REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations (recast)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 27.9.2021
SEC(2021) 577 final
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political
foundations (recast)
{COM(2021) 734}
{SWD(2021) 359 }
{SWD(2021) 360 }
Offentligt
KOM (2021) 0734 - SEK-dokument
Europaudvalget 2021
________________________________
This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 08/010. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / Revision of Regulation on statute and funding of
European political parties and foundations
Overall opinion: POSITIVE WITH RESERVATIONS
(A) Policy context
There are ten European political parties that are transnational party alliances (umbrella
organisations). Their objective is to ‘contribute to forming European political awareness
and express the will of citizens in the Union’ (TEU Art.10(4)). There are also ten political
foundations affiliated to these European political parties.
Regulation No 1141/2014 on the statute and funding of European political parties and
European political foundations (EUPP/F Regulation) sets out the conditions under which
they operate. It provides for an evaluation by December 2021, potentially accompanied by
a legislative proposal to amend it.
This impact assessment supports the revision of the EUPP/F Regulation. The revision aims
to address current shortcomings as well as to implement the Commission’s political
priorities announced in the 2020 European Democracy Action Plan.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board acknowledges the particular scope and limited impacts of this initiative. It
notes the additional information provided in advance of the meeting and
commitments to make changes to the report.
However, the report still contains significant shortcomings. The Board gives a
positive opinion with reservations because it expects the DG to rectify the following
aspects:
(1) The report is not sufficiently clear how this initiative links with the one on
transparency of political advertising.
(2) The report does not sufficiently analyse and substantiate with evidence the key
problems it aims to tackle. It does not sufficiently explain the order of magnitude
of the problems nor the order of importance – if any – among the objectives.
(3) The report does not sufficiently bring out feasible alternative options. It does not
establish clearly the links between problem drivers, objectives and options.
Ref. Ares(2021)5862347 - 27/09/2021
2
(4) The report does not sufficiently analyse the heightened foreign interference risks
of extending membership of European political parties and foundations to all
members of the Council of Europe. It does not explore feasible alternative
extensions of EUPP/F membership.
(C) What to improve
(1) The report should better explain the planned interaction with the parallel initiative on
transparency of political advertising and how this might affect the scope of the revision. It
should consider how to better incorporate this initiative in its baseline and policy options.
(2) The report should make better use of objective evidence to explain the relative
importance of the problems and be more specific which of the identified problems are the
most pertinent in the Regulation’s underperformance. It should consider potential risks for
interference or corruption in the current financing system. It should justify why the lack of
gender balance is more problematic than other imbalances in political representation. It
should be clearer on how the current funding provisions prevent EUPP/Fs from fulfilling
their tasks.
(3) The baseline should include the fact that the number of EU citizens served by
EUPP/Fs has reduced by over 10% since Brexit. The report should provide a more
encompassing set of feasible policy options to achieve the objectives. It should justify the
need for an option that does not address all objectives and whether all objectives have the
same importance. It should be clear how the policy options each address the objectives and
what the link is with the problems identified.
(4) The report should be more systematic in comparing all feasible options according to
the Better Regulation criteria of ‘effectiveness’, ‘efficiency’ and ‘coherence’, as well as
according to the impacts of these options. The report should explain better why impacts in
the area of fundamental rights are defined according to the definition by the Venice
Commission of the Council of Europe instead of the definition of the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights.
(5) The report should analyse better how extending the membership of EUPP/Fs to the 47
members of the Council of Europe could create new risks, particularly related to unwanted
foreign interference from actors identified in the report. The report should look into
alternative definitions of membership to establish meaningful relations with relevant
external actors.
(6) The report should analyse more thoroughly the impacts of the different options in
terms of costs, administrative burden reduction and simplification potential. The report
should be more detailed in explaining the type and magnitude of costs of each of the
options and how these costs compare to the options’ expected benefits.
(7) The report should make better use of all feedback received from stakeholders and in
particular illustrate better how different stakeholder groups view the different policy
options and the associated costs and benefits.
The Board notes the estimated costs and benefits of the preferred option in this initiative,
as summarised in the attached quantification tables.
Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.
3
(D) Conclusion
The DG must revise the report in accordance with the Board’s findings before
launching the interservice consultation.
If there are any changes in the choice or design of the preferred option in the final
version of the report, the DG may need to further adjust the attached quantification
tables to reflect this.
Full title Revision of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 on the
statute and funding of European political parties and European
political foundations
Reference number PLAN/2020/9262
Submitted to RSB on 25 August 2021
Date of RSB meeting 22 September 2021
4
ANNEX: Quantification tables extracted from the draft impact assessment report
The following tables contain information on the costs and benefits of the initiative on
which the Board has given its opinion, as presented above.
If the draft report has been revised in line with the Board’s recommendations, the content
of these tables may be different from those in the final version of the impact assessment
report, as published by the Commission.
Overview of benefits – preferred option
Description Amount Comments
Increased financial viability
for EUPP/Fs
n/a Co-financing obligation
would be easier to match for
EUPP/Fs
Decreased risk of foreign
interference through
intermediaries making
donations
n/a The due diligence
mechanism would make it
easier for the APPF to track
donors
Meaningful relations with
likeminded affiliates outside
the EU
n/a Promoting democratic values
beyond the EU’s borders.
Improved visibility of
affiliation between EUPPs
and national member parties
n/a Raising awareness of the
existence and activities of
EUPPs and strengthening the
link between the national and
European level
Greater opportunities for
EUPP/Fs to fulfil their
constitutional role and raise
European political awareness
n/a The possibility to participate
in campaigns would allow
for bringing European
political issues in the
forefront of European
elections and in national
referenda on European issues
Promoting gender balance in
a more explicit manner
n/a Increased transparency on
gender balance is expected to
create peer pressure
Increased respect for EU
values
n/a More operational verification
mechanism should increase
compliance with EU values
Increased compliance with
the Regulation
n/a The modulated sanctions
regime and the strengthened
APPF would better address
infringements.
Reduced administrative
burden
n/a The proposal addresses
inefficiencies.
More legal certainty n/a Clearer division of labour
between the APPF and the
Authorising Officer of the
European Parliament.
EU’s financial interests better n/a
5
protected and coherence with
TFEU guaranteed.
Overview of costs – Preferred option
Citizens EUPP/Fs APPF / EP
Authorising Officer
One
off
Recurrent One off Recurrent One
off
Recurrent
Funding
provisions
Direct
costs
n/a n/a n/a More
complex
financial
reporting
obligations
n/a More
complex
verification
process
Indirect
costs
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
EU values,
democracy
and
transparency
Direct
costs
n/a n/a n/a More
complex
financial
reporting
obligations
n/a More
complex
financial
reporting
obligations
Indirect
costs
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Enforcement
and
administrative
burden
Direct
costs
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Indirect
costs
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Electronically signed on 27/09/2021 08:14 (UTC+02) in accordance with article 11 of Commission Decision C(2020) 4482