An article by TrUE researchers Maarten Hillebrandt and Päivi Leino-Sandberg was recently published in the Journal of European Public Policy. The publication analyses the role played by the European Ombudsman and the Court of Justice in overseeing the fulfillment of transparency obligations in trilogue negotiations.
On 17 March, two members of the Dutch parliament presented a draft European Information Law.
By Päivi Leino-Sandberg
The June 2012 European Council adopted a report setting out ‘four essential building blocks’ for the future Economic and Monetary Union (EMU): an integrated financial framework, an integrated budgetary framework, an integrated economic policy framework and, finally, strengthened democratic legitimacy and accountability (1). In its discussions, the European Council stressed that:
Throughout the process, the general objective remains to ensure democratic legitimacy and accountability at the level at which decisions are taken and implemented. Any new steps towards strengthening economic governance will need to be accompanied by further steps towards stronger legitimacy and accountability. (2)
A few weeks ago, the European institutions were shaken by a series of events which, at first sight, could constitute the plot of an institutional thriller. Indeed, Dalligate is a test of strength for parliamentary oversight of the Commission, Maarten Hillebrandt argues.