Presenting the “EU Regulatory Quality Index”

By
BrusselsReport.eu
-

By Constantinos Saravakos, a doctoral candidate in international and European studies at the University of Macedonia and head of research at Greek think tank KEFiM. He is a co-author of the newly released “EU Regulatory Quality Index“, which evaluates how well recent EU directives adhere to the principles of better regulation, published by think tank EPICENTER. 

If an average layman tries to read an EU directive, very soon they will be frustrated. They start with good will to read and understand, but after a few paragraphs they are already lost inside long sentences packed with commas, subclauses, and legal turns. A law that takes six hours for a non-expert to read, but still avoids addressing costs, SME impacts, or territorial consequences, is not a good law. It is a long and complex one. EPICENTER’s recent report on better regulation and the” EU Regulatory Quality Index”, which I have co-authored, analyses the EU directives adopted between 2022 and 2024. It shows that the average sentence contains almost 39 words. That is almost twice the recommended limit for clear public writing, since many paragraphs amount to just one sentence, stretching over 250 characters. For ordinary citizens and small businesses, this seems to be less a regulation and more a puzzle.

A key concept of better regulation, an agenda the EU has adopted to enforce more effective regulation, is that when rules become harder to read, they also become harder to follow. The EU continues to produce texts that are unnecessarily dense, overloaded with details, and far from plain language guidance. The core problem here is not only how the length of the laws, but the fact that this way of regulation still reflects a culture that treats complexity as a sign of seriousness. However, this culture keeps, business, public administrators, and citizens away from what happens in Brussels. Everyone sees complexity, not clarity.

The combination of complex and many regulations make the problem bigger. A recent realisation in EU is that our economy does not need more rules; it needs fewer and clearer ones. And for that to happen, simplification must move from a political slogan to a real habit in lawmaking. The  recent adoption of SME Relief Package showcases that EU is trying to simplify the rules itself imposed at the first place.

These are some of the main reasons is important for EU to improve its regulatory quality.  Although EU institutions often follow the “letter” of better regulation, namely, it ticks boxes for consultation or publishing a short explanation of subsidiarity, at the same time it misses the “spirit” of what good lawmaking means. For example, our study finds that only 6.6% of EU directives included a roadmap, even though this is supposed to be the starting point for designing a coherent policy. Less than half had an inception impact assessment. These tools are meant to force clarity, as better regulation best practices suggest. They describe what is the problem, what evidence supports it, what options exist, and what impacts should we expect; instead, they are often absent, leaving policies built on a weak or unclear foundation.

Europe has already learned that overregulation and unclear rules erode trust. When businesses and citizens see pages of technical language they cannot understand, they assume something is being hidden. The compliance and opportunity costs are high, since business hire experts just to understand what a package requires. When businesses struggle to interpret obligations, there is both a monetary cost and a loss of confidence. The fact that member states are not too keen to timely adopt the regulations shows that they receive laws without clear implementation guidance or proper evidence behind them. According to our study, only 44% of directives were transposed on time, which highlights not only a compliance failure, but also a sign that laws are too complex to implement smoothly. On top of that, EU regulation comes on top of domestic overregulation and is often combined with gold-plating, which severely adds to the administrative costs in each country business environment.

Even if typical processes are ticked, EU needs to practically address the areas where regulation falls short.

First, EU institutions need stricter drafting rules to reduce legal complexity, such as shorter sentences, fewer embedded clauses, and a clear message on what is required. Clear is a crucial part of making laws fair and effective.

Second, simplification programmes must return as a priority and be included in impact assessments for all regulations. New regulations should make things easier and explain the way they do it in the accompanied reports.

Third, evidence has to carry real weight again, by requiring robust impact assessments. They need to be complete, transparent, and used from the earliest stage, was well as, to be used for ex-post evaluation of the laws. If targets are not met or estimations turn out wrong, future regulations should address these inefficiencies and be grounded fully in evidence-based policymaking.

The European economy needs to shift from being big a regulatory power to becoming a smart regulatory player, that attracts businesses and people to build their future here. For this, the rules of the game must be understandable, grounded in evidence, and limited to what is necessary. If the EU wants to rebuild trust and support good policies, it should start with a simple commitment: write less, write clearer, and write with evidence – not with excessive words.

 

Disclaimer: www.BrusselsReport.eu will under no circumstance be held legally responsible or liable for the content of any article appearing on the website, as only the author of an article is legally responsible for that, also in accordance with the terms of use.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR