Safeguarding democratic lawmaking: EDRi’s contribution to Commission consultation on Better Regulations
The European Commission has opened a consultation on its Better Regulation framework. In its response, EDRi raises concerns about the lack of proper impact assessment and the false sense of urgency. Instead of strengthening democratic processes, the current reform risks practices that reduce transparency and limit participation.
Yet another reform that risks weakening EU lawmaking
The European Commission is moving to revise its Better Regulation framework, the set of rules meant to ensure that EU laws are prepared in an evidence-based, transparent and inclusive way. Through a newly launched consultation process, the Commission is seeking feedback on how to “improve” this system. However, rather than reinforcing safeguards for democratic and rights-respecting lawmaking, the direction of travel raises serious concerns about a potential weakening of these very principles.
This reform comes against the backdrop of a broader deregulation agenda, where speed and flexibility increasingly appear to take precedence over scrutiny and accountability. While the Commission presents these changes as a way to better serve the public, there is a growing risk that the Better Regulation framework will be transformed from a set of constraints on executive power into a toolbox for procedural shortcuts and derogations. In practice, this could normalise reduced oversight, concentrate discretion within the executive, and undermine fundamental rights protections.
What does our response to the Commission say?
EDRi’s submission to the consultation highlights several structural issues in the current approach. First, it points to repeated failures by the Commission to carry out proper impact assessments, an essential component of evidence-based policymaking. These omissions weaken the legislative process and limit the ability of stakeholders and co-legislators to make informed decisions. We therefore urge the Commission to apply its own rules consistently and ensure that Impact Assessments are conducted rigorously.
Second, the submission raises concerns about the increasing use of “urgency” to justify bypassing established procedures. While urgency may be warranted in exceptional cases, it has become a blank check to sidestep democratic safeguards. We caution against introducing a new urgency mechanism under the current review. If such changes are to be considered, they must first be subject to an Impact Assessment and aligned with existing oversight recommendations.
Finally, EDRi highlights persistent shortcomings in consultation practices. Civil society and individuals are too often sidelined, while private interests retain privileged access. Short timelines, leading questions, and limited opportunities for qualitative input further restrict meaningful participation. To address this, we recommend longer consultation periods, more inclusive and accessible formats, and better coordination across institutions to ensure early and effective engagement.
Taken together, these trends point to a broader backsliding in good lawmaking. Instead of strengthening democratic processes, the current reform risks entrenching practices that reduce transparency, limit participation, and weaken accountability. Ensuring that EU lawmaking remains inclusive, rights-respecting and firmly grounded in the public interest should remain the central objective of any reform.
