One of the pillars on which product liability law is based is the defence for development risks. According to this defence, the producer is not liable for the damage caused to the injured party if, at the time the product was put into circulation, the state of scientific and technical knowledge did not allow the existence of the defect to be discovered. The Proposal for a Directive drafted by the European Commission and published on 28 September 2022 continues to provide, in Article 10.1.e), the defence for development risks. The Proposal for a Directive refers to this particular issue in Recital 39, which introduces some requirements for the assessment of such defence. However, despite this recognition, does this defence fit into the digital paradigm, and how can it be applied to damage caused by defects in products with digital elements that incorporate artificial intelligence?
{"title":"The Development Risks Defence in the Digital Age","authors":"Guillem Izquierdo Grau","doi":"10.1017/err.2024.43","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.43","url":null,"abstract":"One of the pillars on which product liability law is based is the defence for development risks. According to this defence, the producer is not liable for the damage caused to the injured party if, at the time the product was put into circulation, the state of scientific and technical knowledge did not allow the existence of the defect to be discovered. The Proposal for a Directive drafted by the European Commission and published on 28 September 2022 continues to provide, in Article 10.1.e), the defence for development risks. The Proposal for a Directive refers to this particular issue in Recital 39, which introduces some requirements for the assessment of such defence. However, despite this recognition, does this defence fit into the digital paradigm, and how can it be applied to damage caused by defects in products with digital elements that incorporate artificial intelligence?","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142213046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A Sustainable Food System needs to be implemented through a legal framework balancing measures concerning all the aspects of sustainability (the social, economic and environmental ones), as defined by the Farm to Fork strategy. Since environmental issues are considered a structural part of CAP regulations, a special attention shall be paid both to social and economic sustainability of agricultural and food system, as fundamental pillars for a resilient and competitive development of the primary sector. A new “social” approach of agricultural policy takes into consideration the position of farmers (in particular, a fair revenue of their activity) and workers involved in the agricultural sector (in particular, the rights to protection and safety at work). It also involves the comprehensive rural areas, ie the social context that represents the premise to reach environmental goals of sustainability in rural territories, realised by the farmers themselves as main actors of the rural economy. Therefore, for the future of food law, a strategic consideration of the legal framework related to people working in agriculture and agri-food sector should concern two main aspects. On one hand, the introduction of social conditionality, establishing compliance with labour law rules, including work safety and transparency of employment conditions in agricultural labour contracts in order to receive CAP subsidies – becomes a component of the process for “safe food” through an “ethical and legal food production.” On the other hand, it is important to consider the improvement of life conditions and services in rural areas in favour of resident citizens, the attractiveness of young farmers as well as the implementing measures for an inclusive growth. These aspects, which make up a “social sustainability model” in the agri-food chain are strongly linked together and require a comprehensive policy regulation. This policy perspective includes a new perception of entrepreneurs and workers employed in rural areas intended for the production of food and related to the environmental protection.
