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  COM(2019) 178 final  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 {SWD(2019) 156 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

The  Juncker  Commission  aimed  to  do  different  things  and  to  do  them  differently1.  With  a 
determined focus on ten political priorities, we have delivered concrete results on the issues 
that matter most to Europeans. One of those priorities was democratic change, and over the 
past  mandate,  we  have  put  better  regulation  principles  at  the  heart  of  our  policymaking 
processes, because more open and participative evidence-based policy making has a key role 
to play in enhancing the legitimacy of EU action. We have transformed our internal working 
methods and planning processes to build better regulation into all stages of the planning and 
programming cycle and to deliver streamlined annual work programmes.  

The  introduction  of  better  regulation  principles  had  its  origins  in  the  desire  for  better 
European  governance2  and  for  anchoring  sustainable  development 
the  Union’s 
policymaking3  by  looking  at  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts  together.  Better 
regulation is about professionalising every aspect of our policy-making and keeping it fit for 
today's  world.  It  is  not  an  obscure  bureaucratic  procedure.  Better  regulation  is  about 
legislating when this is needed to deliver on shared objectives, which can only be effectively 
achieved  through common action  at European level. It is  not  a hidden  deregulatory agenda. 
Better regulation is also about considering alternative ways to achieve results since legislation 
should never be an end in itself. Actions at the EU level should always add value compared 
with what can be done at national, regional or local level.  

in 

This Commission has thus been ambitious where we needed to be and modest wherever we 
could. We aimed to deliver better outcomes for our people and businesses. We looked to build 
trust in the Union’s institutions. And we sought citizens' and stakeholders' active involvement 
in shaping what the Union does, should do, should do differently or should no longer do. By 
setting a framework for delivering transparency, accountability and evidence-based decision-
making,  the  Commission’s  commitment  to  better  regulation  and  the  implementation  of  the 
key  measures  announced in  May  20154 has  allowed us to  make  real progress towards these 
goals.  

Box 1. Key measures under better regulation announced in May 2015 

  Improved  stakeholder  participation  through  (i)  feedback  opportunities  over  the  entire  policy 
lifecycle, including on draft delegated and implementing acts; (ii) a commitment to consult for a 
period  of  12  weeks  on  all  new  proposals  and  evaluations;  and  (iii)  a  new  web-based  common 
portal  where  all  stakeholders  can  obtain  information  about  new  initiatives  and  express  their 
views; 

  Integrated guidelines and a comprehensive toolbox for Commission staff on how to apply better 

regulation across the policy cycle; 

  A  renewed  commitment  to  evaluate  existing  legislation  before  proposing  changes  (‘evaluate 

first’); 

  An independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board reviewing the quality of all impact assessments and 
major  evaluations,  comprising  seven  full-time  members  who  are  not  involved  in  the 

1   COM(2014) 910 final: Commission Work Programme 2015 – A New Start. 
2   COM(2001) 428:  European  Governance 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52001DC0428 

–  A  White  Paper: 

3   COM(2002) 276: 

impact 
Communication 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0276:FIN 

on 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

assessment: 

https://eur-

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

content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2015:0215:FIN  

1 

 
                                                 
policymaking process, including three appointed from outside of the EU’s institutions; 

  A  new  commitment5  to  systematically  verify  the  opportunities  for  simplification  and  greater 

efficiency when revising existing legislation without undermining its purpose;  

  A REFIT Platform to provide bottom-up support to the Commission in the above task; and 

  A  proposal  on  the  basis  of  which  a  new  Interinstitutional  Agreement  on  Better  Law-Making 
between  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  and  the  European 
Commission was agreed on 13 April 20166. 

We  have  presented  Communications  setting  out  the  results  achieved  in  the  last  years7  and 
yearly burden reduction reports since 20178.  

Figure 1. Overview of better regulation activities, 2015-2018  

  More than 70% of public 
consultations translated 
into all official 
languages in 2018. 

  Over three quarters of 
impact assessments 
accompanying proposals 
to revise legislation 
respect “evaluate first” 

Now the time has come to take stock of how the various better regulation tools and processes 
are  working.  The  aim  has  been  to  identify  what  is  working  well,  what  is  problematic  and 
which are the main lessons to be learned. Overall, the message is positive: better regulation 
has improved the way policy is made and should remain at the heart of our working methods 
for the future. But there is room for further improvement and we have identified areas, which 
should  be  explored  in  a  wider  debate  on  future  improvements.  These  will  depend  on  a 
stronger shared effort by all those involved in designing and implementing policy solutions.  

In the course of this stocktaking exercise, we have reviewed the literature, consulted publicly, 
and sought the views of the other institutions and bodies as well as those of the Commission 
departments who integrate better regulation in their daily work. Account has also been taken 
of  the  conclusions  of  the  ‘Task  Force  on  subsidiarity,  proportionality  and  doing  less  more 

5   The  commitment  to  do  this  whenever  an  existing  piece  of  legislation  is  revised  was  taken  in  the  2017 
Commission  work  programme  following  an  initial  consolidation  of  the  existing  REFIT  programme  in  the 
May 2015 package. 

