A lot of laws get passed that people don’t like. It is unsurprisingly common.
When the law makers agree to a directive or regulation you don’t like, there are a few things you can do.
A common response is to deny that it says what it says. I would not go for this approach. I have never seen it work.
In the past, guidance documents prepared by the Commission and the Member States liked to fudge things. That’s getting harder to do.
An old tradition is to see if a piece of secondary legislation can undo what the co-legislators agreed to. This used to work quite well until the European Parliament – well in practice just one political group official – woke up and discovered that the Commission were re-writing the law behind their back. This does not happen so much anymore. The Court has been very clear on the limited options here.
Recommendations from the Court of Auditors reports have a good record of leading to policy and legislative change.
I like to use a slightly duller technique. I have found the best way to deal with any defects in any legislation is to look at when the legislation is going to be reviewed. I have found this to be by far the best opening. I’ve worked to prepare thorough and learned studies in advance of any reviews. When the public consultation comes up, I am ready to provide a very clear and persuasive case for the need to change. In fact, if your own ‘mid-term’ review is ready in time, you’ll find the Commission use it as the basis for their own review and proposals.
Every time I mention this option, people respond indignantly. This approach requires them to go through the law and find out when the review(s) starts. Not being allergic to paper, I find this hard to understand. Fortunately, the European Parliament provide a clear and easy to use report on ‘Review clauses in EU legislation‘. You can now use the PDF search do the work for you.