Transparency of EU informal trilogues through public feedback in the European Parliament : promise unfulfilled

Significant parts of the EU’s legislative process remain shrouded in secrecy. In informal trilogues, representatives of the three main institutions negotiate compromises behind closed doors which are subsequently rubber-stamped in public meetings. While most research on (EU) transparency focuses on the availability of documents, this article investigates how much information on trilogue proceedings is shared with the general public through European Parliament (EP) committee meetings as the only forum to which public account must be rendered during the negotiation process. This article analyses the degree to which trilogues are reported back on, and the quality of feedback provided. Although the EP requires its trilogue negotiators to report back to its committees after each trilogue, the majority of trilogues is not reported back on at all, or not in time. Where feedback is given, its quality is often only poor. The EP thus does not deliver on its promises, which seriously undermines the legitimacy of the EU’s legislative process.publishe

Bending the rules: Arrangements for sharing technical and political information between the EU institutions

The European Union is typically modelled as a separation of powers system. Within this context, this article focuses on the exchange of technical and political information on policy-making between the EU institutions. Even though only very few formal rules are specified in the treaties and in legislation, the institutions, and mainly the European Parliament, have improved their institutional position through creative interpretation of these formal rules, resulting in a set of codified quasi-formal rules coupled with the institutions' political rights. This article presents a comprehensive overview of this and demonstrates that the quasi-formal rules give the European Parliament a privileged position across the policy process, which for the greater part is not matched by the Council. The political power of the inter-institutional information regime has made the European Union parliamentarise by stealth

Transparency of EU informal trilogues through public feedback in the European Parliament : promise unfulfilled

Significant parts of the EU’s legislative process remain shrouded in secrecy. In informal trilogues, representatives of the three main institutions negotiate compromises behind closed doors which are subsequently rubber-stamped in public meetings. While most research on (EU) transparency focuses on the availability of documents, this article investigates how much information on trilogue proceedings is shared with the general public through European Parliament (EP) committee meetings as the only forum to which public account must be rendered during the negotiation process. This article analyses the degree to which trilogues are reported back on, and the quality of feedback provided. Although the EP requires its trilogue negotiators to report back to its committees after each trilogue, the majority of trilogues is not reported back on at all, or not in time. Where feedback is given, its quality is often only poor. The EP thus does not deliver on its promises, which seriously undermines the legitimacy of the EU’s legislative process

Accountability deficits in European ‘Comitology’ decision-making

Comitology committees are often accused of not being accountable. This paper aims to provide building blocks to analyze the validity of this claim. After briefly discussing the meaning and aims of accountability, it is discussed where the actual accountability problems can be expected. Institutionally, one may expect them between the committees and the Commission on one side, and the Council and European Parliament on the other. Even the currently introduced new procedures cannot fully remedy accountability problems emerging there. Individually, one may expect accountability problems in the delegation of tasks to more or less autonomously operating experts. This twofold analysis may help further empirical research in this area.comitology; accountability; multilevel governance; implementation; European Commission; European Parliament; Council of Ministers; political science

The Effect of Removing Voting Rules : Consultation Practices in the Commission's Delegated Act Expert Groups and Comitology Committees

The Lisbon Treaty changed the system of delegating executive powers to the European Commission: it introduced the delegated acts system as an alternative to comitology, which continues to exist in parallel. This new system allocates veto power to the European Parliament and the Council, in which Member State expert groups are consulted without having a formal vote. The Council fears that the absence of formal voting will tempt the Commission to ignore Member State input in the expert groups. This article investigates to what degree this fear is justified. To what degree do formal voting rights affect the consultation of Member State experts? On the basis of interviews with Member State experts who participate both in expert groups as well as in comitology committees, we demonstrate how consultation patterns differ between the two settings

He who controls the process controls the outcome? : A reappraisal of the relais actor thesis

publishe

Controlling delegated powers in the post-Lisbon European Union

Most European Union rules are made by the Commission, not the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament. But although the Commission is an important rule-maker, it is not autonomous. The member states have always taken care to install committees to control the Commission (comitology). However, the Lisbon Treaty introduced alternative control mechanisms (delegated acts) and a reform of the comitology system (implementing acts). This article investigates how the post-Lisbon control system works in daily legislative practice. It represents the first investigation of the institutional preferences of the Council, the Parliament and the Commission in the new system. Further, it utilizes better data than previous studies. The analysis is based on data on the control preferences of all actors before the first trilogue meeting for a large number of cases in the period 2010–13. The results indicate that the institutional battle over the control of delegated rule-making is far from over