E Pluribus Omnibus

“Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach! in meiner Brust” (Two souls alas! are dwelling in my breast) (Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Faust I).

This desperate exclamation of Goethe’s wisdom-seeker hero Faust is selected to open discussion of one of the most German of German tropes – bureaucracy, aka regulation, aka red tape. Many attribute the label of world capital of bureaucracy and regulation to the Brussels corridors of the European Union. In fact, the birthplace of modern bureaucracy in the subtle yet determined style as practised in Europe is the autocratic Prussian monarchy of the 19th century. That sounds long ago. Is it still in vogue?

Clamorous signals from all over the world seem to indicate that “bureaucracy is bad for economic growth” (The Economist, 22 November 2025, “All aboard the EU omnibus”). Something must be done, so it seems. Politicians everywhere embark on – sometimes more, sometimes less – populistic slogans. “Slash red tape!” Currently, falling short of commonplace demands bears a risk of appearing anachronistic. And so, after all, the EU commission has started to roll: with the omnibus initiative.

Deregulating the spiritual home of administrative zeal sounds like a truly heart-splitting task. But is it worth the pain – or is it rather a matter of love’s lost labour? Does the populist demand ensue from a thorough understanding of historical, economic, sociological circumstances and their embedding in a Continental European legal context? Are there risks for modern societies resulting from a mindless and systematic debasement of executive power? Before examining the new European deregulation drive, the basics deserve a closer look.

Roots of bureaucracy

Where does it come from? Is bureaucracy a political idea, is it an administrative instrument, or is it a functional organism born from mere necessity? There are as many answers at hand as there are questions. It might not come as a surprise that the science of administration (in German: Verwaltungswissenschaft) has evolved into an academic discipline.

This discussion is about bureaucracy in a modern, contemporary understanding. This might conceal the fact that bureaucracy has been around since the bronze age: Ancient Egypt, Rome during antiquity, the Chinese Middle Ages, and with the rise of colonisation starting during the Renaissance. The necessity of somehow supervising widespread empires across the globe meant that building some kind of organised administration was inevitable. Still, the pinnacle of industrialisation in pre-unified Germany during the 19th century, along with an unstable and complex political system of competing individual states, called for a disciplined, highly hierarchical bureaucracy of administrative experts. This historical development brought about the fact that Germany’s bureaucracy pre-dates democracy. The language of this immensely rule-based corpus was legalese: a social discourse, mostly and primarily led by legal experts.

Is it a fair observation that, nowadays, bureaucracy’s sacred heart lies in Brussels? It certainly is true that the German model served as the leading example for other European countries which, some more than others, and gradually, adopted it under the prerogatives of the Continental European legal understanding. It comes across as a natural development that, under a unified European umbrella, EU member states convene under these legal conditions (most probably one of the reasons why the United Kingdom tended to struggle with the concept). Much more unifying, though, than the aspect of adopting and creating a vast amount of regulation and a seemingly overblown apparatus of officials to implement it, has been a ground-breaking, beautiful idea: the Rule of Law and the notion that executive power must be tied to the law and needs to be controlled by an independent judiciary.

This is mostly forgotten by a persistent meme perpetrated in global political discourse at the gateway to the 21st century: a perceived contradiction between the liberal Anglo-Saxon on one side and the Continental European, Roman as well as Hegelian tradition on the other – ie, the State perceived as a body establishing all-encompassing order as a framework for social life and the development of individuals.

State intervention, regulation, red tape

The distinction between these two models is all over the place, and it deserves better understanding. In this context, particularly within the international discourse, one must bear in mind that when Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions speak of state regulation or control, this fundamentally differs from the Continental European understanding of state intervention. In these two models, the state, the economy and society are conceived in distinct arrangements relative to one another. These contrasting views result in clearly differentiated and diversely nuanced perceptions of state regulation.

In the liberal Anglo-Saxon tradition, the state is regarded as a “necessary evil” (“we can’t help it”). The starting point of this school of thought is the unimpeded development of individuals and private-sector enterprises. In principle, both are limitless. The state imposes restrictions only where strictly necessary to enable and guarantee the manifestation of freedom among legal entities. Anything exceeding this is labelled in English economic jargon with the unsightly term “red tape”. This implies that rules of conduct and engagement should only be statutorily defined for cases of ultimate conflict. Society and the market negotiate their conflicts through free interplay for as long as possible. Only when market activity becomes unbalanced may the “regulator” – or, in our terminology, the public authorities – intervene.

In the Continental European, and specifically the German, understanding inspired by the early 19th century philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, the general, often subconscious, mindset is much more strongly governed by the notion of the state as the primordial foundation of society. Consequently, the state has inherent tasks and duties. It establishes the framework for individual development and economic activity. The classification and formation of legal entities into finely nuanced categories receives meticulous attention from the relevant legal disciplines (private and public corporate law, constitutional law of state organisation). Legal entities possess rights of liberty, rights of defence against the state and rights of participation. The individual, society and the market are assigned their respective places – sometimes in the sun, sometimes in the shade – by an attentive state.

