Executive Summary
- The European Commission’s flagship initiative to streamline EU legislation and reduce administrative burdens has sparked an inter-institutional conflict, with the European Parliament accused of quietly impeding the effort.
- The European Parliament refutes claims of delaying tactics, asserting that work on “omnibus packages” is proceeding “at full speed” and attributing any perceived slowness to the complexity of the packages and the Council’s own consultation processes.
- The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) are central to the reformists’ discontent, with concerns raised that rushing the red tape-cutting efforts risks compromising the quality of the legislation due to “institutional patriotism.”
The Story So Far
- The European Commission, under President Ursula von der Leyen, has prioritized a “simplification agenda” to streamline EU legislation and reduce administrative burdens, aiming to boost the single market’s competitiveness, a goal reinforced by recommendations from Mario Draghi’s economic report. This initiative has sparked inter-institutional friction, with the Commission and Council accusing the European Parliament of impeding the fast-tracking of legislative “omnibus packages.” The Parliament, however, defends its pace by citing the inherent complexity of the proposals, the necessity for thorough scrutiny, and the Council’s own contributions to negotiation delays, particularly concerning contentious sustainability regulations.
Why This Matters
- The European Commission’s flagship regulatory simplification agenda is facing significant inter-institutional friction, particularly from the European Parliament, which risks delaying or diluting efforts to reduce administrative burdens for businesses and streamline the single market. This conflict highlights the challenge of balancing regulatory efficiency with thorough parliamentary scrutiny and diverse political interests, potentially impacting the scope of key sustainability laws like CSRD and CSDDD, and raising concerns about the quality of rushed legislative reforms.
Who Thinks What?
- The European Commission, the Council, and EU leaders, including Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, believe the European Parliament is slow in approving legislative simplification plans, thereby impeding efforts to reduce administrative burdens and liberate the single market.
- The European Parliament refutes claims of delaying tactics, asserting that work on legislative packages is proceeding “at full speed” and that MEPs are not merely “rubberstamping” proposals, attributing delays to the complexity of the packages and the Council’s own consultation processes.
- Analysts like Eric Maurice suggest that the swiftness of these red tape-cutting efforts risks compromising the quality of the legislative packages and that the “blame game” between institutions stems from “institutional patriotism.”
The European Commission’s flagship initiative to streamline EU legislation and reduce administrative burdens for businesses has sparked an inter-institutional conflict in Brussels, with the European Parliament facing accusations of quietly impeding the effort. This political dispute intensifies as EU leaders prepare to convene in Copenhagen on Wednesday, where German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is expected to advocate for a renewed push to liberate the single market from regulatory complexities.
Inter-Institutional Friction
The simplification agenda, a key priority for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, has led to growing frustration within the Council and the Commission. Just two weeks ago, von der Leyen issued a veiled criticism, stressing the urgent need for co-legislators to approve the plans. Sweden’s Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch echoed this sentiment, lamenting Parliament’s perceived slowness at a recent industrial competitiveness meeting.
Despite the Commission proposing six “omnibus packages” this year to roll back existing legislation, with four more anticipated, diplomats complain that the Parliament has not mirrored the Council’s creation of a special committee to fast-track these files. This perceived lack of urgency is seen as undermining the broader goal of regulatory simplification, a recommendation also highlighted in Mario Draghi’s influential economic report more than a year ago.
Parliament’s Defense
The European Parliament, however, refutes claims of delaying tactics, asserting that work on the omnibus packages is proceeding “at full speed.” A Parliament official stated that many files are either complete or nearing finalization, emphasizing that MEPs are not merely “rubberstamping” proposals. Several components of the agenda, including those on investment, the carbon border tax, and an injunction on corporate reporting rules, have already received political agreement from Parliament and other EU institutions.
Some observers suggest that the criticism is particularly directed at the Parliament’s centre-left Socialists and Democrats group, which is reportedly resistant to a rapid overhaul of EU legislation. French centre-left lawmaker Aurore Lalucq, who chairs the Parliament’s economics committee, dismissed the criticism, arguing that the Council often causes delays during trilogue negotiations by constantly needing to consult its member states.
Bernd Lange, a German Social Democrat chairing the Parliament’s trade committee, attributed delays to the “complexity” of the packages, which he described as a “serious problem” for MEPs. He cited the swift approval of the Commission’s carbon border tax simplification as proof that no single political group is intentionally causing delays and that new fast-tracking structures are unnecessary. Lange further noted that the fourth omnibus package, targeting small and medium-sized companies, overlaps with the remits of four distinct parliamentary committees.
Key Areas of Contention
At the heart of the reformists’ discontent are the EU’s twin company sustainability laws: the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). EU governments are reportedly pushing to exempt all but the largest firms from these regulations by raising employee thresholds to 5,000 workers, a fivefold increase from the original proposal.
Undermining Quality
Eric Maurice, an analyst at the European Policy Centre, cautioned that the swiftness of these red tape-cutting efforts risks compromising the quality of the omnibus packages. Maurice observed that the Commission, Council, and Parliament appear to be rushing through the process. He further suggested that underlying this “blame game” is “institutional patriotism,” where each EU body prioritizes its own perceived legitimacy.
The ongoing institutional friction surrounding the EU’s legislative simplification agenda underscores the inherent challenges in balancing regulatory efficiency with parliamentary scrutiny and diverse political interests. As leaders seek to unburden the single market, the debate over how quickly and comprehensively to cut red tape continues to be a point of contention among Brussels’ key institutions.