根据 "从农场到餐桌"（Farm to Fork）战略的定义，可持续食品体系需要通过一个法律框架来实施，该框架应兼顾有关可持续性所有方面（社会、经济和环境方面）的措施。由于环境问题被视为 CAP 法规的结构性部分，因此应特别关注农业和粮食系统的社会和经济可持续性，将其作为第一产业弹性和竞争性发展的基本支柱。农业政策的新 "社会 "方针考虑到了农民的地位（特别是其活动的公平收入）和农业部门工人的地位（特别是劳动保护和安全的权利）。它还涉及到农村地区的方方面面，即代表着实现农村地区环境可持续性目标前提的社会环境，由作为农村经济主要参与者的农民自己来实现。因此，对于食品法的未来，与农业和农业食品行业从业人员有关的法律框架的战略考虑应涉及两个主要方面。一方面，引入社会条件，规定遵守劳动法规则，包括工作安全和农业劳动合同中就业条件的透明度，以便获得 CAP 补贴--这成为通过 "道德和合法的食品生产 "实现 "安全食品 "过程的一个组成部分。另一方面，重要的是要考虑改善农村地区的生活条件和服务，以有利于常住居民、吸引年轻农民以及实施包容性增长措施。这些方面构成了农业食品链中的 "社会可持续性模式"，它们紧密联系在一起，需要全面的政策监管。这一政策视角包括对农村地区从事食品生产和环境保护的企业家和工人的新认识。
{"title":"Social Sustainability as the Milestone for a Sustainable Food System: The Essential Role of People Working in Agriculture","authors":"Irene Canfora, Vito S. Leccese","doi":"10.1017/err.2024.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.27","url":null,"abstract":"A Sustainable Food System needs to be implemented through a legal framework balancing measures concerning all the aspects of sustainability (the social, economic and environmental ones), as defined by the Farm to Fork strategy. Since environmental issues are considered a structural part of CAP regulations, a special attention shall be paid both to social and economic sustainability of agricultural and food system, as fundamental pillars for a resilient and competitive development of the primary sector. A new “social” approach of agricultural policy takes into consideration the position of farmers (in particular, a fair revenue of their activity) and workers involved in the agricultural sector (in particular, the rights to protection and safety at work). It also involves the comprehensive rural areas, ie the social context that represents the premise to reach environmental goals of sustainability in rural territories, realised by the farmers themselves as main actors of the rural economy. Therefore, for the future of food law, a strategic consideration of the legal framework related to people working in agriculture and agri-food sector should concern two main aspects. On one hand, the introduction of social conditionality, establishing compliance with labour law rules, including work safety and transparency of employment conditions in agricultural labour contracts in order to receive CAP subsidies – becomes a component of the process for “safe food” through an “ethical and legal food production.” On the other hand, it is important to consider the improvement of life conditions and services in rural areas in favour of resident citizens, the attractiveness of young farmers as well as the implementing measures for an inclusive growth. These aspects, which make up a “social sustainability model” in the agri-food chain are strongly linked together and require a comprehensive policy regulation. This policy perspective includes a new perception of entrepreneurs and workers employed in rural areas intended for the production of food and related to the environmental protection.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142213243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This work has the aim of dissecting the legal and policy dress designed for the new “Green” Common Agricultural Policy (CAP 2023–27) across the proposed CAP Strategic plans (CSPs) of the EU member states. The analysis is carried out through the lens of a special inquiry: the consistency and coherence between the CAP and the perspective of the Green Deal and its satellite strategies, among all the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F) and Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, for transition to a resilient and Sustainable food system. The F2F proposes a roadmap of interventions and sets specific goals to reach such a transition. Within these interventions, a renewed CAP is the first stage through which the direction undertaken by the EU can be measured. Following the new CAP delivery model, this work will investigate the national CSPs and address the consistency of the CAP financial instruments utilised to fulfill the social, economic and environmental objectives of the CAP according to the ambition of the F2F and other key strategies.
这项工作旨在剖析欧盟各成员国拟议的共同农业政策战略计划（CSPs）中为新的 "绿色 "共同农业政策（CAP 2023-27）设计的法律和政策服饰。分析是通过一项特别调查的视角进行的：共同农业政策与 "绿色协议 "及其卫星战略（其中包括 "从农场到餐桌战略"（F2F）和 "2030 年生物多样性战略"）之间的一致性和连贯性，以实现向弹性和可持续粮食系统的过渡。从农场到餐桌战略提出了一个干预路线图，并设定了实现这一过渡的具体目标。在这些干预措施中，更新的补充性追加计划是第一阶段，通过它可以衡量欧盟所采取的方向。根据新的 CAP 实施模式，这项工作将调查国家 CSP，并根据 F2F 和其他关键战略的雄心，解决 CAP 金融工具的一致性问题，以实现 CAP 的社会、经济和环境目标。
{"title":"Mind the Gap: Assessing Member States’ Implementation of Farm to Farm-to-Fork Targets within the 2023–2027 Common Agricultural Policy","authors":"Enrico Mezzacapo","doi":"10.1017/err.2024.44","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.44","url":null,"abstract":"This work has the aim of dissecting the legal and policy dress designed for the new “Green” Common Agricultural Policy (CAP 2023–27) across the proposed CAP Strategic plans (CSPs) of the EU member states. The analysis is carried out through the lens of a special inquiry: the consistency and coherence between the CAP and the perspective of the Green Deal and its satellite strategies, among all the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F) and Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, for transition to a resilient and Sustainable food system. The F2F proposes a roadmap of interventions and sets specific goals to reach such a transition. Within these interventions, a renewed CAP is the first stage through which the direction undertaken by the EU can be measured. Following the new CAP delivery model, this work will investigate the national CSPs and address the consistency of the CAP financial instruments utilised to fulfill the social, economic and environmental objectives of the CAP according to the ambition of the F2F and other key strategies.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142213042","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Covid-19 crisis provided an opportunity for the European Union to offer an alternative regulatory response to the crisis of values by systemically linking European funding to respect for the rule of law. A rule of law conditionality mechanism for spending was introduced in the Recovery and Resilience Facility and in Regulation 2020/2092. It is both positive – in that it encourages Member States to implement reforms and investments aimed at improving the rule of law – and negative – in that it takes the form of financial sanctions. However, the development of the rule of law conditionality is leading to an economisation of the concept of the rule of law, insofar as it mainly concerns those dimensions of the rule of law that are conducive to growth – such as justice systems and the fight against corruption. As a result, it could paradoxically exacerbate the very crisis it is designed to resolve.
