Simplification of EU law is needed, but what is done and how are hugely important. The laws that need re-thinking are complex and intertwined. To surgically trim fat from the regulatory corpus without killing the patient, solid evidence-based analysis is needed as never before.
The European Commission is proposing a flurry of new omnibus laws, supposedly with the goal of simplifying EU regulation and reducing the burdens on firms. This is a worthy goal – no one disputes that the number and complexity of EU laws have rapidly grown over the past 20 years, or that the regulatory burdens on EU-based companies put them at a competitive disadvantage. With deglobalisation in full swing and the transatlantic relationship in tatters, there is indeed the need to strengthen the EU’s competitiveness. Legal and regulatory simplification are part of this.
The second von der Leyen term began with great promise. The mission letter to the commissioner for implementation and simplification called on him not only “to reduce the administrative and reporting burden for both people and companies” but also “to ensure that EU rules are implemented and enforced better… strengthening and ensuring full compliance with the Commission’s standards for better law-making”.
No one questions the need for the Commission to move more quickly or to bypass red tape during a true crisis, but this can be abused. The European Ombudsman has now identified “procedural shortcomings in how the Commission prepared the legislative proposals… which, taken together, amount to maladministration”. She found poorly substantiated claims of urgency; a failure to properly consult stakeholders; and inadequate public consultation based on her review of complaints about the ‘Omnibus I’ simplification package (dealing with corporate due diligence and sustainability in CSRD, CSDDD, and Taxonomy); migration; and the common agricultural policy (CAP).
We have argued for years that the Commission makes too many weakly substantiated claims of urgency, and that this cannot be a basis to simply stop work.
When we presented our own study of Omnibus I to the European Parliament, the Commission responded that there was really no duplicate reporting among the three laws – the real problems were deeper and more subtle. This proved to be correct. We were astonished that the Commission would directly contradict the strongest justification for its own legislative proposal. Now that we learn from the Ombudsman that interservice consultation was limited to 24 hours over a weekend, we can understand how one part of the Commission could fail to understand things that were well known to other parts of the Commission.
The Ombudsman also found too little concern with environmental goals. We would argue that the legislative proposal for Omnibus I pays too little attention to any of the goals of CSRD, CSDDD, or Taxonomy.
The Commission argued that compliance with its Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolkit is optional – it’s not obliged to regulate well. The Ombudsman forcefully rejected this claim. The public expects adherence to good governance principles, and the Treaties require it.
The Commission’s lack of commitment to good evidence-based law-making practice isn’t just an academic matter – it undermines trust in the EU as a well-functioning, liberal democratic alternative to the increasingly authoritarian systems of Europe’s systemic rivals, both east and west.
We need to move more quickly, but haste makes waste. Enacting ill-considered and poorly substantiated new laws, without considering the knowledge held by a sufficiently wide range of stakeholders, is unlikely to solve the problems that these new laws seek to address. And it risks replacing old errors with new errors.
The Commission urgently needs to renew its commitment to good law-making practice.
This CEPS Expert Commentary was originally published on Euractiv, which you can access here.
