COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Taking Stock of the Commission's Better Regulation Agenda Accompanying the 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: taking stock and sustaining our commitment
Date: 2019-04-15
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: EU institution, EU law, EU programme, administrative transparency, institutional cooperation, operation of the Institutions, policymaking, regulatory policy, simplification of legislation

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.4.2019  SWD(2019) 156 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Taking Stock of the Commission's Better Regulation Agenda Accompanying the 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: taking stock and sustaining our commitment {COM(2019) 178 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents  

SECTION I BETTER REGULATION AND THE NEED TO TAKE STOCK ................. 3 

1. 

2. 

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 3 

The May 2015 Better Regulation Package ........................................................ 4 

SECTION II WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? ................................................................... 7 

3. 

Opening up policymaking ................................................................................. 7 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

Feedback opportunities ........................................................................ 7 

Consultation ....................................................................................... 12 

Contributing to law-making (the ‘Have Your Say’ portal) ............... 14 

Overall assessment and key drivers ................................................... 14 

4. 

Better tools for better policies ......................................................................... 17 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

Impact assessment ............................................................................. 17 

Evaluation .......................................................................................... 22 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board  ............................................................... 26 

Subsidiarity and proportionality ........................................................ 30 

5. 

Keeping the existing stock of legislation fit for purpose ................................. 32 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

The REFIT programme ..................................................................... 32 

REFIT Platform ................................................................................. 33 

Communicating REFIT activities ...................................................... 38 

Considering  alternative  approaches  to  simplification  and 
burden reduction ................................................................................ 38 

5.5. 

Results of simplification efforts ........................................................ 40 

6. 

Better regulation as a shared agenda ............................................................... 42 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

6.5. 

Joint Declaration on the EUs legislative priorities ............................ 42 

Delegated acts .................................................................................... 43 

Impact assessment ............................................................................. 43 

‘Gold-plating’ of national transposing legislation ............................. 44 

Other issues ....................................................................................... 44 

7. 

Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 45 

ANNEX I BETTER REGULATION IN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION ................. 47 

1.

2.

The origins of better regulation ....................................................................... 47 

The different elements of better regulation ..................................................... 47 

ANNEX II OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES ...................................... 55 

1.

2.

Overview of consultation activities ................................................................. 55 

OECD regulatory Policy Outlook 2018 .......................................................... 56 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
3.

4.

Literature Review ............................................................................................ 57 

Public consultation .......................................................................................... 58 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

4.6. 

4.7. 

4.8. 

General questions: The Commission and better regulation ............... 59 

Public  consultations:  Consulting  the  public  and  interested 
parties ................................................................................................ 65 

Evaluations and REFIT: Evaluating existing EU laws ...................... 69 

Impact assessments: Assessing new Commission proposals ............ 72 

Regulatory  scrutiny:  Scrutinising  the  quality  of  impact 
assessments and evaluations .............................................................. 74 

Final questions on past and future progress ...................................... 75 

Conclusions of the public consultation questionnaire ....................... 77 

Position papers ................................................................................... 77 

5.

EU Institutions and consultative bodies .......................................................... 81 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

The European Parliament .................................................................. 81 

The General Secretariat of the Council ............................................. 83 

The Council Working Group on Competitiveness and Growth ........ 85 

The Committee of the Regions .......................................................... 85 

The European Economic and Social Committee ............................... 87 

6.

European Commission Officials ...................................................................... 89 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

6.5. 

Impact assessment ............................................................................. 89 

Evaluation .......................................................................................... 89 

Consultation ....................................................................................... 90 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board ......................................................... 90 

The REFIT programme, Platform and Scoreboard ........................... 90 

7.

Other organisations and bodies ....................................................................... 90 

7.1. 

7.2. 

REFIT Platform ................................................................................. 90 

Task  force  on  subsidiarity,  proportionality  and  doing  less 
more efficiently.................................................................................. 92 

7.3. 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board ................................................................ 92 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section I 
Better regulation and the need to take stock 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

The Juncker Commission came into office with a commitment to do different things and 
to do them differently1. It wanted to focus on delivering the initiatives needed to support 
its  10  political  priorities  and  address  the  issues  that  really  matter  to  people  in  the  EU2. 
Under its Union for democratic change, it put better regulation principles at the heart of 
its  policymaking  processes  and  made  them  a  key  part  of  the  efforts  to  improve  the 
legitimacy of EU action. The Commission modified its internal structure and created the 
post  of  First  Vice  President  in  charge  of  Better  Regulation.  It  changed  its  internal 
working  methods  and  transformed  its  planning  processes  to  deliver  streamlined  work 
programmes.  Building  on  the  origins  of  better  regulation  in  improving  European 
governance3,  this  Commission  wanted  to  strengthen  the  better  regulation  tools4  it 
inherited to inform timely and sound policy decisions that would deliver better policies 
for better results.  

To  this  end,  in  20155,  the  Commission  adopted  a  wide-ranging  set  of  measures.  Since 
then it has regularly reported the results it has achieved and the further improvements it 
has  introduced6.  The  Commission  has  now  taken  stock  of  how  well  the  various  better 
regulation tools and processes are functioning. Its aim is to highlight what is needed for 
possible  further  improvements  and  to  support  a  public  debate  on  the  future  of  better 
regulation.  

This  staff  working  document  presents  the  findings  of  this  exercise.  It  accompanies  a 
Commission  Communication  discussing  key  results  and  mapping  out  avenues  for 
possible future improvements.  

The  stocktaking  exercise  has  focused  on  the  period  since  May  2015  and  relied  upon  a 
mixture  of  evidence.  We  have  used  external  assessments  (from  the  OECD7  and  the 
European Court of Auditors8), reports from  the Regulatory Scrutiny  Board and a broad 
range of consultation activities.  These include: 

1   COM(2014)910 final of 16 December 2014: ‘Commission Work Programme 2015 – A New Start’. 
2   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities_en  
3   COM(2001)428 of 27 July 2001: ‘European Governance – A White Paper’. 
4   See Annex I for an overview of better regulation in the Commission including its origins. 
5   COM(2015)215 final of 19 May 2015: ‘Better regulation for better results – An EU agenda’. 
6   The  European  Union’s 

survey 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2018-annual-burden-survey_en.pdf COM(2017)651 final of 24 
October  2017:  ‘Completing  the    better  regulation  agenda  –  better  solutions  for  better  results’;  and 
COM(2016)615 final of 14 September 2016: ‘Delivering better results for a stronger Union’. 
7   http://www.oecd.org/governance/oecd-regulatory-policy-outlook-2018-9789264303072-en.htm 
8   Special  report  16/2018  Ex-post  review  of  EU  legislation:  a  well-established  system,  but  incomplete 

legislation  2018, 

annual  burden 

simplify 

efforts 

to 

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=46063  

3 

 
                                                 
–  interviews  and  meetings  to  consult  Commission  staff  working  in  a  range  of 
different  departments  and  functions,  including  better  regulation  support  staff, 
senior managers and members of Commissioners’ political teams, 

–  a public consultation of all external stakeholders9,  

–  targeted  consultation  meetings  with  the  administrative  secretariats  of  the 
European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Committee of the 
Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, 

–  an opinion from the REFIT Platform10,  

–  discussion  in  the  Competitiveness  and  Growth  Working  Party  of  the  Council 

(better regulation). 

The Joint Research Centre has also published a review of the peer-reviewed and ‘grey’ 
literature written since 2015 in support of the current stocktaking exercise11.  

2.  THE MAY 2015 BETTER REGULATION PACKAGE 

In  May  2015,  the  Commission  published  an  extensive  package  of  new  measures  to 
improve  and  strengthen  its  better  regulation  policy  in  four  areas  where  progress  was 
considered necessary: 

(1) 

Opening  up  policymaking.  To  make  the  EU  more  transparent  and  accountable 
but  also  to  ensure  that  policies  are  based  on  the  best  available  evidence12,  the 
Commission took measures to consult more, listen better and better explain what 
it does and why. These measures include: 

–  creating feedback opportunities over the entire lifecycle of a policy from 
its initiation to its evaluation, including for the first time the possibility to 
give views on draft texts of delegated and implementing acts.   

–  committing to systematic 12-week public consultations on new proposals 
and  evaluations.  This  was  later  complemented  by  a  commitment  to 
translate public consultation questionnaires into all official languages for 
priority  initiatives  in  Annex  I  of  the  Commission  work  programme  and 
into English, French and German for all others. 

–  introducing  an  improved  template  for  the  explanatory  memorandum 
improved 

accompanying  Commission  proposals.  This  provides 

9   See Annex II, Overview of consultation activities. 
10   REFIT  Platform  opinion  XXII.10.a  “REFIT  Platform  Survey  –  Future  prospects”,  adopted  on  14 
March  2019:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/refit-platform-recommendations-horizontal-issues-xxii10a-
refit-platform-survey-future-prospects_en  

11   Listorti  G.,  Basyte  Ferrari  E.,  Acs  S.,  Munda  G.,  Rosenbaum  E.,  Paruolo  P.,  Smits  P.  (2019).  The 
debate  on  the  EU  Better  Regulation  Agenda:  a  literature  review,  EUR,  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-00840-8, doi:10. 2760/46617, JRC116035 
12   This  document  focusses  exclusively  on  the  measures  taken  under  Better  Regulation  policy.  Other 
measures  were  also  taken  to  improve  the  availability  of  evidence  for  policy  making  including  the 
establishment of the European Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors.  

4 

 
                                                 
explanations  of  how  better  regulation  principles  are  applied  in  the 
preparation of an initiative, and if not, why they are not13. 

–  designing a new, central web-based portal in several stages (‘Have Your 

Say’) to facilitate stakeholders’ participation in policymaking14. 

(2) 

Utilising better tools for better policies. To inform political choices in a balanced 
and  inclusive  way,  drawing  lessons  from  the  past  and  identifying  the  best  and 
least costly policy solution, the Commission took measures such as: 

–  integrating and improving guidelines (and supporting tools)  15 on how to 
apply better regulation in practice. These guidelines address all aspects of 
the policy cycle and the connections between them. 

–  to substitute the Impact Assessment Board with a new body to scrutinise 
the  quality  of  impact  assessments  like  its  predecessor  and,  for  the  first 
time,  evaluations.  To  safeguard  its  autonomy,  this  Regulatory  Scrutiny 
Board  (the  Board)  consists  of  seven  full-time  members  who  are 
independent of the policymaking process, including three appointed from 
outside of the EU institutions16.  

–  committing  to  explain  publicly  the  reasons  why  the  Commission  may 
decide  to  take  action  even  if  the  Board  does  not  give  a  positive 
assessment of the quality of any accompanying impact assessment.   

(3) 

Keeping  the  existing  stock  of  legislation  fit  for  purpose.  Even  well  designed 
legislation  may  become  out  of  date,  turn  out  to  be  more  burdensome  and  less 
effective  than  originally  thought  or  simply  cease  to  achieve  relevant  objectives. 
For these reasons, managing existing EU legislation is as important as responding 
to new policy challenges, and the Commission therefore decided to: 

–  commit  to  evaluate  existing  legislation  before  proposing  changes 

(‘evaluate first’ principle); 

–  strengthen and eventually mainstream its REFIT programme to verify the 
opportunities  to  deliver  results  more  efficiently  whenever  existing  EU 
legislation is revised;  

–  establish a new REFIT  Platform17 through which  stakeholders  can point 
the  Commission  to  existing  policies  and  legislation  that  could  be 
simplified. 

13   C(2015)3264: 

Standard 

explanatory 

memorandum: 

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=list&coteId=3&year=2015&number=3264&versi
on=ALL&language=en  

14   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say_en  
15   https://ec.europa.eu/info/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en  
16   C(2015) 3263: Decision of the President of the  Commission on the establishment of an  independent 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/decision-on-the-established-of-an-
independent-regulatory-scrutiny-board_may2015_en.pdf  

17   C(2015) 

3261: 

Commission 

decision 

establishing 

the 

REFIT 

Platform: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/commission-decision-c2015-3261-establishing-refit-platform-0_en  

5 

 
                                                 
(4) 

Advancing  a  common  agenda  with  other  EU  institutions  and  Member  States. 
The  Commission  has  a key  role  in  better  regulation  but  cannot  do it  alone.  The 
right  to  amend  legislative  proposals  lies  with  the  European  Parliament  and 
Council  and  the  right  to  transpose  and  implement  adopted  legislation  lies  with 
Member States.  That is why the Commission put forward a proposal for a new 
the  European 
interinstitutional  agreement  on  better 
Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission18. 
Following negotiations, a new agreement19 was jointly approved in April 2016. 

law-making  between 

The  next  section  takes  stock  of  the  evidence  and  examines  the  views  of  the  concerned 
parties on the results of these measures.  

18   COM(2015)  216:  Proposal  for  an  interinstitutional  agreement  on  better  regulation:  https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0216  

19   Interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and 
the  European  Union  and  the  European  Commission  on  better  law  making  of  13  April  2016 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016Q0512(01)&from=EN  

6 

 
 
                                                 
Section II 
What have we learned? 

Activities completed 

The  Commission  has  applied  its  better  regulation  policy  to  its  policymaking  activities. 
The table below gives a general overview for 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2018: 

Table 1 Better regulation activities 2015-2018.  

Numbers of: 

2015 

2016 

2017  2018 

Public consultations 

105 

120 

112 

80 

Percentage of public consultations in all official languages 

26% 

21% 

55% 

71% 

Impact assessments 

29 

60 

53 

76 

Evaluations* 
* Evaluations cover regulatory instruments, expenditure measures, and communication and coordination 
activities. The  main overarching evaluations are included but not the underlying thematic or geographic 
evaluations. 

53 

65 

74 

67 

3.  OPENING UP POLICYMAKING 

Answers to the public consultation identified stakeholder consultations and transparency 
as  the  two  areas  where  most  progress  has  been  achieved  since  201420.  This  is  also 
reflected in an OECD comparative assessment of its member countries’ better regulation 
systems  which,  in  2018,  ranked  the  Commission  as  first  in  the  OECD  for  stakeholder 
engagement21.  At  the  same  time,  however,  respondents  to  the  public  consultations 
flagged transparency and consultation as the two areas most in need of improvements in 
the future22.  

These  general  findings  confirm  the  continued  validity  of  the  Commission’s  choice  to 
focus on opening up policymaking and are reassuring in terms of the success achieved. 
They do, however, indicate the need to reflect further on what the key shortcomings are 
and how they can be tackled in a proportionate manner. The following analyses in greater 
detail outcomes and contributing factors, offering background evidence for future policy 
decisions.  

3.1. Feedback opportunities 

Opportunities to give feedback over the entire lifecycle of a policy from its initiation to 
its evaluation were gradually introduced. Already in 2015, feedback on inception impact 
assessments,  evaluation  roadmaps  and  other  types  of  roadmaps  was  made  available.  In 
2016  for  the  first  time  it  became  possibile  to  provide  views  on  draft  texts  of  delegated 
and implementing acts and in 2017 on Commission proposals.   

Table 2 Roadmaps and inception impact assessments posted for feedback, 2015-2018.  

20   Question 15 of the public questionnaire. 
21   http://www.oecd.org/governance/oecd-regulatory-policy-outlook-2018-9789264303072-en.htm  
22   Question 16 of the public questionnaire. 

7 

 
                                                 
Numbers 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Roadmaps 

Inception impact assessments 

Evaluation roadmaps 

Commission proposals 

76 

30 

71 

-* 

57 

59 

88 

-* 

77 

65 

33 

78 

51 

21 

63 

154 

* Commission proposals were made available for feedback as from 2017 

The  results  of  the  public  consultation  show  that  around  a  fifth  of  respondents  are  not 
aware of the opportunities the Commission offers to contribute to policymaking23. Since 
those answering the public consultation can be expected to be more knowledgeable about 
better  regulation  than  the  average  stakeholder  at  large,  this  indicates  a  clear  scope  to 
further improve the knowledge and reach of EU tools.  

The satisfaction of those aware of the various opportunities varied, with the majority of 
respondents  always  being  either  satisfied  or  neutral.  Slightly  over  a  fifth  of  the 
respondents, however, expressed dissatisfaction with all tools.   

Roadmaps and inception impact assessments  

At  the  start  of  each  new  initiative  the  Commission  publishes  an  inception  impact 
assessment or, when no impact assessment is planned, a roadmap24. At the start of each 
evaluation the Commission publishes an evaluation roadmap. These documents provide 
basic information  about  what  the Commission  intends to  do, the analytical  work it will 
undertake, and the consultation activities it will launch and, in the case of roadmaps, the 
reasons  why  no  impact  assessment  is  planned.  For  a  period  of  4  weeks,  the  public  can 
provide comments on these documents, including the need for an impact assessment. The 
lead  Commission  department  takes  into  account  these  comments  when  preparing  the 
initiative.  

  In  the  two-year  period  up  until  31 December 2018,  86  inception  impact  assessments 
were  posted  to  the  web  for  stakeholder  feedback.  These  attracted  1 253  feedback 
contributions  (32  inception  impact  assessments  received  0-5  contributions,  with  2 
inception  impact  assessments  receiving  more  than  100  contributions).  The  highest 
number  of  responses  were  received  for  the  fight  against  illegal  content  online  (146) 
and  construction  products  (121).  Business  groups25    accounted  for  approximately 
59%,  NGOs  for  15%,  EU  citizens  for  8%  and  public  authorities  for  5%.  The  most 
responses came from Belgium (24%), followed by Germany (16%), the UK (8%) and 
France (8%).  

  In the two-year period up until 31 December 2018, 128 roadmaps were posted to the 
web  for  stakeholder  feedback.  These  attracted  2 272  feedback  contributions  79 

23   Questions 7 and 8 of the public consultation. 
24   In  2015 

and  2016 

to 
inception 
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/index_en.htm  .  They  were  posted  to  the  ‘Have  Your 
Say’ web site for the first time in 2017. This allowed central collection of feedback and its statistical 
analysis. 

assessments  were  posted 

roadmaps 

impact 

and 

25   ‘Business group’ covers company/business organisations and business associations. 

8 

 
                                                 
roadmaps  received  0-5  contributions,  with  4  roadmaps  receiving  more  than  100 
contributions).  Business  groups  accounted  for  approximately  20%,  NGOs  for  13%, 
EU  citizens  for  52%  and  public  authorities  for  3%.  The  most  responses  came  from 
Spain (25%), followed by Belgium (15%), Italy (15%) and France (7%). 

  In  the  two-year  period  up  until  31 December 2018,  96  evaluation  roadmaps  were 
posted  to  the  web  for  stakeholder  feedback.  These  attracted  724  feedback 
contributions    63  roadmaps  received  0-5  contributions,  and  none  more  than  100 
contributions).  Business  groups  accounted  for  approximately  44%,  NGOs  for  20%, 
EU  citizens  for  12%  and  public  authorities  for  7%.  The  most  responses  came  from 
Belgium (33%), followed by Germany (14%), France (7%) and Spain (6%). 

Responses  from  the  public  consultation  indicate  that  roadmaps  and  inception  impact 
assessments are generally considered useful to prepare participation in policymaking and 
as  tools  to  provide  initial  feedback26.  This  is  especially  true  among  professionals. 
Professionals are also the group that provided most of the feedback to inception impact 
assessments and evaluation roadmaps. According to the REFIT Platform, feedback may 
be  limited  due  to  a  lack  of  time27.  In  its  responses  to  the  stocktaking  consultation,  the 
business  community  welcomed  the  opportunities  to  provide  feedback  on  roadmaps  and 
inception impact assessments.  

Delegated acts and implementing acts 

In  many  acts  of  Union  law,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  empower  the 
Commission to introduce or replace technical and specific elements needed to implement 
legislation  or  to  ensure  a  consistent  implementation  by  all  Member  States.  The 
Commission  has  greatly  enhanced  transparency  around  the  preparation  of  these  acts  of 
general  application,  known  as  delegated  and  implementing  acts,  allowing  the  public  to 
comment on the draft legal text for a period of 4 weeks28. These comments are taken into 
account  before  the  Commission  adopts  a  delegated  act  and  before  it  presents  a  draft 
implementing act to the relevant committee for its opinion.  

Between  1 July 2016  and  31 December 201829,  the  Commission  published  151  draft 
delegated  acts,  191  draft  implementing  acts  and  94  draft  acts,  following  the  regulatory 
procedure with scrutiny30.  

Table 3 Delegated acts and implementing acts posted for feedback, 2015-2018.  

26   Questions 7 and 8 of the public consultation. 
27   REFIT  Platform  Opinion  on  submissions  XXII.4.a  by  the  DIHK  and  XXII.4.b  by  a  citizen  on 
07.06.2017, 

Stakeholder 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/xxii4ab_on_stakeholder_consultation_mechanisms.pdf  

mechanisms, 

consultation 

28   Since the middle of 2016, these draft acts have been posted to the ‘Have Your Say’ portal. 
29   Not  all  draft  acts  are  published,  as  certain  well-defined  exceptions  apply.  For  example,  acts  of 
individual  application,  in  cases  of  urgency  or  where  scientific  advice  is  followed  without  any 
deviation, are not posted. See: Better regulation toolbox, tool #56 on delegated acts and implementing 
acts, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-
56_en_0.pdf 

point 

4.4 

30   A  comitology  procedure  that  pre-dates  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty  and  which  is  now 
being replaced by empowerments according to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union (TFEU). 

9 

 
                                                 
Numbers 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Delegated acts 

Implementing acts 

Acts following regulatory 
procedure with scrutiny 

- 

- 

- 

24 

42 

32 

61 

73 

31 

66 

76 

31 

Between  2016  and  31 December 2018,  the  151  delegated  acts  posted  to  the  web  for 
stakeholder feedback attracted 1 576 feedback contributions (100 delegated acts received 
0-5  contributions,  with  2  acts  receiving  more  than  100  contributions).  Business  groups 
accounted  for  approximately  54%,  NGOs  for  11%,  EU  citizens  for  20%  and  public 
authorities for 5%. The most responses came from Germany (20%), followed by Belgium 
(17.8%), the UK (11.8%) and France (9%). 

In the same period, the 191 implementing acts posted to the web for stakeholder feedback 
1 770 feedback contributions ( 149 implementing acts received 0-5 contributions, with 4 
acts receiving more than 100 contribution). Business groups accounted for approximately 
54%,  NGOs  for  6%,  EU  citizens  for  26%  and  public  authorities  for  6%.  The  most 
responses came from Belgium (13.1%), followed by the UK (13%), France (12.8%) and 
Italy (9%). 

In the same period, the 94 acts following regulatory procedure with scrutiny posted to the 
web for stakeholder feedback received 1005 feedback contributions (50 consultation with 
0-5  contributions,  with  2  acts  receiving  more  than  100  contributions).  Business  group 
accounted  for  approximately  59%,  NGOs  for  13%,  EU  citizen  for  11%  and  public 
authorities for 3%, The most responses came from Belgium 25%, followed by Germany 
19%, the UK 8%, and France 8%. 

The low response rate to implementing and delegated acts, in particular from EU citizens, 
is  likely  to  reflect  limited  awareness  of  the  feedback  mechanism  but  also  the  technical 
nature  of  the  acts.  This  mechanism  is  mainly  used  by  business  groups.  Similar  to 
roadmaps  and  inception  impact  assessments,  responses  are  generally  low  but  may  be 
more significant in a few cases of more general concern, such as the implementing act on 
drones or the one on the origin labelling on food.  

Proposals  

Prior  to  2015,  no  formal  transparent  mechanism  existed  for  the  public  to  express  its 
views  about  the  legislative  proposals  presented  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council. The Commission introduced then a mechanism for stakeholders to comment on 
each proposal  (and associated impact  assessment) for a period of 8 weeks immediately 
following Commission adoption. The Commission reports this feedback to the European 
Parliament and the Council for them to consider during the legislative procedure. 

  In  the  two-year  period  ending  31 December 2018,  232  Commission  proposals  were 
posted  to  the  web  for  stakeholder  feedback.  These  attracted  7 075  feedback 
contributions (152 proposals received 0-5 contributions). The proposal on a European 
defence fund alone attracted more than half of these contributions  (4 071). All  other 
proposals  attracted  on  average  13  contributions.  Of  all  the  contributions,  business 
groups accounted for approximately 42.9%, NGOs for 10.5%, EU citizens for 31.1% 

10 

 
 
and  public  authorities  for  2.7%.  The  most  responses  came  from  Belgium  (16.8%), 
followed by Italy (16.3%), France (12.1%), and Germany (11.6%). 

The limited feedback reflects the limited awareness of the feedback mechanism as well 
as  possibly  a  limited  interest  in  its  use.  However,  in  the  case  of  proposals  of  a  general 
public  interest,  such  as  marine  litter31,  drinking  water32  or  the  defence  fund33,  reponse 
rates were significantly higher.  

The European Parliament has made clear that it would prefer the Commission to limit its 
consultations to before it adopts as it considers that, during the legislative process itself, 
it is  for the Parliament  and Member States to  carry out  their own consultations, if they 
choose  to.  A  similar  concern  is  also  raised  in  the  opinion  of  the  REFIT  Platform  on 
stakeholder  consultation34.  The  mechanism  also  receives  the  relative  highest  share  of 
negative replies  in  terms of satisfaction from the participants  to the public consultation 
(nearly a third). This is probably due to the reduced interest in offering feedback on items 
the  Commission  has  already  adopted.  Nevertheless,  practical  experience  shows  that,  at 
times, the mechanism can generate a high number of replies, which could be of particular 
value in cases where no impact assessment and/or no public consultation could be carried 
out for reasons of urgency.  

3.2. Consultation 

The Commission is obliged to consult widely before making legislative proposals. These 
local  and  regional  dimensions,  as  appropriate35. 
consultations  should  consider 
Consultation  of  the  public  and  civil  society  is  part  of  a  wider  agenda  to  improve  the 
democratic legitimacy and ownership of what the Union does that dates back to the 2001 
White Paper on European Governance36. This was given a new boost under the Juncker 
Commission. In May 2015, the Commission introduced the requirement to conduct a 12-
week  public  consultation  to  support  all  impact  assessments  and  evaluations.  For  each 
new policy initiative, the Commission develops a consultation strategy that maps out the 
different consultation activities that the Commission will undertake. These will generally 
include  a  public  consultation  and  a  range  of  activities  targeting  particular  stakeholders 

Box 1: Average replies to public consultations* 

31   Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact 

of certain plastic products on the environment, COM(2018)340, adopted 28.5.2018 

32   Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  quality  of  water 

intended for human consumption (recast), COM(2017)753, adopted 1.2.2018 

33   Proposal  for  a  Regulationof  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  the  European 

Defence Fund, COM(2018)476, adopted on 13.6.2018 

34   REFIT  Platform  opinion  on  submissions  XXII.4.a  by  the  DIHK  and  XXII.4.b  by  a  citizen  on 
7.6.2017, 

stakeholder 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/xxii4ab_on_stakeholder_consultation_mechanisms.pdf  

mechanisms, 

consultation 

adopted 

35   Article 2 of Protocol No. 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU)/Treaty on the Functioning of the 

European Union (TFEU). 

