the need to include local and regional government, which are the tiers that are the closest to the citizens, in the lawmaking process, as well as the importance of transparency, accountability and a citizen-friendly and business-friendly approach that should prevail in the EU institutions;












50.


proposes that wherever possible all the directorates-general of the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council adopt and implement harmonised rules on impact assessment at all stages in the legislative process, since this will contribute to mutual understanding and better quality;












51.


would urge the co-legislators to respond to the Commission’s call for swift adoption of the new Interinstitutional Agreement and subsequent implementation of the commitments it entails, to allow the better regulation procedures to be upgraded across all the European institutions and to promote the implementation of EU legislation by citizens;












52.


emphasises that close cooperation with the EESC in the subcommittee on better regulation would be beneficial as it would make for better coordination of the positions of civil society and of representatives of local and regional authorities;












53.


believes that withdrawing legislative proposals that have been in the pipeline for a long time could contribute to good European governance, but should be undertaken with care to avoid it becoming a means of applying pressure on co-legislators. Clearly the co-legislators, being competent, should be allowed a reasonable period of time and the general possibility to express their views on the proposals to be withdrawn;












54.


agrees with the proposal of the European Parliament to the Commission to consider introducing ‘sunset clauses’ in legislative initiatives of limited duration, provided that it does not create any loopholes, and ‘review clauses’ within a reasonable time after the entry into force of the measures so that existing measures can be evaluated. The Commission should encourage Member States to introduce ‘sunset clauses’ also when assessing national legislation, in particular where it is an obstacle to the swift transposition of EU legislation;












55.


observes that the consequences of legislation should be explored not only at the time of the Commission’s proposal, but also after significant changes introduced by the co-legislators. It points out, however, that doubt should not be cast on the democratic legitimacy of the legislative process and that these impact assessments must not lead to a restriction of the room for manoeuvre available to the co-legislators, and therefore does not support the idea to carry out further impact assessments in the period between the conclusion of negotiations and the final vote;












56.


notes the absence of any reference to self- and co-regulation as more flexible procedures for cooperation between the public and private sectors, in a constantly changing world where legislation may lag behind regulatory needs;












57.


highlights the importance of diversifying consultations and creating stable consultation and monitoring networks for issues requiring specialist knowledge, and of also making effective use of participants in consultations after legislation has been adopted, particularly as regards the control and monitoring of implementation;












58.


welcomes the fact that the Commission wishes to establish clearer criteria for when it should use delegated acts and when it should use implementing acts. It is also positive that the Commission will have the option of consulting interested parties before tabling any proposals for delegated acts; calls on the Commission, therefore, to apply this procedure in all areas, and not only when the Commission considers it to offer added value;





The quality of legislation will depend on the commitment in practice of all the stakeholders to implementing the agenda









59.


is confident that the Commission will make every effort to fully implement the provisions of the communication, despite the increase in the administrative burden and the commitment of human resources that may be required;












60.


draws attention to the need to avoid creating further delays in producing legislation as a result of the new procedures of better regulation;












61.


stresses the obligation to inform public opinion in the Member States and to promote the consultation process by mobilising local or regional government, in order to raise greater awareness and increase participation by citizens and stakeholders, and at the same time to enhance the democratic decision-making process;












62.


undertakes to inform local and regional authorities about the new procedure for better regulation for better results and to contribute to better implementation of legislation at EU, national and regional level.





Brussels, 14 October 2015.


The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Markku MARKKULA




(1)  COM(2015) 215 final, point 3.1.

(2)  CIVEX-V-040, 30 May 2013.