Protocol (No. 1)

on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union
  • Hermann-Josef Blanke
  • Stelio Mangiameli
Chapter

Abstract

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

Keywords

European Council Legislative Process National Parliament National Legislature Affair Committee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Table of Cases

  1. ECJ 17.12.1970, 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, ECR 1125 [cit. in para 138]Google Scholar
  2. ECJ 29.10.1980, 138/79, SA Roquette Frères v Council, ECR 3333 [cit. in para 74]Google Scholar
  3. ECJ 29.10.1980, 139/79, Maizena GmbH v Council, ECR 3393 [cit. in para 74]Google Scholar
  4. ECJ 13.05.1997, C-233/94, Germany v Parliament and Council, ECR I-2405 [cit. in para 42]Google Scholar
  5. ECJ 9.10.2001, C-377/98, Netherlands v Parliament and Council, ECR I-6229 [cit. in para 42]Google Scholar

References

  1. Aimo, P. (1977). Bicameralismo e regioni. Milan: Edizioni di Comunità.Google Scholar
  2. Alemanno, A. (2012, January 6). Towards more public participation in European policy-making. Albertoalemanno.eu blog newsletter. http://www.albertoalemanno.eu/articles/towards-more-public-participation-in-european-policy-making. Accessed 15 Feb 2012.
  3. Alonso De Antonio, J. A. (2001). El bicameralismo español y la reforma del Senado. In L. Martínez-Calcerrada y Gómez (Ed.), Homenaje a Antonio Hernández Gil (pp. 415–430). Madrid: Centro de Estudios Ramón Areces.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, K., Begg, I., & Zeitlin, J. (2008). JCMS symposium: EU governance after Lisbon. Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(2), 413–450.Google Scholar
  5. Arndt, N., & Nickel, R. (2003). Federalism revisited: Constitutional court strikes down new Immigration Act for formal reasons. German Law Journal, 4(2), 71–89.Google Scholar
  6. Auel, K., & Benz, A. (2005). The politics of adaptation: The Europeanization of national parliamentary systems. Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(3/4), 372–393.Google Scholar
  7. Baines, P. (2004). Parliamentary scrutiny of policy and legislation: The procedures of the lords and commons. In P. Giddings, & G. Drewry (Eds.), Britain in the European Union. Law, policy and parliament (pp. 60–96). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  8. Barón Crespo, E. (2012). Parliamentary democracy and the treaty of Lisbon. OPAL Online Paper No. 1/2012. Accessed 12 Mar 2012.Google Scholar
  9. Baroncelli, S. (2008a). Le fonti del diritto nell’UE dal Trattato di Roma al Trattato di Lisbona: verso un’accresciuta complessità del sistema. Osservatorio sulle fonti online (no. 3). www.osservatoriosullefonti.it. Accessed 14 Jul 2011.
  10. Baroncelli, S. (2008b). La partecipazione dell’Italia alla governance dell’Unione europea nella prospettiva del Trattato di Lisbona: un’analisi sulle fonti del diritto nell’ottica della fase ascendente e discendente. Turin: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
  11. Barrett, G. (2008a). “The king is dead, long live the king”: The recasting by the treaty of Lisbon of the provisions of the constitutional treaty concerning national parliaments. European Law Review, 33(1), 66–85.Google Scholar
  12. Barrett, G. (2008b). Oireachtas control over government activity at European Union level: Reflections on the historical context and the legal framework. In G. Barret (Ed.), National parliaments and the European Union. The constitutional challenge for the Oireachtas and other member state legislatures (pp. 145–178). Dublin: Clarus Press.Google Scholar
  13. Barrot, J. (2009). Le programme de Stockholm 2010–2014: en marche vers une communauté de citoyens européens conscients de leurs droits et de leurs devoirs. Revue de droit de l’Union européenne (4), 627–631.Google Scholar
  14. Bartovic, V. (2010). National Council of the Slovak Republic in the EU Agenda: Giant in theory, Dwarf in practice. In D. Král & V. Bartovic (Eds.), The Czech and the Slovak parliaments after the Lisbon Treaty (pp. 47–78). Prague: Europeum Institute for European Policy.Google Scholar
  15. Baudewijns, L. (2010). Les adaptations stratégiques du Parlement européen au traité de Lisbonne. Working Paper of the Centre de recherché et d’études politiques. Liége. www.crep.be. Accessed 14 Jul 2011.
  16. Becker, F. (2003). The decision of the German Constitutional Court on the Immigration Act. German Law Journal, 4(2), 91–106.Google Scholar
  17. Bengston, C. (2007). Interparliamentary cooperation within Europe. In J. O’Brennan & T. Raunio (Eds.), National parliaments within the enlarged European Union. From ‘victims’ of integration to competitive actors? (pp. 46–65). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Benz, A. (2008). Amendment procedure and the future importance of the convention. In I. Pernice & E. Tanchev (Eds.), Ceci n’est pas une Constitution – Constitutionalisation without a Constitution? (pp. 190–202). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  19. Bergman, T. (1997). National parliaments and the EU Affairs Committees: Notes on empirical variation and competing explanation. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(3), 373–387.Google Scholar
  20. Bergström, C. (2005). Comitology: Delegation of powers in the European Union System. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  21. Bernicot, J. -F. (2007a). La Cour des comptes européenne a trente ans. Revue française de finances publiques 100, 269–286.Google Scholar
  22. Bernicot, J. -F. (2007b). La Cour des comptes européenne. Revue du Trésor (6), 555–558.Google Scholar
  23. Besselink, L. F. M. (2006). National Parliaments in the EU’s Composite Constitution. A plea for a shift in paradigm. In P. Kiiver (Ed.), National and regional parliaments in the European constitutional order (pp. 117–131). Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Besselink, L. F. M., & van Mourik, B. (2012). The parliamentary legitimacy of the European Union: The role of the states general within the European Union. Utrecht Law Review, 8(1), 28–50.Google Scholar
  25. Bientinesi, F. (2006). Brevi note sui programmi legislativi ed operativi delle istituzioni europee all’esame del Parlamento italiano. Rassegna parlamentare, 48(1), 153–165.Google Scholar
  26. Biondi, A. (2012). Subsidiarity in the Courtroom. In A. Biondi, P. Eeckhout, & S. Ripley (Eds.), EU Law after Lisbon (pp. 213–227). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  27. Blanke, H.-J., & Mangiameli, S. (2006). Introduction. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), Governing Europe under a constitution (pp. XXV–LXIV). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Bläss, P., & Boati, T. (2010). Parliamentary co-operation in the framework of the stability pact for South Eastern Europe. In E. Busek & B. Kühne (Eds.), From stabilisation to integration. The stability pact for South Eastern Europe (pp. 75–86). Vienna: Böhlau Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Blick, A. (2011). Note on the European Union Bill. The Federal Trust for Education and Research, Federal Trust Briefing. www.astrid-online.it. Accessed 14 Jul 2011.