36   COM(2001) 

248 

final: 

European 

Governance  — 

A 

white 

paper;; 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0428&qid=1553863657306&from=EN 

*  excludes  consultations  that  received  significantly  higher  responses  in  a  given  year  and 
considered  as  outliers:  the  2015  consultation  on  the  evaluation  of  the  Birds  and  Habitat 
Directive (552 472), the 2017 consultation on the common agricultural policy  (322 912) and 
the2018 consultation on summertime arrangement (4 706 294).  

11 

 
                                                 
 
and information.  

According  to  the  responses  to  the  public  consultation,  the  best  known  and  the  most 
valued  way  to  contribute  to  policymaking  is  through  public  consultations37.  The 
Commission carried out 417 public consultations between 2015 and 2018, of which 303 
to  support  new  policy  initiatives  and  114  to  support  evaluations.  The  number  of 
responses varies markedly depending on the nature of the topic addressed. There was a 
very large number of responses for topics  of high  popular interest  for specific Member 
States  or  stakeholder  groups.  This  was,  for  instance,  the  case  for  the  consultation  on 
summertime arrangements38 which attracted some 4.6 million responses (of which 70% 
from  one  Member  State  alone)  and  the  consultation  on  the  evaluation  of  the  Birds  and 
Habitat Directive39 which triggered more than half a million responses. The consultation 
on the future of the common agricultural policy40 reached more than 300 000 replies in 
2017  (compared  to  5 700  in  201041).  In  contrast,  zero  or  very  limited  responses  were 
registered  for  some  very  technical  cases  like  the  code  of  conduct  for  computerised 
reservation systems, or zinc oxide in cosmetics. Not taking into account the exceptional 
cases  of  the  consultations  on  the  summertime  arrangements,  birds  and  habitats  and  the 
future  common  agricultural  policy,  the  average  number  of  responses  to  a  public 
consultation between 2015 and 2018 was around 1 119. A sample analysis suggests that 
in the case of public consultations supporting evaluations, response levels are relatively 
lower (on average 455 responses for evaluations42 vs on average 1 643 responses for new 
initiatives43). For both types of consultations, the majority of contributions tend to come 
from  Germany,  the  UK,  Spain  and  Italy.  Local  and  regional  authorites  account    for  a 
small proportion of the answers. 

The  academic  literature  recognises  that  public  consultation  is  a  tool  to  promote 
participatory  democracy44.  It  promotes  legitimacy,  helps  identify  obstacles  to  effective 
implementation  and  avoids  technocratic  rulemaking.  According  to  consultees,  public 

37   Question 8 of the public consulation. 
38   COM(2018) 639 of 12 September 2018:  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of 

the Council discontinuing seasonal changes of time and repealing Directive 2000/84/EC,  

39  

 COM(2016) 473 Commission Staff Working Document - Executive Summary of the Fitness Check of 
the EU Nature Legislation (Birds and Habitats Directives) 

40   COM(2018)  392  of  1  June  2018  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the 
Common  agricultural  policy  (CAP  Strategic  Plans)  and  financed  by  the  European  Agricultural 
Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and 
repealing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1305/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  and 
Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 

41    COM(2011)  625  of  18  October  2011  Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  determining  measures  on 
fixing  certain  aids  and  refunds  related  to  the  common  organisation  of  the  markets  in  agricultural 
products 

42   Does not include birds and habitats 
43   Does not include responses to summertime or common agricultural policy 
44   Dawson,  M.  (2016).  Better  regulation  and  the  future  of  EU  regulatory  law  and  politics.  Common 
Market  Law  Review, 53(5), 1209–1235.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X00028436; Meads, R.,  & 
Allio, L. (2015). Paving the Way to an Improved, Modern Management of Risk: The new European 
Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Strategy.  European  Journal  of  Risk  Regulation,  6(4),  649–651. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00005213  

12 

 
                                                 
consultation  is  the  area  where  the  Commission  has  made  considerable  progress  since 
2015.  The  literature  also  recognises  a  clear  increase  in  stakeholder  involvement,  with 
sufficient  time  to  take  into  account  contributions  received  from  consultees45.  However, 
external stakeholders raised concerns about the high number of consultations launched by 
the Commission and the demands this puts on respondents and the fatigue it can cause. In 
transparency  when  presenting 
addition, 
consultation results. They would also like the views of representative organisations listed 
in the transparency register to be weighted more heavily. 

industrial  stakeholders  asked  for  more 

3.3. Contributing to law-making (the ‘Have Your Say’ portal) 

For  easier  and  better  interaction  throughout  the  policy  cycle  with  people  and 
stakeholders, the Commission has progressively put in place a dedicated digital solution 
on the Europa website. Through this new web portal – known as ‘Have your say’ - the 
public can participate in all the feedback mechanisms and public consultations analysed 
above. It can also provide comments and suggestions to the REFIT Platform on how to 
simplify specific legislation and reduce unnecessary  regulatory costs.  In June 2018, the 
portal also began offering a timeline view for each ongoing or upcoming initiative. Since 
the  portal’s  launch  in  June  2016,  the  number  of  yearly  visits  to  ‘Have  Your  Say’  has 
steadily increased, reaching almost 900 000 in 2018. A recent survey of 200 users also 
highlighted its user friendliness.  

3.4. Overall assessment and key drivers 

The analysis suggests there is widespread recognition of the efforts the Commission has 
made to open up policymaking and a fair degree of satisfaction with the existing set of 
tools.  The  key  features  of  the  overall  system  are  considered  world  class  by  the  OECD 
and  there  is  no  significant  share  of  stakeholders  calling  for  a  radical  overhaul.  At  the 
same time, there is a widespread view that the system is not delivering up to its potential 
in  terms  of participation  and evidence  collection. To highlight  possible areas  for future 
changes, the following analyses the underlying factors.   

Outreach 

There is limited awareness among stakeholders about the opportunities to participate in 
policymaking and consultation activities. This is reflected in the response levels to public 
consultations and feedback opportunities and was repeatedly pointed out by Commission 
staff who were interviewed.  

45   For  example,  Chase,  P.,  &  Schlosser,  A.  (2015).  Better  regulation  -  An  ongoing  journey.  European 
Journal of Risk Regulation, 6(3), 378–379; Delogu, B. (2016). Risk Analysis and Governance in EU 
Policy Making and Regulation. An Introductory Guide. Springer International Publishing Switzerland; 
Eliantonio, M., & Spendzharova, A. (2017). The European Union’s New “Better Regulation” Agenda: 
Between Procedures and Politics. European Journal of Law Reform, 19(1–2), 3–15; Parker, R. W., & 
Alemanno, A. (2015). A Comparative Overview of EU and US Legislative and Regulatory Systems: 
Implications  for  Domestic  Governance  &  the  Transatlantic  Trade  and  Investment  Partnership. 
Columbia  Journal  of  European  Law,  22(1),  61–99;  Radaelli,  C.  M.  (2018).  Halfway  Through  the 
Better Regulation Strategy of the Juncker Commission: What Does the Evidence Say? JCMS: Journal 
of  Common  Market  Studies,  56,  85–95;  Stoffel,  N.-C.  (2015).  Quo  Vadis  Impact  Assessment?  An 
Evaluation of the European Commission’s New Better Regulation Agenda (Master Working Paper). 

13 

 
                                                 
In the spring of 2017, in a major move to reach out to a wider public, the Commission 
introduced a new requirement to translate its questionnaires into all official languages46 
for  its  most  important  initiatives.  Questionnaires  for  other  initiatives  would,  as  a 
minimum,  be  presented  in  English,  French  and  German.  All  public  consultations  were 
available  in  at  least  two  languages  in  2018  and  71%  were  translated  into  all  official 
languages (except Irish). 

Consultees  to  the  public  consultation  received  all  these  developments  positively47. 
Responses  from  NGOs,  in  particular,  indicated  that  multilingual  questionnaires  were 
necessary. Finally, while too  early to  determine,  the growing volume of responses may 
be  linked  to  this  greater  accessibility  by  having  consultations  available  in  more 
languages.  However,  such  developments  come  with  a  significant  cost  in  terms  of  the 
speed with which a policy initiative can be developed, since a questionnaires may take 2 
to  3  weeks  to  translate.  Data  now  becoming  available  following  completion  of  phase 
three of the ‘Have Your Say’ web portal will make it possible to analyse the geographical 
distribution of responses in greater detail. 

As  for  other  possible  ways  of  increasing  awareness  and  outreach,  Commission  staff 
welcomed a greater involvement of local and national authorities, Member States, expert 
groups  and  Council  working  parties  in  gathering  evidence  more  effectively  about  the 
different  situations  in  the  Member  States  and,  where  relevant,  in  the  EU  partner 
countries.  Respondents  suggested  that  awareness-raising  campaigns  should  support 
individual  consultations.  This  was  echoed  by  Commission  staff  and  in  the  academic 
literature.  The  literature  review  also  highlighted  a  potential  weakness,  in  that 
consultations  currently  seem  to  overly  target  those  who  already  have  access  to  the 
policymaking process48. 

Duration of public consultations 

Stakeholders will answer only if they have sufficient time to do so. National authorities 
and local  and regional  authorities, in  particular, have stressed the importance of having 
sufficient time to prepare comprehensive responses. It is for this reason that, in 2015, the 
Commission  committed  in  principle  to  12  weeks  for  consultations  and  4  weeks  for 
feedback.  The  twelve-week  duration  is  appreciated  by  many  respondents  to  the  public 

46   The translation of public consultations into Irish should be assessed on a case-by-case basis until the 

capacity to translate into Irish has been fully built up. 

47   Question 9 of the public consultation. 
48   Alemanno, A. (2015). How Much Better is Better Regulation ? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 
(3),  1–24;  Dawson,  M.  (2016).  Better  regulation  and  the  future  of  EU  regulatory  law  and  politics. 
Common  Market  Law  Review,  53(5),  1209–1235;  Eliantonio,  M.,  &  Spendzharova,  A.  (2017).  The 
European  Union’s  New  “Better  Regulation”  Agenda:  Between  Procedures  and  Politics.  European 
Journal  of  Law  Reform,  19(1–2),  3–15;  Garben,  S.  (2018).  An  ‘Impact  Assessment’  of  EU  Better 
Regulation.  In  S.  Garben  &  I.  Govaere  (Eds.),  The  EU  Better  Regulation  Agenda:  A  Critical 
Assessment. Bloomsbury Publishing; Pachl, U. (2015). Repercussions of the European Commission’s 
better regulation agenda on consumer interests and policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 6(3), 
375–377;  Sarpi,  F.  (2015).  “Better  Regulation”:  Better  for  whom?  European  Journal  of  Risk 
Regulation, (April), 1–16. 

14 

 
                                                 
consultation49, although the literature review noted that this may be too short for replying 
to consultations on complex issues50.   

There is  a need to  consider the impact  of any longer consultation  period on the overall 
time it takes to prepare a policy proposal. Commission staff proved very sensitive to this 
issue  and  argued  that  public  consultations  (and  the  opportunity  to  provide  feedback  on 
roadmaps)  may  substantially  delay  the  policymaking  process  within  the  Commission. 
Staff argued for a shorter response period of 8 to 10 weeks.  

While  in  2015  and  2016  over  90%  of  public  consultations  abided  by  the  twelve-week 
consultation period, in 2018 this dropped to below 75%.  

Consultation questionnaires 

Although a relatively larger share of respondents to the public consultation were satisfied 
with  the  clarity  and  neutrality  of  the  Commission’s  questionnaires,  almost  a  third 
expressed  some  dissatisfaction.  In  particular,  consultees  argued  that  questionnaires 
should be shorter and drafted in a non-technical  and non-biased manner. In its opinion, 
the  REFIT  Platform  raised  concerns  about  the  format,  clarity  and  content  of 
consultations51.  The  literature  review  also  noted  that  participants  are  often  prevented 
from making comments outside of the multi-choice questions52. Since 2017, it is always 
possible  to  upload  supporting  material.  A  number  of  Commission  staff  indicated  that 
they  did  not  have  the  necessary  expertise  to  draft  good,  understandable  and  effective 
questionnaires. They wanted more training and guidance.  

Feedback to consultees 

The impact  assessment reports, the staff working  documents accompanying evaluations 
or a self-standing synopsis report should present the results of all consultation activities 
undertaken.  These  should  also  be  summarised  in  the  explanatory  memorandum 
accompanying a Commission proposal.  The aim is to provide feedback on how the input 
from consultees has been used.  

Nearly 40% of the respondents to the public consultation were (very) dissatisfied with the 
way  the  Commission  reports  on  the  result  of  its  public  consultations  and  feedback  and 
what  is  does with  this information.  NGOs responding to  the public consultation  argued 
that  it  is  often  difficult  to  discern  how  the  consultation  process  has  affected 
policymaking.    This  is  also  supported  by  the  literature  review53.  More  generally, 

49   Question 9 of the public consultation. 
50   Chase, P., & Schlosser, A. (2015). Better regulation  - An ongoing journey. European Journal of Risk 
Regulation, 6(3), 378–379; Delogu, B. (2016). Risk  Analysis and Governance in EU Policy Making 
and Regulation. An Introductory Guide. Springer International Publishing Switzerland; 

51   REFIT  Platform  opinion  on  submissions  XXII.4.a  by  the  DIHK  and  XXII.4.b  by  a  citizen  on 
7.6.2017, 

stakeholder 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/xxii4ab_on_stakeholder_consultation_mechanisms.pdf  

mechanisms, 

consultation 

adopted 

52   Impact Assessment Institute. (2017). Final study A year and a half of the Better Regulation Agenda : 
what  happened ?;  Ranchordas,  S.  (2017).  Consultations,  Citizen  Narratives  and  Evidence-Based 
Regulation: the Strange Case of the Consultation on the Collaborative Economy, 1, 1–33. 

53   For example, Bartlett, O. (2018). Reforming the Regulation on Spirit Drinks  – an Example of Better 
Regulation?  European  Journal  of  Risk  Regulation,  9(2),  310–315;  Maśnicki,  J.  (2016).  Good 
Governance  thorough  Better  Regulation.  Looking  for  the  impact  analysis  approach  to  the 
proportionality  principle;  Ranchordas,  S.  (2017).  Consultations,  Citizen  Narratives  and  Evidence-

15 

 
                                                 
 
consultees to the public consultation argued that there is no clear commitment on how to 
use consultation  results for policymaking. The REFIT Platform  also  asks in  its opinion 
for more transparency in the feedback provided54. 

A  wide  range  of  consultees  to  the  public  consultation  wanted  systematic  and  timely 
reports presenting the results of consultation activities. They also wanted contributors to 
receive better individual feedback. 

Staff Opinion  

The  quality,  use  and  reporting  of  various  consultation  tools  are  influenced  by  the 
resources available and the expertise provided to the staff that works on them. 

This  is  reflected  in  the  results  of  Commission  staff  interviews.  A  number  of  staff  who 
were  interviewed  thought  that  public  consultation  has  a  more  limited  role  in  gathering 
useful  evidence, particularly  for technically  complex legislation. Targeted consultations 
were perceived to be much more useful. Some Commission staff expressed a desire for 
more flexibility particularly with the requirement to conduct public consultations for all 
evaluations  and  impact  assessments.  In  their  opinion,  the  necessity  for  public 
consultation should be assessed in the context of each new initiative. Similarly, a number 
of  Commission  staff  found  public  consultations  burdensome,  time-consuming  and 
resource-intensive processes. The results were often considered disappointing in terms of 
response rates, overall coverage of stakeholdersand quality of responses.  

4.  BETTER TOOLS FOR BETTER POLICIES 

4.1. Impact assessment 

Consultees overwhelmingly support evidence-based policymaking. They also agree that 
the changes introduced in May 2015 have helped to consolidate the standing and culture 
of  the  impact  assessment.  The  better  regulation  guidelines  and  toolbox  represent  a 
particular achievement because they provide a common framework for the policy cycle. 
This is reflected in the recent OECD comparative assessment55: the Commission further 
refined  and  improved  its  impact  assessment  policy  and  maintained  the  third-placed 
ranking  it  had  already  achieved  in  2014.  Stakeholders’  concerns  generally  relate  to  the 
application of these guidance documents.  

The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  observes  that  impact  assessments  are  carried  out  for  a 
wide variety of policy fields. For example, different types of initiatives require looking at 
different types of impacts, some more easily quantifiable than others. In their opinion, the 
Commission guidelines are sufficiently flexible to accommodate for this variety.  

Based  Regulation:  the  Strange  Case  of  the  Consultation  on  the  Collaborative  Economy,  1,  1–33; 
Willermain,  F.,  &  Cioriciu,  A.  (2015). The  Better  Regulation  Package :  Creating  better  regulations  , 
but for what kind of EU politics? (39). 

54   REFIT  Platform  opinion  on  submissions  XXII.4.a  by  the  DIHK  and  XXII.4.b  by  a  citizen  on 
7.6.2017, 

stakeholder 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/xxii4ab_on_stakeholder_consultation_mechanisms.pdf  
55   http://www.oecd.org/governance/oecd-regulatory-policy-outlook-2018-9789264303072-en.htm  

mechanisms, 

consultation 

adopted 

16 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
Against  this  overall  positive  assessment,  the  following  analyses  key  concerns  and 
attempts  to  assess  their  magnitude.  It  also  analyses  underlying  factors  with  a  view  to 
making possible future improvements. 

Which legislative proposals should be supported by an impact assessment? 

The  Commission  is  committed  to  presenting  impact  assessments  for  its  initiatives  that 
have  significant  impacts  and  particularly  for  those  presented  in  its  work  programme56. 
The  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  have  also  committed  to  examining  the 
Commission’s impact assessment at the outset of the legislative procedure. 

The Commission has clear guidance on when an impact assessment should be prepared57. 
Impact assessments are only prepared where they are useful for the decision to be taken 
by the Commission. An impact assessment will not usually be prepared if there is little 
choice over the content of the initiative or if the impacts are not significant58.  

There  may  be  cases,  however,  where  it  is  not  possible  or  appropriate  to  follow  each 
mandatory  better  regulation  requirement  (including  carrying  out  an  impact  assessment 
where  significant  impacts  can  be  expected)59.  There  may  be  a  political  imperative  to 
move  ahead  quickly,  an  emergency  that  requires  a  rapid  response  or  a  need  to  comply 
with  specific  deadlines  in  legislation  which  cannot  be  met  on  the  basis  of  normal 
planning.  

Any resulting exception must be centrally agreed within the Commission and brought to 
the  attention  of  external  stakeholders  (via  the  roadmap,  or  the  inception  impact 
assessment and the explanatory memorandum). Alternative ways should observe as much 
as possible better regulation principles (like accompanying the proposal in question with 
astaff working document presenting the available evidence). External organisations such 
as  the  Impact  Assessment  Institute  are  continuously  checking  whether  this  occurs  in 
practice60.  

The  stocktaking  has  recorded  a  widespread  concern  by  stakeholders  about  what  these 
rules imply in terms of number of legislative proposals without impact assessments. The 
European Parliament has noted that approximately 30% of priority initiatives in the Joint 

56   Paragraph 13 of the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making. 
57   See  tool  #9  of  the  better  regulation  toolbox  on  when  an  impact  assessment  is  necessary: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-toolbox-9_en  

58   For example, proposals to codify several legislative acts do not require an impact assessment because 
there are no substantive changes to the underlying legislation and therefore no impacts. In addition, it 
may  be  possible  to  proceed  directly  from  an  evaluation  of  existing  legislation  to  a  legal  proposal 
without an impact assessment when the evaluation identifies specific/well-defined issues and there is 
little  choice  about  how  to  address  them.  For  financial  programmes,  an  impact  assessment  is  not 
required and a simpler ex ante evaluation can be prepared instead . 

59   For  example,  a  special  regime  applies  to  the  Commission's  proposals  for  a  Council    decision    to  
implement  social  partners'  agreements  under  Article  155  TFEU  due  to  the  role  and  autonomy  
entrusted    by    the    Treaty    to    the    social    partners.    In    other    cases,    there    may    be    a    political  
imperative  to  move  ahead  quickly,  an  emergency  that  requires  a  rapid  response,  a  need  to  
adhere    to    specific    deadlines    in    legislation    which    cannot    be    met    on    the    basis    of    normal  
planning 
information.  
to 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines.pdf  

  security-related  or  confidential 

  protect 

  need 

  or 

  a 

60   https://www.impactassessmentinstitute.org/news/jo5pj1k319/Absence-of-Impact-Assessment-often-

not-justified-or-contrary-to-Better-Regulation  

17 

 
                                                 
 
Declaration signed by the three institutions do not have an impact assessment. Similarly, 
an  analysis  of  all  proposals  linked  to  the  Commission  work  programme  AnnexI  and  II 
between 2015 and 2018 shows that 28% were not accompanied by an impact assessment. 
For  19.5%,  no  impact  assessment  was  actually  needed  according  to  the  Commission 
requirements. For the remaining 8.5%, exceptions were granted. The need to act urgently, 
thus  limiting  the  time  available  to  gather  evidence  and  prepare  an  impact  assessment 
report with the associated consultation activities, was the most common reason justifying 
such exceptions.  Proposals  to  address  the migration  crisis  account  for nearly half of all 
exceptions, but there were others to tackle the security and economic crises. Contrary to 
the Commission’s commitment, for a limited number of proposals (7% of all cases), no 
reason was publicly communicated for the lack of an impact assessment (be it due to an 
exception or not).  

Stakeholders consult and appreciate the Commission’s impact assessments. They notice 
and  complain  about  cases  where  no  impact  assessment  was  provided.  The  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  have  been  particularly  critical  because  they  base  their  own 
analyses  on  the  Commission  impact  assessments  and  have  reported  that  the  impact 
assessment  makes  finding  political  agreement  easier.  Civil  society,  social  partners  and 
the business and research communities consider that the absence of an impact assessment 
undermines transparency and credibility. Some Commission officials consider exceptions 
undermine  the  fair  application  of  the  better  regulation  system  across  departments  (and 
thus are an impediment to buying into the system).  

Which impacts should be assessed? 

Respondents to the public consultations were generally positive about the extent to which 
the Commission takes into account evidence and impacts61. More than two thirds of those 
who  expressed  an  opinion  thought  the  Commission  takes  into  account  at  least  partially 
the evidence, social and environmental impacts and subsidiarity and the role of different 
levels of public authorities.  

There  is,  however,  also  a  clear  expectation  that  impacts  could  be  better  taken  into 
account,  although  views  differ  on  which  impacts.  Business  organisations  and  many 
public authorities support a strong focus on economic considerations, including for small 
and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the digital dimension. Individuals, civil society and 
academia  urge  the  Commission  to  look  more  at  society  as  a  whole  and  not  to 
overemphasise the need to quantify impacts. Respondents to the public consultation also 
point to the impact that legislation has on equality, health, poverty and the safeguarding 
of  fundamental  rights  and  the  need  to  uphold  environmental  and  consumer  standards. 
Many  consultees  urge  paying  greater  attention  to  the  impacts  on  individuals,  Member 
States  or  industrial  sectors  rather  than  providing  aggregated  estimates  at  EU  level. 
Purnhagen & Feindt (2015)62 point to the lack of a consolidated approach in this regard. 
Some  NGOs  and  academics63  propose  systematically  considering  the  Sustainable 
Development  Goals  in  impact  assessments  or  integrating  the  six  mainstreaming 

61   Questions 3 to 5 of the public consultation. 
62   Purnhagen, K. P., & Feindt, P. H. (2015). Better Regulatory Impact Assessment. European Journal of 

Risk Regulation, 361–368. 

63   Renda,  A.  (2017a).  How  can  Sustainable  Development  Goals  be  ‘mainstreamed’  in  the  EU’s  Better 

Regulation Agenda? CEPS Policy Insights, 12(March), 1–17. 

18 

 
                                                 
objectives64 set out by the EU treaties. Others highlight the need to better assess impacts 
on developing countries as a key prerequisite to live up to the EU commitment to policy 
coherence for development.  

The  Council’s  General  Secretariat  acknowledges  the  usefulness  of  impact  assessments 
for the legislative procedure. However, the Secretariat thinks that the impact assessment 
could  provide  even  greater  value  if  it  anticipated  the  concerns  of  Member  States  and 
provided  Member  State-specific  information  about  the  expected  impacts  of  policy 
options.  

Union  legislation  may  have  particularly  significant  effects  at  local  and  regional  levels 
and for public authorities (‘territorial impacts’). This is understandably a concern for the 
Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee and national 
authorities. It was also raised by the ‘Task force on subsidiarity and proportionality’ in its 
report  of  10 July 201865.  The  Commission  has  developed  methodologies  for  territorial 
impact  assessments66  that  have  been  tested  on  a  number  of  legislative  proposals  since 
2016. The Commission’s approach is to assess these impacts when they are relevant for 
the  decision-making  process  and  it  is  proportionate  to  do  so  (for  example,  if  there  are 
large  variations  between  regions).  In 
the 
Commission indicated that it intends to raise the importance of this issue in its guidance 
to staff. However, it is not always obvious that such effects are likely or that the raw data 
exist  to  allow  a  detailed  assessment  to  be  made.  The  more  active  involvement  of  local 
and regional authorities in consultation processes is an essential element of improving the 
quality of assessments of territorial impacts. 

its  October  2018  Communication67, 

Stakeholders’ demand for greater and more detailed analysis of impacts needs to be duly 
taken  into  account,  but  as  Smismans68  cautions,  the  list  of  impacts  the  Commission  is 
asked to address continues to grow. 

The  quality  of  analyses  presented  in  impact  assessments  (and  evaluations)  is  often 
limited by the availability  of  relevant  information. Commission  officials draw attention 
to  the  difficulties  they  have  in  gathering  reliable,  comprehensive  data  and  applying 
methodologies  coherently  and  transparently  across  a  wide  variety  of  policy  fields  and 
across  all  Member  States.  This  is  part  of  a  more  general  problem  of  knowing  how 
legislation is working. The fact that only a tiny fraction of co-legislators’ amendments to 
the  Commission’s  are  assessed  each  year  places  greater  pressure  on  subsequent 
evaluations to establish whether the resultant legislation works effectively and efficiently. 

64   In their analysis, these objectives are gender equality; the horizontal social clause; non-discrimination 
on the basis of gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation; 
environmental  policy  integration  for  sustainable  development;  consumer  protection;  securing 
fundamental rights (Smismans & Minto, 2017). 

65   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/report-task-force-subsidiarity-proportionality-

doing-less-more-efficiently_1.pdf 

66   https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-toolbox-33_en  
67   COM(2018)  703  final  of  23  October  2018  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament, the European Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 
of the Regions: The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality: Strengthening their role in the EU's 
policymaking 

68   Smismans,  S.  (2015).  Policy  evaluation  in  the  EU:  The  challenges  of  linking  ex  ante  and  ex  post 
6–26. 
of 

appraisal. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00004244S1867299X00004244  

Regulation, 

European 

Journal 

6(1), 

Risk 

19 

 
                                                 
Mechanisms  to  ensure  that  relevant  performance  data  are  collected  are  also  not 
systematically established. 

