28

ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

EU INITIATIVE OF BETTER REGULATION AND ITS STATUS IN LITHUANIA

Evelina Agota Vitkute
Attorney at law

Zirgo g. 3A-23, Vilnius, Lithuania
e-mail: evelinavitkute@yahoo.co.uk 

  http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.0.8.6745

Implementation of better regulation is one of the top matters on legislative agenda of the European Commission. The 
main purpose of better regulation is to create more proper regulatory environment, i.e. legal acts that better meet the needs of 
business and society. At the EU level it is stressed that the different measures of better regulation, such as regulatory impact 
assessment, reduction of administrative burden, simplification and codification of legal act, etc., should directly contribute 
to the achievement of sustainable growth of economy and jobs. Although Member States are constantly encouraged by the 
European Commission, they still are rather reluctant regarding better regulation activities. They tend to adopt exhaustive better 
regulation policies, but usually refrain from result-orientated actions.

Aim of the article is to determine the actual situation of better regulation initiative in Lithuania and make proposals for its 
improvement. By employing rigorous research methods it is sought to define the main features of better regulation and assess 
better regulation actions carried out by the EU and Member States. Better regulation activities of Lithuanian regulators and 
legislators are analysed separately. The analysis also includes critical assessment of the latest legal developments such as 
newly adopted Law on Legislative Framework and Law on Reduction of Administrative Burden. The article is supported by 
conceptual ideas of European scientists that make research on better regulation.

Conclusion is drawn that better regulation activities in Lithuania do not create actual and significant results yet. There 
is no single system of implementation of better regulation principles – separate, unrelated laws are adopted, also there is 
an unhealthy trend to regard particularly the reduction of administrative burden as the only (important) measure of better 
regulation. Also, Lithuanian regulators do not sufficiently refer to good practices of better regulation already collected at the 
EU level. In order to achieve progress of better regulation initiative in Lithuania, it is proposed to form clear concept of better 
regulation, basically, by choosing the Law on Legislative Framework as the main tool for such purpose. As well, the importance 
to make research on better regulation in Lithuania is emphasized and further research vectors are proposed.

Keywords: better regulation; regulatory reform; legislation procedures; regulatory impact assessment; reduction of 
administrative burden.

Introduction

Currently the EU and Lithuania implement the initiative 
of better regulation, which has the main purpose to create 
proper regulatory environment, i.e. legal acts that better meet 
the needs of business and society (European Commission, 
2014a; Ministry of Economy, 2014). The EU and Lithuanian 
national institutions continuously adopt specific programmes 
and new legal acts related to this initiative, thus it can be 
stated that better regulation is currently among the most 
important and even, as indicated by some authors, among the 
most fashionable goals of the public administration (Allio, 
2007, p. 82).

Better regulation in the EU has passed several stages of 
development. At first, better regulation was understood only 
as better law-making in the sense of legal technique (European 
Commission, 2002; Radaelli and Meuwese, 2009, p. 644). 
Later, in the Lisbon strategy the EU set a goal for itself to 
become the most competitive knowledge-based economy in 
the world (European Council, 2000, cl. 5). Then the European 
Commission started to emphasize that better regulation should 
significantly contribute to achieving sustainable economy 
growth and jobs (European Commission, 2005, p. 2; Radaelli, 
2007, p. 190; Van Den Abeele, 2010, p. 57). 

The scale of better regulation actions implemented by 
the European Commission is impressive. Thousands of legal 
acts have been reviewed, codified and simplified during the 
last decade. It is officially stated that performed changes in 
regulation reduced the administrative burden on European 
companies by almost one third (European Commission, 2010, 
p. 3–4). 

In Lithuania more consistent performance of better 
regulation measures started in 2008, when the Government 
approved the Programme on Better Regulation. In accordance 
with this programme, the Ministry of Economy has taken 
certain initiatives aimed to improve regulatory environment. 
By the end of 2012 two entirely new laws were adopted in 
connection with better regulation – the Law on Reduction 
of Administrative Burden and the Law on Legislative 
Framework. In December 2013, the Government formed a 
special Better Regulation Supervisory Commission, which 
should act namely in the area of reducing administrative 
burden. Although certain documents were adopted, upon 
carrying out a more detailed analysis, it can be stated that 
better regulation in Lithuania is still at the early stage of 
formation.



ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

29

European scientists make wide research on better 
regulation processes ongoing at the EU level and in their 
countries (Laffan, 2001; Baldwin, 2005; Eijlander, 2005; 
Radaelli, 2005; 2007; Allio, 2007; Kaeding, 2007; Kirkpartrick 
and Parker, 2007; Lofstedt, 2007; Radealli and De Francesco, 
2007; Staroňová, Pavel and Krapež, 2007; Torriti, 2007; 
Meuwese, 2008; Prosser, 2008; Radaelli and Meuwese, n.d.; 
2009; Radaelli and O’Connor, 2009; Theodoropoulos, 2009; 
Verschuuren, 2009; Flückiger, 2010; Jyrki, 2010; Robinson, 
2010; Van Lochem, Westerman, 2010; Van Den Abeele, 2010; 
Vogel and Van den Abeele, 2010; Bomhoff and Meuwesse, 
2011; Smismans, 2011; De Francesco, Radaelli and Troeger, 
2012; Dunlop, Maggetti, Radaelli and Duncan, 2012; Karpen, 
2012; Korkea-Aho, 2012; Mak, 2012; Messerschmidt, 
2012; Popelier, 2012; Torrit and Löfstedt, 2012, etc.). These 
researches, mostly performed in the areas of law, politics, 
economy and public administration, enable to assess the 
reasonability, efficiency of better regulation and various 
changes happening due to its implementation. Scientists 
emphasize that better regulation has a significant impact 
on various legislation procedures and it is expected that the 
role of better regulation in the future should only increase 
(Radaelli, 2007, p. 203–204; Torriti, 2007, p. 249; Radaelli 
and De Francesco, 2007, p. 196; Radaelli and Meuwese, 
2009, p. 639; Smismans, 2011, p. 511–512). 

Meanwhile, better regulation processes in Lithuania are 
not yet researched sufficiently. To the best knowledge of 
the author, there are no researches currently performed in 
Lithuania regarding the implementation of better regulation. 
Application of better regulation measures should have a 
significant impact on current legislation procedures and quality 
of legal acts; also it may be an important tool ensuring higher 
competitiveness of Lithuanian investment environment. 
Therefore, there is a natural need for performing research and 
properly assessing how the legislation mechanisms currently 
existing in Lithuania could or should be reformed due to 
better regulation initiative and how the quality of legal acts 
could or should change. 

The goal of this article is to determine the actual situation 
of better regulation initiative in Lithuania and to make 
proposals for its improvement. The objectives of this article 
are to define the main features of better regulation formed 
in the EU, to overview better regulation actions carried 
out in Lithuania and to assess them critically, as well as to 
emphasize the need for research in Lithuania in connection 
with the ongoing changes.

In writing this article the rigorous scientific methods 
were employed. The analytical method was used in assessing 
scientists’ papers related to better regulation initiative. The 
comparative method was used in analysing better regulation 
initiative being implemented in the EU and Lithuania and 
individual measures of better regulation. The logical, systemic 
and critical methods were used in order to assess the situation 
of better regulation initiative in Lithuania. The historical 
research method was used in analysing the development of 
better regulation initiative. The teleological research method 
was used in analysing a number of travaux perparatoire 
materials – preparatory documents of the EU institutions, 
drafts, resolutions, reports of working groups, etc.

Concept of better regulation 

Documents and literature prepared by the European 
Commission give various descriptions but no generalised 
concept of better regulation. Better regulation is usually 
regarded as an umbrella term, covering various measures 
of creating and ensuring better regulatory environment 
(European Commission, 2006; Allio, 2007, p. 73; Radaelli 
and Meuwesse, 2009, p. 645; Bomhoff and Meuwesse, 2011, 
p. 145). One of the most interesting definitions is proposed by 
Bomhoff and Meuwesse, who indicate that better regulation 
means rules, according to which “regulation in general” is 
regulated (2011, p. 144). 

There is certain debate among scientists over the nature 
of better regulation. It is often discussed, which aspects of 
better regulation measures, legal or economic, are more 
important. Some authors emphasize that better regulation 
is, first of all, related to use of various legal means, such as 
application of legal principles and legal techniques, therefore, 
it is “restricted to the art of law-making” (Flückiger, 2010, 
p. 213; Messerschmidt, 2012, p. 359, 360). Meanwhile, the 
others accentuate different side of better regulation – the 
aim “to look wider” and to supplement various legal reasons 
with more explicitly economic rationality (Bomhoff and 
Meuwesse, 2011, p. 146; Torriti and Löfstedt, 2012, p. 173–
174). In the latter case it is usually stressed that legislative 
techniques used is just one instrument of better regulation 
among a number of other non-legal measures (Karpen, 2012, 
p. 155). 

The above-mentioned discussion reveals the versatile 
nature of better regulation initiative. However, it may not be 
denied that namely legislative methods and procedures are 
the essential part and the main form of expression of better 
regulation. Therefore, the main support should be given to 
those authors, who emphasize particularly the legal aspect 
of better regulation and indicate that better regulation is, first 
of all, a certain alternative for traditional law-making, which 
seeks to enhance the quality and justifiability of regulation 
(Popelier, 2012, p. 262; De Francesco, Radaelli and Troeger, 
2012, p. 491). 

Practically the concept of better regulation can be best 
revealed by naming specific better regulation tools. In spite of 
the development of better regulation initiative, the European 
Commission formed rather clear and stable list of better 
regulation measures. Better regulation measures could be 
presented in a number of ways, but it is suggested to divide 
them into three groups, depending on the stage of legislation 
procedure, in which they are applied:

1) measures applied before the adoption of legal acts 
are: anticipated regulatory impact assessment, 
determination of possible administrative burden on 
business and on the society, selection of the most 
suitable regulatory instruments (forms of legal acts), 
drafting legal acts that meet the requirements of legal 
technique (European Parliament, European Council and 
European Commission, n. d.; European Commission, 
2007a; 2009; 2012b; Verschuuren, 2009);

2) measures applied after the adoption of legal acts are: 
assessment of the efficiency of already effective legal 
acts and need to amend and change them, simplification, 
codification and recasting of existing legal acts, proper 



ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

30

implementation of the EU legal acts in national legal 
systems of the Member States (European Commission, 
2001b; 2007b);

3) measures applied throughout the whole legislative 
cycle are: performing consultations with stakeholders 
before undertaking adoption of new regulation or 
changing the existing regulation, ensuring the publicity 
of law-making processes and accessibility of legal acts 
to the society (European Commission, 1997; 2002c; 
2012a). 

Better regulation measures applied in the EU are 
summarised in Picture 1. 

Picture 1. Better regulation measures applied in the EU 
(Source: the author)

Implementation of better regulation at the EU level 

The White Paper European Governance adopted by the 
European Commission in 2001 is considered as the start of 
formal establishment of better regulation policy in the EU. It 
set forth the aim to reform the activities of the EU institutions 
and, in this way, to overcome specific challenges faced, 
such as that in some areas the EU institutions cannot work 
as effectively as national governments of the Member States, 
that the EU lacks many other sources of traditional power, 
that activities of the EU institutions often are too far from 
citizens and many people do not have a possibility to feel 
and appreciate the positive impact of the EU activities, etc. 
(European Commission, 2001a, p. 7; Laffan, 2001, p. 711).

The White Paper named many specific lines of action that 
the European Commission proposed to all the EU institutions 
to follow, e.g. to encourage inter-institutional cooperation, to 
set minimal standards of ethical behaviour, etc. Among these 
lines of action, the aim of better regulation was for the first 
time specifically indicated – to constantly improve the quality, 
efficiency and simplicity of legal acts (European Commission, 
2001a, p. 17, 20–26). A specially formed Mandelkern working 
group determined that during many years the European 
Community had adopted a big number of complicated legal 
acts, therefore, the regulatory environment in Europe should 
be improved in essence (2001, p. 7). This working group 
prepared the detailed report with recommendations how 
separate actions of better regulation should be implemented. 

Creation of better regulation measures was the basis for 
very intensive actions of the European Commission. For 
example, since 2005 the European Commission drafted 
and implemented 640 initiatives aimed at simplification, 
codification or recasting of legal acts. Over 4,450 legal 
acts were annulled, 1,750 of these legal acts were annulled 
because they were codified or recast (European Commission, 
2012c, p. 9). Also, the set aims of reducing administrative 
burden were considerably exceeded. At first it was sought to 
reduce the administrative burden on companies and persons 
by 25% by 2012. However, the European Commission tabled 
such regulation improvement proposals that enabled to reduce 
the administrative burden on the European companies even 
by 31% or by EUR 38 billion (European Commission, 2010, 
p. 3–4). 

In 2010 it was stated that certain aims of better regulation 
initiative were successfully implemented. As a result, better 
regulation was renamed as smart regulation, in this way 
emphasising the transition to a certain new, qualitatively 
different stage of this initiative. The main idea of smart 
regulation is that better regulation principles must simply 
become a permanent part of the law-making process, as the 
European Commission indicated – “a part of the Commission’s 
work culture”, in this way ensuring better regulation quality 
in all law-making stages (European Commission, 2010, p. 2, 
11; Korkea-Aho, 2012, p. 398). In 2012, as a part of smart 
regulation, a special Regulatory Fitness and Performance 
Programme (REFIT) was created. Main tasks of this 
programme is a constant monitoring of legal acts applicable 
in the EU, identification of burden created by them, defects, 
non-efficient provisions, as well as assessment how EU legal 
acts are implemented in national systems of the Member 
States (European Commission 2012c, p. 3).

