Bijlagen bij COM(2005)97 - Betere regelgeving met het oog op economische groei en meer banen in de EU - Hoofdinhoud
Dit is een beperkte versie
U kijkt naar een beperkte versie van dit dossier in de EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2005)97 - Betere regelgeving met het oog op economische groei en meer banen in de EU. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2005)97   |
| datum | 16 maart 2005 |
ANNEX 1 Overview of Better Regulation measures implemented at EU level
Over the last four years, the EU has launched a broad strategy to improve the regulatory environment and thus provide a more effective, efficient and transparent regulatory system for the benefit of citizens and reinforce competitiveness, growth and sustainable development.
First, the institutions have taken the steps necessary to comply with Declaration 39 adopted by the Heads of State and Government at the Intergovernmental Conference in Amsterdam in 1997. They adopted drafting guidance in the Inter-institutional Agreement of 22 December 1998 on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation. They have ensured that those guidelines are applied by taking the necessary internal organisation measures as required by Declaration 39. A practical guide on drafting has been made widely available in official languages to all those within and outside the institutions who are involved in the drafting process. Internal procedures in the Commission in particular have been reorganised to enable the staff of the Legal Service to improve the quality of proposed legislation at an early stage by checking its lawfulness and compliance with all the formal rules, by structuring the rules clearly and correctly and by revising the drafting. The Legal Service offers training in legislative drafting to the staff of other Commission departments and organises seminars to promote awareness of the need for good-quality legislation. Translation services also play a role in drafting original legislative texts, so as to ensure clear, unambiguous texts and coherent terminology.
On a broader point of view, guided by the reactions to the Commission’s White paper on European Governance[21], while bearing in mind the recommendations of the intergovernmental “Mandelkern Group”[22], the Commission proposed in June 2002 a comprehensive Action Plan for ‘simplifying and improving the regulatory environment’[23]. This Action Plan was in line with the aim set out at the Gothenburg European Council that “policy-makers must identify likely spill-over – good and bad – onto other policy areas and take them into account. Careful assessment of the full effects of a policy proposal must include estimates of its economic, environmental and social impacts inside and outside the EU”[24]. This Action Plan represents the most comprehensive and ambitious efforts yet in pursuit of these objectives.
To ensure high-quality new legislation, a new Impact Assessment system was introduced to integrate and replace all previous single-sector assessments, as un-integrated analyses had been found to have little effect on the quality of policy-making. It requires the Commission to systematically assess, on an equal basis, the likely economic (including competitiveness), environmental and social implications of its proposals and to highlight the potential trade-offs. This new impact assessment system aims at helping the Commission to improve the quality and transparency of its proposals and to identify balanced solutions consistent with Community policy objectives. The depth and scope of the assessment respects the principle of proportionate analysis , i.e. more Impact Assessment resources will be allocated to those proposals that can be expected to have the most significant impacts. Transparency is ensured by the publication of the Impact Assessment Roadmaps , giving a preliminary indication of the main areas to be assessed and the planning of subsequent analyses. Instruments which provide an alternative approach to legislation , such as co-regulation and self-regulation, have to be considered when assessing options.
Since the system’s introduction in early 2003, more than 50 extended Impact Assessments of proposals have been completed. In 2005, all initiatives in the Commission’s Legislative and Work Programme[25] (around 100) will be accompanied by an impact assessment.
As an integral part of the impact assessment procedure, the Commission has also adopted[26] a set of “Minimum standards for consultation of interested parties”. These minimum standards are intended to enhance transparency, to widen consultation practices and to ensure better information, participation and dialogue. The Commission has also adopted guidelines for collecting and using expert advice to provide effective expertise in developing policies and to ensure transparency as to how the Commission uses external advice[27].
The Commission took the initiative in early 2005 to launch a pilot phase with a view to developing a common approach to measure administrative costs . The results of the pilot phase are expected by the end of 2005. Once the results of the pilot phase have been assessed, the Commission will decide on whether and how to best integrate the approach into the impact assessment method and examine how it could help in process of simplification of existing legislation.
To streamline and simplify the regulatory environment, the Commission launched in 2003 an ambitious programme[28] to up-date and simplify existing EU legislation . This aims to reduce the substance of EU legislation as well as to reduce its volume (through consolidation, codification and removal of obsolete legislation) and to provide more reliable and user-friendly organisation and presentation of the acquis . Since February 2003, the Commission has presented 30 proposals with simplification impacts, 10 of which have been adopted, the remainder being still pending before the European Parliament and Council. The Prodi Commission’s target of a 25% reduction in the volume of the Community acquis by 2005 has not been achieved, mainly because the codification programme has been delayed owing to translation bottlenecks in the new Member States. In recent years, the Commission carried out several rounds of withdrawals of pending proposals that were no longer topical (in 2004, about 100 pending proposals were withdrawn). During 2005-2009, the Commission intends to carry out such withdrawal exercises each year.
The Commission has also given priority to improving transposition and application of EU law by the Member States. In a Communication of 2002, it set out an action plan on working more proactively with the Member States to reduce the number and seriousness of cases.