This leads to numerous differences that often become blurred in international discourse, resulting in misunderstandings. In the worst-case scenario, parties talk past one another. Most significant is the observation that the American model of “checks and balances” is extremely oriented towards individuals, office-holders and institutions. These actors must essentially exercise their constitutional roles – which, depending on majorities in the legislative chambers, can lead to total gridlock – thereby ensuring a socially acceptable balance of interests. This fixation on individuals, institutions and their executive power is also reflected in the USA’s less than representative electoral law.

Notably, the Continental European model, by contrast, proceeds from a tension-filled antagonism, charged with the history of ideas, between subjective legal personality and state action. This starting point alone carries a high degree of abstraction, such that the personified function of the state is (initially) replaced by the pure legal concept (Rechtsidee). The historical development of thought regarding the state and administration (primarily in active Franco-German exchange), the progressive codification and subsequent refinement – particularly through the jurisprudence of Constitutional and Administrative High Courts – resembles an intricately balanced partner dance. Thus, an integrated concept has emerged: truly, a hermeneutic spiral.

The idea of the rule of law as merged into the Euro sphere

When talking to Continental European lawyers (and, last not least, authorities), it is crucial to understand the difference between politics, law and administration in the modern sense, which has evolved in the legal culture of the Continent.

To take the German example: the basic principle that the administrative power must abide by the law is manifested in the German Constitution. Before you ask yourselves: yes, even before the Hitler regime – but this development was brutally interrupted for 12 years and was successfully reanimated after 1945. It is inherent to the German Constitution that the rule of law, the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality and fairness must be the leading principles of any administrative measure, and the German Constitutional Court and the German administrative courts have produced decades of sophisticated systematic interpretation of these principles. Systematic means it is not case law – it is a further development of statutory law.

The use of these principles is not voluntary nor subject to discretion – be it of a single regulatory body or a single judge. They are ingrained into the legal system, and they are enshrined in statutory law.

It lies upon the administrative courts to review and revise administrative decisions. The administrative courts are highly influential, and they put massive pressure on German administration of any kind. Germany has administrative courts which are highly sought-after and therefore exercise constant control over acting officials inside administrative bodies, which, with the incessant probing of NGOs et al, leads to considerable congestion in managing infrastructure projects, etc.

Hard questions, weak thinking

Whenever bureaucracy or regulation are called into question in a superficial manner, in response one can ask some revealing questions. What is meant when there is talk of cutting red tape or slashing unnecessary bureaucracy: a call for reducing statutory law, or rather for reducing state resources for public servants and the proper technical equipment for public obligations to be serviced? Or is the issue about overwhelming judicial review that holds back the exercise of executive power, which again means a slowdown for much-awaited infrastructure or energy projects and other pressing tasks to be fulfilled?

And what does slashing “red tape” without distinction between legislative, executive and judiciary power do to the public belief and public understanding of legitimate power of state? Is there present knowledge about what division of powers means and the manner in which it serves a modern society?

All these questions put apart: EU member states leaders are not blind, and the EU Commission is not deaf – Europe has embarked on its deregulation drive, the “omnibus” initiative.

The EU omnibus

On 8 November 2024, EU member states leaders issued the Budapest declaration, in which they expressed their desire for a new European competitiveness deal and called on the Commission to submit explicit proposals on how to simplify EU regulation.

And so, the omnibus packages were created in response to increasing complaints about excessive bureaucracy and as a stimulus for economic recovery in the EU. The main aim is to reduce administrative costs and reporting requirements in different areas of EU regulation.

The drafting process has been the same for all packages so far: the Commission will draft a document with proposals for measures that appear appropriate in the respective area. The Council then discusses this list of proposals. If agreement is reached, it is discussed again with Parliament negotiators, and attempts are made to reach agreement here, too. If this is successful, the result can be cast into law.

Ten packages have been issued, each being at a different stage of development.

Omnibus I: sustainability

On 9 December, Parliament negotiators and the Council provisionally agreed on a series of measures. The content of the agreement goes far beyond the proposals of the EU Commission published on 26 February 2025.

A postponement (known as the Stop the Clock Directive) is planned, a reduction in the scope of the directives, and a weakening of due diligence requirements. The Council and the EU Parliament had already approved a two-year postponement of the reporting obligation under the CSRD for companies that would normally have had to report from the 2025 or 2026 financial year, as well as a one-year postponement of the due diligence obligations under the CSDDD, with Directive (EU) 2025/794 of 14 April 2025.

Omnibus II: EU investments

Also presented in February 2025, the EU’s investment capacity (InvestEU) is to be increased by mobilising around EUR50 billion in additional public and private investment. The increased InvestEU capacity will mainly be used to finance more innovative activities under priority policy measures such as the Competitiveness Compass and the Clean Industry Deal. On 11 December, the Council decided to simplify the InvestEU programme, a deal having been reached with the Parliament in September.

