Conceptualizing Notions of Power and Influence in the EU Legislative Process: Governmental Capacities and Strategies

2017 ◽  
pp. 35-55
Author(s):  
Jean Micallef Grimaud
Keyword(s):  
Legislative Process ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Power And Influence

The Interaction of Judicial and Legislative Policymaking

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
European Legislation ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Judicial Policymaking ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Chapter 4 systematizes the different ways that judicial policymaking can have an impact on European legislation. Identifying the codification of case-law principles in secondary law contributes to research on the EU in two important ways: it shows how EU legislation is embedded in case-law development, and that the impact of case law cannot be reduced to the question of compliance with single rulings. A differentiation is made between several types of judicial ‘shadow’ over the legislative process. Then the Services Directive and the regulation on the mutual recognition of goods are analysed. The principles of case law that were motivated by the specific circumstances of individual cases constrain the design of general rules. Secondary law cannot modify constitutional principles. At best, the legislature can hope to signal its political preferences to the Court.

scholarly journals The European Committee of the Regions as a watchdog of the principle of subsidiarity

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 284-301
Author(s):  
Salvatore Fabio Nicolosi ◽  
Lisette Mustert
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
European Committee ◽  
Legislative Proposal ◽  
The Right ◽  
Committee Of The Regions ◽  
Regional Funds ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
The Eu

In a resolution adopted on 1 February 2018, the European Committee of the Regions noted that a legislative proposal of the European Commission concerning a Regulation that changes the rules governing the EU regional funds for 2014-2020 did not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. Accordingly, the Committee considered challenging the legislative proposal before the Court of Justice if the proposal was formally agreed upon. Although at a later stage the European Commission decided to take into account the Committee’s argument and amended the proposal accordingly, such a context offers the chance to investigate more in detail the role of the Committee of the Regions in the legislative process of the EU and, more in particular, its role as a watchdog of the principle of subsidiarity. This paper aims to shed light on a rather neglected aspect of the EU constitutional practice, such as the potential of the Committee of the Regions to contribute to the legislative process, and answer the question of whether this Committee is the right body to guarantee compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.

Regulating Proxy Advisors Through Transparency: Pros and Cons of the EU Approach

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaia Balp
Keyword(s):  
Status Quo ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
European Regulation ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Status ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Proxy Advisors ◽  
Legal Constraints ◽  
The Eu

This article outlines potential pros and cons of a future European regulation of proxy advisory firms, as set forth in the Commission’s Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2007/36/EC. After summarizing criticisms concerning the proxy advisory industry, and findings regarding its de facto influence on investors’ voting conduct both in the US and in the European context, the article adverts to why the power of proxy advisors appears to be overestimated. Uncertainty on the status quo of the industry’s actual impact on key decisions in listed companies, as well as costs associated with a regulation, need to be considered for assessing the suitability of the rules drafted to ensure adequate levels of independence and quality of voting recommendations. While transparency rules may be preferred to stricter legal constraints or requirements in a first stage, possible shortcomings of the Draft Directive exist that may undermine its effectiveness. Analyzing the amendments to the Proposal adopted by the European Parliament, and the Council’s Presidency compromise text, may suggest a preferable approach as regards single rules still making their way through the European legislative process.

The law applicable to third-party effects of assignment and the conflict rules for insolvency according to EU law

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 664-684
Author(s):  
Christian Heinze ◽  
Cara Warmuth
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Insolvency Law ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Good Opportunity ◽  
Insolvency Regulation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In March 2018, the European Commission issued its proposal for a regulation on the law applicable to third-party effects of assignments of claims, aiming to put an end to the ongoing debate on this issue and the legal uncertainty associated with it. On the basis of the Commission’s decision in favour of the application of the law of the assignor’s habitual residence, this article discusses the consequences of the Proposal under European Union (EU) insolvency law. For that purpose, the coherence of the Proposal with the Insolvency Regulation will be examined, first in general and then in more detail. The analysis comes to the result that the Commission’s objective of aligning the Proposal with the legal framework of the Insolvency Regulation has predominantly been well achieved. The authors point out remaining minor inaccuracies that may be clarified in the further legislative process or by later case law. It is concluded that, from the perspective of international insolvency law, the proposed uniform conflict-of-laws rule at the EU level offers a good opportunity to promote legal certainty with regard to cross-border assignments of claims in the future.

Legislating and Adjudicating

2020 ◽  
pp. 173-192
Author(s):  
Eleanor Sharpston
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Union Legislation ◽  
Final Text ◽  
The Eu

The chapter examines the role played by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) in ruling authoritatively on the meaning of European Union legislation. The EU legislative process differs from the parliamentary process in the United Kingdom for good reason. Within the European Union, there are many different traditions of how such drafting should be done; whilst, at EU level, multinationalism and multilingualism have a significant impact on what emerges as the final text. The chapter explains the difficulties encountered and gives illustrations from the Court’s case-law of instances where the Court has either decided not to take steps that might be construed as ‘legislating’ or, conversely, has gone to the limits of ‘constructive re-interpretation’. The chapter concludes by asking how far the Court should ‘bend’ a legislative text.

