This article served as the Topic of the Week in the 2026 newsletter, issue KW 11.

Since early 2025, the so-called omnibus packages have been occupying EU institutions. They are intended to finally provide relief to European businesses after years of increasing regulations and requirements. Ten such legislative packages aimed at reducing bureaucratic burdens in recently adopted EU regulations were initiated last year, with more to follow. However, while omnibus packages receive significant attention, an essential tool of the EU's simplification agenda remains in the background: better regulation – the approach of creating practical laws from the start or perhaps omitting some well-intentioned rules altogether.

Preventing bureaucracy from arising in the first place is an essential lever. The dense jungle of internal EU rules, regulations, and standards acts, according to the International Monetary Fund, like a tariff of around 45% on goods and 110% on services. In the current DIHK Economic Survey, more than one in four German companies explicitly identified "bureaucracy" as one of their greatest current business risks. Many of these burdens would not have arisen if EU laws were initially designed to be proportional, implementable, and practice-oriented.

Omnibus Packages: Damage Control Instead of Simplification

The EU Commission estimates savings of €8.6 billion from the omnibus packages published by October 2025. Overall, €37.5 billion in relief is expected across the legislative period. Such savings figures are easier to market than the quiet work of improving legislation.

However, these numbers do not reflect the full picture. Creating disproportionate bureaucracy via legislation and then subsequently removing part of the burdens with omnibus packages is not simplification but damage control. On balance, the regulatory burden grows, as the retrospective relief does not compensate for what was previously imposed. Omnibus packages, introduced after the fact, are a short-term stopgap rather than a permanent solution. Instead, legislation must be so well-designed that no amendments are necessary.

Where Better Regulation Fails Today

The EU Commission has introduced several instruments for better regulation. Early impact assessments are important: they examine whether EU measures are necessary and the potential implications of proposed rules. Additionally, the "Regulatory Scrutiny Board," an independent body within the Commission, reviews these assessments. Furthermore, the Commission last year initiated so-called implementation dialogues with stakeholders to gather feedback and identify challenges in the practical implementation of EU regulations.

But this is where it ends: amendments by the Council and Parliament are no longer examined for their effort, nor are impact assessments updated based on the final legislative text. Costs and efforts triggered by laws should be consistently known and considered from the first draft to adoption. Implementability must not be an afterthought.

What Is Needed Now

The EU Commission is planning a communication on better regulation for late April. A preparatory consultation has been ongoing since January. However, its focus seems to be on reducing existing instruments rather than applying them more consistently, which would be the wrong approach. The German business community specifically demands:

• Consistently applying impact assessments – including specific tests on effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and innovation activities in Europe for all new regulations.
• Making amendment costs transparent – amendments by Parliament and the Council should specify additional effort or simplification potential directly upon proposal.
• Expanding implementation dialogues – the previously well-received formats, in which the IHK organisation has been actively involved, should be systematically developed.
• Sunset clauses for technical elements – such as automatic reviews of thresholds in the context of inflation to prevent laws from becoming outdated.
• "One-in-two-out" instead of "One-in-one-out" – those introducing new burdens must remove twice as many.
• Starting consultations in all languages only after full translations – so that participation is not effectively limited by language skills.
• Longer transition periods – especially where IT systems are required for implementation and cannot be made available in time.

Only if the EU consistently uses and develops its tools for better regulation can bureaucracy be avoided – to the benefit of companies and Europe's competitiveness. The DIHK's statement on the topic from early February is available on the European Commission's website.