Recognising that better regulation requires an effort throughout the regulatory cycle, in December 2003 the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission concluded an Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law-making. Its main elements are the improvement of inter-institutional coordination and transparency[29]; common definitions[30] and agreed conditions of use for alternative instruments such as co-regulation and self-regulation; increased use of impact assessment in Community decision-making; and the commitment to set a binding time limit for the transposition of directives into national law[31].
ANNEX 2 Broad assessment of Better Regulation implementation in Member States
Many Member States have launched various initiatives on regulatory reforms. Information available on these matters is mainly based on Member States’ self-assessment and is somewhat partial; it therefore needs, to be complemented by independent and/or peer review evaluations. The table below comes from the Report on the implementation of the European Charter for Small Enterprises in the Member States of the European Union [32] and shows that a large majority of Member States (20) have already developed some type of better regulation programme, which very often includes obligatory impact analysis of new legislation (14) and consultation of stakeholders (14). However, it is not clear to what extent these exercises are integrated assessments of economic, social and environmental impacts nor the extent to which they are pursued in practice rather than being ‘paper’ exercises. Moreover, there may be further initiatives taken by Member States not yet contemplated in the table.
In the ten new Member States, a joint EU-OECD project is currently under way: it is the SIGMA project (Support for Improvement in Governance and Management). The objective of the project is to promote and improve the development and implementation of better regulation practices in these countries. The project consists in a general peer review exercise designed to examine the institutional framework of the new Member States, to establish the state of introduction, development and practical use of better regulation practices and to identify potential problems and gaps. The peer reviews should be finished by the end of 2005.
Overview of measures in the area of Better Regulation and impact assessment [33]
|Better regulation programme |Specific RIA policy |Obligatory RIA |Alternative instru-ments considered |Guidelines on RIA |Coordinating body for RIA |Consultation part of RIA |Formal consul-tation procedures |Direct stakeholder consultation |Tests of impact on small enterprises |Exemptions for SMEs |Total Y+(Y) | |Belgium |(Y) |N.A. |(Y) |N.A. |(Y) |(Y) |N |(Y) |(Y) |(Y) |N |7 | |Czech Republic |Y |N.A. |N |Y |N.A. |N.A. |N.A. |N.A. |N.A. |(Y) |N |3 | |Denmark |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |N |10 | |Germany |Y |N.A. |N.A. |N.A. |Y |Y |Y |Y |N.A. |N.A. |N.A. |5 | |Estonia |N |N |Y |Y |Y |N.A. |N.A. |N |N |N.A. |Y |4 | |Greece |(Y) |(Y) |N |N |N |N |Y |N |N |N |N.A. |3 | |Spain |Y |(Y) |Y |Y |(Y) |(Y) |N |N |N |N |N.A. |6 | |France |N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. |N.A. | N.A. | 0 | |Ireland |Y |N |N |(Y) |(Y) |N |(Y) |(Y) |N |N |N |5 | |Italy |(Y) |Y |N |(Y) |Y |(Y) |(Y) |N |Y |(Y) |N |8 | |Cyprus |N |N |N |N |N |N |N |N |N |N |N.A. |0 | |Latvia |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |N |Y |N |9 | |Lithuania |N.A. |Y |Y |Y |Y |N.A. |N.A. |N.A. |N |N.A. |N.A. |4 | |Luxembourg |Y |N.A. |Y |Y |N.A. |Y |Y |Y |N |N |Y |7 | |Hungary |Y |(Y) |Y |N |N |Y |(Y) |(Y) |N |N |N |6 | |Malta |Y |N.A. |N.A. |N |N.A. |(Y) |N |N |Y |N |Y |4 | |Netherlands |Y |Y |N.A. | Y |Y |Y |N |N |Y |(Y) | Y |8 | |Austria |Y | Y |Y |Y |Y |N |Y |Y |Y |N.A. | N | 8 | |Poland |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |(Y) |N |Y |10 | |Portugal |N |N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | 0 | |Slovenia |Y |N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | 1 | |Slovakia |N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | (Y) |N.A. | N | 1 | |Finland |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |(Y) |Y |Y |Y |N.A. |N.A. |9 | |Sweden |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |N |N |9 | |United Kingdom |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |N |10 | |Total Y+(Y) |19 |13 |12 |15 |15 |14 |12 |12 |11 |7 |5 | | |Legend
Y | Measures exist | (Y) | Measures planned/ Available partially | N | No measures exist | N.A. | Information not available | |
[1] De Commissie zal binnenkort een mededeling presenteren waarin de geboekte vooruitgang bij de uitvoering van het actieplan 2002 - COM(2002) 278 van 5.6.2002 - wordt uiteengezet.
[2] COM(2005) 24 van 2.2.2005.
[3] COM(2002) 278 van 5.6.2002.
[4] PB C 321 van 31.12.2003, blz. 1.
[5] Met ‘soft law’-instrumenten worden co-regulering en zelfregulering bedoeld.
[6] Bij de eerste vier landen (Ierland, Nederland, Luxemburg en het VK) sloten zich later Oostenrijk en Finland aan – de lidstaten die in 2006 het voorzitterschap zullen bekleden.
[7] Wetgeving die exclusief onder de bevoegdheid van de Commissie valt (bv. besluiten over mededinging of tot de interne werking van de Commissie beperkte wetgeving) wordt normaal gesproken niet aan een effectbeoordeling onderworpen.
[8] http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/impact/practice.htm.
[9] ECOFIN-Raad van 21 oktober 2004 en Europese Raad van 4-5 november 2004.
[10] Zie SEC(2005) 175. De proefprojecten zullen gebieden als statistiek en bouwproducten bestrijken.
[11] PB C 321 van 31.12.2003, blz. 4, punt 30.
[12] De eerste effectbeoordeling van die aard vond plaats in 2004 voor een wijziging door de Raad van de door de Commissie voorgestelde richtlijn inzake batterijen. Over het algemeen verwelkomden de lidstaten dit proefproject dat tijdens het Luxemburgse voorzitterschap in 2005 formeel zal worden geëvalueerd.
[13] “Modernisering en vereenvoudiging van het acquis communautaire” – COM(2003) 71 van 11.2.2003.
[14] Het kader voor actie dat door de Commissie in februari 2003 was opgezet, liep eind 2004 af. Bijgevolg dienen nieuwe richtsnoeren voor de toekomstige vereenvoudigingswerkzaamheden van de Commissie te worden vastgesteld.
[15] Zie het document SEC(2005) 192, blz. 14, dat de tussentijdse herziening van de strategie van Lissabon vergezelde, zie voetnoot 2.
[16] Idem.
[17] Richtlijn 98/34/EG verplicht de lidstaten ertoe kennis te geven van elke ontwerp van nieuwe technische regelgeving die verband houdt met producten en diensten van de informatiemaatschappij op niet-geharmoniseerde terreinen. Hiermee wordt beoogd de invoering van nieuwe belemmeringen voor de interne markt in deze sectoren te verhinderen. Het is de bedoeling de reikwijdte van deze richtlijn tot andere sectoren uit te breiden.
[18] “Verbetering van de controle op de toepassing van het Gemeenschapsrecht” – COM(2002) 725 van 16.5.2003.
[19] Het beginsel van de wederzijdse erkenning – dat impliceert dat een product dat in een bepaalde lidstaat op een wettelijke manier is gefabriceerd of op de markt gebracht, ook in alle andere lidstaten op de markt moet kunnen worden gebracht – maakt het in grote mate mogelijk belemmeringen van het vrije verkeer van goederen uit te schakelen die ten gevolge van verschillen in de nationale wetgeving zijn ontstaan. Dit heeft betrekking op nationale regelgeving op niet-geharmoniseerde terreinen, maar ook op nationale regelgeving op geharmoniseerde terreinen, indien de uitvoeringsbesluiten verder gaan dan de minimumvereisten van de communautaire richtlijnen, en deze overigens toch naleven.
[20] In deze wetgeving is voorzien in een “transparantiemechanisme” dat de Commissie en de lidstaten in de mogelijkheid stelt door een lidstaat voor hun inwerkingtreding ingediende ontwerpen van technische regelingen te controleren om na te gaan of zij eventueel inbreuken bevatten op de verdragen of nieuwe belemmeringen voor de interne markt vormen.
[21] COM(2001) 727, 5.12.2001.
[22] Adopted in November 2001. See http://ue.eu.int/pressData/en/misc/DOC.68853.pdf
[23] COM(2002) 278, 5.6.2002.
[24] A sustainable Europe for a better world, A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development.
[25] Acts that fall under the executive powers of the Commission (for instance competition decisions or acts whose scope is limited to the internal sphere of the Commission) are normally not subject to impact assessment.
[26] COM(2002) 704, 11.12.2002.
[27] COM(2002) 713, 11.12.2002: Communication on the collection and use of expertise; Principles and guidelines: “Improving the knowledge base for better policies”.
[28] ‘Updating and simplifying the Community acquis’ – COM(2003) 71, 11.2.2003.
[29] The three institutions will reinforce their coordination through their respective annual legislative timetables with a view to reaching agreement on joint annual programming.
[30] The Interinstitutional Agreement on better lawmaking provides the following definitions: Co-regulation: “… the mechanism whereby a Community legislative act entrusts the attainment of the objectives defined by the legislative authority to parties which are recognised in the field (such as economic operators, the social partners, NGOs or associations)”; Self-regulation: “the possibility for economic operators, the social partners, NGOs or associations to adopt amongst themselves and for themselves common guidelines at European level (particularly codes of practices or sectoral agreements)”. The rules on the functioning of the social dialogue (Articles 138 and 139 TEC) and standardisation according to the “New Approach” are not affected by this agreement.
[31] Each directive should indicate a time limit which should be as short as possible and generally not exceed two years.
[32] Commission Staff Working Paper: Report on the implementation of the European Charter for Small Enterprises in the Member States of the European Union - SEC(2005) 167, 8.2.2005, p. 36.
[33] Commission Staff Working Paper: Report on the implementation of the European Charter for Small Enterprises in the Member States of the European Union - SEC(2005) 167, 8.2.2005, p. 36.