The  stocktaking  exercise  shows  that,  above  and  beyond  stakeholders’  legitimate 
individual preferences for specific types of impacts, there is a need to consider structural 
issues such as the great diversity of the Commission’s initiatives, the specific challenges 
of  analysis  at  a  supranational  level  and  the  existing  constraints  in  terms  of  available 
resources,  time  and  skills69.  While  efficiency  gains  and  marginal  improvements  to  the 
current system are surely achievable and should be sought, these factors inevitably limit 
the quality and breadth of the analysis and lead to differing views on its proportionality. 
The  importance  of  preserving  the  balance  and  comprehensiveness  of  the  Commission 
approach to impact assessment should also be taken into account.   

One tool, too many objectives?  

Impact  assessments  serve  several  purposes.  First  and  most  importantly,  they  aim  to 
inform the Commission’s political decisions on new political initiatives. However, they 
also  serve  other  goals.  They  promote  public  transparency  and  accountability  by 
explaining  the  evidence  base  and  the  analysis  the  Commission  took  into  account  when 
taking  its  decision.  In  doing  so,  impact  assessments  are  also  a  key  document  the 
Commission uses to report on the results of its consultations and their use. They also play 
an  important  role  in  following  up  and  reporting  on  the  assessment  of  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality  and,  whenever  relevant,  various  cross-cutting  policy  commitments70. 
Crucially, they also assist the European Parliament and the Council during the legislative 
procedure.  Finally,  by  explaining  expected  causation  chains,  setting  objectives  and 
estimating  expected  impacts,  impact  assessments  should  serve  as  a  key  reference  point 
for any subsequent evaluation.   

Some  Commission  officials  pointed  out  that  the  final  impact  assessment  report  has  to 
satisfy competing demands and therefore represents a compromise. Some of the groups 
consulted  wondered  to  what  extent  impact  assessments  inform  policy  development  as 
opposed  to  merely  justifying  a  pre-determined/preferred  policy  option.  The  Impact 
Assessment Institute (2017)71 (among other stakeholders and authors) argues that impact 
assessments  should  always  be  neutral  and  make  a  genuine  attempt  to  assess  all  policy 
options.  Other  Commission  officials  questioned  whether  the  resources  required  to 
prepare  an  impact  assessment  were  proportionate  to  the  benefits  and  the  limited 
readership.  Nonetheless,  they  find  that  the  process  of  writing  an  impact  assessment 
provides a good, systematic preparation for later negotiations and communication about 
the Commission’s proposals. 

The 40 or so pages of an impact assessment can prove insufficient in the case of complex 
legislative  proposals  with  many  dimensions.  At  the  same  time,  the  impact  assessment 

69   Timing  constraints  in  the  evaluation  and  public  consultation  for  the  preparation  of  the  impact 
assessements  supporting  the  proposals  for  the  next  Medium  Term  Financial  Framework  provide  an 
example.  

 SMEs test, innovation principle, competitiveness proofing, policy coherence etc 

70  
71   Impact Assessment Institute. (2017). Final study: A year and a half of the Better Regulation Agenda : 

what happened ? 

20 

 
                                                 
report and the technical information in it can be overwhelming for the non-expert public 
and a complex read for policy-makers themselves72.  

Respondents to the public consultation also frequently pointed out that the Commission’s 
impact  assessments  are  outdated  the  moment  they  are  published,  because  amendments 
are rarely subject to impact assments during the negotiations between the co-legislators. 
The perceived partial implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement in this regard is 
widely seen as problematic. 

The quality and objectivity of an impact assessment report is ultimately vouched for by 
the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  (see  4.3.).  Impact  assessments  are  made  public  together 
with  the  Board  opinion  when  the  Commission  proposal  is  adopted.  The  feedback 
mechanism  on  proposals  allows  the  public  to  provide  its  views  on  its  quality  and 
objectivity.  

Resources and support for Commission staff 

In the Commission, policy teams responsible for individual initiatives are directly tasked 
with  carrying  out  any  accompanying  impact  assessment.  Given  existing  safeguards  on 
the objectivity  of the  analysis, this  is  considered a desirable feature that  maximises  the 
relevance  of  impact  assessments  for  the  policy  process.  It  has,  however,  a  cost  as  the 
quality of impact assessments (and evaluations) reflects the diverging levels of expertise 
and experience of Commission staff who do not typically undertake impact assessments 
(and  evaluations)  on  a  continuous  basis.  Individual  members  of  staff  are  unlikely, 
therefore,  to  be  experts  in  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  methodology.  Some 
departments  have  support  teams  that  can  provide  assistance.  During  the  consultation 
activities supporting the stocktaking, these support units indicated that while there were 
guidance  documents,  individual  policy  officers  often  pointed  out  they  were  under  too 
much time pressure to familiarise themselves sufficiently with these documents and that 
there  was  too  little  learning  from  the  experience  built  up  within  the  institution.  Staff 
indicated  a  desire  for  more  face-to-face  meetings  with  experienced  colleagues  to  learn 
from them, share best practice and nurture a common understanding of better regulation. 
For example, they suggested: 

–  a  very  early  kick-off  meeting  of  the  project  team  with  the  better  regulation 

support units to discuss procedures, timelines, scope and methods;  

–  an earlier upstream meeting with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to seek guidance 

and avoid problems later down the line;  

–  communities  of  practice  to  learn  from  the  recent  experience  of  colleagues  in 
other directorates-general that have carried out similar projects and to share best 
practice between better regulation support units;  

–  facilitating  a    more  effective  use  of  in-house  analytical  capacity  such  as  that 

provided by JRC or Eurostat.  

Finally, the consultations showed that policy officers are of the opinion that they do not 
have  the  time  to  follow  more  than  the  basic  training  courses.  Consequently,  more 

72   The  General  Secretariat  of  the  Councilstressed  the  importance  of  the  executive  summary  in 

comparison to the lengthy impact assessment itself. 

21 

 
                                                 
specialised  knowledge  (for  example,  about  quantification  and  subsidiarity)  is  not 
systematically acquired. 

4.2. Evaluation 

The  various  consultation  activities  revealed  several  important  issues  about  the 
Commission’s  practices  on  evaluation.  The  results  of  these  consultations  were 
complemented  by  reports  from  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  and  the  ‘Task  force  on 
subsidiarity and proportionality’. The Court found that the Commission  had designed a 
system  which  is,  as  a  whole,  well-managed  and  quality-controlled  73.  The  OECD  has 
recently reported that the use of evaluations has improved. The EU’s  evaluation system 
scores  highly  in  the  OECD’s  2018  regulatory  policy  outlook74  (4th  out  of  39 
jurisdictions) and has increased its rating since the previous rating in 2015.  The opinion 
of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation75  is  mixed,  being  more  or  less  equally  spread 
between satisfied, neutral or dissatisfied.  

The  Commission,  the  other  EU  institutions  and  consultative  bodies  use  evaluations  to 
learn to  what  exent  EU policies and speding programmes are working  and to  gain  new 
insights.  Results  are  used  to  decide  whether  legislation  and  programmes  should  be 
revised, but evaluations are really useful when they are well timed, designed to address 
the  key  questions  and  of  sufficient  quality  to  provide  credible  and  pertinent  answers. 
Stakeholders have raised issues for all of these factors as described below. 

Time the evaluation appropriately  

The systematic evaluation of legislation and programmes as part of an integrated policy 
cycle was one of the principal changes introduced in May 2015. Common sense requires 
that  we  should  know  how  legislation  works  before  making  proposals  to  revise  it. 
Commission officials had mixed views about the ‘evaluate first’ principle. Some argued 
that it is intuitive and logical, as it closes the policy cycle. Others suggested deciding on 
the need for evaluations on a case-by-case basis. European institutions, and in particular 
the  Council  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  firmly  supported  the 
principle.  

Progress  is  also  being  made  in  applying  the  ‘evaluate  first’  principle.  78%  of  impact 
assessments  for  amendments  of  legislation  in  2018  were  also  accompanied  by  an 
evaluation. This is up from 50% in 2016.  

Evaluating  before  taking  further  action  is  one  thing.  Evaluating  when  there  are  solid 
conclusions  to  draw  is  another  matter.  Many  respondents  thought  that  legislation  was 
given insufficient time to work before initiating evaluations. Evidence from the literature 
suggests  that  evaluations  carried  out  too  early  may  not  lead  to  conclusive  results  and 
need  to  be  complemented  at  a  later  stage76.  They  suggest  that  evaluations  required  by 
legislation  should  be  carried  out  at  a  moment  in  the  policy  cycle  when  impacts  have 

73   Special  report  16/2018  Ex-post  review  of  EU  legislation:  a  well-established  system,  but  incomplete 

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=46063  

74   http://www.oecd.org/governance/oecd-regulatory-policy-outlook-2018-9789264303072-en.htm  
75   Question 11 of the public consultation. 
76   EPRS.  (2017). Evaluation in  the European Commission. Rolling  Check-List and State of Play. (Vol. 

12). 

22 

 
                                                 
materialised and data are available to pursue a meaningful evaluation. Improvements can 
be made if there is a shared understanding between the European Parliament, the Council 
and  the  Commission  on  when  to  require  an  evaluation  (as  opposed  to  other 
implementation  issues  such  as  transposition  reports).  The  European  Court  of  Auditors 
also raised these issues in its 2018 audit on ex post reviews. 

A  specific  challenge  in  this  regard  concerns  spending  programmes  for  which  many 
respondents  thought  that  the  evaluation  could  provide  more  insight  and  useful  learning 
for subsequent programmes. A key concern is that end-of-programme evaluations come 
when  the  programmes  of  the  next  cycle  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework  have 
already  been  decided.  Similar  views  have  been  expressed  in  the  academic  literature77. 
Many respondents suggested reconsidering the timing of programme evaluations, but this 
is challenging given that, due to the need to have a seamless transition between budgetary 
periods, underlying projects funded by a given multiannual financial framework will not 
have  been  completed  by  the  time  the  next  framework  has  to  be  prepared.  Mid-term 
evaluations  of  an  ongoing  programme  that  are  used  for  preparing  a  new  generation  of 
programmes  would  be  more  useful  when  building  also  on  the  results  of  the  preceding 
programme. 

Then evaluate well  

Several  interest  groups,  the Regulatory Scrutiny  Board78  and the General  Secretariat  of 
the  Council  observed  that  the  Commission’s  evaluations  were  of  lower  quality  than  its 
impact  assessments.  In  the  literature,  it  is  acknowledged  that  a  widespread  practice  of 
policy-related evaluations started somewhat later than impact assessments and need more 
time  to  mature  further,  particularly  in  terms  of  design  and  methodologies79.  The  Board 
frequently raised issues with design and methodology. Commission departments grapple 
with several well-known practical evaluation challenges, including when to evaluate and 
how to best ensure ownership and independence. 

Timing obviously plays a role in the final quality of an evaluation, but data availability 
and  data  quality,  more  generally,  are  a  strong  concern  for  several  interest  groups.  On 
quantification,  a  number  of  Commission  officials  thought  that  the  lack  of  appropriate 
data is the most important problem affecting the quality of evaluations. Comparable EU-
wide data are often not available, which makes it difficult to quantify impacts. Some of 
the  literature  reviewed  made  a  similar  point80.  The  European  Parliament  Research 
Service suggested applying clear quality criteria, in particular for non-governmental data, 
together with a clear prioritisation for data collection. The Committee of the Regions sees 
a  role  for  the  newly  created  Network  of  Regional  Hubs  for  EU  Policy  Implementation 

77   For  example:    ‘Evaluation  could  come  too  late  to  inspire  the  next  programme  round’  (Smismans, 
2015); ‘Emphasis on the timing of analysis is crucial for being able to inform the legislative process’ 
(Broughel, 2015); ‘Given the length of the policy cycle, evaluation cannot meaningfully start before a 
minimum of ten years from initial work on a proposal. This period exceeds two EC terms. ’ (Golberg, 
2018). 

78   https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/regulatory-scrutiny-board-annual-report-2017_en 
79   Smismans,  S.  (2015).  Policy  evaluation  in  the  EU:  The  challenges  of  linking  ex  ante  and  ex  post 
6–26. 
of 

appraisal. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00004244S1867299X00004244  

Regulation, 

European 

Journal 

6(1), 

Risk 

80   For example, Golberg, E. (2018). “Better Regulation”: European Union Style, (98); De Feo, A. (2017). 
Better Regulation: Scrutiny of EU Policies. In A. De Feo & B. Laffan (Eds.), Scrutiny of EU Policies 
(pp. 2–13). European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies.  

23 

 
                                                 
Review  (RegHub)  81  in  gathering  data  on  regional  impacts  to  inform  better  the 
Commission’s evaluations and impact assessments.  

Some  Commission  officials  think  that  the  evaluation  process  is  too  long  and  that 
systematic  data  collection  via  well-defined  monitoring  (instead  of  ad  hoc  collection) 
would  substantially  shorten  the  evaluation  process  and  improve  the  quality  of  the 
analysis.  They  noted  that  there  is  a  trade-off  between  the  pressure  to  reduce  the 
administrative  burden  of  systematic  monitoring  in  the  original  proposal  and  the 
availability  of  evidence  when  it  comes  to  the  evaluation.  Solutions  may  emerge  when 
paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making will be 
implemented in a more consistent manner. This calls on the three institutions to consider 
including monitoring and evaluation provisions in each basic act of Union law. A good 
impact assessment forms the basis for a good evaluation because the impact assessment 
sets  out  problems,  objectives  and  indicators  to  monitor  and  appraise  the  success  of  the 
policy.  Subesequently,  to  avoid  excessive  administrative  burden,  legislative  proposals 
need to establish adequate monitoring requirements and data collection verifying that the 
data is not already being colleted under some different legislative framework. 

The  way  in  which  evaluations  are  carried  out  and  presented  is  another  factor  affecting 
their quality, but views on this appear to vary. 

Whether  the  Commission  should  conduct  evaluations  internally  or  involve  external 
contractors or other institutions met with mixed views. Commission officials shared the 
view  that  conducting  the  evaluation  internally  allows  in-house  expertise  to  be  built  up 
and  used  more  frequently.  Some  officials  were  also  sceptical  about  the  quality  of  the 
contractors’ work and the quality of service they provide. Similar views were expressed 
in the literature82. In particular, various authors questioned the Commission’s capacity to 
conduct  its  own  internal  consultations,  while  others  thought  that  external  evaluations 
were  more  objective,  which  was  important  for  spending  programmes  but  less  so  when 
evaluating  legislation.    Some  authors  questioned  the  ability  of  external  contractors  to 
perform  policy  evaluations.  A  number  of  Commission  officials  thought  that  it  was 
necessary  to  use  external  studies  due  to  the  limited  capacity  to  cope  with  an  increased 
workload  and  sometimes  the  need  for  specific  (methodological)  expertise.  Some  of  the 
respondents  to  the  public  consultation  argued  that  evaluations  should  be  outsourced  or 
conducted by the European Parliament and the Member States. 

Some  Commission  officials  and  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  called  for  a 
flexible  application  of  the  rules  and  procedures  to  make  evaluations  more  meaningful, 
given the wide variety of policy areas covered by evaluations. Others urged for additional 
codification,  standardisation,  formal  oversight  and  requirements  to  ensure  that  the 
scientific evidence  and analyses are of the highest  quality. Additionally, respondents  to 
the  public  consultation  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  wanted 

81   https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/network-of-regional-hubs.aspx  
82   Eliantonio, M., & Spendzharova, A. (2017). The European Union’s New “Better Regulation” Agenda: 
Journal  of  Law  Reform,  19(1–2),  3–15. 

Between  Procedures  and  Politics.  European 
https://doi.org/10.5553/EJLR/138723702017019102001 

Ruhl, G. (2017). ( Ex post ) Evaluation of Legislative Actions in the European Union : The Example of 
Private International Law. 

Smismans, S. (2017). The Politicization of ex post Policy Evaluation in the EU. European Journal of 
Law Reform, 19(1–2), 74–96. https://doi.org/10.5553/EJLR/138723702017019102005  

24 

 
                                                 
evaluations to address more comprehensively the transposition of directives into national 
law and the manner in which they are implemented.  

Finally,  evaluation  lessons  must  be  clearly  communicated  and  brought  to  bear  on 
policymaking. The requirement for an evaluation staff working document83 introduced in 
2015 aims to present the results of the evaluation process in a self-standing and uniform 
format.  Commission  officials  generally  saw  it  as  helpful  in  logically  structuring  the 
assessment,  but  they  considered  it  unsuitable  for  communicating  with  the  public,  and 
some thought it redundant when there is a good evaluation report that has been prepared 
by external contractors.  

Analysis  of  empirical  evidence  shows  that  the  links  between  impact  assessments  and 
evaluations were limited in the past84. The European Court of Auditors reported that in 
legislation adopted by Council and European Parliament between 2014 and 2016 ex post 
reviews were not always used when preparing impact assessments85. Several respondents 
to the public consultation also said that the evaluation results needed to be utilised better 
when performing impact assessments86. 

4.3. Regulatory Scrutiny Board  

Providing the best possible basis for timely and sound policymaking requires the capacity 
to provide high quality, objective analyses of what works, what does not and why. Under 
Commission  policy,  a  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  (the  Board)  scrutinises  the  quality  of 
such analyses and supports their improvement. This is in line with OECD best practices87 
according  to  which  regulatory  oversight  by  a  standing  body  close  to  the  centre  of 
government should play a key role in this context.   

The  Board  was  set  up  by  the  President  of  the  Commission  as  part  of  the  overall  May 
2015  better  regulation  package.  It  has  seven  full-time  members  who  do  not  have  any 
policymaking responsibility. Each member serves for a period of 3 years. Three members 
are  also  recruited  from  outside  the  EU’s  institutions.  Together,  these  changes  represent 
substantially stronger  guarantees  of the  Board’s independence in  exercising its scrutiny 
function compared to its predecessor, the Impact Assessment Board established in 2007.  

What does the Board do?  

83   A staff working document is prepared by the Commission departments and is not a political document 
which is formally agreed or adopted by the College of Commissioners. It should provide onlyfactual 
information. 

84   Van  Golen,  T.,  &  van  Voorst,  S.  (2016).  Towards  a  regulatory  cycle?  The  use  of  evaluative 
information in impact assessments and ex-post evaluations in the European Union. European Journal 
of Risk Regulation, 7(2), 388–403.  

85   ECA.  (2018).  Ex-post  review  of  EU  legislation:  a  well-established  system,  but  incomplete.  Special 

Report of the European Court of Auditors 6/2018, (16) 

86   For matters of urgency, evaluations are sometimes carried out back-to-back with impact assessments 
(see  toolbox  tool  #52  https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-toolbox-52_en  ).  Commission 
officials  had  mixed  views  on  impact  assessments  and  evaluations  carried  out  back-to-back.  Some 
thought that in this case the evaluation results might be pre-judged and thus not useful to inform the 
impact assessment. Others found it a pragmatic and efficient way to comply with the ‘evaluate first’ 
principle. The European Court of Auditors has made some similar observations. 

87   http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/governance-regulators.htm   

25 

 
                                                 
The Board performs a quality check on impact  assessments and evaluations to improve 
them and ultimately to improve the Commission’s proposals and the legislation adopted 
by the co-legislators. 

Box 2. The Board’s work in its own words88  

‘The  Board  evaluates  the  quality  of  an  impact  assessment  report  based  on  the  Commission’s 
Better Regulation Guidelines and verifies whether the minimum standards are met. However, in 
doing so, the Board also takes into account the context of each initiative and the proportionality 
of  the  analysis,  meaning  that  the  depth  of  the  analysis  should  match  the  importance  of  the 
initiative.  It  considers  how  an  individual  initiative  fits  within  the  wider  sectoral  regulatory 
environment, to what extent it responds to political orientations that have already been agreed by 
the relevant EU institutions, and whether there is a legal obligation to act. Timing constraints of 
the  initiative  are  sometimes  a  factor  when  judging  the  availability  of  evidence,  of  prior 
evaluations and of comprehensive stakeholder consultations.’  

The  Board’s  mandate  is  wider  than  that  of  its  predecessor.  The  new  Board  looks  at 
selected evaluations (and fitness checks) in addition to all impact assessments. It checks 
their  quality  before  they  are  shared  with  the  Commission’s  departments  in  the 
interservice consultation and issues recommendations for their improvement. In 2017, the 
Board  introduced  positive  and  negative  opinions89 for  evaluations.  Additionally,  in  late 
2016 the Board began distinguishing between ‘positive opinions’ and ‘positive opinions 
with reservations’ for impact assessments. It also overhauled its system of indicators to 
monitor  the  quality  of  the  reports  submitted.  The  new  system  consists  of  10  quality 
components for impact assessments90 and 6 quality components for evaluations91. These 
allow the Board to track changes in the quality of an impact assessment or evaluation.  

What has the Board done?  

After  replacing  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  in  May  2015,  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny 
Board  became  fully  staffed  and  operational  within  the  following  year.  Each  year  the 
Board  publishes  reports  on  its  own  work  that  also  provide  insight  into  the  wider 
application of better regulation92. 

The  following  table  and  graphs  present  key  statistics  on  the  Board’s  scrutiny  activities 
since its creation.  

Table 4 Opinions issued by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, 2015-2018 

RSB opinion 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Impact 

First 

Positive 

15 

22 

12 

22 

88  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/regulatory-scrutiny-board_en#annual-reports  
89   Negative opinions for fitness checks and evaluations do not imply that the report to the Board has to be 

submitted again, as they do for impact assessments.  

90   Context  and  scope;  Problem  definition  and  use  of  evaluation,  Subsidiarity  and  EU  value  added; 
Objectives  and  intervention  logic;  Baseline  and  options;  Impacts;  Comparison  of  options  and 
proportionality;  Future  monitoring  and  evaluation;  Consultation,  information  base  and  methodology; 
Presentation.  

91   Design  and  methodology;  Effectiveness  and  efficiency;  Relevance  and  EU  value  added;  Coherence; 

Validity of conclusions; Presentation.  

92   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/regulatory-scrutiny-board_en#annual-reports  

26 

 
 
                                                 
assessments 

submission  Positive with reservations 

Evaluations 

Second 
submission 

First 
submission 

Second 
submission 

Negative 

Positive 

Positive with reservations 

Negative 

Positive 

Negative 

Positive 

Negative 

0 

14 

10 

0 

1*** 

- 

- 

- 

- 

13 

25 

16 

0 

1 

7* 

- 

18 

23 

7 

16 

2 

10 

7 

4 

0 

33 

21 

9 

9 

1** 

8 

3 

1 

0 

* In 2016, evaluations received opinions with comments, without ‘positive’ or ‘negative’.  
** a third submission received a positive opinion with reservation 
*** no proposal was presented following the negative opinion 

In  2015,  the  Board's  recommendations  for  impact  assessments  focused  primarily  on 
defining the problems to be tackled, considering and presenting stakeholders’ views and 
describing  and  assessing  options.  In  2016,  the  Board’s  annual  report  flagged  problem 
analysis  and  development  of  options  as  ‘common  weaknesses’.  In  2017,  negative 
opinions were most often issued when the rationale for policy action was not convincing 
or  the  analysis  of  the  baseline  and  options  showed  shortcomings.  In  2018,  the  Board 
highlighted  problem  definition,  use  of  evaluation,  the  design  of  options  and  their 
comparison as being initially the weakest part of impact assessments. 

Comparable  statistics  for  evaluations  were  available  for  the  first  time  in  2017. 
Coherence,  presentation,  relevance  and  EU  value  added  were  the  most  common  issues 
raised  when  the  Board  issued  negative  opinions.  The  Board  observed  that  often  the 
evaluation  questions were not  appropriate or  could  not  be answered. Additionally, they 
pointed  out  that  often  either  data  were  not  available  or  were  not  compared  against  a 
baseline or definition of success.  

What has the Board achieved?  

The Board acted as the Commission’s quality control body for the analysis supporting its 
political decisions. In principle, when the Board issues a negative opinion on an impact 
assessment, the policy process is put on hold until the quality of the underlying evidence  
reaches  a  sufficient  level.  This  has  been  the  norm.  In  three  cases93,  however,  the 
Commission  took  the  political  decision  to  go  forward  with  an  initiative  despite  the 
absence  of  a  positive  Board  opinion  vouching  for  the  adequateness  of  the  underlying 
impact  assessment.  In  all  of  these  cases,  the  Commission  carried  through  on  its 
commitment of May 2015 to explain publicly why. Initiatives were also typically adapted 
to address the weakenesses in the underlying evidence base.   

93   Review of the appropriate prudential treatment for investment firms COM(2017)790 

Renewable Energy  Directive COM/2016/767 

Proposal for a regulation on a framework for the free flow of non-personal data in the European Union 
- COM(2017)495 

27 

 
                                                 
Box 3. An example of a proposal presented after a negative opinion by the Board 
• In the negative opinion on the impact assessment94 on the proposal for a framework for the free 
flow of non-personal data in the European Union, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board found that the 
report did not make the case for EU action and did not assess appropriately the proportionality 
of  the  options.  The  revised  report  received  a  second  negative  opinion  from  the  Regulatory 
Scrutiny Board. The Board found that the report particularly failed to make the case for a new 
right for the portability of cloud services. The initiative was adopted by the College without the 
provisions  establishing  mandatory  portability  of  cloud  services,  but  with  self-regulatory 
measures instead. 

The  Board  also  managed  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  draft  impact  assessments  and 
evaluations  submitted  to  it.  Evidence  of  its  success  in  doing  so  comes  from  several 
sources.  First,  the  rate  of  negative  opinions  has  been  dropping  for  both  impact 
assessments and evaluations95. Secondly, the monitoring system established by the Board 
shows  that    the  quality  of  the  draft  impact  assessments  and  evaluations  submitted  is 
improving  gradually.  The  quality  components  applied  by  the  Board  also  show  an 
improvement in quality following the Board’s scrutiny. The weakest impact assessments 
are  improving  the  most.  However,  the  Commission’s  departments  are  less  diligent  in 
improving  draft  impact  assessments  that  receive  a  positive  opinion  with  reservations. 
Early  meetings  between  the  Board  and  the  team  drafting  the  impact  assessment  or 
evaluation significantly increased the quality of the submitted reports.  

Finally,  consultation  activities  undertaken  by  the  Board  and  by  the  Commission’s 
departments  reveal  that  the  Board  is  widely  seen  as  adding  value  to  the  policymaking 
process  and  improving  impact  assessments  and  evaluations.  Nearly  90%  of  the 
respondents  to  the  public  consultation  who  were  familiar  with  the  Board  think  it  adds 
value  to  the  regulatory  process.  Commission  officials  view  the  regulatory  scrutiny 
process  (with  a  hearing  at  the  Board)  as  providing  excellent  preparation  for  the 
negotiations  with  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  and  as  an  opportunity  to 
rehearse how to explain their proposal to non-experts.  