6   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.123.01.0001.01.ENG  
7   COM(2017) 651 final:  Completing  the  better  regulation  agenda  –  better  solutions  for  better  results;  and 
Union. 

COM(2016) 615 final: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/completing-the-better-regulation-agenda-better-solutions-for-better-
results_en.pdf; https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-615-EN-F1-1.PDF  

Delivering 

stronger 

results 

better 

for 

a 

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

law-simpler-and-less-costly_en 

2 

 
 
                                                 
efficiently’  (hereinafter 'the  Task  Force’)9  and  the  commitments  the  Commission  made  as  a 
response10. 

We would like to acknowledge stakeholders' contributions to the stocktaking exercise, which 
provided rich feedback on how better regulation is currently working. The detailed results of 
the  stocktaking  are  presented  in  the  accompanying  staff  working  document11.  This 
Communication first highlights the general lessons that can be drawn and then considers some 
specific better regulation areas where further improvements can be made.  

2.  GENERAL LESSONS LEARNED  

There  is  a  general  recognition  that  progress  has  been  achieved  across  several  dimensions 
since  2015. There  is  an  equally  widespread  demand  for  better  regulation  to  continue  as  an 
integral part of the Commission's way of working, with a sustained commitment to achieving 
further improvements in the future.  

Above  and  beyond  specific  individual  concerns,  this  view  is  broadly  shared  across  all 
stakeholders  groups.  This  stands  in  contrast  with  the  more  polarised  views  of  the  past  and 
reflects the comprehensive and balanced nature of the Commission's better regulation system. 
The  Commission  staff  surveyed  considered  that  the  various  better  regulation  tools  and 
principles are the right ones, while offering many useful suggestions, which will be factored 
into our thinking about how to improve better regulation tools and their use in the future. A 
literature  review12  has  also  shown  that  the  expert  community  welcomes  the  Commission’s 
stronger  commitment  to  evidence-based  policymaking,  the  guidance  provided  in  its  better 
regulation  guidelines  and  toolbox,  the  value  of  the  ‘evaluate  first’  principle  and  the 
significantly  increased  opportunities  for  participation  in  EU  policymaking.  Finally,  a  2018 
OECD comparative assessment of the better regulation systems in its member countries13 also 
shows that the Commission’s 2015 reforms have brought significant improvements. Overall, 
the Commission's regulatory policy now ranks amongst the very best in the OECD14.  

The appreciation of better regulation and the demand for its continued application and further 
improvement are evident from the stocktaking.  The rationale for better regulation is in fact 
even stronger now than in the past. In a ‘post-fact’ world, where disinformation, social media 
echo  chambers  and  outright  propaganda  combine  to  undermine  the  fabric  of  democratic 
debate and scientific authority, evidence-based policymaking is neither just a priority of the 
past nor normal professional practice of the day. It remains a key imperative for the future.  

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

efficiently_en 

10   COM(2018) 703:  The  principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality:  Strengthening  their  role  in  the  EU’s 

policymaking.  
11   SWD(2019) 156 
12   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 29691 EN, Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-00840-8, doi:10. 2760/46617, JRC116035 

13   http://www.oecd.org/governance/oecd-regulatory-policy-outlook-2018-9789264303072-en.htm  
14   Relative  to  the  previous  (pre-May  2015  better  regulation  package)  OECD  assessment,  the  Commission  is 
now  ranked  first  in  the  OECD  for  stakeholder  engagement,  has  been  found  to  have  further  refined  and 
improved its third-placed impact assessment policy and has improved its  rankings on evaluation to fourth 
place. No country or associated country scores higher across these three dimensions.  

3 

 
                                                 
Better  regulation  tools  are  applied  in  an  ever-changing  world  where  policy  challenges  and 
priorities  constantly  evolve.  Meeting  our  climate  targets  and  achieving  the  UN  Sustainable 
Development  Goals  is  ever  more  pressing.  At  the  same  time,  the  pace  of  technological 
transformations is accelerating. In this increasingly complex world, it is ever more important 
to understand cross-sectoral impacts and to identify the opportunities for synergies to develop 
and implement the appropriate policy answers across the full policy cycle, from evaluation to 
implementation. It is important, for instance, to have regulation that fosters and, at the same 
time, harnesses  innovation to  the benefit  of the environment, the economy and EU  citizens. 
Or to further the digital dimension of our legislation. These are some of the changes that will 
challenge how we make policy and support our proposals with evidence from evaluations and 
impact assessments. 

Better regulation principles should be an integral part of the institutional culture of any public 
authority  having  the  type  of  duties  entrusted  to  the  European  Commission.  The  stocktaking 
findings, especially the staff interviews, clearly indicate that such a cultural change has been 
taking hold within the Commission in recent years. However, this change is not irreversible 
yet.  To  ensure  this  final  step,  the  European  Commission  will  need  to  continue  emphasising 
internally and externally the importance of better regulation for some time still.  

