House of Lords - European Union - Twenty-Second Report

Select Committee on European Union Twenty-Second Report

CHAPTER 3: Inside the Commission

20. While the right of initiative is not a power to legislate, the Commission's right of initiative gives it real power in the legislative process. When deciding whether and when to bring forward a proposal, it may select from among competing ideas. It determines the form and content of a draft measure. If an idea for legislation is put forward which the Commission does not wish to pursue or prioritise, there will be no legislation. Taking account of the reinforcing provisions mentioned by Professor Rasmussen (see para 14 above)—the power to amend and withdraw proposals, and the requirement for unanimity for the Council to amend proposals without Commission approval—the Commission is, as Sir Kim Darroch (the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to the EU) told us, "de facto in a strong position as the sole initiator of legislation". (Q 261)

21. Even if legislation is adopted which calls for a further proposal from the Commission by a specified date, that will not necessarily result in a draft coming forward by that date. Professor Rasmussen explained that such provisions may, for example, be written into legislation by the Council or the European Parliament as a compromise to enable legislation to be adopted, leaving remaining matters to be decided later. (Q 12) But the Commission does not always bring forward proposals in response to such legislation. Professor Peers gave the example of the Regulation[10] on access to documents, which, at the prompting of the European Parliament, included a clause requiring the Commission to review the legislation after three years. The Parliament expected amendments to be proposed but the Commission declined to do so. (Q 41) Catherine Day acknowledged that "it sounds like we are very naughty and disobedient" but said that in the Commission's view "it is not possible to instruct the Commission to come forward with a proposal … and we have the right to say no." (Q 383) (This view is no doubt based on the Commission's independent right of action, guaranteed by Article 215 TEC; the right, conferred on it by the Treaties, to propose legislation should not be over-ridden by legislation made under the Treaties.)

POLICY-MAKING NETWORKS

22. In the Commission, as in any policy-making body, policy is not developed in a vacuum. As Lord Brittan of Spennithorne put it: "the people who are working in the Commission department are not operating in thin air…They do not sit with a blank piece of paper in front of them and think 'What shall we suggest?'". (Q 59) In Lord Kinnock's view, "The development of ideas … comes with the assistance, or sometimes at the prompting, of a wide network of contacts". (Q 101) Richard Corbett MEP (Deputy Leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party) noted (referring to government generally) that in practice the role of initiating legislation is usually taken by the executive branch of government, even where that right is traditionally associated with the legislature. But like many of our witnesses he went on to note that the Commission's monopoly on drafting proposals did not equate to a monopoly of ideas. (p 139)

TRACING THE SOURCES

23. The Commission has itself analysed the origins of legislation that it has proposed, by reference to a number of sources, as set out in the following table.

TABLE 1

Exercise of the Commission's Right of Initiative in 1998

	Number of proposals	%
Adaptation of Community law to the development of scientific, economic or social data (of which 15 per cent are also responses to requests from other EU bodies)	129	35
International obligations entered into by the Community	118	31
Response to an express request from other EU bodies, Member States or economic operators	63	17
Mandatory instruments under the Treaty or secondary law	46	12
New initiatives from the Commission	18	5

Source: Contribution from Mr Barnier and Mr Vitorino to the European Convention, 3 September 2002.

24. Lord Kinnock drew particular attention to these analyses. He pointed out that they showed that only what he called a "minor proportion" of the output of the Commission was found to relate to purely original Commission initiatives. (Q 100)

25. We were told that a similar analysis, carried out subsequently by the Commission, showed much the same picture. Catherine Day explained that the Commission does not carry out this kind of research regularly but only ad hoc for the Commission's purposes. (Q 386)

26. Is the table representative? A degree of caution is necessary when interpreting a table of this kind. Professor Rasmussen noted that, as the compiler of the analyses, the Commission might have thought it advisable to play down its own role as originator of proposals and that might have influenced its categorisation. (Q 10)

27. Sir Kim Darroch did not find the small proportion of proposals, attributed (according to Table 1) to thinking by Commission officials, improbable, given the categories used in the Commission's analysis. He described the huge amount of discussion, lobbying and interaction that goes on "in this town" [that is, Brussels] in a comparatively open environment, whether from Member States, the business community, trade unions, other non-governmental organisations, or consumers. (Q 295)

28. In any event, it is clear that the boundaries between the categories used in the Commission's table are permeable. For example, the adaptation of legislation because of scientific or other developments may overlap with the category of legislation prompted by existing legislation, or might be attributable to an initiative from within the relevant part of the Commission.

29. The categories helpfully direct attention to the fact that there are multiple sources. Professor Maria Kaiafa-Gbandi (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki) and Athina Giannakoula (also of that University) considered that it was important to consider existing legislation, which may require or call on the Commission to bring forward further legislation. (p 149) Such provisions are presumably within the Commission's category of "mandatory instruments" although, as we have noted (paragraph 21), the Commission does not in fact regard an express requirement in legislation as mandatory. The category of legislation required by virtue of international obligations entered into by the EU might also be considered as falling within the category of mandatory measures.

30. Dr Christina Eckes (Lecturer, University of Surrey) drew attention to another set of measures which might be regarded as mandatory, namely, legislation made under Article 301 TEC imposing economic and other sanctions. Article 301 provides that where a measure has been adopted by the EU in the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) providing for the European Community to take action to impose economic sanctions against a third country, "the Council shall take the necessary urgent measures … on a proposal from the Commission". The CFSP measure sends a very strong signal, if not a legally binding one, to the Community—and to the Commission, in particular—that legislation must be initiated and adopted in the first pillar. This example illustrates that, to the extent that there are measures falling into the category of mandatory legislation, there are exceptions to the Commission's monopoly of initiative in the first pillar since, as Dr Eckes notes in the case of sanctions, the Commission's right of initiative is severely restricted. (pp 142-144)

31. The category of responses to requests from other EU bodies, Member States or economic operators clearly covers a lot of ground. We consider these sources in the following Chapters.

ONE SOURCE AMONG MANY

32. The Commission was surely right to say that: "The rationale for legislation comes from many sources." (p 86) Their analyses illustrate that, although there is (for most purposes) a single source of formal legislative proposals, there is no single source of ideas which prompt those proposals.

33. Many witnesses pointed out that the Commission is one actor among many. As Richard Corbett MEP put it: "The adoption of Commission legislative proposals does not take place in a vacuum". (p 139) It works both in a formal institutional framework and within informal networks of political actors.

34. The Commission sees the current position as "a system … where legislation results from a complex interplay of different actors". (p 86) From its point of view, its role is "to sift through the ideas, to make a judgement between competing interests, and to apply the test of the common European interest. Then it takes its responsibility to make the final choice on whether to make a legislative initiative, and if so at what point and with what content". (p 87)

35. The Commission gave the current package of measures on climate change as an illustration. In January 2008, the Commission put forward proposals for a complex and far-reaching set of measures to address the issue of climate change and the development of renewable energy. It describes the origins of the package (p 87) as including:

positions taken by the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council of Ministers;

consultations and meetings with stakeholders;

the international context, taking into account the need for renegotiation of the Kyoto Protocol by 2012; and

the wider public and media debate which proved influential in creating political momentum behind an ambitious approach.

AN EVOLVING ROLE

36. The role of the Commission in initiating policy and legislation had changed "enormously" since the days of the smaller EU, Catherine Day thought. It was no longer a question of "churning out" a lot of detailed proposals. Increasingly the Commission is now trying to simplify and consolidate the framework of legislation. (Q 352) There may still be some way to go. David Harley (Deputy Secretary General of the European Parliament) said that, from the perspective of the European Parliament, there was no slackening off in the Commission's production of draft legislation. "In the parliamentary committees there is still, as we see it, as much legislation coming through". (Q 395)

37. In Catherine Day's view, the Commission's role is "more and more in terms of dealing with big, long-term issues"—issues that Member States cannot deal with on their own; and to act as a catalyst, to stimulate Member State thinking, whether in relation to specific legislative proposals or broader policy development. The Commission seeks to put a well-argued paper on the table and "even if they do not all like it, it gives them something to define themselves around". (QQ 352, 354) The Commission increasingly seeks to add value by analysing and mapping out strategies for dealing with the big issues, a very different role from when the internal market was being developed. "If you think of the big projects that the Union has successfully done, whether it is the internal market, the single currency or enlargement, these are all 20-year plus projects." (Q 352) We note that, in this respect, the Commission is asserting a role in relation to long-term planning not dissimilar to, and so overlapping or combining with, that undertaken by the European Council and the Council of Ministers.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE CULTURE

38. A number of witnesses commented that the Commission should concentrate on doing fewer things better. Against that background we asked whether the culture of the Commission encouraged ambitious officials to bring forward ideas for legislation. Lord Brittan thought that was possible in areas where legislation is part of core business: "I suppose people would think that if they did not come up with anything, people would think that they had not done very well". But there were systems which sifted the ideas. As the Commissioner responsible for financial services, "I would not allow them [i.e. officials] to waste their time coming up with ideas, however clever or brilliant they were, if they stood no chance of getting anywhere". Lord Brittan also pointed out that parts of the Commission are not much concerned with legislation. "Anyone in the competition or foreign trade areas would think it daft to be judged by the number of legislative proposals they put forward." (QQ 60, 65)

39. Lord Kinnock thought the culture differed depending on the directorate general concerned. In the Directorate General for Transport for which he had been responsible, "people were encouraged to come up with good ideas". But they had to be practical. He gave two examples of legislation where the original idea was brought forward by an official in the Commission. One was the programme called Project Action for Combined Transport which was conceived by an "expert and enthusiast" in the Directorate General in the late 1990s. The other was legislation requiring airlines to compensate passengers who are "bumped" off flights due to over-booking by the airline, the idea for which formed in the mind of an official who observed bumping in practice. (Q 102) Lord Kinnock noted, however, that an "ill-judged proposal, either in terms of its quality, in terms of its refinement or in terms of its timing, will probably find its way into the sand". (Q 106)

40. Chris Welsh (General Manager of Campaigns, Freight Transport Association) said that individual officials had considerable responsibility and therefore influence, as they are able to promote legislation up to heads of unit, in particular if the proposal is consistent with the grain of Commission policy. When lobbying the Commission, he found working with a bright young administrator who wants to get things done was a good way of promoting legislation. (Q 176)

41. Professor Rasmussen thought it was difficult to say whether the culture of the Commission put pressure on officials to put forward proposals. But she noted that the current Commission, under the Presidency of Mr Barroso, had not launched many entirely new proposals; much of what was going on related to simplification of existing legislation. In current circumstances at least, she thought "it would be very hard for a Commission official sitting in a DG [directorate general] speculating, 'If I launch this new proposal, I would promote my career', because there is not much ground now for new proposals". (Q 32)

42. The Minister for Europe, Jim Murphy MP, thought the European Institutions generally still had "pro-activist instincts" and the most effective officials were attracted by that aspect of the culture of the Commission. (Q 452) Lord Kinnock was less concerned. He thought that under the presidencies of Mr Prodi and Mr Barroso, the Commission has tended to take an approach based on "less is better" and placed greater emphasis on self-regulation (that is, getting effective results without legislation). (Q 118)

Development of proposals

STRATEGIC PLANNING

43. On entering office, every Commission sets out its objectives for its five-year term of office. This takes account of existing multi-annual programmes established by the Council and of debates in the European Parliament in the period before the appointment of the Commissioners (by the Council). (p 109) The European Parliament has influence at this stage through its role in the process of appointing the Commissioners. Under Article 214 TEC, the Parliament must give its approval to the members of the Commission.

44. The Commission sets out its Annual Policy Strategy for the year ahead.[11] There is a system of structured dialogue between the Commission, the Council and the Parliament to inform the content of the Strategy. Each Commissioner discusses matters within her portfolio with the relevant committee of the European Parliament. (p 109)[12]

ANALYSIS AND CONSULTATION

45. Catherine Day told us that "When we are at the beginning of developing a new policy, if we have a feeling that there is an issue which is problematic and where the Union is the right level to try to address it, then we would normally start by doing an analysis and putting that analysis out for consultation." Deciding how to tackle the issue is an iterative, and elaborate, process. (Q 357) On technical matters—for example, in relation to technical standards or environmental issues—the Commission draws on the work of its Joint Research Centre, a source of scientific research and information. (Q 379)

46. Catherine Day explained that, within the Commission, "we are doing a lot of intensive upstream coordination now working, under the instruction of the President, with all the major DGs on all the major policy initiatives to make sure that they have involved everybody who needs to be involved and that we do the trade-off between different legitimate policy considerations months before things come for final adoption" (Q 373). The Commission saw this as representing a change from earlier years and requiring a different kind of skill in Commission officials. Then, "you had somebody who was an expert working quietly in their office"; now, you need someone capable of "chairing a meeting of 200 stakeholders which might be very unruly. For us, it is also a voyage of discovery …". Catherine Day acknowledged that experience of this way of working is longer established in some areas of the Commission than others. (Q 370)

47. The Commission has prescribed standards of consultation.[13] Professor Peers explained that "Behind any significant set of proposals, there is often some form of consultation—a green paper or white paper, or just a consultation paper, as well as impact assessments—the results of which are published on the Commission's website". He considered that these are genuine consultations (Q 44). The Government consider that the Commission has made considerable efforts to hear and respond to the views of stakeholders and that, in most cases, the Commission has complied with its own standards for consultation. Improvements could be made, notably in engaging with small and medium-sized enterprises. (pp 112-113) The Commission publishes at least a summary of responses to its consultations. (Q 370).

48. William Sleath (Secretariat General of the Commission) pointed to a number of other opportunities in the pre-legislative stage for stakeholders to make their views known. In certain areas, the Commission has "developed quite a close relationship with particular stakeholder groups". (Q 369) This can lead to discussion of a draft text in the development stage.

49. The Council of Europe has a position of particular significance in the development of EU legislation, which is now the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding.[14] The Memorandum acknowledges that that Council of Europe remains the benchmark for human rights protection and the rule of law and democracy in Europe. It contains guidelines for increased cooperation between the EU and the Council, and foresees consultations at an early stage in the elaboration of standards in the area of human rights and fundamental freedoms, with a view to ensuring the consistency between EU law and the relevant Council of Europe standards. Such consultations may take place with the Commission while legislation is under development. (p 141)

50. The Bar Council of England and Wales raised with us a problem in the Commission's choice of stakeholder representatives with whom to have a dialogue. At the first meeting of the Justice Forum, recently established by the Commission, pan-European associations were represented but there were no places for representatives of national stakeholders. Having regard to the different legal systems in the EU, this limited the value of the Forum. (p 52) Catherine Day acknowledged that the Commission can have difficulties ensuring a fair representation of interests. "We sometimes insist on only having representatives from organisations that are established in several Member States." But she continued, "We have to try not to be too rigid about these things. What is important for us is to be genuinely representative." She undertook to look into the particular issue raised by the Bar Council. (Q 371)

JUSTICE AND THE COMMON LAW

51. The Bar Council pointed out that the exclusion of national stakeholders from the Justice Forum carried the risk, in particular, that the voice of the common law systems[15] would not be heard. They drew our attention to a lack of knowledge of common law systems among Commission officials, and problems which occurred where draft legislation, particularly in the fields of police cooperation and civil and criminal justice, was drafted without proper consideration of the implications for common law countries. They gave the example of the Commission's green paper on wills and succession. (p 53)

52. Professor Peers agreed that the Directorate General concerned with Justice and Home Affairs had relatively few officials from a common law background, and said it was relatively under-staffed. Many proposals have presented huge problems from a common law perspective even where, as in the case of proposals on criminal procedural law and on a European evidence warrant, they had been drafted by English and Scottish nationals, respectively. The need for unanimity in the third pillar and the opt-in arrangements gave protection to the UK and Ireland, however, and the Treaty of Lisbon would require respect for the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States.[16] (QQ 51, 52)

53. When we put this point to Catherine Day, she noted that the position of the UK and Ireland was further differentiated, owing to their opt-in arrangements and non-participation in the Schengen system (the arrangements for the area within the EU within which border checks are being abolished). But what the Commission "has insisted on on a number of occasions is where the Schengen countries are going to be getting together to discuss future policy, we try to inject somebody with a common law background, even as an observer, just to make sure that the other school of thought is represented". (Q 372)

54. The risk of the common law countries being at a disadvantage was recognised by the Minister for Europe, though he considered there was a genuine understanding in the EU of different legal traditions. He told us that the risk is mitigated, in part, by working with the other three countries in the "common law club". He referred to the importance of seconding staff to the Commission to embed knowledge of the common law. The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office were actively seeking to post staff permanently or on secondment. (QQ 486, 488, 489)

55. Professor Peers thought the best solution would be to increase the representation of the common law within the Commission. He suggested that the Commission might consider how it is organised and the way in which it obtains information in the early stages of a proposal, to ensure that different legal traditions are represented. (Q 52) Vijay Rangarajan (Counsellor, UKRep) referred to the Government's work to raise awareness of the common law systems among Commission officials from civil law countries by promoting both training and the secondment of officials from the UK. (QQ 303, 305)

ANNUAL PLANS

56. Each autumn the Commission publishes its Annual Legislative and Work Programme for the following year, which it presents to the European Parliament.[17] Catherine Day told us that all major new initiatives for legislation are included in the Programme. (Q 366) In the past the Programme was "simply the sum of all the proposals that came out of the system" but the Commission, conscious of how cross-cutting modern policy-making is, now uses the process of compiling the Programme, among other things, to ensure coordination among the different parts of the Commission. The Work Programme had become a key planning tool. (Q 373)

57. The Work Programme is not the place to find new ideas. As Sir Kim Darroch explained: it is a significant document but primarily about the prioritisation, by the Commission, of material already in the pipeline. (QQ 308, 309)

58. Catherine Day explained that as draft legislation is developed and before it goes into the Annual Legislative and Work Programme, there is now a process of vetting proposals, undertaken through the Secretariat General of the Commission working with the cabinet of the President. The Secretariat General conducts "sessions with each pairing of cabinet and DG [Directorate General] to establish what it is they are working on, what degree of maturity it has reached, have they got a good impact assessment under way, have they done their stakeholder consultation, and we only put in the Work Programme things that pass all of those tests". This is "a very intensive process of vetting". (Q 373)

59. Lord Kinnock commented on the process of compiling the Work Programme. The content is derived from streams of work being undertaken within the Commission; those that are ready to proceed to legislation are considered for the coming year. There is inter-service consultation where, to a degree, there may be contests between directorates general fought out by the Commissioners' cabinets. The President of the Commission and his office have considerable influence in coordinating what goes into the draft Work Programme that is finally presented to the College of Commissioners. (Q 111)

TOO MANY PLANS, NOT ENOUGH COORDINATION?

60. David Harley considered that legislative programming could be improved, with a view to making the planning process better coordinated and more understandable. From the perspective of the Directorate General of the Presidency of the European Parliament, there were "three different and dissonant legislative programmes from the Parliament, the Commission and the Council". Although he chaired a monthly meeting with senior officials from those institutions, this did not overcome the fact that there are three dissonant programmes. He thought an improved planning process would improve the quality of legislation. He thought the lack of coordination may mean, for example, that of the four key policy proposals currently "going through the system of the three institutions"—on climate change, energy unbundling, telecoms, and the small business act—one or more may not be adopted before the next European elections in 2009. (QQ 435, 436)

61. Some criticism was made by the Bar Council that legislative proposals in the third pillar emerge in an unsystematic way. (p 52) But this may be no different from the development of legislation in the national context. Vijay Rangarajan acknowledged that the long gestation period for third pillar measures might give the impression of a lack of system, but noted that the European Council had given structure to a programme of measures through the Tampere Programme and the Hague Programme, each of which covered a five-year period. He cautioned against over-ambitious plans covering wide areas of law, pointing out that proposals for codification of areas of civil law have not met with success. Sir Kim Darroch added that some flexibility is needed to enable the EU to respond quickly to events or new circumstances. He gave the example of the set of measures which followed the "9/11" outrage in the United States in 2001. (Q 310)

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

62. Impact assessment is now required for every proposal. This is an assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts of different options, which takes account also of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The Commission has published guidelines on its conduct of impact assessment,[18] and told us that impact assessment is now embedded in its working practices and decision-making. (p 88) It undertook 130 assessments in 2007. Of these, three (in the areas of company law and criminal justice) resulted in work on an idea being stopped because the assessment showed that the EU action would not add sufficient value; and one (on road safety) was reduced in scope. In 2008, the Commission expects to complete 200 impact assessments.

63. An assessment is intended, as Catherine Day put it, "as a way of helping the Commission to take better informed decisions". In her view, it was important that impact assessment is undertaken by the departments of the Commission "because it is about a reasoning process, about looking at a problem, looking at options and being able to explain in the end why you recommend one option and not others". It would be possible to have an independent body to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of Commission proposals but to contract out the impact assessment would take responsibility away from where it should be exercised. The impact assessment is about how the Commission makes its selection of proposals in the first place. (QQ 380, 381, 382)

ASSESSING THE ASSESSORS

64. With a view to quality control, the President of the Commission set up an Impact Assessment Board within the Secretariat General. Its members are high-level officials independent of the policy-making departments. Our UKRep witnesses explained that the Board scrutinises all the main impact assessments against the Commission's published guidelines for impact assessment, which set out a wide range of matters which an assessment should cover, including subsidiarity, impact on competitiveness, social, financial and environmental impact. The Board produces a report and discusses this with the director general responsible for the proposal in question. The reports are published on the Commission's website.[19] The intention was to introduce real accountability at director general level. (Q 277)

65. Catherine Day considered that the Board's work had resulted in the average quality of assessments improving, even if not all have yet reached the high standard of some. The existence of the review Board has resulted in some ideas not being pursued or being radically revised because directorates general know that their proposals have to be explained to an independent board which examines whether proper consultation and analysis have been done. (Q 380)

66. Sir Kim Darroch confirmed, from UKRep's perspective, that more impact assessments were now being done and their quality is improving. (Q 275) The reports are sometimes negative. The Board's reviews are not a box-ticking exercise. (Q 277) The European Regions Airline Association commented, in relation to recent legislative proposals affecting civil aviation,[20] that the principles adopted by the Commission to guide the development of legislation, including those on impact assessment, have yet to be embedded in practice in all parts of the Commission's administration. (p 148) The Minister told us that historically there had been a significant problem in relation to impact assessment. The situation was improving but was nowhere near perfect. (Q 443) In particular, the quantitative costing of the impact of regulatory measures was something to be improved. (Q 504)

67. An evaluation of the Commission's impact assessment system was carried out in 2007 by independent consultants, the Evaluation Partnership Ltd. Among the key findings in the report to the Commission[21] were: that too often the process of impact assessment was started too late in the process of policy development; and that quantification should be improved. The Government agree with the conclusions of the evaluation. (p 112)

INTER-SERVICE CONSULTATION

68. Towards the end of the development stage, there is a period of inter-service consultation, when the responsible directorate general must circulate its proposal to the other DGs and the Legal Service. Catherine Day accepted that the opportunity at that stage to influence the proposal was limited but said that the earlier processes of coordination had moved inter-service consultation from "a sort of surprise ambush" to being a process of final checking. (Q 373)

DRAFTING

69. The Commission's Legal Service is formally involved in the drafting of legislation only at the relatively late stage of inter-service consultation. When we asked about this, Catherine Day accepted that producing draft legislation without involving specialist legal drafters is a problem. The Commission sought to involve the Legal Service at an early stage when drafting complex proposals. It was important to have a good master copy. This was normally in English or French and, since in a multi-lingual organisation like the Commission most officials were not drafting in their mother tongue, work is continuing with the Translation Service to provide an editing service. The Commission Legal Service is also working with the Council's Legal Service to seek to promote high standards of drafting. (QQ 374, 375)

70. Sally Langrish (Legal Counsellor, UKRep) thought the adoption of the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-making[22]—an agreement made in 2003 between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission—indicated that all the institutions were trying hard to improve the quality of drafting. The Commission reports annually on better law-making, and Sally Langrish referred us to the 2006 Report which sets out the initiatives undertaken and the internal arrangements the Commission has put in place. (Q 323)

10 Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; OJ L 145, 31 May 2001, p.43. Back

11 See, for example, the Annual Policy Strategy for 2009-COM(2008) 72, 13 February 2008. Back

12 We reported last year on the way in which the Annual Policy Strategy is prepared: The Commission's Annual Policy Strategy for 2008 (23rd Report, 2006-07, HL 123). Back

13 See the Commission's internal guidelines: COM(2002) 704. Back

14 Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union, May 2007. Back

15 The Member States with legal systems based on common law are the Republic of Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom. Back

16 Article 67(1) TFEU. Back

17 See, for example, the Commission Legislative and Work Programme 2008-COM(2007) 640, 23 October 2007. Back

18 SEC(2005) 791, June 2005, updated in March 2006. The Commission began a consultation on revised guidelines in June 2008. Back

19 See, for impact assessments carried out in 2007, Error! Bookmark not defined. Back

20 Draft Regulation on common rules for the operation of air transport services in the Community (COM(2006) 396); and draft Regulation on a Code of Conduct for computerised reservations (COM(2007) 709). Back

21 Evaluation of the Commission's Impact Assessment System, Final Report, April 2007. Back