Evidence  and  the  general  views  of  stakeholders  thus  suggest  the  Board  has  been 
performing its tasks in a successful manner. However, some areas of concern remain.  

First, despite stronger assurances of independence and a high rate of negative opinions, 
views on the Board’s impartiality and independence remain mixed. Proposals to increase 
independence were most commonly voiced by stakeholders in the public consultation but 
also  by  the  Council.  The  lattter  wants  the  President  of  the  Commission  to  establish  a 
secretariat  for  the  Board  that  is  independent  from  the  Commission  and  to  recruit  all 
members  externally.  However,  Meuwese96  cautioned  that  true  independence  was  most 
likely unattainable and perhaps undesirable, given the need to retain the relevance of the 
impact assessment to the policymaking process.  

Secondly, some Commission officials expressed concerns that the Board’s demands for 
additional  analysis  and  information  are  not  proportionate  to  the  specific  initiative. 

94   https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/proposal-regulation-european-parliament-and-

councilframework-free-flow-non-personal-data  

95   For  a  more  detailed  explanation  of 

the 

latter  see  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-

process/regulatory-scrutiny-board_en#annual-reports 

96   Meuwese,  A.  C.  M.  (2015). Regulatory  scrutiny  in  transition.  European  Journal  of  Risk  Regulation, 

6(3), 359–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X0000475X  

28 

 
                                                 
Additionally, some Commission staff expressed concern that the Board does not apply its 
standards  consistently  to  all  impact  assessments  (such  as  its  demands  for  quantified 
information).  Few  professionals  responding  to  the  public  consultation  and  academics97 
find that external experts, such as economists and social scientists, could usefully support 
the Board on a case-by-case basis. 

Thirdly,  the  public  is  largely  unaware  of  the  Board’s  activities.  Among  individuals 
responding  to  the  public  consultation  ,  320  (74%)  out  of  433  said  that  they  were  not 
familiar with the Board or barely so, compared to 64 (39%) out of 163 professionals.  

Finally,  there  are  contrasting  views  on  whether  the  Board  should  expand  its  activities.  
The academic literature  and various stakeholders have suggested widening the role and 
responsibilities of the Board so that it becomes a body ensuring compliance with many 
more  aspects  of  better  regulation;  for  example,  checking  the  quality  of  roadmaps, 
scrutinising  more  evaluations,  checking  delegated  acts  and  the  final  content  of  legal 
proposals  (in relation to  the impact  assessment)  and sanctioning  exceptions from  better 
regulation requirements. Moreover, some academics98 expect that the Board will develop 
to ultimately serve the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Others99 
see  the  Board  moving  to  an  oversight  role  in  a  manner  similar  to  the  Court  of  Justice, 
European  Court  of  Auditors  or  the  Ombudsman.  The  Commission’s  proposal  for  each 
institution  to  be  able  to  call  for  an  independent  panel  to  assess  the  impacts  of 
amendments to the legislative proposal was discarded during the negotiation of the 2016 
Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making 

4.4. Subsidiarity and proportionality 

The Union must respect the powers given to it by the Member States. Protocols No.1 and 
No.2 of the Treaties create the mechanism to ensure this happens and they give national 
parliaments  a  key  role  in  checking  conformity  with  the  subsidiarity  principle.  The 
Commission  presents  an  assessment  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality  of  its  proposals 
both in the impact assessment report and in the explanatory memorandum accompanying 
the  Commission’s  legal  proposal.  The  Commission  does  not  translate  the  impact 
assessment  into  all  official  languages  but  does  translate  the  explanatory  memorandum. 
The Commission has established guidance on how to perform these assessments100.  

However,  most  assessments  of  subsidiarity  presented  in  impact  assessments  tend  to  be 
rather  general  and  qualitative  in  nature.  They  appear  at  the  beginning  of  the  impact 
assessment report and do not use relevant analyses which come later in the report as part 
of the assessment of policy options. The assessment of subsidiarity is also separate from 
the assessment of the proportionality of the various policy options. This is confirmed by 

97   Radaelli, C. M. (2018). Halfway Through the Better Regulation Strategy of the Juncker Commission: 
the  Evidence  Say?  JCMS:  Journal  of  Common  Market  Studies,  56,  85–95. 

What  Does 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12768  

98   Meuwese,  A.  C.  M.  (2015). Regulatory  scrutiny  in  transition.  European  Journal  of  Risk  Regulation, 

6(3), 359–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X0000475X  

99   Wiener,  J.  B.,  &  Alemanno,  A.  (2017).  Comparing  regulatory  oversight  bodies:  the  US  Office  of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs and the EU Regulatory Scrutiny Board. In S. Rose-Ackerman, P. 
L. Lindseth, & B. Emerson (Eds.), Comparative Administrative Law (2nd ed., pp. 333–351). Edward 
Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782540854 

100   See  tool  #5  on  Legal  basis,  subsidiarity  and  proportionality:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-

regulation-toolbox-5_en  

29 

 
                                                 
responses to the consultation that stated that current assessments are overly legalistic and 
formalistic  and  that  assessments  should  be  based  on  evidence.  Professionals  noted  that 
harmonisation and cross-border activity were too often used to justify EU action. In this 
context,  it  was  stated  that  20  or  more  different  national  approaches  do  not  necessarily 
imply a need for harmonisation, but could also be evidence that the Member States have 
successfully tackled the problem. 

Therefore,  the  ‘Task  force  on  subsidiarity,  proportionality  and  doing  less  more 
efficiently’ set up by President Juncker on 14 November 2017 included recommendations 
meant to improve the assessment of subsidiarity and proportionality in its final report101. 

Box 4: Task force’s key recommendations on impact assessments 

Recommendation 1 

A common method (“assessment grid”) should be used by the Union’s institutions and bodies and 
by  national  and  regional  parliaments  to  assess  issues  linked  to  the  principles  of  subsidiarity 
(including EU added value), proportionality and the legal basis of new and existing legislation.  

This assessment method should capture the criteria contained in the Protocol on subsidiarity and 
proportionality  originally  attached  to  the  Amsterdam  Treaty  and  relevant  jurisprudence  of  the 
European Court of Justice. [A proposed model assessment grid is annexed to this report]  

During  the  legislative  process,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  should  systematically 
review  the  subsidiarity  and  proportionality  of  draft  legislation  and  the  amendments  they  make 
using  the  common  method.  They  should  take  full  account  of  the  Commission's  assessment 
presented  in  its  proposals  as  well  as  the  (reasoned)  opinions  of  national  Parliaments  and  the 
European Committee of the Regions. 

Recommendation 5 

The  Commission  should  ensure  that  its  impact  assessments  and  evaluations  systematically 
consider  territorial  impacts  and  assess  them  where  they  are  significant  for  local  and  regional 
authorities. Local and regional authorities should help to identify such potential impacts in their 
consultation responses and feedback on roadmaps. 

The  Commission  should  revise  its  better  regulation  guidelines  and  toolbox  accordingly  and 
address  issues  linked  to  the  implementation  and  EU  added  value  of  legislation,  and  to  ensure 
greater  visibility  of  the  Commission's  assessments  of  subsidiarity,  proportionality  and  relevant 
territorial impacts in its proposals and accompanying explanatory memoranda. 

On  23 October 2018,  the  Commission  already  set  out  in  broad  terms  how  it  would 
respond  to  the  task  force102.  In  particular,  it  committed  to  incorporate  the  ‘grid’  for 
assessing subsidiarity and proportionality in its better regulation guidance and to use the 
grid  to  present  its  findings  in  impact  assessments,  evaluations  and  explanatory 
memoranda103. To avoid a piecemeal approach, this should be done concomitantly with 
any revision / update of better regulation guidelines and tools the next Commission may 

101   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/report-task-force-subsidiarity-proportionality-

doing-less-more-efficiently_1.pdf  

102   COM(2018)  703:  Communication  entitled:  ‘The  principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality: 

Strengthening their role in the EU's policymaking’.  

103   The  Commission  also  committed  to  target  the  views  of  local  and  regional  authorities  better  in  its 
consultation  activities  and  to  look  more  carefully  at  existing  legislation  (including  delegated  and 
legislative  density, 
implementing  acts)  from 
simplification  and  the  role  for  local  and  regional  authorities.  These  issues  are  dealt  with  in  other 
sections of this document. 

the  viewpoint  of  subsidiarity,  proportionality, 

30 

 
 
                                                 
opt for. It will then need to be decided whether the assessment grid should be annexed to 
the impact assessment report or attached to the explanatory memorandum accompanying 
the  Commission’s  proposal  (whether  or  not  there  is  an  impact  assessment).  Since  the 
memorandum is translated in all languages, it would offer a wider coverage and reach but 
would imply additional translation costs. 

5.  KEEPING THE EXISTING STOCK OF LEGISLATION FIT FOR PURPOSE 

Legislation  should  remain  fit  for  purpose  and  deliver  the  results  that  EU  lawmakers 
intended  and  people  expected.  The  Commission  focuses  on  tackling  unnecessary  costs 
and eliminating administrative burdens without compromising policy objectives. Making 
legislation simpler and less burdensome also improves implementation and enforcement, 
and ultimately delivers better results. 

To  pursue  these  objectives,  the  Juncker  Commission  progressively  mainstreamed  the 
REFIT  programme,  supported  it  with  the  establishment  of  the  REFIT  Platform,  and 
communicated more extensively on its results.  

5.1. The REFIT programme 

REFIT is  the programme for the Commission’s  actions to  ensure  existing legislation is 
simple,efficient  and  fit  for  purpose.  Strengthened  in  the  May  2015  better  regulation 
package,  the  REFIT  programme  was  mainstreamed  in  2017104.  The  Commission  now 
seeks  to  achieve  REFIT  goals  whenever  any  existing  law  is  due  to  be  reviewed.  The 
exact operational implications of this were explained in an appropriately revised version 
of the better regulation tool105. In addition, all evaluations now seek to identify elements 
for simplification and burden reduction. 

While the Commission has repeatedly stressed that REFIT is not deregulatory and does 
not undermine existing policy objectives by removing unnecessary costs, responses from 
some  NGOs  and  individuals  to  the  stocktaking  exercise  continue  to  criticise  the 
Commission’s  approach  for  putting  at  risk  social,  environmental,  consumer  and 
employment objectives. National authorities in the stocktaking consultation supported the 
Commission’s  efforts  to  review  and  simplify  legislation.  The  European  Parliament 
identify  REFIT 
suggested 
evaluations/initiatives  that  could  be  agreed  in  the  political  declaration  on  priority 
initiatives  pursuant  to  the  Interinstitutional  Agreement  on  Better  Law-Making.  The 
Committee  of  the  Regions  considers  that  REFIT  provides  an  essential  focus  to  assess 
whether  implementation  is  practical  and  feasible.  The  Committee  also  suggested 
involving the REFIT Platform more closely in evaluations. 

the  Commission’s  work  programme 

should 

that 

important  for 
Commission  officials  recognised 
communication  purposes  to  emphasise  the  European  Union’s  focus  on  tackling 
unnecessary costs and to stress the value the Union places on engaging with its people. 

the  REFIT  programme 

that 

is 

104  SWD(2017)675  Overview  of  the  Union’s  efforts  to  simplify  and  reduce  regulatory  burdens: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/overview-union-efforts-tosimplify-and-to-reduce-regulatory-
burdens_en.pdf  

105   See 

tool 

#2 

on 

the  Regulatory  Fitness 

programme 

and 

the  REFIT  Platform:  

https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-toolbox-2_en  

31 

 
                                                 
The  challenges  of  quantifying  regulatory  burdens  is  an  aspect  of  REFIT  that  several 
officials underlined..  

5.2. REFIT Platform  

The Commission established the REFIT Platform in May 2015. The key purpose of this 
expert group chaired by the Commission’s First Vice President is to provide the REFIT 
process  with  bottom-up  input  by  collecting  and  considering  stakeholders’  views  on 
possible  improvements  to  legislation.  The  Platform  issues  recommendations  to  the 
Commission, which committed itself to explain systematically how it intended to follow 
up on these.  The Platform comprises two groups. The first is made up of experts from 
different parts of civil society, while the second group has an expert from each Member 
State government. It met for the first time in January 2016, following the formal process 
to  appoint  its  members.  By  31 December 2018  the  Platform  had  received  684 
submissions  from  various  parts  of  civil  society.  The  Platform  responded  to  all  of  these 
submissions and adopted 89 opinions covering 129 of the submissions106. 

Table 5 REFIT Platform-related activities.  

Numbers 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Feedback on the ‘Lighten the Load’ 
website and ‘Have Your Say’ portal 

Platform opinions 

294* 

- 

212 

24 

64 

45 

112 

20 

*Includes 34 submissions sent to the Commission in 2014 before the Platform existed. 

Business  associations  and  EU  citizens  accounted  for  almost  three  quarters  of  all  684 
submissions.  Public  authorities  (including  local  and  regional  authorities)  accounted  for 
approximately 5% of submissions. The 268 submissions from individuals resulted in only 
five opinions of the Platform. This is because they were largely covering other aspects or 
issues  than  those  in  the  remit  of  the  REFIT  platform.  Individual  submissions  covered 
many policy areas but the area most covered was agriculture (30) followed by financial 
services (13), education (13) and the internal market (12). 

Box 5.  Organisations making submissions to the REFIT Platform 

106   Several submissions from stakeholders simply included requests for information or addressed subjects 

beyond the mandate of the REFIT Platform. 

32 

 
 
                                                 
Number of submissions by type of organisations (684) 

39% 

35% 

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

7% 

5% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

Box 6.  Policy areas covered by the submissions to the REFIT Platform 

33 

 
 
 
Number of submissions (129) covered by the adopted 
opinions (89) per year 

2018

2017

2016

Employment  (1)

Horizontal  (1)

Consumer policy (1)

Health and Food Safety (1)

Maritime affairs and Fisheries (1)

Chemicals (2)

Statistics (2)

Taxation (3)

Energy  (3)

Competition  (4)

Communication networks  (4)

Migration and Asylum (4)

Environment (6)

Regional policy (8)

Mobility (10)

Justice (10)

Internal Market (12)

Education (13)

Financial services (13)

Agriculture (30)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

The  consultation  activities  revealed  mixed  opinions  from  external  stakeholders  and 
Commission staff. Stakeholders want a wider mandate and better reporting on the follow-
up to opinions. A number of Commission officials find the Platform provides little added 
value  to  what  they  already  know  but  requires  relatively  disproportionate  resources. 
However,  some  Commission  officials  recognised  that  better  ways  to  gather  evidence 
from  regional  and  local  levels  (perhaps  via  the  Committee  of  the  Regions)  and  from 
closer links with stakeholders through dedicated conferences would be beneficial.  

Industrial  organisations  pointed  to  the  need  to  raise  awareness  about  the  Platform  to 
increase  submissions  on  potentially  problematic  legislation.  The  Commission  is  also 
urged to publish information on measures that are implemented following each Platform 
opinion. There should also be better guidelines on how to create a good submission to the 
Platform and more focus on reducing costs and burdens for SMEs. 

34 

 
 
The  stakeholder  group  of  the  Platform  has  generally  taken  a  more  proactive  role  in 
setting  priorities  and  leading  the  work  on  individual  opinions107.  Experts  from  the 
national  administrations  have  preferred  not  to  specify  priorities  in  the  absence  of  clear 
instructions  from  their  governments108.  The  Platform’s  government  group  has  also  set 
clear limits on the number of opinions it is willing to address at any one time (between 5 
and 15) and to ensure a clear demarcation between the work of the Council and that of 
the Platform. 

Government  responses  to  the  consultation  activities  clearly  support  extending  the 
mandate of the Platform into the next Commission and raising the awareness of its work. 
This is perhaps illustrated by the fact that 40% of the individuals who responded to the 
consultation  did  not  know  whether  the  REFIT  Platform  was  effective  in  identifying 
legislation that can be simplified. They indicated that information is not readily available 
and is not advertised. The process followed is also difficult to understand.  

The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  indicated  that  it  would  like  a  stronger 
representation in the Platform to reflect the interests of its constituents. It would also like 
the  Platform  to  address  cross-cutting  topics  to  improve  the  quality  of  legislation  in 
addition to tackling unnecessary costs, and this may include identifying the need for new 
legislation.  The  literature  review  also  highlighted  the  Platform’s  narrow  focus  on 
reducing unnecessary regulatory costs109. 

A  dedicated  stocktaking  exercise  undertaken  by  the  REFIT  Platform  has  resulted  in  an 
opinion  on  Future  prospects110.  It  indicates  that  the  Platform  itself  is  satisfied  with  its 
contribution  to  the  REFIT  agenda  and  proposes  to  continue  in  its  current  form,  with  a 
Stakeholder group and a Government group. The Stakeholder group and the Government 
group  suggest  improvements,  which  are  detailed  in  the  opinion.The  Committee  of  the 
Regions annexed its views to the opinion. It considers that to better achieve its goals, the 
REFIT Platform should be adapted in terms of approach and structure to review existing 
legislation  also  from  the  perspective  of  subsidiarity,  proportionality,  legislative  density 
and the role of local and regional authorities.111 

Stakeholders  want  the  Platform  to  be  more  productive,  to  gather  more  ideas  for 
simplification and for concrete changes to flow more quickly from those ideas. 

107   Working  methods  of  the  REFIT  Platform  government  group  (minutes  of  the  government  group 
meeting  of  23  November  2016).  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-
improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-and-less-costly/refit-platform/refit-platform-
meetings_en 

108   See  Section  5.3  of 

the  REFIT  Platform 

joint  group  minutes  of  20  September  2016. 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-
making-eu-law-simpler-and-less-costly/refit-platform/refit-platform-meetings_en 

109   Alemanno, A. (2015). How Much Better is Better Regulation? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 
(3), 1–24; Smismans, S. (2017). The Politicization of ex post Policy Evaluation in the EU. European 
Journal of Law Reform, 19(1–2), 74–96.  

110   REFIT  Platform  opinion  XXII.10.a  “REFIT  Platform  Survey  –  Future  prospects”,  adopted  on  14 
March  2019:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/refit-platform-recommendations-horizontal-issues-xxii10a-
refit-platform-survey-future-prospects_en 

111   REFIT  Platform  opinion  XXII.10.a  “REFIT  Platform  Survey  –  Future  prospects”,  adopted  on  14 
March  2019:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/refit-platform-recommendations-horizontal-issues-xxii10a-
refit-platform-survey-future-prospects_en 

35 

 
                                                 
The Task force on subsidiarity and proportionality recommended that the Commission’s 
REFIT  Platform  be  adapted  to  review  legislation  from  the  perspective  of  subsidiarity, 
proportionality,  legislative  density  and  the  role  of  local  and  regional  authorities.  The 
Task  force  noted  that  the  composition  of  the  Platform  might  also  need  to  change  to 
include a greater presence from local and regional authorities. Stronger links to the work 
and  networks  of  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  could  also  be  considered.  The 
Commission echoed these views in  its Communication on the principles of subsidiarity 
and proportionality published on 23 October 2018.  

5.3. Communicating REFIT activities 

The  Commission’s  work  programmes  flag  its  key  REFIT  initiatives.  The  Commission 
has also begun to report annually on its efforts to simplify legislation112,113 and every year 
publishes  online  a  REFIT  Scoreboard114  that  monitors  simplification  initiatives 
throughout  their  life  cycle.  The  Scoreboard  provides  a  comprehensive  overview  of  the 
REFIT results achieved under each of the Juncker Commission’s political priorities. The 
the 
Commission’s  follow-up 
Commission’s  annual  work  programme  and  in  the  follow  –up  report.  To  improve 
transparency, since July 2017 impact assessments have also included an annex detailing 
quantified estimates of costs and benefits.  

the  REFIT  Platform  opinion 

is  explained 

to 

in 

Consultations have, however, raised various issues about the usefulness,  and awareness 
of  the  REFIT  Scoreboard  in  its  current  version.  National  authorities  thought  that  the 
Scoreboard  could  not  yet  be  considered  truly  user-friendly.  They  also  asked  for  clear 
quantitative  measurement  of  reductions  in  unnecessary  costs  and  suggested  that  the 
REFIT Scoreboard  could  help  monitor, visualise and communicate progress  better than 
today. Following the European Court of Auditors recommendation for clarification of the 
REFIT concept115 the Commission has clarified in its annual burden survey the scope of 
REFIT and improved its internal and external communication to stakeholders.  

Many Commission staff were of the opinion that the REFIT Scoreboard was burdensome 
because  it  requires  constant  updating.  Officials  who  were  interviewed  suggested  using 
more qualitative examples or case studies to illustrate impacts of legislation.  

5.4. Considering alternative approaches to simplification and burden reduction 

The  (Competitiveness)  Council  has  asked  the  Commission  on  several  occasions  to 
introduce  a  system  of  targets  to  tackle  the  perceived  excessive  burden  of  regulatory 
costs116  associated  with  European  Union 
the 

legislation.  Paragraph  48  of 

112   The  European  Union’s  efforts 

to  simplify 

legislation 

-  2018  Annual  Burden  Survey: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2018-annual-burden-survey_en.pdf  

113   SWD(2017)675  Overview  of  the  Union’s  efforts  to  simplify  and  reduce  regulatory  burdens: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/overview-union-efforts-tosimplify-and-to-reduce-regulatory-
burdens_en.pdf  

114   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-

making-eu-law-simpler-and-less-costly_en#refit-scoreboard  

115  Special  report  16/2018  Ex-post  review  of  EU  legislation:  a  well-established  system,  but  incomplete 

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=46063 

116   Regulatory  costs  include  all  possible  costs  that  are  imposed  on  businesses,  public  authorities  and 
individuals  and  which  are  linked  to  specific  EU  legislation  (e.g.  compliance  costs  for  businesses, 
administrative  costs  linked  to  obligations  to  generate,  collect  and  report  information  as  well  as 

36 

 
                                                 
 
Interinstitutional  Agreement  on  Better  Law-Making117  also  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
look at the feasibility of establishing objectives for burden reduction. 

Box 7. Council’s request for targets to reduce regulatory costs 

  Council  conclusions  of  December  2014  (Doc  16000/14):  ‘…call  on  the  Commission  to 
develop  and  put  in  place  -  on  the  basis  of  input  from  Member  States  and  stakeholders  - 
reduction  targets  in  particularly  burdensome  areas,  especially  for  SMEs,  within  the  REFIT 
Programme, which would not require baseline measurement and should consider at the same 
time the costs and benefits of regulation.’ 

  Council  conclusions  of  26 May 2016  on  better  regulation  to  strengthen  competitiveness 
which ‘urge the Commission to rapidly proceed on [..] the introduction of reduction targets in 
2017, whilst always taking into account a high level of protection of consumers, health, the 
environment and employees and the importance of a fully functioning Single Market.’ 

  Council  conclusions  of  12 November 2018  ((Doc.  14137/18)  on  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors’  Special  Report  No  16/2018  "Ex-post  review  of  EU  legislation:  a  well-established 
system,  but  incomplete".  ‘…RECALLS  the  Council  Conclusions  of  March  2018,  which 
underline  the  importance  of  concrete  targets  for  the  reduction  of  unnecessary  regulatory 
burdens,  whilst  respecting  existing  protection  standards  and  without  undermining  the 
underlying objectives of the legislation.’ 

The  Commission  has  thus  considered  alternative  approaches  and  explained  its  own 
approach in its Communication of October 2017118. 

The  Commission  looks  to  simplify  legislation  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  using  evidence 
gathered  from  evaluations  and  impact  assessments  and  including  consultation  of 
stakeholders.  To  avoid  adversely  affecting  underlying  policy  objectives  and  to  ensure 
democratic  accountability  and  transparency,  it  is  essential  that  a  political  decision  on 
which costs are legitimate to achieve policy goals and which instead should be eliminated 
is  based  on  evidence  from  a  case-to-case  assessment  that  responds  to  the  concerns  of 
stakeholders  and  people.  Up-front  targets  would  not  offer  such  fundamental  guarantees 
and  would  present  formidable  methodological  challenges  at  the  European  level.  When 
revising  legislation,  the  Commission  thus  investigates  whether  it  can  be  simplified  and 
any  unnecessary  costs  removed.  To  provide  a  transparent  measure  of  the  impact  of  the 
proposed  measures  and  a  more  easily  verifiable  objective,  the  Commission  tries  to 
quantify  the reduction in regulatory costs implied by any such measure. However, ths is 
not always possible due to data and methodological challenges. In addition, to preserve 
the  meaningfulness  of  any  quantitative  objective  to  reduce  burdens  in  proposed 
legislation,  quantitative  estimates  need  to  be  modified  whenever  needed  due  to  co-
legislators amendments and Member States transposition and implementation choices. 

enforcement costs for public authorities. See  tool #58 of the Commission’s better regulation toolbox 
for  more  information:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-
58_en_0.pdf). 

117   Interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and 

the European Commission on Better Law-Making; L 123, 12 May 2016, p.1. 

118   COM(2017)  651:  Completing  the  Better  Regulation  Agenda:  Better  solutions  for  better  results. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/completing-the-better-regulation-agenda-better-solutions-for-
better-results_en.pdf  

37 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
5.5. Results of simplification efforts 

The  current  Commission  has  presented  more  than  150  new  initiatives  focused  on 
simplifying legislation. As there is a diverse range of costs varying between the different 
initatives,  these  quantification  estimates  cannot  be  added  together  to  provide  a  single 
figure.  In  addition,  the  extent  to  which  the  Commission’s  simplification  proposals 
actually  deliver  tangible  benefits  for  regulated  entities  depends  on  the  subsequent 
decisions  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  when  legislating  and  Member 
States when transposing and implementing.  

The Commission has reported annually on the results it has achieved. The following box 
extracts from these reports some illustrative examples. 

Box 8. Examples of regulatory simplification entered into force in 2018. 
Value added tax (VAT) for cross-border business to consumer e-commerce 119). In 2017 the 
Commission  introduced  a  one-stop  shop  by  which  traders  that  sell  goods  online  to  their 
customers  can  deal  with  their  VAT  obligations  through  one  easy-to-use  online  portal.  The 
online traders will no longer have to register for VAT in each of the Member States in which 
they  sell  goods.  The  Commission  estimated  that  the  one-stop  shop  will  generate  an  overall 
saving  of €2.3 billion  for  businesses  and  €7 billion  increase  in  VAT  revenues for  Member 
States.  

A single digital gateway to provide information, procedures, assistance and problem-solving 
services120.  In 2017 the Commission proposed a single digital gateway to ensure centralised 
access to EU citizens and businesses to information they need to exercise their EU rights. The 
gateway  will  integrate  several  networks  and  services  from  national  and  EU  level.  It  will 
provide a user-friendly interface in all official EU languages. The single digital gateway could 
reduce  by  60  %  the  1.5  million  hours  that  people  currently  spend  researching  online  before 
going abroad and businesses could save between EUR 11 and EUR 55 billion annually.  

