Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making

Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making
Name	Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making
Abbreviation	IIA Better Law-making
Type	Interinstitutional agreement
Parties	European Commission; European Parliament; Council of the European Union
Adopted	13 April 2016
Jurisdiction	European Union
Languages	English language, French language, German language
Status	In force

Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making The Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making is a 2016 accord between the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union that sets standards and procedures for legislative planning, impact assessment and evaluation across the European Union. It updates prior arrangements linked to the Lisbon Treaty era, aligning work programmes and improving coherence among the Juncker Commission, the European Council (EU) and the European Court of Auditors' expectations. The Agreement seeks to harmonize practices to enhance transparency, stakeholder consultation and evidence-based decision-making across EU policymaking institutions such as the European External Action Service and agencies like the European Medicines Agency.

Background and Objectives

The Agreement responds to reforms initiated after the Treaty of Lisbon and policy debates involving the Juncker Commission, the 8th European Parliament and successive presidencies of the Council of the European Union such as the 2016 Dutch Presidency. It builds on instruments like the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2003 and is influenced by critiques from the European Court of Auditors and reports by the European Ombudsman stressing improved impact assessment, better evaluation and coherent regulatory fitness exercises such as REFIT. The primary objectives include enhancing legislative quality, promoting systematic impact assessment, strengthening stakeholder consultation involving actors like the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, and supporting scrutiny by national parliaments of the European Union.

Scope and Applicability

The Agreement applies to legislative and delegated acts proposed by the European Commission, to the examination and amendment procedures in the European Parliament and to the co-decision processes involving the Council of the European Union. It covers initiatives across policy areas involving institutions including the European Central Bank when relevant, agencies such as the European Environment Agency, and external partners like the World Trade Organization in trade-related dossiers. The scope extends to impact assessments, evaluations, fitness checks under REFIT, and interinstitutional coordination with bodies like the European Investment Bank where legislative frameworks intersect.

Key Provisions and Principles

Core provisions emphasize evidence-based policymaking, transparency, proportionality, subsidiarity and better regulation principles promoted by the European Commission Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness portfolio and oversight by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs. The Agreement mandates quality control of impact assessments, systematic stakeholder consultation with groups such as BusinessEurope and European Public Health Alliance, and the publication of roadmaps and inception impact assessments reminiscent of practices endorsed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Principles include foreseeability for legislative planning, coordination with the European Council (EU) strategic priorities, and alignment with international obligations under treaties like the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Institutional Roles and Responsibilities

The European Commission is responsible for preparing roadmaps, inception impact assessments and full impact assessments, coordinating with directorates-general and agencies such as the European Chemicals Agency. The European Parliament is tasked with scrutiny through committees including the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, while the Council of the European Union organizes working group reviews and adopts positions through its Council configurations. Oversight roles are exercised by the European Court of Auditors and the European Ombudsman, with consultative input from advisory bodies such as the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

Implementation Mechanisms and Procedures

Mechanisms include publication of annual work programmes, exchange of information on timing and priority-setting, joint meetings of good-lawmaking coordinators, and trilogue practices involving the COREPER where procedural alignment is sought. Procedures mandate early consultations, timing commitments for comitology and delegated acts, and the use of evaluation reports and fitness checks to feed revision cycles analogous to processes in the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT). The Agreement foresees use of impact assessment boards and quality assurance comparable to mechanisms used by the OECD and international standard-setters.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

Monitoring is conducted through reporting obligations, publication of evaluation plans and annual monitoring reports by the European Commission, with scrutiny from the European Parliament's scrutiny reserve and audits by the European Court of Auditors. Evaluation uses indicators, baseline data and performance reviews and interfaces with programmes like Horizon 2020 and processes under the Multiannual Financial Framework when legislative measures have budgetary implications. Reporting cycles aim to feed revision proposals, REFIT initiatives and to inform positions taken by the European Council and national governments represented in COREPER.

Impact, Criticism and Reform Proposals

The Agreement has been credited with increasing transparency and coordination between the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, and with improving practices for agencies such as the European Medicines Agency and the European Chemicals Agency. Criticism from stakeholders including trade unions, NGOs and some national parliaments focuses on perceived procedural complexity, limited enforcement and the persistence of political priorities overriding impact evidence, prompting reform proposals from entities like the European Ombudsman, think tanks in Brussels, and academic critiques from universities such as College of Europe and European University Institute. Suggested reforms include stronger enforcement mechanisms, clearer timelines in the Multiannual Financial Framework context, enhanced stakeholder access exemplified by proposals from Transparency International and integration with digital platforms used by institutions like the European Commission Digital Single Market initiative.

Category:European Union law