{"title":"What EU Conditionality Says about the Rule of Law","authors":"Louise Fromont","doi":"10.1017/err.2024.40","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.40","url":null,"abstract":"The Covid-19 crisis provided an opportunity for the European Union to offer an alternative regulatory response to the crisis of values by systemically linking European funding to respect for the rule of law. A rule of law conditionality mechanism for spending was introduced in the Recovery and Resilience Facility and in Regulation 2020/2092. It is both positive – in that it encourages Member States to implement reforms and investments aimed at improving the rule of law – and negative – in that it takes the form of financial sanctions. However, the development of the rule of law conditionality is leading to an economisation of the concept of the rule of law, insofar as it mainly concerns those dimensions of the rule of law that are conducive to growth – such as justice systems and the fight against corruption. As a result, it could paradoxically exacerbate the very crisis it is designed to resolve.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142213044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
EU food law is built on two paradigms – food safety and consumer choice. Consumers should have access to any food they like, provided that it is safe for consumption and that consumers are made aware of the products’ characteristics through adequate information. Growing emphasis on sustainability has not challenged these foundations. On the contrary, the law is intended as a tool to further empower consumers to make a healthy and environmentally responsible choice. However, it will be argued that this information centric approach is no longer a tenable position. The regulatory solutions characteristic of the consumer empowerment logic are of limited effectiveness and do not challenge the biggest obstacles to the sustainable transition of food systems – the commodification of food and the lack of regulation of the food environment. This contribution sketches out some far-reaching yet realistic food law reforms to genuinely address sustainability issues. Mindful of the special status of food and the growing discontent towards the EU and the green transition, this contribution also argues for some changes in the making and design of EU food law, leading towards greater involvement of citizens and local communities, and, ultimately, for truer empowerment of individuals.
{"title":"Rethinking Consumer Empowerment: New Directions for Sustainable Food Law in an Era of EU Discontent","authors":"Vincent Delhomme","doi":"10.1017/err.2024.42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.42","url":null,"abstract":"EU food law is built on two paradigms – food safety and consumer choice. Consumers should have access to any food they like, provided that it is safe for consumption and that consumers are made aware of the products’ characteristics through adequate information. Growing emphasis on sustainability has not challenged these foundations. On the contrary, the law is intended as a tool to further empower consumers to make a healthy and environmentally responsible choice. However, it will be argued that this information centric approach is no longer a tenable position. The regulatory solutions characteristic of the consumer empowerment logic are of limited effectiveness and do not challenge the biggest obstacles to the sustainable transition of food systems – the commodification of food and the lack of regulation of the food environment. This contribution sketches out some far-reaching yet realistic food law reforms to genuinely address sustainability issues. Mindful of the special status of food and the growing discontent towards the EU and the green transition, this contribution also argues for some changes in the making and design of EU food law, leading towards greater involvement of citizens and local communities, and, ultimately, for truer empowerment of individuals.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142213043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Imperfect information on food safety and risk has created a system with less safety than the public wants. Consumers cannot pay for the level of safety they desire. Tort under-compensates for foodborne illness due to difficulty proving causation. When market controls are ineffective at producing the level of safety desired by consumers, the classic approach is government regulation. However, government regulators face challenges that impede the translation of scientific knowledge into regulatory controls. This often results in an equilibrium of private interests and bureaucratic interests rather than the public interest. To restore republican deliberation on food safety we need greater citizen involvement in the decision-making. Access to the courts is an effective means for citizens to participate directly in the decisions affecting food safety; thus, a private cause of action to our national food safety laws is proposed.