Consumer  protection  cooperation121:  In  2016  the  Commission  proposed  to  modernise 
cooperation  mechanisms  to  reduce  the  harm  caused  to  consumers  by  cross-border 
infringements. The regulation will ensure a swifter protection of consumers, saving time and 
resources  for  Member  States  and  businesses.  Thanks  to  additional  cooperation  powers,  the 
authorities  can  act  faster  and  save  costs  to  jointly  stop  widespread  online  infringements. 
Businesses  operating  in  all  or  a large  majority  of  Member  States  will  have  the possibility  to 
negotiate commitments at EU-level, which will make it simpler, faster and cheaper to resolve 

119   COM(2016) 757  Proposal  for  a  COUNCIL  DIRECTIVE  amending  Directive  2006/112/EC  and 
Directive  2009/132/EC  as  regards  certain  value  added  tax  obligations  for  supplies  of  services  and 
distance sales of goods https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:0757:FIN 
120   COM(2017)  256  Proposal  for  a  REGULATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF 
THE  COUNCIL  on  establishing  a  single  digital  gateway  to  provide  information,  procedures, 
assistance  and  problem  solving  services  and  amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  1024/2012  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1554366292445&uri=CELEX:52017PC0256 

121   COM(2016)  283  Proposal  for  a  REGULATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF 
THE  COUNCIL  on  cooperation  between  national  authorities  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of 
consumer 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
relevance) 
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1554366445313&uri=CELEX:52016PC0283 

(Text  with  EEA 

protection 

laws 

38 

 
                                                 
consumer issues.  

European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds122.  The  Commission  proposed  in  2016  a 
regulation  with  concrete  simplification  provisions  to  make  the  use  of  the  Funds  simpler  for 
beneficiaries and authorities and financial rules more flexible. Overall, this means reducing the 
implementation  costs  of  EU  rules  as  well  the  number  of  errors  contributing  to  optimise  the 
impact of the Multi-annual Financial Framework 2014-2020. 

Nearly  a  third  of  all  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  indicated  their  satisfaction 
with  the  Commission’s  efforts  to  simplify  existing  EU  laws  and  reduce  costs  where 
possible123.  However,  some  40%  were  not  satisfied.  Combined  with  the  evidence 
presented above, this suggests that while the Commission’s efforts to simplify and reduce 
unnecessary  burdens  have  delivered  results,  these  are  neither  well  communicated  nor 
generally  regarded  as  sufficient.  The  changes  introduced  under  this  Commission  have 
gone in the right direction but there is scope to do better.  

It  is  worth  considering  how  to  speed  up  the  adoption  of  simplification  measures  and 
increase  their  visibility.    Improving  quantification  of  costs  and  benefits  in  evaluations 
would  also  help.  In  principle,  each  evaluation  should  assess  the  extent  to  which  policy 
objectives  have  been  met  and  assess  the  economic  efficiency  of  the  policy  .  However, 
according  to  the  literature124,  many  evaluations  do  not  generate  sufficiently  convincing 
evidence  that  policies  are  being  delivered  in  the  most  effective  and  efficient  manner. 
Assessing this in quantified terms is not always methodologically possible. 

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, while regulatory costs are often justified for each 
individual  piece  of  legislation,  their  combined  impact  can  have  undesired  effects  that 
deserve  to  be  better  addressed.  The  report  of  the  ‘Task  force  on  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality’ pointed  to  the combined effects  of legislation (including  delegated acts 
and implementing acts) which may not be impact assessed or evaluated well enough. The 
task force recommends that the Commission’s REFIT programme be adapted to review 
legislation  from  the  perspective  of  subsidiarity,  proportionality,  legislative  density  and 
the  role  of  local  and  regional  authorities.  Consideration  on  how  to  do  this  could  also 
encompass an enhanced role for the REFIT Platform.  

122   COM  (2016)  605  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
financial  rules  applicable  to  the  general  budget  of  the  Union  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2012/2002,  Regulations  (EU)  No  1296/2013,  (EU)  1301/2013,  (EU)  No  1303/2013,  EU  No 
1304/2013, (EU) No 1305/2013, (EU) No 1306/2013, (EU) No 1307/2013, (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 
No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014,(EU) No 283/2014, (EU) No 652/2014 of the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  and  Decision  No  541/2014/EU  of  the  European  Parliament 
and 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1554366622511&uri=CELEX:52016PC0605(01), The work of the High Level 
Group  of  Independent  Experts  on  Monitoring  Simplification  for  Beneficiaries  of  the  European 
Structural and Investment Funds, set up by the Commission in July 2015, identified opportunities to 
strip cohesion policy rules of unnecessary complexity. 

Council 

the 

of 

123   Question 6 of the public consultation. 
124   For example, Golberg, E. (2018). “Better Regulation”: European Union Style, (98); Delogu, B. (2016). 
Risk Analysis and Governance in EU Policy Making and Regulation. An Introductory Guide. Springer 
International Publishing Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30822-7 

39 

 
 
                                                 
6.  BETTER REGULATION AS A SHARED EFFORT  

In  May  2015,  the  Commission  presented  a  comprehensive  better  regulation  package, 
including  a  proposal  for  a  new  interinstitutional  agreement  on  better  regulation.  The 
previous  agreement  on  better  law-making  dated  back  to  2003,  and  was  considered  in 
need  of  revision,  given  the  developments  in  the  better  regulation  agenda.  A  new 
interinstitutional  agreement  also  reflects  recognition  of  the  need  for  a  renewed 
commitment  on  the  part  of  all  three  institutions  involved  in  the  legislative  process  (the 
European Parliament, Council and Commission) in order for better law-making efforts to 
succeed.  Following  negotiations,  the  three  institutions  came  to  an  agreement  on  the 
substance  of 
interinstitutional  agreement  on  8 December 2015.  The  new 
Interinstitutional  Agreement  on  Better  Law-Making  was  signed  on  13 April 2016  and 
entered into force the same day.  

the 

The Interinstitutional Agreement stipulates that a political meeting is to be held annually 
to take stock of progress in implementing the Agreement125. The first meeting took place 
in  Strasbourg  in  December  2017  in  the  margins  of  the  European  Parliament’s  plenary 
session. Since then the three institutions have held regular discussions at technical level 
in  the  Interinstitutional  Coordination  Group  chaired  by  the  European  Parliament.  The 
Secretariat  of  the  European  Parliament  prepared  an  overview  on  the  implementation  of 
the  Agreement  for  the  Parliament’s  Conference  of  Presidents  in  June  2017126.  The 
European  Parliament  adopted  an  own-initiative  report  on  the  interpretation  and 
implementation  of  the  Agreement127.  The  Council  has  presented  regular  reports  on  the 
work  it  has  undertaken  to  implement  the  Agreement128.  The  Agreement  contains  a 
number of commitments and follow-up activities. Progress on each of these varies. 

6.1. Joint Declaration on the EUs legislative priorities 

In line with the Interinstitutional Agreement, in 2016 and 2017, the European Parliament, 
the Council and the European Commission agreed on two Joint Declarations on the EU’s 
legislative  priorities.  They  highlighted  89  initiatives  for  which  priority  treatment  in  the 
legislative  process  was  needed.  This  represents  a  common  commitment  by  the  three 
institutions  to  ensure  substantial  progress  and,  where  possible,  delivery  before  the 
European  elections  in  May  2019.  The  European  Commission  has  adopted  all  the 
proposals announced in the Joint Declarations. Of these 69 have been agreed or formally 
adopted. 20 initiatives remain pending129. 

125   Paragraph 50. 
126   Monitoring report on the  Implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making 
(IIA-BLM)  Pursuant  to  the  Decision  of  the  Conference  of  Presidents    of  9  June  2016;    PE 
605.832/CPG, 12 June 2017.  

127   Report 

A8-0170/2018 

of 

15 

May 

2018: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A8-2018-
0170&language=EN  

128   ST  14846  2018  INIT  (30-11-2018);  ST9895  2018  INIT  (15-6-2018);  ST  15084  2017  INIT  (1-12-

2017); ST 10006 2017 (12-6-2017); ST 15141 2016 COR 1 (8-12-2016). 

129  They  include  the  proposals  on  the  multi  annual  financial  framework  which  is  one  item  in  the  Joint 

Declaration but comprises 37 sectoral programmes as well as the general framework. 

40 

 
                                                 
6.2. Delegated acts 

“Omnibus” alignment proposal 

Many Union legislative acts still allow the Commission to use the regulatory procedure 
with scrutiny to introduce measures to implement Union law. Under paragraph 27 of the 
Interinstitutional  Agreement  on  Better  Law-Making,  the  Commission  presented  a 
proposal  on  14 December 2016  to  align  these  provisions  with  the  requirements  of  the 
Lisbon Treaty130 on delegated acts and implementing acts. Discussions advanced slowly 
because  of  the  technical  nature  of  the  proposal  and  diverging  views  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council.  The  co-legislators  managed  to  find  agreement  on  the 
alignment of the empowerments in over 60 legislative acts, and the remaining acts will be 
revisited in the new parliamentary term. 

Delineation criteria (to distinguish delegated acts from implementing acts) 

In September 2017, the three institutions entered into negotiations under paragraph 28 of 
the  Interinstitutional  Agreement  to  establish  non-binding  criteria  to  improve  the 
application  of  Articles  290  and  291  TFEU  and  to  distinguish  between  the  use  of 
delegated  acts  and  implementing  acts.  The  European  Parliament,  Council  and 
Commission  reached  agreement  on  the  new  criteria,  and  these  are  currently  being 
endorsed  in  each  institution.  In  practice,  the  choice  of  empowerment  in  legislative 
negotiations  remains  difficult  because  of  political  disagreements  between  the  European 
Parliament and the Council. These difficulties may be eased with the growing awareness 
of the delineation criteria and other aspects of the Agreement. 

Interinstitutional register for delegated acts 

Under paragraph 29 of the Agreement, the three institutions established a joint register on 
delegated acts131 on 12 December 2017. It is a real success and has proved to be a useful 
tool to share information on delegated acts between the three institutions and the public. 

6.3. Impact assessment 

The Commission has committed to carry out impact assessments to support its legislative 
and  non-legislative  initiatives  that  have  significant  economic,  environmental  or  social 
impacts132. This includes initiatives in the Commission work programme or in the joint 
declaration  on  annual  interinstitutional  programming.  Not  all  legislative  proposals 
require  an  impact  assessment,  because  political  discretion  is  limited  or  because  the 
impacts  are  not  significant  (e.g.  proposals  to  codify  legislation)133.  When  the 
Commission does  not  present  an impact  assessment, it explains why in  the explanatory 
memorandum accompanying the proposal. See Section 2.1 for further details. 

The  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  are  committed  to  taking  full  account  of  the 
Commission's  impact  assessments134.  The  co-legislators  have  also  committed  to  assess 

130   COM(2016) 798 and COM(2016) 799. 
131   https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/regdel/#/home  
132   Paragraph 13. 
133   See  tool  #9  of  the  better  regulation  toolbox  on  When  an  impact  assessment  is  necessary: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-toolbox-9_en  

134   Paragraph 14. 

41 

 
                                                 
the  impacts  of  their  substantial  amendments  where  this  is  appropriate  in  a  given 
legislative procedure. Each year the Council prepares a report on impact assessments and 
how the Council uses them in its work  135. It has also established guidance for working 
party chairs on how to handle examination of the Commission’s impact assessments. The 
General  Secretariat  of  the  Council  indicates  that  the  use  of  impact  assessments  is 
increasingly widespread in the Council and that in many areas they facilitate discussions 
and  make  it  easier  to  reach  political  agreement.  The  impact  assessment  and  the 
explanatory memorandum  also  provide basic information  to  assess  conformity with  the 
principles of subsidiarity and proportionality if challenges are made before the Court. 

The  Council  has  made  less  progress  in  conducting  its  own  assessments  of  the  impacts 
linked to its substantial amendments.  In January 2018, it established a pilot programme 
to  outsource  such  assessments  to  external  consultants  but  no  assessment  has  yet  been 
made.  Moreover,  the  Council  prefers  to  ask  the  Commission  first  before  considering 
undertaking  its  own  assessment.  There  is  also  a  natural  tendency  of  the  rotating 
presidency to avoid any risk of delay on a legislative file during its six-month tenure.  

In  contrast,  the  European  Parliament  has  invested  more  heavily  in  creating  its  own 
expertise  and  capacity  to  assess  substantial  amendments.  Since  2003,  when  the  co-
legislators first committed to make such assessments, the Parliament has made some 68 
assessments.  At  the  start  of  each  legislative  procedure,  the  European  Parliament  also 
routinely appraises the Commission’s impact assessment against the requirements of the 
Commission’s  better  regulation  guidelines  and  the  opinions  of  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny 
Board.  The  Parliament  is  also  performing  more  retrospective  evaluations  of  legislation 
that help inform its position on new Commission proposals. 

6.4.  ‘Gold-plating’ of national transposing legislation 

The  Agreement136  calls  on  Member  States  to  identify  aspects  of  national  law  that  are 
‘gold-plated’137 and to inform the public. To facilitate transparency, the Commission has 
adapted  its  IT  platforms  to  enable  Member  States  to  provide  information  about  “gold-
plating”.  Up  until  the  end  of  2018,  there  have  been  only  three  notifications  from  two 
Member States (add footnote with reference). 

At  the  political  stocktaking  meeting  in  December  2017,  the  three  institutions  agreed  to 
remind the Member States about the gold-plating provisions.  

6.5. Other issues 

There  has  been  little  or no  tripartite  discussion  between  the  three  institutions  about  the 
implementation of paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Agreement, which concern review clauses 
and the inclusion of monitoring and evaluation provisions in basic acts of Union law. The 
Commission  has  presented  two  annual  burden  surveys  pursuant  to  paragraph  48  of  the 

135   See 

for 

example, 

Impact  Assessment  within 

the  Council  –  2018  annual 

report: 

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8900-2018-INIT/en/pdf  

136   Paragraph 43. 
137   National  governments  ‘gold-plate”  when  they  add  new  or  more  stringent  obligations  in  national 
measures that transpose acts of Union law. Member States are free to do so (unless prohibited by the 
underlying legal basis in the Treaties), but those affected criticise the EU for this when it is a purely 
national decision. 

42 

 
                                                 
Agreement,  and  these  are  discussed  in  the  chapter  5  above  on  the  Union’s  efforts  to 
simplify legislation.. 

7.  CONCLUSIONS 

The costs of better regulation 

The  benefits  of  better  regulation  are  clear.  We  wish  to  deliver  high  quality  effective 
legislation  through  informed  decision-making.  However,  there  are  also  significant 
financial  and  human  resource  costs  associated  with  operating  an  effective  better 
regulation policy. There are clearly trade-offs of making further improvements in a world 
of limited resources.  It is not possible to estimate the costs associated with the changes 
introduced  in  2015,  but  one  can  estimate  the  absolute  costs  and  resources  involved  in 
preparing impact assessments and evaluations in a typical year. We estimate that between 
150 and 280 full-time equivalent staff are deployed on better regulation-related activities 
and supported by external contractors providing services amounting to between EUR 10 
million to EUR 37 million annually138. 

Opening up policymaking  

The  progress  made  in  consultation  and  in  increasing  transparency  was  widely 
acknowledged by stakeholders and the literature. Wider awareness and a wider range of 
opportunities  to  be  involved,  combined  with  better  consultation  documents  and  more 
satisfactory  responses  to  stakeholders  contributions,  are  the  key  avenues  to  further  
improve  the  Commission’s  public  consultation  mechanisms.  However,  any  such  effort 
would  need  to  ensure  sufficient  resources  are  made  available,  including  by  better 
prioritising activities. 

 Utilising better tools for better policies 

Impact assessment and evaluation 

Solid  reasons  for  granting  exceptions  will  always  exist,  and  unnecessary  impact 
assessments  should  be  avoided.  There  is,  however,  a  clear  demand  for  improved 
communication  surrounding  the  reasons  why  an  impact  assessment  may  not  be  carried 
out.  Improvements  in  the  timely  availability  and  public  awareness  of  roadmaps  would 
also  make  it  easier  to  issue  an  early  warning  that  an  impact  assessment  is  not  to  be 
carried  out  and  enable  stakeholders  react.  There  is  also  scope  to  reflect  on  how  must 
usefully communicate available evidence and analysis to stakeholders in cases where an 
impact assessment is not possible.    

While  individual  stakeholders  voiced  a  preference  for  more  in-depth  assessment  of 
individual impacts, this has to be balanced against the overall breadth of the analysis and 
its proportionality in  terms  of resources.  Measures  to  increase the readability of impact 
assessments  would  be  welcomed.  There  is  scope  for  procedural  efficiency  gains  in  the 
impact  assessment process,  more training  and  a  more effective mobilisation of existing 
expertise.  This confirms the need for well-resourced better regulation functions.  

138 See Annex I for details 

43 

 
                                                 
Over  the  last  few  years,  the  Commission  has  made  progress  in  improving  evaluation. 
There is, however, scope and a need for further progress. To drive this, there has to be a 
greater use for evaluations by policy-makers and more favourable conditions for carrying 
out high-quality evaluations. Evaluations and impact assessments should be linked better 
so that the findings from one are used more effectively by the other. Evaluations could be 
used more in the decision-making processes in the Commission and by the co-legislators. 
The  quality  of  evaluations  depends  heavily  on  whether  information  is  available  about 
how the legislation works. 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board is widely recognised as helping to improve the quality of 
impact assessments and evaluations. Its work could be better known by the public. Using 
the  Board’s  expertise  in  early  meetings  on  the  design  and  methodology  of  evaluations 
and impact assessment is promising. 

Keeping the existing stock of legislation fit for purpose 

Stakeholders  have  mixed  views  on  the  Commission’s  efforts  to  simplify  existing  EU 
laws  and  reduce  costs  where  possible.  While  the  Commission’s  efforts  to  simplify  and 
reduce unnecessary burdens have delivered results, these are neither well communicated 
nor generally regarded as sufficient. The changes introduced under this Commission have 
gone in the right direction but there is scope to do better. It will be important to reflect on 
the  reasons why simplification has proven to be so complicated and burden reduction so 
burdensome. 

Enhanced quantification, while welcome, would not directly lead to greater success, only 
easier  communication.  No  fundamental  reasons  to  change  the  Commission’s  views  on 
the appropriateness of targets were identified by the stocktaking.  

Advancing a common agenda with other EU institutions and Member States 

The  new  Interistitutional  Agreement  is  still  young.  It  has  shown  its  usefulness  and 
achieved some clear successes, notably for delegated acts. However, there is still much 
unexploited  potential  to  improve  the  application  of  better  regulation  by  the  three 
institutions,  particularly  for  monitoring  and  evaluation,  assessing  the  impacts  of  more 
substantial amendments and transparency on ‘gold-plating’. 

44 

 
Annex I 
Better Regulation in the European Commission 

1.

  THE ORIGINS OF BETTER REGULATION 

The White Paper on European Governance from 2001139 addressed how the Union uses 
the  powers  given  to  it  by  its  citizens.  It  promoted  greater  openness,  accountability  and 
responsibility  of  all  those  involved  in  policymaking.  The  aim  was  to  bring  the  Union 
closer  to  its  citizens  in  order  to  make  more  effective  and  relevant  policies.  Those 
aspirations are just as relevant today as they were in 2001. 

Box 1: Excerpt from Commission Communication COM(2002) 275 on Better Law-Making 

There are a lot of complex issues at stake now in enacting good European legislation which is 
mindful of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. People nowadays take an interest 
in the effectiveness of the rules handed down "from Brussels" and the way they are drawn up.  
The  advent  of  a  democratic  conscience  is  strengthening  the  need  for  accountability  and 
proportionality in the way powers vested in the European institutions are exercised. This need is 
expressed more especially in transparency, clarity and the willingness to stand up to scrutiny. 
What we have here, then, is a veritable ethical requirement. 

Following  the  consultation  launched  by  the  White  Paper,  the  Commission  published 
three  Communications  to  promote  better  law-making.  The  first  launched  the  impact 
assessment  tool  to  improve  the  quality  and  coherence  of  the  policymaking  process140. 
The  second  established  principles  and  standards  to  promote  a  culture  of  dialogue  and 
stakeholder participation141. The third presented an action plan to simplify and improve 
the regulatory environment142. These actions came into force in 2003 and together they 
form the basis of the better regulation policy in place today.  

2.

  THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF BETTER REGULATION 

Better  regulation  is  a  framework  to  deliver  evidence-based  policymaking.  It  promotes 
transparency,  accountability  and  informed  decision-making.  It  is  a  key  tool  to  deliver 
better European governance and to make sustainable development a mainstream part of 
the Union’s policymaking under commitments made at the Göteborg European Council 
in 2001143.  

The Commission's approach incorporates the different steps of the policy lifecycle from 
inception  and  preparation  to  implementation,  evaluation  and  subsequent  modification. 

139   COM(2001) 428 final of 27 July 2001; “European Governance – A White Paper”. 
140   COM(2002) 266 final of 5 June 2002; ‘Impact Assessment’. 
141   COM(2002)  704  final  of  11  December  2002:  ‘Towards  a  reinforced  culture  of  consultation  and 
dialogue – general principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties’ (published 
in draft form in June 2002 in COM(2002) 277 final). 

142   COM(2002)  278  final  of  5  June  2002;  ‘Action  plan  simplifying  and  improving  the  regulatory 

environment’. 

143   Presidency  Conclusions 

15-16 
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/background/docs/goteborg_concl_en.pdf  

the  European  Council,  Göteborg 

from 

June 

2001: 

45 

 
                                                 
Better regulation is built on three complementary and closely related pillars: the impact 
assessment,  evaluation  and  stakeholder  consultation.  There  are  also  a  number  of  other 
elements described below. 

Stakeholder consultation 

Consultation  allows  stakeholders,  including  individuals,  to  express  their  views  and  for 
the  Commission  to  gather  evidence  to  help  prepare  its  new  initiatives144  or  evaluate 
existing policies. A consultation strategy accompanies each initiative. This identifies the 
information that the Commission would like to obtain, and the activities and methods the 
Commission will deploy to obtain that information. 

The initial description of the initiative and the consultation strategy are usually published 
in a roadmap or inception impact assessment. This allows all stakeholders to comment at 
an early stage and to prepare themselves for the more detailed consultation activities that 
follow.  

Box 2: The better regulation policy cycle 

The  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  depend  on  a  good  quality  stakeholder 
consultation.  A  web-based  public  consultation  lasting  12  weeks  generally  accompanies 
each impact assessment and evaluation. For major initiatives in the Commission’s work 
programme,  the  Commission  aims  to  consult  in  all  official  languages  and  at  least  in 

144   Article  2  of  Protocol  No. 2 TEU/TFEU  obliges  the  Commission  to  consult  widely  before  proposing 
legislative acts and these consultations should take into account the local and regional dimensions of 
the envisaged action where appropriate. 

46 

 
 
                                                 
English,  French  and  German  in  other  cases.  Additionally,  Commission  staff  will  carry 
out targeted consultations using interviews, workshops, conferences, focus groups, etc. as 
described in the consultation strategy. 

The impact assessment  

The  impact  assessment  looks  at  a  range  of  policy  solutions  that  could  address  an 
identified problem and its underlying causes. It helps to ensure observance of the Treaty 
principles  of  subsidiarity,  proportionality  and  sustainable  development  and  ensure  that 
the  most  relevant  and  important  impacts  are  identified  and  assessed.  An  impact 
assessment  should  also  provide  information  about  the  views  of  different  stakeholders. 
Lastly, an impact assessment should make the link to a future evaluation by identifying 
the  benchmarks  and  procedure  for  monitoring  the  practical  implementation  of  the 
legislation, policy or programme. 

important 

information  about  potential  problems 

Evaluation  
Evaluations look back to see how the policy has worked145. When available, they use the 
earlier  impact  assessment  to  compare  the  actual  and  expected  outcomes.  Evaluation 
provides 
in  policy 
implementation.  A  future  impact  assessment  might  address  these  in  connection  with  a 
subsequent  revision  of  the  policy.  In  some  cases,  an  evaluation  may  conclude  that  the 
legislation  is  no  longer  needed  or  that  no  changes  are  required.  Good  evaluations  need 
timely  information  about  how  a  policy  performs.  Therefore,  an  appropriate  monitoring 
framework  is  essential,  but  this  is  not  always  available.  This  can  occur,  for  example, 
when  no  arrangements  have  been  put  in  place  to  collect  the  necessary  information  or 
when  the  Commission  is  legally  obliged  to  evaluate  the  legislation  before  sufficient 
practical experience has been accumulated. 

that  occur 

The  Commission's  better  regulation  agenda  is  based  on  the  ‘evaluate  first’  principle. 
Before  introducing  new  legislation,  the  Commission  has  committed  to  evaluate  what 
already  exists,  providing  robust  and  objective  evidence  to  feed  decisions  as  to  whether 
EU action should continue as is,  be changed or  even stop.  These  evaluations  can be of 
individual  pieces  of  legislation  or  of  several  acts  covering  a  particular  sector  or  issue 
(‘fitness  checks’).    In  2016,  evaluations  were  carried  out  for  about  half  of  the  impact 
assessments. In 2017 this figure rose to over 70% and in 2018 reached 78%. 

REFIT 

The concept of regulatory fitness (‘REFIT’) is at the heart of better regulation. It focuses 
on ensuring that new and existing legislation achieves its objectives in the most efficient 
manner  and  that  existing  legislation  delivers  as  expected,  does  not  impose  unnecessary 
regulatory  costs  and  is  as  simple  as  possible.  Evaluations  help  ensure  that  Union 
legislation remains fit for purpose. 

145   The  Commission  uses  five standard criteria: (1) Effectiveness (the extent  to  which policy objectives 
are  met);  (2)  Efficiency  (the  costs  of  delivering  the  intended  benefits);  (3)  Coherence  (within  the 
policy  instrument  and  with  other  policies);  (4)  Relevance  (ongoing  need  for  the  legislation);  (5)  EU 
added value (beyond what might have been expected without EU intervention). 

47 

 
 
 
                                                 
The REFIT Platform 
The REFIT Platform was set up by the May 2015 Better Regulation Communication146 to 
advise the Commission on how to make EU regulation more efficient and effective while 
reducing unnecessary costs (without undermining policy objectives). 

The Platform consists of two groups: 

  A stakeholder group, with 18 members representing business  (including SMEs), 
civil society organisations and social partners with direct experience in applying 
Union legislation. The group also includes two representatives from the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.  

  A government group, with one high-level expert from each of the Member States.  

Platform  members  consider  suggestions  by  various  parts  of  civil  society.  (either  online 
via  ‘Lighten  the  Load’  web  site  or  through  other  means),  on  the  potential  to  reduce 
regulatory and administrative burden. On this basis, the REFIT Platform adopts opinions 
recommending practical follow-up to the Commission.  

