PRESS RELEASE 28 April 2026 For immediate release
The Good Lobby warns that the European Commission’s new Better Regulation Communication risks repurposing the EU’s own governance toolkit into an instrument of managed deregulation, institutionalising procedural shortcuts condemned by the European Ombudsman just five months ago.
The Communication marks the most structurally ambitious reform of EU policymaking since the launch of the Better Regulation agenda in 2002—and arguably the most ideologically distinct. While previous reforms strengthened the toolkit as a governance instrument, this reform restructures all three dimensions of the policy cycle: how laws are designed, how existing legislation is reviewed, and how EU rules are enforced against Member States.
The Good Lobby, which contributed to the Commission’s Call for Evidence and has consistently documented the erosion of consultative and evidence-based standards in EU policymaking, welcomes the renewed commitment to evidence-based lawmaking in principle. However, the substance of the Communication raises serious concerns.
Professor Alberto Alemanno, Founder of The Good Lobby, said:
“This is not a better regulation reform: it is a better deregulation reform. For the first time, the EU’s own policymaking toolkit is being turned against the body of law it was designed to protect, with fewer checks, faster procedures, and a twelve-area Action Plan to clean out the acquis. Ultimately, this Communication creates an institutionalised channel through which external deregulatory pressure can be translated into EU legislative action, with reduced procedural safeguards and limited independent oversight.”
A First Analysis: Key Changes and Their Democratic Cost
The reform introduces several major innovations with significant implications for democratic accountability:
A tiered impact assessment regime
A new category of “targeted initiatives”—defined as measures that optimise existing legislation—requires only a lighter impact assessment and a softer opinion from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. This creates broad discretion for the Commission to downgrade procedural guarantees by framing reforms as technical optimisation.
A formalised urgency procedure
Two tiers of reduced scrutiny are introduced. Under an accelerated pathway, a full impact assessment may be replaced by a lighter analysis and a call for evidence instead of a full public consultation. Under a derogation, both can be bypassed entirely, with only a “mini” impact assessment published after adoption. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board is not empowered to assess whether urgency is justified. One trigger—“political context creating a need for urgent action”—mirrors the type of self-generated urgency the Ombudsman previously classified as maladministration.
A “Regulatory Deep Cleaning” Action Plan
A systematic review of 12 priority areas—covering core environmental, social, and digital legislation—aligns closely with sectors already targeted by recent omnibus packages. Further omnibus proposals are anticipated, yet the Communication introduces no clear legal framework governing their use.
A shift towards “enforcement by design”
For the first time, enforcement is elevated to a central pillar of Better Regulation. The Communication promotes regulations over directives and full harmonisation over minimum standards. National choices to maintain higher environmental or social protections risk being reframed as “gold-plating” barriers to the single market—effectively redefining the ceiling as the floor.
Taken together, these changes point to a deeper transformation of the Better Regulation framework.
The combination of lighter procedures, formalised derogations, and the absence of independent oversight mechanisms creates an institutional channel through which deregulatory pressures—internal or external—can more easily translate into EU legislative action.
The geopolitical dimension is also significant. The 12 priority areas identified for regulatory “deep cleaning”—including chemicals, food safety, digital policy, and the environment—coincide with sectors currently subject to external trade pressure. In this context, the reform risks weakening procedural safeguards at a moment when they are most needed.
At the same time, key safeguards remain unaddressed. The Communication:
- does not establish objective legal criteria for invoking urgency;
- does not create a dedicated framework for omnibus legislation;
- does not strengthen the independence or mandate of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board;
- does not address the underrepresentation of civil society in consultations;
- and effectively weakens the 12-week consultation standard.
These omissions are not technical details—they shape whether Better Regulation remains a tool of accountable governance or becomes one of institutional convenience.
Notes to Editors
- The Good Lobby’s submission to the Commission’s Call for Evidence (February 2026)
- European Ombudsman findings of maladministration (November 2025)
- Alberto Alemanno’s legal analysis of the Omnibus I Simplification Directive (November 2025)
- Webinar: The New EU Better Regulation Toolbox – What’s at Stake?
The Good Lobby will host a public webinar on Thursday, 30 April 2026 (16:30–17:30 CEST) to discuss the implications for EU lawmaking, democratic accountability, and civil society action.
Media Contact
Marco Giufre
Communication Manager, The Good Lobby
[email protected]