10. EU Legislation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ed Beale ◽  
Libby Kurien ◽  
Eve Samson
Keyword(s):  
Direct Access ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the ways in which the UK Parliament formally constrains the government and engages with European Union (EU) institutions. The House of Lords and the House of Commons both have processes to ensure that legislation proposed at the EU level has been properly reviewed before it takes effect in UK law. The ‘scrutiny reserve’, which stipulates that ministers should not agree to proposals under scrutiny, is used to elicit information about the government's negotiating position. Parliament also has a role in examining EU legislation and providing direct access to European institutions. The chapter first provides an overview of the EU legislative process, focusing on three principal EU institutions: member states, the European Parliament (EP), and the European Commission. It also considers the formal role of national parliaments in the EU legislative process, the UK Parliament's scrutiny of the EU legislation and its effectiveness, and parliamentary scrutiny after Brexit.

6. Legislation and Decision-Making

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 155-193
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Legislative Procedure ◽  
Ordinary Legislative Procedure ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter, which discusses the process by which the EU enacts legislation and makes decisions, begins by considering the making of legislative acts. This includes the Treaty rules and practice concerning the initiation of the legislative process, and how the ordinary legislative procedure, in which the Council and EP act as co-legislators, has come to occupy centre stage. The focus then shifts to the making of delegated acts followed by an analysis of how implementing acts are made. The chapter concludes with discussion of democracy in the EU, and evaluates the extent to which the EU might be said to have a democracy deficit. The UK version contains a further section analysing issues concerning EU legislation and decision-making in relation to the UK post-Brexit.

scholarly journals Enduring consensus: why the EU legislative process stays the same

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Stéphanie Novak ◽  
Olivier Rozenberg ◽  
Selma Bendjaballah
Keyword(s):  
Legislative Process ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals Constitutional Agenda-Setting Through Discretion in Rule Interpretation: Why the European Parliament Won at Amsterdam

2002 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
SIMON HIX
Keyword(s):  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Imperfect Information ◽  
Incomplete Contracts ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Critical Question ◽  
Agenda Setter ◽  
Treaty Of Amsterdam ◽  
The Eu

It is a widely accepted that the 1999 Treaty of Amsterdam significantly increased the powers of the European Parliament (EP). The critical question, however, is why the European Union (EU) governments did this. I argue, contrary to existing explanations, that these changes came about because the EP was a ‘constitutional agenda-setter’. The rules in the EU Treaty, as established at Maastricht, were incomplete contracts, and the EU governments had imperfect information about the precise operation of the Treaty. As a result, the EP was able to re-interpret these rules to its advantage and threaten not to co-operate with the governments unless they accepted the EP's interpretations. The article shows how this process of discretion, interpretation and acceptance worked in the two main areas of EP power: in the legislative process (in the reform of the co-decision procedure), and in executive appointment (in the reform of the Commission investiture procedure). The article concludes that ‘agenda-setting through discretion in rule interpretation’ is a common story in the development of the powers of parliaments, both at the domestic and EU levels.

National Parliaments and the European Union

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrin Auel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Direct Role ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Eu ◽  
The Way

The role and position of national parliaments in European Union (EU) affairs have undergone a long, slow, and sometimes rocky, but overall rather remarkable, development. Long regarded as the victims of the integration process, they have continuously strengthened their institutional prerogatives and have become more actively involved in EU affairs. Since the Lisbon Treaty, national parliaments even have a formal and direct role in the European legislative process, namely, as guardians of the EU’s subsidiarity principle via the so-called early warning system. To what extent institutional provisions at the national or the European level provide national parliaments with effective means of influencing EU politics is still a largely open question. On the one hand, national parliaments still differ with regard to their institutional prerogatives and actual engagement in EU politics. On the other hand, the complex decision-making system of the EU, with its multitude of actors involved, makes it difficult to trace outcomes back to the influence of specific actors. Yet it is precisely this opacity of the EU policymaking process that has led to an emphasis on the parliamentary communication function and the way national parliaments can contribute to the democratic legitimacy of the EU by making EU political decisions and processes more accessible and transparent for the citizens. This deliberative aspect is also often emphasized in approaches to the role of national parliaments in the EU that challenge the territorially defined, standard account of parliamentary representation. Taking the multilevel character of the EU as well as the high degree of political and economic interdependence between the member states into account, parliamentary representation is conceptualized as extending beyond the nation-state and as shared across the EU, with a strong emphasis on the links between parliaments through inter-parliamentary cooperation and communication as well as on the representation of other member states’ citizens interests and concerns in parliamentary debates. Empirical research is still scarce, but existing studies provide evidence for the development of an increasingly dense web of formal and informal interactions between parliaments and for changes in the way national parliamentarians represent citizens in EU affairs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document