The  Commission  is  committed  to  respond  to  all  opinions,  indicating  whether  action  is 
necessary  or  appropriate,  the  type  of  action  envisaged  and  its  timing.  The  Commission 
presents information on the follow-up to the Platform opinions in its work programmes147 
and in the REFIT Scoreboard148. 

Better regulation guidelines and toolbox 

The Commission has developed and published guidelines that direct Commission staff on 
how to apply better regulation in their work. These capture all phases of the policy cycle, 
including  planning,  impact  assessment,  preparing  proposals,  implementation  and 
transposition,  monitoring,  evaluation  and  stakeholder  consultation.  They  also  address 
how  the  Commission  will  assist  Member  States  in  their  national  implementation  of 
Union  legislation.  The  toolbox  contains  65  separate  tools.  They  each  provide  detailed 
assistance on how to tackle specific issues such as subsidiarity and proportionality149. 

Stakeholder participation: ‘Have Your Say’ web site (the Better Regulation Portal)150 

The  Commission  launched  a  web-based  portal  (‘Have  Your  Say’)  in  2016,  and  its 
functionality has improved progressively. Stakeholders are able to  provide feedback on 
policy preparation and implementation throughout the policy cycle. Via the ‘Have Your 
Say’ website, stakeholders are able to: 

–  provide  comments  on  Commission  roadmaps  and  inception  impact  assessments 
which are published at the very  outset of  a new  initiative (during  a period of 4 
weeks); 

146   COM(2015)215:  Better  regulation  for  better  results  -  An  EU  agenda:  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0215  

147   https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/european-commission-work-programme_en  
148   http://publications.europa.eu/webpub/com/refit-scoreboard/en/index.html  
149   https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-toolbox-5_en  
150   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/contribute-law-making_en  

48 

 
                                                 
–  participate  in  public  consultations  for  new  initiatives  or  evaluations  of  existing 

legislation or policies (generally during a 12-week period); 

–  provide comments on proposals adopted by the Commission (during a period of 8 
weeks  following  adoption).  These  will  be  compiled  by  the  Commission  and 
forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council;  

–  provide  comments  on  the  legal  texts  of  draft  delegated  acts  and  implementing 
acts before finalisation by the Commission (during a period of 4 weeks); and 

–  provide comments and suggestions about how to simplify specific legislation and 
reduce unnecessary regulatory costs. These suggestions are then taken up by the 
REFIT  Platform,  which  may  adopt  opinions  and  recommendations  to  the 
Commission. 

All  stakeholders  are  able  to  participate  in  such  activities  and  can  request  automatic 
notification  when  new  documents  are  uploaded  to  the  portal  website.  Stakeholders  can 
also  submit  views  and  other  evidence  to  the  Commission  outside  of  the  formal 
consultation  and  feedback  processes.  In  particular,  the  European  Citizens’  Initiative151 
complements the participation opportunities mentioned above.  

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 
The President of the Commission established a new Regulatory Scrutiny Board152 in May 
2015. The Board is comprised of a chairperson and six members. They all work full-time 
for the Board and do not have any responsibility for policymaking. All serve for a period 
of  3  years.  Three  of  the  members  were  recruited  from  outside  of  the  European 
institutions,  while  the  remaining  four  come  from  within  the  Commission  services.  The 
Board checks the quality of all impact assessments and selected evaluations against the 
requirements  of  the  Commission’s  better  regulation  guidelines.  It  issues  opinions  and 
recommendations  for  improvement.  Initiatives  accompanied  by  an  impact  assessment 
will  generally  require  a  positive  opinion  from  the  Board  for  the  file  to  proceed  to  the 
College of Commissioners for decision. 

These represent significant changes compared to the previous Impact Assessment Board 
where a pool of senior managers worked part-time for the Board but retained their policy 
responsibilities. The previous Impact Assessment Board did not scrutinise evaluations. 

Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making 

Following the Commission’s proposal in 2015, an interinstitutional agreement on better 
law-making  entered  into  force  in  April  2016153.  It  sets  out  the  commitments  of  the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  Commission  on  many  aspects  regarding  the 
preparation and implementation of Union legislation. These include the performance of 
an  impact  assessment  of  proposals  and  substantial  amendments,  monitoring  and 
evaluation,  the  preparation  of  delegated  acts  and  regulatory  simplification.  The  2016 

151   http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome?lg=en  
152   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/regulatory-scrutiny-board_en  
153   http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2016:123:TOC  

49 

 
                                                 
Agreement replaces the previous agreement concluded in 2003 and the institutions’ 2005 
common accord on impact assessment154. 

Better regulation training courses 

In 2016-2017, the Commission overhauled its training courses on better regulation. The 
objective was to  promote awareness  of the better regulation tools and principles across 
the  Commission  and  ensure  that  officials  who  carry  out  impact  assessments  and 
evaluations are sufficiently well equipped and knowledgeable to enable them to produce 
high-quality, evidence-based reports. Better regulation training courses are now available 
in  the  interinstitutional  catalogue  on  EU  Learn,  meaning  that  any  Commission  official 
can easily find and register for any of the courses. Additionally, the courses are open to 
officials from the European Parliament and the Council.  

The revised approach to training on better regulation depicted below has three tiers (see 
figure below):  

–  an introductory course composed of an e-learning and a class-based module; 

–  one  course  for  each  of  the  better  regulation  ‘pillars’  (planning  &  validation, 

evaluation, impact assessment and stakeholder consultation);  

–  advanced  courses  on  specific  issues  noted  as  recurring  weaknesses  in  the 
opinions  of  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  (e.g.  on  quantification  methods, 
intervention logic, problem definition in impact assessments and subsidiarity). 

Additionally, the Secretariat-General organises regular meetings and exchanges of good 
practices  with  the  networks  of  desk  officers  responsible  for  impact  assessments, 
evaluations, stakeholder consultation and REFIT in the directorates-general. 

Other activities with other institutions and bodies 

In  the  period  covered  by  the  stocktaking,  the  Secretariat-General  represented  the 
Commission  in  21  meetings  of  the  Council’s  Working  Party  on  Competitiveness  and 
Growth (better regulation). Each rotating presidency also tends to organise a meeting of 
representatives  from  the  national  ministries  responsible  for  better  regulation  which  the 
Commission  also  attends  (Directors  for  better  regulation).  In  addition,  the  Secretariat-
General also represents the Commission at the Regulatory Policy Committee meetings of 
the OECD (typically twice a year). 

Cost of operating a better regulation policy 

It is estimated that between 150 and 280 full-time equivalent staff are deployed on better 
regulation-related  activities  and  supported  by  external  contractors  providing  services 
amounting to between EUR 10 million to EUR 37 million annually. 

Impact  assessments  and  evaluations 
each year* 

Full-time equivalent 
staff per year per file 

Total full-time equivalent 
staff 

60 impact assessments 

1.0 – 2.0 

60 - 120 

154   http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/key_docs/docs/ii_common_approach_to_ia_en.pdf  

50 

 
                                                 
70 evaluations  
 *These estimates include officials working on the specific file and in their better regulation support units 
in the lead Commission department and officials participating in interservice groups and the Secretariat-
General. An impact assessment or evaluation typically takes between 0.5 to 1.5 years to complete.  

1.0 – 2.0 

70 - 140 

Impact assessments and 
evaluations each year 

Fraction with 
supporting study 

Cost of supporting study 

Total cost 

60 impact assessments 

50%  

EUR 150 000 – 300 000  EUR 4.5 m – 9.0 m 

70 evaluations* 
* Studies supporting the evaluation of regulatory measures are typically in the range of EUR 100 000 to 
EUR  500  000.  This  excludes  cross  cutting  studies  supporting  the  evaluation  of  major  expenditures  like 
Horizon 2020, which are undertaken at a 4 year interval. 

EUR 100 000 – 500 000  EUR 5.6 m – 28 m 

80% 

There are also staff costs associated with operating the Regulatory Scrutiny Board with 
its seven full-time senior officials. A full-time secretariat serves the Board and consists of 
approximately 10 to 15 full-time (equivalent) members of staff. A further 3 full-time staff 
provide a secretariat to the REFIT Platform, and the Commission meets the expenses of 
the Platform meetings and the participants’ expenses.  

The  ‘Have  Your  Say’  web  portal  cost  approximately  EUR  3  million  to  create  between 
2015 and 2018. 

51 

 
 
 
Annex II 
Overview of consultation activities 

1.

  OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

The  aim  of  the  consultation  was  to  assess  how  well  the  various  better  regulation 
procedures  and  bodies  used  by  the  Commission  are  working  in  practice  and  to  what 
extent  they  contribute  to  achieving  its  better  regulation  policy  objectives.  The  focus  of 
the exercise was on the changes made by the Commission since May 2015.   

Public consultation 

On  17 July 2018,  the  European  Commission  launched  an  online  public  consultation 
entitled  Stocktaking  of  the  Commission's  'better  regulation'  approach.  The  public 
consultation  was  available  in  23  EU  languages  and  closed  on  23 October 2018.  The 
Commission undertook communication campaigns, including via social media, in all EU 
languages to raise awareness of the consultation.  

The public consultation was structured around the following themes:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

General questions: The Commission and better regulation 

Stakeholder consultation: Consulting the public and interested parties 

Evaluation and REFIT: Evaluating existing EU laws 

Impact assessments: Assessing new Commission proposals 

Regulatory  scrutiny:  Scrutinising  the  quality  of  impact  assessments  and 
evaluations 

(6) 

Final questions on progress in the past and future. 

The  Commission  received  626  responses  to  the  public  consultation.  After  applying  the 
rules  for  moderating  feedback  and  suggestions,  596  contributions  remained.  Of  those, 
433  (63%)  came  from  individuals  in  their  private  capacity  and  163  (27%)  from 
professionals (businesses, NGOs, think tanks, research, academia, consultants, public and 
regional  authorities)  replying  on  behalf  of  an  organisation.  Respondents  to  the  public 
consultation came from 15 Member States.   

Stakeholders  submitted  42  position  papers  during  the  public  consultation.  Of  these,  16 
were  not  considered  because  they  (a)  duplicated  another  position  paper  in  a  different 
language; (b) promoted a commercial product or service; (c) duplicated a submission to 
the Taskforce on Subsidiarity; or (d) did not relate to the Commission’s better regulation 
agenda.  

Targeted consultation 

In addition, there was a targeted consultation of the officials of the European Parliament, 
the  Council,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  (CoR),  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  (EESC).  Member  States  were  consulted  via  the  Council  Working  Party  on 

52 

 
Competitiveness  and  Growth  (COMPCRO).  Additionally,  5  Member  States  (Estonia, 
Germany,  Ireland,  Poland  and  Spain)  sent  in  contributions  after  a  discussion  in  the 
Council’s Working Group on Competitiveness and Growth (COMPCRO). Some Member 
States also contributed to the public consultation.  

There were 244 Commission officials who were interviewed.  These interviews targeted 
officials who had  written an evaluation  and/or impact  assessment. Officials  responsible 
for better regulation in the Commission discussed the results of all consultation activities 
at a dedicated workshop on 18 January 2019 with approximately 80 participants.   

In parallel, the REFIT Platform launched its own survey of its members on whether the 
Platform  had  served  its  purpose  and  had  contributed  to  the  Commission's  better 
regulation  agenda.  The  Platform  circulated  the  survey  on  2 July 2018  and  received  34 
contributions (20 from members of the government group and 14 from the stakeholders’ 
group). It delivered its opinion on 14 March 2019 155 

Feedback on the roadmap 
The  Commission  published  the  roadmap156  for  the  stocktaking  exercise  on  the  ‘Have 
Your Say’ web portal for stakeholder engagement. During the four-week feedback period, 
6  replies  were  received  through  the  portal  and  1  by  email.  These  contributions  are 
published on the web alongside the roadmap.  

Two  anonymous  individuals    asked  questions  and  made  suggestions  about  the 
stocktaking  process.  For  example,  one  individual  suggested  extending  the  scope  of  the 
exercise  to  the  co-legislators  and  proposed  involving  independent  experts  to  make  the 
results more credible. The other individual wondered whether it was the right time to take 
stock. According to this person, it would be desirable to study the effects on the quality 
of legislation but it might be too early to see any at this stage.  

The  submissions  from  associations  (Association  of  German  Chambers  of  Industry  and 
Commerce, the European Crop Protection Association and the German Confederation of 
Skilled  Crafts  and  from  the  Maltese  national  authorities  offered  a  preview  of  the 
contributions they sent in response to the public consultation and which are described in 
detail below. Overall, they welcomed the visible progress made with the Commission’s 
better regulation policy and offered suggestions on how to improve it further.  

2.

  OECD REGULATORY POLICY OUTLOOK 2018 

Every  3  years,  the  OECD  publishes  a  comparative  assessment  of  member  countries’ 
better regulation  systems. The purpose of the OECD report is  to track and measure the 
progress  of  OECD  countries  (and  the  progress  of  the  European  Commission)  in  their 
regulatory practices and their implementation of the OECD’s 2012 recommendations for 
regulatory policy157. The 2018 outlook reflects the situation at the end of 2017158.  

155   REFIT  Platform  opinion  XXII.10.a  “REFIT  Platform  Survey  –  Future  prospects”,  adopted  on  14 
March  2019:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/refit-platform-recommendations-horizontal-issues-xxii10a-
refit-platform-survey-future-prospects_en 

156   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-2332204_en  
157   http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/2012-recommendation.htm  

53 

 
                                                 
The  OECD’s  assessment  focuses  on  three  dimensions  of  regulatory  policy  practices, 
namely stakeholder engagement, the impact assessment and ex post evaluations. For each 
of these dimensions, the study assigns scores for the methodology, oversight and quality 
control,  the  systematic  use  and  transparency.  The  report  applies  a  methodology  of 
composite  indicators  constructed  using  self-reported  data,  which  is  quality  checked  by 
the OECD.   

With  the  2018  outlook,  it  is  possible  to  measure  the  improvements  made  under  the 
Juncker  Commission  that  include  the  May  2015  reforms  and  subsequent  adjustments 
made  in  the  summer  of  2017.  Already  before  these  reforms,  back  in  2014,  the  EU 
(European  Commission)  was  performing  well  in  the  three  dimensions  analysed: 
stakeholder  engagement, 
impact  assessment  and  ex  post  evaluations.  The 
Commission was a strong performer for the impact assessment and evaluations, but still 
had the potential to improve on stakeholder consultation.  

the 

The  2018  report  shows  that  the  Commission’s  2015  reforms  have  brought  significant 
improvements.  The  Commission  is  now  ranked  first  in  the  OECD  for  stakeholder 
engagement, a reflection of the Commission’s introduction of feedback mechanisms for 
roadmaps,  inception  impact  assessments,  adopted  proposals,  draft  delegated  acts  and 
implementing  acts  and  public  consultations  accompanying  impact  assessments  and 
evaluations.  

On impact assessments, the Commission further refined and improved its policy and kept 
the  third-placed  ranking  it  had  already  achieved  in  2014.  The  Commission  has  further 
improved its approach on evaluations and has improved its ranking to third place. 

Overall, the Commission's regulatory policy now ranks among the very best in the OECD 
with no other country or associated country scoring higher across the three dimensions of 
better regulation.  

3.

  LITERATURE REVIEW 

The  Directorate-General  Joint  Research  Centre  undertook  a  review  of  the  academic 
literature  to  support  the  current  stocktaking  exercise  and  has  published  the  results159. 
Looking at better regulation generally and at the specific tools used by the Commission, 
the Joint  Research Centre focused on peer-reviewed and grey literature published since 
2015. The results have been incorporated in the preceding sections and a short summary 
of the main findings is presented below. 

The  literature  review  looked  at  more  than  100  papers.  These  covered  many  different 
issues,  given  the  different  interpretations  of  better  regulation.  It  is  difficult  to  draw 
overarching conclusions because relatively little time has elapsed since the Commission 
introduced major changes in 2015.  

Generally, the literature welcomes the Commission’s stronger commitment to evidence-
based policymaking and the guidance it has provided in the better regulation guidelines 

158   http://www.oecd.org/governance/oecd-regulatory-policy-outlook-2018-9789264303072-en.htm  
159   Listorti  G.,  Basyte  Ferrari  E.,  Acs  S.,  Munda  G.,  Rosenbaum  E.,  Paruolo  P.,  Smits  P.  (2019).  The 
debate  on  the  EU  Better  Regulation  Agenda:  a  literature  review,  EUR,  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-00840-8, doi:10. 2760/46617, JRC116035 

54 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
and  toolbox.  The  literature  highlights  the  all-encompassing  approach  taken  by  the 
Commission  in  covering  the  whole  policy  cycle.  However,  the  review  notes  that  this 
guidance  still  leaves  room  for  discretion  on  how  to  carry  out  analyses  (especially  the 
quantification of impacts) that adversely affect objectivity. More (standardised) guidance 
and support as well as improved in-house expertise and external peer review have been 
suggested  to  increase  the  quality  and  objectiveness  of  impact  assessments  and 
evaluations.  In  this  respect,  the  review  also  highlights  the  value  of  the  ‘evaluate  first’ 
principle  and  the  need  for  impact  assessments  to  build  better  upon  each  other, 
particularly in terms of planning/scheduling. 

The  review  highlights  several  criticisms.  Evidence-based  policymaking  is  undermined 
when  proposals  are  not  supported  by  an  impact  assessment.  Impact  assessments  often 
seem  to  justify  a  predetermined  policy  option.  In  this  context,  authors  also  called  for 
more  transparency  by  publishing  underlying  data  and  studies  as  well  as  draft  reports. 
Additionally,  there  were  concerns  about  how  the  EU’s  overarching  objectives,  as 
enshrined in the treaties, are taken into account in the assessments.  

Regarding  public  consultations,  the  literature  welcomes  the  significantly  increased 
opportunities for participating in EU policymaking.  However, some authors questioned 
whether the quality of the feedback received justified the high workload for participants 
and the Commission. There is a perceived lack of transparency on how the Commission 
uses  consultation  responses.  Moreover,  authors  questioned  whether  the  questionnaires 
succeed in collecting evidence from people who would otherwise not be involved.  

The  review  noted  that  the  REFIT  Platform  was  seen  as  focusing  too  narrowly  on  cost 
reduction  rather  than  cost-efficiency  (cost  per  unit  benefit).  Furthermore,  there  were 
concerns  that  the  Platform  does  not  exclude  political  considerations  and  that  it  may 
support a deregulation agenda.  

On the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, the review recorded proposals to expand its scope and 
activities:  first,  intervene  earlier  in  the  preparatory  processes;  second,  become  more 
independent;  third,  consolidate  its  expertise  in  a  variety  of  policy  fields.  Some 
contributions  regretted  that  the  Board  is  only  an  in-house  body,  also  meaning  that  the 
public and stakeholders cannot hold the Commission (judicially) accountable to its better 
regulation principles.  

Some authors saw the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making as an essential 
part of better regulation but regretted that it remains only partially implemented. Others 
viewed it as an attempt by the Commission to wield greater influence over policymaking 
and/or to share the blame with the co-legislators for poor quality legislation.  

4.

  PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

This section presents the overall results per question, as well as a breakdown of replies 
according to the type of respondent (i.e. individuals, professionals) in order to make the 
views of the different stakeholder groups more visible. 

4.1.  General questions: The Commission and better regulation 

Q1. Are you informed about the Commission’s plans early enough to be able to take part 
in the policymaking process? 

55 

 
Out of 596 respondents, 184 (31%) agree that that they are fully or mostly informed early 
enough  to  take  part  in  the  Commission’s  policymaking  process;  whereas  147  (25%)  of 
the 596 respondents argue that this is sometimes the case, and 253 respondents (42.4%) 
said they were not informed early enough.  

Public  authorities  and  businesses  said  most  frequently  that  they  are  fully  or  mostly 
informed early enough in the process (41 out of 74 and 17 out of 23; 55.4% and 73.9% 
respectively).  In  contrast,  the  majority  of  the  individuals  (238  out  of  433,  55.0%) 
responded that they are not usually or not at all informed early enough.  

Breakdown of answers given in a professional capacity: 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Q2. Are you satisfied with how the Commission involves members of the public, 
businesses, non-governmental organisations and other interest groups? 

Approximately  half  of  the  individual  respondents  (53%)  are  dissatisfied  or  very 
dissatisfied  with  the  way  that  the  Commission  involves  members  of  the  public, 
businesses,  non-governmental  organisations  and  other  interest  groups.  Out  of  163 
professionals, 64 (39%) are of the same view. Hence, individuals have a more negative 
opinion than professionals.  

Q3.  Does 
assessments) to back up its proposals? 

the  Commission  provide  enough  evidence  (e.g.  evaluations, 

impact 

The  opinions  whether  the  Commission  proposals  are  backed  by  enough  evidence  are 
divided.  147  respondents  (24.7%)  indicated  that  there  was  enough  evidence,  while  164 
(27.5%) said that there was not. The largest group, 225 respondents (37.8%), found that 
the proposals were partially well backed by evidence.  

57 

 
 
 
 
Q4.  Does  the  Commission  take  environmental  and  social  impacts  sufficiently  into 
account when putting forward policy proposals (in addition to economic impacts)? 

Respondents  agreed  almost  equally  that  the  Commission  did  or  did  not  consider 
environmental  and  social  impacts  sufficiently.  Out  of  596  respondents,  171  (28.7%) 
thought  those  impacts  received  sufficient  attention,  while  170  (28.5%)  did  not.  The 
largest  group  of  respondents  (188  out  of  596,  31.5%)  thought  that  the  Commission 
considers environmental and social impacts partially. 

Among  professionals,  non-governmental  organisations  tended  to  think  that  social  and 
environmental impacts are not sufficiently considered, while businesses tended to be of 
the opposite view. Public authorities hold the middle.  

58 

 
 
Breakdown of answers given in a professional capacity: 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
Q5. Does the Commission take subsidiarity and the role of national, regional, and local 
authorities sufficiently into account when putting forward policy proposals? 

More respondents agreed (192 out of 596, 32.2%) than disagreed (161, 27.0%) that the 
Commission  takes  subsidiarity  and  the  role  of  national,  regional,  and  local  authorities 
sufficiently  into  account.  A  group  of  approximately  the  same  size  as  the  previous  two 
(179, 30.3%) thought that the Commission only does so partially. 

Q6. Are you satisfied with the Commission’s efforts to simplify existing EU laws and to 
reduce costs where possible (REFIT)? 

Out  of  538  respondents,  151  (28%)  were  satisfied  or  very  satisfied  with  the 
Commission’s  efforts  to  simplify  existing  EU  laws  and  reduce  costs  where  possible, 
while 220 (40%) were not. The remaining 167 respondents (28%) were partially satisfied 
with the Commission’s efforts.  

60 

 
 
4.2. 

Public consultations: Consulting the public and interested parties 

Q7.    Are  roadmaps  and  inception  impact  assessments  useful  to  help  you  prepare  your 
participation in the policymaking process? 

Approximately 20% (102 of 556) of all respondents are not familiar with roadmaps and 
inception  impact  assessments.  Of  those  who  said  they  were  familiar  with  them, 
approximately  half  (226  out  of  494,  45.7%)  find  roadmaps  and  inception  impact 
assessments  entirely  or  mostly  useful  for  preparing 
the 
policymaking process.  

their  participation 

in 

More  than  half  the  professionals  thought  that  the  roadmaps  and  inception  impact 
assessments  were  (very)  helpful,  while  another  quarter  deemed  them  partially  helpful. 
Individual respondents were less positive. 

61 

 
 
Q8. Are you satisfied with the following opportunities to contribute to the policymaking 
process?  

With  the  exception  of  public  consultations,  a  significant  number  of  respondents  (from 
18.8% to 25% depending on the opportunity) was not aware of the various opportunities 
to contribute to policymaking. 

The proportion of respondents who are satisfied with the opportunities to give feedback 
to  inception  impact  assessments  and  roadmaps  and  take  part  in  public  consultations 
(31.7%  and  40.0%  respectively)  is  higher  than  the  proportion  of  those  who  are 
dissatisfied  (21.1%  and  27.5%  respectively).  However,  slightly  more  participants  were 
dissatisfied than satisfied with the opportunities to comment on draft implementing and 
delegating  acts  (27.0%  versus  25.2%)  and  legislative  proposals  adopted  by  the  College 
(29.2% versus 28.0%) as well as the opportunity to flag legislation needing improvement 
(27.2% versus 24.8%). Across the five questions on participation opportunities, between 
17.4% and 23.3% of respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.  

Respondents  (mainly  individuals)  to  the  open  questions  made  a  strong  call  to  the 
European  Commission  to  reach  out  more  to  increase  awareness  of  its  efforts  under  the 
better  regulation  agenda.  Respondents  stressed  that  the  outreach  efforts  on  regulatory 
developments in the EU have to find their way into the mainstream media, because most 
people  do  not  follow  EU  social  media  accounts.  According  to  respondents,  the 
communication  is  also  not  tailored  to  Member  States  and  the  members  of  the  public 
there.  National  and  regional  public  authorities  should  play  a  more  prominent  role  in 
informing the public.  

In  response  to  the  open  questions,  several  professionals  pointed  out  that  local  and 
regional  and  local  public  authorities  as  well  as  small  and  medium  enterprises  (SMEs) 
should be consulted better. 

62 

 
 
 
Q9.  Are  you  satisfied  with  the  following  aspects  of  the  Commission's  public 
consultations? 

Respondents  had  rather  positive  opinions  on  various  characteristics  of  public 
consultations.  The  availability  of  different  language  versions,  the  length  of  the 
consultation  period,  and  the  opportunity  to  make  relevant  comments  and  provide 
supporting material were the aspects with which respondents were most satisfied (54.2%, 
47.8% and 44.3% (very) satisfied respectively).  

Between  40.8%  and  36.1%  of  the  respondents  were  (very)  satisfied  with  the  length, 
clarity  and  neutrality  of  the  questionnaires.  While  the  percentage  of  respondents  who 
were  (very) dissatisfied  with  these six aspects  of public consultations was smaller, it is 
still  sizeable  (9.7%  to  17.35%).  Several  individuals  and  organisations/professionals 
responded in the open text questions that questionnaires should be shorter, clearer, more 
neutral, less biased and less geared towards the desired option.  

63 

 
 
Q10.  Are  you  satisfied  with  how  the  Commission  reports  on  the  results  of  its  public 
consultations and the other opportunities to comment? 

Out  of  596  respondents,  225  (37.8%)  were  (very)  dissatisfied  with  the  way  the 
Commission reports on the results of its public consultations and feedback mechanisms.  
Another  large  share  was  neither  satisfied  nor  dissatisfied  (169  respondents,  28.4%). 
Public  authorities  who  responded  tended  to  be  more  satisfied  than  businesses  and  non-
governmental organisations.  

the 

Answering 
and 
organisations/professionals) asked that reports on the results of consultation activities be 
systematically published (in timely fashion). 

respondents 

individuals 

questions, 

(both 

open 

64 

 
 
Breakdown of answers given in a professional capacity: 

4.3.  Evaluations and REFIT: Evaluating existing EU laws 

Q11. Are you satisfied with the following aspects of the Commission's evaluations?  

