Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:11:20.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to the Findings of Eurochambres 2013 SME Test Benchmark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Riccardo Maggi
Riccardo Maggi*
Affiliation:
European Commission, Secretariat General, Unit C2 – Impact Assessment
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 236 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Eurochambres, SME Test Benchmark 2013 (Brussels, 2013), at p. 6.Google Scholar

2 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm (last accessed on 9 May 2014).

3 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/key_docs/docs/meg_guidelines.pdf (last accessed on 9 May 2014).

4 Ibid., p. 11.

5 Ibid., p. 10.

6 On impact assessment, SMEs, quantity vs. quality of consultation and related “fatigue” see for instance: House of Lords Session 2009–10, European Union Committee Publications, European Union Committee – Fourth Report, Impact Assessments in the EU: room for improvement?, Evidence section, at p. 4.

7 http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/2012recommendation.htm (last accessed on 9 May 2014).

8 Ibid., p. 8.

9 Ibid., p. 11.

10 Barriers and best practices in SME test implementation – PE464.437