Committee on Legal Affairs – Extraordinary Meeting

22:04 - 26:02

Jörgen Warborn

This is of course far from the 37.5 billion that the Commission has promised to deliver, and in order to achieve this number, we have to push further and do the simplification faster. Now, let me mention three of the priorities in the report. This is of course not the only thing in the report, but three things I'd like to mention explicitly.

First of all, there is in this yearly report, as in the last time, a push from my side when it comes to the one-in-two-out principle. You know, colleagues, that the Commission works with the one-in-one-out, but we are now pushing for one-in-two-out, meaning that for each euro that is added to the cost of businesses, two euros should be deducted. Second of all, gold-plating. We have to come to a stop for gold-plating from the Member States. It is of course very good that the Commission President launched this pact on gold-plating, and in this report we also push for this, so that of course it means more with gold-plating, it means more cost for businesses, but also it means that you fragment the internal market, and that is a problem in itself and creates complexity that is unnecessary.

So a clear call for stop gold-plating. And thirdly, compensating for some reporting.

This was already in the last year's report and we managed to find a good compromise here in JURI and we had a majority in plenary, namely saying that the Commission should make a feasibility report where it could compensate, the Commission or authorities or governments, where authorities could compensate businesses for reporting obligations. Because I am convinced that in some cases the reporting is, it is too much basically. And the businesses, not least the small and medium-sized businesses, they actually do the job for the governments for free today. And I think if governments and authorities call for a lot of information, a lot of reporting, it is fair that businesses are compensated for this. The government is there for businesses and citizens.

It's not the other way around. Businesses and citizens are not there for the government and that's why I think this principle clicks on the right, triggers the right buttons so to speak.

So I'm calling for this again. And then of course this is not only about simplification, it is also a report about proportionality and subsidiarity. And of course we are mentioning this as well and make sure that the decisions are taken at a proportionate level and as close as citizens as possible. Mr. Chair, to finalize, there is also a call for impact assessment and also to ourselves when there are substantive amendments, we have to think about making impact assessment on them. There is a regulatory scrutiny board mention and how this has can be strengthened.

And then a think small first principle that should be applied at all stages so that the SMEs do not carry the heaviest burden in this. And with that, Mr. Chair, I think I leave the next five seconds over to you.

26:02 - 26:12

Ilhan Kyuchyuk

Thank you so much. Now I would like to give the floor to shadow rapporteurs starting with Tiemo Wölken for S&D. Tiemo?

26:12 - 28:16

Tiemo Wölken

Yeah, thank you very much. And indeed better regulation is not a nice to have, but it is a comprehensive agenda to make sure that our laws fulfill the highest standards. Personally, I find the developments of the last few years in this context indeed very worrying. The Commission often rushes out proposals and they appear to be in urgency, so which means they often lack substantive impact assessments or consultations entirely.

And this is really not a good development. So it is completely unacceptable for us that the Commission appears to have abandoned any serious effort of maintaining better regulation principles. Instead, the urgency procedure is being misused, and Parliament makes itself unfortunately too often complicit by accepting frankly badly drafted legislative proposals as the basis for our work. And let's be honest here, the Commission proposes one omnibus after another, promising it will cut billions of euros of costs, but really, what is the basis for these claims? Omnibus or not, we should not have to work on proposals without a solid foundation of evidence.

The EU used to take pride in the structured legislative process, but unfortunately under this Commission President, the legislative process has developed into a screaming match between competing industry lobbies trying to squeeze their wishlist into the next badly drafted omnibus scheduled for departure. So what we need is a proper relaunch of better regulation practices and a deep look at the maladministration findings by the European Ombudsman.

This should really be the central point of this report. Let's hold the Commission to account for its bad practices and make sure that the EU returns to what it does best: evidence-based policy making that delivers for its people. And I use the five seconds of your time.

28:16 - 28:25

Ilhan Kyuchyuk

Thanks, colleagues, for your generosity this morning. Next is Pascal Arimont for PPE? No. Tobiasz Bocheński for ECR.

28:25 - 30:34

Tobiasz Bocheński

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to speak in Polish. Po pierwsze, dziękuję bardzo panu posłowi Warbornowi za przygotowanie tego draftu. Zawiera bardzo wiele bardzo istotnych spostrzeżeń. W szczególności pewne istotne podkreślenie faktu, że pieniądze nie rosną na drzewach, tylko biorą się z pracy i biorą się z pracy w małych, średnich przedsiębiorstwach.

I przy tworzeniu prawa unijnego mieliśmy do czynienia przez lata z założeniem, iż legislacja działa w próżni w oparciu tylko o pewne wyidealizowane, abstrakcyjne idee, które nie biorą pod uwagę warunków ekonomicznych.

I zawarte w tym raporcie spostrzeżenia są bardzo bliskie mojemu sercu i moim spostrzeżeniom zarówno jako prawnika, jak i po prostu polityka. Mamy do czynienia z jednej strony z inflacją prawa, nadregulacją, bardzo skrupulatnymi, pogłębionymi rozwiązaniami prawnymi o charakterze administracyjno-prawnym w gruncie rzeczy, a z drugiej strony z brakiem aktywności Komisji w swojej inicjatywie upraszczania prawa i sprawiania, żeby prawo było skuteczne tam, gdzie jest potrzebne. Wszystkie działania właśnie harmonizacyjne, wymuszające na państwach członkowskich pewne wspólne, jednolite standardy, do których powinniśmy dążyć, aby osiągnąć prawdziwy wspólny rynek, są zaniedbane ze strony Komisji Europejskiej. Za to z drugiej strony bezustanne dokładanie obowiązków, ciężarów, obowiązków raportowania, nowych formularzy, nowych terminów, niejasnych pojęć, do których trzeba dokładać kolejnych definicji prawnych, tworzy gigantyczny galimatias prawny, którego powinniśmy się pozbyć i mam nadzieję, że ten raport zmierza właśnie w tę stronę. Dziękuję.

30:34 - 30:37

Ilhan Kyuchyuk

Thank you. Next is Mr. Zalimas.

30:37 - 33:11

Dainius Žalimas

Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to congratulate our rapporteur and thank him for presenting this draft report.

I think you have taken on a very important agenda. Simple and clear lawmaking is indispensable and goes hand in hand with simplification. We cannot achieve one without the other. This is particularly important for businesses, which above all need clarity and predictability. Yet we increasingly find ourselves changing legislation that we adopted only recently.

Sometimes this is necessary, but it should also make us to ask whether the original rules were sufficiently well thought through and tested in the first place. There is much in the report that I welcome, particularly the emphasis on simplicity by design, stronger impact assessment, addressing gold-plating and real-world testing, sorry. I will also table some amendments to emphasize a few additional points.

First, better regulation should mean better impact assessment, not fewer impact assessments. This is particularly relevant for omnibus packages, where simplification involves substantive policy changes. These should remain evidence-based and, where appropriate, subject to proper impact assessment. The same applies to public consultations, where they should provide stakeholders with genuine opportunity to participate and reflect different perspectives. Second, we already have an extensive better regulation framework.

The challenge is to ensure that it is consistently applied. Derogations should remain genuinely exceptional and properly justified. In particular, we should be careful with overly broad grounds for urgency, such as general reference to the political context, which could too easily allow normal better regulation requirements to be bypassed. Third, I welcome the Commission's regulatory deep cleaning initiative, and I think we should support it with clear indicators to assess its results. This would allow us to measure success not simply by how many legal acts or reporting requirements are removed, but by whether unnecessary compliance costs are actually reduced, competitiveness improves, and legislation becomes easier to apply.

Overall, I welcome the report as a good basis for our work. Thank you.

33:11 - 33:23

I was late. Okay, that was it from the shadows. Does another member wish to speak? That is not the case, so... Yeah, Mr. Mantovani, prego, Mario.

33:23 - 35:17

Mario Mantovani

Sì, grazie Presidente.

Volevo anch'io ringraziare il relatore Warborn che anche questa volta mi pare che colga il punto giusto. Cioè relazioni come queste sono fondamentali perché sulle micro, piccole e medie imprese manca un'attenzione sistemica. La Commissione dice di condividere sempre il principio "pensare innanzitutto in piccolo", ma poi propone norme uniche a prescindere dalla dimensione delle imprese, con nuovi oneri uguali per tutti. Ce lo dice lo SME United: le regole sono scritte per 43.000 grandi imprese, ma devono rispettarle 24 milioni di microimprese o affidarsi a esenzioni che nella pratica non funzionano. E intanto i mercati si muovono: investitori, fondi, private banker guardano sempre più alla piccola e media impresa dove vedono margini di crescita maggiori.

La nostra legislazione però non prepara il terreno e si perde in una regolamentazione preventiva e complessa che scoraggia chi vuole investire.

Apprezzo le due proposte più concrete del relatore: lo studio sulla compensazione dei costi di rendicontazione e le verifiche sul campo con imprese ed enti locali. Io aggiungerei due emendamenti che presenterò. Nel primo, nessun obbligo senza strumenti pronti, cioè nessuna norma si applichi prima che siano disponibili le linee guida, modelli standard proporzionali alla dimensione aziendale e gli strumenti per rispettarla. E secondo, e chiudo, per le imprese in buona fede, la prima irregolarità dia luogo a un termine per regolarizzarsi, prima di qualsiasi sanzione, ed un supporto dell'autorità competente. Grazie.

35:17 - 35:27

Ilhan Kyuchyuk

Grazie. I think that was it from the speakers. The floor goes to the rapporteur, Mr. Warborn, for your concluding remarks.

35:27 - 35:53

Jörgen Warborn

Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all colleagues who took the floor. I think there is a lot of commonalities here. We have all mentioned simplicity. We have mentioned impact assessment and how we can work with that.

And the "think small" principle is there. So, and it seems that you have some interesting amendments as well. So I look very much forward to taking this report further. Thank you.

35:53 - 36:22

Ilhan Kyuchyuk

Thank you, Mr. Warborn. The deadline for amendments is set a week from now, so exactly 15th of October at 12 o'clock. Any other business, dear colleagues?

No, that is not the case. And the next meeting is here in Strasbourg on 19th of October at 7:30 PM, 19:30, together with LIBE, it will be a joint meeting. Thank you very much, dear colleagues, for this morning.