The opinions on the various elements of the evaluations carried out by the Commission 
were  mixed.  Again,  professionals  tended  to  be  a  bit  more  positive  than  individuals. 

65 

 
 
 
Additionally, a sizeable group of 95 and 118 respondents  (15.9%  - 19.8%) did  not  feel 
they were capable of judging the quality of the evaluations.  

Most of the replies from respondents are more or less equally divided between satisfied, 
neither  satisfied  nor  dissatisfied  and  dissatisfied.  Only  a  small  number  said  they  were 
very satisfied (3.7% - 5.5%), while 10.2% to 15.4% were very dissatisfied. 

In  response  to  the  open  questions,  several  respondents  said  that  the  evaluation  results 
needed  to  be  utilised  better  when  performing  impact  assessments.  Some  industry 
representatives asked for stricter adherence to the ‘evaluate first’ principle.  

Respondents suggested that legislation should be given time to be implemented and take 
effect before initiating evaluations. Evaluations often require assumptions to be made to 
quantify costs and benefits, which have not yet materialised. 

Additionally, respondents called for more transparency in the transposition of directives 
into  national  law  and  in  the  manner  in  which  they  are  implemented.  The  evaluations 
should be more sensitive to divergences in the implementation of legislation in Member 
States.  

Some respondents argued that evaluations should be done by the European Parliament 
and the Member States, i.e. that the Commission should not have this responsibility. 
Others suggested relying less on external contractors to do evaluations.  

Q12.  Is  the  REFIT  Platform  effective  in  identifying  areas  where  legislation  can  be 
simplified and unnecessary costs cut while preserving policy objectives? 

Many of the respondents were not sufficiently aware of the REFIT Platform. Out of 163 
professionals,  45  (28%)  did  not  feel  they  were  able  to  assess  the  REFIT  Platform’s 
effectiveness. The same was true for  177 (40%) of the 433 individuals who replied. Of 
the  19  respondents  from  consultancies  and  academia,  10  (53%)  could  not  provide  a 
response to this question nor could 9 (approximately 40%) of the 23 public authorities. 

66 

 
 
 
Of the 274 who did answer the question, 260 (70%) agreed that the Platform is at least 
partially  effective  in  identifying  areas  where  legislation  can  be  simplified  and 
unnecessary costs cut.  

Responding  to  the  relevant  open  question,  respondents  indicated  that  they  would  like 
easier  access  to  REFIT  reports  and  opinions  and  more  transparency  on  how 
recommendations are implemented.  

Regional or local authorities provided strong support for the continuation of the REFIT 
Platform. 

Breakdown of answers given in a professional capacity: 

67 

 
 
4.4. 

Impact assessments: Assessing new Commission proposals 

Q13.  Are  you  satisfied  with  the  following  aspects  of  the  Commission's  impact 
assessments? 

A large percentage of the respondents (14.9% to 20.1%) did not know whether they were 
or were not satisfied with the Commission’s impact assessments. Of those who did feel 
they  could  answer  the  question,  the  largest  group  (24.2%  to  27.9%)  said  they  were 
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. With 223 respondents (very) dissatisfied (37.4%), there 
was most dissatisfaction with  the transparency on policy alternatives and their impacts. 
Around  170  participants  (28.5%)  were  (very)  dissatisfied  with  each  of  the  other  three 
characteristics. While only a few respondents were very satisfied (4.7% to 5.7%) with the 
impact assessments’ various characteristics, 18.0% to 21.8% were satisfied. Respondents 
saw the impact assessments’ usefulness for decision-making slightly more positively than 
the quality of the assessments.  

Professionals  were  on  average  neither  satisfied  nor  dissatisfied  with  the  impact 
assessments,  except  for  transparent  information  on  all  relevant  impacts  (75  out  of  168, 
44.6%). In addition, businesses were not satisfied with the assessment of the potential for 
simplifying legislation (29 out of 74, 39.2%). 

68 

 
 
 
Professionals responding to the open questions very often flagged that too many pieces 
of legislation came without an impact assessment. Respondents said that it is not always 
transparent why some proposals are subject to impact assessments while others are not. 

Some respondents indicated that the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making 
is not fully observed. They  expressed disappointment that the European Parliament and 
Council  seem  to  make  little  use  of  impact  assessments  and  do  not  assess  their 
amendments.  

Respondents  felt  that  best  practices  on  transparency  were  not  consistently  followed,  so 
that,  for  example,  the  analysis  presented,  including  the  choice  of  options,  was  not 
transparent  and  comprehensible.  The  criticism  was  diverse,  covering  the  whole  range: 
there was the feeling that political considerations outweighed all other input, consultation 
questions were found to be biased or too limited, not all information was published, etc. 
Professionals  added  that  the  use  and  presentation  of  numerical  models  often  was 
detrimental to transparency.  

Individuals  and professionals  replying to  the open questions are of  the  opinion that the 
scope of the impacts assessed is too limited, focusing too much on economic issues, big 
industry and other large stakeholders, in particular. The wish to look rather at society as a 
whole  (e.g.  on  environmental  impacts,  effects  on  SMEs/micro-businesses,  impacts  on 
individuals/consumers,  health, 
inequality/poverty/social 
fundamental/basic 
dialogue, minorities) was often voiced.  

rights, 

Professionals  very  often  criticise  the  varying  analytical  and  methodological  quality 
across impact assessments and the low quality of the underlying data.  

Regarding  subsidiarity,  some  respondents  find  the  current  assessment  overly  legalistic 
and  formalistic.  They  claim  that  the  added  value  of  action  at  EU  level  needs  to  be 
analysed  based  on  evidence.  Professionals  said  that  harmonisation  and  cross-border 
activity should not be overused as arguments for justification. In this context, the remark 
was  made  that  more  than  20  different  approaches  do  not  necessarily  imply  a  need  for 
harmonisation;  rather  it  could  be  evidence  that  the  Member  States  have  successfully 
tackled the problem. 

69 

 
 
Respondents  Respondents  proposed  various  suggestions  on  how  to  be  better  involved. 
Moreover, local  and regional  levels  of government  should better be taken into account. 
They said that a territorial and urban impact assessment should be done, EU-level action 
should  be  better  justified,  and  there  should  be  a  closer  examination  of  what  measures 
Member States have taken.  

4.5.  Regulatory scrutiny: Scrutinising the quality of impact assessments and 

evaluations 

Q14. Please indicate the level  of  your agreement  with each of the following statements 
regarding regulatory scrutiny  

Among  individuals,  320  (74%)  out  of  433  said  that  they  were  not  familiar  with  the 
Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  (the  Board)  or  barely  so,  whereas  64  (39%)  out  of  163 
professionals stated the same. Hence, awareness of the Board is very low.  

Of those who did know about regulatory scrutiny, an overwhelming majority thought that 
the  Board  added  value  to  the  regulatory  process  (89  out  of  103,  86.4%).  Additionally, 
more  respondents  had  a  positive  opinion  of  the  Board’s  characteristics  than  a  negative 
opinion.  On  the  two  questions  whether  there  was  sufficient  regulatory  scrutiny  and 
whether the Board was impartial, respondents were evenly split. Moreover, professionals 
are  more  likely  to  have  positive  opinions  about  the  Board  than  individuals  are  in  their 
private capacity.  

It emerges from the answers to the open questions that respondents clearly do not see the 
Board as a body exercising purely internal quality control. Given the absence of a similar 
body elsewhere in the legislation process, for example at the level of co-legislators, the 
Board  is  expected  to  have  a  much  larger  role  in  the  policymaking  process.  Several 
respondents  proposed  giving  it  more  independence  by  establishing  a  secretariat  for  the 
Board  independent  from  the  Commission  or  by  recruiting  all  members  externally. 
Additionally,  respondents  suggested  strengthening  the  mandate  to  allow  the  Board  to 
assess inception impact assessments and roadmaps as well as more evaluations. 

70 

 
 
4.6. 

Final questions on past and future progress  

Q15. Please select up to three areas where the Commission has made (relatively more) 
progress since 2014. 

The three areas of better regulation where respondents saw the most progress since 2015 
are  mainly  public  consultation,  transparency  of  the  policymaking  process  and  impact 
assessments.  Businesses  observed,  in  particular,  progress  in  the  scrutiny  of  legislative 
proposals.   

71 

 
 
 
Q16. Please select up to three areas where the Commission should make improvements 
in the future. 

The  opinions  of  private  and  professional  respondents  diverge  on  future  improvements. 
While individuals saw further improvement necessary in areas where most progress has 
been  made  —  i.e.  consultation,  transparency  and  impact  assessments  —  professionals 
would like to see also more progress on evaluations.  

72 

 
 
 
4.7. 

 Conclusions of the public consultation questionnaire 

Professionals tended to be more positive about the Commission’s better regulation efforts 
than individuals responding in a private capacity.  

Individual respondents often indicated that they found the decision-making process with 
its  better  regulation  elements  confusing,  did  not  find  it  transparent  or  were  simply 
unaware of its elements, especially REFIT and impact assessments.  

The  new  web  portal  Have  Your  Say  was  welcomed  by  several  respondents,  but 
consultation  and  transparency  remain  the  top  items  that  respondents  would  like  to  see 
further  improved.  Additionally,  many  individuals  had  the  impression  that  they  were 
overlooked  by  the  analyses.  Like  civil  society  organisations,  they  argued  that  the 
economic focus is too strong and neglects issues such as (public) health, inequality and 
the climate.  

Professionals  considered  themselves  better  informed  about  the  better  regulation  agenda 
and the opportunities to participate than individual respondents did. They made proposals 
to  strengthen several  elements of better  regulation and to increase the opportunities for 
them  to  participate,  and  urged  the  Commission,  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
European Council to assess the impacts of every proposal and amendment.  

4.8. 

Position papers 

Overall,  stakeholders  welcomed  the  progress  that  the  Commission  has  made  on  better 
regulation  since  2015.  They  especially  appreciated  the  increased  possibilities  for 
participation.  In  their  position  papers,  they  call  for  continued  efforts  and  make  many 
suggestions to further improve and elaborate the better regulation system. To be able to 

73 

 
 
 
advocate  better  their  interests,  stakeholders  proposed  further  improving  participation, 
increasing  transparency  and  de-politicising  the  better  regulation  system.  Additionally, 
NGOs and social partners called for an overhaul to put the public interest rather than the 
economy  into  the  focus.  National  and  regional  governments  as  well  as  businesses 
supported  the  economic  orientation  and  renewed  their  call  to  pay  close  attention  to  the 
regulatory  burden  placed  on  each  of  them.  At  the  same  time,  two  members  of  the 
business  community  worried  about  better  regulation  leading  to  deregulation.  Finally, 
members of the research community offered their specific expertise.  

For more detail, see the web page where all position papers have been published 160. 

Public authorities 

In  alphabetical  order,  the  national  governments  of  Denmark,  Finland  and  the  United 
Kingdom  as  well  as  the  organisation  representing  the  interests  of  Danish  local 
governments  (LGDK)  submitted  relevant  position  papers.  In  a  separate  document,  the 
national  government  of  Malta  provided  extended  answers  to  the  open  questions  in  the 
public consultation online.  

These  public  authorities  univocally  welcome  the  improvements  brought  by  the  better 
regulation agenda. They propose various ways to further strengthen the elements of the 
better  regulation  system  and  to  continue  the  REFIT  programme.  They  also  support  an 
economic  orientation,  referring  to  competitiveness,  economic  growth,  employment  and 
innovation as important issues to be considered.  Additionally, public authorities ask for 
continued efforts on quantification and burden reduction.  

For  the  Danish,  Finnish,  Maltese  and  British  public  authorities,  especially  the  Danish 
local governments, implementation was a key issue. In this context, they considered more 
granularity  in  the  analyses  as  essential.  The  Danish  local  governments  gave  as  an 
example “that an impact assessment shows that 40% of workers will get better terms for 
a given action at EU level. It would be desirable to investigate which workers this applies 
to and from which Member States.”  

Additionally, these public authorities also asked the Commission to pay attention to the 
density  and  complexity  of  its  legislation,  which  is  especially  caused  by  implementing 
acts  and  delegated  acts.  According  to  them,  these  acts  often  weigh  heavily  on  local 
governments and small and medium-sized businesses who have to understand and apply 
those rules.  

In terms of proposed changes, those proposed to improve stakeholder consultations and 
participation  in  the  REFIT  Platform  played  the  most  prominent  role  in  these  public 
authorities’  position  papers.  They  urged  the  Commission:  to  make  sure  that  all 
stakeholder groups are included; to drive up the number and diversity of contributions; to 
have  more  open-ended  questionnaires;  to  follow  up  on  stakeholders’  contributions 
systematically  and  consistently;  and  to  improve  the  inclusion  of  (detailed)  stakeholder 
contributions  in  analyses.  Another  suggestion  made  by  several  public  authorities  is  to 
increase  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board’s  independence.  Many  detailed  suggestions 
regarding the Commission’s better regulation system can be found in the position papers 
themselves.  

160   https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-stocktaking-commissions-better-regulation-

approach_en 

74 

 
                                                 
Civil society (NGOs) 

In  alphabetical  order,  BirdLife  Europe,  CONCORD  (European  NGO  confederation  for 
relief  and  development),  the  European  Environmental  Bureau,  NABU  and  WWF 
submitted position papers, with those of BirdLife and NABU being almost identical.  

The  following  statement  of  the  WWF  reflects  these  NGOs’  concerns  succinctly: 
“Currently the Better Regulation guidelines mainly aim to support economic growth by 
ensuring that its proposals meet policy goals at minimum cost, while maintaining social 
and  environmental  sustainability  considered  as  a  secondary  objective.”  Therefore,  the 
position papers call for a reform or even an overhaul of the Commission’s current better 
regulation system.  

These NGOs urge the Commission to put public interest rather than the private interest of 
the business community at the centre of the better regulation agenda. A related criticism 
is that the environmental impacts do not receive the same attention as economic impacts. 
These NGOs see an overemphasis  on quantification, especially in  monetary terms, as a 
root  cause.  According  to  them,  the  current  quantifying  practices  also  systematically 
disadvantage  future  generations  and  non-linearly  behaving  environmental  systems. 
CONCORD commented positively on the sustainability impact  assessments  and human 
rights impact assessments carried out by DG TRADE for trade negotiation proposals.  

These  NGOs  look  to  the  better  regulation  system  to  track  the  European  Union’s 
performance  in  meeting  (internationally)  agreed  objectives  and  goals,  such  as  the 
Sustainable Development Goals and climate targets. For example, they find that setting 
indicators  and  monitoring  the  achievement  of  policy  goals  against  those  indicators 
increases the EU’s accountability. The environmental NGOs proposed that sustainability 
principles  become  mainstream  by  including  them  in  the  better  regulation  toolbox  and 
having  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  oversee  their  application.  CONCORD  added  the 
concept of policy coherence for development to this request.  

Additionally,  these  NGOs  emphasise  the  importance  of  achieving  policy  objectives 
effectively and efficiently, rather than focusing on cost cutting and simplification, which 
is what the current REFIT programme does in their view. In this regard, NGOs ask that 
better  attention  be  paid  to  policy  coherence,  implementation  in  the  Member  States  and 
enforcement.  

Finally, these NGOs would like to see stakeholder consultations improved. It is important 
to  them  to  be  consulted  also  on  strategic  policy  considerations  rather  than  only  on  a 
narrow  set  of  pre-determined  policy  choices.  Moreover,  they  stress  the  importance  of 
making sure that all stakeholders, including small ones, are reached. NGOs also ask the 
Commission  to  make  questionnaires  more  understandable,  to  balance  the  stakeholders’ 
input fairly in the analyses and to provide feedback to those who participated.  

Business community 

In  alphabetical  order,  the  following  organisations  from  the  business  community 
submitted  relevant  position  papers:  Accountancy  Europe,  Advertising  Information 
Group, Bundesverband der deutschen Industrie, BusinessEurope, Deutsche Industrie- und 
Handelskammertag,  EuroChambers,  Insurance  Europe,  Näringslivets  Regelnämnd, 
Specialised  Nutrition  Europe,  Verband  der  chemischen  Industrie,  Zentralverband  des 
deutschen  Handwerks.  There  is  much  consensus  on  what  would  need  to  be  improved. 
Many of the papers feature long lists of detailed suggestions for improvement. It should 

75 

 
be  noted  that  4  of  the  11  position  papers  from  the  business  community  came  from 
Germany.  

For  the  business  community,  the  consultations  are  of  great  importance.  The  one-page 
position  paper  by  Accountancy  Europe  represents  the  variety  of  suggestions  made. 
Besides  improving  the  questionnaire,  as  also  proposed  by  the  public  authorities  (see 
above), they pointed out that the current  format  of the questionnaire and the lengths  of 
response  periods  often  make  it  difficult  for  them  to  consult  their  constituents.  The 
members  of  the  business  community  would  also  like  to  see  their  contributions  to 
consultations fairly weighted and more visible in the analyses.  

Additionally,  many  of  the  position  papers  stressed  that  every  legislative  proposal, 
including  implementing  acts  and  delegated  acts,  should  come  with  an  analysis  of  the 
underlying  evidence.  They  also  called  for  the  co-legislators  to  increase  their  efforts  to 
assess  the  impact  of  their  amendments  during  the  negotiations.  Furthermore,  several 
papers  drew  attention  to  the  correct  application  of  the  subsidiarity  and  proportionality 
principles.  

A frequently mentioned issue was policy fragmentation, because impact assessments do 
not  sufficiently  consider  impacts  on  other  policy  areas.  Furthermore,  the  business 
community perceived impact assessments often to have a bias. They flagged that initial 
preferences for certain policy options should not lead to selective data selection and that 
the collected data needs to be of high quality.  

The  position  papers  stressed  the  importance  of  the  ‘evaluate  first’  principle,  because  it 
makes  the  European  authorities  more  accountable.  At  the  same  time,  they  pointed  out 
that evaluations are not informative if they are done too early. A few organisations noted 
that the quality of evaluations was still trailing behind the quality of impact assessments.  

Another  frequently  mentioned  topic  was  the  transposition  by  Member  States,  including 
gold-plating.  Several  papers  asked  for  more  transparency  and  suggested  developing  a 
common definition of over-implementation. The business community would also like to 
see  efforts  to  further  increase  transparency.  In  particular,  they  would  like  to  see  the 
Commission  publish  draft  impact  assessments,  so  that  stakeholders  can  already  have  a 
look  at  the  underlying  data  and  analysis.  Additionally,  almost  every  position  paper 
mentioned that trilogues lacked transparency.  

The  several  respondents  from  the  business  community  were  of  the  opinion  that  the 
Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  should  enjoy  greater  independence.  They  also  regretted  the 
fact  that  the  Board’s  opinions  were  too  often  not  sufficiently  followed  up  on.  Finally, 
businesses  welcomed  the  REFIT  Platform  and  cautioned  the  Commission  not  to 
politicise  it,  i.e.  make  policy  through  it.  They  would  like  the  Platform’s  scope  to  be 
broadened to  cross-cutting issues and they  called for better follow-up of the Platform’s 
opinions.  

The position paper from Special Nutrition Europe (SNE) provided a different angle than 
the  others.  SNE  was  worried  that  deregulation,  particularly  in  food  labelling,  would 
jeopardise the recognition of their specialised productions.  

For  further  reference,  the  published  position  papers  provide  many  detailed  suggestions 
regarding the Commission’s better regulation system. 

Trade unions 

76 

 
Two  trade  unions  submitted  position  papers.  The  European  Trade  Union  was  highly 
critical  of  the  Commission’s  better  regulation  agenda.  Quoting  from  their  paper:  “the 
‘Better Regulation’ package puts the supposed needs of business above all others; turns 
minimum  standards  into  maximum  standards;  puts  a  value  on  impact  assessments  that 
they do not have; brings a longer, costlier and more bureaucratic procedure that will risk 
delaying  social  progress;  makes  it  more  difficult  for  elected  EU  institutions  to  change 
European Commission proposals and could undermine the principle that EU law applies 
equally  to  all.  In  short,  it  adds  red  tape,  slows  down  progressive  change  and  de-
democratises Europe.”  

The  Beamtenbund  und  Tarifunion  (DBB;  German  association  of  government  officials) 
drew attention to the importance of social protection, including health, equal chances and 
workers’  rights.  They  perceived  better  regulation  as  overly  focusing  on  reducing  the 
burden for businesses. 

Research community (think tanks, academia and consultants)  

The European Risk Forum, Quadrant Conseil and RegWatch Europe submitted position 
papers that all take up a different angle to better regulation. Nonetheless, they all call on 
the Commission to further consolidate its better regulation efforts.  

The main message of RegWatch Europe’s paper is to not aggregate analyses at EU level. 
In  their  opinion,  it  is  more  informative  to  read  what  the  impact  on  individuals  and 
businesses  would  be.  As  a  consultant  carrying  out  evaluations,  Quadrant  Conseil 
implores  the  Commission  to  move  beyond  procedure  and  rules  to  create  a  genuine 
evaluation  culture  among  its  officials.  Paraphrasing  Quadrant  Conseil’s  words,  an 
evaluation  should  not  be  a  report,  but  an  internal  process.  To  this  end,  the  consultant 
proposes, for example, establishing a body of evaluators and increasing the mutual link 
between impact assessments and evaluations. It also calls for a flexible application of the 
rules and procedures in order to make evaluations truly useful, given the wide variety of 
policy areas. The European Risk Forum takes an approach opposite to the one calling for 
flexibility  advocated  by  Quadrant  Conseil.  The  Forum  urges  additional  codification, 
standardisation, formal oversight and requirements to ensure that the scientific evidence 
and  analyses  are  of  the  highest  quality.  For  example,  it  is  concerned  about  bias,  the 
distinctions  between  fact  and  opinion  and  between  measured  evidence  and  theoretical 
extrapolation,  and  applying  state-of-the-art  quantification  methods.  Additionally, 
improving  risk  management  legislation  and  sophisticated  risk  analysis  is  close  to  their 
heart.  Their  long  list  of  detailed  suggestions  includes  ideas  to  improve  the  tools  on 
sectoral  competitiveness (tool #20) and research and innovation  (tool #21) in  the better 
regulation toolbox. 

5.

  EU INSTITUTIONS AND CONSULTATIVE BODIES 

5.1.  The European Parliament 

In its briefings and studies in the fields of ex-ante impact assessment and ex-post impact 
evaluation,  the  European  Parliamentary  research  service  (EPRS)  seeks  to  use  the 
European  Commission’s  own  impact  assessments  and  evaluations  as  the  starting-point 
for  the  analysis  which  it  provides  to  parliamentary  committees.  For  this  and  other 
reasons,  it  attaches  great  importance  on  the  latter  being  of  high  quality  and  based  on 
reliable data. It sees a general rise in the quality of Commission impact assessments over 
time, but expresses a wider concern in the European Parliament that too many significant 

77 

 
proposals  from  the  Commission  have  recently  not  been  accompanied  by  impact 
assessments. 

Impact assessments and regulatory scrutiny 

The EPRS critically analyses every major Commission impact assessment: its specialist 
ex-ante impact assessment unit has undertaken over 250 'initial appraisals' of such texts 
since  2012.  Its  overall  assessment  of  the  quality  and  coherence  of  Commission  impact 
assessments  -  reflected  in  annual  reports161  on  the  subject  to  the  parliamentary 
committees  -  is  that  whilst  a  rising  curve  of  quality  is  generally  observable  in  the 
Commission's impact assessment work, with a more consistent use of evidence and better 
balance between qualitative and quantitative methodologies over time, there a still some 
shortcomings to be addressed. The Parliament's services have also undertaken 68 impact 
assessments  for  committees  on  amendments  put  forward  to  Commission  legislative 
proposals  since  2007  -  seeking  to  work  on  the  basis  of  the  Commission’s  impact 
assessments,  wherever  possible  -  as  well  as  a  number  of  substitute  or  supplementary 
impact assessments for committees. 

As foreseen in the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making and requested by 
the  Parliament  in  various  resolutions,  the  Parliament  would  like  at  least  all  legislative 
initiatives  included  in  the  Commission’s  annual  work  programme  and/or  in  the  joint 
declaration (between the Parliament, Council and the Commission) to be accompanied by 
an impact assessment, wherever possible, and to be warned early on if this is not going to 
be the case. This  is  important both  for consideration of proposals  in committee and for 
negotiations in trilogues. Therefore, it is considered problematic that about one third of 
recent  Commission  proposals  in  such  categories  have  come  without  an  impact 
assessment,  for  whatever  reason,  with  a  desire  for  a  clearer  explanation  of  why  impact 
assessments are not conducted and ideally an early warning system in such cases. 

The  EPRS  explained  that  parliamentary  committees  have  expressed  concern  that 
Commission impact assessments do not always fully cover the various aspects foreseen 
in the inception impact assessment in a balanced way. They note that, in some cases, the 
quality of Commission impact assessments could be improved by balancing the potential 
economic impacts of an initiative with a more systematic consideration of environmental, 
social and other impacts, and by better identifying potential implications for citizens. In 
some cases, the different policy options and their potential effects could also be presented 
more  clearly,  whilst  some  impact  assessments  are  considered  to  be  too  long  and 
insufficiently  concise  as  texts.  When  necessary,  impact  assessments  could  be  updated 
after having passed the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to fully reflect the Commission’s final 
legislative proposal, and underlying studies and the Board opinions could be published at 
the same time as the impact assessment. 

 Evaluation and REFIT 

The  European  Parliament  considers  it  a  positive  development  that  the  Regulatory 
Scrutiny  Board  now  scrutinises  both  impact  assessments  and  evaluations,  not  least 
because  the  institution  has  attached  increasing  importance  to  the  evaluation  of  existing 
legislation  and  policy  in  recent  years.  In  April  2016,  the  Parliament  approved  new 
internal  provisions  for  carrying  out  Implementation  Reports,  and  during  this  legislative 

161 https://epthinktank.eu/category/publications/ 

78 

 
                                                 
term (2014-19), 65 such Implementation Reports have been adopted - almost two and a 
half  times  as  many  as  during  the  previous  2009-14  term.  To  facilitate  this  work,  the 
EPRS  publishes  (since  2014) 
'rolling  check-lists'  that  keep  track  of  reporting 
requirements in EU legislation, of on-going and planned evaluations by the Commission, 
and  of  EP  policy  requests  to  the  Commission.  It  also  drafts  short  'Implementation 
Appraisals',  analysing  the  state  of  implementation  of  selected  legislation,  and  longer 
'European Implementation Assessments' (EIAs), which provide an analytical base for the 
Implementation  Reports  produced  by  parliamentary  committees.  This  material  not  only 
looks at general issues arising in implementation, but explores how far the Parliament's 
own objectives have been met and any other issues reflecting its Members’ concerns.  

