Manifest and Latent Control on the Council by the European Council

Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)


The European Council (EUCO) is differentiated from the legislative institutions in the Lisbon Treaty. Yet, the EUCO influences legislative decision-making in practice. This chapter examines the EUCO’s control on the Council distinguishing between manifest and latent control. It suggests that the EUCO exerts control if proposals are conflictual within the Council and important for the heads of state or government. Two case studies illustrate the control mechanisms. The EUCO controlled the Council manifestly by changing the substance of the patent package. By contrast, it controlled the Council latently in the case of the relocation scheme for refugees. Anticipating a EUCO decision, the Council adopted the proposal by QMV. The chapter clarifies the concept of control and the EUCO’s role in legislative decision-making.


  1. Abbott, K., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (2016). Two logics of indirect governance: Delegation and orchestration. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 719–729.Google Scholar
  2. Andeweg, R. (2000). Ministers as double agents? The delegation process between cabinet and ministers. European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 377–395.Google Scholar
  3. Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. (2013). Process-tracing methods. Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bickerton, C., Hodson, D., & Puetter, U. (Eds.). (2015). The new intergovernmentalism. States and supranational actors in the post-Maastricht era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blom-Hansen, J. (2013). Legislative control of powers delegated to the executive: The case of the EU. Governance, 26(3), 425–448.Google Scholar
  6. Bocquillon, P., & Dobbels, M. (2013). An elephant on the 13th floor of the Berlaymont? European council and commission relations in legislative agenda setting. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(1), 20–38.Google Scholar
  7. Bulmer, S. (1996). The European council and The council of the European Union: Shapers of a European confederation. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 26(4), 17–42.Google Scholar
  8. Calvert, R., McCubbins, M., & Weingast, B. (1989). A theory of political control and agency discretion. American Journal of Political Science, 33(3), 588–611.Google Scholar
  9. Copelovitch, M. (2010). Master or Servant? Common agency and the political economy of IMF lending. International Studies Quarterly, 54(1), 49–77.Google Scholar
  10. Council of the European Union. (2012). NOTE. From Presidency to Permanent Representatives Committee. Subject: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, 16220/12.Google Scholar
  11. Council of the European Union. (2015). Relocation of 40,000 refugees from Greece and Italy agreed by Council. Press Release 644/15.Google Scholar
  12. Crombez, C. (1996). Legislative procedures in the European community. British Journal of Political Science, 26(2), 199–228.Google Scholar
  13. Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the European Union. (2012). Press release – Unitary patent closer to the finishing line. Retrieved January 2016, from
  14. De Schoutheete, P., & Wallace, H. (2002). The European council. Notre Europe Research and European Issues. 19.Google Scholar
  15. Dehousse, R. (2008). Delegation of powers in the European Union: The need for a multi-principals model. West European Politics, 31(4), 789–805.Google Scholar
  16. Delreux, T. (2008). The EU as a negotiator in multilateral chemicals negotiations: Multiple principals, different agents. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(7), 1069–1086.Google Scholar
  17. Delreux, T., & Adriaensen, J. (2017). Introduction. Use and limitations of the principal–agent model in studying the European Union. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 1–34). London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  18. Dunleavy, P., & Rhodes, R. (1990). Core executive studies in Britain. Public Administration, 68(1), 3–28.Google Scholar
  19. Dür, A., & Elsig, M. (2011). Principals, agents, and the European Union’s foreign economic policies. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(3), 323–338.Google Scholar
  20. Eggermont, F. (2012). The changing role of the European council in the institutional framework of the European Union. Consequences for the European integration process. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  21. Epstein, D., & O’Halloran, S. (1995). A theory of strategic oversight: Congress lobbyists, and the bureaucracy. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 11(2), 227–255.Google Scholar
  22. Epstein, D., & O’Halloran, S. (1999). Asymmetric information delegation, and the structure of policy-making. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11(1), 37–56.Google Scholar
  23. European Council. (2012). Cover note from the general secretariat of the council to delegations. Subject: European council. 28/29 June 2012. Conclusions. EUCO 76/12.Google Scholar
  24. European Council. (2015a). Cover note from general secretariat of the council to delegations. Subject: European council meeting (25 and 26 June 2015) – Conclusions. EUCO 22/15.Google Scholar
  25. European Council. (2015b). Special meeting of the European council, 23 April 2015 – Statement.Google Scholar
  26. European Parliament. (2013). Debates. Tuesday, 11 December 2012 – Strasbourg. Retrieved January 2016, from
  27. European Parliament. (2015). MEPs give go-ahead to relocate an additional 120,000 asylum seekers in the EU. Press Release. Retrieved January 2016, from
  28. European Union. (2016a). Action brought on 2 December 2015 – Slovak Republic v Council of the European Union (Case C-643/15). Official Journal of the European Union C 38/41.Google Scholar
  29. European Union. (2016b). Action brought on 3 December 2015 – Hungary v Council of the European Union (Case C-647/15). Official Journal of the European Union C 38/43.Google Scholar
