Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:35:23.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EU Review Clauses in Need of Review? An Analysis of Review Clauses in EU Legislation in the Context of Better Lawmaking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2017

Martin WEBER ,
Nicholas EDWARDS  and
Stephan HUBER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 8 , Issue 1: Cambridge Inaugural Issue: The Past, Present And Future of Risk Regulation , March 2017 , pp. 121 - 139
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Martin Weber is the Director in charge of one of the audit chambers of the European Court of Auditors in Luxembourg. Nicholas Edwards works as performance auditor in the same chamber. Stephan Huber is Head of Unit of the Policy Cycle Unit in the European Parliament’s Research Service. This text expresses the personal opinion of the authors, and does not bind their respective Institutions. The authors are grateful to Katherine Hughes, Lorna Schrefler, Gertrud Malmersjo and Ivana Kiendl Kristo who have provided valuable research support.

References

1 European Commission, “Better Regulation Guidelines”, 2015, p. 49, available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/docs/swd_br_guidelines_en.pdf> (accessed 6 January 2017).

2 Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation, Final Report, 13 November 2001, 17 et sqq; point 2.3, available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/better_regulation/documents/mandelkern_report.pdf> (accessed 6 January 2017).

3 Interinstitutional Agreement of the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission on Better Law-Making, OJ C321; 31.12.2003, para. 21, available at: <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32003Q1231(01)> (accessed 6 January 2017).

4 Supra, note 1, 49.

5 European Commission, “Better Regulation: REFIT – Making EU law lighter, simpler and less costly”, website last updated 17.12, available at <http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/index_en.htm>.

6 Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission, 09.03.2016; paras. 20, 22 and 23, available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/better_regulation/key_docs_en.htm>.

7 European Parliament resolution of on Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): State of Play and Outlook, 12 April 2016, point 4.

8 I Kiendl Krišto and S Huber, Review Clauses in EU Legislation: A rolling Checklist (3rd edn, European Parliament, EPRS 2015), available at: <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/573286/EPRS_STU(2015)573286_ EN.pdf>.

9 L Schrefler and S Huber, Evaluation in the European Commission: Rolling Check-list and State of Play (European Parliament, EPRS 2015), available at: <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_STU(2015)558789>.

10 European Commission, Database of evaluation files, 2014, available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/evaluation/search/search.do>.

11 For the purpose of our analysis, we have considered the terms “evaluation” and “evaluation report” to be synonymous.

12 European Commission, “What is an evaluation and when is it required?”, 2015, available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_36_en.htm>.

13 European Commission, “Guidelines on evaluations and fitness check”, 2015, available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/ug_chap6_en.htm> (accessed 11 January 2016).

14 Percentages in the text may add up to over 100%, since two terms are sometimes used in conjunction (e.g. review and report).

15 Supra, note 6, para. 20.

16 The Magenta Book: Guidance for Evaluation (HM Treasury April 2011), available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220542/magenta_book_combined.pdf>.

17 The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government (HM Treasury April 2011), available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220541/green_book_complete.pdf>.

18 Better Regulation Framework Manual: Practical Guidance for UK Government Officials (UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills March 2015), available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/468831/bis-13-1038-Better-regulation-framework-manual.pdf>.

19 UK Regulatory Policy Committee, “Research and Analysis: costs and benefits of new regulation”, updated 10 March 2016, available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/costs-and-benefits-of-new-regulation-regulatory-policy-committee-opinions-since-may-2015/costs-and-benefits-of-new-regulation>.

20 Supra, note 10.

21 Supra, note 9.

22 Supra, note 12.

23 Supra, note 1, Chapter V, para. 2.

24 European Commission, “Better regulation in the Commission”, 2015, available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/ug_chap1_en.htm)> (accessed 6 January 2017).

25 Supra, note 24.

26 Supra, note 9.

27 See in this context also the positive trend shown in Table 4.