BETA


2010/2016(INI) Guaranteeing independent impact assessments

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead JURI NIEBLER Angelika (icon: PPE PPE) MCCARTHY Arlene (icon: S&D S&D), WIKSTRÖM Cecilia (icon: ALDE ALDE), ALBRECHT Jan Philipp (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), ZIOBRO Zbigniew (icon: ECR ECR), MAŠTÁLKA Jiří (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), SPERONI Francesco Enrico (icon: EFD EFD)
Committee Opinion BUDG
Committee Opinion ECON EPPINK Derk Jan (icon: ECR ECR)
Committee Opinion ENVI CALLANAN Martin (icon: ECR ECR)
Committee Opinion ITRE CHICHESTER Giles (icon: ECR ECR) Bendt BENDTSEN (icon: PPE PPE)
Committee Opinion IMCO WEILER Barbara (icon: S&D S&D) Wim van de CAMP (icon: PPE PPE), Matteo SALVINI (icon: ENF ENF)
Committee Opinion REGI
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 052

Events

2011/10/24
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2011/06/08
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2011/06/08
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 573 votes to 22 with 78 abstentions, a resolution on guaranteeing independent impact assessments.

Parliament recalls that impact assessments present a systematic evaluation of the likely effects of legislative action and that it has on a number of occasions expressed support for the use of independent impact assessments in the European Union. In this context, Members lay down a series of recommendations on the general requirements for impact assessments at European level with a view to enhancing efficiency and independence.

General requirements for impact assessments at European level : stressing that impact assessments are an important aid to smart and better lawmaking during the whole policy cycle which the makers of EU law should exploit more often in order to help them evaluate more effectively the economic, social, environmental and health related consequences of their policy options, Members emphasise that impact assessments should play a key role throughout the whole policy cycle, from design to implementation, enforcement, evaluation and to the revision of legislation and that they should be considered as a prerequisite for high-quality legislation and correct transposition, application and enforcement.

Parliament stresses that impact assessments are in no way a substitute for political debate and the legislator’s decision-making process. They must respond to a certain number of standards. To summarise, they:

need to be carried out in the early stages of policy development; should be completely independent and should always be based on an objective, reasoned analysis of potential effects; should involve external experts from all policy areas as well as all stakeholder groups affected in the impact assessment process in order to guarantee independence and objectivity; require the maximum of transparency when being drawn up, including the early publication of comprehensive Road Maps of proposed legislation to ensure equal access to the legislative procedure for all stakeholders; should be scrutinised by Member States ex ante , to assess the effects of proposed legislation on national laws and public policies; should be a suitable instrument for verifying the relevance of Commission proposals, and in particular compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and for explaining more clearly to the co-legislators and the public at large the reasons behind opting for a given measure; should quickly identify the problems such as the consultation of the parties concerned, definition of the objectives to be achieved and the elaboration of strategic policy options; should be updated during the course of the legislative process; ensure consistency between policies and activities of the EU by taking all the economic, social and environmental aspects which are to be combined in a single evaluation; examine the potential implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); make an ex-post assessment of the impact of EU legislation on the competitiveness of the European economy, including industrial competitiveness; should look into the European added-value in terms of what savings will result from a European solution and/or what supplementary costs would arise for the Member States in the absence of a European solution; should consider the implications of choosing a specific European standard instead of an international standard; must fully consider the alternatives available to the legislator, which should always include a serious examination of the option of taking no action; should not be abused as a means of holding up unwanted legislation, and technical and administrative conditions should be created to ensure the optimal use of resources; should not take place only before the adoption of a legislative text (ex-ante) but should also be carried out after its adoption (ex-post).

Underlining the Commission's primary responsibility for conducting high quality impact assessments of its proposals when exercising its right of initiative in accordance with the Treaty, Members consider it important for new legislative proposals to be accompanied by an impact assessment . They note that this may also apply to the simplification and recasting of EU law and to delegated acts and implementing acts pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 TFEU.

Potential for improvement at Commission level : Parliament calls for the following measures (i) strengthen the independence of members of the IAB, who must be scrutinized by the European Parliament and the Council prior to appointment and no longer be subject to the instructions of the Commission President; (ii) the involvement of experts from all policy areas as well as all stakeholder groups affected in the IAB's work; call for these experts to come from outside the Commission and not be subject to instructions; (iii) the early and comprehensive involvement of the European Parliament, and in particular of its relevant committees, in the whole impact assessment process and in the work of the IAB; (iv) the Commission should also consult with the Member States, because the latter must later transpose the directives into national law; (v) in the interest of greater transparency, the publication of the names of all experts and other participants in the impact assessment process as well as of their declaration of interests; (vi) look systematically at the administrative burden imposed by proposed legislation, and state clearly which of the options assessed eliminates the most administrative burdens; (vii) not present the results of an impact assessment at the same time as a legislative proposal, as it gives the impression that the principal aim of the impact assessment is to justify the Commission proposal; (viii) assessments be be published in a special publication series by the Commission; (ix) use data that is reliable and comparable.

Potential for improvement at European Parliament level : Members state that considers recourse to a parliamentary impact assessment particularly necessary when substantive changes to the initial proposal have been introduced. Impact assessments need not form part of a time-consuming study but may also take the form of limited studies, workshops and expert hearings. Parliament suggests the following measures: (i) a standard citation should systematically be included by Parliament in its legislative resolutions, by which a reference is made to consideration of all impact assessments conducted by the EU institutions in the areas relevant to the legislation in question; (ii) presentation of the impact assessment by the Commission to the relevant committees; (iii) review of Commission impact assessments by external experts and the holding of special meetings with independent experts. Parliament states that Parliament’s impact assessments should be regarded as a corrective to the Commission’s impact assessments. The decision to carry out a parliamentary impact assessment must be taken in Parliament’s relevant committee with the participation of the rapporteur. In this context, Parliament urges that its Rules of Procedure be amended so as to enable one quarter of the committee’s members to order an impact assessment to be carried out. It also calls for individual Members to have the scope to request small studies to provide them with relevant facts or statistics in areas relating to their parliamentary work, and suggests that such studies may be undertaken by the European Parliament's library to complement its current functions.

Creation of an autonomous impact assessment structure for the European Parliament, and prospects for the future : Members call for the establishment of a common impact assessment procedure to be developed on the basis of a common system and methodology used by all committees. This process should take place under the aegis of an autonomous structure which makes use of the Parliament's own resources, for instance by involving the library and the policy departments. Members call for the necessary administrative infrastructure to be created to this end, making sure that any such infrastructure is budget neutral , by making use of existing resources.

Lastly, Parliament stresses that long-term deliberations should take place on the prospects of a common approach to impact assessments by the European institutions. It regrets that the Commission opposes the idea of a common approach to impact assessment by the European institutions, and it calls on the Council too to make more intensive use of impact assessments, in line with the interinstitutional common approach to impact assessments of 2005.

It should be noted that a proposal by the Greens/EFA group for a replacement resolution was rejected in Plenary.

Documents
2011/06/08
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2011/06/06
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2011/04/18
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2011/04/18
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2011/04/12
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Angelika NIEBLER (EPP, DE) on guaranteeing independent impact assessments.

The report recalls that impact assessments make a positive contribution to the overall enhancement of the quality of EU legislation in the interest of better lawmaking and that the European Parliament has on a number of occasions expressed support for the use of independent impact assessments in the European Union. In this context, Members lay down a series of recommendations on the general requirements for impact assessments at European level with a view to enhancing efficiency and independence.

General requirements for impact assessments at European level : stressing that impact assessments are an important aid to smart and better lawmaking during the whole policy cycle which the makers of EU law should exploit more often in order to help them evaluate more effectively the economic, social, environmental and health related consequences of their policy options, Members emphasise that impact assessments should play a key role throughout the whole policy cycle, from design to implementation, enforcement, evaluation and to the revision of legislation and that they should be considered as a prerequisite for high-quality legislation and correct transposition, application and enforcement.