  30. Franchino, F. (2000). Control of the commission’s executive functions: Uncertainty conflict and decision rules. European Union Politics, 1(1), 63–92.Google Scholar
  31. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Harstad, B. (2008). Do side payments help? Collective decisions and strategic delegation. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(2–3), 468–477.Google Scholar
  33. Hawkins, D., Lake, D., Nielson, D., & Tierney, M. (2006). Delegation under anarchy: States, international organizations, and principal–agent theory. In D. Hawkins, D. Lake, D. Nielson, & M. Tierney (Eds.), Delegation and agency in international organizations (pp. 3–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hayes-Renshaw, F., & Wallace, H. (2006). The council of ministers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Helms, L. (2005). Presidents, prime ministers and chancellors. Executive leadership in western democracies. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Huber, J., & Shipan, C. (2002). Deliberate discretion? The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. James, S., & Copeland, P. (2014). Governing in the shadow of intergovernmental hierarchy: Delegation failure and executive empowerment in the European Union. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 15(4), 518–533.Google Scholar
  38. Johansson, K., & Tallberg, J. (2010). Explaining chief executive empowerment: EU summitry and domestic institutional change. West European Politics, 33(2), 208–236.Google Scholar
  39. Kreppel, A. (2013). Legislative implications of the Lisbon treaty: The (potential) role of ideology. West European Politics, 36(6), 1178–1198.Google Scholar
  40. Kroll, D., & Leuffen, D. (2015). Enhanced cooperation in practice. An analysis of differentiated integration in EU secondary law. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(3), 353–373.Google Scholar
  41. Leuffen, D., & Hertz, R. (2010). If things can only get worse: Anticipation of enlargement in European Union legislative politics. European Journal of Political Research, 49(1), 53–74.Google Scholar
  42. Lupia, A. (2003). Delegation and its Perils. In K. Strom, W. Müller, & T. Bergman (Eds.), Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies (pp. 33–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. McCubbins, M., Noll, R., & Barry, Weingast. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 3(2), 243–277.Google Scholar
  44. McCubbins, M., & Page, T. (1987). A theory of congressional delegation. In M. McCubbins & T. Sullivan (Eds.), Congress. Structure and policy (pp. 409–425). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. McCubbins, M., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 165–179.Google Scholar
  46. Ministry of European and Foreign Affairs of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. (2015). Informal JHA Council – Ministers agree to the resettlement of 20,000 refugees in the EU, but delay their decision on the relocation of 40,000 asylum seekers until 20 July. Announces Jean Asselborn. Retrieved January 2016, from
  47. Nielson, D., & Tierney, M. (2003). Delegation to international organizations: Agency theory and world bank environmental reform. International Organization, 57(02), 241–276.Google Scholar
  48. Ogul, M. (1976). Congress oversees the bureaucracy. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Ogul, M., & Rockman, B. (1990). Overseeing oversight: New departures and old problems. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
  50. Pollack, M. (2002). Learning from the Americanists (again): Theory and method in the study of delegation. West European Politics, 25(1), 200–219.Google Scholar
  51. Puetter, U. (2014). The European council and the council. New intergovernmentalism and institutional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rasmussen, A. (2005). EU conciliation delegates: Responsible or runaway agents? West European Politics, 28(5), 1015–1034.Google Scholar
  53. Rathbun, B. (2008). Interviewing and qualitative field methods: Pragmatism and practicalities. In J. Box-Steffensmeier, H. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 685–701). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Reykers, Y., & Beach, D. (2017). Process-tracing as a tool to analyse discretion. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union(pp. 255–281). London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  55. Scharpf, F. (1999). Games real actors play. Actor-centred institutionalism in policy research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Schimmelfennig, F. (2015). Efficient process tracing. Analyzing the causal mechanisms of European integration. In A. Bennett & J. Checkel (Eds.), Process tracing in the social sciences: From metaphor to analytical tool (pp. 98–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Smeets, S. (2015). Unanimity and exposure in the EU council of ministers – or how the Dutch won and lost the ICTY debate. European Journal of Political Research, 54(2), 288–304.Google Scholar
  58. Tallberg, J. (2008). Bargaining power in the European council. Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(3), 685–708.Google Scholar
  59. van de Steeg, M. (2009). Public accountability in the European Union: Is the European Parliament able to hold the European council accountable? European Integration Online Papers, 13(3). Retrieved from
  60. Vogiatzis, N. (2013). Exploring the European council’s legal accountability: The court of justice and the European ombudsman. German Law Journal, 14(9), 1661–1686.Google Scholar
  61. Weingast, B., & Moran, M. (1983). Bureaucratic discretion or Congressional control? Regulatory policymaking by the federal trade commission. Journal of Political Economy, 91(5), 765–800.Google Scholar
  62. Werts, J. (2008). The European council. London: John Harper.Google Scholar
  63. Wessels, W. (2015). The European council. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  64. Wonka A. (2007). Die Europäische Kommission. Supranationale Bürokratie oder Agent der Mitgliedstaaten? Baden-Baden: Nomos Publisher.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations