1,330
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Administrative and judicial oversight of trilogues

&

References

  • Brandsma, G. J. (2019). Transparency of EU informal trilogues through public feedback in the European Parliament: Promise unfulfilled. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(10), 1464–1483. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1528295
  • Bressanelli, E., Koop, C., & Reh, C. (2016). The Growth of Informal EU Decision-Making has Empowered Centrist Parties. LSE blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/02/10/the-growth-of-informal-eu-decision-making-has-empowered-centrist-parties/.
  • Council. (2019). Openness and transparency during Finland’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union: Presidency Report. 13 December 2019.
  • Curtin, D., & Leino, P. (2017). In search of transparency for EU law-making: Trilogues on the cusp of Dawn. Common Market Law Review, 54(6), 1673–1712.
  • De Leeuw, M. (2007). Openness in the legislative process in the European Union. European Law Review, 32(3), 295–318.
  • De Ruiter, R. d. (2013). Under the radar? National parliaments and the ordinary legislative procedure in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(8), 1196–1212. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.760328
  • European Parliament. (2019). Public Access to Documents 2018: European Parliament’s Report. March 2019.
  • Farrell, H., & Héritier, A. (2004). Interorganizational negotiation and intraorganizational power in shared decision making: Early agreements under codecision and their impact on the European Parliament and Council. Comparative Political Studies, 37(10), 1184–1212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414004269833
  • Greenwood, J., & Roederer-Rynning, C. (2019). Taming trilogues: The EU’s Law-making process in a Comparative Perspective. In O. Costa (Ed.), The European Parliament in Times of EU Crisis (pp. 121–141). EAG.
  • Häge, F. M., & Kaeding, M. (2007). Reconsidering the European Parliament’s legislative influence: Formal vs. Informal procedures. Journal of European Integration, 29(3), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036330701442356
  • Kardasheva, R. (2012). Trilogues in the EU legislature. King’s College Department of European and International Studies Working Paper.
  • Kostadinova, P. (2015). Improving the transparency and accountability of the European institutions: The impact of the office of the European Ombudsman. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(5), 1077–1093. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12245
  • Laloux, T. (2017). Designing a collective agent for trilogues in the European Parliament. In T. Delreux, & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal agent model and the European Union (pp. 83–103). Palgrave.
  • Lenaerts, K. (2013). The principle of democracy in the case Law of the European Court of Justice. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 62(2), 271–315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589313000080
  • Martines, F. (2018). Transparency of legislative procedures and access to acts of trilogues: Case T-540/15, De Capitani v. European Parliament. European Papers.
  • Reh, C. (2014). Is informal politics undemocratic? Trilogues, early agreements and the selection model of representation. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(6), 822–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2014.910247
  • Roederer-Rynning, C., & Greenwood, J. (2015). The culture of trilogues. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(8), 1148–1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2014.992934
  • Rossi, L., & Silva, V. e. (2017). Public access to documents in the EU. Hart.
  • Stein, T. (2019). A supervisory agency of its own making? In The questionable political agenda of the current European Ombudsman. Verfassungsblog. 1 September 2019. https://verfassungsblog.de/a-supervisory-agency-of-its-own-making/.
  • Stie, A. E. (2013). Democratic decision-making in the EU: Technocracy in disguise? Routledge.
  • Vogiatzis, N. (2018). The European Ombudsman and Good Administration in the European Union. Malgrave Macmillan.
  • Wyatt, D. (2019). Is the commission a “lawmaker”? On the right of initiative, institutional transparency and public participation in decision-making: ClientEarth. Common Market Law Review, 56(3), 825–842.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.