Since its implementation in 2002, the Better Regulation agenda for improved policy-making aimed at closing the gap in the policy cycle in the European Union. The gap in the policy cycle is said to be due to a lack of compliance with evaluations of existing regulations through ex-post evaluations before starting new policy processes with impact assessments. With a point of departure in the effect of the external shock from Covid-19 on the EU policy process, the thesis analyzes if and how the usage of ex-post evaluation in impact assessments has differed before and during Covid-19. This comparative case study focuses on the qualitative use of ex-post evaluations in impact assessments during crises, the study contributes with a new crisis-oriented focus on the research on Better Regulation as well as new data on the cyclical policy process in the EU. The analysis tests two explanatory theories for non-compliance by linking ex-post evaluations with impact assessments under Better Regulation. The theory of regulatory reactivity can explain non-compliance tied to the external shock of Covid-19 and the inherent variation in DG capacity to produce cyclical and evidence-based impact assessments in line with the Better Regulation guidelines can explain if the non-compliance is systematic. The results contradict the somewhat pessimistic picture from previous research and the theoretical expectations of compliance with Better Regulation. A stronger compliance over time with Better Regulation was found which was not visibly impacted by the external shock from Covid-19 nor connected to the variation in DG capacity.