Omnibus III: common agricultural policy

The Council and the European Parliament struck a provisional deal on 10 November 2025 to simplify the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP), which was confirmed by the Council on18 December. The simplification package aims to reduce bureaucracy, create legal certainty and give member states more leeway in implementing the CAP.

Omnibus IV: small mid-caps and digitalisation

The commission issued a paper of proposals on 21 May 2025, which was adopted by the Council on 24 September 2025. The thresholds for the “small-mid caps” category of companies are to be raised, and some EU regulations amended – eg, regarding batteries, packaging and the GDPR.

Omnibus V: defence readiness

At the June European Council meeting, EU leaders called for the acceleration of all aspects of work to ramp up Europe’s defence readiness by 2030. In this context, they encouraged the Council and the Parliament to advance rapidly on the defence readiness omnibus proposals, part of the fifth omnibus package presented by the Commission on 17 June 2025. On 26 November 2025, the Council agreed on a set of proposals aiming to simplify rules on defence related to procurement, investments and market conditions.

Omnibus VI: chemicals

The “simplification of certain requirements and procedures for chemical products” was published by the Commission on 8 July 2025. On 23 October 2025, the EU Parliament adopted the “stop-the-clock” mechanism for the CLP Regulation. The date of entry into force of the revised CLP Regulation is postponed to 1 January 2028.

On 17 November 2025, the Council gave its final green light to the postponement of rules on classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals and to giving more time and legal certainty to businesses, again via the “stop-the-clock” mechanism, to 1 January 2028.

Omnibus VII: digital

The Commission’s proposals, published on 19 November 2025, include measures relating to both the regulation of AI and data protection. The regulation of cookies is to be reformed, business wallets for companies are to be introduced, and the implementation of the AI Regulation for certain systems is to be postponed.

Omnibus VIII: environment

The six legislative proposals in the eighth package, presented by the Commission on 10 December 2025, aim to simplify and streamline existing environmental legislation, focusing on: speeding up environmental assessments for authorisation procedures and simplifying standards for industrial emissions.

Omnibus IX: automotive industry

Presented by the Commission on 16 December 2025, some requirements are to be abolished, particularly in relation to the switch to electric drives.

Limits such as the famed “Verbrenner-Aus” are being relaxed, and the European battery industry and certain categories of electric vehicles, such as small cars and lorries, are to be promoted.

Omnibus X: food and feed safety

The Commission issued a package on 16 December 2025, which includes the Biotech Act, aiming to boost the biotechnology sector, and a simplification of the regulations governing the development of medical devices.

Further development

Even more areas are to be deregulated: the commission is planning on packages relating to citizenship, tax matters and regulation of energy products.

This overview shows that the omnibus packages cover almost all areas regulated by the European Union. Many packages still have a long way to go, especially those for which the Commission has only submitted its proposals so far. Until EU member state leaders, the Council and the Parliament have agreed on a concrete catalogue of measures, a considerable amount of time may pass, depending on the political sensitivity, public controversy, urgency and complexity of the respective subject area of the package. Bureaucracy on an EU level as well as the EU member state and regional level is a popular adversary and scapegoat when discussing the tense economic situation, but it is important to look closely at which measures really have an effect and which ones tend to prolong the problem. “Stop-the-clock” mechanisms, which can be found in some packages, may bring short-term relief. However, their effect will fade if no structural and long-term solutions to the problems are found.

On the other hand, the omnibus packages serve as investment programmes in some areas, such as defence, and will certainly breathe new life into rather stagnant parts of the European market. A display of unity among EU member state leaders has grown into a pressing existential necessity. The EU is well advised to show that its decisive bodies are able to focus on common goals. In any case, the further development of the omnibus packages will be influenced by external circumstances on the world stage, whether at the economic or the political level.

Stick to the fundamentals

The call for a reduction of state regulation routinely goes along with demands for better regulation in those areas each combatant in the political or social arena deems prevalent. A case of systematic discursive amnesia. It is so much easier to ignore adverse requirements than to negotiate compromise.

By perpetuating the “slash bureaucracy” rhetoric, a wealth of crucial functions are put at risk.

A thorough understanding of what division of powers means will over time degenerate and fall into oblivion. The consequence may be a demise in public trust in the mechanisms of parliamentary work, of principle-based administration and of a judiciary which meticulously does what it is there for, controlling the executive – each of those working inside the powers given to them and accepting their limits.

Statutory law and administrative practice must be subject to incessant control, reassessment and re-negotiation as routine functions of law-making in a parliamentary democracy and rule-based administration. Negating the need and the willingness to constantly revise legislation and administrative functions is dangerous. All this might be perceived as tiring, but it is inevitable work, specifically in a democratic parliamentary system with a functioning rule of law.

Worst of all, by cutting funds and budgets for necessary modernisation and remodelling, societies miss the chance of constant, controlled evolution of their public administrative bodies which are needed to master life in the 21st century.

In other words, it is time to wake up and to unite what should not be perceived as antagonistic ways to rule, administrate and control, as “two souls in one breast”, but simply as a procedural task, to be performed with skill, historical awareness, an uncompromising creative drive and a sober mind.