DOCSLIB.ORG

A 001094 05.03.2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A 001094 05.03.2021 A 001094 05.03.2021 From: Talmannen Sent: 05 March 2021 09:33 To: alojz.kovsca@ds‐rs.si; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; gp@dz‐rs.si; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; president@assemblee‐nationale.fr; SASSOLI David, President ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; richard.ferrand@assemblee‐nationale.fr; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Talmannen ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Tuula Zetterman ; Rebecka Ingimarsdottir ; SJÖVALL Jakob (SE‐Parliament) ; Eva Östlund Subject: To the attention of Speakers and Presidents of EU Parliaments – Information about a reasoned opinion from the Swedish Parliament Reasoned opinion from the Swedish Parliament Dear Speaker, dear Colleague, I hope all is well. One year has now passed since we were faced with the challenge of living in an ongoing pandemic. Our societies have adapted to new realities in an attempt to stop the virus from spreading and now we can finally see the light in the tunnel as the vaccination efforts have begun across the EU. In the past year, our parliaments have been innovative and flexible in order to find new ways of working and debating political issues, both on a national and European level. The pandemic is still not over and it is our duty as national parliaments, the core of our democracies, to ensure the continuation of the legislative work in our countries. And as members of the European Union, it is important that we also carry on with our parliamentary scrutiny work of EU activities. Through IPEX and the network of representatives of national parliaments in Brussels, we swiftly exchange information on parliamentary scrutiny processes. In order to strengthen this exchange of information, I would like to share with you, dear colleague, information on the latest reasoned opinion adopted by the Riksdag. On 4 March 2021, the Riksdag adopted a reasoned opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC (the so called VAT Directive) as regards conferral of implementing powers to the Commission to determine the meaning of the terms used in certain provisions of that Directive (COM(2020) 749). The result of the scrutiny is available on IPEX. Please find a link to the reasoned opinion below and a courtesy translation of the reasoned opinion attached to this email. https://secure.ipex.eu/IPEXL‐WEB/scrutiny/CNS20200331/serik.do I look forward to your scrutiny results of this proposal, either on IPEX or by a reply from you to this email. I hope that you continue to be in good health and I look forward to meeting you again soon. Yours sincerely, Andreas Norlén Speaker Sveriges riksdag E‐mail: [email protected] –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––‐ SVERIGES RIKSDAG 100 12 Stockholm • Telefon 08‐786 40 00 • www.riksdagen.se APPENDIX 2 Reasoned opinion from the Riksdag The Riksdag supports the objective of promoting a smooth functioning of the single market by seeking a uniform interpretation of the VAT Directive in all member states. However, the Riksdag notes that the current rules already make it possible to achieve this. The Council can, based on a proposal from the Commission, adopt such regulations. Such regulations have also been agreed in the Council. Even if the area of application for such regulations is limited, the provisions can have a budgetary impact that may be significant for one or several member states. When the rules of the VAT Directive on implementing powers were adopted, it was therefore considered justifiable that the Council should be reserved the right to exercise these powers, as set out in recital 63 of the Directive. In the opinion of the Riksdag, these recitals continue to be highly applicable. When the Council takes a unanimous decision, all the member states must agree. According to the Commission's proposal, it will be possible to take decisions even if they do not have the support of some member states. This entails a shift in powers – the power and opportunity to influence decisions that is currently at member state level will be transferred from the national level to EU level. In the opinion of the Riksdag, this is not necessary in order to achieve the objective of a uniform application of the VAT Directive for a smooth functioning of the single market. The Riksdag considers it relevant in this context once again to underline the importance of the unanimity requirement, and of protecting the member states’ national sovereignty and right of self-determination. Unanimity as a decision- making procedure involves a right for each member state to determine independently which matters call for the use of the right of veto. In the opinion of the Riksdag, this is a fundamental protection that ensures that an individual country can, in a democratic way, exercise its powers and safeguard its own interests. The Riksdag further wishes to stress that the unanimity requirement ensures both the Government’s and Parliament’s influence on and powers in tax matters. This applies both when tax rules are adopted and when implementing acts concerning these tax rules are adopted. The revised decision-making procedure proposed by the Commission, under which it would be sufficient for a committee with qualified majority to approve the Commission’s decision in order for it to apply, means a transfer of power in an area central to each member state, from the national to the EU level. In the opinion of the Riksdag, the Commission’s proposal exceeds what is necessary to achieve the stated objectives. The Riksdag therefore considers that the Commission’s proposal conflicts with the principle of subsidiarity. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Synopsis of the Meeting Held in Strasbourg on 21 January 2013