Though certain actions of the European Commission 
towards implementing better regulation seem very active 
and successful at first sight, they are criticised by scientists 
researching better regulation. First of all, a critical view is 
held of particularly large work volumes performed by the 
European Commission – it is believed that the coverage 
was too broad and consultants hired for performance of 
some actions were not competent enough. Besides, better 
regulation initiative was often implemented more formally, 
e.g. by annulling a certain number of legal acts only for the 
sake of a certain “rhetoric effect” (Lofstedt, 2007, p. 426–427, 
440–441). 

It is also noted that though better regulation measures 
are publicly announced, reports about their fulfilment are 
submitted, still there is no clear and official description 
how better regulation is organised at the EU level, what 
duties and responsibilities of the main actors are. That has 
resulted in certain overlapping of initiatives and processes 
(Allio, 2007, p. 78–79). This issue also relates to the fact that 
better regulation measures are discussed only in European 
Commission communications and other non-compulsory 
documents of soft law. Namely for this reason better regulation 
initiative cannot be evaluated by the Court of Justice of the 
European Union (Messerschmidt, 2012, p. 359–360). Some 
authors hold that it may be done on purpose, in order to avoid 
possible judicial control over better regulation processes 
(Mak, 2012, p. 302). 



ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

31

Need to involve the Member States 

As it was mentioned, White Paper European Governance, 
which introduced the concept of better regulation, raised 
specific problems of the EU, which were clearly different 
from those of the Member States. Therefore, it may seem that 
better regulation measures have been necessary only for the 
EU institutions. However, this is not true. Legal regulation 
in Europe is carried out on two levels – the EU level and the 
Member States. Several times the European Commission 
noted that the EU institutions solely would not be able to 
ensure reduction of regulatory burden if the Member States 
did not take relevant measures, as in many cases they were 
responsible for the final implementation of the EU law (2005, 
p. 2, 8; 2012c, p. 11; 2013, p. 13). 

For the above reasons, from the very beginning of better 
regulation the Member States were asked to apply better 
regulation measures related namely to transposition the 
EU legal acts into their national legal systems (European 
Commission, 2002b, p. 16–18). For example, the Member 
States were encouraged to take active actions in order to 
avoid the so-called “gold-plating” – creation of additional 
and unnecessary administrative encumbrances by improper 
transposition of directive provisions (European Commission, 
2003, p. 5; Hansard Society, 2005, p. 3). 

While the EU passed into a qualitatively new level of 
smart regulation, it was accentuated that though the Member 
States made a progress in some better regulation aspects, but 
only few of them adopted such a wide better regulation system 
as the EU. Therefore, the Member States were encouraged to 
set national better regulation priorities and take wider actions 
towards their implementation (European Commission, 2012c, 
p. 10–11). Thus, it can be understood that the Member States 
are currently encouraged to take all relevant better regulation 
measures (not only with regard to transposition of the EU law). 
The Member States are encouraged to follow good practices 
of the EU, choosing and adapting better regulation measures 
of the EU so that they would be compatible with legislation 
traditions of the relevant Member States (Mandelkern Group 
on Better Regulation, 2001, p. 38; ESTEP, 2004, p. 31; 
Radealli and Meuwese, 2009, p. 641).

There is no uniform evaluation of the progress achieved 
by the Member States in the area of better regulation. As 
some scientists indicate, one may have an impression that 
the Member States have implemented exhaustive better 
regulation policies, but in many cases such measures existed 
mostly in name and not in substance (Staroňová, Pavel and 
Krapež, 2007, p. 279). This is also confirmed by information 
published on the website of the European Commission about 
good practices of the Member States in implementing better 
regulation measures. It provides better regulation documents 
prepared by just a few Member States, such as the United 
Kingdom, Luxembourg or Germany (European Commission, 
2014b). Wider research has also shown that many Member 
States have actually implemented better regulation measures 
only in several pilot projects (Radealli and Meuwese, 2009, 
p. 649–650). The status of better regulation in Lithuania is 
similar, too.

Better regulation processes in Lithuania

Specific actions of better regulation in Lithuania started 
in 2008, when the Government approved the Programme on 

Better Regulation. This programme for the first time in the 
context of Lithuanian law has determined for the concept 
and the main principles of better regulation, such as necessity 
(regulation is undertaken only when that is necessary), 
proportionality (selected regulation measures correspond to 
regulation purposes), transparency (process of adoption of 
legal acts is public, legal acts are simple and understandable), 
accessibility (legal acts are accessible to the public) and 
accountability (decisions taken are reasonable and accounted 
for to the public) (Programme on Better Regulation, 2008, cl. 
4–5). The programme also clearly indicated the results sought 
by it, i.e. more attractive business and investment environment, 
transparent legislation procedures, efficient implementation of 
legal acts, smaller administrative burden on entities, simpler 
and shorter procedures in connection with issuance of licenses, 
permits and other documents, transparent transposition of 
EU directives into the national law, wider use of information 
technologies for provision of public services, less corruption 
(Programme on Better Regulation, 2008, cl. 20).

The Programme on Better Regulation stated that 
Lithuanian institutional and legal system was not ready for 
the implementation of better regulation policy. Although 
some better regulation measures were defined in Lithuanian 
legal acts and applied practically, but they were planned and 
implemented inconsistently, they were scattered in various 
programmes and other legal acts, different institutions 
were responsible for their preparation and implementation 
(Programme on Better Regulation, 2008, cl. 13–14). Under 
the said programme, the Ministry of Economy was appointed 
as the authority responsible for implementation of better 
regulation in Lithuania, i.e. the Ministry was assigned 
to prepare plans of the implementation better regulation 
measures and methodological recommendations, also to 
make proposals for programme improvement (Programme on 
Better Regulation, 2008, cl. 25).

Some of the aims of the Programme on Better Regulation 
were partially implemented, e.g. selected competent authorities 
reviewed regulations of certain areas and made lists of legal 
acts, which should be replaced or amended for the purpose 
of simplification, an amendment to the Government Rules on 
Legislation was initiated, also, as a result of several expert 
studies, the Methodology of Identification and Assessment of 
Administrative Burden on Citizens and other Persons and the 
Methodology of Identification of Administrative Burden on 
Economic Entities were adopted by the Government (Ministry 
of Economy, 2008, p. 5; 2010, p. 4–5; Jurevičius, Balčiūnas 
& Bartkus, 2009; Baltic Legal Solutions Lithuania, 2011; 
Deloitte Lietuva, 2011). Also, better regulations actions are 
further continued, e.g. the Ministry of Economy has indicated 
that it intendeds to prepare an example of good practices of 
ex-ante impact assessment of draft decisions on business 
conditions (Ministry of Economy, 2014).

Some significant activities related to better regulation 
were also performed separately, not within framework of the 
Programme on Better Regulation. For example, during the 
years 2009 – 2012 the project “Improvement of result-oriented 
governance” was implemented. It was aimed at introducing 
elements of result-oriented and evidence-based governance 
in the public sector by referring to successful international 
practices. The third stage of this project was dedicated for the 
improvement of the impact assessment of the decisions which 



ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

32

is one of better regulation measures (Lithuanian Government, 
2014). Experts prepared a detailed analysis of impact 
assessment of the decisions and legal acts in Lithuania and 
presented recommendations on the improvement of impact 
assessment based on international practice (ESTEP, Public 
Policy and Management Institute and Jacobs&Associates, 
2010).

