Tag Archives: Simplification

Simplification, clarification, coordination and flexible management of the structural policies

Leave a reply

Simplification, clarification, coordination and flexible management of the structural policies

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Simplification, clarification, coordination and flexible management of the structural policies

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Regional policy > Management of regional policy

Simplification, clarification, coordination and flexible management of the structural policies

1) Objective

To make it easier to manage the Structural Funds in order to speed up the utilisation of appropriations.

2) Document or Iniciative

Communication from the Commission on the simplification, clarification, coordination and flexible management of the structural policies 2000-2006 [C(2003) 1255 – Not published in the Official Journal].

3) Summary

The Commission and the Member States have embarked on an exercise to simplify the procedures for managing the Structural Funds with a view to speeding up the utilisation of appropriations. This simplification exercise is in line with the provisions in place on the Structural Funds which do not need to be amended. The simplification measures relate to ten separate areas. They concern the preparation of the programmes of the future Member States during the next programming period.

Ten areas are affected:

  • adjusting the programmes;
  • controls;
  • mid-term review;
  • reports;
  • result and impact indicators;
  • performance reserve;
  • the annual meeting between the Commission and the managing authorities;
  • the Commission’s role in the monitoring committee;
  • financial management;
  • speeding up the Commission’s internal procedures.

MEASURES WHICH HAVE BEEN AGREED AND CAN BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY

Adjusting the programmes

The adjustment of the programmes is possible in the interests of sound management, including financial management. In this case, it involves either adjusting the programme complement alone (the document giving details of the measures announced in the programme documents), or amending the decisions by which the programmes were approved.

Adjusting only the programme complement is possible where:

  • the content and financial allocation (Community and national contributions) of the measures have changed without retroactive effect;
  • the breakdown of public funding between national/federal, regional and local levels has changed;
  • the breakdown of public/private funding in a national co-financing arrangement is adjusted, by, for example, the inclusion of a completely new private contribution.

The approval decisions may need to be amended in order to improve the management process. Any automatic decommitments resulting from the application of the “n+2” rule are also covered here.

Significant changes in the socio-economic situation can also result in the adjustment of the programmes. An exceptional situation, such as the floods in central Europe in 2002, requires the development strategy to be revised and operations to be redirected at areas where assistance is required most urgently.

Controls

The Commission must publish a report setting out a comparative analysis of national systems of financial management and control which identifies best practice.

Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 on the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds was amended at the end of 2002. It now includes very clear rules on storing documents.

New measures will be introduced to ensure that controls can be coordinated more effectively. As of 2003, the Commission will publish its audit programme for the Structural Funds on the CIRCA site each year. Ad hoc or unannounced audit visits will still be possible. The Commission will also update the Structural Funds Audit Manual. Once the Commission is able to rely on the audit work of national bodies, it will have enough leeway to limit its own on-the-spot audit activity. The Member States will be encouraged to draw up their audit programmes before the start of the next calendar year and to submit them to the Commission in order to avoid duplication of effort. From 2004, they will have access to SYSAUDIT — the database containing all the audits of the Community and national bodies. The Court of Auditors will also be asked to take part, the ultimate objective being, to adopt a properly coordinated strategy.

The mid-term review

At the end of August 2003, the Commission published its revised guidelines for the programmes for 2000-2006. These guidelines will not result in a renegotiation of the assistance provided.

The annual meeting in autumn 2003 between the Commission and the management authorities should provide an opportunity to discuss a possible mid-term review of the programmes. Where appropriate the Monitoring Committee, at its first meeting in 2004, will discuss and approve an amended programme complement and will adopt a formal proposal for adjusting the assistance. The Committee will, within two weeks, send the Commission the new programme complement (for information) and the formal proposal for adjusting the assistance (for adoption). In April 2004, the Member State and the Commission will have to reach an agreement. In accordance with the flexibility clause, the Commission’s decision will not depend on the opinion of the expert committees. Where possible, the Commission will take a decision within two months of receiving the request for an adjustment.

Reports

In order to reduce the large number of reports, the Member State will be able to incorporate the annual control report into the “controls” chapter of the single annual report. The information contained in the report will be limited to the monitoring, control and evaluation of action taken and to the measures introduced to deal with the problems encountered.