{"title":"Democratising Food Safety: Why We Need to Look Beyond Government Regulation and Provide a Citizen Right of Action","authors":"Neal David Fortin","doi":"10.1017/err.2024.41","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.41","url":null,"abstract":"Imperfect information on food safety and risk has created a system with less safety than the public wants. Consumers cannot pay for the level of safety they desire. Tort under-compensates for foodborne illness due to difficulty proving causation. When market controls are ineffective at producing the level of safety desired by consumers, the classic approach is government regulation. However, government regulators face challenges that impede the translation of scientific knowledge into regulatory controls. This often results in an equilibrium of private interests and bureaucratic interests rather than the public interest. To restore republican deliberation on food safety we need greater citizen involvement in the decision-making. Access to the courts is an effective means for citizens to participate directly in the decisions affecting food safety; thus, a private cause of action to our national food safety laws is proposed.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142213041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is designed to ensure fair and contestable digital markets. With one of the key sources of market power of big tech being data, it is not surprising that it is the subject matter of a number of DMA provisions. Article 5(2) prohibits gatekeepers from engaging in forms of accumulation and cross-use of personal data, unless they receive users’ consent, defined by reference to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Consent as defined by the GDPR suffers from a number of shortcomings, among other things, relating to whether consent can be truly freely given. The DMA tries to address some of the shortcomings by formulating a version of consent that seemingly goes beyond the GDPR. While a new version of consent may ensure greater effectiveness, it raises questions concerning the interaction and compatibility with the GDPR.
To shed light on this issue, the paper discusses the role and meaning of consent in the DMA vis-à-vis the GDPR and explores how to interpret consent under both the DMA and GDPR in a manner that is consistent with each other and that accounts for the characteristics of digital markets.
{"title":"The DMA’s Consent Moment and its Relationship with the GDPR","authors":"Alessia S. D’Amico","doi":"10.1017/err.2024.38","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.38","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is designed to ensure fair and contestable digital markets. With one of the key sources of market power of big tech being data, it is not surprising that it is the subject matter of a number of DMA provisions. Article 5(2) prohibits gatekeepers from engaging in forms of accumulation and cross-use of personal data, unless they receive users’ consent, defined by reference to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).</p><p>Consent as defined by the GDPR suffers from a number of shortcomings, among other things, relating to whether consent can be truly freely given. The DMA tries to address some of the shortcomings by formulating a version of consent that seemingly goes beyond the GDPR. While a new version of consent may ensure greater effectiveness, it raises questions concerning the interaction and compatibility with the GDPR.</p><p>To shed light on this issue, the paper discusses the role and meaning of consent in the DMA vis-à-vis the GDPR and explores how to interpret consent under both the DMA and GDPR in a manner that is consistent with each other and that accounts for the characteristics of digital markets.</p>","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141254144","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
International environmental law rarely refers to the rule of law. However, in fostering inter-state cooperation, international environmental agreements oblige parties to prohibit, restrict or control various activities that are harmful to the environment. The application of these constraints at the national level requires the rule of law to be taken into account.
{"title":"The Rule of Law: A Core Premise for the Effectiveness of International Environmental Law","authors":"Nicolas de Sadeleer","doi":"10.1017/err.2024.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.16","url":null,"abstract":"<p>International environmental law rarely refers to the rule of law. However, in fostering inter-state cooperation, international environmental agreements oblige parties to prohibit, restrict or control various activities that are harmful to the environment. The application of these constraints at the national level requires the rule of law to be taken into account.</p>","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141254599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Framework for Sustainable Food Systems law will either not be published at all or after a long delay. Whereas the first part of the article constructs an empirical and theoretical underpinning about why the EU Member States should therefore act on food sustainability, the second part focuses on what legal measures Member States can take. In the first part, leaning on food systems thinking, we argue that in the absence of EU action in the matter, the Member States remain the most potent lever for taking regulatory action on addressing sustainability in the food system. In the second part, the article provides an exploratory study of potential national legal instruments for making domestic food systems more sustainable, with an emphasis on the regulation of offer and consumption of foods and food environments. The article discusses the following legal instruments in the context of EU law and Member States’ room for action, with examples from a comparative perspective: public procurement purchasing by governments, product composition requirements, fiscal measures, non-fiscal pricing instruments, labelling & certification, marketing, and the regulation of private and public food environments. The article further concludes that it may prove useful to better enshrine the food sustainability paradigm in law at national level.
{"title":"The Member States in the EU Food System: National Regulatory Options for Sustainable Food Offer, Food Consumption and Food Environments","authors":"Hanna Schebesta","doi":"10.1017/err.2024.36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.36","url":null,"abstract":"The Framework for Sustainable Food Systems law will either not be published at all or after a long delay. Whereas the first part of the article constructs an empirical and theoretical underpinning about why the EU Member States should therefore act on food sustainability, the second part focuses on what legal measures Member States can take. In the first part, leaning on food systems thinking, we argue that in the absence of EU action in the matter, the Member States remain the most potent lever for taking regulatory action on addressing sustainability in the food system. In the second part, the article provides an exploratory study of potential national legal instruments for making domestic food systems more sustainable, with an emphasis on the regulation of offer and consumption of foods and food environments. The article discusses the following legal instruments in the context of EU law and Member States’ room for action, with examples from a comparative perspective: public procurement purchasing by governments, product composition requirements, fiscal measures, non-fiscal pricing instruments, labelling & certification, marketing, and the regulation of private and public food environments. The article further concludes that it may prove useful to better enshrine the food sustainability paradigm in law at national level.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141189606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fifteen years following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, this article seeks to analyse its impact on EU executive rulemaking. It delves into the constitutional concerns arising from the architecture of Articles 290 and 291 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular relating to the institutional balance, the concept of implementation, the distinction between delegated and implementing acts and the legitimacy of the control mechanisms envisaged in the TFEU. The article argues that there is a need for reform and integration of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU in one Article dedicated to EU executive rulemaking, going beyond mere considerations of institutional balance. Such a reform entails a return to the essence of comitology as a general mechanism for consultation in and control of rulemaking, allowing Member States to deliberate with the Commission with a veto right for both the Parliament and the Council, embracing the idea of executive subsidiarity. It requires also to go beyond the old comitology mechanisms based on a pure interinstitutional perspective by connecting to Article 11 TEU (Treaty on European Union) and recognising the need for participatory engagement so as to enhance the legitimacy of EU executive rulemaking.
{"title":"Rethinking the Constitutional Architecture of EU Executive Rulemaking: Treaty Change and Enhanced Democracy","authors":"G. Bellenghi, Ellen Vos","doi":"10.1017/err.2024.35","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.35","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Fifteen years following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, this article seeks to analyse its impact on EU executive rulemaking. It delves into the constitutional concerns arising from the architecture of Articles 290 and 291 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular relating to the institutional balance, the concept of implementation, the distinction between delegated and implementing acts and the legitimacy of the control mechanisms envisaged in the TFEU. The article argues that there is a need for reform and integration of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU in one Article dedicated to EU executive rulemaking, going beyond mere considerations of institutional balance. Such a reform entails a return to the essence of comitology as a general mechanism for consultation in and control of rulemaking, allowing Member States to deliberate with the Commission with a veto right for both the Parliament and the Council, embracing the idea of executive subsidiarity. It requires also to go beyond the old comitology mechanisms based on a pure interinstitutional perspective by connecting to Article 11 TEU (Treaty on European Union) and recognising the need for participatory engagement so as to enhance the legitimacy of EU executive rulemaking.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141112583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：