Charting the course to better EU law-making : optimisation of EU Treaties through inter-institutional cooperation with the European Committee of the Regions.
Date: 2024-09-13
Institutions: Commission for Citizenship, Governance, Institutional and External Affairs
Subjects: EU policy, EU strategy, European Committee of the Regions, European treaties, consolidation of EU law, foresight, impact study, interinstitutional cooperation (EU), regional and local authorities, regulatory policy

Commission for
Citizenship, Governance,
Institutional and External Affairs

Charting the course
to better EU law-making:
optimisation of EU Treaties
through inter-institutional
cooperation with the
European Committee
of the Regions

X
E
V

I
C

m
o
c
.

k
c
o
t
s
e
b
o
d
a
/
s
k
r
o
w

r
o
m
a
t
e
m
©

 
 
 
© European Union, 2024Partial reproduction is permitted, provided that the source is explicitly mentioned.More information on the European Union and the Committee of the Regions is available online athttp://www.europa.eu and http://www.cor.europa.eu respectively.QG-01-24-003-EN-N; ISBN 978-92-895-3636-3; DOI 10.2863/4939927This report has been written by Alina Holzhausen,Jean-Pierre Gauci and Rosana Garciandia (British Instituteof International and Compar ative Law – BIICL), JenniferMcGuinn (Milieu Law  & Policy Consulting). It does not represent the official views of theEuropean Committee of the Regions.Table of ContentsExecutive Summary .............................................................................................. 1 Part I ...................................................................................................................... 7I. Existing EU Instruments and Processes on Better Regulation ................ 71. The European Commission’s Better Regulation Tools ........................... 8 a) Forward Planning and Political Validation .......................................... 9 b) Stakeholder Consultation ................................................................... 10 c) Evaluation and Fitness Checks .......................................................... 10d) Impact Assessment ............................................................................. 11e) Quality Control................................................................................... 12f) Compliance Support and Implementation ......................................... 132. The European Parliament’s Better Regulation Tools ............................ 15 a) European Parliament Commitments to Better Regulation ................. 15 b) Administrative Structures .................................................................. 15 3. The Council’s Better Regulation Tools ................................................. 184. Other Actors’ Better Regulation Tools ................................................. 20a) European Economic and Social Committee ...................................... 20 b) Member States .................................................................................... 21 5. The Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less MoreEfficiently” and its Follow-Up ..................................................................... 256. The European Committee of the Regions’ Better Regulation Tools .... 28 a) Subsidiarity Monitoring Network ...................................................... 28 b) Network of Regional Hubs and Participation in the Fit for FuturePlatform ..................................................................................................... 30c) Territorial Impact Assessment ........................................................... 32d) Rural Proofing .................................................................................... 34e) Strategic Foresight ............................................................................. 35f) Better Regulation and Active Subsidiarity Steering Group (BRASS-G)36II. Interaction between Better Regulation Tools and Identified Gaps from aLocal or Regional Point of View ..................................................................... 371. Interplay between the European Parliament, European Commission, andthe Council .................................................................................................... 372. Interaction between the European Committee of the Regions and the EUInstitutions .................................................................................................... 41a) The Subsidiarity Monitoring Network’s Interaction with EULegislative Processes ................................................................................ 41b) The Network of Regional Hubs’ Interaction with the Fit for FuturePlatform ..................................................................................................... 43c) Territorial Impact Assessment (CoR) and Impact Assessments (EC)45d) Territorial Impact Assessment (CoR) and the Working Party onCompetitiveness and Growth (Council) ................................................... 48e) Rural Proofing at the European Committee of the Regions and theEuropean Commission .............................................................................. 50f) Strategic Foresight at the European Committee of the Regions and theEuropean Commission .............................................................................. 51Part II ................................................................................................................... 55I. Reforms within the Current Treaty Framework .................................... 551. Existing Better Regulation Tools .......................................................... 55 a) Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less MoreEfficiently” – Revival and Implementation of OutstandingRecommendations ..................................................................................... 56b) Negotiations for Continued Participation of the Network of RegionalHubs in the Fit for Future Platform .......................................................... 59c) Strengthening of the Territorial Impact Assessment and Rural Proofing60d) Collaboration on Territorial Dimensions of the European Parliament’sand the Council’s Impact Assessments ..................................................... 63e) Collaboration to Produce Data and Information Informing theEvidence-Based Policy-Making Process .................................................. 65f) Permanent Seat on the Regulatory Scrutiny Board ........................... 67g) Strengthening Collaboration in the Context of Strategic Foresight... 69h) Involvement of the European Committee of the Regions in Parliamentary Committee Meetings ......................................................... 70i) Contribution to the European Parliament’s Implementation Reports 72j) Systematic and Ongoing Participation of the European Committee ofthe Regions in the Council’s Working Party on Competitiveness andGrowth (Better Regulation) Meetings ...................................................... 742. Potential New Better Regulation Tools ................................................. 75a) Youth Checks ..................................................................................... 75b) Citizens’ Panels .................................................................................. 76c) Subsidiarity Boards ............................................................................ 78 d) Regional, Local, and Rural Test......................................................... 79 3. Human and Financial Resources ........................................................... 82II. Reforms with a View to Potential Treaty Amendments ....................... 831. Changing the Legal Status of the European Committee of the Regions’Opinions to Binding ..................................................................................... 832. Extension of Deadline for National Parliaments’ Reasoned Opinions . 853. Introduction of a “Green Card Mechanism” ......................................... 874. Right to Approach European Parliament with a Request for Action .... 895. Inclusion of the European Committee of the Regions in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making ................................... 91Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................... 93 Annex ................................................................................................................ 103I. Suggested Changes to the Interinstitutional Agreement ..................... 103Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 105Executive SummaryTo ensure evidence-based, transparent, and accessible European Union (EU) law-making which adequately accounts for views of citizens, businesses, andstakeholders in the decision-making process, the European Commission (EC),which is the EU institution responsible for initiating and implementing the EU’spolicies, has embarked on the EU Better Regulation Agenda.1 Calls for a strategyto improve the quality of policies produced by the EU date back to the early 1990s,with ‘high quality regulation’ and ‘better regulation’ initially emerging in wavesin the EU.2 The strategy has subsequently taken a gradual role in the EU policyprocess, mostly at the stage of policy formulation, in the early 2000s, and has beenextended to other stages of the policy process in the last decade.3 Nowadays,Better Regulation covers the whole EU policy cycle – from planning, to design,adoption, implementation, evaluation, and revision of EU policies – and isgoverned by key concepts and principles developed by the EC.Better Regulation ensures evidence-based and transparent law-making founded on the views of those impacted. Several Better Regulation processes and instruments cover the whole EU policy cycle, from the design phase of new initiatives to their implementation at the national, regional, and local levels.Better Regulation plays a role not only in the EC’s work, but also in the work of other EU institutions. For example, in 2016, the EC, the European Parliament (EP), which is the EU’s directly elected institution representing European citizens, and the Council of the EU (Council), which represents the voices of EU member governments and coordinates EU policies, signed the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. Based on this Agreement, the three institutions agreed to‘pursue Better Law-Making by means of a series of initiatives and procedures’,recognising their ‘joint responsibility in delivering high-quality Union legislation’which is ‘as efficient and effective as possible (...), as simple and as clear aspossible, avoids overregulation and administrative burdens for citizens,administrations and businesses (...), and is designed with a view to facilitating itstransposition and practical application and to strengthening the competitivenessand sustainability of the Union economy’.41 European Commission, ‘Better Regulation: Why and How’, available at https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation_en.2 Claire A Dunlop and Claudio M Radaelli, ‘Better Regulation in the European Union’ in Martino Maggetti,Fabrizio Di Mascio, and Alessandro Natalini (eds), The Handbook of Regulatory Authorities (Edward Elgar 2022). 3 Ibid.4 Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and theEuropean Commission on Better Law-Making [2016] OJ L123/1 (Interinstitutional Agreement).1 
 
 
 
 
 
The EC, the EP, and the Council signed the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making in 2016, in which they recognised their joint responsibility regarding Better Regulation initiatives and procedures.In addition, the European Committee of the Regions (CoR), which represents thevoices of regions and cities in the EU, strives to promote Better Regulation basedon multi-level governance and the partnership principle under the overarchingconcept of active subsidiarity. According to the Task Force on Subsidiarity,Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”, active subsidiarity is a newway of working that implies greater participation in EU policy-making by allstakeholders and particularly national, local, and regional authorities, who oftenhave a specific role in implementing EU legislation on the ground. Such activesubsidiarity should promote greater ownership and understanding of what the EUdoes by those involved.5 The CoR has not only adopted opinions in response tointerinstitutional developments and the EC’s initiatives on Better Regulation,6 butit has also developed its own processes and instruments supporting BetterRegulation. These include the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network (SMN), theNetwork of Regional Hubs (RegHub), territorial impact assessment (TIA), ruralproofing, and strategic foresight. Moreover, within the CoR, the Better Regulationand Active Subsidiarity Steering Group (BRASS-G) aims to ‘[s]trengthen thestrategic orientation and coordination of the CoR Better Regulation instruments(and to) [e]nhance the CoR’s contribution to the EU Better Regulation agenda’.7The important role played by the CoR for Better Regulation was also underlined during the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFE), a citizen-led series of debates and discussions on a Europe they would like to live in, which kicked offwith an inaugural event on 9 May 2021 and concluded a year later.8 The finalreport, containing 49 proposals to the Presidents of the EC, EP, and the Council, called for the reinforcement of the role of the CoR and local and regional authorities in EU policy-making to take into account the experience of the subnational level in the implementation of EU law, and for the recognition of the concepts of active subsidiarity and multi-level governance as core elements of5 European Union, ‘Active Subsidiarity – A New Way of Working: Report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity,Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”’ (2018), available athttps://commission.europa.eu/document/download/8530a17b-e2b8-4cd4-a68d-597767cfbad7_en.6 For a recent example, see European Committee of the Regions, Better Regulation: Joining Forces to Make BetterLaws (Opinion, 147th plenary session, 1-2 December 2021) CIVEX-VII/007.7 European Committee of the Regions, ‘Better Regulation and Active Subsidiarity’, available athttps://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/commissions/civex/better-regulation-and-active-subsidiarity8 European Commission, ‘Conference on the Future of Europe’, available athttps://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/new-push-european-democracy/conference-future-europe_en.2 
 
 
 
European democracy.9 The three institutions are following up on these proposals, within their competence and in accordance with the Treaties.10Better Regulation also plays an important role in the work of other EU bodies, such as the CoR, which have developed their own Better Regulation processes and instruments. The CoR’s contribution to Better Regulation was underlined during CoFE, which called inter alia for the reinforcement of the role of the CoR and local and regional authorities in EU policy-making.As the EU faces several important developments in 2024, such as European elections, a new term of office for the EC, and a decision from the Council on whether to hold a Convention to revise the Treaties, it is important to position Better Regulation and active subsidiarity as priorities for these developments. Atthe same time, this atmosphere of change invites action on the CoFE’s proposals,and consideration of the stronger inclusion of the CoR in the EU law-makingprocess to guarantee a full representation of regional and local authorities, withinthe meaning of Better Regulation and active subsidiarity.9 Conference on the Future of Europe, ‘Report on the Final Outcome’ (May 2022), proposals #39.2 and #40, in particular 40.1 and 40.3 (CoFE report).10 European Commission, ‘Conference on the Future of Europe’ (n 8).3 
 
 
 
 
 
To support the CoR policy priority of bringing Europe closer to its people, as wellas the key activities of the Commission for Citizenship, Governance, Institutionaland External Affairs (CIVEX), which is responsible for coordinating the CoR’s work on constitutional and institutional issues, this report contains findings from desk-research and a stakeholder consultation on the impacts of the CoR Better Regulation tools, and provides recommendations for an enhanced role of the CoR. The research is guided by the following six research questions:1. Which legal arguments can be put forward for a system of improved EU law-making which effectively includes the territorial dimension, in particular of regional parliaments with legislative powers, and which involves the CoR as an advisory body in full respect of its prerogatives under the treaties as the guardian of subsidiarity?2. What should be the legal follow-up of the CoFE’s recommendations on the EU decision- making process, active subsidiarity and multi-level governance (Nos. 39 and 40)?3. How have the recommendations from the report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and "Doing Less More Efficiently" been put into practice and how can the existing Better Regulation tools such as the EC’s Fit for Future Platform increase their uptake of CoR contributions in that context?4. What should change in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making between the EP, the Council, and the EC to include the dynamics of multilevel governance and the local and regional dimension of Better Regulation?5. How should a process by which the outcomes of the various Better Regulation assessments carried out by the CoR could feed regularly into the preparation of EU legislation be structured, and how can it be linked up with the concept of the right of initiative of the EP and the concept of a ‘green card’ for regional parliaments with legislative powers and the CoR?6. In the relatively new and so far less structured areas of Better Regulation, i.e., the inclusion of strategic foresight and its methodologies in the preparation of EU regulation, and regarding the new concept of rural proofing, what are the specific challenges/opportunities to bring alocal/regional perspective to EU activity and how could the CoR develop its role in this respect?Figure 1: Research questionsIn this context, a stakeholder consultation for the preparation of the CoR opinionon ‘Active subsidiarity: a fundamental principle in the EU Better Regulationagenda’ involving CoR BRASS-G members, academics, think tankrepresentatives, and representatives of EU institutions was facilitated by the CoRin a hybrid format and took place on 12 February 2024.11By drawing on this consultation and the desk-research, the report sets out politicaland legal arguments for a stronger consideration of the territorial dimension in EUlaw-making, including by closer collaboration of the EC, the EP, and the Councilwith the CoR, and a paradigm shift towards a genuine application of the active subsidiarity approach. Thus, Part I presents and evaluates the status quo by analysing the constantly evolving Better Regulation tools at EU level, with a11 ‘Stakeholder Consultation: Opinion on Active Subsidiarity: A Fundamental Principle in the EU Better Regulation Agenda’ (12 February 2024), available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/plenaries-events/stakeholder-consultation-opinion-active-subsidiarity-fundamental-principle-eu-better-regulation4specific focus on the CoR tools. In doing so, Part I maps and analyses existing EU instruments and processes on Better Regulation including how they interact witheach other in relation to the CoR tools. The research finds that the existing CoRBetter Regulation tools, namely the SMN, RegHub and its participation in theEC’s Fit for Future Platform (F4F), TIA, rural proofing and strategic foresightunder the political steering of BRASS-G, already play an important role in the EUpolicy-making process. However, Part I of the report also identifies gaps oropenings in the existing Better Regulation infrastructure from a local or regionalpoint of view.For this reason, Part II includes a legal analysis of the CoR’s options to improve,both within the current Treaty framework (short-term reforms), existing and potential new tools, as well as with a view to potential Treaty amendments (long-term reforms). The short-term reforms include enhancements of existing BetterRegulation tools, such as strengthening TIA and rural proofing through close collaboration with the EC, as well as potential new tools, such as citizens’ panelsor a regional, local, and rural test in impact assessments. Long-term reformsinclude inter alia the inclusion of the CoR in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making between the EC, the EP, and the Council.Based on these findings, the report concludes with a set of recommendations to the CoR decision-makers regarding areas for reinforcing cooperation with institutional partners on specific instruments of Better Regulation, as well as regarding potential institutional changes to strengthen the CoR’s capacity to provide better input to policy-making within the context of the Better Regulation agenda. These five over-arching recommendations are:Improvement of the effectiveness of existing CoR tools through raising awareness.Negotiations with the EC, the EP, and the Council to discuss closer collaboration potential.Negotiations to secure sufficient resources to sustainably carry out Better Regulation activities.Consideration of the establishment of new Better Regulation tools.Consideration of long-term reforms with a view to Treaty amendments.Figure 2: Overview of recommendations5The first recommendation includes a clear and inclusive communication of existing CoR tools to raise awareness, enabling their uptake by local and regionalauthorities. The second recommendation ties in with the revised CooperationAgreements between the CoR and the EC, and the CoR and the EP, which serve as a starting point to closely collaborate with the EC and the EP on implementingsuggested reforms. At the same time, this recommendation includes a strongercollaboration with the Council. The third recommendation refers to the human and financial resources which the CoR needs to sustainably carry out Better Regulation activities, in particular the suggested reforms in this report. As the securing of resources is essential for the establishment of new Better Regulation tools, the fourth recommendation focuses on the consideration of such tools. Finally, the fifth recommendation suggests considering long-term reforms with a view to Treaty amendments.Overall, the findings of the report underscore the importance of the role of the CoR in EU policy-making and in ensuring that the ambitions and vital principles,approaches, methods, and tools of Better Regulation processes and instrumentsare effectively put into practice.6Part IThe following part starts with mapping and analysing existing European Union (EU) instruments and processes on Better Regulation (I). It then examines how these tools interact with each other in relation to the European Committee of the Region’s (CoR) Better Regulation activities, and where gaps or openings exist from a local or regional point of view (II).I. Existing EU Instruments and Processeson Better RegulationThere exist various EU instruments and processes on Better Regulation, including from: 1) the European Commission (EC), 2) the European Parliament (EP), 3) theCouncil of the EU (Council), and 4) other actors. The recommendations made bythe 5) Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” have further shaped some of these instruments and processes over the last years. Finally, 6) the CoR has developed its own Better Regulation tools.European CommissionEuropean ParliamentCouncil Other ActorsEuropeanCommittee ofthe RegionsForward Planning andPolitical ValidationPolitical CommitmentsBetter RegulationSubgroupEuropean Economicand Social CommitteeOpinionsMember States:Better Regulation andActive SubsidiaritySteering GroupStakeholderConsultationEvaluation and FitnessChecksImpact AssessmentQuality ControlCompliance Supportand ImplementationAdministrativeStructuresHandbook and Indicative ChecklistBureaucracyReduction Plan,Reality Checks, andmany othersSubsidiarityMonitoring NetworkNetwork of RegionalHubs and theirParticipation in the Fitfor Future PlatformTerritorial ImpactAssessmentRural ProofingStrategic ForesightFigure 3: Overview of Better Regulation instruments and processes, discussed in the following sections71. The European Commission’s BetterRegulation ToolsStarting with the Better Regulation tools developed by the EC, these have been created to achieve the objectives of the Better Regulation Agenda, namely ensuring that EU policy-making is based on evidence, making EU laws simpler and more effective, avoiding unnecessary burdens, and involving citizens, businesses, and stakeholders in the decision-making process.12 The Better Regulation Guidelines set out the principles which the EC follows when preparing new initiatives and proposals and when managing and evaluating existing legislation.13 According to these Guidelines, the key instruments for Better Regulation are: a) forward planning and political validation, b) stakeholder consultation, c) evaluation and fitness checks, d) impact assessment, e) quality control, and f) compliance support and implementation. In addition, the Better Regulation Toolbox provides operational and detailed guidance on specific aspects of Better Regulation.1412 European Commission, ‘Better Regulation: Why and How’ (n 1).13 Commission Staff Working Document: Better Regulation Guidelines (3 November 2021) SWD(2021) 305 final(Better Regulation Guidelines).14 European Commission, ‘Better Regulation Toolbox’ (July 2023), available athttps://commission.europa.eu/document/download/9c8d2189-8abd-4f29-84e9-abc843cc68e0_en?filename=BR%20toolbox%20-%20Jul%202023%20-%20FINAL.pdf (Better RegulationToolbox);  Better Regulation Guidelines, p.3.8Forward Planningand PoliticalValidation•Regulatory ScrutinyBoardCompliance Support and Implementation•Implementationstrategy to assistMember States•Strategic ForesightQuality Control •Staff workingdocuments with results,assessed by RegulatoryScrutiny BoardStakeholder Consultation•Based on ‘Call forEvidence’ process•Have Your Say portalEvaluation andFitness Checks•Fit for Future Platform •‘One in, one out’approachImpact Assessment • Including territorialimpactsFigure 4: Overview of EC Better Regulation tools throughout the policy cyclea) Forward Planning and Political ValidationSound policy-making necessitates good planning, which can be understood as theinitial considerations of an initiative and the organisation of supporting processes,including the evaluation of existing policies, the assessment of problems andalternative solutions, active engagement with stakeholders, and the preparation ofinitiatives.15 Good planning further includes time for reflection on initiatives andmeeting relevant procedural requirements, including political validation to launchan interservice consultation, conduct the interservice consultation and preparetranslations. Political validation refers to the ‘green light’ which is needed to startsubstantive preparatory work, which, depending on the initiative, includes the15 Better Regulation Guidelines, p.8.9validation by the Director-General, who is the head of a department of the Commission.16 Starting policy initiatives in accordance with forward planning and political validation ensures that the EC is applying a comprehensive and inclusive approach to policy-making. Planning is also required to allow for scrutiny by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB), which issues positive or negative opinions on the quality of all impact assessments, all fitness checks, and selected major evaluations.17b) Stakeholder ConsultationOnce the substantive work on initiatives has started, stakeholder consultations can take place to support evaluations, impact assessments, and the preparation of initiatives and political decisions.18 The consultation system is based on the ‘call for evidence’ process, which is a streamlined, inclusive, and simple system combining the elements of feedback to the call for evidence documents, translatedinto all the EU’s official languages, and of public consultation, when required.19This call for evidence is published on the Have Your Say portal, where citizens,businesses, public authorities including local and regional authorities, and otherstakeholders can share their views and ideas on initiatives across all policy areas.By conducting the call for evidence via the Have Your Say portal, the EC seeksto ensure a participative approach to policy-making, which enables all interestedparties to contribute.c) Evaluation and Fitness ChecksEvaluation and fitness checks ensure that evidence is gathered to assess how a specific intervention is working or has performed, and that a comprehensive evaluation of policy areas is conducted to examine how a set of related legislativeacts have contributed to attaining the relevant policy objectives.20 To do so, theEC established the Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) programme in2012, which included revisions of EU legislation and aimed to achieve burdenreduction and simplification.21 Since 2020, the Fit for Future Platform (F4F) hasreplaced the REFIT programme as a high-level expert group issuing opinions tothe EC with concrete suggestions for the simplification, burden reduction, andmodernisation of EU law.22 To further reduce burdens stemming from EU16 Ibid.17 Ibid.18 Ibid, p.9.19 Ibid. Please note that a public consultation is needed when an initiative is accompanied by an impact assessment. 20 Ibid, pp.9, 10.21 European Commission, ‘Better Regulation: Why and How’ (n 1).22 Ibid.10legislation, the EC introduced a ‘one in, one out’ approach in 2021.23 This approach ‘involves offsetting new burdens resulting from the Commission’s legislative proposals by equivalently reducing existing burdens in the same policy area’.24 Before the introduction of the ‘one in, one out’ approach at the EU level,ten EU Member States had such an approach in place for their law-makingprocesses.25 Other authorities have adopted similar approaches after the introduction at EU level, such as the Autonomous Province of Bolzano/Bozen (Italy), which developed the ‘Overview of the expected impact of legal acts: Analysis for “Better Regulation”’.26 According to this approach, the relevant department is obliged to complete and enclose a document when submitting a new proposal for a legal act, which includes details of the impact as well as whether new burdens are expected (in) and how the department is planning on offsetting those new burdens (out).d) Impact AssessmentAn impact assessment is conducted to assess whether future legislative or non- legislative EU action is justified, and if so, how it can best be designed to achieverelevant policy objectives.27 It is required for any EC initiatives that are ‘likely tohave significant economic, environmental or social impacts or which entailsignificant spending, and where the Commission has a choice of policy options’.28If an impact assessment is required but it is not possible to conduct one and aderogation is granted, a staff working document entailing the evidence behind theproposal and estimated costs is prepared within three months of the initiative’sadoption.29 Similarly, the EC does not conduct an impact assessment if theproposal builds on other proposals with an impact assessment, or if the proposalwould be implemented through existing programmes which have been subject toan impact assessment.30If the requirements for an impact assessment are fulfilled, the assessment must establish the necessity for EU action which considers EU relevance and whether23 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic andSocial Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Better Regulation: Joining Forces to Make Better Laws (29 April 2021) COM(2021) 219 final (Communication on Better Regulation: Joining Forces to Make Better Laws).24 Ibid.25 Andrea Renda and others, ‘Feasibility Study: Introducing “One-In-One-Out” in the European Commission’ (5December 2019).26 Written submission to ‘Stakeholder Consultation: Opinion on Active Subsidiarity: A Fundamental Principle inthe EU Better Regulation Agenda’ (n 11) from the Autonomous Province of Bolzano/Bozen.27 Better Regulation Guidelines, p.10.28 Ibid, p.30.29 Ibid.30 See, for example, the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP), and the briefing published by the EP:European Parliament, ‘Briefing EU Legislation in Process: Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP)’(February 2024).11Member State action would be sufficient, among formulating policy options, assessing their potential impacts, and (where appropriate) identifying a preferred option, and setting out how the expected results will be monitored and evaluated.31 The assessment of necessity for EU action is linked with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which are enshrined in the Treaty of the European Union (TEU), namely Article 5(3) and (4).32 Under the principle of subsidiarity, the EU ‘shall act [in areas which do not fall within its exclusivecompetence] only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannotbe sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regionaland local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposedaction, be better achieved at Union level’.33 The principle of proportionality statesthat ‘the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary toachieve the objectives of the Treaties’.34 Against these two principles, the ECconducts the impact assessment, which is often aided by using a subsidiarityassessment grid.35In addition, the EC seeks to assess how the problem varies across the national, regional, and local levels of the EU, and how the views or preferred courses of action of national, regional, and local authorities differ across the EU.36 As the CoR is the guardian of subsidiarity, and has been vested with more responsibilitiessince the Lisbon Treaty,37 this is an integral aspect of the EC impact assessment.It is of particular importance not only for this study, but for the role of the CoRmore generally, to ensure representation of the voices of regions and cities in theEU. How the CoR could be more involved in the EC impact assessment process,especially regarding territorial impacts, is further discussed in Part II of thisreport. Overall, the EC has developed an integrated approach which analyses theenvironmental, economic, and social impacts of policy options, thereby takinginto consideration sustainability and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs), territorial impacts, and impacts on fundamental rights, including dataprotection, among others.38e) Quality ControlQuality control starts in the Directorates-General (DGs), the EC’s departments, which have the responsibility of carrying out the above-mentioned evaluations,31 Better Regulation Toolbox, tool #5 point 2; Better Regulation Guidelines, p.10: The following provides answers to research question 1.32 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13 (TEU).33 Ibid, art 5(3).34 Ibid, art 5(4).35 See, for the subsidiarity assessment grid, Better Regulation Toolbox, tool #5.36 Ibid, tool #11 section 3.37 European Committee of the Regions, ‘A New Treaty: A New Role for Regions and Local Authorities’, availableat https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4ad75dd9-e315-11ed-a05c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 38 Better Regulation Guidelines, p.10.12stakeholder consultations, and impact assessments.39 The DGs must present the results of all these processes in staff working documents (SWDs). For impact assessments and fitness checks, as well as selected evaluations, drafts of the SWDs are then assessed by the above-mentioned RSB to ensure that they have the best possible quality to support policy decisions. The RSB’s opinions are published in the Register of Commission Documents once the EC adopts the respective legislative proposal. For impact assessment, the RSB has three types of opinions: positive (DG can proceed with initiative but has to take into accountthe RSB’s recommendations); positive with reservations (DG can proceed withthe initiative but must revise the impact assessment report); and negative (DGmust submit an amended impact assessment to the Board).40 In its 2022 annualreport, the RSB observed that not all impacts were assessed to the same extent inimpact assessments, especially ‘[w]hen comparing the coverage of impact typesin draft impact assessments with those in the Board’s opinions, territorial impactsand the impacts on EU budget were the most ‘missing’ type of impacts’.41 Forfitness checks and evaluations, the RSB only issues positive or negativeopinions.42 The application of quality control processes aims to ensure that policy-making in the EU follows a coherent approach.f) Compliance Support and ImplementationCompliance support and implementation elements acknowledge that the fullbenefits of EU interventions are only achieved if policies are implemented andapplied appropriately.43 For this reason, the Better Regulation Guidelines note thatit is essential to take into consideration implementation and enforcement issuesthroughout the whole policy cycle, including during stakeholder consultations andimpact assessment processes.44 Moreover, the preparation of an implementationstrategy to identify ways to assist Member States in transposing directives isanother important aspect of Better Regulation.45In addition to these principles and instruments, in 2021 the EC integrated strategicforesight into policy-making in its call for evidence-informed policy-making.46 Strategic and science-based foresight can be understood as anticipating ‘trends, risks, emerging issues, and their potential implications and opportunities in orderto draw useful insights for strategic planning, policy-making and preparedness’,as well as informing ‘the design of new Commission initiatives and the review of39 Ibid.40 Ibid, p.11.41 Regulatory Scrutiny Board, Annual Report 2022.42 Better Regulation Guidelines, p.11.43 Ibid.44 Ibid.45 Ibid.46 Communication on Better Regulation: Joining Forces to Make Better Laws (n 23).13existing policies in line with the revamped Commission Better Regulation Toolbox’.47The EC has adopted several Better Regulation tools over the years, covering the whole EU policy cycle. These include inter alia the RSB, which scrutinises the EC’s Better Regulation processes, the Have Your Say Portal, the F4F, the ‘one in, one out’ approach, impact assessments, implementation strategies, and strategic foresight.47 European Commission, ‘Strategic Foresight’, available at https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/strategic-planning/strategic-foresight_en.14 
 