Such texts usually take full account of Commission evaluations and of data provided by 
the  Commission,  although  questions  of  data  availability  and  quality  are  sometimes  of 
concern.  The  EPRS  suggests  applying  clearer  quality  criteria,  in  particular  for  non-
governmental data, together with a greater prioritisation of data collection methods used 
by the Commission. More widely, the Parliament and its committees have called on the 
Commission  to  give  the  institution  greater  access  to  data  it  may  hold  -  such  as 
information relating to pre-infringement procedures and on Member States' transposition 
measures  and  explanatory  documents  -  and  also  requested  it  to  indicate  more  clearly 
when Member States introduce additional administrative requirements or other elements 
unrelated  to  EU  legislation,  or  set  higher  standards  that  go  beyond  EU-wide  minimum 
standards. 

On REFIT, the Parliament would like the Commission’s annual work programme to seek 
to identify REFIT evaluations and initiatives that could be agreed in the joint declaration 
(between  the  Parliament,  Council  and  the  Commission)  each  year.  The  scoreboard 
published  by  the  Commission  in  respect  of  the  REFIT  element  of  the  Commission’s 
programme is considered useful, although the schedule foreseen is not always followed 
and proposals are often delayed. There is also thought to be scope for improvement in the 
quantification of the reduction in regulatory burdens and potential savings. 

Consultation 

The  European  Parliament  has  strengthened  its  attempts  to  consult  with  national 
parliaments on legislative issues, although it has so far received only limited feedback on 
the  practical  experience  of  applying  EU  legislation  in  the  Member  States.  It  has 
welcomed  the  commitment  made  by  the  Commission,  before  adopting  a  proposal,  to 
consult widely - in particular with SMEs, civil society and other end-users - but considers 
that the Commission should focus on consultation before the adoption of a proposal, and 
not to continue any public consultation during the legislative process itself, since during 
this  phase,  it  is  for  the  Parliament  and  Member  States  to  carry  out  their  own 
consultations, if they choose to.  

5.2.  The General Secretariat of the Council 

On 11 January 2019, a delegation from the General Secretariat of the Council (referred 
to  as  ‘the  General  Secretariat  of  the  Council’  or  ‘GSC’)  visited  the  Commission’s 
Secretariat-General to informally exchange views in the context of the better regulation 
stocktaking  exercise.  The  officials  from  the  GSC  had  consulted  some  of  the  sectoral 
departments of the General Secretariat for an overview of the strengths and weaknesses 
of  the  current  better  regulation  system.  (The  views  expressed  here  do  not  commit  the 
Council as such in any way) 

79 

 
Impact assessments and regulatory scrutiny 

As the GSC only has limited capacity to carry out its own impact assessments, it would 
encourage  the  Commission  to  further  strengthen  the  quality  of  its  impact  assessments, 
notably  by  increasing   their  readability  and  working  on  the  executive  summaries. 
Additionally, they remarked that the Commission could pay more attention and focus on 
the effects of certain legislative proposals at Member State level.  

The GSC found that the impact assessments provided a lot of relevant information that 
facilitated  agreement  and  increased  the  efficiency  of  the  legislative  process.  They 
acknowledged that the use of impact assessments across working parties and presidencies 
varied. This depended among others on the policy area and the political sensitivity of the 
file. The GSC also clarified that the working parties were free to choose their approach to 
impact assessments, but that the working party chairpersons usually read them closely.  

The GSC found the impact assessments generally thorough and of high quality, but also 
flagged that they were lengthy. Hence, the executive summary was of utmost importance. 
Furthermore,  they  would  like  to  see  better  justifications  of  the  options  and,  in  some 
cases, more analysis at Member State level, as mentioned before. The GSC also pointed 
out that the legislative proposals were not always consistent with the impact assessments. 
Additionally,  the  GSC  preferred  the  presentation  of  the  available  underlying  evidence 
even if it was not possible to present it as an impact assessment.  

The GSC reported that they had built up capacity to carry out impact assessments on their 
own.  This  capacity  is  very  small  and  meant  as  a  last  resort.  Preferably,  the  Member 
States should carry out the impact assessments for the major amendments they propose. 
Any  analytical  work  to  be  carried  out  by  the  Council  would  be  heavily  based  on  the 
preceding work done by the Commission and the European Parliament. So far, the GSC’s 
capacity remains untested, because it has not yet received either an eligible request for an 
impact assessment or there was no simple majority support for an impact assessment in 
the Council.  

Evaluations 

The GSC stressed the importance of obeying the ‘evaluate first’ principle and pointed out 
that  timing  is  very  important  for  evaluations.  The  GSC  regretted  that  it  is  difficult  to 
gather information from national and regional authorities, which results in interest groups 
having  disproportionately  loud  voices.  The  GSC  suggested  there  should  be  more 
awareness raising about  opportunities for participation and such participation should be 
made less resource-intensive.  

The  GSC  observed  that  the  quality  of  evaluations  was  inferior  to  that  of  impact 
assessments.  Especially,  it  found  the  research  design  poor  and  would  like  to  see  the 
structure of evaluations improved. Additionally, the GSC was of the view that based on 
experience, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board helped to increase the quality of evaluations. 
The GSC therefore supported the idea of  seeing  the Board’s involvement expanded.  

Subsidiarity and proportionality 

The GSC has observed an increase in the request for subsidiarity and proportionality in 
legal assessments since the Lisbon Treaty. In the GSC’s view ( based on feedback from 
its services), the high quality of the Commission’s analyses in this respect was of great 
importance  to  the  GSC’s  services.  However,  presently,  as  far  as  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality are concerned, it is only possible to find a very short assessment on those 

80 

 
aspects  in  the  Commission's  Memoranda  of  Understanding.  In  particular,  it  would  be 
essential for the Commission’s analysis to cover all viable policy options. Additionally, 
the GSC suggested doing a more in-depth  analysis on subsidiarity issues for politically 
sensitive  files  (especially  in  policy  areas  where,  within  the  Council,  unanimity  is  still 
required for decision-making on issues such as taxation, for example.). Finally, the GSC 
thought  that  the  Commission  should  refrain  from  using  standard  sentences  in  the 
subsidiarity and proportionality analysis, especially in the executive summary, as this did 
not bring any added value. 

5.3.  The Council Working Group on Competitiveness and Growth 

In  response  to  the  consultation  with  the  Council’s  Working  Group  on  Competitiveness 
and  Growth  (COMPRCO),  Estonia,  Germany,  Ireland,  Poland  and  Spain  submitted 
written  contributions.  They  appreciated  impact  assessments  considerably,  because  they 
help  them  understand  the  Commission’s  thinking  and  help  them  communicate  with 
national  stakeholders.  Additionally,  several  Member  States  valued 
impact 
assessments  as  a  basis  for  their  own  analyses.  Hence,  most  of  them  stated  that  it  is  of 
great  importance  for  all  legislative  proposals  to  come  with  impact  assessments  and  for 
amendments  to  be  assessed  as  well.  They  also  stressed  the  need  to  better  assess  the 
impact  on  individual  Member  States,  which  according  to  one  Member  State  would 
facilitate negotiations. Regarding impact assessments and evaluations, Estonia, Germany, 
Ireland,  Poland  and  Spain  acknowledged  their  increasing  quality  but  asked  for  shorter, 
more  readable  documents,  a  more  consistent  application  of  methodologies  and  an 
analysis  of  (macroeconomic)  impacts  (GDP,  export,  jobs)  rather  than  output  (patents, 
papers).  

the 

These  Member  States  suggested  that  consultations  should  be  more  representative,  that 
national, regional and local governments should be consulted more (for example, through 
the Committee of the Regions), and that individuals who do not speak English or do not 
have  internet  access  should  be  included.  Estonia  proposed  an  automated  analysis  of 
responses  to  online  consultations  that  would  be  available  online  directly.  Poland  also 
proposed giving more attention to non-governmental organisations.  

Finally,  two  Member  States  called  for  a  reduction  of  targets  or  a  one-in/one-out 
mechanism to reduce bureaucracy. 

5.4.  The Committee of the Regions 

The European Committee of the Regions (CoR) expressed its views on better regulation 
in several opinions162. In addition, views were exchanged with the officials of the CoR. 
Their  main  concern  is  to  increase  the  participation  of  regional  and  local  authorities  in 
policy  development  and  in  the  assessment  of  legislation’s  impact  on  the  regions, 
including  the  administrative  burden  placed  on  their  authorities.  End  of  2018,  the  CoR 
launched its network of regional hubs, as an additional source of feedback, to assess EU 
policy implementation at local and regional level.  

162  Committee of the Regions - CIVEX-VI/007, 12, 13 and 14 October 2015 OPINION - EU Agenda on 

Better Regulation 

Committee  of  the  Regions  -  CIVEX-VI/012,  7  and  8  December  2016  OPINION  -  The  REFIT 
Programme: the local and regional perspective 

Committee of the Regions - ECON-VI/020, 12-13 July 2017 OPINION - Smart Regulation for SMEs 

81 

 
                                                 
 
 
Impact assessments and scrutiny 

In  its  opinions,  the  CoR  made  proposals  to  improve  impact  assessments.  In  particular, 
impact assessments should explore the territorial dimension of major policy options and 
the effects of legislation on the administrative burden for local and regional authorities. 
Good  examples  of  successful  territorial  impact  assessments  undertaken  by  the  CoR,  as 
pointed out  by the officials  of the CoR, include the UK’s withdrawal  from  the EU, the 
European Regional Development Fund after 2020 and the Urban Agenda. 

The  CoR  uses  the  information  provided  in  impact  assessments  as  a  technical  basis  for 
background notes and political fiches to inform the political level.  

Based on the Commission’s roadmap, the CoR identifies five priority areas per year, for 
which which they conduct territorial impact assessments. In the last 2 years some of these 
were  conducted  with  the  Commission’s  Directorate-General  for  Regional  and  Urban 
Policy,  with  the  CoR  providing  the  Commission  with  input  for  impact  assessments. 
Nonetheless, in most cases the Commission does not involve the CoR at an early stage of 
the impact assessment process. The officials of the CoR underlined they would prefer to 
be involved at an earlier stage of the process, as made possible by the CoR-Commission 
cooperation agreement, in order to flag territorial dimension aspects. The officials of the 
CoR  also  pointed  to  the  lack  of  regional  data,  which  limits  a  clear  assessment  of 
territorial impacts in some areas. 

The officials of the CoR welcomed the Regulatory Scrutiny Board’s independent scrutiny 
and acknowledged that impact assessments were scrutinised for including an analysis of 
the  territorial  impact.  However,  they  asked  for  more  regional  competence  within  the 
Board and more effort on scrutinising territorial impact assessments. 

Evaluation and REFIT 

In its opinions, the CoR welcomed the stronger role of evaluations and the introduction 
of REFIT to support simplification and regulatory cost reductions without compromising 
policy  objectives.  Their  officials  find  that  REFIT  sets  an  essential  focus  by  assessing 
whether implementation is practical and feasible. In the CoR’s view, the REFIT Platform 
should  focus  on  specific  issues  within  EU  legislation  and  take  a  more  ambitious 
approach, i.e. aiming for structural improvements to the EU regulatory framework in the 
medium-term.  The  officials  of  the  CoR  found  that  the  highly  technical  level  of 
submissions to the REFIT Platform made it difficult for the CoR to contribute within the 
short  timeframes.  Additionally,  broader  themes  would  facilitate  input  from  local  and 
regional  government.  The  officials  suggested  that  the  REFIT  Platform  be  involved  in 
REFIT  evaluations  and  agreed  with  the  proposals  put  forward  in  the  ‘Commission 
Communication on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality’163 to give local and 
regional  authorities  a  greater  presence  within  the  Platform  and  to  widen  its  focus  to 
address subsidiarity, proportionality, legislative density and the role of local and regional 
authorities in implementing EU law. 

163  COM(2018)  703  final  of  23  October  2018  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament, the European Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 
of the Regions: The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality: Strengthening their role in  the EU's 
policymaking 

82 

 
                                                 
The  officials  of  the  CoR  recognised  that  the  Commission  had  come  a  long  way  in  its 
evaluation of legislation, which is more systematically covered, although not to the same 
degree  in  all  areas.  However,  they  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  timing  needed 
improvement, as evaluations come too late, notably evaluations of spending programmes 
whose  purpose  is  essentially  to  inform  decisions  for  the  next  cycle  of  multiannual 
frameworks.  

The  CoR  has  initiated  a  network  of  regional  hubs  in  response  to  the  ‘Task  force  on 
subsidiarity,  proportionality  and  doing  less  more  efficiently’  which  presented  its 
conclusions in 2018164. During a two-year pilot phase, 20 core regions and an additional 
number  of  associate  regions  will  provide  systematic  information  and  feedback  on  the 
implementation  of  EU  legislation  at  local  and  regional  level,  which  is  shared  with  EU 
institutions. 

Consultation 

In its opinions the CoR supported the actions introduced in 2015 to improve stakeholder 
consultations.  The  CoR  insisted  in  its  opinions  that  the  Commission  and  the  other 
institutions  should  involve  regions  and  local  authorities  more  actively  when  designing 
legislation. Their experience in applying EU rules is valuable for assessing the impact of 
legislation  or  devising  ways  to  implement  policies.  Specifically,  the  CoR  asked  for  a 
specific  set  of  consultations  of  regional  and  local  legislative  assemblies  during  the 
Commission’s policy development.  The CoR  would  like to  be involved in their role as 
consultative  body  and  not  as  stakeholder.  Therefore,  they  do  not  participate  in  public 
consultations as a rule.  

According  to  the  CoR  officials,  an  inherent  self-selection  of  respondents  in  the  public 
consultation  results  in  sets  of  responses  with  high  degrees  of  bias.  The  timing  of 
consultations can be challenging, such as the quick consultation on the proposals for the 
multiannual financial framework, making the response by regions and other stakeholders 
difficult.  Hence,  they  did  not  find  public  consultations  a  good  source  of  data  and 
evidence. 

The  number  of  respondents  should  not  be  the  only  benchmark  for  the  success  of 
consultations.  There  is  a  strong  legitimacy  between  input  and  output.  This  means  that 
providing  the  target  group  most  affected  by  new  EU  legislation  (e.g.  regions)  with 
meaningful  input  in  the  consultation  also  increases  the  motivation  of  these  players  to 
comply with the regulation once adopted or once revised.  

According to the CoR, the regional hubs pilot scheme with 20 regions and an additional 
number  of  associate  regions  will  help  increase  the  input  from  regional  authorities  and 
their regional stakeholders. Participating regions have committed to reply systematically 
and  several  times  per  year  to  questionnaire  consultations  on  the  implementation  of  EU 
legislation at local and regional level. 

164   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/report-task-force-subsidiarity-proportionality-

doing-less-more-efficiently_1.pdf 

83 

 
                                                 
5.5.  The European Economic and Social Committee 

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has expressed its views on better 
regulation in several opinions165. In addition, an exchange of views took place between 
officials  of  the  Secretariat-General  of  the  Commission  and  three  members  of  the 
European Economic and Social Committee on 15 January 2019. 

Overall,  the  EESC  welcomed  the  better  regulation  agenda,  which  in  their  view  should 
become  a  permanent  programme  in  delivering  high-quality  Union  legislation  without 
undermining  key  policy  objectives  or  creating  deregulation  pressure.  According  to  the 
EESC, it should be continued, further developed and improved by the new Commission 
after  2019.  The  EESC  stressed  the  importance  of  covering  the  whole  life  cycle  of 
legislation and in  particular its applicability, which needed to  be ensured from the start 
and monitored at the implementation stage. 

Impact assessments and scrutiny 

The  EESC  considered  impact  assessments  useful,  but  the  focus  on  assessing  cost  must 
not  come  at  the  expense  of  the  assessment  of  possible  benefits  that  are  not  as  easy  to 
quantify.  The  EESC  encouraged  a  broader  view  of  the  Commission’s  impact 
assessments, i.e. they should consider a wider set of options in detail. 

The  EESC  considered  it  important  that  the  European  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament  shared  the  responsibility  of  ensuring  better  regulation,  especially  when  it 
comes  to  assessing  the  impacts  of  amendments,  not  least  also  in  keeping  with  the 
recommendations  from  the  European  Court  of  Auditors.  They  suggested  that  the  three 
institutions  should  have  a  shared  methodology  for  impact  assessments  and  an  agreed 
scope.  

The  better  regulation  agenda  including  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  was  highly 
appreciated. The Board has a crucial role, in the EESC’s view. Because of its neutrality 
and know-how, it adds considerably to the credibility of the Commission’s proposals. 

The EESC regretted that the Board is not well known outside the European institutions 
and  bodies  in  Brussels.  According  to  them,  a  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  that  is  more 
visible  in  European  capitals  could  help  increase  the  credibility  of  the  Commission’s 
legislative  proposals  and  impact  assessments.  Additionally,  the  EESC  would  like  to 
discuss methodological issues with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. 

Evaluation and REFIT 

165   Opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  the  Communication  from  the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the  Regions −  Completing the Better Regulation  Agenda: Better solutions  for 
better results (2018/C 262/04) OJ C 262, 25.7.2018, p.22 

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Analysis of transparency, methodology 
and  resources  of  impact  assessments  and  evaluations  that  the  European  Commission  is  launching  to 
improve the quality of European legislation’(2017/C 434/02) OJ C 434, 15.12.2017, p. 11 

Opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  the  ‘Evaluation  of  European 
Commission stakeholder consultations’ (2015/C 383/09) OJ C 383, 17.11.2015, p. 57 

Opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  REFIT  (exploratory  opinion)  (2016/C 
303/06) OJ C 303, 19.8.2016, p. 45 

84 

 
                                                 
The EESC firmly supports the ‘evaluate first’ principle and is actively involved in better 
regulation,  notably  through  its  participation  in  the  drafting  of  ex  post  evaluations.  The 
EESC deemed monitoring of application on the ground to be essential in order to create a 
legal framework that enabled businesses and individuals to benefit from the advantages 
of the internal market and to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens. 

The  EESC  subscribed  to  a  REFIT  programme  that  in  their  view  must  lead  to  neither 
deregulation nor reducing the level of protection of social, environmental or fundamental 
rights. European legislation is an essential factor in integration, and, when proportionate, 
it is an important guarantee of protection, promotion and legal certainty for all European 
stakeholders and citizens. But it is essential to avoid needless regulatory costs. 

The EESC is participating in the REFIT Platform. While recognising the progress made 
by  the  REFIT  Platform  in  simplifying  existing  legislation,  the  EESC  proposed  that  the 
Platform’s  mandate  could  be  extended  to  not  only  look  at  burden  reduction  but  also  at 
improving  the  legislation,  which  may  include  the  need  for  new  legislation.  Finally,  the 
EESC  found  that  the  REFIT  Platform  did  not  adequately  reflect  in  its  composition  the 
weight that the EESC actually carries by representing civil society. 

Consultation 

The  EESC  supported  the  comprehensive  involvement  of  stakeholders  by  performing 
consultations  throughout  the  lifecycle  of  a  political  initiative,  because  it  is  crucial  to 
consider  already  at  the  drafting  stage  that  legislation  is  easy  for  Member  States  and 
stakeholders  to  implement.  It  recognised  the  progress  made  on  consultation  under  the 
better regulation agenda. 

Nonetheless,  the EESC would like to  see more  and better interaction with  stakeholders 
and the general public who are affected by proposed legislation. To this effect, the EESC 
would  like  to  contribute  more  to  identifying  relevant  stakeholders  and  disseminating 
information about consultations to relevant organisations and groups. This would help to 
ensure  that  relevant  players  are  aware  of  the  consultation  and  the  possibility  to 
contribute. 

6.

  EUROPEAN COMMISSION OFFICIALS 

6.1. 

Impact assessment 

Commission  officials  strongly  supported  the  concept  of  evidence-based  policymaking.  
Overall,  they  found  that  the  process  of  writing  an  impact  assessment  provides  a  good, 
systematic preparation for later negotiations and communication about the Commission’s 
proposals.  Some  Commission  officials  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  impact  assessment 
report  has  to  satisfy  competing  demands  of  efficient  communication  and  providing 
evidence on often complex topics. Others were concerned whether the resources required 
to prepare an impact assessment were proportionate to the benefits and the often limited 
use in the co-legislative process.  

Commission officials were of the opinion that the absence of impact assessments needs 
to  be  justified  much  better,  for  example  in  the  explanatory  memorandum  or  even  in  a 
press release, but they preferred not having an impact assessment over having one of low 
quality. 

85 

 
The  quality  of  analyses  presented  in  impact  assessments  is  often  limited  by  the 
availability  of  relevant  information.  Commission  officials  drew  attention  to  the 
difficulties  they  have  in  gathering  reliable,  comprehensive  data  and  in  applying 
methodologies  coherently  and  transparently  across  a  wide  variety  of  policy  fields  and 
across all Member States. 

6.2.  Evaluation 

Commission  officials  acknowledged  that  evaluations  are  useful  for  learning  about  the 
functioning  of  EU  interventions  and  can  help  gain  new  insights  when  well  timed,  for 
example, when the policy has been implemented for a while, and its results and impacts 
can be meaningfully assessed. Commission officials had mixed views about the ‘evaluate 
first’ principle. Some argued that it is intuitive and logical as it closes the policy cycle. 
Others suggested deciding on the need for evaluations on a case-by-case basis. 

Some Commission officials called for a flexible application of the rules and procedures 
to  make  evaluations  more  meaningful,  given  the  wide  variety  of  policy  areas  that 
evaluations cover. 

There  were  mixed  views  about  whether  the  Commission  should  conduct  evaluations 
internally  or  involve  external  contractors  or  other  institutions.  Commission  officials 
shared the view that conducting the evaluation internally allows in-house expertise to be 
built up and used more. Some officials were sceptical about the quality of the work and 
services  provided  by  contractors.  The  issue  of  limited  resources  for  conducting  the 
evaluation internally was also a concern.  

On quantification, a number of Commission officials thought that the lack of appropriate 
data is the most important problem affecting the quality of evaluations. Comparable EU-
wide  data  are  often  not  available  and  this  makes  it  difficult  to  quantify  impacts. 
Commission  officials  noted  that  there  is  a  trade-off  between  the  pressure  to  reduce  the 
administrative  burden  of  systematic  monitoring  in  the  original  proposal  and  the 
availability of evidence when it comes to the evaluation.  

6.3.  Consultation 

Commission  officials  considered  stakeholder  consultation  as  being  essential  for 
transparency and accountability purposes. Nonetheless, they shared the view that public 
consultation  can  in  some  cases,  particularly  in  evaluations,  be  a  time-consuming  and 
resource-intensive process with limited value when it comes to the quality and quantity 
of evidence provided by participants.   

6.4.  The Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

The  interviews  showed  that  Commission  officials  think  highly  of  the  Board’s  work. 
Several  officials  saw  the  Board  hearing  as  a  rehearsal  for  the  negotiations  with  co-
legislators and as practice to explain their proposal to non-experts. 

Some Commission officials expressed concerns that the Board’s demands for additional 
analysis  and  information  are  not  proportionate  to  the  specific  initiative.  Additionally, 
Commission staff worried that the Board does not apply its standards consistently (such 
as  its  demands  for  quantified  information).  Some  officials  were  of  the  opinion  that  too 
many published impact assessments and evaluations remain of unsatisfactory quality. 

86 

 
6.5.  The REFIT programme, Platform and Scoreboard 

Commission officials recognised that the REFIT programme and Platform are important 
for communication purposes. However, they thought that a separate process such as the 
REFIT Platform is not needed, because the REFIT approach is now a mainstream part of 
the policy cycle and evaluations are improving. On the REFIT Scoreboard, the officials 
who  were  interviewed  suggested  using  more  qualitative  examples  or  case  studies  to 
illustrate impacts of legislation. Moreover, they suggested being more open about which 
burdens and benefits can and cannot be quantified. 

7.

  OTHER ORGANISATIONS AND BODIES 

7.1.  REFIT Platform 

The  REFIT  Platform  decided  that  it  would  contribute  to  the  Commission’s  better 
regulation  stocktaking  exercise.  The  Platform’s  Secretariat  prepared  a  dedicated  survey 
to  collect  the  views  of  the  Platform’s  members  on  how  the  Platform  has  fulfilled  its 
purpose  and  contributed  to  the  Commission's  better  regulation  agenda.  The  survey  was 
circulated  on  2  July.  Members  had  12  weeks  to  send  in  their  contributions  (until 
20 September 2018). Of the Platform’s 47 members (28 in the government group and 19 
in the stakeholder group), 34 sent contributions (20 from the government group and 14 
from the stakeholder group). 

The  Secretariat  compiled  the  contributions,  presenting  aggregated  findings  from  the 
survey and including a synthesis of proposals for future improvements.  The stakeholder 
group  agreed  in  its  meeting  on  29 June  to  set  up  a  working  group  to  consider  the 
findings.  The  working  group  prepared  a  recommendation  to  identify  the  consensual  or 
more complex issues. The Platform as a whole agreed this recommendation at its meeting 
on 14 March. 

In the opinion the REFIT Platform members recognize that the Platform has provided a 
valuable  contribution  to  the  REFIT  agenda  and  recommends  its  continuation  with  the 
Stakeholder  group  and  the  Government  group.  The  Stakeholders  and  the  Government 
group  proposed  detailed  suggestions  on  possible  improvements.  The  Committee  of  the 
Regions also annexed its opinion.166. 

   

7.2.  Task  force  on  subsidiarity,  proportionality  and  doing  less  more 

efficiently 

The  ‘Task  force  on  subsidiarity,  proportionality  and  doing  less  more  efficiently’ 
submitted  its  report  to  President  Juncker  on  10 July 2018167.  The  report  contains  nine 

166   REFIT  Platform  opinion  XXII.10.a  “REFIT  Platform  Survey  –  Future  prospects”,  adopted  on  14 
March  2019:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/refit-platform-recommendations-horizontal-issues-xxii10a-
refit-platform-survey-future-prospects_en 

167   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/files/report-task-force-subsidiarity-proportionality-and-doing-less-

more-efficiently_en  

87 

 
 
                                                 
recommendations  to  bring about  a new way  of working to  achieve ‘active subsidiarity’ 
and  greater  involvement  of  local  and  regional  authorities  in  the  Union’s  policymaking. 
Several of the task force’s recommendations have an impact on the Commission’s better 
regulation  policy  and  have  been  considered 
the  stocktaking  exercise.  On 
23 October 2018, the Commission already set out in broad terms how it would respond to 
the task force168. 

in 

7.3.  Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

The annual reports of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board were considered in this stocktaking 
exercise169. 

168   COM(2018)  703:  Communication  entitled:  ‘The  principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality: 

Strengthening their role in the EU's policymaking’.  

169   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/regulatory-scrutiny-board_en  

88