Still, one of the most significant events of better regulation 
initiative in Lithuania is the adoption of two new laws by 
the end of 2012 – the Law on Reduction of Administrative 
Burden (effective from 1 July 2013) and the Law on 
Legislative Framework (effective from 1 January 2014). The 
adoption of these laws should change the status of better 
regulation actions in Lithuania. Better regulation measures 
stipulated therein should become not only implementation 
of political programme but also legally binding obligation to 
all authorities to constantly follow the principles and rules of 
law-making and reducing administrative burden. 

The Law on Reduction of Administrative Burden is in 
essence intended for one better regulation measure – the 
aim to ensure that legal acts would not establish obligations 
unreasonably causing administrative burden on persons 
and business. It is indicated in the preamble of the law that 
unreasonable and disproportionate administrative burden 
has a serious negative impact on residents of the country, on 
the economy and business environment. This law sets forth 
principles and measures of reducing administrative burden and 
establishes how constant monitoring of administrative burden 
should be performed (Law on Reduction of Administrative 
Burden, 2012, art. 1). 

The Explanatory Note of the law reveals why it was sought 
to establish the main principles of reducing administrative 
burden namely at the statutory level: “<...> the purpose of 
reducing administrative burden and the principle of better 
regulation cannot be achieved by subordinate legal acts. 
Besides, in the absence of a specific law regulating this area, 
there are no systemic actions of reducing administrative 
burden and there is no control. Therefore, having assessed 
the legislation tradition and practice in the Republic of 
Lithuania, this draft law is aimed at establishing the practice 
of regulation of the administrative burden institution, which 
is under formation” (Auštrevičius, et. al., 2012). Please note 
that this law is rather short – it mostly gives principles and 
goals but it does not formulate specific rules of behaviour 
applicable to state institutions. The law gives references to 
methodologies of reducing administrative burden that were 
prepared earlier and approved by the Government (Law on 
Reduction of Administrative Burden, 2012, art 3). 

The Law on Reduction of Administrative Burden also 
provides for establishment of a special governmental body – 
Better Regulation Supervisory Commission, the purpose of 
which would be to perform assignments related with assessment 
of administrative burden and application of measures for its 
reduction in state and municipal institutions and bodies (Law 
on Reduction of Administrative Burden, 2012, art. 8). At the 
end of 2013 the Government formed such commission and 
established that it would consist not only of representatives of 
state institutions, but also of non-governmental organisations 
or even associations representing interests of private persons 
and public institutions (Resolution on the Formation of Better 
Regulation Supervisory Commission (2013).

The Law on Legislative Framework, which was also 
adopted in 2012, for the first time defined the concept of 
legislative process, also directly identified essential legislation 
principles, such as expediency, proportionality, respect to 
human rights and freedoms, openness and transparency, 
efficiency, clarity, consistency (Law on Legislative 
Framework, 2012, art. 2(5), 3). In general, this law is aimed 
at regulating the whole law-making process; therefore, its 
regulatory scope is considerably wider than that of the Law 
on Reduction of Administrative Burden. 

From the perspective of better regulation initiative it is very 
important that the Law on Legislative Framework regulates 
three better regulation measures – anticipated regulatory 
impact assessment, consultations with the public on drafted 
legal acts and the obligation to plan and publish legislative 
initiatives. Until the adoption of this law, these measures 
were regulated only by implementing legal acts and now 
they are transposed at the statutory level (Law on Legislative 
Framework, 2012, art. 2, 7–8, 15–16; Methodology on the 
Anticipated Regulatory Impact Assessment, 2003; Work 
Regulation of Lithuanian Government, 1994). Specific 
procedures of application of these better regulation measures 
are still not known as they will be later on elaborated in 
implementing regulations and will greatly depend on practical 
application of such legal acts. 

Better regulation measures currently established in 
Lithuanian legal acts are shown in Picture 2.

Picture 2. Better regulation measures established in 
Lithuania (Source: the author)

Better regulation problems in Lithuania and lack of 
researches
Better regulation actions carried out in Lithuania seem 

rather active at first. However, upon greater scrutiny it can 
be noted that implementation of better regulation measures 
does not give actual and tangible results – in Lithuania many 
regulatory areas still do not conform to modern standards 
of good regulation. Legal acts (especially implementing 
regulations) that regulate some specific areas of administrative 
law are particularly complicated, inconsistent, have 



ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

33

contradictory provisions. Due to these reasons very often 
business and private persons and even professional lawyers 
face with difficulties while applying legal acts in practice 
(Monkevičius, 2008, p. 11; Lithuanian Confederation of 
Industrialists, 2013; Jankaitytė, 2013). 

Such situation in Lithuania is not so unique. Scientists 
Radealli and Meuwese, who research better regulation, 
indicate that better regulation phenomenon is particularly 
politicized in EU and most Member States, therefore, usually 
there is a certain gap between adoption of this initiative and its 
implementation (2009, p. 649–650; n.d., p. 12–13). It means 
that public administration usually seeks to adopt as many 
documents establishing better regulation as possible, but pays 
much less attention to their practical implementation. Upon 
overview of the situation of better regulation initiative in 
Lithuania, it can be stated that Lithuania has both problems – 
those related to the adoption of better regulation and to its 
implementation. This may be demonstrated by following 
arguments.

First, Lithuanian institutions pay most of their attention 
to practical implementation of exclusively one better 
regulation measure – reduction of administrative burden. 
Initially, the Programme on Better Regulation approved by 
the Government in 2008 was a rather consistent document – 
it contained references to better regulations goals set out at 
the EU level, widely and clearly identified various better 
regulation measures (Programme on Better Regulation, 
2008, cl. 1–2, 6–8, 18–19, 24). However, during the practical 
implementation of the Programme on Better Regulation, 
a clear problem has arisen – annual plans of programme 
implementation were mostly committed to the sole measure 
that is least related to qualitative law-making, i.e. to the 
reduction of administrative burden. Meanwhile, performance 
of other better regulation measures, such as consultations 
with stakeholders, anticipated regulatory impact assessment, 
simplification of legal acts, was planned rather sporadically 
(Lithuanian Government, 2008; 2009; 2011; 2012). Such a 
tendency can be partially explained by the fact that reduction 
of administrative burden is most often prioritised by public 
administration namely due to its specifics and direct impact 
on business (Korkea-Aho, 2012, p. 400–401). However, such 
exceptionality of administrative burden reduction measure is 
not grounded as it is neither accentuated nor supported in the 
EU documents or in the Programme on Better Regulation.

