1. DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Subsidiarity as a means to enhance cooperation between EU institutions and national parliaments

2. Outline Historical Background
Context and rationale for the introduction of the subsidiarity principle (1992)
Subsidiarity as a means to strengthen the relationship between EU institutions and national parliaments
The way forward: the future of the Early Warning System
Conclusion

3. 1. Historical Background
National parliaments (NPs) long absent from the Treaties ; NPs dependent on national arrangements
Reasons for that:
European Parliamentary Assembly composed of MPs
European Communities: “classical” international organization
“Output legitimacy”

4. 2. Context and rationale for the introduction of the principle of subsidiarity
Introduced in Single European Act (1986) in reference to the environment policy; as a General principle of EU law in the Maastricht Treaty (1992)
Useful to delimit EU’s competences
No link between NPs and subsidiarity at that time

5. 3. Subsidiarity: a means to enhance NPs-EU institutions relationships (1)
Constitutional Treaty & Lisbon Treaty: dramatic change for NPs, among others due to attribution of new responsibility to check respect of subsidiarity: Early Warning System (EWS)

6. 3. Subsidiarity: a means to enhance NPs-EU institutions relationships (2)
EWS complemented by Political Dialogue (PD) (Barroso initiative launched in 2006)
EWS: strict limitations (scope, timing, thresholds) vs PD: any contribution on any document at any point in time but informal mechanism
PD: huge success (> contributions ) vs 3 yellow cards

7. 3. Subsidiarity: a means to enhance NPs-EU institutions relationships (3)
Opportunities:
NPs now “European actors”
Direct and constant relationship with Commission (and EP)
EWS: existence is a “threat” in itself
More visibility for NPs
Incentive to enhance interparliamentary cooperation among NPs
Incentive to conduct scrutiny and enhance relationship with governments

8. 3. Subsidiarity: a means to enhance NPs-EU institutions relationships (4)
Challenges:
EWS’s scope too narrow
Lack of common definition
Time span too reduced
Moment of NPs’ intervention in legislative procedure
Dependence on each other/imbalance in participation among NPs
Commission’s freedom to decide on outcome
Quality of answers provided by Commission

9. 4. The way forward (1) Need to agree on:
common format for reasoned opinion
common definition (proportionality? Legal basis?)
Timeframe & threshold: more flexibility & visibility
Commission: improvement of quality & speediness of answers & justification in legislative proposals

10. 4. The way forward (2)
Question of impact of NPs’ reasoned opinions & contributions: crucial
Improvement in Commission’s annual reports
Introduction of an annual report by EP too?
Red card: not a solution (also negative, too limited)
Green card: interesting proposal

11. 5. Conclusion
EWS has contributed to enhancement of relationships between NPs and EU institutions
But: NPs want to be involved beyond control of subsidiarity & have a more positive and political role

12. Presentation by Diane Fromage Maastricht University
Policy Department Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs
Responsible Administrator: Eeva ERIKSSON