Beware of Courts Bearing Gifts: Transparency and the Court of Justice of the European Union

This article reconsiders the principle of transparency in the European Union (EU) legal order and takes as its focal point the contribution of the EU Courts as regards the presumptions of non-disclosure of EU documents. The aim is to investigate the role played by the judiciary in relation to a twofold question: How open can the Union’s decision-making be, and is it possible for citizens to participate in the decision-making process of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies? The article argues that accountability deficits in the field of access to documents have been filled, to an extent, by the EU Courts’ imposition of boundaries on the broad derogations to the right of access to documents. But nevertheless, the article concludes that the establishment through the case law of general presumptions against openness has fundamentally weakened the standards of accountability. Rather regrettably, although the EU legislature set the default position to the widest access to documents, this has been reversed to non-disclosure by the EU judiciary as regards non-legislative documents

Reassessing the accountability of EU decentralized agencies: Mind the Independence Gap

This article examines two recent developments to ensure accountability and independence of the EU’s decentralized agencies: the ‘Common Approach’ adopted by the EU’s political institutions, and the ESMA judgment on the validity of the rules delegating extensive power to an EU agency. The article argues that first of all, the Common Approach strengthens the accountability and independence of EU agencies, yet it is not being sufficiently implemented and as such it fails to mitigate the accountability and independence deficits inherent in EU agencies. Secondly, it argues that ESMA strengthens the independence of the EU’s financial authorities at the expense of failing to address the existing accountability problem. On the whole, these developments are disappointing and fall far short of ensuring a coherent and effective system for safeguarding the agencies’ accountability and independence

'Beware of Courts Bearing Gifts'

In dit artikel wordt het beginsel van transparantie in de rechtsorde van de Europese Unie (EU) opnieuw onder de loep genomen, met als vertrekpunt de rol van het Hof van Justitie van de EU met betrekking tot de “presumptions of non-disclosure” van EU-documenten. Doel van deze bijdrage is te onderzoeken welke rol de rechterlijke macht speelt in relatie tot de volgende, tweeledige vraag: Hoe open kan het besluitvormingsproces binnen de Unie zijn, en is het mogelijk voor burgers om deel te nemen aan het besluitvormingsproces van instellingen, organen en andere instanties? Dit artikel beargumenteert dat gebreken in accountability terzake het recht op toegang tot documenten tot op bepaalde hoogte zijn opgevuld doordat het EU-Hof beperkingen stelt aan ruim geformuleerde afwijkingen van dit recht. Niettemin luidt de conclusie van dit artikel dat de accountability standaarden verslechterd zijn als gevolg van vaste jurisprudentie over algemene aannames ("presumptions") tegen openheid. Hoewel de EU-wetgever de standaardpositie heeft gesteld op een zo ruim mogelijke toegang tot documenten, in de rechtspraak is dit helaas teruggedraaid naar geheimhouding, in het bijzonder met betrekking tot niet-wetgevende documenten

A pragmatic benchmarking study of an evidence-based personalised approach in 1938 adolescents with high-risk idiopathic scoliosis

Combining evidence-based medicine and shared decision making, current guidelines support an evidence-based personalised approach (EBPA) for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents (AIS). EBPA is considered important for adolescents\u2019 compliance, which is particularly difficult in AIS. Benchmarking to existing Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) as paradigms of single treatments, we aimed to check the effectiveness and burden of care of an EBPA in high-risk AIS. This study\u2019s design features a retrospective observation of a prospective database including 25,361 spinal deformity patients < 18 years of age. Participants consisted of 1938 AIS, 11\u201345\u25e6 Cobb, Risser stage 0\u20132, who were studied until the end of growth. EBPA included therapies classified for burdensomeness according to current guidelines. Using the same inclusion criteria of the RCTs on exercises, plastic, and elastic bracing, out of the 1938 included, we benchmarked 590, 687, and 884 participants, respectively. We checked clinically significant results and burden of care, calculating Relative Risk of success (RR) and Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for efficacy (EA) and intent-to-treat analyses. At the end of growth, 19% of EBPA participants progressed, while 33% improved. EBPA showed 2.0 (1.7\u20132.5) and 2.9 (1.7\u20134.9) RR of success versus Weinstein and Coillard\u2019s studies control groups, respectively. Benchmarked to plastic or elastic bracing, EBPA had 1.4 (1.2\u20131.5) and 1.7 (1.2\u20132.5) RR of success, respectively. The EBPA treatment burden was greater than RCTs in 48% of patients, and reduced for 24% and 42% versus plastic and elastic bracing, respectively. EBPA showed to be from 40% to 70% more effective than benchmarked individual treatments, with low NNT. The burden of treatment was frequently reduced, but it had to be increased even more frequently