Better regulation tools and procedures are there to support political decision-making, not to 
substitute it. Their key task is to provide the best possible basis for timely and sound policy 
decisions. Achieving this in practice may at times be challenging, because of ever-emerging 
new  and  urgent  policy  needs  and  the  long  lead-times  of  better  regulation  processes.  Some 
adaptations  and  exceptions  to  better  regulation  procedures  have  thus  been  necessary  in 
practice, and realistically this will also be the case in the future. The Commission has strived 
to minimise exceptions to the general rules on the need for evaluation, public consultation and 
impact  assessment,  to  justify  exceptions  in  a  clear  and  transparent  manner  to  the  outside 
world, and to do the utmost to meet better regulation principles as much as possible under the 
specific circumstances. The stocktaking shows that this has generally been the case, but not 
always. To the extent possible, a greater effort in planning and better communicating on an 
initiative’s better regulation aspects is warranted.  

Better regulation practices are not cost-free. They imply investment in terms of monetary and 
human resources and they increase the time needed to prepare an initiative for adoption, given 
the formal requirements of the policy process. This investment is justified by the benefits, not 
the 
least  supporting  faster  and  better-informed  decisions  by 
Commission's proposals. However, the costs must remain proportionate. The findings of the 
stocktaking  suggest  ways  in  which  better  regulation  processes  could  become  more  efficient 
without  undermining  their  purposes.  We  need  to  better  acknowledge,  share  and  exploit  the 
experience  and  expertise  of  staff  across  the  Commission  as  well  as  that  of  the  Regulatory 
Scrutiny Board.  

the  co-legislators  on 

Finally,  the  stocktaking  has  once  again  confirmed  that,  to  be  successful,  better  regulation 
must  be  a  shared  effort.  As  the  tools  and  processes  deployed  by  the  Commission  improve, 
further advances increasingly rest upon improvements the Commission can facilitate but not 
ensure  by  itself.  For  instance,  the  stocktaking  clearly  showed  that  the  quality  of  evaluation 
depends on a shared understanding with the co-legislators and Member States on when best to 
evaluate,  which  indicators  and  frameworks  to  use  for  measuring  performance,  and  how  to 
efficiently  collect  the  necessary  monitoring  information.  The  usefulness  and  relevance  of 
impact  assessments  also  depend  on  whether  the  impact  of  substantial  amendments  to  the 
Commission proposals are also assessed, as the co-legislators have committed to do wherever 
appropriate  and  necessary15.  The  delivery  of  the  benefits  of  simplification  efforts  in 

15   See paragraph 15 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making 

4 

 
                                                 
Commission  proposals  depends  on  the  respective  provisions  being  maintained  by  the 
co-legislators  and  on  Member  States’  implementing  choices.  The  reach  of  public 
consultations depends on the proactive involvement of other institutions and national, regional 
and  local  levels  of  government.  Further  collaborative  efforts  in  all  of  these  fields  are 
warranted. 

3.  SPECIFIC ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE 

3.1.  Opening up policymaking 

A key aim of this Commission has been to promote the participation of Europeans and civil 
society in our policymaking activities. We have invested extensively to provide the tools for 
this,  creating  opportunities  for  stakeholders  to  contribute  throughout  the  policy  cycle.  We 
introduced a requirement for public consultations for all impact assessments and evaluations, 
and  significantly  increased  the  number  of  public  consultations  translated  into  all  EU 
languages. The new ‘Have Your Say’16 portal now provides a single web-based point of entry 
for  interested  parties  to  learn  about  the  Commission’s  policymaking  activities  and  to  leave 
their comments, views and other information.  

These measures appear to have increased stakeholder engagement. The number of visits to the 
portal  is  now  more  than  800 000  each  year.  The  average  number  of  responses  to  public 
consultations  and  feedback  vary  widely,  but  the  overall  trend  is  increasing.  Some 
consultations  in  the  period  since  1  January  2015  have  generated  very  high  levels  of  public 
interest17.  

Box 2. Feedback mechanism on draft delegated acts: an example 

The  Renewable  Energy  Directive  (EU)  2018/2001  reinforces  the  sustainability  criteria  of 
bioenergy  through  different  provisions,  including  the  impact  that  the  production  of  biofuels 
may have due to indirect land use change (ILUC). The Commission was empowered to adopt 
a  delegated  act  setting  out  specific  criteria  to  identify  biofuels  with  high  and  low  risk  of 
causing ILUC. After a number of meetings with stakeholders, experts and third countries, a 
draft  delegated  act  was  finalised  and  published  for  a  four  week  feedback  period.  Following 
this robust consultation process and the large feedback received, the Commission decided to 
change a number of significant parameters in the delegated act.18 This concerned mainly the 
criteria for certification of low indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass 
fuels, in order to eliminate potential loopholes and prevent abuse of those provisions. 

16   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say_en  
17   For example, the 2018 consultation on summertime arrangements in the EU attracted 4.6 million responses; 
the 2016 consultation on nature legislation attracted 550 000 responses and that of the common agricultural 
policy in 2017 attracted over 300 000 responses.  

18   C(2019) 2055  final,  Commission  delegated  regulation  of  13/03/2019  supplementing  Directive  (EU) 
2018/2001  as  regards  the  determination  of  high  indirect  land-use  change-risk  feedstock  for  which  a 
significant  expansion  of  the  production  area  into  land  with  high  carbon  stock  is  observed  and  the 
certification of low indirect landuse change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels. 

5 

 
  
 
                                                 
The  OECD’s  comparative  assessment  ranked  the  Commission’s  stakeholder  engagement 
system  first  in  201819.  The  replies  to  the  Commission’s  own  public  consultation  identified 
consultations and transparency as the two areas where most progress has been achieved since 
2015.  At  the  same  time,  transparency  and  consultation  were  also  the  two  areas  flagged  as 
most in need of improvements in the future. There is a widespread recognition that the system 
is advanced, but not delivering to its potential.  

The public consultation showed that there is still a relatively low level of knowledge about the 
opportunities to participate in the Commission’s policymaking. There is also a call for more 
transparency with  the way the Commission  reports on  the results of its public consultations 
and  feedback  requests  and  the  use  made  of  them,  a  call  also  supported  by  the  literature 
review.  The  Task  Force  also  highlighted  the  challenge  of  obtaining  the  views  of  local  and 
regional authorities across the Union. Since then, the Committee of Regions has set up a pilot 
Network  of  Regional  Hubs  for  EU  Policy  Implementation  Review  (RegHub)  to  assess  the 
implementation of EU legislation in practice20.  

The  Commission  will  step  up  its  collaboration  with  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  the  Commission’s  representations  in  Member 
States,  national  authorities  and  other  representative  associations  to  raise  general  awareness 
about the opportunities to contribute to the Commission’s policymaking. In particular, we will 
look  at  ways  to  encourage  more  people  to  sign  up  to  the  email  notifications  of  the 
Commission’s  ‘Have  Your  Say’  web  portal  so  that  they  are  informed  about  launching  of 
relevant initiatives and consultations.  

We  also  recognise  that  consultations  are  a  resource-intensive  activity  for  stakeholders.  The 
higher the quality of consultation questionnaires, and the more clearly we explain how results 
are taken into account, the more stakeholders will see the value of their contribution and want 
to  participate  again.  This  will  make  the  responses  richer,  thus  further  justifying  the 
Commission’s investment in high-quality consultation activities.  

More carefully prepared consultation strategies21 using a wide range of consultation tools and 
broader  stakeholder  awareness  of  opportunities  to  become  involved,  coupled  with  better 
consultation documents and more satisfactory responses to stakeholder contributions, are key 
avenues  to  further  improve  the  Commission’s  public  consultation  mechanisms.  We  should 
reflect on how to enhance and monitor the quality of public consultations and reporting. To 
make sure consultation requirements remain proportionate to their objectives, there may be a 
need to reconsider the added value of some of the current requirements.  

3.2.  Better tools for better policies  

Impact  assessments,  evaluations,  supporting  instruments  (including  the  better  regulation 
guidelines  and  toolbox)  and  the  independent  quality  control  provided  by  the  Regulatory 
Scrutiny Board are key tools used to translate evidence and stakeholder input into objective 
analysis supporting political decision-making.  

19   OECD 

(2018),  OECD  Regulatory 

Policy  Outlook 

2018,  OECD 

Publishing, 

Paris, 

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303072-en.  

20   https://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/Pages/network-regional-hubs-implementation-assessment.aspx 
21   Departments  use  a  broad  range  of  consultation  tools,  including  public  and  targeted  consultations.  The 
purpose  of  the  consultation  strategy  is  to  design  an  effective  and  efficient  consultation  approach  by 
identifying  the  consultation  scope  and  objectives,  relevant  stakeholders,  the  envisaged  consultation 
activities, their timing and language regime. 

6 

 
                                                 
The public consultation and the feedback from the Commission’s own staff overwhelmingly 
supported  such  evidence-based  policymaking  and  provided  generally  positive  views  on  the 
progress  the  Commission  has  made  to  improve  its  tools.  The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board’s 
annual  reports  document  such  progress.  The  co-legislators,  the  European  Court  of  Auditors 
and other EU institutions, as well as the OECD, also hold broadly positive views, as do many 
independent studies22. Most of these opinions, however, also flag shortcomings and areas for 
improvements.  

Impact assessments 

Impact  assessments  primarily  serve  to  inform  the  Commission’s  political  decision-making. 
They justify the necessity and value of Union action and present information on who will be 
affected  and  how,  ensuring  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts  are  considered 
together.  They  are  now  systematically  discussed  in  the  deliberations  of  the  European 
Parliament and the Council on Commission proposals. A better understanding of the evidence 
and  impacts  underpinning  policy  choices  facilitates  the  legislative  procedure.  Impact 
assessments are also an important communication tool for the legitimacy of EU action since 
they explain the content of the Commission proposals and how we have weighed the evidence 
underpinning the choices made.  

Not every initiative, however, needs to be accompanied by an impact assessment. Sometimes 
this would not be relevant23, and in some cases, it is simply not possible. Between 2015 and 
2018, 8.5% of the Commission proposals announced in the Commission work programmes24 
were  not  supported  by  an  impact  assessment  where  one  might  have  been  expected25.  This 
proportion  is  higher  than  we  would  have  desired,  but  it  should  be  seen  in  the  prevailing 
political context and the pressing need to respond quickly to developments such as those in 
the migration and security fields. There will always be situations, which justify exceptions but 
we recognise the need to communicate this and explain the reasons as early as possible26. In 
such  cases,  we  will  ensure  that  staff  working  documents  accompanying  the  Commission's 
proposals  or  appropriately  reinforced  explanatory  memoranda  systematically  provide  the 
available  information  and  as  much  analysis  of  the  alternative  options  as  possible.  In  cases 
where there is no intention to carry out an impact assessment, the public is informed through 
roadmaps.  It  is  therefore  important  to  increase  the  awareness  of  roadmaps  and  ensure  their 
prompt publication.  

A  second  key  issue  is  the  depth  of  impact  assessment  analysis  and  the  readability  of  the 
reports. Stakeholders want impact assessments to be more user-friendly, but at the same time 
present a deeper analysis of a varying set of impacts. These two divergent imperatives need to 
be carefully balanced. However, two general lessons emerge.  

First,  the  assessments  of  subsidiarity  presented  in  impact  assessments  are  frequently  rather 
general,  overly legalistic  and  formalistic.  They are  also  separate  from  the  assessment  of  the 
proportionality  of  the  various  policy  options.  We  have  already  responded  positively  to  the 

22   See SWD(2019) 156, in particular section 4. 
23   The Commission has developed precise guidance on when an impact assessment is necessary or not in its 

Better regulation Toolbox, Tool #9; https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-toolbox-9_en  

24   Annex 1 and Annex 2 proposals of the Commission work programmes. 
25   For  a  further  19.5%,  an  impact  assessment  was  not  considered  necessary.  For  further  details  see 

SWD(2019) 156, section 4.  

26   SWD(2017) 350:  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  Box  1;  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-

regulation-guidelines.pdf 

7 

 
                                                 
recommendations  of  the  Task  Force  to  tackle  this  issue27  and  have  notably  committed  to 
incorporate  the  common  ‘grid’  the  Task  Force  proposed  for  assessing  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality  in  our  impact  assessments,  explanatory  memoranda,  and  in  the  better 
regulation guidance.  

Secondly, when considering the appropriate level of analysis, there is a need to consider the 
magnitude  of  the  expected  impact  and  the  limit  to  the  depth  of  analysis  imposed  by 
constraints  in  the  availability  of  data,  timing  and  resources,  while  taking  into  account  the 
importance  of  preserving  the  balance  and  comprehensiveness  of  the  impact  assessment 
process.  

Evaluations 

Evaluation  is  one  of  the  key  pillars  of  better  regulation.  It  allows  us  to  check  whether 
European legislation and funding programmes deliver as intended and remain relevant and fit 
for purpose. It identifies problems and their causes that then feed into impact assessments and 
eventually proposals that can deliver better results. It also provides the evidence we need to 
simplify  and  tackle  unnecessary  costs  without  undermining  policy  objectives.  In  2015,  we 
introduced a common approach for all evaluations and committed to systematically evaluate 
legislation  first  before  proposing  a  revision.  By  the  end  of  2018,  the  Commission  had 
produced 259 evaluations. About three quarters of impact assessments supporting legislative 
revisions are now accompanied by an evaluation.  

The  ‘evaluate  first’  principle  is  therefore  working.  But  it  is  also  clear  from  the  stocktaking 
that there is a need to improve the quality of evaluations (in particular as concerns design and 
objectivity),  that  their  timing  is  not  always  appropriate,  and  that  they  could  be  made  more 
efficient  in  practice.  There  remain,  however,  important  practical  and  political  barriers  to 
overcome to achieve this.  

First, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission do not yet have a consistent 
approach  for  evaluating  legislation,  despite  the  commitments  made  in  the  Interinstitutional 
Agreement on Better Law-Making28. In many cases, the Commission does not have adequate 
information about how Union legislation works in the Member States because the legislation 
as  adopted  by  the  co-legislators  does  not  maintain  the  measures  proposed  to  allow  the 
collection  of  the  data  necessary  to  permit  a  good  evaluation.  Obtaining  data  on  the 
performance and impact of EU law in practice across all Member States remains a challenge. 
In other cases, the co-legislators add requirements for a range of different reviews or impose 
deadlines  for  evaluating  legislation,  which  fall  before  there  has  been  enough  practical 
experience  of  applying  the  rules.  The  European  Court  of  Auditors  has  recently  recognised 
these  failings.  The  solution  requires  a  degree  of  cooperation  between  the  European 
Parliament, the Council and the Commission29, which goes further than what is offered in the 
Council’s  recent  conclusions30.  In  order  to  improve  the  quality  of  evaluations,  the 
Commission will pay special attention to the inclusion of monitoring and reporting provisions 

27   COM(2018) 703:  The  principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality:  Strengthening  their  role  in  the  EU’s 

policymaking.  

28   See paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. 
29   Special  report  16/2018  of  the  European  Court  of  Auditors:  Ex-post  review  of  EU  legislation:  a  well-
established  system,  but  incomplete.  See  paragraphs  52  to  56;  85  to  87  and  Recommendation  No.1: 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR18_16/SR_BETTER_REGULATION_EN.pdf  

30   Council Conclusions of 29/30 November 2018 st14137/18 approved by COREPER on 14 November 2018: 

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14137-2018-INIT/en/pdf  

8 

 
                                                 
in  its  future  proposals,  and  will  in  particular  press  firmly  for  the  maintenance  of  such 
provisions in the legislation on the future Multiannual Financial Framework. 

Secondly, while the ‘evaluate first’ principle is being applied, evaluations are not always put 
to best use. Commission impact assessments could make better use of evaluations as a basis 
for  problem  definition,  and  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  do  not  generally 
consider  evaluations  in  their  work31.  Evaluations  and  impact  assessments  should  be  linked 
better so that findings from one are used more effectively by the other. Then the reliance on 
evaluations  by  policymakers  will  increase,  improving  incentives  for  high-quality  and  useful 
evaluations.  The  quality  of  evaluations  depends  heavily  on  their  initial  design,  on  whether 
good-quality information is available about how the legislation works, on the relevance of the 
questions asked for actual policymaking and on the scope of the analysis. If this is too narrow, 
important factors  may be  missed. Evaluations  should  always look  at  all relevant legislation, 
including delegated and implementing acts, as well as the national implementation of Union 
law since that too can be the source of the problems. In line with the recommendations of the 
Task  Force32,  consideration  should  be  given  to  how  to  better  engage  with  those  directly 
involved in applying Union legislation at local and regional levels to capture their first-hand 
expertise. 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

We set up the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in 201533 to replace the former Impact Assessment 
Board.  Compared  to  its  predecessor,  the  new  Board  has  substantially  greater  independence 
and  more  capacity  as  a  result  of  being  composed  of  seven  full-time  members  who  are 
separated from any policymaking responsibility, three of whom are recruited from outside the 
Commission.  The  key  tasks  of  the  Board  were  extended  to  scrutinise  the  quality  of  major 
evaluations,  and  not  just  impact  assessments  as  had  been  the  case  in  the  past.  Through  its 
critical  and  rigorous  oversight  of  the  quality  of  impact  assessments  and  by  fostering  the 
necessary improvements, the Board plays a key role in assuring the objectivity and credibility 
of the evidence base underpinning the Commission’s political decisions. In the very limited 
number  of  cases  where  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,  we  have  publicly  explained  the  reasons  for  our  choice.  We 
have  also  often  adapted  our  proposals  to  reflect  a  less  solid  evidence  base,  for  instance 
proposing less intrusive measures in view of the Board’s concerns on the proportionality of 
the preferred option in some impact assessments34.  

The Board’s own reports have shown that its scrutiny has a positive influence on the quality 
of  the  impact  assessments  and  evaluations35.  The  responses  to  the  public  consultation  also 
confirmed the benefit that the Board brings. Commission staff have indicated that having had 
to  reply  to  the  questions  of  the  Board  is  a  good  preparation  for  later  explaining  the 
Commission’s  policy  choices  in  the  subsequent  legislative  negotiations.  The  positive 
contribution of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to increase the quality of legislative proposals 
is  fully  recognised,  although  some  stakeholders  would  prefer  the  Board  to  have  a  different 

31   Paragraphs 63 and 69 to 70 of the European Court of Auditor’s Special report 16/2018:  Ex-post review of 

EU legislation: a well-established system, but incomplete 

32   COM(2018) 703:  The  principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality:  Strengthening  their  role  in  the  EU's 

policymaking: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0703 

33   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/regulatory-scrutiny-board_en  
34   For further examples see section 4.3 of the SWD(2019) 156 
35   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/rsb-report-2017_en.pdf  

9 

 
                                                 
setup. The stocktaking has highlighted at the same time the need to increase public awareness 
of  the  Board  and  to  better  mobilise  its  expertise  and  experience  within  the  Commission  to 
better support the general improvement of impact assessments and evaluations.  

3.3.  Keeping the existing stock of legislation fit for purpose  

Legislation should remain fit for purpose and deliver the results that EU lawmakers intended 
and the public expected. This Commission has focused on tackling unnecessary costs without 
ever  compromising  our  ambitious  policy  objectives.  We  have  paid  particular  attention  to 
progressively ensuring legislation is fit for the digital era. Making legislation simpler and less 
burdensome  also  improves  implementation  and  enforcement,  and  ultimately  delivers  better 
results. This is especially the case for small and medium-sized enterprises.  

To  this  end,  we  have  progressively  mainstreamed  the  REFIT  programme,  supported  it  by 
setting  up  a  group  of  high-level  experts,  the  REFIT  Platform,  whose  role  it  is  to  suggest 
measures  to  reduce  existing  burdens  without  affecting  policy  objectives,  and  we  have 
communicated more extensively on the results achieved.  

The  Commission  presented    150  measures  to  simplify  Union  legislation  between  2015  and 
2018.  The  REFIT  Platform  supported  these  efforts.  It  processed  684  submissions  from 
stakeholders  and  adopted  89  opinions36  to  which  the  Commission  replied,  including  in  the 
context of its annual work programmes. The Commission reports transparently the results of 
these  efforts  annually37  and  in  a  scoreboard38  that  is  now  available  online  and  is  more 
user-friendly. The box below presents a few illustrative examples. 

Box 3. Examples of regulatory simplification that entered into force in 2018. 
Value added tax (VAT) for cross-border business to consumer e-commerce39. Originally proposed 
in  2016,  this  legislation  sets  up  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. At the time of our proposal, 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 
services40. Originally proposed in 2017, this legislation introduced a single digital gateway to ensure 
centralised  access  to  EU  citizens  and  businesses  to  information  they  need  to  exercise  their  EU 
rights. The gateway integrates several networks and services from national and EU level. It provides 
a user-friendly interface in all official EU languages. At the time of our proposal, the Commission 
estimated  that  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 €11 and 

36   These  covered  129  submissions  as  several  submissions  from  stakeholders  simply  included  requests  for 

information or addressed subjects beyond the mandate of the REFIT Platform. 

37   See 

for  example, 

the  2018  Annual  Burden  Survey:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-

process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-and-less-costly/2018-annual-
burden-survey_en  

38   http://publications.europa.eu/webpub/com/refit-scoreboard/en/index.html  
39   COM(2016) 757 
40   COM(2017) 256 

10 

 
                                                 
€55 billion annually.  

Consumer  protection  cooperation41:  Originally  proposed  in  2016,  the  legislation  modernises 
cooperation  mechanisms  to  reduce  the  harm  caused  to  consumers  by  cross-border  infringements. 
The  regulation  ensures  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 consumer issues.  

European Structural and Investment Funds42. Originally proposed in 2016, the Regulation brings 
forward  concrete  simplification  provisions  to  make  the  use  of  the  Funds  simpler  for  beneficiaries 
and  authorities  and  financial  rules  more  flexible.  At  the  time  of  the  proposal,  the  Commission 
estimated that these simplifications would reduce 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.  

The  stocktaking  shows  that  the  Commission’s  efforts  to  simplify  and  reduce  unnecessary 
burdens  are appreciated and  have  delivered  results.  These,  however,  have  neither  been  well 
communicated nor are they generally regarded as sufficient.  

There  is  therefore  a  need  to  consider  why  simplification  is  often  complicated  and  burden 
reduction  burdensome.  It  is  important  to  avoid  pushing  the  efforts  to  quantify  costs  and 
benefits beyond a reasonable limit. Simplification is the objective, not quantification per se. 
While useful, quantification is often constrained by the qualitative nature of certain impacts or 
the  availability  and  robustness  of  data.  This  is  particularly  difficult  when  trying  to  quantify 
benefits, where qualitative methods are often more appropriate.  

We remain unconvinced that the types of target-based approaches to burden reduction that the 
Council  and  some  Member  States  in  particular  have  asked  us  to  introduce  would  be 
particularly helpful. We set out the reasons for our position in detail in 2017 and none of these 
has  changed43.  Target-based  approaches  tend  to  overlook  the  fact  that  it  is  legitimate  and 
necessary to impose some costs in pursuit of important societal objectives. The Commission 
prefers to focus on the costs that are unnecessary to reach the objectives of legislation, on the 
basis of evidence and by involving stakeholders. This is more transparent, less arbitrary and 
unlikely  to  lead  to  deregulatory  effects  undermining  the  delivery  of  the  desired  policy 
objectives.  

The Commission will continue to reflect on how best to identify simplification potential and 
translate  it  into  REFIT  objectives  or  how  to  make  the  adoption  of  simplification  measures 
easier  and  more  visible.  Improvements  in  identifying  excessive  costs  in  evaluations  would 
also  be  beneficial.  The  Task  Force  report  pointed  to  the  combined  effects  of  legislation 
(including  delegated  acts  and  implementing  acts)  whose  impact  may  not  be  assessed  or 

41   COM(2016) 283 
42   COM (2016) 605; 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. 

43   For more details, see COM(2017) 651: Completing the Better Regulation Agenda: Better solutions for better 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/completing-the-better-regulation-agenda-better-solutions-

results; 
for-better-results_en.pdf  

11 

 
                                                 
evaluated  well  enough.  The  REFIT  programme  could  probably  play  a  greater  role  in 
identifying and tackling legislative density44 with the help of the REFIT Platform.  

The findings of the stocktaking show support for the REFIT Platform. The Platform itself is 
satisfied  with  its  contribution  to  the  REFIT  effort  and  considers  it  should  continue  in  its 
current  form45.  Most  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. The 
Commission agrees with these objectives.  

The  Platform  has  the  capacity  to  mobilise  and  channel  knowledge  of  the  practical 
implementation  and  the  impact  of  EU  legislation.  But  a  greater  effort  is  needed  to  fully 
exploit  this  potential  in  a  way  that  is  more  effective  and  efficient.  The  Platform  requires 
considerable investment by its members and by the Commission. Any successor should thus 
streamline  its  working  methods,  be  better  known  to  the  general  public  and  provide  timely 
feedback.  It  should  place  greater  focus  on  issues  such  as  subsidiarity,  proportionality, 
legislative density in addition to the existing focus on simplification46. To this end, ways to 
increase the breadth of its expertise and the involvement of local and regional authorities who 
are responsible for implementing much Union legislation could be explored. 

The  activities  of  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee could stimulate the Platform’s work. Platform members themselves could initiate 
work linked to the planned evaluations of legislation, leveraging their contacts with existing 
networks  in  the  Member  States.  The  submissions  made  to  the  Task  Force  could  provide  a 
good starting point47.  