Second, the new Law on Reduction of Administrative 
Burden has affirmed the misleading assumption about 
reduction of administrative burden, as the core of better 
regulation, at the statutory level. The Explanatory Note of 
the Law on Reduction of Administrative Burden indicates 
that reduction of administrative burden is a significant 
measure, but it does not explain why it was decided to 
specifically regulate only this measure. Some measures 
indicated in the law as exclusively forming part of reduction 
of administrative burden actions (e.g. annulment, reduction, 
consolidation or improvement of the existing regulation, 
data and information exchange among institutions) should be 
regarded as other independent better regulation instruments 
(Law on Reduction of Administrative Burden, 2012, art. 3). 
Also, as it has been mentioned, a special Better Regulation 
Supervisory Commission, which will supervise exclusively 
implementation of administrative burden reduction goals, 

was formed. In this way, Lithuania will have a situation 
where many better regulation measures will be used only 
for achieving one of better regulation goals – reduction of 
administrative burden. There will be a special commission in 
Lithuania, which, judging by its name, should take care of 
improving the quality of legal acts and legislation procedures, 
but actually will be responsible only for application of 
relatively narrow administrative burden reduction measure.

Third, the Law on Legislative Framework that could 
properly establish other better regulation measures was not 
properly linked to better regulation initiative. The Law on 
Legislative Framework by its essence is an instrument that 
could directly contribute to implementing better regulation in 
Lithuania. However, by looking at the Explanatory Note of 
the law, it is evident that the law has not been directly related 
to better regulation initiative (Ministry of Justice, 2010). 
There is an impression that this law, which is particularly 
significant for better regulation, was adopted for absolutely 
different, unrelated purposes. Probably due to these reasons 
the Law on Legislative Framework does not list all better 
regulation measures directly related to legislation, e.g. there 
are no provisions regarding simplification and codification 
of law, nor is the specifics of transposition of the EU legal 
acts into national legal acts regulated in detail. Also, this law 
has not remedied the situation where administrative burden 
reduction is actually regarded as the main better regulation 
measure in Lithuania. Significant improvements of current 
regulatory scope of the Law on Legislative Framework could 
be considered.

Fourth, the implementation of better regulation initiative 
in Lithuania does not have sufficient theoretical and scientific 
basis. In spite of the fact that certain issues of relationship 
of the Lithuanian and EU law, the implementation of the EU 
law in the national system and some legislative problems are 
researched (Andriuškevičius, 2004; 2008; Šedbaras, 2006; 
Bakaveckas, et. al., 2005; Paužaitė-Kulvinskienė, 2005, 
2009; Ambrasaitė-Balynienė, et. al., 2010; Prapiestytė 2006; 
Kargaudienė, 2006; Valančius, 2007a; 2007b; Urmonas, 
2007; 2009; Valančius and Kavalnė, 2009; Rasulevičius, 
2011; Kondratienė, 2012; Deviatnikovaitė, 2013; Šimašius, 
2004; Šlapkauskas, 2004; Monkevičius, 2008, Arlauskas, et. 
al., 2012; Mikulskienė, 2013; Miežanskienė and Šlapkauskas, 
2013, etc.), the said research is not directly related to better 
regulation initiative. As it has been mentioned, better 
regulation involves interdisciplinarity – it is evident that the 
reasonability and efficiency of better regulation measures 
can be assessed by representatives of various social sciences, 
especially of law, economics, public administration and 
politics. Still, better regulation is first of all treated as a 
particularly broad regulatory reform (De Francesco, Radaelli 
and Troeger, 2012, p. 491), therefore, it is presumable that 
one of the biggest contributions into research of this initiative 
could be made namely by scientists of law. 

Conclusions 

• Though the Programme on Better Regulation is 
officially being implemented in Lithuania, however it 
may not be regarded as successful. First of all, its results 
cannot be felt – the regulatory environment is still too 
complicated. Second, with regard to actions performed 
until now, it is obvious that there is no single system 



ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

34

of implementation of better regulation – separate, 
unrelated laws are adopted, also there is an unhealthy 
trend to regard the reduction of administrative burden 
as the only (important) measure of better regulation. It 
is also noteworthy that Lithuania does not sufficiently 
refer to good practices of better regulation already 
formed at the EU level, therefore, it is considerably 
lacking behind the better regulation developments 
happening at the EU level.

• Clear formulation of the better regulation concept 
in Lithuania would contribute to more successful 
implementation of better regulation initiative. Better 
regulation could, first of all, be regarded as a mean 
for performance of a wide scope regulatory reform. 
Such reform could be aimed at changing many already 
effective legal acts in the area of administrative law, 
both in terms of quantity and quality, and at setting 
strict requirements for drafting and adoption of new 
legal acts. The new Law on Legislative Framework 
could become one of the main tools for giving the 
correct better regulation concept and providing for 
clear better regulation measures. Current version of the 
law and its scope of application should be adjusted – it 
should relate legislative measures to better regulation 
initiative more clearly, identify all better regulation 
measures necessary for the Lithuanian legal system, 
describe their purposes, content and main requirements 
for their application. In the future the incorporation 
of the Law on Reduction of Administrative Burden 
into the regulatory scope of the Law on Legislative 
Framework could be considered. In this way 
unreasonable advantage given to the measures of 
reducing administrative burden compared with other 
better regulation measures could be corrected.

• In order to achieve progress in terms of better regulation 
initiative in Lithuania, it is necessary to discuss better 
regulation concept and consider which of better 
regulation measures are required for the Lithuanian 
legal system. Within this context, the role of research 
on better regulation issues should be emphasized – 
namely such research, particularly in the field of law, 
could contribute to proper establishment of better 
regulation initiative in legal acts in Lithuania and more 
efficient practical implementation of this initiative. 
The following research vectors in connection of better 
regulation in Lithuania could be proposed: (1) proper 
transposition of better regulation initiative applied at 
the EU level and application of its individual measures 
in Lithuania; (2) proper definition of better regulation 
measures and their establishment in relevant legal 
acts or other documents; (3) institutions that should 
participate in implementation of better regulation, 
their interrelations, functions and responsibilities; (4) 
necessary changes in the currently effective legislation 
procedures; (5) processes of implementation of 
individual better regulation measures; (6) possible 
impact of better regulation measures on drafting of 
Lithuanian legal acts, practices of persons issuing 
acts of administrative law and on rights of persons 
dealing with public administration entities and acts of 
administrative law, etc.

References

Allio, L. (2007). Better regulation and impacts assessment 
in the European Commission. In C. Kirkpartrick, D. 
Parker (Ed.) Regulatory Impact Assessment: Towards 
Better Regulation? (p. 72–100). Cheltenham: 
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4337/9781847208774.00011

Ambrasaitė-Balynienė, G.; et. al. (2010). Administraciniai 
teismai Lietuvoje: nūdienos iššūkiai: kolektyvinė 
monografija, skirta Lietuvos administracinių 
teismų dešimtmečiui. Vilnius: Lietuvos vyriausiasis 
administracinis teismas.

Andriuškevičius, A. (2004). Administracinės teisės principai 
ir normų ribos. Vilnius: Teisinės informacijos centras.

Andriuškevičius, A. (2008). Administracinės teisė: bendrieji 
teorijos klausimai, valdymo aktų institutas, ginčo 
santykių jurisprudenciniai aspektai. Vilnius: VĮ Registrų 
centras.

