To begin with, Prof. Franz Leidenmühler (Linz University) presented his study ”The “One in, One out” principle in the European legislative process: Less is not always more”. The OIOO principle has been time and again proposed at EU level (e.g. by the Stoiber Group); several Member States have already implemented it as a deregulation concept. Prof. Leidenmühler problematised that the focus of OIOO was on cutting red tape for businesses, whereby regulation is primarily regarded as a cost factor. In contrast, social and economic benefits of regulation are given only insufficient consideration. Thus, legislative standstill might occur in pivotal policy areas, such as social protection and climate change. According to Prof. Leidenmühler, the OIOO principle is also in conflict with EU primary law, based on which the EU has committed itself to strive for high standards in respect of social security and worker protection.

Michael Wimmer, Director of the EU Commission in charge of Better Regulation, emphasised that the Commission does not consider the OIOO principle to be an instrument of deregulation. The point of OIOO is not to call into question regulatory targets in general, but to achieve these targets at minimal cost. In each case, applying the principle is to be based on a holistic cost-benefit analysis, where cost and benefit of the respective regulation would be weighed against each other. Wimmer pointed out that reducing cost and cutting red tape would not only be in the interests of businesses but also for the benefit of all EU citizens.

Tiemo Wölken, EU Parliament rapporteur in charge of Better Regulation, takes a critical view of the OIOO principle. According to Wölken, regulation cannot be reduced to a quantitative dimension. Some policy areas – such as climate and health policy – require more and not less legislation. Wölken bemoaned that the Commission did not consult the Parliament in the preliminary stages of the Communication on Better Regulation and demanded that the Commission’s OIOO calculator, which is used for cost-benefit analyses, is made public. If a law is repealed, this should not take place behind closed doors but within the scope of a transparent process.

Isabelle Schömann (European Trade Union Confederation) criticised that the OIOO focusses on the economy and not the wellbeing of society. It is a key weakness of the principle that the analysis does not consider the cost of non-regulation: reducing short-term economic costs is given priority over long-term social benefits, said Schömann. It was also questionable why this principle had been reactivated in times of the COVID-19 crisis and major political challenges.

Ursula Pachl (European Consumer Organisation) called the Commission’s initiative on OIOO a political retrograde step and called a quotation by Frans Timmermans to mind: “Quantitative targets for reducing regulation are like criticising Mozart for having too many notes – which ones would you like to remove?“. According to Pachl, applying the principle conflicts with EU targets and the EU’s obligations towards consumers. It is also necessary to fundamentally change the underlying narrative and to emphasise the socially desirable effects of regulation, also for businesses, which – for example – benefit from the harmonisation of the EU Single Market.

Further information:

AK EUROPA Policy Brief: “One In, One Out” in EU Legislation - More Risks than Opportunities

AK EUROPA Position Paper: Better Regulation

European Commission: Better Regulation