Result and impact indicators

In partnership with the Member States, the Commission will examine the indicators used to monitor and evaluate assistance, particular in the case of multifund programmes. In order to reduce the administrative burden, the Commission proposes using financial indicators in real time and implementation and result indicators annually. It is also proposed that (mid-term and final) evaluation be used for calculations involving the impact indicators.

Performance reserve

The Member States will seek to put in place a simplified system of indicators with a view to allocating the performance reserve. Between eight and twelve representative indicators is appropriate.

A single decision will be taken with regard to the performance reserve and the revision of the programmes at the mid-term point.

Annual meeting between the Commission and the managing authorities

As regards the management of the Structural Funds, the “managing authority” is the public or private body, at national, regional or local level (or the Member State itself when it performs this function) which manages assistance. The “monitoring committee” for a particular programme is a body for monitoring assistance which brings together all the partners: the administrative authorities and those involved in the economic, social and environmental spheres. The Commission will play an advisory role in this regard.

The annual meeting between the Commission and the managing authorities is more political in nature than the meetings of the monitoring committee. At the annual meeting, the Commission will be represented at a more senior level than in the monitoring committee. Every effort should be made to prevent potential duplication between the Commission’s annual control meeting with the Member State and the annual review. In the case of the programmes which function most effectively, the annual meeting could be replaced by an exchange of letters covering the implementation of the operations. Given that 500 programmes will be implemented during the 2000-2006 period, the Commission is planning to organise annual meetings as videoconferences in the interests of economy.

The Commission’s role in the monitoring committee

It is essential that the monitoring committee be prepared effectively if positive results are to be achieved. The managing authorities will take steps early enough to provide an indicative timetable of the meetings of the monitoring committee. Within the monitoring committee, the Commission representation will comprise an official from each DG involved in the Structural Funds concerned. It will be headed by the representative of the lead DG, who will be responsible for the Commission’s formal relations with the monitoring committee and will set out the Commission’s position. Following each meeting, he will draw up a brief report on the main points of the meeting and on the measures which need to be taken internally.

The monitoring committee will focus on matters relating to general monitoring. It will deal with eligibility questions relating to the operation and will encourage exchanges of experience, particularly by inviting representatives from other Member States. The committee will meet at least once a year and will not take any decisions on individual projects.

Financial management

The proposals for clarification cover the following four areas:

  • the “N+2” rule

    The rule on automatic decommitments means that amounts are decommitted if they have not been the subject of a payment during the two years following their commitment. The simplification of this rule relates to the practical arrangements for the application and calculation of the amounts involved (reference dates and reference documents, prior information procedure for the Member States, directing financial contributions to the most promising items of assistance). However, it is impossible to calculate the decommitments for each programme, as the commitment is specific to each Fund;
  • rule on repayment of the payment on account

    All or part of the initial payment on account of 7% must be repaid to the Commission if no payment application is submitted within 18 months of its decision to grant a contribution from the Funds. To reduce the level of risk, the Commission has developed an early warning system;
  • calculating interim reimbursements

    The Commission proposes reimbursing applications for interim payments (based on the amounts due to final beneficiaries) either at the cofinancing rate for the measure or on the basis of the Community contribution. In the first case, this arrangement already applies. As regards reimbursement of the Community contribution at the level of operations, the Member States must explicitly inform the Commission of the programmes and Fund(s) to which they are asking for it to apply;
    Irrespective of which system they choose, the national authorities will not be permitted to switch systems during the period of implementation. No legal changes are required. However, if the national authorities do not officially state which system they intend to use, the Commission will reimburse applications for payment on the basis of the co-financing rate for the measure.

The Commission’s internal procedures

The national delegations on the Structural Fund committees have agreed no longer to be consulted formally on the amendments to the programming documents at the mid-term stage.

OTHER POINTS UNDER DISCUSSION

A “contract of confidence” for controls

The Commission has proposed a new “contract of confidence” based on the efficient coordination of national and Community controls. This “contract of confidence” is based on three elements:

  • compliance with the legal provisions of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 on the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds;
  • the drawing up of a satisfactory audit strategy by the national authorities for the 2000-2006 period;
  • the submission of reports which provide an adequate basis for assessing the effective implementation of the audit strategy.

The “contract of confidence” will be applied using a management and control system which can cover a region, a fund or a programme. At the same time, the Community controls will be reduced and the period during which supporting documents must be kept will be shortened (three years).

4) Implementing Measures

5) Follow-Up Work

Action Plan for Better Regulation

Leave a reply

Action Plan for Better Regulation

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Action Plan for Better Regulation

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Institutional affairs > The decision-making process and the work of the institutions

Action Plan for Better Regulation

Document or Iniciative

Communication from the Commission of 5 June 2002, Action Plan “Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment” [COM(2002) 278 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

The purpose of this Communication is to improve the regulatory environment. Following consultations, the Commission noted the need for better regulation throughout the legislative process: from preparation of the proposal by the Commission to implementation by the Member States. This Action Plan focuses on the responsibilities of each party concerned during the legislative process. It aims to enable all the institutions and Member States to produce better laws.

Actions to be implemented by the Commission

First of all, the Commission intends to improve the quality of the legislative proposals through a number of actions, such as:

  • establishing minimum standards of consultation by the end of 2002: one of the standards envisaged by the Commission is a minimum duration of six weeks for consultations and the creation of a single access point showing the list of consultations in progress;
  • developing an instrument to assess the impact of major legislative and policy initiatives: the impact assessments will make it possible to decide whether or not legislation should be passed at Community level. They will make it easier to identify the most appropriate legislative or non-legislative instrument;
  • expanding the explanatory memoranda accompanying legislative proposals on the basis of five criteria: for each legislative proposal, the Commission will present the consultations held and results obtained, the impact assessments, the reasons for choosing the instrument and, lastly, the budgetary implications of the proposal;
  • including a review clause in legislative acts, or even a revision clause, in the Commission’s legislative proposals, which will make it possible to ensure that legislation is kept up to date and that legal certainty for users is preserved. These review clauses will be particularly beneficial in the fields subject to rapid technological change.

Secondly, the Commission undertakes to monitor the adoption and application of legislative acts more closely by:

  • giving the European Parliament and Council greater encouragement to come to an agreement quickly;
  • calling on the Council to vote by qualified majority wherever provision is made for this in order to accelerate the procedure;
  • making greater use of the opportunities to withdraw its proposals, particularly if a proposal is pending and has not been discussed for several years by the Council and the European Parliament. It will also withdraw its proposals if the amendments introduced by the European Parliament and/or the Council change the proposal disproportionately. Lastly, it stresses that proposals will be withdrawn under the process of negotiation and the political compromises achieved by the institutions;
  • following up infringements. It plans in particular to lay down criteria which will be used to establish priorities for examining possible breaches of Community law, for example the quality of transposition of the directives or the serious effects on Community interest. The Commission will also reinforce its checks on transposition.

Lastly, the Commission will ensure the general coordination and implementation of this Action Plan by setting up an internal network for “better lawmaking”. This network will involve all the Directorates-General and will be coordinated by the Secretariat-General. It will have the following mandate:

  • to monitor compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
  • to coordinate the preparation of the annual assessment of the quality of legislation and of national reports;
  • to ensure that the Commission adopts a consistent position within the interinstitutional network and in its relations with the Member States.

Action proposed to the European Parliament and the Council

The Commission calls upon the Parliament and Council to commit to improving legislative quality, for example by concluding an inter-institutional agreement by the end of 2002. First of all, the Commission proposes that the institutions make more appropriate use of legislative instruments. This would be achieved by:

  • reverting to the original definitions of the directive and regulation laid down in the Treaty: regulations must be used only for action requiring uniform application in the Member States. As far as possible, the use of directives must be limited to the establishment of a general framework;
  • using certain alternatives to legislation, where appropriate, such as self-regulation, sectoral voluntary agreements or the open coordination method. The Commission will propose more frequent use of co-regulation to the legislator. This allows the parties concerned to adopt implementing measures in line with the objectives laid down by the legislator. The legislator can then judge whether the use of this instrument is appropriate;
  • the Commission’s undertaking to avoid making its legislative proposals unwieldy.

The European Parliament and the Council are asked to support the Commission in its plans to simplify and reduce the volume of Community legislation. The institutions should therefore draw up a simplification programme. The Commission suggests that the European Parliament and the Council create structures specifically responsible for legislative simplification. It would be a good idea to have an inter-institutional agreement on the subject. The European Parliament and the Council are called upon to support the codification programme by adopting codification proposals under accelerated procedures.

The European Union institutions are responsible for the quality of the legislation adopted. Some amendments can alter the quality of the act because they have been drafted complicatedly or they are too precise or not precise enough. The introduction of a period during which the act can be reread by lawyer-linguists would make it possible to improve quality and consistency before final adoption. The Commission proposes that the European Parliament and the Council carry out impact assessments of the substantial amendments which they introduce at first reading.

Action concerning the Member States

The Member States should also be committed to improving and simplifying the regulatory environment. The Commission therefore recommends that the Member States:

  • transpose Community acts into national legislation faithfully and within the set deadlines;
  • involve the national, regional and local authorities responsible for transposing and applying Community acts as early as possible in the legislative process;
  • appoint a correspondent responsible for coordinating the transposition and application of Community acts.

The Commission proposes that the Member States take specific action, including:

  • electronic notification of national transposing measures, using a standard form. The Member States should at the same time submit concordance tables which can be used to compare the transposing measures with the original Community act;
  • consultations and impact assessments of any supplementary provisions added to legislative acts at the time of transposition.

Developing a common legislative culture within the Union

In order to successfully implement this Action Plan, the objective of improving regulations must be applied to the entire legislative cycle, from the drafting of the proposal to its adoption by the legislator to its application by the Member States. The development of a common legislative culture will ultimately benefit European citizens. The Commission therefore proposes the following actions:

  • the creation of a legislative network on two levels: on the one hand, between the Community institutions and, on the other, between the institutions and the Member States. The Commission proposes that the Community institutions set up a permanent mechanism, the “Better regulation” internal network, with the aim of implementing the Action Plan. In order to improve cooperation between the Community institutions and the Member States, the Commission intends to appoint “transposition and application” correspondents;
  • the annual assessment of the quality of legislation: the Commission will assess the implementation of the Action Plan on a yearly basis and will draw up national reports on a particular group of countries in turn;
  • public access to legislation must be developed, in particular by expanding public access to Eur-Lex, developing Internet forums and mobilising the traditional info-centres and contact points for Community information.

Related Acts

Communication from the Commission of 6 June 2002 – “European Governance: better lawmaking” [COM(2002) 0275 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

This Communication complements the Action Plan “Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment”. It aims to improve implementation by the EU through a number of initiatives, including:

  • clarification of executive responsibilities: the Commission proposes clarifying the rules governing comitology, in particular through the precise definition of each institution’s remit. The European Parliament should be involved in comitology, particularly for the implementation of decisions under the codecision procedure;
  • a framework for the creation of European agencies: the Commission will submit to the Parliament and the Council the terms of an interinstitutional agreement on the subject;
  • consideration of the regional, urban and local contexts: regional and local authorities and the Member States will have the opportunity to conclude pilot contracts with the Commission with a view to achieving the Community’s sustainable development objectives;
  • a new approach to vetting the application of the law: the Commission will pay closer attention to delays in the implementation of national application measures.

Lastly, this Communication reaffirms the importance of the Community method as a basis for building the European Union. The reforms of governance, “a quiet revolution in terms of the way we act”, require the institutions to consolidate and clarify the sharing of their powers.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 11 February 2003 – “Updating and simplifying the Community acquis” [COM(2003) 71 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

This Communication follows on from the Action Plan “Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment”. Since the Community was established, the Community acquis has never undergone a full examination. The Commission proposes a Framework for Action aimed at simplifying the Community acquis and sets the following six objectives:

  • simplify the acquis;
  • consolidation of the acquis must be completed and kept rigorously up to date;
  • codification;
  • reviewing the organisation and presentation of the acquis;
  • ensure transparency and effective monitoring at political and technical level;
  • establish an effective implementation strategy.

This fact sheet is not legally binding on the European Commission, it does not claim to be exhaustive and does not represent an official interpretation of the text of the Treaty.

White Paper on governance

Leave a reply

White Paper on governance

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about White Paper on governance

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Institutional affairs > The decision-making process and the work of the institutions

White Paper on governance

Document or Iniciative

Communication from the Commission of 25 July 2001 “European governance – A white paper” [COM(2001) 428 final – Official Journal C 287 of 12.10.2001].

Summary

It is necessary to reform European governance in order to bring citizens closer to the European institutions.

Five principles combine to form the basis of good governance:

  • openness: the European institutions should attach more importance to transparency and communication in their decision-making;
  • participation: citizens must be more systematically involved in the drafting and implementation of policies;
  • accountability: the role of each party in the decision-making process needs to be clarified. Each actor involved should then assume responsibility for the role given to them;
  • effectiveness: decisions need to be taken at the appropriate level and time, and deliver what is needed;
  • coherence: the EU conducts extremely diverse policies which need to be pursued coherently.