3.4.  Better regulation as a shared effort 

The  2016  Interinstitutional  Agreement  on  Better  Law-Making48  embodies  the  joint 
responsibility of the European Parliament, Council and the European Commission to deliver 
high-quality Union legislation founded on the principles of better regulation, transparency and 
cooperation  throughout  the  legislative  cycle.  The  Agreement  is  still  quite  new,  but  has 
delivered  some  notable  successes.  The  annual  Joint  Declaration  signed  by  the  Presidents  of 
the European Parliament, Council and Commission lists the proposals, which should receive 
priority  treatment  in  the  legislative  process.  In  the  area  of  delegated  acts  and  implementing 
acts,  progress  has  been  made  to  replace  old  procedures  with  those  envisaged  in  the  Lisbon 
Treaty49, to agree criteria for when delegated acts or implementing acts are used50 and to open 

44   Legislative density is defined as the number of pieces of legislation in a given policy area. 
45   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 

46   Section 4.5 of COM(2018) 703: The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality: Strengthening their role 

in the EU’s policymaking.  

47   Annex  VI  of  the  Report  of  the  Task  Force  on  Subsidiarity,  Proportionality  and  “Doing  Less  More 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/report-task-force-subsidiarity-

Efficiently. 
proportionality-and-doing-less-more-efficiently_en.pdf 

48   Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the 
European  Commission  on  Better  Law-Making;  OJ  L  123,  12.5.2016;  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.123.01.0001.01.ENG  

49   The  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  (as  co-legislators)  can  empower  the  Commission  to  adopt 
secondary  acts  of  Union  law.  These  empowerments  follow  Articles  290  and  291  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU).  However,  many  empowerments  still  exist  in  Union  law  that 
follow the older regulatory procedure with scrutiny and these must be brought up to date. The Commission 
made the necessary proposal to align a total of 168 acts (COM(2016) 799) and agreement on aligning 64 of 
these acts was reached by the co-legislators and is currently being finalised. 

12 

 
                                                 
up the process of making delegated acts51. The Commission now presents an annual burden 
survey linked to the simplification of Union legislation.  

In other areas of the Agreement, progress is mixed. For example, the European Parliamentary 
Research  Service  regularly  provides  initial  appraisals  of  the  quality  of  the  European 
Commission’s  impact  assessments  and  conducted  40  impact  assessments  on  substantial 
amendments  proposed  by  the  European  Parliament.  The  Council  has  established  its  own 
capacity to assess its substantial amendments but has not yet used it.  

As  mentioned  above,  more  cooperation  is  needed  to  set  the  basis  and  provide  the  data  for 
better  evaluation  of  Union  laws.  Furthermore,  Member  States  are  not  yet  reporting 
transparently  when  they  go  beyond  the  requirements  of  Union  law  in  their  national 
transposing  measures  ('gold-plating')52.  The  Commission  has  invested  in  an  IT  platform  to 
facilitate greater transparency here but only two Member States have notified such provisions 
over  the  past  three  years53.  It  is  important  that  Member  States’  transposition  and 
implementation choices do not add unwarranted layers of complexity. 

There is scope to improve the way better regulation procedures at the EU and national level 
can positively interact. As the OECD recently remarked, several Member States could better 
inform their stakeholders of the opportunities offered by the Commission’s consultations and 
feedback mechanisms, or provide better evidence and information during regulatory design to 
complement the existing practices of the European Commission54.  

4.  CONCLUSIONS 

This  Commission  put  better  regulation  at  the  heart  of  its  policymaking.  This  has  helped  to 
deliver  better  results  focussed  on  the  ten  political  priorities  set  out  at  the  beginning  of  our 
mandate.  

Looking forward, the need for evidence-based policymaking supporting EU political priorities 
is only growing stronger. Better regulation is increasingly an integral part of the institutional 
culture of the Commission and is widely supported by stakeholders who want to be involved 
even more in our policymaking and in a more meaningful way. However, there is scope for 
further  improvements  in  how  better  regulation  processes  are  organised.  Stronger  shared 
efforts, starting from the implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-
Making, would also help further improve the quality of Union legislation.  

This  Communication  has  thus  identified  some  cross-cutting  principles  to  be  taken  into 
account and has mapped out possible avenues to sustain our commitment to better regulation 
in the years to come.  

50   The discussions of the European Parliament and the Council on the choice between delegated acts (Article 
290 TFEU) and implementing acts (Article 291 TFEU) are often difficult. The criteria are intended to make 
these choices less contentious. 

51   A new Joint Register for delegated acts was launched in December 2017 with public access. This register 
now allows the public to access the various steps in the preparation, adoption, scrutiny and publication of 
delegated acts: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/regdel/#/home  

52   REFIT  Platform  opinion  XXII.9.a  “Transparent  transposition  (Implementation)”,  adopted  on  14  March 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/refit-platform-recommendations-horizontal-issues-xxii9a-transparent-

2019: 
transposition_en 

53   See paragraph 43 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. 
54   OECD  (2019),  Better  Regulation  Practices  across  the  European  Union,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris, 

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311732-en.  

13