 
 
 
 
2.The European Parliament’s BetterRegulation ToolsThe EP has also a) made commitments to better law-making principles and b) put administrative structures in place to implement them.48a) European Parliament Commitments to BetterRegulationThe EP has made several commitments regarding Better Regulation, for example,that it will carry out impact assessments in relation to its substantial amendmentsto the EC’s proposal, when it considers this to be necessary and appropriate forthe legislative process.49 As a general rule, the ‘definition of a ‘substantial’amendment should be for the respective Institution to determine’,50 and the EC’simpact assessment is the starting point for the EP’s further impact assessment.In addition to such commitments in the Interinstitutional Agreement, the EP has adopted several resolutions in which it affirmed its commitment to better law- making, including highlighting the role of the CoR in this process.51 For example,in its resolution of November 2023 on better law-making covering 2020, 2021,and 2022, the EP called on the EC to ‘take greater account of the opinionsexpressed by the European Committee of the Regions through the SubsidiarityMonitoring Network created to facilitate the exchange of information betweenregional and local authorities and the Union on the various legislative proposalswhich, following their adoption, will have a direct impact on these bodies and onthe policies for which they are responsible’.52b) Administrative StructuresTo implement the aforementioned commitments, the EP set up a dedicated Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value in 2012, which is part of the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), the EP’s in-house research service and think tank, and is now named the Directorate for Impact48 Written submission to ‘Stakeholder Consultation: Opinion on Active Subsidiarity: A Fundamental Principle in the EU Better Regulation Agenda’ (n 11) from the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS).49 Interinstitutional Agreement, para 15.50 Ibid.51 Written submission to the stakeholder consultation from the EPRS (n 48).52 Ibid; European Parliament, Resolution of 23 November 2023 on European Union Regulatory Fitness andSubsidiarity and Proportionality – Report on Better Law-Making Covering 2020, 2021, and 2022 (2023/2079 (INI)).15Assessment and Foresight.53 The Directorate conducts impact assessment and evaluation work at the request of parliamentary committees. In addition, the Directorate provides a series of products and services to support the EP’s scrutinyand oversight work, which is one of the EP’s powers attributed by the Treaties.54The Scrutiny Toolbox includes inter alia a range of analytical tools, most notablyin the form of ‘rolling check-lists’.55 These check-lists cover ‘Review andMonitoring Clauses in EU Legislation: A Rolling Check-List’, ‘InternationalAgreements - Review and Monitoring Clauses: A Rolling Check-List’,‘Evaluation in the European Commission: Rolling Check-List and State of Play’,‘Special Reports of the European Court of Auditors: A Rolling Check-List ofrecent findings’, ‘European Council Conclusions: A Rolling Check-List ofCommitments to Date’, and ‘European Commission follow-up to EuropeanParliament requests’. Against the background of Better Regulation, the ScrutinyToolbox not only provides specialist support to parliamentary committees and tothe EP as a whole, it also aims to guarantee that scrutiny and oversight are aseffective as possible throughout the whole policy cycle.Moreover, two EPRS units, namely the Ex-Ante Impact Assessment Unit and theEx-Post Evaluation Unit, focus on policy issues both ex-ante and ex-post.56 TheEx-Ante Impact Assessment Unit analyses the quality of the EC’s impactassessments in the form of initial appraisals of these documents, which aresupplied to parliamentary committees in advance of their consideration of newlegislative proposals.57 It then offers the committees various follow-up services,for example, more detailed appraisals of impact assessments, substitute orcomplementary impact assessments, and impact assessments on parliamentaryamendments.58 The Ex-Post Evaluation Unit assists committees in their ex-postevaluation work, for example, by providing short implementation appraisals,longer and more detailed European implementation assessments, and any otherstudies on implementation issues.59Since 2022, the EPRS has organised an annual conference on better law-making.60Moreover, within EPRS, the Linking the Levels Unit was created in 2018, to bring together governmental organisations from all levels of governance and build53 Written submission to the stakeholder consultation from the EPRS (n 48).54 EPRS, ‘Scrutiny Toolbox’, available at https://epthinktank.eu/scrutiny-toolbox/.55 Ibid.56 Ibid; EPRS, ‘About’, available at https://epthinktank.eu/about/.57 EPRS, ‘Impact Assessment and European Added Value’ (July 2022).58 Ibid.59 Ibid.60 Written submission to the stakeholder consultation from the EPRS (n 48); Think Tank European Parliament,‘EPRS Online Annual Conference on Better Law-making’ available athttps://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/events/details/eprs-online-annual-conference-on-better-/20220712EOT06721.16lasting partnerships.61 Regional and local actors, including the CoR, regional executives and parliaments, and local authorities, have established and developedrelations within this unit, which has, in some instances, been formalised througha memorandum of understanding on administrative cooperation.62The EP’s Better Regulation activities include the commitments in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making such as conducting impact assessments in relation to its substantial amendments to the EC’s proposals. The Directorate for Impact Assessment and Foresight and two EPRS units provide the administrative structures to implement the EP’s Better Regulation commitments.61 Written submission to the stakeholder consultation from the EPRS (n 48).62 Ibid. Note that this has so far been done with the Conference of European Legislative Assemblies (CALRE) andthe Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR).17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.The Council’s Better Regulation ToolsThe Council is supported by more than 150 highly specialised working parties and committees, also known as the ‘Council preparatory bodies’.63 The Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth has a Better Regulation subgroup, which isresponsible for ‘issues related to the development of a more open, transparent, andevidence-based policy-making for EU citizens, stakeholders and businesses,especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In particular, it providesadvice on better law-making, and promotes the application of better regulationprinciples to create a less burdensome, high quality, and future-proof regulatoryenvironment’.64 During the last meeting of the Better Regulation subgroup in2023, various topics were discussed, such as regulatory sandboxes, and sciencefor policy-making and data processing in support of policy-making.65In addition, the Council has developed Indicative Guidance, the Handbook, whichprovides practical advice for working party chairs and the General Secretariat ofthe Council on handling impact assessments of legislative proposals.66 ThisHandbook is accompanied by an Indicative Checklist for Working Party Chairs,which enables the examination of impact assessments conducted by the EC in theCouncil.67While this subgroup specialises in Better Regulation, and the Handbook and Checklist exist, the Council has deployed Better Regulation tools less intensivelyin comparison to the EC and the EP.68 In fact, as set out by the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with the application of theIndicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance, ‘in particular the Council seemsto be lagging behind in terms of the implementation of the 2016 InterinstitutionalAgreement’.69 Some authors argue that the Interinstitutional Agreement ‘wasnever operational on the ground (...) showing that the commitment to impactassessment and evidence-based policy was not entirely shared by the EP and theCouncil’.70 Rather, for the Council, Better Regulation ‘was a strategy to make the63 Council of the European Union, ‘Council Preparatory Bodies’, available athttps://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/preparatory-bodies/.64 Council of the European Union, ‘Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth’, available athttps://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/preparatory-bodies/working-party-on-competitiveness-and- growth/.65 Council of the European Union, Communication (16 November 2023) CM 5312/23.66 Council of the European Union, ‘Impact assessment – Indicative Guidance for Working Party Chairs’ (9 June2016) 9790/16.67 Council of the European Union, ‘Impact assessment – Guidance for Working Party Chairs – IndicativeChecklist’ (12 March 2018) 6270/18.68 Dunlop and Radaelli (n 2).69 OECD, ‘Better Regulation Practices across the European Union’ (28 June 2022), available athttps://www.oecd.org/publications/better-regulation-practices-across-the-european-union-2022-6e4b095d-en.htm.70 Dunlop and Radaelli (n 2).18Commission more accountable to the Member States and the business communitythrough enhanced transparency, consultation and oversight of the treaty-definedright of the Commission to initiate legislation’.71 However, to tackle current andfuture challenges, European institutions, namely the EC, the EP, and the Council,‘all need to work together and with Member States’.72The Better Regulation subgroup within the Council’s Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth provides advice on Better Regulation as well as promoting the application of its principles. The Council has also developed a handbook which provides practical advice on impact assessments of legislative proposals, as well as an indicative checklist which enables the examination of impact assessments conducted by the EC. Still, in comparison to the EC and the EP, the Council seems to be lagging behind in its Better Regulation efforts, as found by the OECD.71 Ibid.72 OECD, ‘Better Regulation Practices across the European Union’ (n 69).19 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.Other Actors’ Better Regulation ToolsBefore addressing b) Better Regulation activities at the Member State level, it is important to note that a) the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC),acting in an advisory capacity to the EC, the EP, and the Council, has issuedvarious opinions regarding Better Regulation.a) European Economic and Social CommitteeThe EESC issues opinions either on request from the EC, the EP, and the Council,or on own initiative.73 For example, the EC consulted the EESC on the‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions– Better regulation for better results – An EU agenda’ in 2015.74 In its opinion,the EESC noted that Better Regulation is ‘a process under constant development’with ‘room for improvement’.75 At the same time, it underlined that ‘Betterregulation does not, however, replace political decisions’.76 Regarding specificBetter Regulation tools such as consultations, the EESC stressed that ‘selectingthe right target groups and taking account of the representativeness ofstakeholders are key elements of better regulation which should be improved’.77Regarding its own role in the Better Regulation Agenda, the EESC called for ‘theEU’s consultative bodies to be included in the Interinstitutional Agreement onBetter Regulation’.78Another, more recent example of an opinion which was issued on the EESC’s own initiative relates to ‘A competitiveness check to build a stronger and more resilient EU economy’, which also includes a follow-up on CoFE recommendations.79 Regarding the Better Regulation Agenda, the EESC pointed out that ‘there is an evident need for improvements, especially with respect to the73 European Economic and Social Committee, ‘About’, available at https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/about. See the database on opinions relating to Better Regulation, available at https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions?populate=Better+Regulation.74 See Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, theEuropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Better Regulation for Better Results – An EU Agenda’ (19 May 2015) COM(2015) 215 final.75 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to theEuropean Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of theRegions, ‘Better Regulation for Better Results – An EU Agenda’ (16 September 2015) SC/41 Better Regulation. 76 Ibid.77 Ibid.78 Ibid.79 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, ‘A Competitiveness Check to Build a Stronger andmore Resilient EU Economy (Explanatory Opinion)’ (14 December 2022) INT/1000. See, for other examples,European Economic and Social Committee, ‘Better Regulation’, available at https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/better-regulation.20implementation of the tools’.80 For this reason, the EESC, for example, highlighted how impact assessments could be strengthened, in particular by focusing more on competitiveness to ensure that they are properly balanced.81 TheEESC’s opinion aligns with the CoFE recommendation No. 12.21 that new EUpolicies ‘should undergo a “competitiveness check” to analyse their impact oncompanies and their business environment (...) Such check shall be in accordancewith the Paris Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals, including genderequality, and shall not undermine the protection of human, social and workers’rights nor environmental and consumer protection standards’.82The EESC has issued two opinions regarding the Better Regulation Agenda over the last years. In these opinions, the EESC not only welcomed the efforts of the EC, the EP, and the Council, but also highlighted areas which require further improvement, for example, consultations. At the same time, the EESC has called for its stronger involvement in the Better Regulation Agenda by being included in the Interinstitutional Agreement on BetterLaw-Making. As explored below in this report, the CoR has also called forinclusion in this Agreement. The EESC and the CoR could, therefore,negotiate together with the EC, the EP, and the Council, strengthening eachother’s arguments.b) Member StatesMember States are uniquely placed to identify how EU policies affect their citizens, and therefore play a crucial role in ensuring that EU policies deliver for them.83 In the past, Member States adopted initiatives relating to Better Regulation, or developed their own Better Regulation tools. For example, Germany and France adopted the ‘French-German Paper on Better Regulation and Modern Administration in Europe’, which calls on the EC ‘to develop an ambitious Bureaucracy Reduction Action Plan, with measures i) in the short term,to reduce unnecessary administrative and legislative bureaucratic burdens, ii) inthe long term, to improve the way EU public policies are produced, to truly turnregulation into an element of Europe’s competitiveness, and iii) to make thetransformation of our economies a success’.84 In the context of Better Regulation,the Paper explicitly calls for the consistent application of impact assessments as80 Ibid.81 Ibid.82 CoFE report, proposal #12.21.83 OECD, ‘Better Regulation Practices across the European Union’ (n 69).84 ‘Reducing Bureaucracy in these Unprecedented Times – French-German Paper on Better Regulation andModern Administration in Europe’ (9 October 2023).21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
well as stating that ‘national and European rules need to complement each other in a spirit of subsidiarity’.85 In addition, it suggests a ‘holistic and implementation-oriented examination’ when it comes to ex-post evaluation of EU regulations, forexample, by introducing ‘reality checks’.86 Such checks are used in Germany toidentify unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles and involve practitioners to identifythe origins of red tape, from investment-decision to operation.87The OECD has examined the EU institutions’ Better Regulation practices, as wellas those of Member States.88 For example, in 2013, Austria made regulatoryimpact assessments mandatory for all primary laws and subordinate regulations.89For a full impact assessment, the applied methodology requires the assessment ofa variety of impacts, including social aspects, gender equality, and impacts on theenvironment.90 Ex-post evaluations include the assessment of whether policygoals have been achieved, a comparison of predicted and actual impacts, and theidentification of benefits as well as costs and unintended consequences.91Denmark, Bulgaria, and Slovenia have continued to improve their national BetterRegulation agendas, whereas other Member States, such as Belgium, Malta, andCyprus, have made no or only small changes over the last years.92 Overall, theOECD identifies a number of areas of Better Regulation as areas with room toimprove, including:• Domestic stakeholders are alerted of consultations organised by the EC in approximately 70% of Member States. Only one-third of Member States, however, use the EC’s analysis systematically as input to their negotiating position. In addition, only a few Member States use regulatory management tools on proposed EU regulationsto complement the EC’s analysis. Member States would benefit fromadditional evidence during the negotiation phase, which representsthe final opportunity to modify the EC’s proposals.• While all Member States are required to use some regulatory management tools when transposing EU Directives, only one-fifth require the systematic assessment of additional impacts of domestic provisions beyond those in the Directive. According to the OECD, ‘[i] f rules are to improve community well-being, the complete set of their potential impacts should be understood before they areimplemented’.85 Ibid.86 Ibid.87 Ibid.88 OECD, ‘Better Regulation Practices across the European Union’ (n 69).89 Ibid.90 Ibid.91 Ibid.92 Ibid.22• When it comes to the assessment of costs and benefits, in more than 90% of Member States the focus lies on government and business, meaning that costs to individuals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are not assessed to the same extent. To better account for community impacts, it is important to equally consider costs and benefits to individuals and NGOs, to ensure that regulationcan deliver the anticipated gains to citizens.• The application of the proportionality principle varies widely across Member States with some determining the depth of analysis andsubsequent decision without scrutiny from regulatory oversight.• The evaluation of whether existing rules deliver benefits to the community can be increased in most Member States, including bymaking use of technological advancements to monitor outcomes.In addition to Better Regulation tools at the national level, the above-mentioned tool developed by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano/Bozen is an example ofBetter Regulation initiatives at the regional and local level. In federal MemberStates, Better Regulation tools may vary between local regions, such as inGermany where use of such tools varies between Länder.93 For example, while 15Länder adopted laws or guidelines to reduce the burden for SMEs, Berlin has nosuch regulations in place.94 At the same time, only four Länder (Baden-Württemberg, Brandenburg, Hessen, and Thüringen) conduct a cost assessmentlike the Federal State.95 A similar trend is observed in Spain, where the approachvaries from region to region. In 2022, the Spanish government and regionalgovernments launched an ‘Observatory of Good Regulatory Practices’, whichcould contribute to overcoming some of those differences by gathering andsharing positive regulatory practices and initiatives for Better Regulation that canbe applied in different regional contexts.96Overall, considering the OECD’s recommendations for the Member State level, and the various levels of Better Regulation tools at the local and regional level, the CoR could increase its role by working more closely with local and regional authorities. For example, the CoR could work with local and regional authoritiesto provide Member States with more evidence during the negotiation phase of EUproposals.97 Similarly, the CoR could support local and regional levels to conductcomprehensive impact assessments which would inform Member States’93 Klaus-Heiner Röhl, ‘Bürokratieabbau und Bessere Rechtsetzung: Wer Macht was in EU, Bund und Ländern?’(IW-Policy Paper 1/20).94 Ibid.95 Ibid.96 La Administración al Día, ‘El Gobierno y las CCAA Lanzan un Observatorio de Buenas Prácticas Regulatoriaspara Agilizar Trámites Administrativos’ (14 December 2022), available athttps://laadministracionaldia.inap.es/noticia.asp?id=1228544.97 The following provides answers to research question 5.23transposition processes about the additional impacts of local and regional provisions beyond those in the respective Directive. Last, the CoR could developan approach together with local and regional authorities which focuses on anassessment of costs and benefits for authorities, businesses, individuals, and NGOs, and which could be shared with Member States to ensure that regulation delivers the anticipated gains to all citizens, including at local and regional levels.These closer collaboration suggestions between the CoR and local and regionalauthorities would lead to an increased role of the CoR at the EU level in an indirectway. Together with suggestions set out below, which propose an increased role for the CoR at the EU level in a direct way, the CoR could contribute to a more holistic Better Regulation approach, ranging from Better Regulation in rural areas up to Better Regulation during the EU policymaking process.Member States have adopted several initiatives relating to Better Regulation, or have developed their own Better Regulation tools. Examples can be found at the national level, for example, the ‘French-German Paper on Better Regulation and Modern Administration in Europe’, or at the regional and local level, for example, the ‘Overview of the expected impact of legal acts: Analysis for “Better Regulation”’ developed by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano/Bozen. The CoR could increase its role at the EU level by working more closely with local and regional authorities and using their existing Better Regulation tools to, for example, provide evidence during the negotiation phase of new proposals.24 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.The Task Force on Subsidiarity,Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” and its Follow-Up98The aforementioned instruments and processes on Better Regulation have beenfurther shaped by the recommendations made by the Task Force on Subsidiarity,Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”. This Task Force wasestablished in 2017 by then EC President Jean-Claude Juncker and met fromJanuary to July 2018 to make recommendations to improve the application of theproportionality and subsidiarity principles by the EU institutions.99 The TaskForce was brought to life against the background of the debate on the future ofEurope, and comprised three members of the CoR, including the then CoRPresident, as well as three members from national parliaments (Austria, Bulgaria,and Estonia).100 The EP was also invited to nominate members, but did not do sobecause it ‘considered that participation in the task force set up by theCommission would disregard Parliament’s institutional role and standing as theonly directly elected Institution of the European Union, representing the citizensat Union level and exercising functions of political scrutiny over the Commission,and (…) decided to decline the invitation to participate in the task force’.101 TheTask Force met seven times to discuss their mandated tasks, held a public hearing,and received inputs from a number of stakeholders.102 It handed over its finalreport on 10 July 2018.103The Task Force conducted work with the aim to ‘make recommendations on howto better apply the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, identify policyareas where work could be re-delegated or definitely returned to EU countries,[and] find ways to better involve regional and local authorities in EU policy-making and delivery’.104 In total, the Task Force made nine recommendations:98 This section provides answers to research question 3.99 European Commission, ‘Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”’,available at https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation/task-force-subsidiarity-proportionality-and-doing-less-more-efficiently_en.100 European Commission, ‘Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”Factsheet’, available at https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/739a21b7-fe1c-42b7-aa24-83ad344c790e_en?filename=task-force-factsheet-subsidiarity-proportionality.pdf.101 See, for example, European Parliament, Resolution of 18 April 2018 on the Annual Reports 2015-2016 onSubsidiarity and Proportionality (2017/2010(INI)).102 European Commission, ‘Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”Factsheet’ (n 100).103 European Commission, ‘Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”’ (n99).104 Ibid.25• the application of an assessment grid by the institutions and national andregional parliaments to assess subsidiarity, proportionality, and legal basisof new and existing legislations;• the application of a flexible 8-week deadline for national parliaments tosubmit reasoned opinions to the EC;• the revision of Protocol No. 2 to the Treaties to allow 12 weeks for reasonedopinions;• the raising of awareness of national, local, and regional authorities of the opportunities to contribute to EU policy-making at an early stage by the ECtogether with national parliaments and the CoR;• the inclusion of territorial impacts in impact assessments and evaluations, and accordingly the revision of the Better Regulation Guidelines andToolbox;• the use of the subsidiarity grid by the EP and the Council;• the exploration by regional and national parliaments to link moreeffectively their respective platforms for sharing information;• the development of a mechanism to identify and evaluate legislation fromthe perspective of subsidiarity and proportionality, among others; and• the reflection on re-balancing work in some policy areas towards deliveringmore effective implementation rather than initiating new legislation.105Following these recommendations, the EC announced intended changes in a Communication in 2018.106 These changes focused on the application of the subsidiarity grid, the deadline for national parliaments to submit reasoned opinions, the amendment of Better Regulation guidance and public consultation questionnaires to better include views of local and regional authorities, as well as in impact assessments and evaluations, and the reshape of the REFIT platform.107In 2019, the EC took stock of its Better Regulation activities, which showed thatit was on the right path to implement the Task Force’s recommendations.108 Forexample, the EC considered ways of encouraging more participation inconsultations through the aforementioned Have Your Say portal (see underStakeholder Consultation) to raise general awareness about the opportunities tocontribute to the EC’s policy-making, including for national, local, and regionalauthorities. In particular, the EC stated its intention to ‘step up its collaborationwith the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social105 Report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” (n 5).106 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, theEuropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity and Proportionality: Strengthening their Role in the EU’s Policymaking’ (23 October 2018) COM(2018) 703 final. 107 Ibid.108 European Commission, ‘Better Regulation: Taking Stock and Sustaining our Commitment’ (15 April 2019),available at https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/d1728974-433d-463b-8cd2-cc56b96d78bc_en?filename=better-regulation-taking-stock_en.pdf.26Committee, the Commission’s representations in Member States, national authorities and other representative associations’.109The latest Communication from the EC relating to Better Regulation shows that further steps have been taken to implement the Task Force’s recommendations.110 For example, territorial impacts as well as a subsidiarity grid have been includedin the EC’s Better Regulation Toolbox,111 and the Better Regulation Guidelinesand Toolbox have been updated accordingly.112 Moreover, the aforementionedF4F and ‘one in, one out’ approach (see under Evaluation and Fitness Checks)have since been introduced.113 While all these steps have contributed to a partialimplementation of the Task Force’s recommendations, there is still a need for fullimplementation of the outstanding recommendations. How these could beimplemented is addressed in Part II of the report.The Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” concluded its mandate in 2018 with nine recommendations. Based on these recommendations, the EC has already implemented changes to the Better Regulation Agenda, for example, it included territorial impacts and a subsidiarity grid in its Better Regulation Toolbox. While important progress has been made, there exists still room to fully implement the Task Force’s recommendations.109 Ibid.110 Communication on Better Regulation: Joining Forces to Make Better Laws (n 23).111 Better Regulation Toolbox, tools #5, #34.112 The Better Regulation Toolbox version dated 20 July 2023, and the Better Regulation Guidelines version dated3 November 2021.113 Communication on Better Regulation: Joining Forces to Make Better Laws (n 23).276.The European Committee of the Regions’Better Regulation ToolsAs mentioned under the Executive Summary, the CoR has developed several Better Regulation tools, which include:a) the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network,b) the Network of Regional Hubs and their participation in F4F,c) the territorial impact assessment,d) rural proofing, ande) strategic foresight.In addition, f) BRASS-G, introduced above, coordinates the CoR’s Better Regulation tools and strategy.a) Subsidiarity Monitoring NetworkThe Subsidiarity Monitoring Network (SMN) was launched in 2007. It includes 150 members of parliaments and governments of regions with legislative powers,local and regional authorities without legislative powers, local governmentassociations in the EU and is also open to CoR national delegations and chambersof national parliaments.114 The SMN was set up to facilitate the exchange ofinformation between local and regional authorities in the EU regarding legislativeand political proposals.115 This is important as EC initiatives will have a directimpact on these authorities and the policies they are responsible for once adopted.The SMN aims to enable local and regional authorities to be active in monitoringthe implementation of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. Thus, as theguardian of these principles, the SMN facilitates the CoR to represent the interestsof local and regional authorities in the legislative process of the EU when it comesto the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles.The SMN operates through its website, which allows network members to submittheir assessments of all political or legislative documents which are the subject ofa CoR opinion (through open consultations).116 They can also be invited by a CoRrapporteur drafting an opinion on an EU initiative to give their views (through114 European Committee of the Regions, ‘The Subsidiarity Monitoring Network’, available at https://portal.cor.europa.eu/subsidiarity/thesmn/Pages/default.aspx; European Committee of the Regions, ‘List ofPartners: The CoR Subsidiarity Monitoring Network’ (December 2020), available athttps://portal.cor.europa.eu/subsidiarity/Documents/SMN%20-%20List%20of%20Network%20Partners/SMN_List_of_Network_Partners.pdf.115 European Committee of the Regions, ‘The Subsidiarity Monitoring Network’ (n 114).116 Ibid.28targeted consultations).117 Network members can also make contributions to subsidiarity and proportionality checks of documents submitted to them by usinga standard assessment grid or tailored questionnaires.118 Input of networkmembers can also be sought in impact assessment consultations conducted by theEC.119Based on available data from the EC’s latest annual report on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and relations with nationalparliaments, members of the SMN transmitted 20 contributions to CoR opinionsin 2022.120 The annual report of 2021 states that the network was consulted ontwo proposals, the New Pact on Migration and Asylum and the proposal for aDirective on adequate minimum wages in the EU.121 For the New Pact onMigration and Asylum, the SMN transmitted three contributions, and for theproposal for a Directive on adequate minimum wages in the EU, the SMNtransmitted one contribution, which can be seen in the CoR’s own annualreport.122 The EC’s annual report of 2020 does not include any data for the SMNin general, but rather only for one of its sub-networks, the REGPEX.123Considering these data and that the SMN comprises 150 members, the effectiveness of the functioning of the SMN is questionable given the very limitednumber of contributions from the SMN to the CoR’s opinions. While there is anindication that the number of contributions is growing when comparing 2021 and2022, it is not possible to establish a trend on the basis of the available data.117 Ibid.118 Ibid.119 Ibid.120 European Commission, ‘Annual Report 2022 on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity andProportionality and on Relations with National Parliaments’ (12 October 2023) COM(2023) 640 final.121 European Commission, ‘Annual Report 2021 on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity andProportionality and on Relations with National Parliaments’ (1 August 2022) COM(2022) 366 final.122 European Committee of the Regions, ‘Subsidiarity Annual Report 2020’ (10 March 2021) COR-2021-00231-14-01-NB-TRA (EN) 1/16.123 European Commission, ‘Annual Report 2020 on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity andProportionality and on Relations with National Parliaments’ (27 July 2021) COM(2021) 417 final.29The SMN’s aim is to enable local and regional authorities to be active in monitoring the implementation of subsidiarity and proportionality principles. To do so, SMN members can contribute to CoR opinions through open consultations, targeted consultations, and impact assessment consultations. Latest available data shows that the uptake of these contribution possibilities is relatively small in comparison to the network’s membership size, however. To ensure the effective functioning of this Better Regulation tool, it is recommended to consider active communication strategies with SMN members to increase the number of contributions. Moreover, an updated website containing latest contribution possibilities as well as past contributions might increase willingness to get involved.b) Network of Regional Hubs and Participation in the Fitfor Future PlatformThe Network of Regional Hubs (RegHub) includes 46 members, 10 observers, and one associated body, which all monitor the implementation of EU policies atthe regional and local level and ensure that these voices are taken intoconsideration when these policies are evaluated at the EU level.124 Thus, theRegHub contributes to Better Regulation by providing a local and regionalperspective on the evaluation of EU legislation, increasing the involvement oflocal and regional authorities in the design and implementation of EU legislation,strengthening the links between the various levels by creating opportunities fordialogue and promoting the sub-national perspective, and presenting anddisseminating good practice examples of the implementation of EU laws in cities,municipalities, and regions.125It most notably – while not exclusively – does so by being a separate sub-group of the F4F, the aforementioned high-level expert group supporting the EC with simplifying EU laws and reducing unnecessary costs (see Evaluation and Fitness Checks). The F4F is divided into the government group and the stakeholder group.126 The CoR has three members representing the CoR in the government group, which is otherwise composed of representatives from national, regional,124 European Committee of the Regions, ‘Network of Regional Hubs: Assessing EU Law from the Ground’, available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/cooperations-and-networks/network-regional-hubs.125 Ibid.126 European Commission, ‘Composition’, available at https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-less-costly-and-future-proof/fit-future-platform-f4f/composition_en.30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and local authorities from all EU countries.127 In addition, the RegHub as a separate sub-group supports the work of the F4F and the EC with EU policy implementation reports.128 To do so, RegHub organises its work in three steps: 1) providing contributions to the annual F4F work programme by consulting the hubs on relevant legislative texts to be reviewed by the EC, 2) conducting targetedstakeholder consultations through its network and sharing the results with theplatform’s rapporteurs, and 3) promoting the platform’s opinions within EUinstitutions.129 For example, in 2023, RegHub conducted two targetedconsultations, relating to public procurement and the Digital EuropeProgramme.130 The results of these consultations enlarged the evidence base ofthe corresponding F4F opinions that were adopted at the plenary meeting of theF4F.131 Similarly, RegHub conducted two targeted consultations in 2022, onerelating to the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive, and one relating to a GovernmentsInteroperability Strategy.132 These consultations also fed into the correspondingF4F opinions adopted in the F4F’s plenary.133The CoR’s participation in the F4F is an example of the collaboration betweendifferent EU institutions and their Better Regulation tools, which is important asregional and local authorities’ experiences with EU legislation on the ground canfind direct application in the EU policy-making cycle. In comparison to previousevaluations of RegHub, in particular of its pilot phase, it can be seen that RegHubhas grown its membership (from 36 to 46), and therefore fulfilled arecommendation of the evaluation report.134 In addition, the involvement ofRegHub in F4F with conducting two targeted stakeholder consultations each year(in 2022 and 2023) shows that RegHub establishes itself as a constant contributorto the EC’s Better Regulation process. If time and resources allow, RegHub couldincrease the amount of targeted stakeholder consultation to widen its contributionpotential.127 The stakeholder group consists of experts on Better Regulation representing businesses and NGOs, and the European Economic and Social Committee.128 See, for the establishment of sub-groups, Commission Decision of 11 May 2020 establishing the Fit for FuturePlatform (2020/C 163/03), article 9.129 European Committee of the Regions, ‘Network of Regional Hubs: Assessing EU Law from the Ground’ (n124).130 Ibid.131 Ibid; Fit for Future Platform Opinion, Public Procurement (28 November 2023) AWP 2023; Fit for FuturePlatform Opinion, The Digital Europe Programme (28 November 2023) AWP 2023.132 European Committee of the Regions, ‘Network of Regional Hubs: Assessing EU Law from the Ground’ (n124).133 Fit for Future Platform Opinion, Revision of the End-of-life Vehicles Directive and the Directive on the Type-approval of Motor Vehicles (5 December 2022) AWP 2022; Fit for Future Platform Opinion, Governments Interoperability Strategy (5 December 2022) AWP 2022.134 RegHub Secretariat, ‘Evaluation Report – Network of Regional Hubs for EU Policy Implementation Review’(September 2020).31RegHub monitors the implementation of EU policies at the regional and local level and ensures that these voices are taken into consideration when policies are evaluated. By supporting the F4F as a separate sub-group, RegHub provides crucial information for the F4F’s work. It is, therefore, an important Better Regulation tool for the CoR, as its members’ expertise can effectively contribute to EU policy-making. While available data from the last two years show that RegHub makes constant contributions to the F4F by conducting targeted stakeholder consultations, a higher number of these consultations could be envisaged if time and resources allow.c) Territorial Impact AssessmentTo analyse the asymmetric territorial impacts of EU proposals, the CoR has been using territorial impact assessment (TIA) since 2013.135 In particular, the CoR conducts ex-ante TIA in the legislative phase once the EC has published the initiative, based on the European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON) TIA Quick Check method and tool, targeted consultations, and analytical notes.136 As set out in its Opinion on ‘Do noharm to cohesion – A cross-cutting principle contributing towards cohesion as anoverall objective and value of the EU’, the CoR considers TIA to be the best toolto implement the ‘do no harm to cohesion principle’, which can be understood as‘no action should hamper the convergence process or contribute to regionaldisparities’.137 In addition, if there was a significant growth in budget, the TIAcould be one of the main services the CoR could provide to its members, as wellas to other EU institutions.138While there is great potential for the CoR to increase its role with TIA, the used methodology has certain disadvantages. For example, the ESPON TIA Quick Check method and tool does not provide an in-depth assessment, but rather a135 European Committee of the Regions, ‘Territorial Impact Assessment’, available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/commissions/coter/territorial-impact-assessment136 European Committee of the Regions, ‘Audit Report on the Adequacy of Territorial Impact Assessment System’(27 April 2021).137 OJ (2023/C 257/01).138 European Committee of the Regions, ‘Audit Report on the Adequacy of Territorial Impact Assessment System(n 136).32‘quick “glance” at territorial impacts’.139 In addition, most TIA approaches relyon quantitative data; for an evidence-based impact assessment, the availability ofregionally disaggregated data is crucial. While the Joint Research Centre (JRC),ESPON, Eurostat, and the OECD produce various datasets, they often correspondto general information such as employment per sector or population age groups,or highly specialised information for specific projects.140 This leads to a‘mismatch between data availability and the broad range of topics to be assessedin the EU policy and legislation context by TIA’.141 Despite these disadvantages,there exists potential to further develop TIA by integrating different approaches,for example, by using elements from the various methodologies to overcomespecific limitations and challenges.142 New data to develop individual TIAmethodologies and increasing awareness and alignment with policy processes areadditional opportunities to further develop TIA.143Addressing the political dimension of TIA development, the renewed CoR TIA strategy of 2023 focuses on two objectives, namely ‘[t]o provide CoR rapporteurs with relevant analysis and information that can be used to improve the territorialperspective of CoR opinions’ and ‘[t]o promote TIA among the Europeaninstitutions as an important element of Better Regulation’.144 Examples of TIAsin 2023 are the assessments on Drone Strategy 2.0, on the legislative frameworkfor sustainable food systems, and on the Strategic Technologies for EuropePlatform (STEP).145How the promotion of TIA among other institutions, especially the EC, could be achieved, is discussed in Part II of the report.139 European Committee of the Regions, ‘State of the Art and Challenges Ahead for Territorial Impact Assessments’ (2020).140 Ibid.141 Ibid.142 Ibid.143 Ibid.144 European Committee of the Regions, ‘Territorial Impact Assessment’ (n 135).145 European Committee of the Regions, ‘Territorial Impact Assessment: A Drone Strategy 2.0’ (8 May 2023),available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Documents/Territorial-impact-assessment/tia-drone-strategy-2.0.pdf; European Committee of the Regions, ‘Territorial Impact Assessment/Rural Proofing: LegislativeFramework for Sustainable Food Systems’ (22 June 2023), available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Documents/TIA%20Sustainable%20food%20systems.pdf; European Committee of the Regions, ‘TerritorialImpact Assessment: Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform’ (2 October 2023), available athttps://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Documents/5039-TIA-report.pdf.33The CoR TIA enables ex-ante assessments once the EC has published the initiative. To do so, the CoR uses the ESPON TIA Quick Check method and tool, targeted consultations, and analytical notes. While TIA provides important insights for the EU policy-making process by focusing on territorial impacts, the applied methodology faces certain disadvantages. However, there exist possibilities to further develop TIA to overcome these hurdles. A significant growth in budget would not only allow the CoR to develop its TIA methodology, but also make TIA one of the main services which the CoR can provide to its members and other EU institutions.d) Rural ProofingRural proofing can be understood as ‘a systematic process to review the likelyimpacts of policies, programmes and initiatives on rural areas because of theirparticular circumstances or needs (e.g. dispersed populations and poorerinfrastructure networks). In short, it requires policymakers to ‘think rural’ whendesigning policy interventions in order to prevent negative outcomes for ruralareas and communities’.146 In 2020, the CoR commissioned a study on a foresightframework for resilient rural communities, which also includes guidance for betterrural proofing at the EU level, including the enhancement of the EU legislativeprocess to include rural proofing.147 Further to that study, the CoR included ruralproofing in its active subsidiarity framework in the same year and subsequently,in March 2023, the CoR Commission for Natural Resources (NAT) and BRASS-G endorsed the rural proofing methodology for use by all CoR commissions. Themethodology suggests several tools for rural proofing in a two-year pilot phase,including TIA and the RegHub network.148 The methodology will be reviewed bythe CoR in due time.146 Jane Atterton, ‘ENRD Thematic Group Rural Proofing – Background Document: Analytical Overview of Rural Proofing Approaches and Lessons Learned’ (2022), available at https://ec.europa.eu/enrd/sites/default/files/tg-rp_background_paper-rural_proofing-jane_atterton_220127.pdf.pdf.147 Roland Gaugitsch and others, ‘Rural Proofing – A Foresight Framework for Resilient Rural Communities’(2020), available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/studies/Documents/Rural%20proofing%20–%20a%20foresight%20framework%20for%20resilient%20rural%20communities/coter_nat_rural.pdf.148 The synergy between rural proofing and TIA has been included in the Renewed Territorial Impact AssessmentStrategy, see European Committee of the Regions, 216th Meeting of the Bureau of the European Committee of theRegions, Item 7 Renewed Territorial Impact Assessment Strategy (7 February 2023) COR-2022-05326-08-1-NB-TRA.34 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rural proofing is one of the CoR’s newest Better Regulation tools and ensures that policymakers consider rural impacts when designing new policies to prevent negative outcomes on rural areas and communities and maximise their potential to contribute to the success of the new policy. As the CoR has only been using the tool for a few years, and first review assessments are not planned until 2025, it is not possible for this report to determine whether rural proofing is functioning well.e) Strategic ForesightStrategic foresight in the CoR Better Regulation strategy can be understood in a similar way to strategic foresight as set out above in the context of the EC’s tools,as the CoR considers strategic foresight as a tool to provide long-term strategicperspectives, ‘building resilience and anticipatory as well as participatorygovernance across the EU and globally’.149 Against this background, the CoRadopted its first Opinion on strategic foresight as an instrument of EU governanceand Better Regulation in 2023.150 Moreover, the CoR co-organised an event(participatory lab) during the 2023 European Week of Regions and Cities withcity and regional representatives on strategic foresight and intends to hold asimilar workshop in October 2024.151 One of the practical results of the 2023 eventwas bringing together a group of foresight-oriented regions which then started toconsider a joint application for an Interreg project on strategic foresight. The CoRis also currently making a considerable effort to integrate foresight analysis intoall its opinions and studies. Information sessions and foresight exercises for CoRmembers are held in the context of CoR commission meetings, events, andrelevant working groups related to thematic areas.152 The CoR contributes toforesight events organised by regions, for example, the ‘Strategic Foresight forRegions’ event held on 29 May 2024 in Vilvoorde and organised by the FlandersChancellery and Foreign Office.153149 European Committee of the Regions, Opinion on Strategic Foresight as an Instrument of EU Governance and Better Regulation (157th plenary session, 9-11 October) CIVEX-VII/022.150 Ibid.151 European Committee of the Regions, ‘Cities and Regions Building Strategic Foresight Capacity to BetterPrepare for the Future’.152 European Committee of the Regions, ’Embracing Uncertainty: Harnessing Strategic Foresight for Regional andLocal Progress: Strategic Foresight in Regions and Cities’ (December 2023), available athttps://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d28f53cd-26d6-11ef-a195-01aa75ed71a1/language-en153 See Flanders Chancellery and Foreign Office’s post on LinkedIn regarding the event, available athttps://www.linkedin.com/posts/flanders-chancellery-and-foreign-office_flanders-collaboration-sf4regions- activity-7204032561256263682-e2e_.35 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
154 212th Meeting of the Bureau of the European Committee of the Regions, Point 10 A – Active Subsidiarity in 
Practice: Better Regulation and Active Subsidiarity Steering Group (28 June 2022). 
155 Ibid. 
156 Ibid. 

36 

Strategic foresight is another new Better Regulation tool at the CoR and aligns with strategic foresight at the EC. In 2023, the CoR has taken several steps to integrate strategic foresight in its work. Because of the recent development of this tool, it is not possible for this report to determine whether it is functioning effectively.f) Better Regulation and Active Subsidiarity Steering Group(BRASS-G)Having been converted from the Subsidiarity Steering Group, which has carried out coordination and political follow-up for ten years, the BRASS-G keeps up with the latest Better Regulation Agenda developments since 2022.154 With a maximum of 13 members and meetings twice a year, the BRASS-G ensures coherence and synergies between the different strands of CoR Better Regulation activity as well as promotes the contribution of local and regional authorities to Better Regulation throughout the EU regulation cycle.155 By providing political governance and strategic orientation of the CoR tools, the BRASS-G plays a crucial role in the CoR’s Better Regulation activities.Together with the currently developed CoR multiannual Better Regulation programme, the BRASS-G has the possibility to further increase its leading role. For example, the BRASS-G can continue acting as a designated point for Better Regulation within the CoR, overviewing the different tools and the progress on collaboration with other EU institutions. Moreover, it could establish close connections with responsible Better Regulation units in the EP, as laid out above, and with the Council’s Better Regulation subgroup, leading to a fruitful exchangeby attending the other institutions’ meetings while also inviting representatives toBRASS-G meetings. By doing so, the BRASS-G would reach its aims of ‘furtherstrengthening the CoR Better Regulation instruments and enhancing theireffectiveness and impact by improving coordination, coherence, synergies andcomplementarity between the individual Better Regulation instruments’, as wellas forge ‘stronger links with the Commission’s Better Regulation system and withthe system of the European Parliament and of the Council’.156The BRASS-G ensures coherence and synergies between the various CoR Better Regulation tools and promotes the contribution of local and regional authorities throughout the EU policy cycle. To further increase its leading role, the BRASS-G could establish connections with responsible Better Regulation units in the EP and with the Council’s Better Regulation subgroup. The continued work of the BRASS-G would also allow an evaluation of its effective functioning in the future. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
II. Interaction between Better RegulationTools and Identified Gaps from a Local or Regional Point of ViewAs the previous section shows, there exists a wide range of Better Regulation toolsacross the EU. The question therefore arises of the extent to which these varioustools interact with each other. This section briefly considers the 1) interplaybetween the EP, the EC, and the Council because of the existing InterinstitutionalAgreement. It then 2) focuses on the interaction between the tools of the CoR withthe tools of the EC, the EP, and other actors. By applying this focus, the reporthighlights existing gaps from a local or regional perspective, which could beaddressed as set out in Part II of the report.1.Interplay between the EuropeanParliament, European Commission, andthe CouncilGiven the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making, there exists an interplay between the EP’s, the EC’s, and the Council’s Better Regulation activities. Starting with the EP, because of its function of scrutinising the EC’s legislative proposals, the EP can monitor, complement, and check how the EC implements Better Regulation principles and tools in policy-making and legislative proposals, such as in the EC’s impact assessments, legislative reviews,or consultations. For example, the EP’s checks on the EC’s Better Regulationactivities include complementary impact assessments drawn up by the EPRS, ashappened in the case of the Commission’s proposal on combating online childsexual abuse.157 In this particular case, the impact assessment conducted by theEPRS came to different conclusions, questioning the Commission’s resultsregarding the problem definition, the impact on fundamental rights, amongothers.158The EP also monitors the EC’s Better Regulation activities in reports, briefings, studies, and other publications. For example, in 2021, the EP adopted a report inresponse to the EC’s Communication on Better Regulation: Joining forces tomake better laws.159 In this report, the EP inter alia commented on the EC’s157 EPRS, ‘Proposal for a Regulation Laying Down the Rules to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse – Complementary Impact Assessment’ (April 2023) Ex-Ante Impact Assessment Unit PE 740.248.158 Ibid.159 European Parliament, ‘Report on Better Regulation: Joining Forces to Make Better Laws’ (2021/2166(INI)).37approach regarding the European Climate Law, one of the EU’s main responses to the climate crisis.160 In particular, the EP set out that while the EC’s Communication and Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox include the approach for checking compliance with the European Climate Law in impact assessments and evaluations, the Commission ‘should apply these checks systematically and do so at the beginning of the process of preparing a new draft measure or fitness check of existing legislation so that it can genuinely guide policy choices’.161 The EPRS also published a briefing providing an overview of the Communication while also evaluating the EC’s progress and announced plans.162Studies and briefings carried out by EP services on the EC’s Better Regulation tools include a study on the ‘one in, one out’ principle, which found that this tool is ‘for less, not better, regulation and legislation, and, as such, is not a suitable instrument for better law-making’.163 The EPRS also published a plenary update in February 2020 zooming in on SMEs and Better Regulation, reiterating the EP’s call for more thorough impact assessments of impacts on SMEs and competitiveness.164 A more general ‘check’ made by the EP can be found in the Conference of Committee Chairs Summary Report 2023, in which the Committeeon Legal Affairs reminded the EC of its Better Regulation commitments made inits Communication on Better Regulation: Joining forces to make better laws.165These documents, including studies, plenary updates, and briefings, have ananalytical goal and do not reflect the position of the institution.However, not only does the EP monitor the EC, but also the EC the EP. In particular, the EC ‘has called on the European Parliament to fulfil its responsibilities outlined in the [Interinstitutional Agreement], and notably to stepup assessing the impact of substantial amendments tabled by Parliament duringthe deliberations of EU proposals’.166 Carrying out impact assessments ofsubstantial amendments has not become a frequent activity in the EP; the EPRShas conducted eight impact assessments of substantial amendments between 2012and the end of 2023, covering a total of 42 amendments.167 Internal procedural160 Ibid.161 Ibid, para D.162 European Parliament, ‘New European Commission Communication on Better Regulation: Joining Forces toMake Better Laws’ (Briefing May 2021).163 European Parliament, ‘The ‘One in, One out’ Principle – A Real Better Lawmaking Tool?’, study requested bythe JURI Committee (October 2023).164 European Parliament, ‘SMEs and Better Regulation – At a Glance’ (Plenary February 2020).165 Conference of Committee Chairs, Summary Report (13 June 2023) DV\1280622EN PE 700.007;Communication on Better Regulation: Joining Forces to Make Better Laws (n 23).166 Meenakshi Fernandes, Katharina Eisele and Irmgard Anglmayer, ‘How Evaluation is Understood and Practisedin the European Parliament’ (2024) 30 Evaluation 253.167 Ibid.38rules, including broad political support for requesting an impact assessment of substantial amendments, hinder the conduct of more assessments.168Not only are the EC and the EP monitoring the Better Regulation activities of other institutions, but the Council is also checking how the EC implements BetterRegulation principles and tools in policy-making and legislative proposals. Forexample, in its 2023 annual report on impact assessments within the Council, onesection is dedicated to the follow-up on impact assessments conducted by theEC.169 As the Interinstitutional Agreement states that ‘[t]he Commission may, onits own initiative or upon invitation by the European Parliament or the Council,complement its own impact assessment or undertake other analytical work itconsiders necessary’, the Council adopted a decision requesting the EC to preparea study complementing the existing impact assessment of the proposal onSustainable Use of Pesticides.170 The EC confirmed its intention to provideadditional information as requested by the Council.171 In addition, the Councilused its Checklist to examine the Commission’s impact assessment in 21 cases in2023.172 Moreover, as part of the Council’s proceedings on the future of cohesionpolicy, the Council called for ‘general awareness of doing no harm to cohesion inall Union policies and initiatives’ and invited the EC ‘to make wide use ofTerritorial Impact Assessments while preparing legislative proposals in order tocapture the territorial impacts for territories and regions concerned’.173Overall, there exists an interplay between EU institutions in the context of BetterRegulation. In particular, both the EP and Council make use of checking the EC’sapplication of Better Regulation tools. This starts when the EC presents a legislative proposal. Carrying out complementary impact assessments or requesting the EC to prepare a study complementing the existing impact assessment are only a few of the above discussed examples of the EP’s and Council’s monitoring activities. These Better Regulation activities and interplaysare important to ensure evidence-based and transparent EU law-making, as the EPand the Council propose amendments as co-legislators, which are then discussedin trilogues, a series of informal negotiations aimed at finding compromises on the EP’s and Council’s positions, before they become part of the legislative act.168 Ibid.169 Council of the European Union, ‘Impact Assessment within the Council – 2023 Annual Report – Endorsement’(16 June 2023) 10082/23 (Council 2023 Annual Report).170 Interinstitutional Agreement, para 16; Council 2023 Annual Report (n 169); Council of the European Union,‘Decision requesting the Commission to submit a study complementing the impact assessment of the proposal fora Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sustainable use of plant protection productsand amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, and to propose follow-up actions, if appropriate in view of the outcomes of the study’ (9 December 2022) 15652/22.171 Council 2023 Annual Report (n 169).172 Ibid.173 Council of the European Union, Outcome of Proceedings (30 November 2023) 16230/23.39The EP and Council monitor the EC’s implementation of Better Regulation tools and principles in policy-making and legislative proposals based on their competencies, as well as based on the Interinstitutional Agreement. For example, both institutions have acted regarding the EC’s impact assessments, either by requesting a complementing study or by carrying out complementary impact assessments. However, based on available data,this is not a common practice for the EP and the Council. In addition, bothinstitutions are lacking in conducting their own impact assessments of substantial amendments. To ensure that EU law-making is evidence-based and transparent, including amendments which are accepted during trilogues and become part of the legislative act, it is important that the institutions step up their game when it comes to carrying out impact assessments.40 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.Interaction between the EuropeanCommittee of the Regions and the EUInstitutionsThe following interactions between the CoR and the EC and the Council are identified: a) the SMN’s interaction with EU legislative processes, b) the RegHubs’ interaction with the F4F platform, c) the TIA (CoR) and impact assessment (EC), d) the TIA (CoR) and the Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth (Council), e) rural proofing (CoR) and rural proofing (EC), and f) strategic foresight (CoR) and strategic foresight (EC).174a) The Subsidiarity Monitoring Network’s Interactionwith EU Legislative ProcessesStarting with the SMN, the above-introduced input possibilities create a direct link for the SMN to contribute to the legislative process.175 However, there exist two gaps: first, CoR opinions are issued after the publication of the EC proposal,meaning that the SMN’s contribution currently cannot be taken into account inthe pre-legislative phase; second, the CoR’s opinions are non-binding, meaningthat EU institutions are not obliged to follow the recommendations in a bindingmanner and, therefore, the influence of these opinions including the views ofregional and local perspectives is dependent on whether the EP, the Council, andthe EC consider them in the legislative process.176There exist currently no options to fully close the first gap, as the involvement of the CoR before the publication of a new proposal would require Treaty changes.However, the revised Cooperation Agreement between the EC and the CoRenvisages the inclusion of the CoR and local and regional authorities in the EC’sconsultations, as well as including the possibility for the CoR to draft outlookopinions in the pre-legislative phase.177 In addition, the revised CooperationAgreement with the EP includes the CoR at a later stage of the policy cycle, bystating that the ‘CoR will support the EP in adopting and reviewing Europeanlegislation by drawing on the experience and sharing the expertise of local and174 This section provides answers to research questions 3, 4, and 5.175 See under Subsidiarity Monitoring Network.176 Neslihan Altun and Elena Schulz-Ruhtenberg, ‘How to Make the Voice of Regions Heard in EU Legislation:Strengthening the Role of the Committee of the Regions’ (6 July 2022) Hertie School Jacques Delors Centre Student Policy Brief. See also Salvatore Fabio Nicolosi and Lisette Mustert, ‘The European Committee of the Regions as a Watchdog of the Principle of Subsidiarity’ (11 May 2020) 27 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 284.177 Protocol on Cooperation between the European Commission and the European Committee of the Regions (20March 2024), paras 14-18 (EC-CoR Cooperation Agreement).41regional authorities and territorial evidence base, and ensuring that this legislation is fit for purpose’.178 While this is a significant development for the CoR’s greater role in the EU legislation making process, it does not close the identified gap.To close the second gap, the CoR called for the provision of substantiated reasonsby the EP, the EC, and the Council if the CoR’s opinions are not taken into accountin areas of mandatory consultation.179 Moreover, on a parallel note, theimportance of giving more attention to the opinions expressed by the CoR throughthe SMN has also been highlighted by the EP in the framework of its latest reporton regulatory fitness.180 Alternatively, there is the option to go a step further bygiving binding value to CoR opinions, which would require a change to the existing Treaties. This option is examined further in Part II of the report.178 Protocol on Cooperation between the European Parliament and the European Committee of the Regions (approved by CoR Bureau on 16 April 2024), para 4.2 (EP-CoR Cooperation Agreement).179 European Committee of the Regions, Resolution on the Outcome and Follow-up of the Conference on theFuture of Europe (150th plenary sessions, 29-30 June 2022) RESOL-VII/023.180 European Parliament, Resolution of 23 November 2023 on European Union Regulatory Fitness and Subsidiarityand Proportionality (n 32).42Strengths• Relevance across the entirepolicy cycle.• Targeted consultations.• Standardised frameworkensures feedback is providedgenerally but alsocontinuously, which meansthat there is no need to re-invent the wheel every time.Opportunities• Interlocutors know what toexpect.• Pressure by other institutions(notably the EP Committee onLegal Affairs) to give SMNinput more weight.• Revisions of theInterinstitutional Agreementare an opportunity tostrengthen the standing ofSMN input.Weaknesses• EU institutions are not bound to take theCoR’s opinions into consideration,meaning that the SMN input to theseopinions may not be considered by theEC, the EP, and the Coucil.• Engagement requires (time/human)resources and can cause a significantburden.• The caused significant (resource) burdencan further result in an imbalance in theengagement of local and regionalauthorities, leading to only having arepresentation of local and regionalauthorities with sufficient resources.Threats• Limited uptake byinterlocutor institutions,despite statements to thecontrary.• SMN input becomes simplyone of many important inputsbeing made to the system.Figure 5: SWOT analysis of the SMNb) The Network of Regional Hubs’ Interaction with theFit for Future PlatformThe RegHub network and its participation in F4F are a strong example of collaboration and integration between the EC and the CoR in the context of BetterRegulation. Michael Wimmer, Director of ‘Strategy, Better Regulation &Corporate Governance’ of the EC, emphasised during the 21st CIVEXCommission meeting on 6 February 2024 that RegHub is providing a huge addedvalue due to the experience with the implementation of laws at the national level,among others.181181 European Committee of the Regions, ‘21st CIVEX Commission meeting’, recording available athttps://cor.europa.eu/en/plenaries-events/21st-civex-commission-meeting.43However, the implementation of these processes presents practical challenges, particularly given the limitations to resources that the CoR can effectively allocateto them, both financial and human, and the administrative burden thatimplementation entails. There exists a threat if the expectation of ongoing engagement is not supported by funding and other resource allocation. In addition,as the EC is nearing a new mandate, a reflection about the future of the F4F willtake place.182 A new EC mandate could result in a diminished focus on F4F generally, but also regarding RegHub within F4F. While there are currently no gaps, it is necessary to ensure that when the new EC revises its Better Regulation Agenda, no gaps will be created and the integration between the RegHub and theF4F work will be safeguarded and enhanced further. This is important not only onthe EC’s side, but also on the CoR’s side, given the growing Euro-scepticism at the regional and local levels due to regional inequalities stemming from differentsocio-economic conditions, employment, and productivity, among others.183182 Ibid.183 Sofia Vasilopoulou and Liisa Talving, ‘Euroscepticism as a Syndrome of Stagnation? Regional Inequality andTrust in the EU’ (2023) Journal of European Public Policy 1.44Strengths• RegHub is directlyinvolved with EC’sBetter Regulationactivities.• Added value resultingfrom experience of localimplementation.Opportunities•Greater recognition by the EC ofRegHub’s role.•RegHub has a history of effectivecontribution and engagement.•New EC mandate is anopportunity to strengthen the role.•Greater (impact of) engagementresults in greater willingness byregional authorities to engage.Weaknesses•Resource limitations on what theCoR can effectively engage with.•Resources (time/human) required toengage can cause significant burden(within the CoR Secretariat and to itsmembers).•The caused significant (resource)burden can further result in animbalance in the engagement of localand regional authorities, leading toonly having a representation of localand regional authorities withsufficient resources.Threats• New EC mandate may resultin diminished focus on F4Fgenerally and in the roleRegHub within F4F.• Expectation of ongoingengagement not supported byfunding and other resourceallocation.• Growing Euro-scepticism atthe regional (and local) level.Figure 6: SWOT analysis of the RegHubc) Territorial Impact Assessment (CoR) and ImpactAssessments (EC)Both the CoR and the EC conduct TIA. However, there are certain differences. Starting with the EC, the TIA is conducted in the design phase of the legislative proposal. According to the EC Better Regulation Toolbox, ‘when a preliminary screening of impacts shows that territorial impacts are relevant, the TIA necessitycheck will help assess the need of a more in-depth analysis of such impacts’.184This online tool will help ‘decide whether a TIA is useful for a legislativeproposal/initiative’.185 If a TIA is deemed useful, the EC can make use of other184 Better Regulation Toolbox, tool #34.185 Ibid.45models, such as the RHOMOLO model for an analysis at the regional level, or theLUISA Territorial Modelling Platform for the production of projection and what-if scenarios.186As of now, the CoR is only able to conduct a TIA once the proposal has beenadopted by the EC, meaning at a later point than the TIA from the EC. In addition,the CoR bases its TIA on the ESPON TIA tool and not on other models. It alsospecialises on territorial impacts only, whereas the EC assesses territorial impactsamong other impacts in its general impact assessment, as well as in evaluationsand fitness checks. The CoR circulates its specialised final report within the EC,the EP, and the Council, however, this report is not considered during the designphase of the legislative proposal due to the timeline.187While there have been improvements in recent years to strengthen the EC’s impact assessment insofar as the identification of territorial, or asymmetric, impacts is concerned,188 the CoR’s TIA and the EC’s impact assessments continueto be two separate procedures. In addition, while the CoR offers this specificimpact assessment focusing on territorial impacts, the EC’s assessment is broaderand, therefore, can overlook differentiated territorial impacts. Thus, a closercollaboration between the EC and the CoR already at design stage of proposalscould be envisaged to strengthen the already existing TIA principles in the EC’simpact assessment. A first step in this correction is the revised EC-CoRCooperation Agreement, which sets out that:[t]he Commission and the Committee shall enhance cooperation on territorial impact assessments, rural proofing, the assessment of how legislation is implemented at local and regional level and strategic foresightand for that purpose may conclude action plans, as appropriate. They willcontinue cooperation, within the European Strategy and Policy AnalysisSystem (ESPAS) framework.As regards territorial impact assessments of EU legislation in particular, theCommittee will screen future EU initiatives in the “calls for evidence” andsuggest a number of initiatives with potential asymmetric territorial impactsthat the Commission should analyse, in its impact assessments, according to its Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox. In this respect the Commission may draw on support from the Committee in preparing its impact assessments. For Territorial Impact Assessment workshops186 Ibid.187 European Committee of the Regions, ‘Territorial Impact Assessment’ (n 135).188 See, for example, intervention from Michael Wimmer during the 21st CIVEX Commission meeting (n 181).46organised by the Committee, the Commission will facilitate the participation of its relevant services.189Thus, the implementation of the new Cooperation Agreement opens the door fora step-up of TIA activities in the EC with the help of the CoR. How this interactionwill evolve in practice remains to be seen. In particular, practical challenges, including in relation to time and resources, are likely to arise.Strengths•Existence of well thought out tools. •Identification of territorial impactsand the subsequent adjustment ofproposed legislation contributes tofairer EU policy-making.•Recognised potential to avoid theextension of regional developmenttraps, or the creation of such.•Potential to assess harm to EUcohesion.Opportunities• Closer collaboration with ECthrough new CooperationAgreement.• Commitment to TIA by bothsides reflecting a recognitionof the importance of thesame.• Space for greater interactionbetween the existingprocesses as they evolve.Weaknesses• Parallel tracks with the CoR and the ECcreates a potential danger of having twodifferent standards of territorial impactassessments.• Insufficient consideration of territorialimpacts in EC impact assessment.• Limited capacity for the CoR to conductTIA while it is best placed to assessterritorial impacts and find local andregional experts to take part in TIAworkshops.• CoR TIA often conducted after proposalhas been published and not during thedesign stage.Threats• Increased expectationsnot being accompaniedby increased resourcesfor CoR and local andregional authorities.Figure 7: SWOT analysis of TIA189 EC-CoR Cooperation Agreement, para 27.47d) Territorial Impact Assessment (CoR) and the WorkingParty on Competitiveness and Growth (Council)During one of the Council’s Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth (Better Regulation) meetings in 2023, the CoR presented on the regional differentiation of the impact of EU policies and its territorial consequences including the TIA.190 Besides the presentation, there was also a possibility to exchange views on this topic.191 The assessment of territorial impacts is relevant for the Council in two aspects. First, Member States representatives may be very interested in getting assessments of territorial impacts of EC’s proposals within a Member State. Secondly, the Council could include territorial aspects in its impactassessments, given that the Council can carry out an impact assessment in relationto its substantial amendments to the Commission’s proposal, when it considersthis ‘to be appropriate and necessary for the legislative process’.192 For the periodcovered in the Council 2023 annual report, no cases of a Council impactassessment on substantial amendments made by the Council were reported.193However, a close collaboration could be envisaged between the CoR and Councilfor future impact assessments, as well as the participation of the CoR in themeetings of the Better Regulation subgroup, as set out in Part II of the report.190 Council of the European Union, Communication (30 August 2023) CM 4118/23.191 Ibid.192 Interinstitutional Agreement, para 15.193 Council 2023 Annual Report (n 169).48Strengths• Exchange of viewsbetween the Council andthe CoR.Opportunities• Closer collaboration withthe Council especially asthere is no CooperationAgreement between theCoR and the Council.• Ensuring that territorialconsiderations areaddressed in theCouncil’s impactassessments.Weaknesses• The CoR is not a constantattendee of thesubgroup’s meetings.Threats• No sufficient inclusion ofterritorial considerationsin Council’s futureimpact assessments ifdialogue is notsustainable.Figure 8: SWOT analysis of TIA and Working Party on Competitiveness and GrowthWhile this and the previous section consider the already existing interactions between the TIA tools used by the CoR and those used by the EC and the Council,there also exists the possibility to establish a closer collaboration with the EPregarding TIA based on the recently revised EP-CoR Cooperation Agreement.194The details of this opportunity are discussed in detail in Part II of this report.195194 See EP-CoR Cooperation Agreement, para 4.3.a.ensions of the European Parliament’s and the Council’sImpact Assessments.49195 See below Collaboration on Territorial Dime) Rural Proofing at the European Committee of theRegions and the European CommissionSimilar to the TIA and the EC’s impact assessment, both the CoR and the EC employ rural proofing techniques. For example, the CoR has commissioned a study on a foresight framework for resilient rural communities, and the EC’s Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox contain explicit references to rural proofing. While both Better Regulation tools are important to make rural proofing a process for better policy-making and not ‘simply an assessment and the application of a methodology providing concrete results’, there is still a need to give rural proofing a greater presence in the policy cycle, as well as there is room for closer collaboration between the CoR and EC.196 The revised Cooperation Agreement as set out under Territorial Impact Assessment (CoR) and Impact Assessments (EC) is a first step in this direction, as the institutions agreed on enhancing cooperation on rural proofing.196 Gaugitsch and others (n 147).50Strengths• Commitment to ruralproofing by both sidesreflecting a recognitionof its importance.• Existence of ruralproofing methodology isimportant as distinct toterritorial impacts.Opportunities• Closer collaboration withEC through newCooperation Agreement.• Recognition of ruralproofing as a key area.Weaknesses• Resource requirement atthe local and regionallevel if such engagementis supposed to bestrengthened.• Focusing the role on CoRSecretariat will place ahuge burden on the same.Threats• Increased expectationsnot being accompaniedby increased resourcesfor CoR and local andregional authorities.• Insufficient considerationof rural proofing.Figure 9: SWOT analysis of rural proofingf) Strategic Foresight at the European Committee of theRegions and the European CommissionAs already set out above, the CoR and the EC share the same objective when it comes to strategic foresight. The CoR and EC have not only co-organised events on strategic foresight as set out above, but have also conducted foresight exercises in which the CoR’s Green Deal Going Local Working Group participated.197 Applying an innovative approach developed by the EC’s JRC, members of the exercise used the Scenario Exploration System to respond to two contrasting future scenarios, representing EU or national policy makers, civil society197 European Committee of the Regions, ‘Embracing Uncertainty: Harnessing Strategic Foresight for Regional and Local Progress: Strategic Foresight in Regions & Cities’ (n 106).51representatives, or businesses.198 The analysis of the exercise’s results were communicated to the EC and similar events are likely to be organised in the near future.At the EC, strategic foresight has been applied by using several different techniques, such as horizon scanning (systematic scan and collections of events and trends), megatrends analysis (analysis and discussion of pattern shifts and interacting trends), scenario planning (interactive and iterative process by including interviews, analysis, and modelling), and visioning (identification of apreferred direction).199 From a regional and local perspective, it is crucial thatstrategic foresight includes policy-relevant data broken down to subnationallevels, especially to inform scenario planning and visioning with a view toconsidering regional and local concerns.198 Ibid.199 European Commission, ‘Strategic Foresight’ (n 47).52Strengths• Anticipation of trends and potentialimplications and opportunities from alocal and regional perspective are crucialfor strategic policy-making.• The CoR is identifying good examples offoresight practices at subnational leveland linking regions and cities conductingforesight between themselves and withEU institutions. This helps to encouragenew participants to carry out foresightand those who use it to exchangeexpertise.• Strategic foresight is applicable to allpolicy domains.Opportunities• Shared objectivesbetween the EC and theCoR.• Closer collaboration withthe EC through newCooperation Agreement.• Existence of, andcollaboration within, theESPAS framework.Weaknesses• Interactions between theBetter Regulation toolshave not yet beenmapped out.• Parallel track processeswithin different EUinstitutions.Threats• Lack of availability ofdata broken down to thesubnational level.