Arlauskas, S.; et. al. (2012). Teoriniai teisėkūros pagrindai ir 
problemos. Liber Amicorum, Alfonsui Vaišvilai. Vilnius: 
Mykolo Romerio universitetas.

Auštrevičius. P., et. al. (2012). Explanatory Note of the Law 
on Reduction of Administrative Burden No. XIP-4175.

Bakaveckas, A., et. al. (2005). Lietuvos administracinė teisė: 
bendroji dalis. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas.

Baldwin, R. (2005). Is better regulation smarter regulation? 
Public law, ISSN 0033-3565, Iss. Autumn, p. 485–511. 

Baltic Legal Solutions Lithuania (2011). Report on 
Proposals Regarding the Reduction of National 
Administrative Burden for Business in Underlying Fields. 
Available from internet: http://www.ukmin.lt/web/lt/
verslo_aplinka/geresnis_reglamentas/moksliniu_tyrimu_
ir_kitos_studijos/nacionalines-ataskaita.

Bomhoff, J.; Meuwesse, A. C. M. (2011). The Meta-
regulation of Transnational Private Regulation. Journal 
of Law and Society, online ISSN: 1467–6478, Volume 
38, No. 1, p. 138–162.

De Francesco, F.; Radaelli, M. C.; Troeger, V. E. (2012). 
Implementing Regulatory Innovations in Europe: the Case 
of Impact Assessment. Journal of European Public Policy, 
online ISSN 1466–4429, Vol. 19, Iss. 4, p. 491–511. 

Deloitte Lietuva, UAB (2011). Final Report on Evaluation 
of National Administrative Burden for Business. 
Available from internet: http://www.ukmin.lt/web/lt/
verslo_aplinka/geresnis_reglamentas/moksliniu_tyrimu_
ir_kitos_studijos/vertinimo-ataskaita.

Deviatnikovaitė, I. (2013). Europos administracinės teisės 
samprata ir ES Administracinių procedūrų rinkinio 
rengimo prielaidos. Jurisprudencija, ISSN 1392–6195, 
No. 20(3), p. 1005–1022.

Dunlop, C. A.; Maggetti, M.; Radaelli, C. M.; Duncan R. 
(2012) The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: 
A meta-analysis of EU and UK cases. Regulation & 
Governance , online ISSN 1748-5991, Vol. 6, p. 23–45.

Eijlander, P. (2005). Possibilities and Constrains in the Use 
of Self-Regulation and Co-regulation in Legislative 
Policy: Experiences in the Netherlands – Lessons to be 



ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

35

learned for the EU? Electronic Journal of Comparative 
Law, ISSN 1387–3091, Vol. 9.1. Available from internet: 
http://ejcl.org/91/art91-1.html.

ESTEP (2004). Assessment of Impact of EU Level Better 
Regulation Initiatives. Available from internet: http://
www.euro.lt/documents/poveikio_tyrimai/2004/
Geresnis_reguliavimas_ataskaita_lt.pdf.

ESTEP; Public Policy and Management Institute; Jacobs 
and Associates (2010). Analysis of Decisions Impact 
Evaluation Means in Lithuania and Abroad Countries. 
Available from internet: http://www.lrv.lt/bylos/VORT/
VORT-3/gerosios%20praktikos%20ataskaita.pdf.

European Commission (1997). Legislative drafting. A 
Commission manual. Available from internet: http://
ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/better_regulation/
documents/legis_draft_comm_en.pdf.

European Commission (2001). European Governance. A 
White Paper. COM(2001) 428 final. 

European Commission (2001). Communication from 
the Commission to the European Parliament and the 
Council. Codification of the Acquis Communautaire. 
COM(2001) 645 final.

European Commission (2002). Communication from the 
Commission. European Governance: Better Law-making. 
COM(2002) 275 final.

European Commission (2002). Communication from the 
Commission. Action plan „Simplifying and improving the 
regulatory environment“. COM(2002) 278 final. 

European Commission (2002). Communication from 
the Commission. Towards a reinforced culture of 
consultation and dialogue – General principles and 
minimum standards for consultation of interested parties 
by the Commission. COM(2002) 704 final.

European Commission (2003). Communication from the 
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions – Updating and simplifying the 
Community acquis. COM(2003) 0071 final.

European Commission (2005). Communication from the 
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament 
– Better Regulation for Growth and Jobs in the European 
Union. COM (2005) 0097 final. 

European Commission (2006). Better Regulation – Simply 
Explained. Available from internet: http://ec.europa.eu/
smart-regulation/better_regulation/documents/brochure/
brochure_en.pdf.

European Commission (2007). Communication from the 
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions. Action Programme for 
Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union. 
COM(2007) 23 final.

European Commission (2007). Communication from the 
Commission. A Europe of Results – Applying Community 
Law. COM(2007) 502 final.

European Commission (2009). Impact Assessment 
Guidelines. Available from internet http://ec.europa.eu/

smart-regulation/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/
iag_2009_en.pdf.

European Commission (2010). Communication from the 
Commission to The European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic And Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions. Smart Regulation in the 
European Union. COM(2010) 0543 final. 

European Commission (2012). Commission Staff Working 
Document. Review of the Commission Consultation 
Policy. SWD(2012) 422 final.

European Commission (2012). Commission Staff 
Working Document. Action Programme for Reducing 
Administrative Burdens in the EU Final Report. 
SWD(2012) 423 final.

European Commission (2012). Communication from the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions. EU Regulatory Fitness. 
COM(2012) 746 final. 

European Commission (2013). Communication from the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions. Regulatory Fitness 
and Performance (REFIT): Results and Next Steps. 
COM(2013) 685 final. 

European Commission (2014). List of Best Practices. 
Available from internet: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/impact/best_practices_examples/index_
en.htm.

European Commission (2014). Smart regulation. Available 
from internet: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/.

European Council (2000). Presidency Conclusions of Lisbon 
European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000. Available 
from internet: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/
lis1_en.htm.

European Parliament; European Council; European 
Commission. Inter-Institutional Common Approach 
to Impact Assessment. Available from internet: http://
ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/better_regulation/
documents/ii_common_approach_to_ia_en.pdf.

Flückiger, A. (2010). Concluding remarks. Can Better 
Regulation Be Achieved By Guiding Parliaments 
and Governments? How the Definition of the Quality 
of Legislation Affects Law Improvement Methods. 
Legisprudence, ISSN 1752–1467, Volume 4, No. 2, p. 
213–218. 

Hansard Society (2005). European Union Legislation: The 
Regulatory Environment. Issues in Law Making, Vol. 
7. Available from internet: http://www.hansardsociety.
org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HS-Briefing-
Paper-Issues-In-Law-Making-7-EU-Legislation-The-
Regulatory-Envrionment-2005.pdf. 

Jankaityė, G. (2013). Iššūkis verslui – neišmanūs įstatymai 
ir savivaldybės. Ekonomika.lt. Available from 
internet: http://www.ekonomika.lt/naujiena/issukis-
verslui-neismanus-istatymai-ir-savivaldybes-37022.
html?page=1.

