—

Restricting established standards in fields such as labour, social, consumer or environmental law when transposing and implementing EU legislation;

—

National measures that have no (objective or temporal) connection to the transposition of EU-law;

—

Firming up the general provisions of EU law in the course of its transposition (e.g. establishing concrete legal sanctions in cases of infringement);

—

Applying one out of several explicit options for the transposition of EU law;

—

Advanced national provisions going beyond minimum standards based on ‘non-regression clauses’ in EU law;

—

Applying the content of a directive to similar cases so as to ensure coherence and consistency of national laws.

—

The EC should carry out integrated impact assessments (IAs) in the course of European legislation take due account of unnecessary burden and any other impact for any substantial regulatory text;

—

EU laws must be assessed on their own merits, on a case-by-case basis, in order to reach targeted harmonisation which allows, depending on the circumstances, a form of harmonisation that is advanced in some areas and less so in others. It is for the EC, through IAs, to suggest the most appropriate level of harmonisation, taking into account the need for a high level of protection;

—

When transposing EU legislation, Member States at national and regional level should be fully transparent about any supplementary requirement that could negatively affect the Single Market, competitiveness and growth;

—

The fact that one Member State imposes less strict rules than another does not automatically mean that the latter’s rules are disproportionate and incompatible with EU law. It is for the Member State to assess on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the viewpoints of all stakeholders and the entirety of the regulatory context. Impact Assessment could be an important tool to that end;

—

Any additional requirements during the transposition of directives should be accompanied by documents stating transparently specific reasons for these additions.

—

When preparing the national framework positions for initial negotiations in the working bodies of the Member States, attention has to be paid to the transposition deadline;

—

They should check if EU directives provide for two deadlines, one for producing national implementing legislation and one concerning the date by which the legislation must take legal effect;

—

The transposition deadline must be followed and monitored along the whole legislative process;

—

The EC’s implementation plans provide support and assistance.

—

At EU level, EC assistance provided during the implementation process, such as recommendations and discussions in expert groups may be useful and contribute to a common understanding among Member States;

—

The European Commission should adjust the existing transposition methodology (guidelines) not only to ensure that the transposition of directives is not conflicting with European law but also to safeguard the effectiveness of the transposition;

—

The provision by the EC of specialised web-based platforms (as the existing electronic notification interface) or an electronic database for concrete pieces of EU law to share best practices could be further developed. Multilevel governance should be fostered and include all relevant stakeholders.

—

Member States are encouraged to check precise and agreed language along the whole negotiation process in the Council;

—

Basic terms and definitions must be clearly defined as soon as possible in the early stage of negotiations;

—

Different meanings of terms and definitions in the Member States need to be taken into account by the EC;

—

Definitions in a specific piece of legislation should be consistent with those in other EU legislation;

—

Delegated acts should be subject to requirements as per Article 290 TFEU, providing clear and explicit definitions in the basic legislative text;

—

Delegated acts should only be considered for non-essential elements of the legislative act and only these parts may be supplemented or amended (10).

—

Swift action at EU and national level to identify and, if possible, eliminate redundant practices, processes and procedures and to suggest more effective solutions based on good practices;

—

‘Shared management’ is a substantial cause for the complexity of ESIF. The ‘integrated approach’ where the administration and control of ESIF is carried out on the basis of national standards (‘devolved management’), should be applied;

—

Member States to carry out self-reviews of their audit, management and control systems with a view to detecting and eliminating excessive and overlapping rules, while at the same time safeguarding the correct use of EU funds;

—

The EC to take better account of the intensity of the aid and the specifics of the different implementation models and mechanisms (i.e. grants, financial instruments, simplified costs, etc.) when developing relevant rules and procedures.