    BUREAU OF THE ASSEMBLY AS/Bur/CB (2013) 01 21 January 2013 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY Synopsis of the meeting held in Strasbourg on 21 January 2013 The Bureau of the Assembly, meeting on 21 January 2013 in Strasbourg, with Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, President of the Assembly, in the Chair, as regards: - First part-session of 2013 (Strasbourg, 21-25 January 2013): i. Requests for debates under urgent procedure and current affairs debates: . decided to propose to the Assembly to hold a debate under urgent procedure on “Migration and asylum: mounting tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean” on Thursday 24 January 2013 and to refer this item to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons for report; . decided to propose to the Assembly to hold the debate under urgent procedure on “Recent developments in Mali and Algeria and the threat to security and human rights in the Mediterranean region” on Thursday 24 January 2013 and to refer this item to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for report; . decided not to hold a current affairs debate on “The deteriorating situation in Georgia”; . took note of the decision by the UEL Group to withdraw its request for a current affairs debate on “Political developments in Turkey regarding the human rights of the Kurds and other minorities”; ii. Draft agenda: updated the draft agenda; - Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and of the Standing Committee (5 October 2012 – 21 January 2013): (Rapporteur: Mr Kox, Netherlands, UEL): approved the Progress report; - Election observation: i. Presidential election in Armenia (18 February 2013): took note of the press release issued by the pre-electoral mission (Yerevan, 15-18 January 2013) and approved the final composition of the ad hoc committee to observe these elections (Appendix 1); ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe
    Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe Issued by the EP Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments N° 13 - November 2016 Quality of legislation stemming from the EU On 19 September 2016, the Italian Senate submitted a request to the ECPRD network concerning the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. This request was an opportunity for National Parliaments to exchange best practices on how to ensure the quality of legislation with specific regard to transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU law. From the 21 answers provided by National Parliaments it is clear that transposition and implementation of EU Law is highly unlikely to require special attention. While almost all of them are using legislative guidelines and procedures for guaranteeing high standard of general law-making, only a few have felt the need to establish special mechanisms to ensure the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. The use of legislative guidelines and procedures; the main way to ensure the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. The use of legislative guidelines and procedures appears to be the most common way for National Parliaments to ensure the quality of legislation, also the legislation stemming from the EU. It allows for good linguistic coherence in the national languages while enhancing the standardization of the law. For example, in the case of Austria, the Federal Chancellery has published specific “Legistische Richtlinien”. In Spain, the instrument used is the Regulation Guidelines adopted in the Agreement of the Council of Ministers of 22 July 2005. Both Italian Chambers use Joint Guidelines on drafting of national legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • How Sweden Is Governed Content
    How Sweden is governed Content The Government and the Government Offices 3 The Prime Minister and the other ministers 3 The Swedish Government at work 3 The Government Offices at work 4 Activities of the Government Offices 4 Government agencies 7 The budget process 7 The legislative process 7 The Swedish social model 9 A democratic system with free elections 9 The Swedish administrative model – three levels 10 The Swedish Constitution 10 Human rights 11 Gender equality 11 Public access 12 Ombudsmen 12 Scrutiny of the State 13 Sweden in the world 14 Sweden and the EU 14 Sweden and the United Nations 14 Nordic cooperation 15 Facts about Sweden 16 Contact 16 2 HOW SWEDEN IS GOVERNED The Government and the Government Offices The Prime Minister and the other ministers After each election the Speaker of the Riksdag (the Swedish Parliament) submits a proposal for a new Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is subsequently appoin­ ted by the Riksdag and tasked with forming a government. The Government, led by the Prime Minister, governs Sweden. The Government consists of the Prime Minister and a number of ministers, each with their own area of responsibility. The Swedish Government at work The Government governs Sweden and is the driving force in the process by which laws are created and amended, thereby influencing the development of society as a whole. However, the Government is accountable to the Riksdag and must have its support to be able to implement its policies. The Government governs the country, which includes: • submitting legislative proposals to the Riksdag; • implementing decisions taken by the Riksdag; • exercising responsibility for the budget approved by the Riksdag; • representing Sweden in the EU; • entering into agreements with other states; • directing central government activities; • taking decisions in certain administrative matters not covered by other agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • Estonia Today STATE SYSTEM of the REPUBLIC of ESTONIA