The report stresses that an impact assessment is in no way a substitute for political debate and the legislator’s decision-making process. They must respond to a certain number of standards. To summarise, they:

need to be carried out in the early stages of policy development; should be completely independent and should always be based on an objective, reasoned analysis of potential effects; should involve external experts from all policy areas as well as all stakeholder groups affected in the impact assessment process in order to guarantee independence and objectivity; require the maximum of transparency when being drawen up, including the early publication of comprehensive Road Maps of proposed legislation to ensure equal access to the legislative procedure for all stakeholders; should be scrutinised by Member States ex ante , to assess the effects of proposed legislation on national laws and public policies; should be a suitable instrument for verifying the relevance of Commission proposals, and in particular compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and for explaining more clearly to the co-legislators and the public at large the reasons behind opting for a given measure; should quickly identify the problems such as the consultation of the parties concerned, definition of the objectives to be achieved and the elaboration of strategic policy options; should be updated during the course of the legislative process; examine the potential implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); should look into the European added-value in terms of what savings will result from a European solution and/or what supplementary costs would arise for the Member States in the absence of a European solution; should consider the implications of choosing a specific European standard instead of an international standard; must fully consider the alternatives available to the legislator, which should always include a serious examination of the option of taking no action; must not lead to more bureaucracy and unnecessary delays in the legislative procedure; should not take place only before the adoption of a legislative text (ex-ante) but should also be carried out after its adoption (ex-post).

Underlining the Commission's primary responsibility for conducting high quality impact assessments of its proposals when exercising its right of initiative in accordance with the Treaty, Members consider it important for new legislative proposals to be accompanied by an impact assessment . They note that this may also apply to the simplification and recasting of EU law and to delegated acts and implementing acts pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 TFEU.

Potential for improvement at Commission level : Members stress that the members of the IAB are independent only in formal terms, since they are currently appointed by and subject to the instructions of the Commission President, and cannot therefore be said to be fully independent. They call, therefore, for the members of the IAB to be scrutinized by the European Parliament and the Council prior to appointment and no longer be subject to the instructions of the Commission President. In the interest of greater transparency, the report calls for the publication of the names of all experts and other participants in the impact assessment process as well as of their declaration of interests. It also calls for the involvement of experts from all policy areas as well as all stakeholder groups affected in the IAB’s work.

Members make other suggestions, such as:

stakeholder groups should be given the opportunity, as part of the public consultation process, to comment on impact assessments, and that this should take place in good time, before the Commission proposal is published; the Commission, in its impact assessments, should look systematically at the administrative burden imposed by proposed legislation, and always to state clearly which of the options assessed eliminates the most administrative burdens or creates fewest new ones; the early publication of documents at every stage of the legislative process, including the publication of the Commission's final impact assessment, as approved by the IAB, before inter-service consultations begins; all completed impact assessments by the Commission should be published in a special publication series by the Commission so that they can easily be referenced and searched by the public on a dedicated website.

Potential for improvement at European Parliament level : Members recall that Parliament should make more consistent use of the parliamentary impact assessment, an instrument which is already available. Recourse to a parliamentary impact assessment is particularly necessary when substantive changes to the initial proposal have been introduced. The report recalls further that impact assessments need not form part of a time-consuming study but may also take the form of limited studies, workshops and expert hearings. A standard citation should systematically be included by Parliament in its legislative resolutions, by which a reference is made to consideration of all impact assessments conducted by the EU institutions in the areas relevant to the legislation in question. The presentation of the impact assessment by the Commission to the relevant committees would be a valuable addition to the scrutiny undertaken in the Parliament according to Members.

The report stresses that Parliament impact assessments should be regarded as a corrective to the Commission’s impact assessments. The decision to carry out a parliamentary impact assessment must be taken in Parliament’s relevant committee with the participation of the rapporteur.

In this context, the report urges that its Rules of Procedure be amended so as to enable one quarter of the committee’s members to order an impact assessment to be carried out . It also calls for individual Members to have the scope to request small studies to provide them with relevant facts or statistics in areas relating to their parliamentary work, and suggests that such studies may be undertaken by the European Parliament's library to complement its current functions.

Creation of an autonomous impact assessment structure for the European Parliament, and prospects for the future : Members call for the establishment of a common impact assessment procedure to be developed on the basis of a common system and methodology used by all committees. This process should take place under the aegis of an autonomous structure which makes use of the Parliament's own resources, for instance by involving the library and the policy departments. Members call for the necessary administrative infrastructure to be created to this end, making sure that any such infrastructure is budget neutral , by making use of existing resources. They have already called for a common methodological approach to impact assessments in the European institutions and they call on the Council to make more intensive use of impact assessments.

