control of Europol , Boom, Amsterdam, 15-19. • Fromage Diane, 2017, ‘The New JointParliamentaryScrutiny Group for Europol: Old Wine in New Bottles?’ blog post available at: < http://eutarn.blogactiv.eu/2017/06/17/the-new-joint-parliamentary-scrutiny-group-for-europol-old-wine-in-new-bottles >. • Gless Sabine and Wahl Thomas, 2017, ‘A Comparison of the Evolution and Pace of Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters: A Race Between Europol and Eurojust?’, in Brière Chloé and Weyembergh Anne (eds), The Needed Balances in EU Criminal Law: Past Present and
This special issue develops a contextual analysis of EU inter-parliamentary cooperation in the post Lisbon Treaty framework. Indeed, it is possible to claim that there are several sources and causes for renewed EU inter-parliamentary cooperation: first, a voluntary one, i.e. the connection with the Lisbon Treaty’s intent to facilitate a wider democratisation objective; second, this time more a reaction than an initiative, the need to counterbalance the institutional outcomes of the economic and financial crisis that shook the world but particularly the eurozone; and, third, the call for an improvement in existing rules and mechanisms to develop even further democratic (read: parliamentary) input in common policies.
The special issue analyses whether current inter-parliamentary mechanisms are suited to react to these challenges. It specifically assesses the practical impact of interparliamentary cooperation on the numerous democratic gaps that still exist in the EU's multi-layered decision-making process. Its objective is to show, beyond the mere sharing of information and the comparison of best practices at a supranational and transnational level, whether existing inter-parliamentary practices contribute to joint parliamentary scrutiny by involving both the EP and the national parliaments of EU member states.
COSAC has played an active role in fostering and developing interparliamentary he central question addressed here is to assess whether COSAC is currently structured to allow NPs to obtain more information and access to the policy and decision-making circuits at EU level and, therefore, if NPs are benefiting from COSAC or are they, on the contrary, lagging behind and lost amidst so many interparliamentary meetings?
It is argued that COSAC occupies a key role in the multipolarised system of with the “global picture” and therefore in a unique position to bring coherence to the overall system. This paper therefore aims at putting forward some ideas and approaches regarding the role of COSAC in the effectiveness of interparliamentary cooperation, covering not only its present proceedings and output, but also some thoughts for further reflection on the future strengthening of COSAC.
of a Euro-national Parliamentary System’, in Lupo Nicola and Fasone Cristina (eds), Interparliamentary Cooperation in the Composite European Constitution , Hart Publishing, Oxford, 345-360. • Fromage Diane, 2016, ‘Increasing Inter-Parliamentary Cooperation in the European Union: Current Trends and Challenges’, European Public Law , XXII(4): 749-772. • Fromage Diane, 2017, ‘The New JointParliamentaryScrutiny Group for Europol: Old Wine in New Bottles?’, BlogActiv EU, 17 June, http://eutarn.blogactiv.eu/2017/06/17/the-new-joint-parliamentary-scrutiny
Interparliamentary conferences and other permanent forums for interparliamentary cooperation are blossoming in the European Union. Following more or less lengthy negotiations between national and European parliamentarians, two new conferences and a new joint parliamentary scrutiny group for Europol have been created since 2012. Against this background, this article examines to what extent the Joint parliament scrutiny group is comparable to the previously existing interparliamentary conferences. Beyond that, it asks the question as to whether any better-defined guidelines or procedures could be adopted to rationalise the process of creation of new forums for interparliamentary cooperation. It makes some concrete proposals in that direction.
Watchdog over Europe’s policemen: the new JointParliamentaryScrutiny Group for Europol’ in Jacques Delors Institute Policy Paper , 197. • Lindseth Peter, 2001, ‘“Weak” Constitutionalism? Reflections on Comitology and Transnational Governance in the European Union’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , XXI(1): 145–163. • Lindseth Peter, 2010, Power and Legitimacy: Reconciling Europe and the Nation-State , Oxford University Press, Oxford. • Lord Christopher and Beetham David, 2001, ‘Legitimizing the EU: is there a “Post-parliamentary Basis” for its Legitimation