    Fact Sheet 2007 Estonia Today STATE SYSTEM OF THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA Parliamentary democracy SUPREME COURT THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC The highest court in the state The head of state and the supreme commander of the national and the court of constitutional defence of Estonia. The President is elected by the Riigikogu review. The Riigikogu on or by an electoral body comprised of members of the Riigikogu nomination by the President of and representatives of the local government councils for a the Republic appoints the Chief term of 5 years. Justice of the Supreme Court. Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the Riigikogu on nomination by the Chief GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC Justice of the Supreme Court. Judges are appointed for life. The Government exercises RURAL MUNICIPALITY AND executive power. The candidate for CITY GOVERNMENTS Prime Minister is authorised to office by the Riigikogu on the LEGAL CHANCELLOR The executive bodies formed by proposal of the President. The the council. An independent official who President on the proposal of the reviews the legislation of general Prime Minister nominates members application of the legislative and of the government. executive powers and of local governments for conformity with the Constitution and the law. The Legal Chancellor is nominated by the Riigikogu on the proposal of LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILS the President for a term of 7 years. RIIGIKOGU (The Parliament) The representative and legislative The Riigikogu is a legislative body. bodies of local governments, elected It has 101 members and is elected by the residents of the rural on the basis of a general, direct and STATE AUDIT OFFICE municipality or city for the period of 3 uniform right to vote by the citizens years.
    [Show full text]
  • How Do National Parliaments Supervise and Control Their Own Budgets? Practice and Experience from Selected Member States
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT D: BUDGETARY AFFAIRS How do national parliaments supervise and control their own budgets? Practice and experience from selected Member States STUDY Abstract The study assesses the budget discharge procedures in ten EU Member States and one Third Country (Canada), in order to identify good practices to help the European Parliament to enhance its own budget discharge procedure. The focus is on the effectiveness of the national budget discharge procedures, in terms of achieving two objectives, i.e. to ensure sound financial management and to enhance transparency. The study takes the European Parliament’s budget discharge procedure as a point of reference in order to better understand the national parliaments’ procedures. The study findings identify best practices that might contribute to a further enhancement of the European Parliament’s budget discharge procedure in the following areas: a robust and trust instilling multi-facetted auditing framework; public transparency and accessibility of the budget; documentary basis; fostering accountability in Members of Parliament’s expenses; building skills; formalising the discharge procedure. IP/D/ALL/FWC/2009-056 24/10/2012 PE 490.662 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Affairs. It designated Mr Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy to follow the study AUTHORS Blomeyer & Sanz c/cerezos 545b - cd 250 el clavin, es-19163 Guadalajara +34 650 480 051 [email protected] www.blomeyer.eu RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Ms Beata Grzebieluch Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translation: FR and DE ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in July 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • The Parliamentary Mandate
    THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE A GLOBAL COMPARATIVE STUDY THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE A GLOBAL COMPARATIVE STUDY Marc Van der Hulst Inter-Parliamentary Union Geneva 2000 @ Inter-Parliamentary Union 2000 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not be a way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold hired or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form or binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent publisher. ISBN 92-9142-056-5 Published by INTER-PARLIAMETARY UNION Headquarters Liaison Office with the United Nations Place du Petit-Saconnex 821 United Nations Plaza C.P. 438 9th Floor 1211 Geneva 19 New York, N.Y. 10017 Switzerland United States of America Layout, printing and binding by Atar, Geneva Cover design by Aloys Robellaz, Les Studios Lolos, Carouge, Switzerland (Translated from the French by Jennifer Lorenzi and Patricia Deane) t Table of Contents FOREWORD ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi INTRODUCTION l PART ONE: NATURE AND DURATION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE I. NATURE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE 6 1. The traditional opposition between national sovereignty and popular sovereignty 6 2. The free representational mandate 8 3. The imperative mandate 9 4. A choice motivated by pragmatic rather than ideological considerations? 10 II. DURATION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE..
    [Show full text]
  • In Defense of Parliament Aivar Jarne, Riigikogu Toimetised Editor in Chief
    Summaries in English EDITOR IN CHIEF'S COLUMN In defense of parliament Aivar Jarne, Riigikogu Toimetised editor in chief, adviser to the President of the Riigikogu The leading article treats the topic, raised by the media, of employment benefits for Riigikogu members. The writer compares salaries and other benefits to those of other European parliaments. A comparison with 21 European countries shows that the Riigikogu's benefits are more conservative than lavish. Our system, in which salary is proportional to the average wage, is also in use in Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Croatia and Bulgaria. Austria uses average per capita income of the past year as a basis; Hungary, the basic civil servant salary. Naturally, Estonian MPs are not in the same league as their German colleagues, who make over 100,000 kroons a month ($6,000) or Swedish and Finnish MPs ($4,500). Even in Slovenia, similar in other economic respects, MPs make $5,000 a month. None of the parliaments under study have dispensed entirely with salary and benefits. The systems employed are relatively varied and depend on each country's standard of living, its traditions and the amount of precedence that its culture ascribes to parliamentary work. That is the case today and has been so in the past, even in Republican Estonia. A very generous benefits system was in effect for the sixth Riigikogu (1938-1940). The legal status of members has developed over the more than 1000-year-long history of the parliament as an institution. Estonia, with its brief experience with parliamentary democracy, has not had, and likely will not have, occasion to revolutionize the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: an Overview of Swedish Constitutional History
    Perfecting Parliament Succession, and the Riksdag Acts). It is this portion--the written constitution--that defines the electoral system, specifies the organization of parliament, the relation of the king to parliament, and characterizes many of the constraints that define the limits of governmental activities. These written rules directly shape the broad outlines of Swedish governance, and most clearly characterize the general manner in which the preferences of Swedish citizens are used to determine which specific public policies are put in place. It bears noting, this usage of the term constitution differs somewhat from that used by some Swedish scholars. The term constitution, as used here, refers to the fundamental procedures and constraints faced by Swedish government, rather then the subset of relevant legal documents which claim constitutional status, per se. By the usage adopted here, the Swedish state may be said to have operated under four different constitutions: one written in 1809, one that emerged from amendment in 1866, one that emerged from amendment and additional structural and electoral reform in 1920, and one that was adopted by major structural reforms in 1970. That is to say, the result of major reforms of fundamental procedures and constraints is regarded as creating a new constitution. (There were only two Instruments of Government during the period of interest, those of 1809 and 1975, but there have been four substantially different procedures for making new laws.) This convention is faithful to the discussion above, and simplifies the description of major reforms. The result of the major reforms of the Riksdag adopted in 1866 and in 1909-20 period will be referred to as the Constitution of 1866 and Constitution of 1920, rather than some less descriptive and more cumbersome phrase.
    [Show full text]
  • Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe
    Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments - Institutional Cooperation Unit Source: Comparative Requests and Answers via European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation N° 28 - March 2020 Preventive and sanitary measures in Parliaments Following the COVID-19 outbreak and its consequences on the functioning of Parliaments, many national Parliaments followed the example of the European Parliament to adopt preventive and sanitary measures. Spotlight N0 28 focusses on sanitary preventive measures, changes in the work of the Parliament, travel and visitors, and the need for a statement and medical examination when entering premises. It is based on requests 4333 and 4350 submitted by the Polish Sejm on 26 February and 13 March 2020. In total 44 chambers replied to request 4333 and 39 chambers replied to request 4350. Due to the rapidly changing context of this crisis, the current situation may vary from the one outlined in this document. For updates, please contact the editor. General trends in national Parliaments Cancellation of events, suspension of visits and travel were the main trends in most national Parliaments. 37 Chambers mentioned the introduction of hand sanitizers and 30 Chambers mentioned some form of communication to staff via email, posters or intranet. Another general trend was the request to work from home, teleworking. In many Parliaments, a ‘skeleton staff’, only those who are essential for the core business, were required to go to work. Certain groups were allowed to stay at home, either because they were vulnerable to the virus (60+, medical history, pregnant) or because they had possibly contracted the virus (travelled to an affected area, in contact with a person who got affected, feeling unwell).
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Opening of the Conference Mr Pedro AGRAMUNT, President Of
    Summary Opening of the Conference Mr Pedro AGRAMUNT, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Mr Thorjørn JAGLAND, Secretary General of the Council of Europe - :- :- :- :- Theme 1 - Migration and refugee crisis in Europe – role and responsibilities of parliaments Mr Nicolaos VOUTSIS, Speaker of the Hellenic Parliament Mr László KÖVÉR, Speaker of the Parliament of Hungary Mr Demetris SYLLOURIS, President of the House of Representatives, Cyprus Mr Olemic THOMMESSEN, Speaker of the Stortinget, Norway Mr Claude BARTOLONE President, National Assembly, France Ms Laura BOLDRINI, President, Chamber of Deputies, Italy Ms Doris BURES President, Nationalrat, Austria Mr Ismail KAHRAMAN, President,Grand National Assembly, Turkey Mr Gundars DAUDZE, Vice-President, Saeima, Latvia Ms Ana PASTOR Speaker, Congreso de los Diputados, Spain Mr Yuli-Yoel EDELSTEIN, President, Knesset, Israel Mr Jörgen PETTERSSON, President, Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference M. Jean-Claude GAUDIN, Vice-Président, Sénat, France Ms Tsetska TSACHEVA, President of the Narodno Sobranie, Bulgaria Ms Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL, President of the Eerstekamer, Netherlands Ms Christine MUTTONEN, President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Mr Trajko VELJANOSKI, President of the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia Mr Andriy PARUBIY, President of the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine Mr Stanslaw KARCZEWSKI, President of the Senat, Poland Ms Ulrike LUNACEK, Vice-President of the European Parliament Mr Seán Ó FEARGHAIL, Speaker of the Dáil Éireann, Ireland Mr Milan BRGLEZ, Speaker
    [Show full text]
  • Committees of Inquiry in National Parliaments
    STUDY Requested by the AFCO committee Committees of Inquiry in National Parliaments Comparative Survey Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate-General for Internal Policies PE 649.524 - March 2020 EN Committees of Inquiry in National Parliaments Comparative Survey Abstract This survey, provided by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the AFCO Committee, looks into the legal and administrative framework in which parliamentary committees of inquiry operate in the EU Member States. It focuses, in particular, in the investigative powers these committees have at hand to assist national parliaments in exercising parliamentary control. It also examines the role of Member States’ parliamentary committees of inquiry in guiding the action of the government, enhancing transparency and eradicating contraventions and maladministration. This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs. AUTHOR Eeva PAVY, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament. ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBLE Eeva PAVY EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Fabienne VAN DER ELST LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Policy departments provide in-house and external expertise to support EP committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU internal policies. To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe for updates, please write to: Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels Email: [email protected] Manuscript completed in March 2020 © European Union, 2020 This document is available on the internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analyses DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]