EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 620: Non-paper fra den danske regering til Junckers task force om nærhedsprincippet

Europaudvalget 2017-18
EUU Alm.del Bilag 620
Offentligt

Non-paper: Danish input to the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and

Doing Less More Efficiently

Denmark welcomes the Commission’s work on better regulation in line with the logic of “Big on big;

small on small”. By implementing this logic, we can ensure efficient cooperation and enhance public

support for the Union.

Denmark supports the work of the Task Force. It is imperative that we remain focused on ensuring

that EU regulation is fit for purpose. Denmark supports a strong, lean and effective Union that

respects the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and concentrates on the challenges that we

must handle together. Decisions should be made as close to the citizens as possible, and the EU should

refrain from regulating areas where Member States can attain similar objectives more smoothly at the

national level. We favour an approach that consistently evaluates and assesses whether EU law is

necessary.

On that basis, we have identified two questions that could be subject to closer examination by the Task

Force:

1. Does EU legislation take national circumstances, legislative traditions and models sufficiently

into consideration?

2. Is EU legislation unnecessarily complex, hindering compliance and increasing administrative

costs?

Closely related, Denmark recommends that more effort is put into the implementation and

enforcement of EU legislation. Without proper implementation across and within all Member States,

the level playing field created by the Single Market is undermined, while the legitimacy of EU legislation

is open to questioning.

While the Task Force should primarily focus on streamlining legislation, it must not overlook those

non-legislative EU initiatives that in certain cases are time consuming in terms of the negotiation

process and burdensome to implement. Bearing that in mind, we find that there is room for

improvement with regard to the Commissions’ use of Recommendations in areas where the EU has

limited competence.

Taking national circumstances, legislative traditions and models into consideration

In line with the “big on big, small on small” mantra of the Commission, EU regulation should be

focused on the areas where results are best achieved by acting together. Where appropriate, Member

States should have room to implement EU legislation in a way that does not impede the functioning of

national solutions and which takes into account relevant national circumstances. It is crucial to avoid

unnecessary levels of detail in both existing and new legislation as well as other policy instruments.

Examples

- The Commission proposal regarding a

Directive on improving gender balance among non-executive

directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures

will, if passed, oblige Member States

to ensure that listed companies implement predetermined, clear, neutrally formulated and

unambiguous designation criteria in order to achieve a target of 40 pct. for the under-

represented gender. While the goal – increased gender balance – can be supported, Denmark

does not see a need for regulating the issue across borders. Denmark believes that companies

should be able to set their own goals for the gender composition of the board and that the

companies themselves should determine how best this goal is achieved. This is exactly the

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 620: Non-paper fra den danske regering til Junckers task force om nærhedsprincippet

intention of the Danish model for increasing gender equality on the boards of the largest

companies.

In recent years, there have been a number of examples of legislative proposals and adopted

legal acts proposing or prescribing a specific type of penalty – including

whether a given penalty is to

be of an administrative or criminal nature

– with a view to ensuring compliance with substantive

provisions of the legal act concerned. However, the determination of a given type of penalty for

infringement of statutory provisions ought to be a matter for the Member States who can then

ensure that the type of penalty is in line with national rules and legal traditions.

In the area of

Employment and Social Affairs,

we believe that the Commission should prioritise

taking into account national labour markets and social models. In previous years, the Nordic

social model has been challenged by EU regulation that in some cases has undermined the

model’s crucial flexibility by prescribing “one size fits all” solutions. An example of this is the

Directive on Work-Life Balance which is currently being negotiated in the Council.

The Commission’s 2017 proposal for a

Regulation on common rules for access to the international market

for coach and bus services

suggested that EU legislation regulates domestic bus routes. Denmark

finds that local and regional conditions are in these cases better catered for in the Member

States.

In terms of taking national circumstances into account, the

EU Water Regulation

is an example

of an area where it should be considered whether sufficiently account has been taken of the

diversity of challenges and ecosystems in the individual Member States. Positive lessons could

be drawn from the regional differentiation in various aspects of the implementation of the

marine strategy framework Directive.

With the

Directive on accessibility requirements of products and services,

accessibility is regulated

horizontally, but many member states regulate accessibility in sector specific legislation. The

proposed Directive thus disrupts the typical way of organising national legislation. In addition,

the Commission has not provided an impact assessment that clearly and in a convincing

manner concludes that EU legislation is necessary to enhance accessibility.

Unnecessary complexity of EU legislation

It goes without saying that we should avoid EU regulation that is unnecessarily bureaucratic. Much has

been done in this area over the past years. However, there are areas where compliance with EU

regulation could be smoother, and where the level of complexity should be reduced. When complexity

is high, implementation in Member States can be difficult. Therefore, there is a risk that too many

resources are spent, and that the added value of EU-level action is undermined.

Examples

Minimum standards for physical and mental fitness for driving (Annex 3 in Directive 2006/126/EC)

have

been revised expansively during the past years. It seems to be an ongoing development. Some

of the standards on health conditions concerning specific diseases are extremely detailed, while

other standards are more general and less detailed. In some cases the extensively detailed

revisions are highly bureaucratic to implement where former national practice has reached the

purpose of the rules in a satisfying way. Examples of minimum standards that are regulated in

great detail are standards for eyesight, cardiovascular diseases, and obstructive sleep apnoea

syndrome.

- An example of the importance of not duplicating already existing provisions is the revision of

the renewable energy directive

that includes sector specific rules concerning the use of state aid to

support renewable energy in the Member States. However, this is already regulated in the Treaty

and the Commission’s state aid guidelines concerning environmental protection and energy.

EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 620: Non-paper fra den danske regering til Junckers task force om nærhedsprincippet

Adding state aid rules to the individual sector specific directives has limited added value yet it

adds another layer of unnecessary complexity.

Sector specific ePrivacy regulation:

Attempts to revise current legislation often make the rules more

complex rather than simplifying them. As an example, the current proposed revision of the

ePrivacy rules is both technically complex and difficult to understand. By maintaining sector

specific regulation in areas where general legislation exists (i.e. GDPR), it is complicated for

both citizens and businesses to navigate within the total set of rules. The combination of

complex

and

overlapping rules risks making it difficult and burdensome to be compliant,

especially for businesses.

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP):

The current CAP contains a large number of detailed rules for

farmers with some rules even specifying the size of hedges on a farmer’s field. It is therefore

positive that the Commission’s Communication on the Future of Food and Farming takes a

step in the right direction and states that there is a need for simplification, greater subsidiarity

and the abandonment of the “one size fits all” approach.