  30. Blümel, B., & Neuhold, C. (2001). The parliament of Austria: A large potential with little implication. In A. Maurer & W. Wessels (Eds.), National parliaments on their ways to Europe: Losers or latecomers (pp. 313–335). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  31. Bogdanor, V. (2009). The New British Constitution. Oxford: Hart publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Boggero, G. (2010). La co-responsabilità per l’integrazione europea dei Länder tedeschi e del Bundesrat. Commento alla legge di responsabilità per l’integrazione (IntVG) del 25/09/2009. Federalismi.it. www.federalismi.it. Accessed 14 Jul 2011.
  33. Bonfiglio, S. (2005). Parlamenti nazionali e autonomie territoriali. In M. De Benedetto (Ed.), Istituzioni, politica e amministrazione. Otto paesi europei a confronto (pp. 46–61). Turin: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
  34. Bradley, K. (2011). Powers and procedures in the EU constitution: Legal basis and the Court. In P. Craig & G. De Búrca (Eds.), The evolution of the EU law (2nd ed., pp. 85–109). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  35. Busia, G. (2010). Revisione del Trattato, ammissione di nuovi Stati e recesso dall’Unione. In F. Bassanini, & G. Tiberi (Eds.), Le nuove istituzioni europee Commento al Trattato di Lisbona, 2nd edn. (pp. 401–414). ASTRID. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  36. Calliess, C. (2012). Der Kampf um den Euro: Eine “Angelegenheit der Europäischen Union” zwischen Regierung, Parlament und Volk. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, 31(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  37. Capuano, D. A. (2011). ‘Il Senato e l’attuazione del trattato di Lisbona, tra controllo di sussidiarietà e dialogo politico con la Commissione europea’. Amministrazioneincammino. www.amministrazioneincammino.luiss.it. Accessed 14 Jul 2011.
  38. Capuano, D. A., & Fasone, C. (2010). La Conferenza degli organismi specializzati negli affari comunitari e europei dei parlamenti nazionali dell’Unione europea (COSAC): evoluzioni e prospettive. Quaderni europei e internazionali, (18), Rome: Italian Senate of the Republic.Google Scholar
  39. Caravale, G. (2006). Regno Unito: profili costituzionali della partecipazione nazionale al processo di integrazione comunitaria. Nomos, 11(1/2), 257–288.Google Scholar
  40. Caretti, P. (2010). ‘Il ruolo dei Parlamenti nazionali prima e dopo il trattato di Lisbona’. Osservatorio sulle fonti (3). www.osservatoriosullefonti.it. Accessed 24 Jul 2011.
  41. Cartabia, M. (2007). I parlamenti nazionali nell’architettura costituzionale dell’Unione europea. Che cosa resta in caso di mancata ratifica?. In L’integrazione dei sistemi costituzionali europeo e nazionali (pp. 103–150), XX AIC Conference, Catania, 2005. Padua: Cedam.Google Scholar
  42. Cartabia, M., & Violini, L. (2005). Le norme generali sulla partecipazione dell’Italia al processo normativo dell’Unione europea e sulle procedure di esecuzione degli obblighi comunitari: commento alla legge 4 febbraio 2005, n. 11. Le Regioni (4), 475–512.Google Scholar
  43. Carter, A. A. (2001). The parliament of the United Kingdom: From supportive scrutiny to unleashed control? In A. Maurer & W. Wessels (Eds.), National parliaments on their ways to Europe: Losers or latecomers? (pp. 395–423). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  44. Castelli, L. (2010). Il Senato delle autonomie. Ragioni, modelli, vicende. Padua: Cedam.Google Scholar
  45. CEPS, EGMONT & EPC. (2010). The treaty of Lisbon: A second look to institutional innovation. Brussels: Joint CEPS, EGMONT and EPC Study.Google Scholar
  46. Cerulli Irelli, V., & Barazzoni, F. (2010). Gli atti dell’Unione. In F. Bassanini, & G. Tiberi (Eds.), Le nuove istituzioni europee. Commento al Trattato di Lisbona, 2nd edn. (pp. 325–341). ASTRID. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  47. Chalmers, D., Davies, G., & Monti, G. (2010). European Union law. Cases and materials (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Cheli, E. (1987). Bicameralismo. In Digesto delle discipline pubblicistiche. vol. II (pp. 318–325). Turin: UTET.Google Scholar
  49. Chiti, M. P. (2011). Il tramonto della sovranazionalità europea? Il caso esemplare dell’European Union Act 2011 britannico. Astrid Rassegna. www.astrid-online.it. Accessed 14 Jul 2011.
  50. Chueca Rodríguez, R. L. (1984). Teoría y práctica del bicameralismo en la Constitución española. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, 4(10), 63–90.Google Scholar
  51. Closa, C. (1996). Spain: The Cortes and the EU – A growing together. In P. Norton (Ed.), National Parliaments and the European Union (pp. 136–148). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Coduti, D. (2010). La partecipazione dell’Italia alla cosiddetta fase ascendente dei processi decisionali comunitari: il ruolo del Parlamento. In Studi in onore di Vincenzo Atripaldi, 383–406. Naples: Jovene.Google Scholar
  53. Corbett, R. (2012). The evolving roles of the European Parliament and the National Parliaments. In A. Biondi, P. Eeckhout, & S. Ripley (Eds.), EU law after Lisbon (pp. 248–262). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  54. Corbett, R., Jacobs, F., & Shackleton, M. (2011). The European Parliament (8th ed.). London: Harper.Google Scholar
  55. Costa, O. (2004). Le parlementarisme au-delà de l’Etat: le cas de l’Union européenne. In O. Costa, E. Kerrouche, & P. Magnette (Eds.), Vers un renoveau du parlementarisme en Europe? (pp. 271–294). Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  56. Costa O., Dehousse, R., & Trekalová, A. (2011). La Codécision et les “accords précoces”. Progrès ou détournement de la procedure législative? Notre Europe – Etudes et recherche (84). http://www.notre-europe.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Etud84-Codecision-fr.pdf. Accessed 14 Jul 2011.
  57. Costa, O., Kerrouche, E., & Magnette, P. (2004). Le temps du parlementarisme désenchanté? Le parlements face aux nouveaux modes de gouvernance. In O. Costa, E. Kerrouche, & P. Magnette (Eds.), Vers un renouveau du parlementarisme en Europe? (pp. 9–32). Brussels: Université de Brussels.Google Scholar
  58. Costa, O., & Latek, M. (2001). Paradoxes et limites de la cooperation interparlementaire dans l’Union européenne. Journal of European Integration, 23(2), 139–164.Google Scholar
  59. Craig, P. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty. Law, politics and treaty reform. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  60. Craig, P. (2011a). The ECJ and ultra vires action: A conceptual analysis. Common Market Law Review, 48(2), 395–437.Google Scholar
  61. Craig, P. (2011b). The European Union Act 2011: Locks, limits and legality. Common Market Law Review, 48(6), 1915–1944.Google Scholar
  62. Craig, P., & de Búrca, G. (2011). EU law: Text, cases and materials. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  63. Crum, B., & Fossum, J. E. (2009). The multilevel parliamentary field: A framework for theorizing representative democracy in the EU. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 249–271.Google Scholar
  64. Cygan, A. J. (2001). National parliaments in an integrated Europe: An Anglo-German perspective. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  65. Cygan, A. (2006). The EU constitutional treaty from the perspective of the parliament of the United Kingdom: An improved framework for Parliamentary Scrutiny? In P. Kiiver (Ed.), National and Regional Parliaments in the European Constitutional Order (pp. 15–29). Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  66. Cygan, A. (2007). EU affairs before the United Kingdom Parliament; A case of scrutiny as substitute sovereignty. In O. Tans, C. Zoethout, & J. Peters (Eds.), National Parliaments and European Democracy. A bottom-up approach to European Constitutionalism (pp. 75–96). Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  67. D’Atena, A. (2011). The European constitution’s prospects. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon (pp. 3–20). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  68. Dann, P. (2009). The political institutions. In A. von Bogdandy & J. Bast (Eds.), Principles of European Constitutional Law (pp. 237–273). Oxford: Hart-Beck.Google Scholar
  69. De Vergottini, G. (2007). Diritto Costituzionale Comparato (7th ed.). Padua: Cedam.Google Scholar
  70. De Witte, B. (2005). European treaty revision: A case of multilevel constitutionalism. In I. Pernice & J. Zemanek (Eds.), A Constitution for Europe: The IGC, the ratification process and beyond (pp. 59–76). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  71. De Witte, B. (2008). Legal instruments and law-making in the Lisbon treaty. In S. Griller & J. Ziller (Eds.), The Lisbon Treaty – EU Constitutionalism without a Constitutional Treaty? (pp. 79–108). Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  72. De Witte, B. (2011). The European Treaty amendment for the creation of a financial stability mechanism. European Policy Analysis, 6, 1–8.Google Scholar
  73. De Witte, B. (2012). Treaty revision procedure after Lisbon. In A. Biondi, P. Eeckhout, & S. Ripley (Eds.), EU law after Lisbon (pp. 107–127). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  74. Denza, E. (1993a). La Chambre des Lords: vingt années d’enquêtes communautaires. Revue du marché commun et de l’Union européenne, 371, 740 et seqq.Google Scholar
  75. Denza, E. (1993b). Parliamentary scrutiny of community legislation. Statute Law Review, 14(1), 56–63.Google Scholar
  76. Desmoulin, G. (2005). La Cour et les États: qui contrôle qui? Revue du marché commun et de l’Union européenne, 491, 515–523.Google Scholar
  77. Di Andrea, C. (2006). Il caso della Francia. Nomos (1–2), 101–131.Google Scholar
  78. Di Federico, G. (2008). The distinction between legislative and non-legislative acts in the Constitutional Treaty and its possible impact on locus standi and on contractual liability. In M. Dony & M. S. Rossi (Eds.), Democratie, cohérence et transparence. Vers une constitutionalisation de l’Unione européenne? (pp. 13–36). Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Brussels.Google Scholar
  79. Dicey, V. (1915). Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution (8th ed.). London: Macmillan (reprinted in 1982).Google Scholar
  80. Draetta, U. (2008). La funzione legislativa ed esecutiva dell’Unione europea nel Trattato di Lisbona. Diritto comunitario e degli scambi internazionali (4), 677–693.Google Scholar
  81. Driessen, B. (2010). Delegated legislation after the treaty of Lisbon: An analysis of Article 290 TFEU. European Law Review, 35(6), 837–848.Google Scholar
  82. Eleftheriadis, P. (2009). Parliamentary sovereignty and the constitution. The Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 22(2), 267–290.Google Scholar
  83. Esposito, A. (2009). Il Trattato di Lisbona e il nuovo ruolo costituzionale dei parlamenti nazionali: le prospettive per il parlamento italiano. Rassegna parlamentare (4), 1119–1173.Google Scholar
  84. European Centre for Parliamentary Research & Documentation (ECPRD). (2006). Supranational Parliamentary and Interparliamentary Assemblies in 21st Century Europe. Warsaw: Chancellery of Polish Senate.Google Scholar
  85. European Scrutiny Committee. (2010). The European Scrutiny System in the House of Commons. A short guide for Members of Parliament by the staff of the European Scrutiny Committee. Issued by the Department of the Clerk of the House, No. 7 April 2010.Google Scholar
  86. Fabbrini, S. (2010). Compound democracies: Why the US and Europe are becoming similar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  87. Fahey, E. (2010). Reflections on the legal role of the Irish Parliament (Oireachtas) in EU Affairs after Lisbon. EUI Working Paper, MWP 2010/20. www.cadmus.eui.eu. Accessed 14 Jul 2011.