2011/03/03
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2010/12/15
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2010/12/02
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2010/11/09
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2010/11/03
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2010/10/07
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2010/04/27
   EP - EPPINK Derk Jan (ECR) appointed as rapporteur in ECON
2010/04/15
   EP - CHICHESTER Giles (ECR) appointed as rapporteur in ITRE
2010/02/11
   EP - CALLANAN Martin (ECR) appointed as rapporteur in ENVI
2010/01/25
   EP - WEILER Barbara (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2010/01/21
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2009/11/09
   EP - NIEBLER Angelika (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in JURI

Documents

Votes

A7-0159/2011 - Angelika Niebler - Résolution

2011/06/08 Outcome: +: 573, 0: 78, -: 22
DE IT FR PL ES GB RO BE HU CZ BG EL SE NL SK LT FI AT DK PT IE SI LV EE LU MT CY
Total
94
63
69
44
45
62
30
20
19
21
16
21
18
24
13
12
13
17
13
16
10
6
7
5
4
4
6
icon: PPE PPE
244

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE

3

Slovenia PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Malta PPE

2
2
icon: S&D S&D
168

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Portugal S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
73

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

2
3

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2
icon: ECR ECR
51

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Hungary ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Denmark ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
25

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

1
icon: NI NI
25

Spain NI

1
5

Romania NI

2

Belgium NI

2

Hungary NI

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
51

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Belgium Verts/ALE

For (1)

4

Greece Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
35

Spain GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Greece GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
AmendmentsDossier
147 2010/2016(INI)
2010/07/01 ECON 4 amendments...
source: PE-445.668
2010/09/14 ENVI 21 amendments...
source: PE-448.834
2010/10/06 ITRE 27 amendments...
source: PE-450.606
2010/11/03 IMCO 15 amendments...
source: PE-452.625
2011/03/03 JURI 80 amendments...
source: PE-460.656

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: NIEBLER Angelika date: 2009-11-09T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2009-11-09T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: NIEBLER Angelika group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
rapporteur
name: EPPINK Derk Jan date: 2010-04-27T00:00:00 group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
date
2010-04-27T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: EPPINK Derk Jan group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
committee
ENVI
rapporteur
name: CALLANAN Martin date: 2010-02-11T00:00:00 group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
committee
ENVI
date
2010-02-11T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CALLANAN Martin group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/4
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
rapporteur
name: CHICHESTER Giles date: 2010-04-15T00:00:00 group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/4
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
date
2010-04-15T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CHICHESTER Giles group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/5
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
rapporteur
name: WEILER Barbara date: 2010-01-25T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/5
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2010-01-25T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WEILER Barbara group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
docs/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-159&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0159_EN.html
docs/7/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-159&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0159_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-259
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0259_EN.html
committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref
4289
activities
  • date: 2010-01-21T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG body: EP responsible: False committee: ECON date: 2010-04-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ECR name: EPPINK Derk Jan body: EP responsible: False committee: ENVI date: 2010-02-11T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: ECR name: CALLANAN Martin body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2010-01-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: S&D name: WEILER Barbara body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2010-04-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: ECR name: CHICHESTER Giles body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: MCCARTHY Arlene group: ALDE name: WIKSTRÖM Cecilia group: Verts/ALE name: ALBRECHT Jan Philipp group: ECR name: ZIOBRO Zbigniew group: GUE/NGL name: MAŠTÁLKA Jiří group: EFD name: SPERONI Francesco Enrico responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2009-11-09T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE name: NIEBLER Angelika body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
  • date: 2011-04-12T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG body: EP responsible: False committee: ECON date: 2010-04-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ECR name: EPPINK Derk Jan body: EP responsible: False committee: ENVI date: 2010-02-11T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: ECR name: CALLANAN Martin body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2010-01-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: S&D name: WEILER Barbara body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2010-04-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: ECR name: CHICHESTER Giles body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: MCCARTHY Arlene group: ALDE name: WIKSTRÖM Cecilia group: Verts/ALE name: ALBRECHT Jan Philipp group: ECR name: ZIOBRO Zbigniew group: GUE/NGL name: MAŠTÁLKA Jiří group: EFD name: SPERONI Francesco Enrico responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2009-11-09T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE name: NIEBLER Angelika body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2011-04-18T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-159&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0159/2011 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2011-06-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110606&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-06-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=20023&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-259 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0259/2011 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Secretariat-General commissioner: BARROSO José Manuel
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2009-11-09T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: NIEBLER Angelika group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
opinion
False
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
ECON
date
2010-04-27T00:00:00
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
rapporteur
group: ECR name: EPPINK Derk Jan
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
date
2010-04-27T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: EPPINK Derk Jan group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
ENVI
date
2010-02-11T00:00:00
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
rapporteur
group: ECR name: CALLANAN Martin
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
committee
ENVI
date
2010-02-11T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CALLANAN Martin group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/3
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
IMCO
date
2010-01-25T00:00:00
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
rapporteur
group: S&D name: WEILER Barbara
committees/4
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
date
2010-04-15T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CHICHESTER Giles group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/4
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
ITRE
date
2010-04-15T00:00:00
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
rapporteur
group: ECR name: CHICHESTER Giles
committees/5
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2010-01-25T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WEILER Barbara group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/5
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
JURI
date
2009-11-09T00:00:00
committee_full
Legal Affairs
rapporteur
group: PPE name: NIEBLER Angelika
committees/6
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
opinion
False
committees/6
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
docs
  • date: 2010-10-07T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE442.974&secondRef=02 title: PE442.974 committee: ECON type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2010-11-03T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE448.644&secondRef=02 title: PE448.644 committee: ITRE type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2010-11-09T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE441.155&secondRef=02 title: PE441.155 committee: ENVI type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2010-12-02T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE448.966&secondRef=02 title: PE448.966 committee: IMCO type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2010-12-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE454.384 title: PE454.384 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2011-03-03T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE460.656 title: PE460.656 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2011-04-18T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-159&language=EN title: A7-0159/2011 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP
  • date: 2011-10-24T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=20023&j=0&l=en title: SP(2011)8071/2 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2010-01-21T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2011-04-12T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Angelika NIEBLER (EPP, DE) on guaranteeing independent impact assessments. The report recalls that impact assessments make a positive contribution to the overall enhancement of the quality of EU legislation in the interest of better lawmaking and that the European Parliament has on a number of occasions expressed support for the use of independent impact assessments in the European Union. In this context, Members lay down a series of recommendations on the general requirements for impact assessments at European level with a view to enhancing efficiency and independence. General requirements for impact assessments at European level : stressing that impact assessments are an important aid to smart and better lawmaking during the whole policy cycle which the makers of EU law should exploit more often in order to help them evaluate more effectively the economic, social, environmental and health related consequences of their policy options, Members emphasise that impact assessments should play a key role throughout the whole policy cycle, from design to implementation, enforcement, evaluation and to the revision of legislation and that they should be considered as a prerequisite for high-quality legislation and correct transposition, application and enforcement. The report stresses that an impact assessment is in no way a substitute for political debate and the legislator’s decision-making process. They must respond to a certain number of standards. To summarise, they: need to be carried out in the early stages of policy development; should be completely independent and should always be based on an objective, reasoned analysis of potential effects; should involve external experts from all policy areas as well as all stakeholder groups affected in the impact assessment process in order to guarantee independence and objectivity; require the maximum of transparency when being drawen up, including the early publication of comprehensive Road Maps of proposed legislation to ensure equal access to the legislative procedure for all stakeholders; should be scrutinised by Member States ex ante , to assess the effects of proposed legislation on national laws and public policies; should be a suitable instrument for verifying the relevance of Commission proposals, and in particular compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and for explaining more clearly to the co-legislators and the public at large the reasons behind opting for a given measure; should quickly identify the problems such as the consultation of the parties concerned, definition of the objectives to be achieved and the elaboration of strategic policy options; should be updated during the course of the legislative process; examine the potential implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); should look into the European added-value in terms of what savings will result from a European solution and/or what supplementary costs would arise for the Member States in the absence of a European solution; should consider the implications of choosing a specific European standard instead of an international standard; must fully consider the alternatives available to the legislator, which should always include a serious examination of the option of taking no action; must not lead to more bureaucracy and unnecessary delays in the legislative procedure; should not take place only before the adoption of a legislative text (ex-ante) but should also be carried out after its adoption (ex-post). Underlining the Commission's primary responsibility for conducting high quality impact assessments of its proposals when exercising its right of initiative in accordance with the Treaty, Members consider it important for new legislative proposals to be accompanied by an impact assessment . They note that this may also apply to the simplification and recasting of EU law and to delegated acts and implementing acts pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 TFEU. Potential for improvement at Commission level : Members stress that the members of the IAB are independent only in formal terms, since they are currently appointed by and subject to the instructions of the Commission President, and cannot therefore be said to be fully independent. They call, therefore, for the members of the IAB to be scrutinized by the European Parliament and the Council prior to appointment and no longer be subject to the instructions of the Commission President. In the interest of greater transparency, the report calls for the publication of the names of all experts and other participants in the impact assessment process as well as of their declaration of interests. It also calls for the involvement of experts from all policy areas as well as all stakeholder groups affected in the IAB’s work. Members make other suggestions, such as: stakeholder groups should be given the opportunity, as part of the public consultation process, to comment on impact assessments, and that this should take place in good time, before the Commission proposal is published; the Commission, in its impact assessments, should look systematically at the administrative burden imposed by proposed legislation, and always to state clearly which of the options assessed eliminates the most administrative burdens or creates fewest new ones; the early publication of documents at every stage of the legislative process, including the publication of the Commission's final impact assessment, as approved by the IAB, before inter-service consultations begins; all completed impact assessments by the Commission should be published in a special publication series by the Commission so that they can easily be referenced and searched by the public on a dedicated website. Potential for improvement at European Parliament level : Members recall that Parliament should make more consistent use of the parliamentary impact assessment, an instrument which is already available. Recourse to a parliamentary impact assessment is particularly necessary when substantive changes to the initial proposal have been introduced. The report recalls further that impact assessments need not form part of a time-consuming study but may also take the form of limited studies, workshops and expert hearings. A standard citation should systematically be included by Parliament in its legislative resolutions, by which a reference is made to consideration of all impact assessments conducted by the EU institutions in the areas relevant to the legislation in question. The presentation of the impact assessment by the Commission to the relevant committees would be a valuable addition to the scrutiny undertaken in the Parliament according to Members. The report stresses that Parliament impact assessments should be regarded as a corrective to the Commission’s impact assessments. The decision to carry out a parliamentary impact assessment must be taken in Parliament’s relevant committee with the participation of the rapporteur. In this context, the report urges that its Rules of Procedure be amended so as to enable one quarter of the committee’s members to order an impact assessment to be carried out . It also calls for individual Members to have the scope to request small studies to provide them with relevant facts or statistics in areas relating to their parliamentary work, and suggests that such studies may be undertaken by the European Parliament's library to complement its current functions. Creation of an autonomous impact assessment structure for the European Parliament, and prospects for the future : Members call for the establishment of a common impact assessment procedure to be developed on the basis of a common system and methodology used by all committees. This process should take place under the aegis of an autonomous structure which makes use of the Parliament's own resources, for instance by involving the library and the policy departments. Members call for the necessary administrative infrastructure to be created to this end, making sure that any such infrastructure is budget neutral , by making use of existing resources. They have already called for a common methodological approach to impact assessments in the European institutions and they call on the Council to make more intensive use of impact assessments.
  • date: 2011-04-18T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-159&language=EN title: A7-0159/2011
  • date: 2011-06-06T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110606&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-06-08T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=20023&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2011-06-08T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-259 title: T7-0259/2011 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 573 votes to 22 with 78 abstentions, a resolution on guaranteeing independent impact assessments. Parliament recalls that impact assessments present a systematic evaluation of the likely effects of legislative action and that it has on a number of occasions expressed support for the use of independent impact assessments in the European Union. In this context, Members lay down a series of recommendations on the general requirements for impact assessments at European level with a view to enhancing efficiency and independence. General requirements for impact assessments at European level : stressing that impact assessments are an important aid to smart and better lawmaking during the whole policy cycle which the makers of EU law should exploit more often in order to help them evaluate more effectively the economic, social, environmental and health related consequences of their policy options, Members emphasise that impact assessments should play a key role throughout the whole policy cycle, from design to implementation, enforcement, evaluation and to the revision of legislation and that they should be considered as a prerequisite for high-quality legislation and correct transposition, application and enforcement. Parliament stresses that impact assessments are in no way a substitute for political debate and the legislator’s decision-making process. They must respond to a certain number of standards. To summarise, they: need to be carried out in the early stages of policy development; should be completely independent and should always be based on an objective, reasoned analysis of potential effects; should involve external experts from all policy areas as well as all stakeholder groups affected in the impact assessment process in order to guarantee independence and objectivity; require the maximum of transparency when being drawn up, including the early publication of comprehensive Road Maps of proposed legislation to ensure equal access to the legislative procedure for all stakeholders; should be scrutinised by Member States ex ante , to assess the effects of proposed legislation on national laws and public policies; should be a suitable instrument for verifying the relevance of Commission proposals, and in particular compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and for explaining more clearly to the co-legislators and the public at large the reasons behind opting for a given measure; should quickly identify the problems such as the consultation of the parties concerned, definition of the objectives to be achieved and the elaboration of strategic policy options; should be updated during the course of the legislative process; ensure consistency between policies and activities of the EU by taking all the economic, social and environmental aspects which are to be combined in a single evaluation; examine the potential implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); make an ex-post assessment of the impact of EU legislation on the competitiveness of the European economy, including industrial competitiveness; should look into the European added-value in terms of what savings will result from a European solution and/or what supplementary costs would arise for the Member States in the absence of a European solution; should consider the implications of choosing a specific European standard instead of an international standard; must fully consider the alternatives available to the legislator, which should always include a serious examination of the option of taking no action; should not be abused as a means of holding up unwanted legislation, and technical and administrative conditions should be created to ensure the optimal use of resources; should not take place only before the adoption of a legislative text (ex-ante) but should also be carried out after its adoption (ex-post). Underlining the Commission's primary responsibility for conducting high quality impact assessments of its proposals when exercising its right of initiative in accordance with the Treaty, Members consider it important for new legislative proposals to be accompanied by an impact assessment . They note that this may also apply to the simplification and recasting of EU law and to delegated acts and implementing acts pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 TFEU. Potential for improvement at Commission level : Parliament calls for the following measures (i) strengthen the independence of members of the IAB, who must be scrutinized by the European Parliament and the Council prior to appointment and no longer be subject to the instructions of the Commission President; (ii) the involvement of experts from all policy areas as well as all stakeholder groups affected in the IAB's work; call for these experts to come from outside the Commission and not be subject to instructions; (iii) the early and comprehensive involvement of the European Parliament, and in particular of its relevant committees, in the whole impact assessment process and in the work of the IAB; (iv) the Commission should also consult with the Member States, because the latter must later transpose the directives into national law; (v) in the interest of greater transparency, the publication of the names of all experts and other participants in the impact assessment process as well as of their declaration of interests; (vi) look systematically at the administrative burden imposed by proposed legislation, and state clearly which of the options assessed eliminates the most administrative burdens; (vii) not present the results of an impact assessment at the same time as a legislative proposal, as it gives the impression that the principal aim of the impact assessment is to justify the Commission proposal; (viii) assessments be be published in a special publication series by the Commission; (ix) use data that is reliable and comparable. Potential for improvement at European Parliament level : Members state that considers recourse to a parliamentary impact assessment particularly necessary when substantive changes to the initial proposal have been introduced. Impact assessments need not form part of a time-consuming study but may also take the form of limited studies, workshops and expert hearings. Parliament suggests the following measures: (i) a standard citation should systematically be included by Parliament in its legislative resolutions, by which a reference is made to consideration of all impact assessments conducted by the EU institutions in the areas relevant to the legislation in question; (ii) presentation of the impact assessment by the Commission to the relevant committees; (iii) review of Commission impact assessments by external experts and the holding of special meetings with independent experts. Parliament states that Parliament’s impact assessments should be regarded as a corrective to the Commission’s impact assessments. The decision to carry out a parliamentary impact assessment must be taken in Parliament’s relevant committee with the participation of the rapporteur. In this context, Parliament urges that its Rules of Procedure be amended so as to enable one quarter of the committee’s members to order an impact assessment to be carried out. It also calls for individual Members to have the scope to request small studies to provide them with relevant facts or statistics in areas relating to their parliamentary work, and suggests that such studies may be undertaken by the European Parliament's library to complement its current functions. Creation of an autonomous impact assessment structure for the European Parliament, and prospects for the future : Members call for the establishment of a common impact assessment procedure to be developed on the basis of a common system and methodology used by all committees. This process should take place under the aegis of an autonomous structure which makes use of the Parliament's own resources, for instance by involving the library and the policy departments. Members call for the necessary administrative infrastructure to be created to this end, making sure that any such infrastructure is budget neutral , by making use of existing resources. Lastly, Parliament stresses that long-term deliberations should take place on the prospects of a common approach to impact assessments by the European institutions. It regrets that the Commission opposes the idea of a common approach to impact assessment by the European institutions, and it calls on the Council too to make more intensive use of impact assessments, in line with the interinstitutional common approach to impact assessments of 2005. It should be noted that a proposal by the Greens/EFA group for a replacement resolution was rejected in Plenary.
  • date: 2011-06-08T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/index_en.htm title: Secretariat-General commissioner: BARROSO José Manuel
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
JURI/7/01634
New
  • JURI/7/01634
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 8.50 EU law
  • 8.50.02 Legislative simplification, coordination, codification
New
8.50
EU law
8.50.02
Legislative simplification, coordination, codification
other/0/dg/title
Old
Secretariat General
New
Secretariat-General
activities
  • date: 2010-01-21T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG body: EP responsible: False committee: ECON date: 2010-04-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ECR name: EPPINK Derk Jan body: EP responsible: False committee: ENVI date: 2010-02-11T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: ECR name: CALLANAN Martin body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2010-01-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: S&D name: WEILER Barbara body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2010-04-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: ECR name: CHICHESTER Giles body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: MCCARTHY Arlene group: ALDE name: WIKSTRÖM Cecilia group: Verts/ALE name: ALBRECHT Jan Philipp group: ECR name: ZIOBRO Zbigniew group: GUE/NGL name: MAŠTÁLKA Jiří group: EFD name: SPERONI Francesco Enrico responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2009-11-09T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE name: NIEBLER Angelika body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
  • date: 2011-04-12T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG body: EP responsible: False committee: ECON date: 2010-04-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ECR name: EPPINK Derk Jan body: EP responsible: False committee: ENVI date: 2010-02-11T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: ECR name: CALLANAN Martin body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2010-01-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: S&D name: WEILER Barbara body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2010-04-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: ECR name: CHICHESTER Giles body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: MCCARTHY Arlene group: ALDE name: WIKSTRÖM Cecilia group: Verts/ALE name: ALBRECHT Jan Philipp group: ECR name: ZIOBRO Zbigniew group: GUE/NGL name: MAŠTÁLKA Jiří group: EFD name: SPERONI Francesco Enrico responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2009-11-09T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE name: NIEBLER Angelika body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2011-04-18T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-159&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0159/2011 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2011-06-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110606&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-06-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=20023&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-259 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0259/2011 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: ECON date: 2010-04-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: ECR name: EPPINK Derk Jan
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: ENVI date: 2010-02-11T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: ECR name: CALLANAN Martin
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2010-01-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: S&D name: WEILER Barbara
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2010-04-15T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: ECR name: CHICHESTER Giles
  • body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: MCCARTHY Arlene group: ALDE name: WIKSTRÖM Cecilia group: Verts/ALE name: ALBRECHT Jan Philipp group: ECR name: ZIOBRO Zbigniew group: GUE/NGL name: MAŠTÁLKA Jiří group: EFD name: SPERONI Francesco Enrico responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2009-11-09T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE name: NIEBLER Angelika
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/index_en.htm title: Secretariat General commissioner: BARROSO José Manuel
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
JURI/7/01634
reference
2010/2016(INI)
title
Guaranteeing independent impact assessments
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Initiative
Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject