Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of National Parliaments in the EU

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The European Union after Lisbon

Abstract

Since the 1980s the role of national parliaments related to issues of European integration and politics in the European Community/European Union (EC/EU) has been given greater attention. First, there were efforts within national parliaments of EC/EU Member States to introduce provisions for new institutional and procedural rules designed to give (and strengthen) the respective parliament a role in EC/EU-related decision-making, focusing on the national level. As a consequence, one could observe concrete activities of national parliaments in dealing with EC/EU matters. Second, there were statements made at the European level – in the context of treaty revisions starting with the Treaty of Maastricht – not only mentioning the role of national parliaments in the institutional architecture of the EU, but demanding that their role be strengthened. These efforts culminated in considerations within the European Convention on the role of national parliaments and, as a result, in new provisions included into the Constitutional Treaty. Following the failure of this treaty project, the respective provisions are now included in the Treaty of Lisbon.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    It was, however, not before the early/mid-1990s that larger academic analyses were published: Weber-Panariello (1995); and Norton (1996b).

  2. 2.

    Very good and concise overviews have recently been given by Raunio (2009) and Benz and Broschek (2010). Much more detailed contributions are, amongst others, the following volumes: Maurer and Wessels (2001); Maurer (2002); Janowski (2005); O’Brennan and Raunio (2007).

  3. 3.

    This article is based on and will follow in parts a contribution by the author, see Hrbek (2010).

  4. 4.

    As early as in 1867 Walter Bagehot published his book “The English Constitution”, listing five functions of the House of Commons on pp. 115–120 (edition of 1958 by Oxford University Press, London). Various authors have drawn on this list, sometimes using different terms.

  5. 5.

    For the German case see Hrbek (1999).

  6. 6.

    See Schweitzer (1978).

  7. 7.

    In August 1954, a majority in the French Parliament stopped the project of establishing a European Defence Community, as another supranational organisation following the example of the European Coal and Steel Community, by refusing to put the issue on the agenda; parties of the coalition government were divided on this project.

  8. 8.

    See Arter (1996); Laursen (2001).

  9. 9.

    Sousa (2008), p. 432.

  10. 10.

    Quoted in Sousa (2008), p. 433.

  11. 11.

    The following quotes are from Sousa (2008), pp. 432–435.

  12. 12.

    See Norton (1996a, b); Carter (2001); Janowski (2005), pp. 133–139.

  13. 13.

    See title of the volume by Maurer and Wessels (2001).

  14. 14.

    One of the first comprehensive contributions to this topic was Naßmacher (1972).

  15. 15.

    See Hrbek (1980, 1995).

  16. 16.

    The following is based on and taken from Hrbek (2010), pp. 141–144.

  17. 17.

    The monograph of Peter Mehl: Die Europa-Kommission des Deutschen Bundestages. Eine neue Einrichtung interparlamentarischer Zusammenarbeit, Kehl and Strasbourg, 1987, informs on all aspects of this new institution.

  18. 18.

    Law on the Cooperation of the Federal Government and the German Bundestag in European Union Affairs of 12 March 1993 (BGBl I 1993, p. 311). The law was amended on 17 November 2005 (BGBl I, p. 3178); in addition to and related to the law, Bundestag and Federal Government concluded on 28 September 2006 an Agreement on the Cooperation in EU Affairs (BGBl I 2006, pp. 2177–2180), dealing with all details of their cooperation. The Law was, as a consequence of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court on the Treaty of Lisbon of 30 June 2009, again amended (draft of 21 August 2009, Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 16/13925).

  19. 19.

    This latter clause has in practice been used only rarely.

  20. 20.

    The following is based on and taken from Hrbek (2010), pp. 144–147.

  21. 21.

    Krekelberg (2001), p. 477.

  22. 22.

    Parliaments of applicant countries were invited to send six members each as observers.

  23. 23.

    European Parliament, Rules of Procedure of the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union, O.J. C 27/6 (2008).

  24. 24.

    This is the so-called Passerelle Clause.

  25. 25.

    Hrbek (2000).

  26. 26.

    See point 6 below, dealing with Regional Parliaments.

  27. 27.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2BvE 2/08 (30 June 2009) (in: BverfGE 123, 267) – Lisbon.

  28. 28.

    Tomuschat (2009), p. 1259.

  29. 29.

    Schorkopf (2009), p. 1219.

  30. 30.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92 (12 October 1993) (in: BVerfGE 89, 155) – Maastricht.

  31. 31.

    Kiiver (2009), p. 1287.

  32. 32.

    The following (including quotes) is based on Halberstam and Möllers (2009), pp. 1243–1246.

  33. 33.

    See, for example, the contributions in the Special Section of German Law Journal, quoted above.

  34. 34.

    Schorkopf (2009), p. 1221.

  35. 35.

    Schorkopf (2009), p. 1222.

  36. 36.

    Halberstam and Möllers (2009), p. 1247.

  37. 37.

    Halberstam and Möllers (2009), p. 1247.

  38. 38.

    Tomuschat (2009), p. 1261.

  39. 39.

    Schorkopf (2009), p. 1223.

  40. 40.

    Nettesheim (2009), p. 2868.

  41. 41.

    Tomuschat (2009), p. 1260.

  42. 42.

    IntVG of 22 September 2009, BGBl. 1, pp. 3022 et seqq.

  43. 43.

    The EU, which is neither a state nor an international organisation, has been conceived as a compound with nation states as component parts. From a political science point of view, the concept of a “political system”, applied primarily to nation states, has been applied to the EU as well. See Hix (2005).

  44. 44.

    Norton (1996a, b), pp. 1–2, distinguishes between different types of legislatures: the “policy-making legislature” (it “can modify or reject policy brought forward by the executive, and can formulate and substitute policy of its own”), which can be found in the Nordic countries and in Austria; the “policy-influencing legislature” (“it can modify policy brought forward by the executive, but cannot formulate and substitute policy of its own”), to be found in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom; and the “legislature with little or no policy effect” (it “can neither modify or reject policy brought forward by the executive, nor formulate and substitute policy of its own”), to be found primarily in Southern Europe.

  45. 45.

    Article 138a EC (Maastricht) = Art. 191 EC (Amsterdam) stipulates: “Political Parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.” The wording of the provision has been slightly modified in the Treaty of Lisbon; Art. 10(4) TEU reads: “Political Parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union.”

  46. 46.

    European Parliament/Council Regulation No. 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding, O.J. L 297/1 (2003); amendment: Regulation No. 1524/2207, O.J. L 343/5 (2007).

  47. 47.

    See for example Sousa (2008), pp. 435–438; or Benz and Broschek (2010), pp. 2–3.

  48. 48.

    See Duina and Raunio (2007). The authors argue that “with regard to participation … OMC risks further marginalizing national parliaments. On the other hand, when we consider its output, the OMC provides national legislators with opportunities that the traditional Community method of legislation cannot offer. First, the OMC gives national legislators access to insights and tools for producing successful laws. Second, the OMC gives those legislators grounds for criticizing the policies of government officials” (p. 489).

  49. 49.

    This was one of the functions which Walter Bagehot (see fn. 4) in his frequently quoted catalogue of parliamentary functions has listed.

  50. 50.

    See Raunio (2009), pp. 5–6; and Benz and Broschek (2010), pp. 16–17.

  51. 51.

    See Maurer and Vogel (2009). The European Commission has submitted a Green Paper on the Citizens’ Initiative, COM (2009) 622 final of 11 November 2009.

  52. 52.

    The European Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the citizens’ initiative, COM (2010) 119 final of 31 March 2010, has proposed the minimum number at one third.

  53. 53.

    See the volume Kohler-Koch and Rittberger (2007); especially the following chapters: Auel and Benz (2007), and Rittberger (2007).

  54. 54.

    See Hrbek (1999).

  55. 55.

    See Straub and Hrbek (1998); the volume covers the cases of Austria, Belgium, Spain, Italy, France and Germany, and it contains a documentation on practical activities of regional parliaments.

  56. 56.

    See the detailed descriptive analysis by Johne (2000).

  57. 57.

    See Bauer (2005).

  58. 58.

    In some Länder these have been included in the respective Land constitution.

  59. 59.

    Bauer (2005).

  60. 60.

    CALRE = Conférence des Assemblées législatives régionales d’Europe.

  61. 61.

    See Kiefer (2006).

References

  • Arter D (1996) The Folketing and Denmark’s‚European Policy’: the case of an ‘Authorising Assembly’. In: Norton P (ed) National parliaments and the European Union. London, pp 110–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Auel K, Benz A (2007) Expanding national parliamentary control: does it enhance European democracy? In: Kohler-Koch B, Rittberger B (eds) Debating the democratic legitimacy of the European Union. Lanham, pp 57–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer MW (2005) Europaausschüsse – Herzstück landesparlamentarischer Beteiligung in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union? In: Europäisches Zentrum für Föderalismus-Forschung Tübingen (ed) Jahrbuch des Föderalismus 2005. Baden-Baden, pp 632–647

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz A, Broschek J (2010) Nationale Parlamente in der europäischen Politik. Funktionen, Probleme und Lösungen, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Internationale Politikanalyse, März http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/07084.pdf(accessed 15 January 2011)

  • Carter CA (2001) The parliament of the United Kingdom: from scrutiny to unleashed control? In: Maurer A, Wessels W (eds) National parliaments on their ways to Europe: losers or latecomers? Baden-Baden, pp 395–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Duina F, Raunio T (2007) The open method of co-ordination and national parliaments: further marginalization or new opportunities? J Eur Publ Pol 14(4):489–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam D, Möllers C (2009) The German Constitutional Court says “Ja zu Deutschland!”. German Law J 10(8) (Special Section: The Federal Constitutional Court’s Lisbon Case, pp 1241–1257)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hix S (2005) The political system of the European Union, 2nd edn. Houndmills

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrbek R (1980) Demokratiegebot und Europäische Gemeinschaft. In: Hartmann K (ed) Die Demokratie im Spektrum der Wissenschaften. Freiburg, pp 285–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrbek R (1995) Der Vertrag von Maastricht und das Demokratie-Defizit der Europäischen Union – Auf dem Weg zu stärkerer demokratischer Legitimation? In: Randelzhofer A, Scholz R, Wilke D (eds) Gedächtnisschrift für Eberhard Grabitz. München, pp 171–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrbek R (1999) The effects of EU integration on German federalism. In: Jeffery C (ed) Recasting German federalism. The legacies of unification. London, pp 217–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrbek R (2000) Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip in der EU – Bedeutung und Wirkung nach dem Vertrag von Amsterdam, in: Europäisches Zentrum für Föderalismus-Forschung Tübingen (Hrsg.): Jahrbuch des Föderalismus 2000. Föderalismus, Subsidiarität und Regionen in Europa. Baden-Baden, pp 510–531

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrbek R (2010) Parliaments in EU multi-level governance. In: Hrbek R (ed) Legislatures in federal systems and multi-level governance. Baden-Baden, pp 136–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Janowski CA (2005) Die nationalen Parlamente und ihre Europa-Gremien. Legitimationsgarant der EU? Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Johne R (2000) Die deutschen Landtage im Entscheidungsprozess der Europäischen Union. Parlamentarische Mitwirkung im europäischen Mehrebenensystem. Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer A (2006) Gesetzgebende Regionalparlamente und ihr europäischer Verband: die CALRE. In: Europäisches Zentrum für Föderalismus-Forschung Tübingen (ed) Jahrbuch des Föderalismus 2006. Baden-Baden, pp 606–629

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiiver P (2009) German participation in EU decision-making after the Lisbon case: a comparative view on domestic parliamentary clearance procedures. German Law J 10(8) (Special Section: The Federal Constitutional Court’s Lisbon Case, pp 1287–1296)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler-Koch B, Rittberger B (eds) (2007) Debating the democratic legitimacy of the European Union. Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Krekelberg A (2001) The reticent acknowledgement of national parliaments in the European treaties: a documentation. In: Maurer, A and Wessels, W (eds.) National Parliaments on their Ways to Europe. Losers or Latecomers? Baden-Baden, pp 477–489

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen F (2001) The Danish folketing and its European affairs committee: strong players in the national policy cycle. In: Maurer A, Wessels W (eds) National parliaments on their ways to Europe: losers or latecomers? Baden-Baden, pp 99–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer A (2002) Parlamentarische Demokratie in der Europäischen Union. Der Beitrag des Europäischen Parlaments und der nationalen Parlamente. Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer A, Vogel S (2009) Die Europäische Bürgerinitiative. Chancen, Grenzen und Umsetzungsempfehlungen, SWP-Studie S 28, Berlin, Oktober 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer A, Wessels W (eds) (2001) National parliaments on their ways to Europe: losers or latecomers? Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Naßmacher K-H (1972) Demokratisierung der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettesheim M (2009) Ein Individualrecht auf Staatlichkeit? Die Lissabon-Entscheidung des BVerfG. NJW 39:2867–2869

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton P (1996a) The United Kingdom: political conflict, parliamentary scrutiny. In: Norton P (ed) National parliaments and the European Union. London, pp 92–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton P (ed) (1996b) National parliaments and the European Union. London

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brennan J, Raunio T (eds) (2007) National parliaments within the enlarged European Union. From “victims” of integration to competitive actors? Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Raunio T (2009) National parliaments and European integration. What we know and what we should know. ARENA Working Paper No 02, Oslo, January 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittberger B (2007) Constructing parliamentary democracy in the European Union: how did it happen? In: Kohler-Koch B, Rittberger B (eds) Debating the democratic legitimacy of the European Union. Lanham, pp 111–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Schorkopf F (2009) The European Union as an association of sovereign states: Karlsruhe’s ruling on the treaty of Lisbon. German Law J 10(8) (Special Section: The Federal Constitutional Court’s Lisbon Case, pp 1219–1240)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer C-C (1978) Die nationalen Parlamente in der Gemeinschaft – ihr schwindender Einfluss in Bonn und Westminster auf die Europagesetzgebung. Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa MM (2008) Learning in Denmark? The case of Danish parliamentary control over European union policy. Scand Polit Stud 31(4):428–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straub P, Hrbek R (eds) (1998) Die europapolitische Rolle der Landes- und Regionalparlamente in der EU. Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2009) The ruling of the German Constitutional Court on the treaty of Lisbon. German Law J 10(8) (Special Section: The Federal Constitutional Court’s Lisbon Case, pp 1259–1261)

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber-Panariello PA (1995) Nationale Parlamente in der Europäischen Union. Baden-Βaden

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Tübingen, Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Melanchthonstr. 36, 72074, Tübingen, Germany

    Rudolf Hrbek

Authors
  1. Rudolf Hrbek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rudolf Hrbek .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Sc, University of Erfurt, Nordhäuser Straße 63, Erfurt, 99089, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Governm, National Research Council - Institute fo, Via dei Taurini 19, Rome, 00185, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hrbek, R. (2012). The Role of National Parliaments in the EU. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) The European Union after Lisbon. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19507-5_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation