On 9 September 2010, the European Parliament adopted its annual resolution of on better lawmaking, on the basis of the 15th annual report from the Commission pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
This document is useful as a recapitulation of current issues and trends, but does not include any new insights, and does not show the EP as particularly innovative. Actually, by using the same concepts as in previous years (there is no mention of smart regulation), and not volunteering any new development, the report, which follows a predetermined format, looks somewhat conservative, or at least prudent, as for instance its comment on alternatives to legislation
(the EP) “46. Warns against abandoning necessary legislation in favour of self-regulation or co-regulation or any other non-legislative measure; believes that the consequences of such choices should be subject to careful examination in each case, in accordance with Treaty law and the roles of the individual institutions;
47. Stresses, at the same time, that soft law should be applied with the greatest of care and on a duly justified basis, without undermining legal certainty and the clarity of existing legislation, and after consultation of Parliament as underlined in its resolution on a revised Framework Agreement” No progress is made on how the Parliament would examine impacts of substantive amendments to Commission proposals.
There are, however, some encouraging ideas:
- An invitation to the Commission to clarify the content of the smart regulation agenda;
- Support to the idea that Commission impact assessments should be reviewed by an independent body;
- An invitation to the Commission to provide a two to four page summary of its impact assessments.
This document is useful as a recapitulation of current issues and trends, but does not include any new insights, and does not show the EP as particularly innovative. Actually, by using the same concepts as in previous years (there is no mention of smart regulation), and not volunteering any new development, the report, which follows a predetermined format, looks somewhat conservative, or at least prudent, as for instance its comment on alternatives to legislation
(the EP) “46. Warns against abandoning necessary legislation in favour of self-regulation or co-regulation or any other non-legislative measure; believes that the consequences of such choices should be subject to careful examination in each case, in accordance with Treaty law and the roles of the individual institutions;
47. Stresses, at the same time, that soft law should be applied with the greatest of care and on a duly justified basis, without undermining legal certainty and the clarity of existing legislation, and after consultation of Parliament as underlined in its resolution on a revised Framework Agreement” No progress is made on how the Parliament would examine impacts of substantive amendments to Commission proposals.
There are, however, some encouraging ideas:
- An invitation to the Commission to clarify the content of the smart regulation agenda;
- Support to the idea that Commission impact assessments should be reviewed by an independent body;
- An invitation to the Commission to provide a two to four page summary of its impact assessments.
No comments:
Post a Comment