  88. Farrel, 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.Google Scholar
  89. Fasone, C. (2011a). Gli effetti del Trattato di Lisbona sulla funzione di controllo parlamentare. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario (2), 361–399.Google Scholar
  90. Fasone C. (2011b). Rational legislative subsidiarity and shared parliamentary sovereignty in the European Union. Paper presented at the 19th W.G. Hart Legal Workshop on Sovereignty in Question, London, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, 28–30 June 2011.Google Scholar
  91. Fasone, C. (2011c). Le relazioni tra Parlamento europeo e Parlamenti degli Stati membri. A proposito di un “dialogo necessitato”. In L. Scaffardi (Ed.), Parlamenti in dialogo. L’uso della comparazione nella funzione legislativa (p. 49 et seqq). Naples: Jovene.Google Scholar
  92. Featherstone, K. (1994). Jean Monnet and the “Democratic Deficit” in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 32(2), 149 et seqq.Google Scholar
  93. Fernández Segado, F. (1982). El bicameralismo y la naturaleza del Senado. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, 2(6), 61–114.Google Scholar
  94. Ferraro, F. (2003). Il ruolo dei Parlamenti nazionali nella fase ascendente del diritto dell’Unione europea. Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo (1), 183–192.Google Scholar
  95. Ferraro, F. (2008). Le fonti del diritto dell’Unione europea. Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo (1), 69–77.Google Scholar
  96. Ferretti, R. (1999). Le bicamérisme de la Ve République. Les Petites Affiches, 261, 4–9.Google Scholar
  97. Floridia, G. G. (2005). Il cantiere della nuova Europa: tecnica e politica nei lavori della Convenzione europea. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  98. Fouilleux, E., de Maillard, J., & Smith, A. (2007). Council working groups: Spaces for sectorized European policy deliberation. In T. Christiansen & T. Larsen (Eds.), The role of Committees in the policy-process of the European Union. Legislation, implementation and deliberation (pp. 96–119). Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  99. Frémont-Vanacore, A. (2009). La France en Europe. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  100. Freytag, M. (2005). Der Europäische Rechnungshof: Institution, Funktion und politische Wirkung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  101. Gambale, P. (2006). Le “garanzie parlamentari” nella fase ascendente del diritto comunitario: cenni di diritto comparato e novità dell’ordinamento italiano. Rassegna parlamentare (3), 833–852.Google Scholar
  102. Gianfrancesco, E. (2011). La politica estera e di sicurezza europea prima e dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Forum di Quaderni costituzionali. www.forumcostituzionale.it. Accessed 18 Apr 2011.
  103. Gianniti, L. (2008). The role of the national parliaments. In M. Jančar (Ed.), The role of National Parliaments in EU decision-making processes (p. 95). Ljubljana: Inštitut dr. Jozeta Pučnika.Google Scholar
  104. Gianniti, L. (2010). Il ruolo dei parlamenti nazionali. In F. Bassanini, & G. Tiberi (Eds.), Le nuove istituzioni europee. Commento al Trattato di Lisbona, 2nd edn. (pp. 171–190), ASTRID. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  105. Girotto, D. (2009). Parlamento italiano e processo normativo europeo. Naples: Jovene.Google Scholar
  106. Grabenwarter, C. (2009). National Constitutional Law relating to the European Union. In A. Bogdandy & J. Bast (Eds.), Principles of European constitutional law (pp. 83–130). Oxford: Hart-Beck.Google Scholar
  107. Griglio, E., & Piccirilli, G. (2012). Patterns and outputs of EWM in Five National Parliaments. The subsidiarity scrutiny between EU democratic legitimacy and national policymaking. In Paper presented on the occasion of the final conference of the project LEGIPAR, Bordeaux, Sciences –Po, 1–2 December 2011.Google Scholar
  108. Hahn, J. U. (2009). Die Mitwirkungsrechte von Bundestag und Bundesrat in EU-Angelegenheiten nach dem neuen Integrationsverantwortungsgesetz. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 20(21), 758–763.Google Scholar
  109. Hatzopoulos, V. (2007). Why the open method of coordination is bad for you: A letter to the EU. European Law Journal, 13(3), 309–342.Google Scholar
  110. Heggie, G. (2006). The Scottish Parliament and the EU constitution. Moving beyond the principle of partnership? In P. Kiiver (Ed.), National and regional parliaments in the European Constitutional Order (pp. 31–45). Amsterdam: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  111. Hix, S., Raunio, T., & Scully, R. (2003). Fifty years on: Research on the European parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(2), 191–202.Google Scholar
  112. Hoffmann, H. (2009). Legislation, delegation and implementation under the Treaty of Lisbon: Typology meets reality. European Law Journal, 15(4), 482–505.Google Scholar
  113. Hovey, J. A. (1966). Superparliaments. Interparliamentary consultation and Atlantic cooperation. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  114. Hrbek, R. (2010). Parliament in EU multi-level governance. In R. Hrbek (Ed.), Legislatures in federal systems and multi-level governance (pp. 136–150). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  115. Hrbek, R. (2012). The role of national parliaments in the EU. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon. Constitutional basis, economic order and external action (pp. 129–158). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  116. Inghelram, J. (2000). The European Court of Auditors: Current legal issues. Common Market Law Review, 37(1), 129–146.Google Scholar
  117. Inghelram, J. (2006). Der Rechnungshof. In C. O. Lenz & K. D. Borchardt (Eds.), EU- und EG-Vertrag: Kommentar (pp. 2339–2349 et seqq). Köln: Bundesanzeiger.Google Scholar
  118. Jacobs, F. (1981). Isoglucose resurgent: Two powers of the European parliament upheld by the Court. Common Market Law Review, 18(2), 219–226.Google Scholar
  119. Jacobs, F. (2011). Evolving relations between the European parliament and the national parliaments in the aftermath of the Lisbon Treaty. Paper presented at the EUSA Conference, Montreal. http://euce.org/eusa/2011/papers/7k_jacobs.pdf. Accessed 14 Jul 2011.
