Delegations will find herewith an extract of the
Guidance for Working Party Chairs (Handbook) setting out the indicative
Checklist for Working Party Chairs (Annex I of 6270/18).
Examination
of Commission IAs in the Council
in the context of the
consideration of Commission proposals
- Indicative Checklist for Working Party Chairs -
|
Title of proposal |
|
|
|
|
|
Lead DG |
|
|
1. Context of the IA |
|
|
a) Is the IA carried out
at the initiative of the Commission, the Council, or the European Parliament? Commission Council Parliament b) Is the policy context
explained clearly? Yes No Partly Comments: c) Is the legal basis of
the initiative clear and appropriate? Yes No Partly Comments: |
|
2. Problem definition |
|
|
a) Are the existence,
scale and consequences of the problem clearly demonstrated? Yes No Partly Comments: b) Is the analysis of
the problem supported by evidence, including comments and studies submitted by Member
States or stakeholders during consultations? Yes No Partly Comments: c) Is any gap in
evidence acknowledged? Yes No Partly Comments: |
|
|
3. Methodology |
|
|
Is an appropriate methodology applied? Are the methodological
choices, limitations and uncertainties clearly set out? Yes No Partly Comments: |
|
4. Policy objectives |
|
|
a) Does the IA set out
clear policy objectives, including general aims and more specific/operational
objectives? Yes No Partly Comments: b) Do the policy
objectives correspond to the identified problems? Yes No Partly Comments: c) Are the policy
objectives consistent with the broad EU policy strategies and the Strategic
Agenda? Yes No Partly Comments: d) Are the objectives
linked to measurable monitoring indicators? Yes No Partly Comments: |
|
|
5. Subsidiarity &
Proportionality |
|
|
a) Is the Union's
competence clearly established? Yes No Partly Comments: b) Does the IA analyse
whether the proposed action is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity,
and are necessity and added value of EU action clearly demonstrated? Yes No Partly Comments: |
|
|
c) Does the IA analyse
whether the proposed action is consistent with the principle of
proportionality? Yes No Partly Comments: d) Does the IA take into
account action already taken or planned at EU or MS level? Yes No Partly Comments: |
|
|
6. Policy Options |
|
|
a) Which of the
following options does the IA identify to meet the objectives? (more
than one answer is possible) No EU action Policy alternatives Alternatives to regulation Further harmonization Comments: b) Are the most affected
public/stakeholders identified? Yes No Partly Comments: c) Does the IA contain
elements on how public and stakeholders consultations informed the policy
options ? Yes No Partly Comments: d) Where relevant, are
there reasons given for discarding options that were favoured during public
and stakeholders consultations? Yes No Partly Comments: |
|
|
7. Analysis of
impacts |
|
|
a) Are the criteria used
to determine
the impact of the different policy options transparent? Yes No Partly Comments: b) Are the impacts of
the different policy options set out in a comparable format? Yes No Partly Comments: c) Where appropriate,
are both the short and long-term costs and benefits of the different policy
options taken into consideration? Yes No Partly Comments: d) Are impacts on
affected public and stakeholders clearly analysed, for each policy option, in
particular for the selected option? Yes No Partly Comments: |
|
8. Specific aspects
included in the IA |
|
|
Where applicable, indicate whether the impact
has been sufficiently assessed, both in qualitative and quantified terms, and
whether the data and evidence used were appropriate. |
|
|
a) Economic
impacts |
|
|
Impacts on competition |
|
|
Sufficiently assessed Yes No Based on appropriate data/evidence Yes No If not, please
elaborate: |
|
|
Impacts on consumers |
|
|
Sufficiently assessed Yes No Based on appropriate data/evidence Yes No If not, please elaborate: |
|
|
Impacts on competitiveness |
|
|
Sufficiently assessed Yes No Based on appropriate data/evidence Yes No If not, please elaborate: |
|
|
Impacts
on Small and Medium Enterprises, including micro-enterprises[1] |
|
|
Sufficiently assessed Yes No Based on appropriate data/evidence Yes No If not, please elaborate: |
|
|
Administrative burdens and
compliance costs, especially for businesses |
|
|
Sufficiently assessed Yes No Based on appropriate data/evidence Yes No If not, please elaborate: |
|
Digital aspects (including on the development of the Digital
Single Market) |
|
|
Sufficiently assessed Yes No Based on appropriate data/evidence Yes No If not, please elaborate: |
|
|
Futureproofing (degree to which proposal is future proof and
innovation-friendly?) |
|
|
Sufficiently assessed Yes No Based on appropriate
data/evidence Yes No If not, please elaborate: |
|
b) Social impacts[2] |
|
|
Sufficiently assessed Yes No Based on appropriate
data/evidence Yes No If not, please elaborate: |
|
|
c) Environmental
impacts[3] |
|
|
Sufficiently assessed Yes No Based on appropriate
data/evidence Yes No If not, please elaborate: |
|
|
d) Impacts on individual Member States, regional
or local authorities (territorial impacts) |
|
|
Sufficiently assessed Yes No Based on appropriate
data/evidence Yes No If not, please elaborate: |
|
|
9. Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny
Board[4] (RSB) of the Commission |
|
|
Are the comments and recommendations of
the RSB considered in the IA report? Yes No Partly Comments: |
|
|
a) Will the proposed
indicators enable the intended effects to be measured? Yes No Partly Comments: b) Are those responsible for monitoring (and compliance)
identified? Yes No Partly Comments: c) Are operational monitoring and evaluation arrangements
proposed? Yes No Partly Comments: d) Does the IA address the impact of the proposed transposition
deadline for MS ? Yes No Partly Comments: |
|
|
11. Summary |
|
|
Main issues proposed for discussion during the WP meeting on the
Commission’s IA: 1. 2.
3.
etc. |
|