The proposals in this White Paper do not necessarily require new treaties. This is first and foremost a question of political will, to which all the institutions and Member States need to commit.

To reform governance of the European Union, the Commission proposes four major changes.

BETTER INVOLVEMENT

Policies should no longer be decided at the top. The legitimacy of the EU now lies with the participation of its citizens.

More openness in the way the Union works

Participation depends on people being able to take part in public debate. For this to happen, the general public needs to be more actively informed about European issues. The Commission will call on national and local networks and authorities in order to present information which is adapted to the concerns of European citizens. The Europa website will form an interactive platform for dialogue and discussion. The Commission also intends to continue developing Eur-lex. The Council and the European Parliament need to make their information more accessible throughout the codecision procedure, particularly at the conciliation phase. Finally, the Member States should promote public debate on European affairs.

Reaching out to citizens through regional and local democracy

In order to build a better partnership across the various levels, the Commission proposes a number of initiatives, including:

  • participation by local-government associations in policy development: the Commission notes that Community decisions fail to take sufficient account of local and regional knowledge. It therefore proposes to step up cooperation between local-government associations and the Committee of the Regions. It also suggests that the latter conduct a more systematic examination of the local and regional impact of certain directives. Finally, the Member States should improve the involvement of local actors in EU policy-making;
  • greater flexibility in the implementation of certain Community policies with a strong territorial impact: the Commission proposes that contracts be concluded between the Member States, regions, local authorities and the Commission. These contracts would allow the local authorities to implement Community legislation, whilst taking the wide diversity of local conditions into account;
  • overall policy coherence: European policies work too often by adopting a sectoral approach. These should form part of a coherent whole and address their territorial impact in order to achieve more sustainable and balanced territorial development within the Union. The Commission intends to develop indicators to identify where coherence is needed.

Involving civil society

The Commission considers that civil society plays an important role in the development of Community policies. It will continue to encourage the activities of non-governmental organisations, the social partners and civil society in general. The Commission points out that the organisations representing civil society should themselves apply the principles of good governance as a show of their responsibility and openness. By the end of 2001, it will have set up an online database of civil society organisations.

As a final point, the Economic and Social Committee should give its opinions before rather than after proposals have been transmitted to the legislature, in order to contribute more towards shaping policies.

More effective and transparent consultation at the heart of EU policy-shaping

The institutions and the Member States should step up their efforts to consult better on EU policies. The European Parliament should play a prominent role, given its task of representing citizens. It could, for example, make more frequent use of public hearings. More encouragement could also be given to the involvement of national parliaments.

The Commission intends to clarify how consultations are run. It will publish a review of existing consultative fora for each sector. It also aims to provide a framework for consultation by drawing up a code of conduct that sets minimum standards. These standards should improve the representativeness of civil society organisations and structure their debate with the Commission. In some policy sectors, where consultative practices are already well established, the Commission seeks to develop more extensive partnership arrangements. It then invites the other Institutions to apply a similar approach to their own activities.

Connecting with networks

Networks link businesses, communities, research centres, and regional and local authorities at a European or even global level. These networks can enhance the success of Community policies. The Commission will work more closely together with them to enable them to contribute to decision shaping and policy execution. It will examine how transnational cooperation between regional or local actors could be better supported.

BETTER REGULATION

This White Paper aims to make Community decisions more effective in order to win back the support and confidence of European citizens.

Restoring confidence in expert advice

The recent food crises and the ethical issues raised by the advent of bio-technologies have highlighted the need to inform people more about what is known and where uncertainty persists on a scientific level. The system of expert committees used by the Union is opaque and public confidence in expert advice needs to be restored. From June 2002 onwards, the Commission will publish guidelines on how to make its use of expert advice more responsible, pluralistic and transparent. The Commission also suggests the networking of expertise, which too often is organised at national level.