• Lack of capacity toengage with strategicforesight processes.Figure 10: SWOT analysis of strategic foresightHow the CoR could contribute in this regard is further discussed in Part II of thisreport. In addition, the potential collaboration between the CoR and the EP onstrategic foresight based on the recently revised Cooperation Agreement200 is alsodiscussed below under Strengthening Collaboration in the Context of StrategicForesight.200 See EP-CoR Cooperation Agreement, para 4.5.53Several CoR Better Regulation tools interact with Better Regulation tools from the EC. There is also an interaction between the CoR and the Council’s subgroup on Better Regulation. In contrast, there is only marginalinteraction with the EP’s activities regarding Better Regulation, however,the recently revised Cooperation Agreement opens up possibilities to strengthen the collaboration regarding TIA and strategic foresight, among others. In general, there is room to either create or intensify interaction between Better Regulation tools, which would contribute to strengthening the CoR’s role in the EU legislative process and ensure a greater representation of regional and local views at the EU level. These possibilities are considered next.54 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part IIThe following part considers short- to medium-term options to improve the CoR’srole in the EU law-making process by amplifying the use and interaction ofexisting and potential new Better Regulation tools (I). It also covers long-termsolutions which contain a view to potential Treaty amendments (II). Both theshort- to medium-term and long-term options were identified based on ownfindings and already published recommendations, as well as the CoR-conductedstakeholder consultation, as set out under Executive Summary.201I. Reforms within the Current TreatyFrameworkReforms within the current treaty framework can be manifold, as they include 1)existing Better Regulation tools, and 2) potential new Better Regulation tools.Regardless of existing or potential new tools, most suggested reforms necessitate3) secured human and financial resources to make the dialogue between the CoRand other institutions operational and sustainable.1. Existing Better Regulation ToolsConsidering the CoR’s existing Better Regulation tools (as set out under The European Committee of the Regions’ Better Regulation Tools in Part I), this reporthas already established how these tools interact with other existing BetterRegulation tools at the EU level, and which gaps exist from a local and regionalperspective. Based on these identified gaps, as well as on the interventions duringthe CoR stakeholder consultation,202 the research, taking into consideration ownfindings and already published recommendations, established that the followingoptions would allow the CoR to strengthen its role and the use and interaction ofBetter Regulation tools within the current Treaty framework:201 This part of the report provides answers to all research questions mentioned in the Executive Summary. Each section includes a further reference to specific research questions being addressed.202 See ‘Stakeholder Consultation: Opinion on Active Subsidiarity: A Fundamental Principle in the EU BetterRegulation Agenda’ (n 11).55a) Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality, and “Doing Less MoreEfficiently” – revival and implementation of outstanding recommendations.b)Negotiations for continued RegHub participation in the F4F platform.c)Strengthening of TIA and rural proofing.d) Cooperation on territorial dimensions of the EP’s and Council’s impact assessments.e)Permanent seat on the RSB.f)Collaboration to produce data and information informing the evidence-based policy-making process.g)Strengthening the collaboration in the context of strategic foresight.h)Involvement of the CoR in parliamentary committee meetings.i) Contribution to the EP’s implementation reports.j) Systematic and ongoing participation of the CoR in the Council’s Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth (Better Regulation) meetings.Figure 11: Overview of reformsa) Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” – Revival andImplementation of Outstanding Recommendations203One option for the CoR would be to negotiate with the EC that the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” should be brought back to life, which is a feasible reform for the CoR given it is based mainly on negotiations. As the Task Force only operated for a limitedamount of time, given its temporary mandate instead of having a continuousappointment, a revival and institutionalisation of the Task Force would enable the203 This section provides answers to research questions 3, 4, and 5.56CoR to have a direct communication channel for results of the SMN.204 Moreover,it would provide the CoR with the possibility to further negotiate forimplementation of the Task Force’s recommendations made in 2018. While theimplementation steps as set out in Part I have been important to bring the TaskForce’s recommendations to life, there is still room for improvement regardingthe deadline adjustment for national parliaments’ reasoned opinions, raising ofawareness of opportunities to contribute to the EU’s policy-making cycle fornational, local, and regional authorities, greater inclusion of territorial impacts,and, more generally, closer collaboration between the EC and the CoR. Possiblesteps to improve these areas are set out under the following headings.In addition, implementation is needed regarding the Task Force’srecommendation relating to the use of the subsidiarity grid by the EP andthe Council. The Task Force especially set out that ‘the European Parliament andthe Council should systematically review the subsidiarity and proportionality of draft legislation and the amendments they make using the common method’.205 Such application of a subsidiarity grid by the EP and Council seems to be missing,although the EP’s Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Valuecan review impact assessments attached to draft legislation and conduct in-depthanalysis and impact assessments of amendments, if requested by parliamentarycommittees. In addition, the Council ‘has developed its capacity to assess impactsof their substantial amendments, but it has not used it so far’.206 However, in 2021,the EP called on the EC to ‘integrate the ‘model grid’, in order to assess theapplication of both principles throughout the decision-making process’ and notedthat ‘this will require a strong commitment, including from the EU co-legislators’.207 Such a commitment could be included in the InterinstitutionalAgreement. In its current form, the Agreement does not include the applicationof a subsidiarity grid by any of the institutions. This could be changed by makingthe following amendments (suggestions in italics):25. (...) The Commission shall also explain in its explanatory memoranda how the measures proposed are justified in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and how they are compatible with fundamental rights. The Commission shall do so by including a subsidiaritysheet added to each proposal, which entails the results from the applicationof the subsidiarity grid. (...)204 Altun and Schulz-Ruhtenberg (n 176).205 Report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” (n 5).206 OECD, ‘Better Regulation Practices across the European Union’ (n 69).207 European Parliament, Resolution of 24 June 2021 on European Union Regulatory Fitness and Subsidiarity andProportionality – Report on Better Law-Making Covering the Years 2017, 2018, and 2019 (2020/2262(INI)).5737. The European Parliament and the Council as co-legislators will, in theinterests of subsidiarity and proportionality, add to their amendments asubsidiarity sheet, which entails the results from the application of thesubsidiarity grid regarding these amendments.Including the application of the subsidiarity grid in the Interinstitutional Agreement would not only align with the Task Force’s recommendation, but also with the institutions’ commitment regarding upholding the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.208 It needs to be noted, however, that the amendments to the Interinstitutional Agreement are more difficult to achieve for the CoR than the negotiations of a revival of the Task Force, given that the Agreement exists between the EC, the EP, and the Council. In general, the provision for an Interinstitutional Agreement can be found in Article 295 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).209 It has the purpose of increasing efficiency and clarifying procedures to prevent or limit conflicts amongst the Council, the EP, and the EC.210 It is, therefore, up to the Council, theEP, and the EC to decide whether to commit to using the subsidiarity grid in theInterinstitutional Agreement.The CoR could negotiate with the EC to revive the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”. This would allow the CoR to negotiate the further implementation of the outstanding recommendations from the Task Force’s mandate. One of these recommendations is the use of the subsidiarity grid by the EC, the EP, and the Council. This recommendation could be implemented by including the use of the grid in the wording of the Interinstitutional Agreement for Better Law-Making, establishing it as a common procedure in the policy cycle. While the negotiations with the EC regarding the revival of the Task Force are a feasible and realistic option for the CoR, the amendment of the Interinstitutional Agreement for the use of the subsidiarity grid is up to the three parties of the Agreement, namely the EC, the EP, and the Council. Because of the Agreement’s nature as set out in Article 295 of the TFEU, the CoR has no decision-making competence in this regard.208 For example, Interinstitutional Agreement, paras 3 and 4.209 Consolidated Version of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union [2016] OJ C202/150, art 295(TFEU).210 EU Monitor, ‘Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA)’, available athttps://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vh7dppj508rg.58 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b) Negotiations for Continued Participation of the Network of Regional Hubs in the Fit for FuturePlatform211Regarding the new upcoming EC mandate, it is important that the CoR continuesto keep the dialogue open regarding the continued RegHub participation in F4F. As set out above, local and regional views are currently well represented dueto the RegHub involvement in the F4F. Thus, it is crucial that this participationcontinues during the next EC mandate, and when the EC potentially revises thefuture of F4F, and the Better Regulation Agenda more generally. This also alignswith the recommendation made by the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionalityand “Doing Less More Efficiently” in the context of ‘acting more efficiently’. Inparticular, the Task Force recommended that the CoR launches ‘a pilot project fora new network of regional hubs to collect and channel systematically the viewsand hard information about the implementation of legislation’, and it added: ‘[o]nce the pilot phase is complete, the Task Force believes that the EuropeanParliament, the Council and the Commission should consider supporting thenetwork together with the Committee of the Regions if the results of the pilot arepositive’.212Moreover, the continued participation of RegHub in F4F follows up on the CoFE proposal that ‘a better involvement of the subnational level and of the Committee of the Regions helps to take better into account the experiences gained with the implementation of EU law’.213 In fact, as can be seen in the EC’s Annual Reportof 2022 on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionalityand on Relations with National Parliaments,214 the RegHub’s contributionsregarding its experience with the implementation of EU policy on the ground in2022 informed the platform’s opinions. In addition, RegHub provided input forthe platform’s annual work programme with making suggestions for topics ofinterest at the local and regional levels.215Keeping the dialogue open to continue the participation of RegHub in the F4F is a realistic and feasible option for the CoR. It also contributes to operationalising the collaboration between the EC and the CoR, and to making it sustainable. Therevised Cooperation Agreement between the EC and the CoR represents astarting point for such collaboration, given that the two bodies agreed to ‘worktogether in the entirety of the EU policy-making cycle, in full respect of their211 This section provides answers to research questions 3 and 5.212 Report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” (n 5).213 CoFE report, proposal #39.2.214 (12 October 2023) COM(2023) 640 final.215 Ibid.59respective competencies and the principle of sincere cooperation’.216 This has also been confirmed by the Commission during the 22nd CIVEX Commission meeting held on 10 April 2024, by stating that the revised Agreement provides not only new collaboration avenues, but also allows to strengthen and enlarge existing collaboration mechanisms, such as RegHub in F4F.217The continued participation of RegHub in F4F not only aligns with the recommendations made by the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”, but also follows up on CoFE proposals. Keeping the dialogue open to continue the participation when the EC potentially revises the future of F4F is, therefore, important for the CoR. The revised Cooperation Agreement serves as a basis for a continued and sustainable collaboration, and, therefore, the proposed dialogue is a realistic and feasible option for the CoR.c) Strengthening of the Territorial Impact Assessmentand Rural Proofing218Including the TIA as an integrated, mandatory component of the EC’simpact assessment would contribute to aligning and maximising theassessment of territorial impacts of proposed EU initiatives.219 Such astrengthening could include cooperation between the CoR and the EC at thepreparation stage of new initiatives, ensuring that the newly integrated TIA is notonly a ‘tick box exercise’, but properly considered. This also aligns with the TaskForce on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”recommendation that the EC ‘should ensure that its impact assessments andevaluations systematically consider territorial impacts and assess them where theyare significant for local and regional authorities’.220 Moreover, as local andregional authorities ‘should help to identify such potential impacts in theirconsultation responses and feedback on roadmaps’,221 cooperation with the CoRon territorial impacts in the design phase of initiatives would further theimplementation of the Task Force’s recommendations. At the same time, this216 EC-CoR Cooperation Agreement, para 28.217 Intervention from Carsten Schierenbeck, Member of the Cabinet of Maroš Šefčovič, Executive Vice-President of the European Commission for Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight in European Committee ofthe Regions, ‘22nd CIVEX Commission meeting’,https://cor.europa.eu/en/events/Pages/22nd-civex-commission-meeting-1.aspx.218 This section provides answers to research questions 2-6.219 Altun and Schulz-Ruhtenberg (n 176).220 Report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” (n 5).221 Ibid. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
would follow-up on the CoFE recommendation of ensuring an adequate channel of dialogue ‘for regions as well as cities and municipalities, giving [the CoR] an enhanced role in the institutional architecture, if matters with a territorial impact are concerned’.222The new Agreement between the CoR and EC already envisages closer collaboration between the two actors.223 The implementation of the new Cooperation Agreement, in particular the development of action plans and the organisation of, and participation in, territorial impact assessment workshops, would contribute to implementing this suggested reform. In particular action plans could be agreed to as an Annex to the Cooperation Agreement.Moreover, closer collaboration between the CoR and the EC could be included inthe Interinstitutional Agreement between the EP, the Council, and the EC.Regarding the latter, the following amendments could be made (suggestions initalics):13. (...) In its own impact assessment process, the Commission will consult as widely as possible. Regarding the assessment of territorial impacts, theCommission collaborates with the European Committee of the Regions toidentify potential asymmetric impacts and assess them.(...)As for the previous suggestion, this amendment is less feasible than the change inthe EC-CoR Cooperation Agreement or the implementation of the new Agreement. While there is room to argue that the CoR should be included, to someextent, in the Interinstitutional Agreement because of its role as the guardian ofsubsidiarity and the shared vision on Better Regulation, the legal basis of the Interinstitutional Agreement in the Treaty clearly states that the Agreement is forcooperation processes between the EP, the Council, and the EC. It is, therefore,up to these institutions to include the suggested amendments in a revised Agreement.However, considering that the CoR is the guardian of subsidiarity, representing local and regional voices, and that the EC’s impact assessment must establish the necessity for EU action as well as assess potential impacts, including territorial ones, the proposed closer collaboration between the CoR and the EC based on their Cooperation Agreement is only natural.Within the context of assessing territorial impacts, the bodies could also join efforts regarding rural proofing, working towards a mandatory screening of rural222 CoFE report, proposal #40.3.223 See under Territorial Impact Assessment (CoR) and Impact Assessments (EC).61impacts in addition to territorial impacts in the policy-making process.224 A closercollaboration is already envisaged in the revised Cooperation Agreement betweenthe CoR and the EC (see under Rural Proofing at the European Committee of theRegions and the European Commission) and, therefore, needs no Treatyamendment. The implementation of the Cooperation Agreement would contributeto combining rural proofing efforts and working towards a mandatory screeningof rural impacts. Similarly to the suggested TIA reform, the development of actionplans as envisaged by the Cooperation Agreement could visualise this combinedeffort and work.A stronger collaboration between the EC and the CoR could envision the inclusion of the TIA as an integrated, mandatory component of the EC’s impact assessment. This would contribute to aligning and maximising the assessment of territorial impacts of proposed EU initiatives. The revised Cooperation Agreement already includes the development of action plans and TIA workshops, which contribute to the implementation of this suggested reform. Amending the Interinstitutional Agreement to include such a strong collaboration in the policy cycle would further contribute to the implementation process of this reform. As for previous reforms, this amendment is less realistic and feasible than the closer collaboration based on the EC-CoR Cooperation Agreement. Based on this revised Agreement, the CoR and the EC could also work towards a mandatory screening of rural impacts in addition to territorial impacts. The development of action plans as envisaged by the Agreement could visualise this combined effort and work.224 Gaugitsch and others (n 147).62 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
d) Collaboration on Territorial Dimensions of the European Parliament’s and the Council’s ImpactAssessments225As aforementioned, the Interinstitutional Agreement gives both the Council and the EP the possibility to carry out an impact assessment in relation to their substantial amendments to the EC’s proposal, when it considers this ‘to be appropriate and necessary for the legislative process’.226Regarding the role of the CoR in the EP’s and Council’s impact assessments,there is the potential for close collaboration between the CoR and the two institutions regarding the territorial impacts of the substantial amendments. Because of the CoR’s developed TIA methodology and its unique role in representing local and regional authorities, the CoR could support both the EP andCouncil in conducting impact assessments. Such a collaboration would ensurethat amendments to proposals take into consideration the impact on regions andcities and consider the implementation stages at national levels. It would alsofollow up on the CoFE proposal as set out in the latter section.227The revised Cooperation Agreement between the EP and the CoR can serve as a starting point for this suggested reform. In particular, the Agreement states that:The Parliament and the CoR may, at the beginning of the Parliament’s termand thereafter on an annual basis where appropriate, agree on a list of EUlegislation, planned or in force, and EU spending programmes on which theCommittee will carry out ex-ante territorial impact assessment (...)within its available resources. Such agreement on the lists may be madebetween the CCC and the CoR or alternatively between individual EPcommittees and CoR commissions (...)In absence of any such agreements on the lists, the CoR can on its owninitiative put forward a list of EU legislation and EU programmes on whichit proposes to carry out ex-ante territorial impact assessments (...) It will forward this list to the CCC.The Parliament and the CoR will endeavour to ensure CoR ex-ante (...) territorial assessment reports are provided in time for consideration in the EP’s legislative processes.225 This section provides answers to research question 5.226 See under Territorial Impact Assessment (CoR) and the Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth(Council) and under European Parliament Commitments to Better Regulation; Interinstitutional Agreement, para15.227 CoFE report, proposal #40.3.63The results of ex-ante territorial impact assessments (...) will be forwardedto the CCC and/or the relevant EP committee (...).228As can be seen, the revised Cooperation Agreement entails an even wider application of territorial impact assessments conducted by the CoR, broadening their scope beyond substantial amendments. Thus, the implementation of the revised Cooperation Agreement allows the CoR to closely collaborate with the EP on territorial impacts throughout the policy-making cycle, which has also beenrecognised by the Director for Impact Assessment and Added Value of the EPRSduring the 4th BRASS-G meeting held on 30 April 2024.229 This reform is,therefore, realistic and feasible.A similar system could be developed for impact assessments conducted with the Council, however, the CoR and the Council first need to agree on a cooperation mechanism.There is potential for close collaboration between the CoR and the EP and the Council regarding TIAs of substantial amendments to proposals. In particular, because of the CoR’s TIA methodology and its unique role in representing local and regional authorities, the CoR could support the two institutions in conducting impact assessments. The revised Cooperation Agreement between the EP and the CoR can serve as a starting point for this suggested reform, as it already includes a collaboration system for TIAs. The implementation of this Agreement is, therefore, important for the CoR to increase its role in the EU legislative cycle. The implementation of the Agreement is realistic and feasible for the CoR and should be a priority for its Better Regulation activities. A similar system could be developed in collaboration with the Council, however, the CoR and the Council228 EP-CoR Cooperation Agreement, para 4.3.229 See Wolfgang Hiller’s intervention in European Committee of the Regions, ‘Meeting of the Better Regulationand  Active  Subsidiarity  Steering  Group’,  recording  available  at https://cor.europa.eu/en/events/Pages/active-subsidiarity-Steering-Group.aspx.64 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
e) Collaboration to Produce Data and InformationInforming the Evidence-Based Policy-MakingProcess230In addition to the strengthening of the TIA, the EC’s impact assessment couldbe expanded and given an even higher priority in the legislative process.231This strengthened version of the EC’s impact assessment could focus onproducing data and information concerning regional and local impacts,informing the evidence-based policy-making process.232 As stressed by theCoR, there is ‘general need for data and statistical tools at local and regional levelto support the ex-ante assessment and ex-post evaluation of the impact of EUpolicies/instruments’.233 Sartor came to a similar conclusion, elaborating that abetter and larger use of data for ex-ante regulatory assessments and ex-postevaluations should support the EU policy cycle, leading to Better Regulation.234The CoR can be an invaluable source of (access to) such data and information.This has also been recognised by the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionalityand “Doing Less More Efficiently” by recommending that the EC together withnational parliaments and the CoR ‘should raise the awareness of national, localand regional authorities of the opportunities they have to contribute topolicymaking at an early stage’ (see above).235 Information provided by local andregional authorities regarding implementation and impacts, among others, isessential for informing evidence-based policy-making. Thus, increasing theawareness of existing consultation and feedback opportunities can lead to theproduction of more data and information. At the same time, by providing bettervisibility and feedback on how the EC uses this data and information, there existsgreater encouragement for local and regional authorities to participate, leading toa higher response rate.The collaboration to produce data and information informing the evidence-based policy-making process could be achieved by taking the revised Cooperation230 This section provides answers to research questions 3, 4, and 5.231 Johannes Lindner and Sebastian Mack, ‘Europe Must Improve the Quality of its Regulation’ (20 December2023) Hertie School Jacques Delors Centre Policy Position.232 See, in relation to the need for this data and collaboration between the CoR and the EC, Michael Wimmer’sintervention during the 21st CIVEX Commission meeting (n 181).233 European Committee of the Regions, Opinion on ‘Do No Harm to Cohesion – A Cross-cutting PrincipleContributing Towards Cohesion as an Overall Objective and Value of the EU’ (n 137).234 Giovanni Sartor, ‘The Way Forward for Better Regulation in the EU – Better Focus, Synergies, Data andTechnology’ (August 2022) European Parliament in-depth analysis requested by the JURI Committee. Not as data based but also arguing that ‘[s]cience-based and strategic foresight promises a more forward-looking approach toBetter Regulation, making new and existing legislation fit for the future’, see Felice Simonelli and Nadine Iacob,‘Can We Better the European Union Better Regulation Agenda?’ (2021) 12 European Journal of Risk Regulation849. See also Giulia Listorti, Egle Basyte-Ferrari, Svetlana Acs, and Paul Smits, ‘Towards an Evidence-Based andIntegrated Policy Cycle in the EU: A Review of the Debate on the Better Regulation Agenda’ (2020) 58 Journalof Common Market Studies 1158.235 Report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” (n 5).65Agreement between the CoR and the EC as a starting point, by amending the Interinstitutional Agreement between EP, Council, and EC, and by combining data and information gathering efforts for the TIA and the EC’s impact assessment. The revised Cooperation Agreement states that:17. The Commission and the Committee shall work together to involve local and regional authorities in the Commission’s public consultations. The Commission will facilitate the participation of local and regional authorities and regional parliaments with legislative powers by appropriatedesign of its questionnaires and other tools it uses for its consultations. Itwill also do so by providing sufficiently detailed feedback and visibility tothe views of the Committee, local and regional authorities and regionalparliaments in its impact assessments accompanying Commissionproposals.To encourage a higher response rate from local and regional authorities, theCommittee will raise awareness among local and regional authorities aboutexploiting the existing consultation and feedback opportunities tocontribute to policymaking and implementation.236The implementation of the new Cooperation Agreement would, therefore, contribute to realising this suggested reform, and is a feasible option for the CoR.An amendment to the Interinstitutional Agreement could add a reference to local and regional authorities (suggestions in italics):19. Public and stakeholder consultation is integral to well-informed decision-making and to improving the quality of law-making. Without prejudice to the specific arrangements applying to the Commission’s proposals under Article 155(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission will, before adopting a proposal, conductpublic consultations in an open and transparent way, ensuring that themodalities and time-limits of those public consultations allow for the widestpossible participation. The Commission will in particular encourage thedirect participation of SMEs and other end-users in the consultations, aswell as of local and regional authorities (directly or through the EuropeanCommittee of the Regions). This will include public internet-basedconsultations. The results of public and stakeholder consultations shall becommunicated without delay to both co-legislators and made public.236 EC-CoR Cooperation Agreement.66The direct participation of local and regional authorities could be supported by the CoR, as set out in Part I of the report.237 However, as substantiated in previoussections, achieving this amendment is less feasible because of the Agreement’sexistence between the EC, the EP, and the Council.The CoR could collaborate with the EC on producing hard data informing evidence-based policy-making, benefitting the greater recognition of territorial dimensions in the EU policy cycle. The implementation of the revised EC-CoR Cooperation Agreement would contribute to realising such a collaboration, and is, therefore, a feasible option for the CoR. In addition, the Interinstitutional Agreement could be amended with a reference to local and regional authorities, however, such an amendment is less feasible for the CoR given it is not a party to the Agreement.f) Permanent Seat on the Regulatory Scrutiny Board238One suggestion made by experts is giving the CoR a permanent seat on the RSB, given that it is overseeing inter alia the EC’s impact assessment.239 Currently, the RSB is composed of a Commission Director-General, four high- level Commission officials, and four experts recruited from outside the EC basedon an open, merit-based selection procedure.240 The RSB is an independent bodyand, therefore, ‘acts independently from the policy-making departments and fromany European institution, body, office or agency’.241 As a consequence, this meansthat a permanent seat on the RSB for the CoR would not represent regional and local voices per se, but would be neutral regarding its representation – the seat must uphold the RSB’s independence and has no other policy responsibilities besides working full-time on the Board. In addition, it depends on the negotiations237 See underThe Council’s Better Regulation Tools.238 This section provides answers to research question 4 and 5.239 Altun and Schulz-Ruhtenberg (n 176).240 European Commission, ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’, available at https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/regulatory-scrutiny-board_en#composition; Report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity,Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” (n 5).241 Ibid.67 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
242 Altun and Schulz-Ruhtenberg (n 176). 
243 See the intervention from Carsten Schierenbeck, Member of the Cabinet of Maroš Šefčovič, Executive Vice-
President of the European Commission for Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight (n 217). 

between the EC and the CoR whether such a permanent seat could be realised by guaranteeing that one of the four experts is from the CoR, or adding a fifth expertto the recruitment process, always coming from the CoR. In either case, thisreform could be achieved by amending the Cooperation Agreement between theCoR and the EC, as well as the Interinstitutional Agreement.242 The revisedCooperation Agreement signed in March 2024 does not include such anamendment, and, therefore, missed the opportunity to establish a permanent seaton the RSB. The Interinstitutional Agreement could still be amended, in particularthe current reference to the RSB (suggestions in italics):13. (...) The Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board, which is comprisedof 9 members, one of them a permanent member coming from the EuropeanCommittee of the Regions, will carry out an objective quality check of itsimpact assessments. The final results of the impact assessments will bemade available to the European Parliament, the Council and nationalParliaments, and will be made public along with the opinion(s) of theRegulatory Scrutiny Board at the time of adoption of the Commissioninitiative.It is debatable, however, whether this reform is beneficial for increasing the role of the CoR in the EU policy-making process, and whether it is realistic and feasible. The negotiation phase with the EC to amend the Cooperation Agreementhas already passed and a change in the Interinstitutional Agreement is quiteunlikely. In any case, the outcome for both would be the same: the permanent seaton the RSB is independent and would not represent the views from regions andcities – the independence of the RSB was underlined by the Commission duringthe 22nd CIVEX meeting held on 10 April 2024.243 Thus, while this reform isdiscussed in academic writing by Altun and Schulz-Ruhtenberg, for the purposeof strengthening the CoR’s role especially against the background of BetterRegulation and the greater consideration of regional and local impacts, thisreport does not recommend pursuing this option.A permanent seat for the CoR on the RSB is suggested by experts given that the RSB is overseeing the EC’s impact assessment. However, it is questionable whether this reform is beneficial for increasing the role of the CoR in the EU policy-making process, given that a permanent seat on the RSB is independent and would not represent the views from regions and cities. Although this reform is discussed in academic writing, for the purpose of strengthening the CoR’s role in the Better Regulation Agenda, it is not a recommended reform in this report.68 
 
 
 
 
g) Strengthening Collaboration in the Context ofStrategic Foresight244While there has not yet been as great an interaction between the strategic foresighttools from the CoR and the EC compared to, for example, the RegHubparticipation in F4F, the two institutions have agreed to conclude action plans, aswell as to continue cooperation within the European Strategy and Policy AnalysisSystem (ESPAS) in the new Cooperation Agreement.245 ESPAS is set up by theEC to build close foresight cooperation and alliances with eight other EUinstitutions, including the CoR. Its flagship publication is the Global TrendsReport (GTR), the fourth edition of which was published in April 2024. The CoRactively contributed to identifying key global trends and the preparation of theGTR. Moving forward, the implementation of the revised CooperationAgreements with the EC and the EP gives the CoR the possibility to continueto actively engage in ESPAS, as well as in concluding action plans with theEC to further develop strategic foresight and represent regional and localvoices within this process. By doing so, the CoR can ensure that input from localand regional authorities can continue to be fed into the EU governance process atthe pre-policy development stage.Moreover, the CoR could consider developing a strategic foresight toolbox which supports scenario-building regarding local and regional critical concerns.246 Such a toolbox could include the collection of policy-relevant data broken down to the national, regional, and local levels, to ensure that the scenariodevelopment is properly considering these voices. By developing this toolbox, theCoR could further strengthen the already existing understanding between the CoRand the EC regarding strategic foresight. This suggestion is realistic and feasiblewith sufficient budget, as discussed under 3. Human and FinancialResources.244 This section provides answers to research questions 5 and 6.245 EC-CoR Cooperation Agreement.246 This toolbox could be similar to the EC’s JRC Megatrends Hub, available at https://visitors-centre.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/media/publications/megatrends-hub.69The collaboration between the CoR and the EC on strategic foresight is envisaged in the revised Cooperation Agreement by concluding action plans and continuing to cooperate within ESPAS, which aims to build close foresight cooperation and alliances with other EU bodies. The implementation of the revised Cooperation Agreement is, therefore, a possibility for the CoR to actively engage in ESPAS as well as to conclude action plans representing regional and local voices. Additionally, the CoR could consider developing a strategic foresight toolbox, which supports scenario-building regarding local and regional critical concerns. With sufficient budget, the development of such a toolbox is realistic and feasible for the CoR.h) Involvement of the European Committee of theRegions in Parliamentary Committee Meetings247Turning to reforms regarding the cooperation between the CoR and the EP within the existing Treaty framework, there exists the possibility to formalise theCoR’s participation in parliamentary committee meetings, to begin with theCommittee on Budgets (BUDG) or the Committee on Regional Development(REGI).248 These committees have a direct relevance for the CoR, as the BUDGdiscusses, amends, and prepares the adoption of the annual and multiannual EUbudgets, and the REGI is responsible for the EU’s regional development andcohesion policy. Thus, by granting representatives of the CoR the right toparticipate in these committees on a more systematic basis, the CoR would be ableto engage in an exchange of views in areas of its responsibilities (for examplestarting with cohesion policy).Regarding other committees which might address topics of relevance to the CoR,for example, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO), an agreed right toparticipate in the debate and provide institutional input could be granted to CoRrapporteurs. The inclusion of rapporteurs of the CoR ‘to participate in consideringdraft reports in the parliamentary Committee and Committee debriefing meetingsin interinstitutional negotiations, where applicable’ has already been suggested bythe EP in a resolution in September 2023.249 The EP has further suggested to‘strengthen the informal exchanges both at Committee level and at political grouplevel between the relevant actors of the three institutions’, and called for the EP,247 This section provides answers to research questions 3 and 5.248 Altun and Schulz-Ruhtenberg (n 176).249 European Parliament, Resolution of 14 September 2023 on Parliamentarism, European Citizenship andDemocracy (2023/2017(INI)).70 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the Council, and the EC to ‘continue [to] improve cooperation modalities with theCoR (...), including at the pre-legislative stage, in order to ensure that theiropinions and assessments can be taken into account throughout the legislativeprocess’.250 This reform would, therefore, not only lead to the CoR’s greaterinvolvement in parliamentary committee meetings, but also to a greater possibilityof the CoR being heard.This involvement of the CoR in parliamentary meetings aligns with the suggestions made by the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”, that the EP and the Council as co-legislators ‘should invite representatives of local and regional authorities to present their views to Committee meetings and working party meetings (...) when this is relevant and appropriate for the proposal in question’.251 Moreover, the Task Force recommended that the co-legislators ‘should host hearings and expert meetings with the participation of local and regional authorities when this is relevant and appropriate for a specific legislative procedure’.252The revised Cooperation Agreement between the EP and the CoR includes provisions setting out the involvement of the CoR in parliamentary committee meetings. For example, the Agreement states:Both Parties shall endeavour to continue existing good practice of reciprocally inviting their rapporteurs to each other’s respective meetings and hearings, notably at the phase of consideration of draft reports in the EP and of draft opinions in the CoR. The EP may also invite CoR rapporteur to participate in considering draft reports in the EP committee debriefing meetings on interinstitutional negotiations, where applicable. AtEP committee meetings, a seat will continue to be reserved for one CoRrepresentative.A CoR representative may be invited to meetings of relevant EP committee meetings in connection with the consideration of the annual EP report onbetter regulation to present the CoR’s position and contributions to the implementation of the better regulation agenda. Reciprocally, an EP representative may be invited to present the views of the EP in this area atrelevant CoR commission meetings and at the CoR biennial SubsidiarityConference.253Thus, the implementation of the Cooperation Agreement leads to the implementation of this suggested reform. It is, therefore, realistic and feasible.250 Ibid.251 Report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” (n 5).252 Ibid.253 EP-CoR Cooperation Agreement, paras 4.2.d and 4.3.c.71Granting CoR representatives the right to participate in the EP’s BUDG and REGI on a systematic basis would allow the CoR to engage in an exchange of views in areas of its responsibilities, for example, cohesion policy. Other Committees, which might address topics of relevance to the CoR, could grant the CoR a right to attend the Committees’ meetings. This suggested reform aligns with suggestions made by the EP, and the revised Cooperation Agreement between the EP and the CoR already includes a basis for such a closer involvement of the CoR. The implementation of the Agreement would, therefore, allow the CoR to pursue a stronger collaboration with the EP.i) Contribution to the European Parliament’sImplementation Reports254The aforementioned Directorate for Impact Assessment and Foresight of the EP provides, as part of the Scrutiny Toolbox, ‘support for Committees in undertakingdetailed ‘Implementation Reports’, notably by providing ‘EuropeanImplementation Assessments’ on how specific legislation or policy is currentlyoperating on the ground’.255 For example, the Committee on ConstitutionalAffairs published a report on the implementation of the Regulations on theEuropean citizens’ initiative.256 This report includes not only a summary of factsand findings, but also a motion for an EP resolution and information on adoptionin the responsible committee.257 It takes stock of the status quo by acknowledgingimprovements while also highlighting areas which require more action to enablea full implementation of the Regulations.258Representing the voices of regional and local authorities, which implement 70% of EU legislation, and therefore have first-hand experience of implementation processes and progresses, the involvement of the CoR in the activities carriedout in the framework of the EP’s Scrutiny Toolbox could be beneficial toinform implementation reports. For example, the CoR’s existing SMN could be further developed to also be able to provide first-hand information regarding the implementation status of EU law at the national, regional, and local levels. A current recommendation from BRASS-G envisions building a stronger synergy254 This section provides answers to research question 5.255 EPRS, ‘Scrutiny Toolbox’ (n 54).256 European Parliament, Report on the Implementation of the Regulations on the European Citizens’ Initiative(2022/2206(INI)).257 Ibid.258 Ibid.72between the SMN and RegHub, including pooling the respective experts groups.The EP’s Directorate or respective committee could involve this new enhanced network by sending out timely questionnaires, whose answers can inform the implementation report. This inclusion would not only ensure the collection of hard data more generally, but also the collection of specific data including the voices from regions and cities and their potential difficulties in the implementation process.Such an inclusion of the CoR in the process of implementation reports is envisaged in the revised Cooperation Agreement between the EP and the CoR. In addition to the ex-ante territorial impact assessment as set out under Collaborationon Territorial Dimensions of the European Parliament’s and the Council’sImpact Assessments, the Agreement envisages that the CoR also conductsex-post territorial implementation assessments.259 A relevant CoR representativewill then be invited to the EP committee meeting or meetings in order to present their findings, should ‘the EP committee organise a hearing or exchange of viewsin the framework of preparing an implementation report’. Lastly, references to theCoR’s ex-post territorial implementation assessment shall be made in theimplementation reports. Thus, the implementation of the Cooperation Agreementallows the CoR to contribute to the implementation reports.As the CoR represents the voices of regional and local authorities, which implement 70% of EU legislation, the CoR could provide valuable contributions to the implementation assessments conducted by the EP, which take stock of the status quo while also highlighting areas which require more action to enable a full implementation of the regulations. The SMN could be further developed by building stronger synergies with RegHub including pooling the experts groups to build a network which the EP’s Directorate or respective committee could involve. The revised Cooperation Agreement between the EP and the CoR foresees that the CoR will carry out ex-post territorial implementation assessments, which will inform the implementation reports. A CoR representative will also have the possibility to present their findings in a hearing or exchange of views in the framework of preparing an implementation report. Thus, the implementation of the Cooperation Agreement leads to the implementation of this suggested reform. It is, therefore, a realistic and feasible option for the CoR to increase its role in the EU policy cycle.259 EP-CoR Cooperation Agreement, para 4.3.73 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
j) Systematic and Ongoing Participation of the European Committee of the Regions in the Council’s Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth (BetterRegulation) Meetings260As set out above, the CoR has participated in one of the Council’s Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth (Better Regulation) meetings, in which it presented on the TIA and exchanged views with the Better Regulation subgroup.261 To collaborate more closely with the Council on BetterRegulation, especially to highlight the views of regions and cities, the CoR should pursue its systematic participation. For example, a CoR representative could be invited to attend the meetings of the Better Regulation subgroup to follow the developments at the Council, and if there are consultation results and activities the CoR could share with the Council, the CoR representative could beasked to present them. This would enable a regular exchange between the Counciland the CoR. To implement this reform, however, a cooperation with the Councilneeds to be first established. A starting point was made during the 4th BRASS-Gmeeting held on 30 April 2024, which was attended by the Chair of the WorkingParty on Competitiveness and Growth, and who invited the CoR to join the nextWorking Party meeting.262The CoR could pursue its systematic participation in the meetings of the Council’s Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth (Better Regulation) to collaborate more closely with the Council on Better Regulation. To do so, a cooperation with the Council needs to be first established, which the CoR could take up with an open dialogue.260 This section provides answers to research question 5.261 See under Territorial Impact Assessment (CoR) and the Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth(Council).262 See the intervention from Eric Van den Abeele, Permanent Representation of Belgium to the EU, Chair of theWorking Party on Competitiveness and Growth, Public Procurement and Better Regulation, in European Committee of the Regions, ‘Meeting of the Better Regulation and Active Subsidiarity Steering Group’ (n 229).74 
 
 
 
 
 
2.Potential New Better Regulation ToolsIn addition to existing CoR Better Regulation tools, there exists the possibility toinclude new tools in the planned CoR multiannual Better Regulation programme,or to contribute to new tools from other EU institutions. These potential tools wereidentified based on own and already published research, as well as the conductedCoR stakeholder consultation, and include a) youth checks, b) citizens’ panels, c)subsidiarity boards, and d) regional, local, and rural test.263a) Youth ChecksAt the EU level, a number of initiatives have been put in place to ensure that the voices of the youth are heard and their participation in public affairs affecting them is effective. These include the work of the EESC, proposals of youthorganisations, such as the European Youth Forum, and the European Year ofYouth.264 As part of the legacy of the European Year of Youth 2022, the EC hasannounced to apply a youth check, which aims at ensuring that EU policiesconsider the impacts on young people during the policy design phase.265 As theexact steps for implementation of this new test have yet to be defined, there existsthe possibility for the CoR to call for a consideration of youth impacts in thecontext of strategic foresight, as well as during the EC’s impact assessment. Given that youth in rural areas might be impacted to a different extent than youth in big cities, the CoR could work towards ensuring that the youth check must consider such asymmetric impacts, in addition to the general, not relating to youth, territorial impacts of proposed policies.The CoR already has the Young Elected Politicians Programme, which is a network of politicians no older than 35 that hold a mandate at regional or local level in the EU and candidate countries for EU accession. This programme could be further developed to scan for youth impacts in the context of strategic foresight as well as during the impact assessment. Alternatively, the CoR could, together with the Young Elected Politicians Programme, develop a methodology for theidentification of asymmetric youth impacts, which the EC then could include inits youth check. Based on the CoR’s and the EC’s closer cooperation regardingstrategic foresight and territorial and rural impacts as agreed in the new Cooperation Agreement, this possibility for the CoR to contribute to the new EC tool on youth checks can serve as a first implementation step of the Agreement.263 This section provides answers to research questions 1, 2, and 5.264 See, for example, for the European Youth Forum: https://www.youthforum.org/.265 Anna Blackwell, ‘European Commission Commits to a “Youth Check”’, available athttps://www.youthforum.org/news/european-commission-commits-to-a-youth-check.75With secured funding as discussed under 3. Human and Financial Resources, this would be a feasible reform for the CoR.In the context of the EC’s aim to apply a youth check during the policy design phase, there exists the possibility for the CoR to call for a consideration of youth impacts in the context of strategic foresight, as well as during the EC’s impact assessment. For example, the CoR could further develop the Young Elected Politicians Programme to scan for youth impacts. Alternatively, the CoR and the Young Elected Politicians Programme could develop a methodology for the identification of asymmetric youth impacts, which the EC could then include in its youth check. The implementation of the revised Cooperation Agreement between the CoR and the EC can serve as a first step towards the CoR’s contribution to youth checks.b) Citizens’ PanelsAs part of CoFE, the EC organised four European citizens’ panels, which included150 randomly selected citizens from each of the 27 EU Member States, whoformulated together with experts concrete recommendations for initiatives.266 Inthe wake of CoFE, three citizens’ panels have taken place from mid-December2022 to the end of April 2023, and two other citizens’ panels are being organisedin the first semester of 2024 to make recommendations for one of the keyinitiatives of the 2024 Commission work programme.267 Citizens’ panels havealready discussed topics such as energy efficiency, food waste, virtual worlds, andlearning mobility, among others.268The citizens’ participation in European democracy could further be increased by ‘institutionalising new forms of citizen participation at the level of the EuropeanUnion through citizens’ dialogues with randomly selected citizens on specifictopics’.269 The CoR could collaborate with the EC to set up citizens’ panels asa ‘permanent and place-based mechanism for dialogue with citizens,supported by local and regional authorities that would ensure a two-way communication between the citizens and EU institutions, thus leading to a266 Hywel Jones and others, ‘Study on the Citizens’ Panels as part of the Conference on the Future of Europe’(November 2022).267 European Commission, ‘Citizens’ Engagement Platform’, available athttps://citizens.ec.europa.eu/panels/european-citizens-panels_en.268 ibid.269 European Committee of the Regions Resolution the Outcome and Follow Up of the Conference on the Futureof Europe (n 179).76 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
better understanding of the local and regional impact of EU policies across the EU’.270 Conducting citizens’ panels on a permanent basis would provide an additional avenue for the CoR to channel the voices of citizens in their participation in the EU decision-making cycle, also contributing to the CoR’s policy priority of bringing Europe closer to its people, as citizens would have thepossibility to contribute to several EU participatory democratic processes. This isalso in alignment with Article 10(3) TEU, which states that ‘[e]very citizen shallhave the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shallbe taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen’.271 Given that EUMember States have different competencies when it comes to decision-making atthe local government and regional level, not every citizen in the EU is able to beactively engaged in decision-making processes in their country throughparticipatory mechanisms.272 Thus, organising citizens’ panels at the EU levelwould bridge this gap, while also ensuring that citizens’ voices are heard. As theCoR has already stated that it ‘commits to continuing to organise local dialogueswith citizens and structured initiatives of participatory democracy that could feedinto the permanent mechanism’,273 the basis for such a collaboration between theCoR and the EC already exists.The CoR’s ‘New Chapter for EU Democracy’ campaign could contribute to this envisaged collaboration.274 As part of this campaign, the CoR, for example, ensures that citizen dialogue outputs are fed into the right channels for policy- making. The CoR also works with external organisations to support the development of new methods of citizen engagement and participation. An initialproject launched with the Bertelsmann Foundation which ran from April 2021 toSpring 2022 supported locally initiated dialogues that contributed with theirrecommendations to CoFE.275 A follow-up project launched in March 2023supported regional and local authorities to implement civic participationprojects.276 It was, therefore, focused on ‘capacity building to enable local andregional authorities, in particular Young Elected Politicians (YEP) and interestedparties to engage with citizens through participatory democracy in theirconstituencies’.277 The experiences which the CoR gained with these projects andthe already established network with regional and local authorities could feed intothe establishment of citizens’ panels as a permanent participatory mechanism at270 ibid.271 TEU, art 10(3).272 See the intervention from Boyle (Ireland) during the 21st CIVEX Commission meeting (n 181).273 European Committee of the Regions Resolution the Outcome and Follow Up of the Conference on the Futureof Europe (n 179).274 European Committee of the Regions, ‘A new chapter for EU democracy’, available athttps://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/political-priorities/new-chapter-eu-democracy275 European Committee of the Regions, ’A New Chapter for Participatory Democracy’, available athttps://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/Pages/a-new-chapter-for-participatory-democracy.aspx.276 Ibid.277 Ibid.77the EU level. Additionally, once such a permanent mechanism exists, citizens could be involved in Better Regulation processes, such as providing qualitative data for the policy-making cycle.With secured funding as discussed under 3. Human and FinancialResources, the collaboration between the CoR and the EC to permanentlyestablish citizens’ panels as well as the capitalisation on existing participatory democracy activities at the CoR would be feasible.The CoR could consider collaborating with the EC on making citizens’ panels a permanent mechanism in the EU. As the CoR has a wealth of experience through campaigns and projects focusing on participatory democracy, it can greatly contribute to this process. Secured funding would make this suggested new tool feasible.c) Subsidiarity BoardsAnother potential tool, which was suggested in the stakeholder consultation process as part of this research, is the establishment of subsidiarity boards inthe EC, the Council, and the EP in close cooperation with the CoR as the guardian of subsidiarity.278 By establishing these subsidiarity boards, a subsidiarity network would be built among the institutions, ‘which could integratethe positions of both the national parliaments according to Protocol No 1 as wellas the Committee of Regions being the “guardians of subsidiarity”’.279 Suchsubsidiarity boards could draw from already established board mechanisms suchas the RSB regarding their composition or mission statements, for example. Theycould be a further step ‘to bridge the gap between the ideal and the reality’ whenit comes to subsidiarity as one of the most political principles in the EU.280The establishment of these boards would be possible by integrating them in a re-negotiated Interinstitutional Agreement. The amendments of the Agreementdepend on the structure of these boards, which needs to be agreed by therespective institutions. As for other reforms containing amendments to theInterinstitutional Agreement, the implementation of this reform might be lessfeasible for the CoR. In addition, human and financial resources for the278 Written submission to ‘Stakeholder Consultation: Opinion on Active Subsidiarity: A Fundamental Principle in the EU Better Regulation Agenda’ (n 11) from Christian Calliess.279 Ibid.280 Robert Gawłowksi, Saulius Nefas and Krzystof Makowski, ‘Subsidiarity Principle – Its Realization in Self-Government in Lithuania and Poland’ (9 March 2020) 10 Administrative Science 1.78 
 
 
 
 
subsidiarity boards would need to be secured in the three institutions, as well as in the CoR to provide for close cooperation.An alternative path would be the autonomous establishment of the subsidiarity boards, outside the Interinstitutional Agreement. While their inclusion in the Agreement could boost their effectiveness, an autonomous establishment has theadvantage that the CoR could take a greater role in the negotiation process thanin the case of amendments to the Interinstitutional Agreement. In either case, theestablishment of subsidiarity boards aligns with the suggestion made by the CoRin the draft ‘Opinion on active subsidiarity: a fundamental principle in the EUbetter regulation agenda’, which suggests to bring together ‘the subsidiarity andbetter regulation focal points/bodies already established in the institutions in asingle interinstitutional ‘subsidiarity platform’, which would serve as an advisoryboard of experts to further develop the subsidiarity grid, support subsidiarity andproportionality assessments and identify the system’s strengths andweaknesses’.281A potential new tool could be subsidiarity boards in the EC, the Council, and the EP in close collaboration with the CoR as the guardian of subsidiarity. By establishing such boards, a subsidiarity network would be built among the institutions. The legal basis for the establishment of these boards could either be included in the Interinstitutional Agreement or the boards could be established autonomously, allowing the CoR to take a greater role in the negotiation process. A potential hurdle for the establishment of these boards is the required human and financial resources in the EC, the EP, the Council, and the CoR.d) Regional, Local, and Rural TestAnother potential new tool could be the establishment of a regional, local, andrural test, mirroring the approach of the EC’s impact assessment test onSMEs, known as the SME test, which helps to assess the impacts on SMEs with the goal of minimising the burden imposed by proposed initiatives.282 This test requires EC impact assessments to first consider whether SMEs are disproportionately affected compared to large companies, and if so, which alternative mechanisms in the approach could help SMEs to comply.283 It includes four steps that are applied in a modular way: the identification of affected281 Please note that the CoR Opinion was adopted by CIVEX on 10 April 2024 and is scheduled to be adopted in plenary for 19-20 June 2024.282 Better Regulation Toolbox, tool #23.283 Ibid.79 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
businesses (step 1), the consultation of SME stakeholders (step 2), the assessment of the impact on SMEs (step 3), and the minimisation of negative impacts on SMEs (step 4).284 In the impact assessment report, the EC must include a referenceto the result of the SME test, even if such impacts have not been identified asrelevant.285The ‘regional, local, and rural’ test could be applied in a similar way, examining the identification of affected regional, local, and rural authorities (step 1), the consultation of regional, local, and rural authorities (step 2), the assessment of theimpact on regional, local, and rural authorities (step 3), and the minimisation ofnegative impacts on regional, local, and rural authorities (step 4). Depending onavailable resources, this test could either be applied separately or as part of theTIA and rural proofing (also taking into consideration potential integration withthe EC’s impact assessment). The results of this test could be included in the CoRopinions on the EU legislative proposals. Alternatively, the CoR could negotiatewith the EC to include such a test in the EC’s impact assessment procedure,including close collaboration with the CoR in its implementation.A regional, local, and rural test mirroring the approach of the EC’s impact assessment test on SMEs could examine the identification of affected regional, local, and rural authorities (step 1), the consultation of regional, local, and rural authorities (step 2), the assessment of the impact on regional, local, and rural authorities (step 3), and the minimisation of negative impacts on regional, local, and rural authorities (step 4). Such a test could be applied separately or as part of the TIA and rural proofing. The introduction of such a tool is realistic and feasible if human and financial resources are secured.Overall, the operation of the proposed new tools requires more human and financial resources for the CoR, as discussed in the following section. In addition, it needs to be taken into consideration that there exists a danger that the development of new tools leads to the opposite of Better Regulation. As the goalof Better Regulation is to, for example, make laws simpler and better, the creationof new tools could lead to overlaps with existing tools. It is for this reason thatcloser collaboration between the CoR and the EP, the EC, and the Council basedon existing tools is recommended before new tools are developed, under carefulconsideration. This recommendation aligns with the CoR stakeholder consultationand with findings which emerged in the debate held during the 21st CIVEXCommittee meeting on 6 February 2024, which highlighted that a focus should be284 Ibid.285 Ibid.80 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
put on already existing tools, especially in communicating them to regional and local authorities to spread the awareness of existing mechanisms. While it is important to represent regional and local voices, they need to be represented evenly, which means that a greater engagement from all regional and local areas is important when it comes to Better Regulation tools such as consultations.To avoid the danger of developing new tools leading to the opposite of Better Regulation, for example, by overlapping with existing tools, a fast implemented short term action for the CoR is the communication of existing Better Regulation tools to regional and local areas by the means of visual representations and information on how each authority can contribute at the different stages of the EU law-making process, especially with a focus on the ex-ante stage including ex-post evaluations where revision is likely. Ensuring engagement at the right time is critical, especially for making the dialogue fluent and sustainable between local and regional authorities, the CoR, the EC, the EP, and the Council.81 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
286 European Union, ‘How the EU budget is adopted’, available at https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-
law-budget/budget/how-eu-budget-adopted_en.  
287 European Committee of the Regions, Annex 1 to the draft non-paper: CoR Contribution to a Future “Better 
Regulation Funding Programme” of the EU, COR-2023-048733-01-01-TCD-TRA (EN) 1/4. 

82 

3. Human and Financial ResourcesThe aforementioned reforms, both based on existing and potential new tools, canonly be operationalised with secured human and financial resources. As theprevious sections shows, there is great potential for the CoR to expand its role inthe EU policy-making process through better application of existing BetterRegulation tools and potentially establishing new tools. In particular, the sectionsset out how a closer cooperation with the EC, the EP, and the Council could beenvisaged to make the Better Regulation dialogue more fluid and sustainable. Atthe same time, the sections underline the importance of closing gaps regarding theinclusion of local and regional authorities given their considerable role inimplementing EU legislation.To realise this potential, it is important for the CoR to receive long-term support to secure sufficient human and financial resources. As the EP, the Council, and the EC determine the size of the annual budget and how it is allocated,286 it is recommended that the CoR negotiate long-term support for Better Regulation with these institutions, which benefits not only the CoR, but theEU in general given that Better Regulation is at the heart of the EU policy-makingcycle. As proposed in the draft ‘Opinion on active subsidiarity: a fundamental principle in the EU better regulation agenda’, further funding could be explored via a ‘pilot project or preparatory action that the European Parliament could introduce during the annual EU budgetary procedure’. Alternatively, a dedicated programme could be envisaged, as proposed by BRASS-G.287 According to this proposal, a “Better Regulation Funding Programme” (BRFP), part of the next EU long-term budget (multiannual financial frameworks (MFF)), could provide financial means for a sustainable involvement of local and regional authorities, byforeseeing elements such as ‘[d]edicated support for [local and regionalauthorities] to actively engage in better regulation activities’, or ‘[s]upport to theCoR for the systematic assessment of territorial impacts in EU legislation’. However, an inclusion in the next MFF (the current MFF covers the years 2021-2027) requires strong support and ownership particularly by the EC, and,therefore, presents political challenges.To realise the great potential for the CoR to expand its role in the EU policy- making process through better application of Better Regulation tools and potentially establishing new tools, human and financial resources need to be secured. Possible options for a sustainable funding mechanism are a pilot project, or preparatory action to be proposed by the EP during the annual budgetary procedure, or the establishment of a Better Regulation Funding Programme as part of the next MFF. As the EP, the Council, and the EC determine the size of the annual budget, and the European Council and the Council play a central role in the process of establishing the MFF, all proposed suggestions require strong political support. 
 
 
 
II. Reforms with a View to PotentialTreaty AmendmentsThe following suggestions for Treaty amendments can be considered as long-termpossibilities for the CoR to strengthen its role in the EU law-making process,which include 1) changing the legal status of CoR opinions to binding, 2) theextension of the deadline for national parliaments’ reasoned opinions, 3) theintroduction of a ‘Green Card Mechanism’, 4) the right to approach the EP with arequest for action, and 5) the inclusion of the CoR in the InterinstitutionalAgreement. The ways in which EU Treaties can be modified are enshrined inArticle 48(1)-(5) of the TEU (ordinary revision procedure), in Article 48(6) and(7) of the TEU (simplified revision procedures), and in Articles 49 and 50 of theTEU (accession to and withdrawal from the EU).2881.Changing the Legal Status of the European Committee of the Regions’ Opinions toBinding289To address the above-identified second gap regarding the SMN’s input (see The Subsidiarity Monitoring Network’s Interaction with EU Legislative Processes) when it comes to the CoR’s opinions, a potential Treaty amendment couldinclude a change in the nature of CoR opinions to binding in areas ofmandatory (such as transport, energy and climate change, economic and social cohesion, health, education, and culture) and voluntary consultation (any other matters concerning local and regional governments), meaning that the EP, the Council, and the EC must take them into consideration at alltimes in the legislative process. Such a change goes even further than the CoR’ssuggestions for the follow-up from CoFE, and would ensure that local andregional authorities’ views incorporated in the CoR’s opinions are always part ofthe legislative process, and not only at the discretion of the EP, the Council, andthe EC. The legal basis for the binding nature of the CoR’s opinion could beincluded in Article 307 of the TFEU,290 which currently sets out that the EP, theCouncil, and the EC are required to consult the CoR where provided in theTreaties, or when they consider it appropriate, and that the CoR opinions must beforwarded to all three institutions.288 TEU, art 48-50. See also European Parliament, ‘How the EU Treaties are Modified’ (Briefing, September 2022).289 This section provides answers to research question 5.290 TFEU.83While such a reform has been discussed in academic writing,291 it has not been mentioned as an option by the EU institutions. Negotiations with the EP, the EC, and the Council, would, therefore, be needed to explore the feasibility of this Treaty change.To address currently existing gaps, a potential Treaty amendment could include the changing of CoR opinions to be binding, meaning that when the EP, the Council, or the EC consult the CoR based on either mandatory or voluntary consultation, the three institutions must consider the opinions in the legislative process. Such a change could be included in Article 307 of the TFEU. However, while this reform has been discussed in academic writing, it has not been explored by the EU institutions. Negotiations with the EP, the EC, and the Council are, therefore, necessary to explore the feasibility of this reform.291 Altun and Schulz-Ruhtenberg (n 176).84 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.Extension of Deadline for NationalParliaments’ Reasoned Opinions292As the CoR represents the local and regional voices at the EU level, a potentialtreaty amendment of extending the deadline for national parliaments tosubmit their reasoned opinion is in the interest of the CoR and of thestrengthened role of local and regional authorities in the EU law-making process. Although the extension of the deadline would relate to national parliaments, the extended period simultaneously enables a consultation process of local and regional voices by national parliaments, and, therefore, their contribution of evidence to the reasoned opinion. Already the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” made the recommendation toextend the deadline for national parliaments, arguing in its final report that‘Protocol No. 2 TEU/TFEU should be revised when the opportunity arises toallow national Parliaments 12 weeks to prepare and submit their reasonedopinions and to express fully their views about subsidiarity, proportionality andthe legal basis (conferral) of the proposed legislation’ (see above).293The EP suggested the same amendment in a report on its proposals for amendmentof the Treaties, following its 2022 resolution calling for a Convention for therevision of the Treaties.294 Regarding the topic of subsidiarity, the EP proposed to‘extend the deadline for “yellow card” procedures to 12 weeks’, which describesthe process where the EC must review its proposal and decide whether tomaintain, change, or withdraw it, after national parliaments have sent a reasonedopinion to the EC because they consider that the draft legislative acts do notcomply with subsidiarity.295 According to the EP Committee on ConstitutionalAffairs, the extension of the deadline for reasoned opinions ‘would allow nationalparliaments to exert proper ex ante and ex post scrutiny of their governments’actions in the Council, as parliaments would have the opportunity to moreeffectively prepare the mandate for all files of major significance and for thoserelevant to the national budget’.296292 This section provides answers to research questions 2, 3, and 5.293 Report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” (n 5).294 Report on the Proposals of the European Parliament for the Amendment of the Treaties 2022/2051(INL);European Parliament, Resolution of 9 June 2022 on the Call for a Convention for the Revision of the Treaties(2022/2705(RSP)). Please note that in its resolution, the EP proposes several amendments to the treaties, includingproviding the EP with a full co-decision right on the EU budget, among others. While the EP does not propose a treaty change concerning the role and rights of the CoR in this resolution, it includes that CoR representatives‘should be invited as observers to the Convention’; European Parliament, Resolution of 22 November 2023 onProposals of the European Parliament for the Amendment of Treaties (2022/2051(INL)).295 European Commission, ‘Subsidiarity Control Mechanism’, available at https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/adopting-eu-law/relations-national-parliaments/subsidiarity-control-mechanism_en.296 European Parliament Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Working Document on the Principles ofSubsidiarity and Proportionality (7 July 2021) PE629.901v01-00.85The extension of the deadline can be included in Protocol No 1 to the Treaties (on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union) in a revision process. Inparticular, Article 4 currently states that ‘[a]n eight-week period shall elapsebetween a draft legislative act being made available to national Parliaments in theofficial languages of the Union and the date when it is placed on a provisionalagenda for the Council for its adoption or for adoption of a position under alegislative procedure’.297 The eight-week period could be replaced by a twelve-week period. As this Treaty reform is supported by the EP and was alsorecommended by the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing LessMore Efficiently”, it seems to be feasible for the CoR to negotiate such a changeif a Treaty amendment procedure takes place. In addition, such a Treaty changewould follow up with the CoFE proposal that ‘[t]he EU should review themechanism allowing national Parliaments to assess whether new legislativeproposals at the European level do not intrude on their legal competenc[i]es’.298The extension of the deadline from eight to twelve weeks for national parliaments’ reasoned opinions is another potential Treaty amendment. As the CoR represents the local and regional voices at the EU level, this amendment is in the interests of the CoR and of the strengthened role of local and regional authorities in the EU law-making process, as local and regional voices could provide evidence to national parliaments during the extended period of reasoned opinions. Such an amendment can be included in Protocol No 1 to the Treaties. As the EP, as well as the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” have already recommended this deadline extension, there exists political support for such an amendment.297 Protocol No 1 to the Treaties, art 4.298 CoFE report, proposal #40.2.86 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.Introduction of a “Green CardMechanism”299The EP further proposed to introduce ‘a “green card mechanism” forlegislative proposals by national or regional parliaments with legislative powers (...) in order to make Union law more responsive to local needs’.300 Byintroducing such a mechanism, national and regional parliaments would beallowed to take the initiative to propose EU legislation. It could politically bindthe EC to consider a reasoned opinion or a resolution calling for EU legislation tobe proposed if it has reached the threshold of one-third of national or regionalparliaments.301The “green card mechanism” could be introduced in Protocols No 1 and 2 (on theApplication of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality) to the Treaties.Alternatively, as the EP is suggesting to include Protocol No 2 in the TFEU,302the legal basis for the “green card mechanism” could be directly included in theTFEU if this amendment is adopted, in case of Treaty changes.When deciding about the “green card mechanism”, suggestions could be made toensure that the views of local and regional authorities are considered. Forexample, it might be beneficial to include a mandatory consultation stage of localand regional authorities before national and regional parliaments submit theirreasoned opinion or resolution calling for new EU legislation proposals, ensuringthat local and regional authorities’ views are part of the pre-policy developmentstage.In general, there exists potential to connect the existing Better Regulation tools from the CoR with the proposed “green card mechanism”, as well as with the proposed right of initiative of the EP, which would enable the parliament to ‘introduce, amend, or repeal Union law, and to become a co-legislator for theadoption of the multiannual financial framework’.303 By setting up a closecollaboration between the CoR and regional parliaments and the EP when a newinitiative is to be proposed, the CoR’s ex-ante Better Regulation tools cancontribute to better involve local and regal authorities and their distinct role inimplementing EU legislation from the early stages. A similar process can be setup for the case when the EC proposes a new initiative and efforts on territorial299 This section provides answers to research questions 2 and 5.300 Report on the Proposals of the European Parliament for the Amendment of the Treaties (n 294).301 European Parliament Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Working Document on the Principles ofSubsidiarity and Proportionality (n 296).302 European Parliament, Resolution of 22 November 2023 on Proposals of the European Parliament for theAmendment of Treaties (n 294) amendment 215.303 Report on the Proposals of the European Parliament for the Amendment of the Treaties (n 294).87impacts and rural proofing are combined. However, as mentioned under PotentialNew Better Regulation Tools, such a process is only possible if human andfinancial resources are secured. This is particularly important given that thesuggested reforms are not intended to make the legislative process slower, or morecomplicated, but rather more comprehensive.Overall, the introduction of a “green card mechanism” would follow up with theCoFE proposal that parliaments should be ‘granted the possibility to suggest alegislative initiative to the European level. Such mechanism should also beenlarged to all regional parliaments within the EU that have legislative powers’.304The introduction of the “green card mechanism” would allow national and regional parliaments to take the initiative to propose EU legislation. Such a mechanism could be included in Protocols No 1 and 2 to the Treaties, or alternatively directly in the TFEU. Moreover, the “green card mechanism” could be connected with existing Better Regulation tools as well as with the proposed right of initiative of the EP.304 CoFE report, proposal #40.2.88 
 
 
 
 
 
4.Right to Approach European Parliamentwith a Request for Action305Another possible Treaty amendment incorporates giving the CoR a right toproactively approach the EP with a request for action to make the CoR ‘a sparring partner of the EP to jointly set the agenda’.306 This new right would give the CoR the possibility to secure subsidiarity early in the legislative process by adding a paragraph to Article 225 of the TFEU. In its current form, Article 225 of the TFEU states that ‘[t]he European Parliament may, acting by a majority of its component Members, request the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal on matters on which it considers that a Union act is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. If the Commission does not submit a proposal, it shall inform the European Parliament of the reasons’. If amended appropriately, the CoR could be given the possibility of advising the EP on takinglegislative initiatives in areas of CoR mandatory consultation, which would meanthat the CoR could draft consultative outlook opinions.307 Such opinions couldtarget the EP in advance or in view of making a request to the EC. As commissionswithin the CoR are responsible for opinions, the CoR’s rules of procedure couldinclude such consultative initiative reports as a responsibility for commissions.308The revised Cooperation Agreement between the CoR and the EP envisagesgeneral legislative cooperation.309If the EP is not acting upon the CoR’s recommendations, the EP should inform the CoR with reasons.310 According to Altun and Schulz-Ruhtenberg, this decision from the EP should be justiciable before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), meaning that the CoR may initiate complaints before the Court ifit considers the EP’s response to be insufficient.311 Currently, the CoR has theright to lodge a complaint before the CJEU for an ex-post review of legislation,but the new right would expand on this and also give the CoR an ex-ante reviewpossibility.As for the reform on changing the nature of the CoR’s opinions, such a right to approach the EP with a request for action has thus far only been discussed in academic writing.312 Negotiations primarily with the EP would, therefore, be needed to explore the feasibility of this Treaty change.305 This section provides answers to research questions 2 and 5.306 Altun and Schulz-Ruhtenberg (n 176).307 Ibid.308 Rules of Procedure European Committee of the Regions (2021) OJ L 472/1.309 EP-CoR Cooperation Agreement, para 4.2.c.310 Altun and Schulz-Ruhtenberg (n 176).311 Ibid.312 Ibid.89The right to approach the EP with a request for action is another possible Treaty amendment for the CoR. By adding a paragraph to Article 225 of theTFEU, the CoR would be able to target the EP in advance or in view ofmaking a request to the EC in the form of consultative initiative reports. Bygranting the CoR such a right, the CoR would have the possibility to securesubsidiarity early in the legislative process. However, this potential Treatyamendment has thus far only been discussed in academic writing.Negotiations primarily with the EP would, therefore, be needed to explore the amendment’s feasibility.90 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.Inclusion of the European Committee of the Regions in the InterinstitutionalAgreement on Better Law-Making313As touched upon throughout the report, amendments to the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making would support the implementation of the suggested reforms, leading to a strengthening of the CoR’s role in the EU policy- making cycle against the background of Better Regulation. However, as explained above,314 these amendments are more difficult to achieve for the CoR given that the EC, the EP, and the Council are the parties of the Interinstitutional Agreement.As the legal basis for Interinstitutional Agreements is enshrined in Article295 of the TFEU, a possible Treaty reform could include an amendment ofthis Article, specifying that the CoR can, to some extent, be included in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. This would not only circumvent the above-mentioned issues, but also lead more generally to a guaranteed dialogue between the EC, the EP, the Council, and the CoR on Better Regulation, the respective tools, and potential new collaborative mechanisms.Whether such a Treaty reform is feasible is, however, questionable. As the purpose of Interinstitutional Agreements is the facilitation of the cooperation processes between the EP, the Council, and the EC, arguments could be made that the CoR has the respective Cooperation Agreements with the EC and EP, and that there is no need to include the CoR in the Interinstitutional Agreement on BetterLaw-Making. While the legal nature of Interinstitutional Agreements andCooperation Agreements differ, the latter establish a cooperation mechanismbetween the CoR and the EC, and the CoR and the EP, which might renderunnecessary further agreements with these two bodies.In addition, the CoR is not an EU institution like the EP, the EC, and the Council,but an advisory body, which could also be used as a counterargument to such aTreaty reform. For these reasons, negotiations with the EP, the EC, and theCouncil, would, therefore, be needed to explore the feasibility of this Treatychange.313 This section provides answers to research questions 4 and 5.314 See for example under Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” –Revival and Implementation of Outstanding Recommendations.91If Treaty changes are taking place, the CoR could negotiate an amendment of Article 295 of the TFEU, which includes the legal basis for the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. By doing so, the CoR could be included in the Agreement, which would lead to a guaranteed dialogue between the EC, the EP, the Council, and the CoR on Better Regulation, tools, and potential new collaborative mechanisms. However, the feasibility of such a reform is questionable for two main reasons: first, Interinstitutional Agreements have the purpose of facilitating the cooperation processes between the EP, the Council, and the EC, and second, the CoR is an advisory body and not an EU institution like the EP, the EC, and the Council.Overall, the suggested Treaty reforms can be considered as long-term options for the CoR, given that potential Treaty amendments are more limited than reforms within the current Treaty framework. First, it must be kept in mind that only thoseoptions that take into account the institutional interests from the EC and the EP,as well as from other EU institutions and eventually the Member States, will besuccessful.315 Indeed, ‘[u]ltimately, an expansion of the CoR’s competencies isonly realistic if it does not initiate a new power rivalry by elevating the CoRdisproportionately relative to the EP. Additionally, (...) a reform must not renderthe EU legislative procedure even more complex and cumbersome’.316 Second,Treaty revisions can take time, and there has yet to be a decision whether arevision of the Treaties will take place.315 Altun and Schulz-Ruhtenberg (n 176).316 Ibid.92 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conclusions and RecommendationsThe findings of this report underscore the importance of the role of the CoR in EU policy-making and as a key player in ensuring that the ambitious and vital principles, approaches, methods, and tools enshrined in the Better Regulation Agenda are effectively put into practice. Part I and Part II of this report have looked in detail at the methodological and political tools and processes available to the CoR to enhance its role in policy-making in line with the Better RegulationAgenda, and provided practical suggestions for maximising their effectiveness,and for the development of new approaches. In doing so, the following sectionssummarise the main findings of the answers to the research questions, that aredeveloped in relevant sections of the report:1. Which legal arguments can be put forward for a system of improved EU law-making which effectively includes the territorial dimension, in particular of regional parliaments with legislative powers, and which involves the CoR as an advisory body in full respect of its prerogativesunder the Treaties as the guardian of subsidiarity?Subsidiarity and proportionality as legal principles permeating EU law andfundamental concepts throughout the legislative and implementation cycle argue in favour of a stronger territorial dimension in the EU law making process (see throughout the report, but see especially the section Impact Assessment). In particular, EU laws must respect the principle of subsidiarity, but given the magnitude of challenges facing Europe today, from the climate crisis to migration pressures to Euro-scepticism and the alienation of rural areas, it is all too tempting to seek convenient solutionsthat may fail to take into account the diversity and unique perspective of local and regional entities. Given its position as the EU voice of local and regional authorities and the guardian of subsidiarity, the CoR has a critical role to play in ensuring that the appropriate attention is given to these elements in policy-making as well as employing tools to bring data, information, and innovative ideas to the process.2. What should be the legal follow-up of CoFE recommendations on EUdecision-making, active subsidiarity and multi-level governance (No. 39 and No. 40)?Legal follow-ups to CoFE recommendations No. 39 and 40 include the continued participation of RegHub in the F4F (see Negotiations for Continued Participation of the Network of Regional Hubs in the Fit for Future Platform), the strengthening of territorial impact assessment and rural proofing (see Strengthening of the Territorial Impact Assessment and93Rural Proofing), the extension of the deadline for national parliaments to submit their reasoned opinions (see94Extension of Deadline for National Parliaments’ Reasoned Opinions), and the introduction of a “green card mechanism” (see Introduction of a “Green Card Mechanism”).3. How have the recommendations of the report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” been put into practice and how can the existing Better Regulation tools such as the Commission’s Fit for Future Platform increase their uptake ofCoR contributions in that context?Based on the nine recommendations from the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”, the EC has already implemented changes to the Better Regulation Agenda, for example, it included territorial impacts and a subsidiarity grid in its Better Regulation Toolbox (see The Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “DoingLess More Efficiently”). The Commission can increase the uptake of CoRcontributions in the context of the F4F by continuing to collaborate with RegHub when reviewing the F4F. This also aligns with the recommendations from the Task Force (see Negotiations for Continued Participation of the Network of Regional Hubs in the Fit for Future Platform).4. What should change in the Interinstitutional Agreement on BetterLaw-Making between the EP, the Council, and the EC to include thedynamics of multilevel governance and the local and regionaldimension of Better Regulation?A number of amendments could be made to the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making to implement the reforms suggested in this report. For example, the Agreement could incorporate the application of a subsidiarity grid (see Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” – Revival and Implementation ofOutstanding Recommendations), a closer collaboration mechanismbetween the EC and the CoR on territorial impact assessment (seeStrengthening of the Territorial Impact Assessment and Rural Proofing), adirect reference to local and regional authorities in the context ofencouragement for contributing to consultations (see Collaboration to Produce Data and Information Informing the Evidence-Based Policy- Making Process), and a permanent seat for the CoR on the RSB (see Permanent Seat on the Regulatory Scrutiny Board). An overview of all suggested changes to the Interinstitutional Agreement can be found in the Annex. If implemented, these amendments would better include the95dynamics of multilevel governance and the local and regional dimension of Better Regulation in the Agreement. Proposed changes and consideration of their feasibility, especially with a view to the fact that the CoR is not a party to the Agreement, are outlined in the Annex.5. How should a process by which the outcomes of the various Better Regulation assessments carried out by the CoR could feed regularly into the preparation of EU legislation be structured, and how can it be linked up with the concept of the right of initiative of the EP and the concept of ‘green card’ for regional parliaments with legislativepowers and CoR?The CoR could feed regularly into the preparation of EU legislation with the suggested reforms in Part II of this report, as their implementation would lead to a strong collaboration with the EC, the EP, and the Council throughout the whole policy cycle – from the design of policies to their implementation. This greater involvement of the CoR could also be linked up with the right of initiative of the EP and the “green card mechanism” forregional parliaments with legislative powers. For example, the EP as wellas national and regional parliaments could closely collaborate with the CoRto integrate territorial impact assessment results and rural methodology inthe proposed initiative (see Introduction of a “Green Card Mechanism”Introduction of a “Green Card Mechanism).6. In the relatively new and so far less structured areas of Better Regulation, i.e., the inclusion of strategic foresight and its methodologies in the preparation of EU regulation, and regarding the new concept of rural proofing, what are the specific challenges/opportunities to bring a local/regional perspective to EUactivity and how could the CoR develop its role in this respect?Regarding strategic foresight, the existence of policy-relevant data brokendown to subnational levels, as well as a lack of capacity to engage withstrategic foresight processes are some of the challenges faced in bringing alocal and regional perspective (see Strategic Foresight at the European Committee of the Regions and the European Commission, in particular theSWOT analysis). At the same time, the anticipation of trends, including forlocal and regional areas, is crucial for strategic policy-making, and,therefore, there exist opportunities to make strategic foresight a main BetterRegulation tool. For example, the CoR’s and EC’s commitment expressedin the Cooperation Agreement to conclude action plans, as well as the96CoR’s commitment to contributing to ESPAS increase the CoR’s role in strategic foresight activities (see Strengthening Collaboration in the Context of Strategic Foresight). In addition, the CoR could consider developing a strategic foresight toolbox (see ibid).In conclusion of this report, the following five over-arching recommendations are presented to support the CoR in taking this challenge forward:Improvement of the effectiveness of existing CoR tools through raising awareness.Negotiations with the EC, the EP, and the Council to discuss closer collaboration potentials.Negotiations to secure sufficient resources to sustainably carry out Better Regulation activities.Consideration of the establishment of new Better Regulation tools.Consideration of long-term reforms with a view to Treaty amendments.Figure 12: Overview of recommendations1. Improve the effectiveness of existing CoR tools, through raisingawareness amongst regions and cities, and EU institutions: It is clearfrom the undertaken analysis that there are various opportunities forenhanced engagement of EU institutions, regions, and cities via the existingtools within the existing Treaty framework. This refers not only to the CoRBetter Regulation tools, but also to tools such as public consultationsconducted by the EC. Thus, to raise the awareness of existing tools, their97application, and the contribution opportunities for regions and cities, it is recommended to share information sheets, for example, digitally in the form of an e-flyer, at the EU level, as well as at the national, regional, andlocal levels. Part I of the report, which elaborates on existing EUinstruments, can serve as an information basis for this awareness campaign.This recommendation also aligns with the consideration that there exists the danger that the development of new tools leads to the opposite of BetterRegulation. As to the goal of Better Regulation is to make laws simpler andbetter, among others, the creation of new tools could lead to overlaps withexisting tools. Raising awareness of existing tools amongst regions and cities, and EU institutions, is, therefore, a promising avenue for the CoR to improve the effectiveness of current tools.2. Seek negotiations with the EP, the EC, and the Council to discuss closercollaboration potentials to further improve the effectiveness of existingCoR tools and to leverage the CoR’s role as the guardian ofsubsidiarity: In a second step, based on the outcomes of this report, theCoR should consider mapping situations where its tools and views are notadequately considered and where issues that could have been identified had such tools been considered later emerge as concerns in the implementation of the specific legislation. With this evidence base in place, it could developpractical guidance on how the tools can be better employed as well aspresent arguments to key institutions to improve their status. This mayrequire further consideration of the CoR’s role in the context of theCooperation Agreements (some of which already foresee a significant rolefor the CoR). The revised Cooperation Agreements with the EC and the EPprovide a renewed impetus for engagement as they develop freshopportunities for meaningful engagement. Their implementation gives theCoR the possibility to increase its role in the EU policy-making process bycollaborating closer on Better Regulation tools with the EC and the EP.Collaboration negotiations with the Council should be strengthened, and asthese negotiations evolve, building understanding of the CoR’s possiblecontribution across the various power centres within the interlocutorinstitutions will go some way to facilitating a more active role. Regardingthe Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making, there is room topursue a role for the CoR in (some of the) negotiations regarding BetterRegulation, keeping in mind that such an Agreement as set out in Article295 of the TFEU has the purpose of increasing efficiency and clarifyingprocedures to prevent or limit conflicts among the EC, the EP, and theCouncil. The Interinstitutional Agreement contains not only provisionsrelating to Better Regulation, but also regarding subsidiarity andproportionality, providing an opening for a possible observer or similar role98for the CoR allowing it to perform its ‘guardian of subsidiarity role’ across the legislative cycle.Based on the research conducted in Part II of the report, the existing CoR tools could be further enhanced through collaboration with the EC, the EP, and Council in the following ways:99SubsidiarityMonitoringNetworkNetwork ofRegionalHubsTerritorialImpactAssessmentRural ProofingStrategic ForesightBRASS-G•Direct channel for the results of the SMN with a revival andinstitutionalisation of the Task Force on Subsidiarity,Proportionality and "Doing Less More Efficiently".•Involvement in the EP’s implementation reports by providingfirst-hand information regarding the implementation status of EUlaw at the national, regional, and local levels.•Continued participation of the RegHub in the F4F platformthrough ongoing dialogue with the EC.•Involvement in the EP's implementation reports together with theSMN.•Strengthening of terriorial impact assessment through closecooperation between the CoR and the EC at the stage ofpreparation of new initiatives.•Close collaboration between the CoR and the EP and Council forassessing territorial impacts of substantial amendments.•Joining efforts with the EC to work towards mandatoryscreening of rural impacts in addition to territorial impacts in thepolicy-making process.•Active engagement in ESPAS as part of implementation of arevised Cooperation Agreement.•Conducting action plans with the EC to further develop strategicforesight.•Development of a strategic foresight toolbox which supportsscenario-building regarding local and regional critical concerns.•Designated point for Better Regulation within the CoR. •Establishment of close connections with the EP's BetterRegulation units and the Council's Better Regulation subgroup.•Attending the other institutions' meetings while also invitingrepresentatives to BRASS-G meetings.Figure 13: Overview of tools enhancement through closer collaboration1003. Seek negotiations regarding budget, to ensure that the CoR hassufficient resources to sustainably carry out an enhanced role in EUlaw-making: The CoR will need to carefully assess the feasibility andsustainability of wider engagement as set out in recommendations one andtwo, and ensure that agreement on engagement (in the form of CooperationAgreements or otherwise) is accompanied by agreement on the resources (budget) that may be required to the CoR as an institution as well as considering the feasibility of additional burdens being placed upon regionaland local authorities. This is critically important given the risk of furtherexpanding the gap between larger cities and regions and small and mediumsized cities and towns that have limited resources (and who may already feel the distance from EU law-making more acutely). Such feasibility assessments will also ensure that the enhanced engagement can be sustained over time. This can be undertaken through frank consultation with CoR members and regional authorities and through an effective forecasting methodology bearing in mind that members and local and regional authorities are likely to be bound by significant resource limitations but may be more inclined to contribute if they foresee a more influential role being played by the CoR.4. Consider the establishment of new tools: If budget allows, the CoR canconsider establishing new tools such as:Citizens’PanelsSubsidiarityBoardsYouth ChecksCoR BetterRegulationToolsRegional, Local, andRural TestsFigure 14: Overview of potential new toolsIt should be taken into consideration, however, that Better Regulation aimsto make laws simpler and better, and the creation of new tools should not lead to overlap with existing tools. It is for this reason that closer101collaboration between the CoR and the EP, the EC, and the Council basedon existing tools is recommended before new tools, under carefulconsideration, are developed.5. Consider long-term reforms with a view to Treaty amendments: As a final recommendation and with a view to potential Treaty amendments, the CoR can consider the following reforms leading to an increased role in theEU policy-making process:Extension ofdeadline fornationalparliaments’reasonedopinions and theintroduction of a‘green cardmechanism’Change to binding natureof CoR opinionsTreatyAmendmentsInclusion in theInterinstitutionalAgreement onBetter Law-MakingRight to approach EPwith a requestfor actionFigure 15: Overview of reforms in case of Treaty amendmentsIn light of feasibility of all suggested reforms in this report, these long-termreforms cannot be recommended as a priority for the CoR, but rather as apotential route in case a Treaty amendment procedure is envisaged.Overall, the recommendations enable existing tools to be applied in a more systematic way, in collaboration with the EC, the EP, and the Council. In addition,102they highlight important points which need to be taken into consideration when debating wider engagement of the CoR and potential new Better Regulation tools.If implemented, a stronger interaction between the CoR Better Regulationinstruments and processes and those of the EU institutions (as set out in Part I ofthe report) could be visualised as follows:European CommissionF4F platform: continuedparticipation of theRegHub.Strengthening of territorialimpact assessment andrural proofing bycollaboration with CoRalready at design stage.Collaboration with CoR toproduce data andinformation.Strengthening collaboration in the context of strategicforesight.Figure 16: Overview of intertwinement of toolsEuropean ParliamentCollaboration with CoR on territorial dimensionsof impact assessment inrelation to substantialamendments.Involvement of CoR in parliamentary committee meetings on a systematicbasis.CoR contribution to implementation reportswith SMN and RegHub.CouncilCollaboration with CoR on territorial dimensionsof impact assessment inrelation to substantialamendments.Continuous CoR participation in theCouncil’s Working Partyon Competitiveness andGrowth (Better Regulationmeetings).103AnnexI. Suggested Changes to theInterinstitutional AgreementAs set out throughout the report, the CoR is not part of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. For this reason, and against the background of Article 295 of the TFEU which provides the legal basis for Interinstitutional Agreements between the EC, the EP, and the Council, there exist difficulties in advocating for the following amendments. However, including the CoR to someextent in the Agreement would lead to a guaranteed dialogue between the EC, theEP, the Council, and the CoR on Better Regulation, the respective tools, and potential new collaborative mechanisms (see under Inclusion of the European Committee of the Regions in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law- Making). At the same time, the suggested changes would better represent the dynamics of multilevel governance and the local and regional dimension of better regulation (see various sections throughout Existing Better Regulation Tools).The suggested amendments to the Interinstitutional Agreement suggested in this report are as follows (changes in italics):13. (...) In its own impact assessment process, the Commission will consult as widely as possible. Regarding the assessment of territorial impacts, the Commission collaborates with the European Committee of the Regions to identifypotential asymmetric impacts and assess them. The Commission’s RegulatoryScrutiny Board, which is comprised of 9 members, one of them a permanentmember coming from the European Committee of the Regions, will carry out anobjective quality check of its impact assessments. The final results of the impactassessments will be made available to the European Parliament, the Council andnational Parliaments, and will be made public along with the opinion(s) of theRegulatory Scrutiny Board at the time of adoption of the Commission initiative.19. Public and stakeholder consultation is integral to well-informed decision- making and to improving the quality of law-making. Without prejudice to the specific arrangements applying to the Commission’s proposals under Article 155(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission will, before adopting a proposal, conduct public consultations in an open and transparent way, ensuring that the modalities and time-limits of those public consultations allow for the widest possible participation. The Commission will inparticular encourage the direct participation of SMEs and other end-users in theconsultations, as well as the participation of local and regional authorities104(directly or through the European Committee of the Regions). This will include public internet-based consultations. The results of public and stakeholder consultations shall be communicated without delay to both co-legislators and made public.25. (...) The Commission shall also explain in its explanatory memoranda how themeasures proposed are justified in the light of the principles of subsidiarity andproportionality and how they are compatible with fundamental rights. TheCommission shall do so by including a subsidiarity sheet added to each proposal,which entails the results from the application of the subsidiarity grid. (...)37. The European Parliament and the Council as co-legislators will, in the interests of subsidiarity and proportionality, add to their amendments a subsidiarity sheet, which entails the results from the application of the subsidiarity grid regarding these amendments.105BibliographyAltun N and Schulz-Ruhtenberg E, ‘How to make the voice of regions heard inEU legislation. Strengthening the role of the Committee of the Regions’ (6July 2022) Hertie School Jacques Delors Centre Student Policy BriefAtterton J, ‘ENRD Thematic Group Rural Proofing – Background document.Analytical overview of rural proofing approaches and lessons learned’,available at https://ec.europa.eu/enrd/sites/default/files/tg-rp_background_paper-rural_proofing-jane_atterton_220127.pdf.pdfBetter Regulation Toolbox, available athttps://commission.europa.eu/document/download/9c8d2189-8abd-4f29-84e9-abc843cc68e0_en?filename=BR%20toolbox%20-%20Jul%202023%20-%20FINAL.pdfBlackwell A, ‘European Commission commits to a “Youth Check”’, available athttps://www.youthforum.org/news/european-commission-commits-to-a-youth-checkCommission Decision of 11 May 2020 establishing the Fit for Future Platform(2020/C 163/03)Commission Staff Working Document Better Regulation Guidelines (3November 2021) SWD(2021) 305 finalCommunication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of theRegions on Better Regulation: Joining forces to make better laws (29 April2021) COM(2021) 219 finalCommunication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the EuropeanCouncil, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee andthe Committee of the Regions, ‘The principle of subsidiarity andproportionality: Strengthening their role in the EU’s policymaking’ (23October 2018) COM(2018) 703 finalCommunication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the EuropeanCouncil, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee andthe Committee of the Regions, ‘Better regulation for better results – An EU agenda’ (19 May 2015) COM(2015) 215 finalConference of Committee Chairs, Summary Report (13 June 2023)DV\1280622EN PE 700.007Conference on the Future of Europe, ‘Report on the Final Outcome’ (May 2022)Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13Consolidated Version of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union[2016] OJ C202/150Council of the European Union, Communication (16 November 2023) CM5312/23106– – Communication (30 August 2023) CM 4118/23– – Decision requesting the Commission to submit a study complementing theimpact assessment of the proposal for a Regulation of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council on the sustainable use of plant protectionproducts and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, and to propose follow-up actions, if appropriate in view of the outcomes of the study (9 December 2022) 15652/22– – Impact assessment – Guidance for Working Party Chairs – IndicativeChecklist (12 March 2018) 6270/18– – Impact assessment – Indicative guidance for Working Party Chairs (9 June2016) 9790/16– – Impact Assessment within the Council – 2023 annual report – Endorsement(16 June 2023) 10082/23– – Outcome of Proceedings (30 November 2023) 16230/23Council of the European Union, ‘Council preparatory bodies’, available athttps://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/preparatory-bodies/– – ‘Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth’, available athttps://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/preparatory-bodies/working-party-on-competitiveness-and-growth/Dunlop C A and Radaelli C M, ‘Better Regulation in the European Union’ inMartino Maggetti, Fabrizio Di Mascio, and Alessandro Natalini (eds), TheHandbook of Regulatory Authorities (2022)EPRS, ‘About’, available at https://epthinktank.eu/about/– – ‘Impact Assessment and European Added Value’ (July 2022)– – ‘Scrutiny Toolbox’, available at https://epthinktank.eu/scrutiny-toolbox/EU Monitor, ‘Interinstitutional agreement (IIA)’, available athttps://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vh7dppj508rgEuropean Commission Annual Report 2022 on the Application of the Principlesof Subsidiarity and Proportionality and on Relations with NationalParliaments (12 October 2023) COM(2023) 640 final– – Annual Report 2021 on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity andProportionality and on Relations with National Parliaments (1 August 2022) COM(2022) 366 finalEuropean Commission, ‘Better regulation: taking stock and sustaining ourcommitment’ (15 April 2019), available athttps://commission.europa.eu/document/download/d1728974-433d-463b-8cd2-cc56b96d78bc_en?filename=better-regulation-taking-stock_en.pdfEuropean Commission, ‘Better Regulation: why and how’, available athttps://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation_en#:~:text=The%20Better%20Regulation%20agenda%20ensures,where%20it%20matters%20the%20most– – ‘Citizens’ Engagement Platform’, available at107https://citizens.ec.europa.eu/panels/european-citizens-panels_en– – ‘Composition’, available at https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-less-costly-and-future-proof/fit-future-platform-f4f/composition_en– – ‘Conference on the Future of Europe’, available athttps://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/new-push-european-democracy/conference-future-europe_en– – ‘Megatrends Hub’, available at https://visitors-centre.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/media/publications/megatrends-hub– – ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’, available athttps://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/regulatory- scrutiny-board_en - composition– – ‘Strategic foresight’, available at https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/strategic-planning/strategic-foresight_en– – ‘Subsidiarity control mechanism’, availableat https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/adopting-eu-law/relations-national-parliaments/subsidiarity-control-mechanism_en– – ‘Task force on subsidiarity, proportionality and doing less more efficiently’,available at https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation/task-force-subsidiarity-proportionality-and-doing-less-more-efficiently_en– – ‘Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less MoreEfficiently” Factsheet, available athttps://commission.europa.eu/document/download/739a21b7-fe1c-42b7-aa24-83ad344c790e_en?filename=task-force-factsheet-subsidiarity-proportionality.pdfEuropean Committee of the Regions, ‘A new treaty: a new role for regions andlocal authorities’, available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Documents/Our-work/lisbon-treaty.pdf– – ‘Better Regulation and Active Subsidiarity’, available athttps://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/commissions/civex/better-regulation-and-active-subsidiarity– – ‘Cities and regions building strategic foresight capacity to better prepare forthe future'.– – ‘Meeting of the Better Regulation and active subsidiarity Steering Group’,recording available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/events/Pages/active-subsidiarity-Steering-Group.aspx– – ‘Network of Regional Hubs. Assessing EU law from the ground’, available athttps://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/network-of-regional-hubs.aspx– – ‘Territorial Impact Assessment’, available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/Territorial-Impact-Assessment.aspx108– – ‘The Subsidiarity Monitoring Network’, available athttps://portal.cor.europa.eu/subsidiarity/thesmn/Pages/default.aspx – – ‘21st CIVEX Commission meeting’, recording available athttps://cor.europa.eu/en/events/Pages/21st-civex-commission-meeting- 2024.aspx– – ‘22nd CIVEX Commission meeting’, available athttps://cor.europa.eu/en/events/Pages/22nd-civex-commission-meeting- 1.aspxEuropean Committee of the Regions, Annex 1 to the draft non-paper: CoRcontribution to a future “Better Regulation Funding Programme” of the EU,COR-2023-048733-01-01-TCD-TRA (EN) 1/4European Committee of the Regions, Audit Report on the adequacy of territorialimpact assessment system (27 April 2021)European Committee of the Regions Opinion Better Regulation: Joining forces to make better laws (147th plenary session, 1-2 December 2021) CIVEX-VII/007European Committee of the Regions Opinion Strategic foresight as an instrument of EU governance and Better Regulation (157th plenary session, 9-11October) CIVEX-VII/022European Committee of the Regions Resolution The Outcome and Follow Up ofthe Conference on the Future of Europe (150th plenary sessions, 29-30 June2022) RESOL-VII/023European Committee of the Regions Subsidiarity Annual Report 2020 (10 March2021) COR-2021-00231-14-01-NB-TRA (EN) 1/16European Committee of the Regions, 216th Meeting of the Bureau of the EuropeanCommittee of the Regions, Item 7 Renewed Territorial Impact Assessment Strategy (7 February 2023) COR-2022-05326-08-1-NB-TRAEuropean Committee of the Regions, ‘A new chapter for EU democracy’,available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/Pages/new-chapter-4eudemocracy.aspx?origin=spotlight– – ‘A new chapter for participatory democracy’, available athttps://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/Pages/a-new-chapter-for-participatory-democracy.aspx– – ‘Embracing Uncertainty: Harnessing Strategic Foresight for Regional andLocal Progress. Strategic Foresight in regions & cities’ (December 2023),available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Documents/5056%20Brochure%20Strategic%20Foresight_EN_7.pd f– – ‘List of partners. The CoR Subsidiarity Monitoring Network’ (status December2020), available athttps://portal.cor.europa.eu/subsidiarity/Documents/SMN%20-109%20List%20of%20Network%20Partners/SMN_List_of_Network_Partners.p df– – ‘State of the art and challenges ahead for Territorial Impact Assessments’(2020)– – ‘Territorial Impact Assessment. A DroneStrategy 2.0’ (8 May 2023), available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Documents/Territorial-impact-assessment/tia-drone-strategy-2.0.pdf– –‘Territorial Impact Assessment/Rural Proofing. Legislative framework forSustainable food systems’ (22 June 2023), available athttps://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Documents/TIA%20Sustainable%20food%20systems.pdf– – ‘Territorial Impact Assessment. Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform’(2 October 2023), available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Documents/5039-TIA-report.pdfEuropean Economic and Social Committee, ‘About’, available athttps://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/about– – ‘Better Regulation’, available at https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/better-regulationEuropean Parliament Committee on Constitutional Affairs Working Document onthe principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (7 July 2021)PE629.901v01-00European Parliament Report on Better regulation: Joining forces to make betterlaws (2021/2166(INI))– – Report on the implementation of the Regulations on the Europeancitizens’ initiative (2022/2206(INI))European Parliament resolution of 23 November 2023 on European Unionregulatory fitness and subsidiarity and proportionality – report on BetterLaw-Making covering 2020, 2021, and 2022 (2023/2079(INI))– – resolution of 22 November 2023 on proposals of the European Parliament forthe amendment of treaties (2022/2051(INL))– – resolution of 14 September 2023 on Parliamentarism, European citizenshipand democracy (2023/2017(INI))– – resolution of 24 June 2021 on European Union regulatory fitness andsubsidiarity and proportionality – report on Better Law Making coveringthe years 2017, 2018, and 2019 (2020/2262(INI))– – resolution of 18 April 2018 on the Annual Reports 2015-2016 on subsidiarityand proportionality (2017/2010(INI))European Parliament, ‘Briefing EU Legislation in Process. Strategic technologiesfor Europe platform (STEP)’ (February 2024)– – ‘How the EU Treaties are modified’ (Briefing September 2022)– – ‘New European Commissions communication on BetterRegulation: Joining forces to make better laws’ (Briefing May 2021)– – ‘SMEs and Better Regulation – At a Glance’ (Plenary February 2020)110– – ‘The ‘one in, one out’ principle – A real better lawmaking tool?’ Studyrequested by the JURI Committee (October 2023)EPRS, ‘Proposal for a regulation laying down the rules to prevent and combatchild sexual abuse – Complementary impact assessment’ (April 2023) Ex-Ante Impact Assessment Unit PE 740.248European Union, ‘How the EU budget is adopted’, available at https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/budget/how-eu-budget-adopted_en#:~:text=The%20annual%20budget%20negotiating%20process&text=The%20EU%27s%20annual%20budget%20is,European%20Parliament%20and%20the%20CouncilFernandes M, Eisele K and Anglmayer I, ‘How evaluation is understood andpractised in the European Parliament’ (2024) 30 Evaluation 253Fit for Future Platform Opinion, Public Procurement (28 November 2023) AWP2023Fit for Future Platform Opinion, The Digital Europe Programme (28 November2023) AWP 2023Fit for Future Platform Opinion, Revision of the end-of-life vehicles directive andthe directive on the type-approval of motor vehicles (5 December 2022)AWP 2022Fit for Future Platform Opinion, Governments interoperability strategy (5December 2022) AWP 2022Gaugitsch R and others, ‘Rural proofing – a foresight framework for resilient ruralcommunities’ (2020), available athttps://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/studies/Documents/Rural%20proofing%20–%20a%20foresight%20framework%20for%20resilient%20rural%20communities/coter_nat_rural.pdfGawłowksi R, Nefas S and Makowski K, ‘Subsidiarity Principle – ItsRealization in Self-Government in Lithuania and Poland’ (9 March 2020)10 Administrative Science 1Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of theEuropean Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making [2016] OJ L123/1Jones H and others, ‘Study on the Citizens’ Panels as part of the Conference onthe Future of Europe’ (November 2022)La Administración al día, available athttps://laadministracionaldia.inap.es/noticia.asp?id=1228544Lindner J and Mack S, ‘Europe must improve the quality of its regulation’ (20December 2023) Hertie School Jacques Delors Centre Policy PositionListorti G, Basyte-Ferrari E, Acs S, and Smits P, ‘Towards an Evidence-Basedand Integrated Policy Cycle in the EU: A Review of the Debate on theBetter Regulation Agenda’ (2020) 58 Journal of Common Market Studies1158111Nicolosi S F and Mustert L, ‘The European Committee of the Regions as awatchdog of the principle of subsidiarity’ (11 May 2020) 27 MaastrichtJournal of European and Comparative Law 284OECD, ‘Better Regulation Practices across the European Union’ (28 June 2022),available at https://www.oecd.org/publications/better-regulation-practices-across-the-european-union-2022-6e4b095d-en.htmOpinion European Economic and Social Committee ‘A competitiveness check to build a stronger and more resilient EU economy (explanatory opinion)’ (14December 2022) INT/1000Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on ‘Do no harm to cohesion– A cross-cutting principle contributing towards cohesion as an overallobjective and value of the EU’ (2023/C 257/01)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 – Better regulation for better results – An EU agenda (16September 2015) SC/41 Better RegulationProtocol on Cooperation between the European Commission and the EuropeanCommittee of the Regions (20 March 2024)Reducing bureaucracy in these unprecedented times – French-German Paper onBetter Regulation and Modern Administration in Europe (9 October 2023)RegHub Secretariat, ‘Evaluation Report – Network of Regional Hubs for EUPolicy Implementation Review’ (September 2020)Regulatory Scrutiny Board, Annual Report 2022Renda A and others, ‘Feasibility Study: Introducing “One-In-One-Out” in theEuropean Commission’ (5 December 2019)Report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less MoreEfficiently”, ‘Active Subsidiarity. A new way of working’ (2018), availableat https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/8530a17b-e2b8-4cd4-a68d-597767cfbad7_en?filename=report-task-force-subsidiarity-proportionality-and-doing-less-more-efficiently_en.pdfReport on the Proposals of the European Parliament for the amendment of theTreaties 2022/2051(INL); European Parliament resolution of 9 June 2022 on the call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties (2022/2705 (RSP))Rodríguez-Pose A, Dijkstra L and Poelman H, ‘The geography of EU discontentand the regional development trap’ WP 03/2023, available athttps://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/reports/Geography_of_Discontent_and_development_trap_forlay-out.pdfRöhl K-H, ‘Bürokratieabbau und bessere Rechtsetzung: Wer macht was in EU,Bund und Ländern?’ (IW-Policy Paper 1/20)112Rules of Procedure European Committee of the Regions (2021) OJ L 472/1Sartor G, ‘The way forward for Better Regulation in the EU – better focus,synergies, data and technology’ (August 2022) EuropeanParliament in Depth Analysis Requested by the JURI CommitteeSimonelli F and Iacob N, ‘Can We Better the European Union Better RegulationAgenda?’ (2021) 12 European Journal of Risk Regulation 849Stakeholder consultation Opinion on Active subsidiarity: a fundamental principlein the EU Better Regulation agenda (12 February 2024, 13:30-15:00 CET),available at https://cor.europa.eu/en/events/Pages/consultation-opinion-on-active-subsidiarity.aspxThink Tank European Parliament, ‘EPRS online annual conference on better law-making’ available athttps://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/events/details/eprs-online-annual-conference-on-better-/20220712EOT06721Vasilopoulou S and Talving L, ‘Euroscepticism as a syndrome of stagnation?Regional inequality and trust in the EU’ [2023] Journal of European PublicPolicy 1212th Meeting of the Bureau of the European Committee of the Regions, Point 10A – Active Subsidiarity in Practice: Better Regulation and ActiveSubsidiarity Steering Group (23 June 2022)113EN

ISBN 978-92-895-3636-3
doi:10.2863/4939927

QG-01-24-003-EN-N

Created in 1994, the European Committee of the Regions is the EU’s political 
assembly of 329 regional and local representatives such as regional presidents or 
city-mayors from all 27 Member States, representing over 446 million Europeans.

© European Union, 2024

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 101  | 
www.cor.europa.eu  | 

  |  BELGIQUE/BELGIË  | 

@EU_CoR  | 

/european.committee.of.the.regions 

/european-committee-of-the-regions  | 

@EU_regions_cities