The European Union's two advisory bodies struggle to deliver their opinions on time to influence decision-making at the EU level, according to a special audit report published last week by the European Court of Auditors (ECA).
The two bodies, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the European Committee of the Regions (CoR), were established to serve as a bridge between policymakers and members of society and other stakeholders. The EESC is composed of representatives of employers, workers and civil society. The CoR is the voice of elected representatives of local and regional authorities.
The EU institutions (Parliament, Council and Commission) must request opinions from the EESC and the CoR whenever legislation concerns policy areas listed in the Treaties. The opinions aim at ensuring that civil society and regional/local authorities are heard before laws are adopted, but they are not binding on the EU institutions. The committees can also offer advice on their own initiative.
"Through their advisory role, the EESC and the CoR are meant to contribute to democratic participation and legitimacy in policymaking," said Katarína Kaszasová, the Slovak ECA Member responsible for the audit. "However, their contribution needs to be more timely, and they should assess the impact of their work in a systematic way."
Producing opinions is their core statutory mission and central to their institutional identity, the audit team told The Brussels Times.
The auditors examined the entire production process for the opinions – from strategic planning to measuring impact – between 2019 and 2024. The primary input for opinions comes from committee members, and they can be supported by experts.
In fact, the auditors found that the committees rely heavily on experts who complement most opinions with technical input, specialised knowledge and insights. Neither committee has transparent criteria for selecting the experts. This leads to a risk of bias, hampers transparency, and poses a reputational risk, according to ECA.
Structurally slower
Furthermore, opinions do not always reach the European Parliament on time to influence EU decision-making. During the audited period, the EESC delivered its opinions on mandatory referrals ahead of the vote in the relevant European parliamentary committee in 84% of cases, while the CoR met the deadline in 74% of cases. Other institutional deadlines were met to a lesser extent.
"CoR's political calendar is structurally slower," the audit team explained. "The CoR plenary meets only 5-6 times per year. If an opinion misses the deadline for a given plenary, final adoption of the opinion may be postponed by several weeks or months. Increasing the number of CoR meetings would be challenging because their members are elected politicians with limited availability."
The audit report states that neither committee consistently tracks how their recommendations are reflected in EU legislation. “The committees do influence legislation,” the audit team commented. "The audit found potential correlations in several cases. The committees' input is valuable and sometimes influential, but not systematically taken on board."
The auditors recommend introducing qualitative and outcome-based indicators, such as opinion timeliness and the extent to which opinions are reflected in final legislation. Criteria for selecting experts should be established and publicly accessible. There should also be a central register of experts (which, for the momen,t only the EESC has) to record their previous work for the committees and areas of expertise.
In their replies, both committees accepted all audit recommendations.