  120. Janowski, C. A. (2004). Die nationalen Parlamente und ihre Europa-Gremien. Legitimationsga-rant der EU? Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  121. Jaspert, G. (1989). Der Bundesrat in internationalen parlamentarischen Gremien. In R. Hrbek (Ed.), Miterlebt, mitgestaltet: der Bundesrat im Rückblick (p. 405 et seqq). Stuttgart: Bonn Aktuell.Google Scholar
  122. Jones, D. (2005). UK Parliamentary Scrutiny of EU Legislation. Paper of the Foreign Policy Centre. http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/432.pdf. Accessed 14 Jul 2011.
  123. Judge, D., & Earnshaw, D. (2011). “Relais actors” and co-decision first reading agreements in the European Parliament: The case of the advanced therapies regulation. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 53–71.Google Scholar
  124. Kaczyński, P. M. (2011). Paper tigers or sleeping beauties? National Parliaments in the post-Lisbon European Political System. CEPS Special Reports. 1 February 2011.Google Scholar
  125. Karpen, U. (1999). Role and function of the second chamber. Proceedings of the Third Congress of European Association of Legislation (EAL). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  126. Kerse, C. (2008). Parliamentary scrutiny in the United Kingdom Parliament and the changing role of national parliaments in European Union affairs. In G. Barrett (Ed.), National parliaments and the European Union. The Constitutional challenge for the Oireachtas and other Member State Legislatures (pp. 349–377). Dublin: Clarus Press.Google Scholar
  127. Kiiver, P. (2006a). Parliaments, regions and European integration: Fresh perspectives on the European Constitutional Order. In P. Kiiver (Ed.), National and regional parliaments in the European constitutional order (pp. 3–13). Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  128. Kiiver, P. (2006b). The national parliaments in the European Union: A critical view on EU constitution-building. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  129. Kiiver, P. (2006c). The composite case for national parliaments in the European Union: Who profits from enhanced involvement? European Constitutional Law Review, 2(2), 227–252.Google Scholar
  130. Kiiver, P. (2007). European scrutiny in national parliaments. Individual efforts in the collective interest? In J. O’Brennan & T. Raunio (Eds.), National Parliaments within the Enlarged European Union. From ‘victims’ of integration to competitive actors? (pp. 66–77). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  131. Kiiver, P. (2009). German participation in EU decision-making after the Lisbon case: A comparative view on domestic parliamentary clearance procedures. German Law Journal, 10(8), 1287–1296.Google Scholar
  132. Kiiver, P. (2011). The early-warning system for the principle of subsidiarity: The national parliament as a Conseil d’Etat for Europe. European Law Review, 36(1), 98–108.Google Scholar
  133. Kiiver, P. (2012). The early warning system for the principle of subsidiarity: Constitutional theory and empirical reality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  134. Klaus, P. A. (2008). A Union of diversity: Language, identity and polity-building in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  135. Knudsen, M., & Carl, Y. (2008). COSAC – Its role to date and its potential in the future. In G. Barrett (Ed.), National parliaments and the European Union – The Constitutional challenge for the Oireachtas and other Member State Legislatures (pp. 455–483). Dublin: Clarus Press.Google Scholar
  136. Král, D. (2010). The Czech Parliament and the European Agenda: From sleeping beauty to Cinderella? In D. Král & V. Bartovic (Eds.), The Czech and the Slovak Parliaments after the Lisbon Treaty (pp. 7–76). Prague: Europeum Institute for European Policy.Google Scholar
  137. Krekelberg, A. (2001). The reticent acknowledgement of National Parliaments in the European Treaties: A documentation. In A. Maurer & W. Wessels (Eds.), National parliament on their ways to Europe: Losers or latercomers? (pp. 477–489). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  138. Kreppel, A. (2002). The European Parliament and supranational party system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  139. Kumm, M. (2010). Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, Nold and the New Human Rights Paradigm. In M. P. Maduro & L. Azoulai (Eds.), The past and future of EU Law (pp. 106–118). Oxford: Hart publishing.Google Scholar
  140. Ladrech, R. (2010). Europeanization and national politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  141. Laffan, B. (2001). The parliament of Ireland: A passive adapter coming in from the cold. In A. Maurer & W. Wessels (Eds.), National Parliaments on their ways to Europe: Losers or latecomers (pp. 251–268). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  142. Larhant, M. (2005). La coopération interparlementaire dans l’UE. L’heure d’un nouveau départ? Notre Europe. Etudes & Recherches, policy paper no. 16. http://www.notre-europe.eu/fileadmin/IMG/pdf/Policypaper16-fr.pdf. Accessed 14 Jul 2011.
  143. Lauricella, G. (1990). Il monocameralismo. Premesse per un’indagine comparata. Palermo: ILA Palma.Google Scholar
  144. Laursen, F. (2001). The Danish Folketing and its European Affairs Committee: Strong players in the National Policy Cycle. In A. Maurer & W. Wessels (Eds.), National Parliaments on their ways to Europe: Losers or latecomers? (pp. 99–115). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  145. Lazowski, A. (2007). The Polish parliament and EU affairs: An effective actor or an accidental hero? In J. O’Brennan & T. Raunio (Eds.), National Parliaments within and Enlarged European Union (pp. 203–218). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  146. Lecheler, H. (2009). Die Mitwirkungsgesetzgebung an der europäischen Integration vor und nach dem Urteil des BVerfG zum Lissabon-Vertrag. Juristen Zeitung, 64(23), 1156–1160.Google Scholar
  147. Leigh, I. (2003). Le istituzioni nazionali nell’architettura europea: il caso del Regno Unito. In G. Guzzetta (Ed.), Questioni costituzionali del governo europeo (pp. 153–170). Padua: Cedam.Google Scholar
  148. Lenaerts, K., & Cambien, N. (2009). The Democratic Legitimacy of the EU after the Treaty of Lisbon. In J. Wouters, L. Verhey, & P. Kiiver (Eds.), European Constitutionalism beyond Lisbon (pp. 185–207). Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  149. Levade, A. (2007). Commentaire au protocol sur le role du parlements nationaux. In L. Burgorgue-Larsen, A. Levade, & F. Picod (Eds.), Traité etablissant une Constitution pour l’Europe. Commentaire article par article (pp. 869–894). Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  150. Levmore, S. (1992). Bicameralism: When are two decisions better than one. International Review of Law and Economics, 12(2), 145–162.Google Scholar
  151. Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy. Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  152. Lindsay, K. (1960). European assemblies. The experimental period 1949–1959. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  153. Lindseth, P. L. (2010). Power and legitimacy. Reconciling Europe and the nation-state. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  154. Lodge, J. (1996). The European Parliament. In S. Andersen & K. Eliassen (Eds.), The European Union. How democratic is it? (pp. 187–214). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  155. Louis, J. V. (2009). National parliaments and the principle of subsidiarity. Legal options and practical limits. In I. Pernice & E. Tanchev (Eds.), Ceci n’est pas une Constitution. Constitutionalism without a constitution. (pp. 131–154). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  156. Luther, J., Passaglia, P., & Tarchi, R. (Eds.). (2006). A world of second chambers. Handbook for constitutional studies on bicameralism. Milan: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  157. MacCormick, N. (1999). Questioning sovereignty. Law, state, and nation in the European commonwealth. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  158. Magone, J. (2007). South European national parliaments and the European Union: An inconsistent reactive revival. In J. O’Brennan & T. Raunio (Eds.), National Parliaments within and Enlarged European Union (pp. 116–130). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  159. Mangiameli, S. (2009). Il ruolo del Parlamento europeo nella PESC, alla luce delle innovazioni apportate dal Trattato di Lisbona. In C. Decaro & N. Lupo (Eds.), Il “dialogo” tra parlamenti: obiettivi e risultati (p. 415 et seqq). Rome: Luiss University Press.Google Scholar
  160. Mangiameli, S. (2010). Il Senato federale nella prospettiva italiana. Rassegna parlamentare 52(1), 167–190.Google Scholar
  161. Manzella, A. (2010). The role of parliaments in the democratic life of the Union. In S. Micossi & G. L. Tosato (Eds.), The European Union in the 21st century. Perspectives from the Lisbon Treaty (pp. 257–270). Brussels: Center for European Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  162. Marrel, G. (2007). Dual mandates. In Y. Déloye & M. Bruter (Eds.), Encyclopedia of European elections (pp. 78–84). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  163. Martins, A. (2005). Amendment of the Constitution. Procedural and political questions. In I. Pernice & J. Zemanek (Eds.), A Constitution for Europe: The IGC, the ratification process and beyond (pp. 199–210). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  164. Massicotte, L. (2001). Legislative unicameralism: A global survey and a few case studies. Journal of Legislative Studies, 7(1), 151–170.Google Scholar
  165. Matarazzo, R. (2011). National Parliaments after the Lisbon Treaty: A new power player or Mr. No in the EU decision making? In R. Matarazzo (Ed.), Democracy in the EU after the Lisbon Treaty (pp. 43–64). IAI, Rome: Edizioni Nuova Cultura.Google Scholar
  166. Matarazzo, R., & Leone, J. (2011). Sleeping beauty awakens: The Italian Parliament and the EU after the Lisbon Treaty. The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, 46(3), 129–144.Google Scholar
  167. Maurer, A. (2001). National Parliaments in the European Architecture: From latercomers’ adaptation towards permanent institutional change. In A. Maurer & W. Wessels (Eds.), National Parliaments on their ways to Europe: Losers or latercomers? (pp. 27–76). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  168. Maurer, A., & Wessels, W. (2001). National parliaments after Amsterdam: From slow adapters to national players? In A. Maurer & W. Wessels (Eds.), National Parliaments on their ways to Europe: Losers or latercomers? (pp. 425–475). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  169. McKay, W., & Johnson, C. W. (2010). Parliament and congress: Representation and scrutiny in the twenty-first century. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  170. Naurin, D., & Wallace, H. (Eds.). (2010). Unveiling the Council of the European Union. Games governments play in Brussells. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  171. Nettesheim, M. (2010). Die Integrationsverantwortung – Vorgaben des BVerfG und gesetzgeberische Umsetzung. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 63(4), 177–183.Google Scholar
  172. Ninatti, S. (2003). How do our judges conceive of democracy? The democratic nature of the community decision-making process under scrutiny of the European Court of Justice. Jean Monnet Working Paper no. 10/03. New York: NYU School of Law.Google Scholar
  173. Norton, P. (1996). The United Kingdom: Political conflict, parliamentary scrutiny. In P. Norton (Ed.), National parliaments and the European Union (pp. 92–109). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  174. Norton, P. (2001). Written evidence submitted to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union. A Second Parliamentary Chamber for Europe: An Unreal Solution to Some Real Problems. London: House of Lords.Google Scholar
  175. Novak, S. (2011). La prise de décision au Conseil de l’Union européenne. Pratiques du vote et du consensus. Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar
  176. Nuttens, J. D. (2001). Le parlement français et l’Europe: l’article 88-4 de la Constitution. Paris: L.G.D.J.Google Scholar
  177. O’Brennan, J., & Raunio, T. (2007). Introduction: Deparliamentarization and European integration. In J. O’Brennan & T. Raunio (Eds.), National Parliaments within and Enlarged European Union (pp. 1–25). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  178. Oberdorff, H. (2008). Le parlement français à l’épreuve de la construction européenne? In B. Mathieu (Ed.), Cinquantième anniversaire de la Constitution française, 1958–2008 (pp. 715–728). Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar
  179. Orrù, R. (2003). Prospettive di ‘parlamentarizzazione’ dell’Unione: Assemblee nazionali e Assemblea europea. Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed europeo, 4, 1753–1761.Google Scholar
  180. Paladin, L. (1984). Tipologia e fondamenti giustificativi del bicameralismo. Il caso italiano. Quaderni costituzionali (2), 219–241.Google Scholar
  181. Palermo, F. (1997). Germania e Austria: modelli federali e bicamerali a confronto. Due ordinamenti in evoluzione tra cooperazione, integrazione e ruolo delle seconde camere. Trento: Pubblicazioni del Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche – University of Trento.Google Scholar
  182. Pas, W. (2006). The Belgian “National Parliament” from the perspective of the EU Constitutional Treaty. In P. Kiiver (Ed.), National and Regional Parliaments in the European Constitutional Order (pp. 57–76). Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  183. Patterson, S. C., & Mughan, A. (1999). Senates. Bicameralism in the contemporary world. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  184. Pernice, I. (2002). Multilevel constitutionalism in the European Union. European Law Review, 27(5), 511–529.Google Scholar
  185. Polsby, N. (1975). Legislatures. In F. Geenstein & N. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science (chapter IV). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  186. Ponzano, P. (2008). ‘Executive and delegated’ acts: The situation after the Lisbon treaty. In S. Griller & J. Ziller (Eds.), The Lisbon Treaty-EU Constitutionalism without a Constitutional Treaty? (pp. 135–141). Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  187. Ponzano, P. (2009–2010). Le droit d’initiative législative de la Commission européenne: théorie et pratique. Revue des affaires européennes (Law and European affairs) (1), 27–35.Google Scholar
  188. Ponzano, P., Hermanin, C., & Corona, D. (2012) The power of initiative of the European Commission: A progressive erosion? Notre Europe. Study & Research, no 89. www.notre-europe.eu.
  189. Prechal, S., & De Leeuw, M. E. (2008). Transparency: A general principle of EU Law? In U. Bernitz, J. Nergelius, & C. Cardner (Eds.), General principles of EC Law in a process of development (pp. 206–208). Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.Google Scholar
  190. Punset, R. (2004). Razón e identidad del Senado. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, 70, 27–41.Google Scholar
  191. Rasmussen, H. (2005). The convention method. European Constitutional Law Review, 1(1), 141–147.Google Scholar
  192. Raunio, T. (2009). National parliaments and European integration: What we know and agenda for future research. Journal of Legislative Studies, 15(4), 317–334.Google Scholar
  193. Raunio, T., & Wiberg, M. (2010). How to measure the Europeanisation of a National Legislature? Scandinavian Political Studies, 33(1), 74–92.Google Scholar
  194. Reckewerk, S. (1996). The legislative bodies of the Federal Republic of Germany. Tilburg Foreign Law Review, 5(4), 307–322.Google Scholar
  195. Ridola, P. (2006). The parliamentarisation of the institutional structure of the European Union between representative democracy and participatory democracy. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), Governing Europe under a Constitution (pp. 415–431). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  196. Riescher, G., Ruß, S., & Haas, C. M. (2010). Zweite Kammern. Munich: R. Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  197. Riker, W. H. (1992). The justification of bicameralism. International Political Science Review, 13(1), 101–116.Google Scholar
  198. Rittberger, B. (2005). Building Europe’s parliament. Democratic representation beyond nation-state. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  199. Rivosecchi, G. (2011). Il governo europeo dei conti pubblici tra crisi economico-finanziaria e riflessi sul sistema delle fonti. Osservatorio sulle fonti online (no. 1). www.osservatoriosullefonti.it. Accessed 14 Jul 2011.
  200. Rizzoni, G. (2009). La cooperazione tra amministrazioni parlamentari. In C. Decaro & N. Lupo (Eds.), Il “dialogo” tra parlamenti: obiettivi e risultati (p. 297 et seqq). Rome: Luiss University Press.Google Scholar
  201. Rozenberg, O. (2004). La perfectible adaptation des parlements nationaux à l’Union européenne. In O. Costa, E. Kerrouche, & P. Magnette (Eds.), Vers un renoveau du parlementarisme en Europe? (pp. 73–87). Brussels: Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  202. Rozenberg, O. (2009). Présider par plaisir. L’examen des affaires européennes à l’Assemblée nationale et à la Chambre des Communes depuis Maastricht. Revue française de science politique, 59(3), 401–427.Google Scholar
  203. Rozenberg, O., Thomas, A., & Auel, K. (2012). Lost in transaction: Parliamentary reserves in EU Bargains. Paper presented at the Conference on Parliaments in the European Union after Lisbon held in Maastricht, 23–24 February 2012.Google Scholar
  204. Ruggiu, I. (2006). Contro la Camera delle regioni. Naples: Jovene.Google Scholar
  205. Ruiz Garcìa, E. (2004). El Tribunal de Cuentas Europeo. In I. Libro (Ed.), Comentarios a la Constitución Europea (pp. 1103–1131). Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch.Google Scholar
  206. Sampol, C. (2007). Half a victory for national parliaments. Europolitics 34/07Google Scholar
  207. Saulnier, E. (2002). La participation des parlements français et britannique aux Communautés et a l’Union européennes: lecture parlementaire de la construction européenne. Paris: L.G.D.J.Google Scholar
  208. Scharpf, F. (1999). Governing Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  209. Schmidt, V. A. (2006). Democracy in Europe. The EU and national polities. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  210. Senden, L. (2004). Soft Law in the European Community Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  211. Siritzky, D. (2008). Ensuring democratic control over national government in European affairs: The French model. In G. Barret (Ed.), National parliaments and the European Union. The Constitutional challenge for the Oireachtas and other Member State Legislatures (pp. 433–455). Dublin: Clarus Press.Google Scholar
  212. Skiadas, D. (2000). The European Court of Auditors. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  213. Stancanelli, P. (2009–2010). La Commission et le traité de Lisbonne. Revue des affaires euro- péennes (Law and European affairs) (1), 11–22.Google Scholar
  214. Storini, C. (2005). Parlamentos nacionales y Unión Europea. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanc.Google Scholar
  215. Swenden, W. (2004). Federalism and second chambers. Regional representation in Parliamentary Federations: The Australian Senate and the German Bundesrat Compared. Brussels: Presses Universitaires Européennes.Google Scholar
  216. Tholoniat, L. (2009). The Temporal Constitution of the European Commission: A timely investigation. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(2), 221–238.Google Scholar
  217. Thym, D. (2008). Parliamentary involvement in European international relations. In M. Cremona & B. De Witte (Eds.), EU Foreign Relation Law. Constitutional fundamentals (pp. 201–232). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  218. Thym, D. (2011). Anmerkung. Juristen Zeitung, 20, 1011–1015.Google Scholar
  219. Torre, A. (2008). L’attuazione del diritto comunitario nel Regno Unito e la questione della sovranità parlamentare. In: Studi in onore di Vincenzo Starace (Vol. III, pp. 2115–2127). Naples: Editoriale Scientifica.Google Scholar
  220. Tridimans, T. (2010). Primacy, fundamental rights and the search for legitimacy. In M. P. Maduro & L. Azoulai (Eds.), The past and future of EU Law (pp. 98–104). Oxford: Hart publishing.Google Scholar
  221. Trubek, D. M., et al. (2006). “Soft Law”, “Hard Law”, and EU integration. In G. De Burca & J. Scott (Eds.), Law and new governance in the EU and the US (pp. 65–95). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  222. Tsebelis, G., & Money, J. (1997). Bicameralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  223. Vassallo, S. (2004). Come le Seconde camere rappresentano i “territori”. Le lezioni dell’analisi comparata. In S. Ceccanti & S. Vassallo (Eds.), Come chiudere la transizione. Cambiamento, apprendimento e adattamento nel sistema politico italiano (pp. 339–358). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  224. Verola, N. (2006). L’Europa legittima. Principi e processi di legittimazione nella costruzione europea. Firenze: Passigli.Google Scholar
  225. von Bogdandy, A., & Bast, J. (2009). The constitutional approach to EU Law. In A. Bogdandy & J. Bast (Eds.), Principles of European Constitutional Law (pp. 1–7). Oxford: Hart-Beck.Google Scholar
  226. von Bogdandy, A., & Schill, S. (2011). Overcoming absolute primacy: Respect for national identity under the Lisbon Treaty. Common Market Law Review, 48(5), 1417–1453.Google Scholar
  227. Vuolo, A. (2008). Il Parlamento nella fase ascendente della formazione del diritto comunitario. In R. Dickmann & S. Staiano (Eds.), Funzioni parlamentari non legislative e forma di governo: l’esperienza dell’Italia (pp. 529–561). Milan: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  228. Weber, A. (2011). Europäisches Parlament und nationale Parlamente im Europäischen Rechtsetzungsverbund. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung, 64(13), 497–504.Google Scholar
  229. Westlake, M., & Galloway, D. (2006). The Council of the European Union (3rd ed.). London: Harper.Google Scholar
  230. Wohland, E. (2008). Bundestag, Bundesrat und Landesparlamente im Europäischen Integrations-prozess. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
  231. Zervakis, P., & Yannis, N. (2001). The Parliament of Greece: Slow but constant moves towards European integration? In A. Maurer & W. Wessels (Eds.), National Parliaments on their ways to Europe: Losers or latecomers (pp. 147–170). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  232. Ziller, G. (1984). Der Bundesrat. Düsseldorf: Droste.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hermann-Josef Blanke
    • 1
  • Stelio Mangiameli
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty for Economics, Law and Social ScienceUniversity of ErfurtErfurtGermany
  2. 2.National Research Council Institute for Regionalism, Federalism and Self-GovernmentRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations