Essay About Ional Relat Ions And Legislat Ive Act Ion

Better Law Making
Essay Preview: Better Law Making
Report this essay
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 5.6.2002
COM(2002) 275 final
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
European Governance:
Better lawmaking
Accountability, effectiveness, proportionality
In July 2001, the Commission presented its White Paper on European Governance. The basic
message was a simple one and is as topical now as it was then: we need to govern ourselves
better, together – European institutions and Member States. We can do this without changing
the Treaty, without necessarily wait ing for the successful outcome of a new
intergovernmental conference. Better governance together means active cooperation between
the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the nat ional governments so that
the people of Europe can see more clearly how they fit into major projects and into the EUs
day-to-day business.
One thing we have to acknowledge is the richness of the Community method. Compared wit h
other systems of internat ional relat ions, it produces rules which can be applied in any nat ional
context and which have the backing of legal certainty. But this very success raises further
questions.
There are a lot of complex issues at stake now in enacting good European legislat ion which is
mindful of the principles of subsidiarit y and proportionalit y. People nowadays take an interest
in the effectiveness of the rules handed down “from Brussels” and the way they are drawn up.
The advent of a democratic conscience is strengthening the need for accountability and
proportionality in the way powers vested in the European inst itutions are exercised. This need
is expressed more especially in transparency, clarity and the willingness to stand up to
scrutiny. What we have here, then, is a veritable ethical requirement.
The resolut ion adopted by the European Parliament in November 2001 in the wake of the
Kaufmann report strengthens this requirement still further. By clearly stressing the primacy of
polit ical accountabilit y behind legislat ive act ion, the resolution brings out the need for more
transparent, equitable and disputational consultat ion: it is the very qualit y of the legislat ion
which is under scrutiny.
Three communications for better lawmaking
Inspired by this resolution and by the init ial react ions during the consultat ions on the White
Paper concerning the “better lawmaking” element, and bearing in mind the recommendat ions
by the high-level group chaired by Mr Mandelkern, the Commission has now decided that the
time has come to act in response to the strategy mapped out by the Lisbon European Council.
That is the point of the three communications set out below.
These three communicat ions form a whole centred on the basic lawmaking framework of the
European Union, including the way EU law is transposed into national law. They are
designed to apply to all the EUs regulatory areas – not just the Communit y “pillar”, but also
the third “pillar” that relates to just ice and home affairs, bearing in mind the institutional
framework and the decision-making arrangements proper to each “pillar”. The Commission
believes that the communications could come into force from the beginning of 2003, keeping
in mind that some of the proposed provisions are a matter for an inter-institutional agreement.
“Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment” – an action plan
How can the various inst itutions and the Member States improve their lawmaking? This is the
question which the first communicat ion addresses in the form of an action plan. It deals in
chronological sequence with the various stages of the legislat ive cycle. This makes it possible
to analyse the respect ive responsibilit ies of the various European inst itutions and to clarify
what should be done under an interinstitutional agreement.
The Commission, first of all, is committed to be more transparent in the way it exercises its
right of init iat ive and take greater account of diversit ies. In particular, the Commission shows
how it sets out clearly the reasons why it takes a particular init iat ive, and how it sets out to
ensure that the substance of its legislat ive proposals are restricted to the bare essentials.
Parliament and the Council, which are responsible in the final analysis for the proportionalit y
of the legislat ive instruments and the simplicit y of the legislat ion, are invited to firmly
commit themselves in the same direct ion: returning to the original concept of the direct ive as
provided for in the Treaty, laying down common criteria and providing for the involvement of