Better and faster regulation – combining policy instruments for better results

The European Commission has identified seven factors for improving regulation:

  • proposals must be prepared on the basis of an analysis to determine whether action at EU level is needed or not;
  • the choice between legislation and less binding tools should be made carefully;
  • it is necessary to determine the most appropriate type of legislative tool. Regulations should be used when there is a need for uniform application across the Union. Framework directives are appropriate when greater flexibility in implementation is desirable. They offer the advantage of being agreed quickly by Council and the European Parliament. Finally, the Commission suggests making greater use of “primary” legislation limited to essential elements, leaving the implementing authority to fill in the technical detail;
  • the Commission wishes to promote co-regulation, when this provides value added and serves the general interest: co-regulation allows the parties involved to define implementing measures in accordance with the objectives defined by the legislator;
  • Community action should be complemented or reinforced in certain areas through the use of the open method of coordination. This method is a way of encouraging cooperation, the exchange of best practice, and adding value at a European level where there is little scope for legislative solutions;
  • the Commission intends to be more systematic in evaluating the actions carried out and drawing the necessary conclusions;
  • the Commission promises to withdraw its proposals if these are too burdensome or complicated, following inter-institutional bargaining. It also suggests that the Council and the European Parliament speed up the legislative process, where possible. To do so, the Council should vote whenever a qualified majority is possible, rather than seek unanimity at all costs. The Council and the European Parliament should, finally, attempt to reach agreement at the first reading.

Simplifying Community law

The Commission proposes the launch of an ambitious programme to simplify Community legislation. The Member States should, however, refrain from adding disproportionate requirements when transposing Community directives.

Better application of EU rules through regulatory agencies

The Commission wishes to create new independent regulatory agencies with decision-making power. This decision-making power will be strictly defined: the agencies will not be able to arbitrate between public interests, or take measures of general scope. They will be subject to a Community system of control.

Better application at national level

The Member States need to step up their efforts to improve the quality of transposing and enforcing Community law. To do so, the Commission proposes that they:

  • set up twinning arrangements between national administrations, in order to exchange best practice in this field;
  • create coordination units responsible for enforcing Community law within the central government of each Member State;
  • make national courts and lawyers more familiar with Community law;
  • create similar arrangements in the Member States to the EU Ombudsman and the Petitions’ Committee of the European Parliament, in order to improve the capacity for dispute settlement.

The Commission will vigorously pursue infringements of Community law. To do so, it will draw up a list of priorities for the investigation of possible breaches. However, a lengthy judicial procedure against a Member State is neither the most practical solution nor the fastest. The Commission will therefore continue to pursue active dialogue with the Member States in order to defuse disputes at the earliest possible stage.

CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

EU citizens want the EU to be powerful on the international stage. The Commission emphasises that the Union’s first step must be to reform governance successfully at home in order to enhance the case for change at an international level. The European Union should then apply the principles of good governance to its global responsibility by, for example, being more accessible to governmental and non-governmental stakeholders.

The European Union should strive to improve the effectiveness and legitimacy of global rule-making, working to modernise and reform international institutions. The Commission will promote the use of new tools at global level as a complement to “hard” international law.

The Commission will, finally, propose a review of the Union’s international representation so that it speaks with a single voice.

REDEFINING THE POLITICAL STRATEGY OF THE INSTITUTIONS

The refocusing of policy, i.e. the clear identification of an overall strategic policy for the Union, is necessary so that people have a better understanding of the EU’s political project. This is no easy task, as the sectoral thinking behind EU policies is not conducive to the coherence of Community action.

Refocused EU policies

Refocusing policies means that the Union should identify more clearly its long-term objectives. The Commission already makes a effort in the field of strategic planning through a number of initiatives such as:

  • the Commission’s Annual Policy Strategy: published at the start of each year, this identifies strategic priorities with a 2 to 3 year time span;
  • the Commission President’s State of the Union address: each year the Commission President surveys the progress made on the Commission’s strategic priorities and indicates the challenges which lie ahead;
  • the annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality which, from 2002 onwards, will be oriented towards the EU’s main objectives.

The European Council should play a more important role in shaping the direction of the Union.

Refocused institutions

Each institution should refocus on its key functions: the Commission initiates and executes policy; the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament adopt legislation and budgets; the European Council sets political guidance. This refocusing of the institutions will make it possible to reinvigorate the Community method. Nevertheless, this Community method needs to be updated by, for example, clarifying the roles of each party.

The Council of Ministers should arbitrate more between sectoral interests. It should develop its capacity to coordinate all aspects of EU policy both in the Council and at home.

The European Parliament and all the national parliaments should stimulate a public debate on the future of Europe and its policies. The European Parliament should focus its budget control on the attainment of political objectives.

The Commission concludes by suggesting that it be made clearer who is responsible for policy execution. The conditions under which the Commission adopts executive measures should be reviewed. In particular, it wants the European Parliament to be involved in monitoring implementation. It feels that Article 202 of the Treaty has become outdated because of the development of the codecision procedure which puts Council and the European Parliament on an equal footing. Finally, the Commission questions the need to maintain the regulatory and management committees.

Background

The White Paper on Governance sets down markers for the debate on the future of Europe. It has been supplemented by an extensive process of institutional reform initiated at the European Council in Laeken and concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon .

Related Acts

Communication from the Commission of 6 June 2002 – European Governance: Better lawmaking [COM(2002) 275 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

This communication supplements the “Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment” action plan. Its main aim is to shift the focus of the institutions and raise the quality of implementation by the Union through a number of initiatives, including:

  • clarifying executive responsibilities: the rules governing comitology need to be clarified, chiefly through the clear definition of the roles of each institution. The European Parliament has a role to play in comitology, particularly in the areas covered by codecision;
  • supervising the creation of European agencies: the Commission will propose an interinstitutional agreement to Parliament and the Council on this matter;
  • taking account of the regional, urban and local contexts: the regional and local authorities and Member States will have the chance to conclude pilot contracts with the Commission with a view to achieving the Community’s sustainable development objectives;
  • adopting a new approach to vetting application of the law: the Commission will pay more attention to the delays in implementing national application measures.

This communication concludes by reaffirming the importance of the Community method as the very basis of the European Union. A “quiet revolution in terms of the way we act”, the governance reforms call for efforts by the institutions to consolidate and clarify the sharing of competences.

Communication from the Commission of 11 December 2002 on the collection and use of expertise by the Commission: principles and guidelines – “Improving the knowledge base for better policies” [COM(2002) 713 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

In the White Paper on governance, the Commission stated that it would publish guidelines on the use of expert advice by the Commission. This communication fulfils this commitment. The Commission reaffirms the three principles on which expert advice should be based: quality, openness and effectiveness. The Commission should exploit the most appropriate expertise to construct better policies. The Commission also emphasises its determination to restore the confidence of citizens in the use of expertise, by giving them access to expert advice and meetings.

Communication from the Commission of 11 December 2002 – The operating framework for the European Regulatory Agencies [COM(2002) 718 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

In this communication, the Commission specifies the tasks, procedures for setting up, and composition of the regulatory agencies. These agencies are subject to the supervision of the Commission, the European Ombudsman, the European Parliament, the Council, the Court of Auditors and the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

Communication from the Commission of 11 December 2002 – A framework for target-based tripartite contracts and agreements between the Community, the Member States and regional and local authorities [COM(2002) 709 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

This communication aims to clarify the notion of tripartite contracts mentioned in the White Paper on governance. It distinguishes target-based tripartite contracts, which ensue from the application of binding Community law, from target-based tripartite agreements, which describe agreements concluded between the Commission, a Member State and regional and local authorities outside a binding legal act. The Commission sets out the arrangements for concluding this type of agreement, and concludes by presenting a model contract or agreement.

Communication from the Commission of 11 December 2002 on the better monitoring of the application of Community law [COM(2002) 725 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

The Commission intends to improve monitoring of the application of Community law, by first of all emphasising the prevention of infringements. To do so, the Commission will develop cooperation with the Member States, chiefly by helping them with the transposition of directives. The Commission will also continue to carry out its role as guardian of the Treaties by taking action against infringements. This will be done on the basis of priority criteria relating to the seriousness of breaches. For example, the failure to transpose directives will be considered as a serious infringement and infringement proceedings will be launched immediately in this case.

Commission communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman of 20 March 2002 on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of community law [COM(2002) 141 final – Official Journal C 244 of 10 October 2002].

In this communication, the Commission sets out administrative measures for the benefit of the complainant in the context of infringement proceedings, such as the methods of submitting a complaint, the protection of personal data, or the time limit for investigating complaints.

Proposal for a Council Decision of 11 December 2002 amending Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission [COM(2002) 719 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

In this communication, the Commission presents the Council decision on comitology. The Council agrees to include the European Parliament in supervising implementation for matters subject to codecision. The regulatory procedure will be applied when the executive measures are of general scope concerning the substance of the matter in question. The advisory procedure will be appropriate when the executive measures have an individual scope or concern the procedural arrangements for implementation.

