Poland’s 100 regulatory add-ons sharpen EU simplification debate

Poland’s regulatory review identifies 100 cases of extra requirements

Poland’s implementation of European Union legislation has produced 100 examples of additional national requirements or excessive regulation, according to a legal review reported by Emerging Europe. The findings span banking, telecommunications, transport and public procurement, highlighting a practical issue for businesses entering European markets: EU-level requirements are not necessarily the full compliance burden.

The review comes alongside a weak result for Poland in the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World report. Using 2024 data, the index places Poland 65th among 165 countries and territories, below every other EU member. Georgia ranks 26th and Armenia 38th, outperforming many of the bloc’s formerly communist economies despite remaining outside the Union, Emerging Europe reports.

Poland also faces a separate implementation problem: delays and errors in incorporating European legislation. The European Commission’s Single Market Scoreboard recorded 21 overdue single-market directives at the end of November 2025. Poland was among nine member states with substantial shortcomings both in meeting deadlines and in correctly translating EU requirements into domestic law.

There are signs of movement on deregulation. Emerging Europe cites Grant Thornton figures showing that Poland produced 12,400 pages of new legislation in 2025, down 12 per cent from 2024 and the lowest total for 19 years. By the end of 2025, 11 laws originating in proposals from the country’s SprawdzaMY deregulation initiative had been passed and signed.

National implementation creates different business environments

SprawdzaMY began in February 2025, when InPost founder Rafał Brzoska took up an invitation from Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk to lead a deregulation effort. Lawyers at DZP prepared the initiative’s review, published in May 2025. According to Emerging Europe, the cases involved Polish lawmakers extending legislation’s reach, imposing stricter conditions or introducing obligations beyond those needed to implement EU law.

Tax reporting provides a concrete example. The EU’s DAC6 directive requires intermediaries, and sometimes taxpayers, to disclose potentially aggressive cross-border tax arrangements, with reporting due from July 2020. Poland introduced its requirements on 1 January 2019 and included domestic arrangements. Emerging Europe reports that penalties could reach tens of millions of złoty. An amendment published in June subsequently ended the domestic reporting obligation on 1 October.

The practice of adding national obligations, commonly called gold-plating, extends beyond Central Europe. During a summer consultation by the Commission, the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry submitted 20 examples. These included requirements concerning data-protection officers and packaging declarations, according to Emerging Europe.

Regional comparisons also undermine the idea that a shared political history determines today’s business environment. Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia rank 15th, 22nd and 29th respectively in Fraser’s overall index. All three were Soviet republics. Czechia stands 23rd, while Slovakia ranks 43rd, Hungary 49th, Romania 51st, Bulgaria and Slovenia jointly 54th, and Croatia 64th.

The regulation component of Fraser’s assessment produces a different picture from the overall table. It covers credit markets, employment rules and business regulation. Georgia ranks 19th, ahead of Germany in 23rd place; Poland is 58th. Armenia, despite its stronger overall position than Poland, ranks 101st on regulation. These differences matter when using a broad index to assess a particular operating requirement.

Georgia’s position follows substantial domestic reform. Under Kakha Bendukidze, who held economic and reform-coordination ministerial roles between 2004 and 2008, the country removed more than 80 per cent of its licences and permits. Its EU association agreement, including a deep and comprehensive free-trade area, began applying provisionally in 2014. Emerging Europe notes that extensive subsequent alignment with European economic legislation has coincided with Georgia remaining among Fraser’s top 30 economies.

The rankings nevertheless depend on methodology. Emerging Europe reports that the Heritage Foundation’s 2026 index also places Georgia above Poland, but puts Armenia slightly below it. For market-entry teams, the distinction cautions against treating any single economic freedom score as a substitute for examining sector-specific obligations.

Commission and Polish lawyers press for accountable rulemaking

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed an agreement under which governments would disclose and explain requirements they add when implementing EU legislation. Emerging Europe reports that she introduced the proposal in her 16 September State of the Union address and followed it with a letter to EU leaders on 12 October. Her stated objective was to prevent national implementation from making European rules more complicated.

The proposed agreement would also establish a route for reviewing and removing national measures that hinder the single market through the European Semester, the EU’s economic policy coordination process. Von der Leyen asked leaders to begin work at their 15–16 October summit, with a declaration intended for signature before year-end, according to Emerging Europe.

EU leaders’ response stopped short of explicitly endorsing that agreement. The summit conclusions requested further Commission initiatives to curb additional national requirements but did not mention the proposed pact. The distinction leaves the specific disclosure and review mechanism without an explicit endorsement in those conclusions.

The DZP lawyers recommended removing additions that lack justification and detecting new ones before legislation is approved. Emerging Europe identifies Slovakia as an existing example of this approach: bills implementing EU directives must include a comparison table that identifies and explains requirements going beyond the European measure. That makes national choices visible during lawmaking rather than leaving businesses to discover them afterwards.

EU rule changes and accession decisions shape the next steps

The Commission is also pursuing changes to its own legislation. According to Emerging Europe, it has proposed a dozen omnibus simplification packages and intends, where legally possible, to favour exhaustive, directly applicable regulations over directives for single-market matters. This could reduce national discretion in drafting legislation, although domestic authorities would retain responsibilities for permits, inspections and administrative procedures.

For Georgia, further integration is constrained by politics rather than an imminent accession timetable. The EU regards the membership process as effectively suspended, and the government in Tbilisi has said it will not seek the opening of negotiations before 2028. Businesses assessing Georgia therefore need to distinguish its existing EU trade arrangements from the uncertain prospect of membership.

Armenia has a different starting point. Its EU agreement, effective since 2021, does not include a free-trade area equivalent to Georgia’s. Emerging Europe reports that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said in August that Armenia would soon start the membership application process. He has also acknowledged that Armenia cannot retain membership of the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union while becoming an EU member.

For UK-based and other international companies expanding into Europe, the practical implication is to budget for country-specific implementation work alongside EU compliance. Tax reporting, licensing and procurement conditions warrant separate checks before launch. The issue sits alongside the administrative challenges covered in Market Entry Wire’s reporting on customs readiness for EU carbon border rules: regulatory planning must account for the procedures a business will actually encounter, not just the legislation’s stated scope.