Jurevičius, Balčiūnas & Bartkus (2009). Report on 



ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

36

Possibilities to Reduce Administrative Burden of 
Informational Obligations for Business in the Context of 
Better Regulation. Available from internet: http://www.
ukmin.lt/web/lt/verslo_aplinka/geresnis_reglamentas/
moksliniu_tyrimu_ir_kitos_studijos/taikomojo_
mokslinio_tyrimo_administracine_nasta_verslui_
sukurianciu_informaciniu_ipareigojimu_supaprastinimo_
galimybes_geresnio_reglamentavimo_kontekste_
ataskaita_.

Jyrki, T. (2010). Better Regulation Through Programs and 
Quality Standards-Are New Perspectives Needed? 
Legisprudence, ISSN 1752–1467, Vol. 4, Iss. 2, 
p.193–212. 

Kaeding, M. (2007). Better Regulation in the European 
Union: Lost in Translation or Full Steam Ahead? The 
Transportation of EU Transport Directives across 
Member States. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University 
Press. 

Kargaudienė, A. (2006) Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių 
teisių chartijos principų įgyvendinimo klausimai 
administracinės teisės sistemoje. Jurisprudencija, ISSN 
1392–6195, No. 4(82), p. 40–45.

Karpen, U. (2012). Comparative Law: Perspectives of 
Legislation. Legisprudence, ISSN 1752–1467, Vol. 6, 
No. 2, p. 149–189.

Kirkpartrick, C. H., Parker, D. (2007). Regulatory Impact 
Assessment: Towards Better Regulation? Cheltenham: 
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4337/9781847208774

Kondratienė, V. (2012). Subsidiarumo kaip Europos 
Sąjungos teisės principo taikymas Lietuvos valstybės 
valdymo sistemai decentralizuoti. Viešoji politika ir 
administravimas, ISSN 1648–2603, Is. 11(2), 
p. 331–343.

Korkea-Aho, E. (2012). Better Judicial Review? EU Courts 
and the Smart Regulation Agenda in Implementing 
Chemicals Regulation. Legisprudence, ISSN 1752–1467, 
Vol. 6., No. 3., p. 397–423. 

Laffan, B. (2001). The European Union Polity: a Union of 
Regulative, Normative and Cognitive Pillars. Journal of 
European Public Policy, online ISSN 1466–4429, Vol. 8, 
Iss. 5, p. 709–727. DOI: 10.1080/13501760110083473. 

Law on Reduction of Administrative Burden (2012). Official 
Gazette, 2012, No. 136–6957.

Law on Legislative Framework (2012). Official Gazette, 
2012, No. 110–5564.

Lithuanian Government (2008). Action Plan on the 
Implementation of the Programme on Better Regulation 
for the year 2008. Official Gazette, 2008, No. 29–1024.

Lithuanian Government (2009). Action Plan on the 
Implementation of the Programme on Better Regulation 
for the year 2009. Official Gazette, 2009, No. 56–2211.

Lithuanian Government (2011). Plan on Immediate 
Actions for the Reduction of Administrative Burden 
of Information Obligations for Business in Underlying 
Fields for the year 2011. Available from internet: 
http://www.ukmin.lt/uploads/documents/Geresnis%20
reglamentavimas/Ataskaitos/2011_priemones.pdf.

Lithuanian Government (2012). List on Immediate 
Actions for the Reduction of Administrative Burden 
of Information Obligations for Business in Underlying 
Fields for the year 2012. Available from internet: 
http://www.ukmin.lt/uploads/documents/Geresnis%20
reglamentavimas/Ataskaitos/skubus_priemoniu_
planas_2012.pdf.

Lithuanian Government (2014). Projektas „Valdymo, 
orientuoto į rezultatus, tobulinimas. Available from 
internet: http://www.lrv.lt/lt/veikla/vort-projektas/
valdymas-orietuotas-rezultatus/. 

Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists (2013). 
International Conference on the Perspectives of 
European and Lithuanian Industry. Available from 
internet: http://www.lpk.lt/lt/naujienos/tarptautine-
konferencija-apie-europos-ir-lietuvos-pramones-
perspektyvas.

Lofstedt, R. E. (2007). The ‘Plateau-ing’ of the European 
Better Regulation Agenda: An Analysis of Activities 
Carried out by the Barroso Commission. Journal of Risk 
Research, online ISSN 1466–4461, Vol. 10, No. 4, 
p. 423–447. 

Mak, E. (2012). Judicial Review of Regulatory Instruments: 
the Least Imperfect Alternative? Legisprudence, ISSN 
1752–1467, Vol. 6, No. 3. p. 301–319. 

Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation (2001). Final 
Report of 13 November 2001. Available from internet: 
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/better_regulation/
documents/mandelkern_report.pdf. 

Messerschmidt, K. (2012). The Race to Rationality Review 
and the Score of the German Federal Constitutional 
Court. Legisprudence, ISSN 1752–1467, Vol. 6, No. 3, 
p. 347–378. 

Methodology on the Anticipated Regulatory Impact 
Assessment (2012). Official Gazette, 2003, No. 23–975; 
2012, No. 124–6234.

Methodology on Administrative Burden Assessment for 
Citizens and other Persons (2011). Official Gazette, 
2011, No. 24–1163.

Methodology on Administrative Burden Assessment for 
Entities (2012). Official Gazette, 2012, No. 8–264.

Meuwese, A. C. M. (2008). Impact Assessment in EU 
Lawmaking. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law 
International.

Miežanskienė, R.; Šlapkauskas, V. (2013). Teisės ir politikos 
santykio jurisprudenciniai modeliai ir jų taikymo 
galimybės. Jurisprudencija, ISSN 1392–6195, No. 20(2), 
p. 429–450.

Mikulskienė, B. (2013). Research-based knowledge for 
policy decision making: maximizing the opportunities 
of impact. European Integration Studies: research and 
topicalities, ISSN 1822–8402, No. 7. p. 35–41.

Ministry of Economy (2008). Implementation Report of 
the Programme on Better Regulation. Available from 
internet: http://www.ukmin.lt/web/lt/verslo_aplinka/
geresnis_reglamentas/geresnis_reglamentavimas_
lietuvoje. 



ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

37

Ministry of Economy (2010). Implementation Report of 
the Programme on Better Regulation. Available from 
internet: http://www.ukmin.lt/uploads/documents/
Geresnis%20reglamentavimas/Ataskaitos/2010_
ataskaita.pdf. 

Ministry of Economy (2014). Better Regulation in Lithuania. 
Available from internet: http://www.ukmin.lt/web/
lt/verslo_aplinka/geresnis_reglamentas/geresnis_
reglamentavimas_lietuvoje .

Ministry of Justice (2010). Explanatory Note of Law on 
Legislative Framework No. XIP-2111(2). 

Monkevičius, E. (2008). Aplinkosaugos santykių teisinio 
reguliavimo problemos. Jurisprudencija, ISSN 1392–
6195, No. 10(112), p. 7–16.