This fact sheet is not legally binding on the European Commission, it does not claim to be exhaustive and does not represent an official interpretation of the text of the Treaty.

Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making

Leave a reply

Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Institutional affairs > The decision-making process and the work of the institutions

Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making

Document or Iniciative

Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making.

Summary

This Interinstitutional Agreement concerns the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union (EU) and the Commission. This Agreement establishes the general principles and arrangements for cooperation between the institutions, particularly during the legislative process. The Agreement aims to optimise the drafting and implementation of Union law.

Improving interinstitutional cooperation and transparency

The three institutions have agreed first of all on better coordination of the legislative process. This means that they will inform each other in good time of their plans and their work, for example by means of their annual legislative timetables or by synchronising the handling of common dossiers by the preparatory bodies in each institution.

The three institutions undertake to improve transparency and the accessibility of information for the public, for example by more broadcasting of public debates, through the systematic use of new communication technologies, by giving the public greater access to Eur-Lex and lastly by holding joint press conferences once they have reached agreement during the ordinary legislative procedure.

For each proposal the Commission will explain and justify to the European Parliament and to the Council its choice of legislative instrument and the legal basis. It will ensure that the measure proposed is simple and necessary.

Promoting co-regulation and self-regulation

The EU legislates only where it is necessary. It is sometimes useful to resort to alternative methods of regulation, such as co-regulation or self-regulation.

Co-regulation is a mechanism whereby attaining the objectives laid down in a legislative act is entrusted to parties which are recognised in the field (economic operators, social partners, non-governmental organisations, etc.). The basic legislative act therefore defines the framework and extent of the co-regulation. The parties concerned are then able to conclude voluntary agreements between themselves in order to achieve the objectives of the legislative act.

Self-regulation means the possibility for economic operators, the two sides of industry, non-governmental organisations or associations to adopt amongst themselves and for themselves common guidelines at European level. These guidelines may, for example, take the form of a code of conduct or a sectoral agreement. They do not generally imply that the European institutions have adopted any particular stance. However, the latter reserve the right to adopt a legislative act when it concerns an area for which the EU has competence.

Improving the quality of legislation

The three institutions have undertaken to produce legislation that is clear, simple and effective. The Commission is asked to conduct pre-legislative consultations and to make public the results of those consultations. It will continue to carry out impact assessments for major items of draft legislation, in order to evaluate their social, economic and environmental consequences. If the European Parliament or the Council makes a substantial amendment, an assessment of the impact of that amendment is desirable. In order to improve the consistency of texts, legal verification needs to be carried out before an act is finally adopted.

Improving the transposition and application of Union law

In order to encourage Member States to transpose Union law properly within the prescribed period, Directives must contain a binding time limit of not more than two years for the transposition of their provisions into national law. If a Member State fails to do this, the Commission can launch an infringement procedure. It will draw up annual reports on the transposition of Directives in the various Member States.

Simplifying legislation

Legislation can be simplified in various ways: by repealing acts that are no longer applied or through the codification or recasting of acts. Codification (or consolidation) is a procedure that consists of repealing the acts concerned and replacing them with a single act containing the unchanged substance of those acts. Recasting consists of the adoption of a new legal act incorporating in a single text both the substantive amendments it makes to an earlier act and the unchanged provisions of that act. The new legal act replaces and repeals the earlier act.

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal

Interinstitutional Agreement

16.12.2003

–

OJ C 321 of 31.12.2003

Related Acts

Interinstitutional Agreement of 22 December 1998 on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation [OJ C 73 of 17.3.1999].
This agreement lays down guidelines for the quality of the drafting of Community legislation. For example, all acts are drawn up in accordance with a standard structure (title, preamble, enacting terms, annexes). The content of acts must be drafted in a concise and homogenous manner.

Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 on an accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts [OJ C 102 of 4.4.1996].
This interinstitutional agreement points out that codification does not involve any substantive amendment of the acts concerned. Proposals for codification from the Commission are to be examined by the European Parliament and the Council by means of an accelerated procedure.

Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts [OJ C 77 of 28.3.2002].
This interinstitutional agreement lays down the rules for recasting, which must be justified on grounds explicitly set out in the explanatory memorandum. Precise indications must be given as to which provisions of the previous act remain unchanged.

This summary is for information only. It is not designed to interpret or replace the reference document, which remains the only binding legal text.