Paužaitė-Kulvinskienė, J. (2005). Administracinė justicija: 
teorija ir praktika. Vilnius: Justitia.

Paužaitė-Kulvinskienė, J. (2009). Teisės į gerą 
administravimą (atsakingo valdymo principo) sampratos 
doktrininiai aspektai bei įgyvendinimo pavyzdžiai 
aplinkos apsaugos teisėje. Teisė, ISSN 1392–1274, 
No. 72, p. 82–95.

Popelier, P. (2012). Preliminary Comments on the Role of 
Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs. Legisprudence, ISSN 
1752–1467, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 257–270.

Prosser, T. (2008). Self-regulation, Co-regulation and the 
Audio-Visual Media Services Directive. Journal of 
Consumer Policy, online ISSN 1573–0700, Vol. 31,  
Iss. 1, p. 99–113.

Prapiestytė, D. (2006). Europos teisės ir nacionalinės 
administracinės justicijos santykis Lietuvos vyriausiojo 
administracinio teismo veikloje. Jurisprudencija, ISSN 
1392–6195, No. 5 (83), p. 102–108.

Programme on Better Regulation (2008). Official Gazette, 
2008, No. 29–1024.

Radaelli, C. M. (2005). Diffusion without convergence: how 
political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact 
assessment. Journal of European Public Policy, online 
ISSN 1466–4429, Vol. 12, Iss. 5, p. 924–943. 

Radealli, C. M.; De Francesco, F. (2007). Regulatory Quality 
in Europe – Concepts, Measures and Policy Processes. 
Manchester: Manchester University Press. 

Radaelli, C. M. (2007). Whither Better Regulation for the 
Lisbon Agenda? Journal of European Public Policy, 
online ISSN 1466–4429, Vol. 14, Iss. 2, p. 190–207. 

Radaelli, C. M.; O’Connor, K. (2009). How bureaucratic 
élites imagine Europe: towards convergence of 
governance beliefs?, Journal of European Public Policy, 
online ISSN 1466–4429, Vol. 16, Iss. 7, p. 971–989.

Radealli, C. M.; Meuwese, A. C. M. (2009). Better 
Regulation in Europe: Between Public Management and 
Regulatory Reform. Public Administration, online ISSN: 
1467–9299, Vol. 87, Iss. 3, p. 639–654. 

Radealli, C. M.; Meuwese, A. C. M. Better Regulation in 
the European Union: The political economy of impact 
assessment, Available from internet: http://centres.exeter.
ac.uk/ceg/research/riacp/documents/The%20Political%20
Economy%20of%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf. 

Rasulevičius, P. (2011). Kriterien Der Eu – 
Richtlinienumsetzung Und Folgen Ihren Nichtbeachtung 
Nach Dem Recht Der Europäischen Union. 
Jurisprudencija, ISSN 1392–6195, No. 18(3), 
p. 883–904.

Resolution on the Formation of Better Regulation 
Supervisory Commission (2013). Official Gazette, 
2013, No. 140–7112.

Robinson, W. (2010). Manuals for Drafting European Union 
Legislation. Legisprudence, ISSN 1752–1467, Vol. 4, 
Iss. 2, p. 129–155. 

Šedbaras, S. (2006). Administracinio proceso teisinio 
reglamentavimo problemos Lietuvos Respublikoje. 
Vilnius: Justitia.

Šimašius, R. (2004). Teisėkūra ir teisės socialinis 
veiksmingumas. Jurisprudencija, ISSN 1392–6195, 
No. 54(46), p. 62–73.

Šlapkauskas, V. (2004). Sociologinė pagalba kaip teisėkūros 
kokybę lemiantis veiksnys“. Jurisprudencija, ISSN 
1392–6195, No. 54(46), p. 51–61.

Smismans, S. (2011). From Harmonization to Co-ordination? 
EU Law in the Lisbon Governance Architecture. Journal 
of European Public Policy, online ISSN 1466–4429, 
Vol. 18, Iss. 4., p. 504–524. 

Staroňová, K.; Pavel, J.; Krapež, K. (2007). Piloting 
regulatory impact assessment: a comparative analysis 
of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia. Impact 
Assessment and Project Appraisal, online ISSN 1471–
5465, Vol. 25, Iss. 4, p. 271–280.

Theodoropoulos, S. (2009). Reducing administrative burden 
as a priority in the European Economic environment. 
Taikomoji ekonomika: sisteminiai tyrimai, ISSN 1822–
7996, Vol. 3, Iss. 2., p. 93–103.

Torriti, J. (2007). Impact Assessment in the EU: A Tool 
for Better Regulation, Less Regulation or Less Bad 
Regulation? Journal of Risk Research, online ISSN 
1466–4461, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 239–276. 

Torriti, J.; Löfstedt, R. (2012). The first five years of the EU 
Impact Assessment system. Journal of Risk Research, 
online ISSN 1466–4461, Vol. 15, No. 2, p. 169–186. 

Urmonas, A. (2007). Socialinių technologijų metodologinė 
funkcija administracinėje teisėje. Jurisprudencija, 
ISSN 1392–6195, No. 6(96), p. 9–15.

Urmonas, A. (2009). Administrative Law as Macro-System 
Phenomenon . Jurisprudencija, ISSN 1392–6195, No. 
3(3), p. 273–287.

Valančius, V (2007). Europos Sąjungos teisės poveikis 
Lietuvos administracinei justicijai: tendencijų kontūrai. 
Pirma dalis. Jurisprudencija, ISSN 1392–6195, 
No. 7(97), p. 33–38.

Valančius, V (2007). Europos Sąjungos teisės poveikis 
Lietuvos administracinei justicijai: tendencijų kontūrai. 
Antra dalis. Jurisprudencija, ISSN 1392–6195, 
No. 9(99), p. 7–12.

Valančius, V.; Kavalnė, S. (2009). Europos Sąjungos teisės 
įgyvendinimas Lietuvos administracinėje teisėje. Vilnius: 
Mykolo Romerio universitetas.



ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

38

Van Den Abeele, E. (2010). The European Union’s Better 
Regulation Agenda. Available from internet: http://www.
etui.org/Publications2/Reports/The-European-union-s-
better-regulation-agenda. 

Van Lochem, P.; Westerman, P. (2010). Rules on 
Rulemaking. Introduction. Legisprudence, ISSN 1752–
1467, Vol. 4, Iss. 2, p. 107–109. 

Verschuuren, J. M. (2009). The Impact of Legislation: A 
Critical Analysis of Ex Ante Evaluation. Leiden: Brill. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004170209.i-280

Vogel, L.; Van den Abeele, E. (2010). Better Regulation: 
a critical assessment. Available from internet: http://
www.etui.org/Publications2/Reports/Better-regulation-a-
critical-assessment. 

Work Regulation of the Lithuanian Government (1994). 
Official Gazette, 1994, No. 63–1238.

The article has been reviewed.
Received in April, 2014; accepted in June, 2014.