¹ See Joseph H.H. Weiler, The Constitution of Europe 221 (1999).Google Scholar

² Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, Dec. 16, 2004, 2004 O.J. (C310) (hereinafter: Constitutional Treaty or CT). Articles without references are those of the Constitutional Treaty.Google Scholar

³ For a detailed analysis of the British, French and German constitutions on the concept of legislation, see Alexander Türk, The Concept of Legislation in European Community Law (2004) (PhD thesis, University of London) in Part One.Google Scholar

⁴ The reference to the directly elected institution is relevant for the qualification of acts adopted by institutions, other than parliament, that are directly elected. This is relevant to certain acts of the French President.Google Scholar

⁵ See Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du Contrat Social 61-64 (1992).Google Scholar

⁶ However, it should be noted that, quite confusingly, a European Regulation can be in substance a Directive or a Regulation within the meaning of Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 249, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).Google Scholar

⁷ Laeken Declaration, Dec. 15, 2001, available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/futurum/documents/offtext/doc151201_en.htm.Google Scholar

⁸ BVerfGE 89, 155 (para. 51).Google Scholar

⁹ See Giandomenico Majone, Regulating Europe (1996); Giandomenico Majone, Delegation of Regulatory Powers in a Mixed Polity, 8 EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 319 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Lindseth, P.L., Democratic Legitimacy and the administrative Character of Supranationalism: the Example of the European Community, 99 Columbia Law Journal 628 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Amaryllis Verhoeven, The European Union in Search of a Democratic and Constitutional Theory 160 (2002).Google Scholar

¹² Weiler, Joseph H.H., Does Europe Need a Constitution? Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision, 1 European Law Journal 219, 256 (1995). On a discussion of multiple demoi, see also Weiler, supra note 2, at 344-348.Google Scholar

¹³ MacCormick, Neil, Beyond the Sovereign State, 56 Modern Law Review 1, 2 (1993); Verhoeven, supra note 11, at 122.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Verhoeven, , supra note 11, at 124 in relation of the nature of the European Union.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See MacCormick note 13; Verhoeven, supra note 11, at 296. See also Neil MacCormick, The Maastricht-Urteil: Sovereignty Now, 1 European Law Journal 259, 264 (1995) and Paul Kirchhof, The Balance of Powers Between National and European Institutions, 5 European Law Journal 225, 241-242 (1999).Google Scholar

¹⁶ See the contributions in Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism (Christian Joerges et al. eds., 2004).Google Scholar

¹⁷ The possibility of constructing a European demos on the basis non-statal parameters, as outlined above, does not alleviate the concern on the limitation of a European public sphere. Therefore, and despite its enhanced role within the Union's legal order, the European Parliament cannot be considered as being equally representative as a national parliament.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Verhoeven, , supra note 11, at 362 in relation to the EU.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Id. at 362.Google Scholar

²⁰ See Treaty Establishing the European Community, Arts. 2 and 3, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).Google Scholar

²¹ Rometsch, Dietrich & Wessels, Wolfgang, The Commission and the Council of the Union, in The European Commission 213, 220 (Geoffrey Edwards & David Spence eds., 1997).Google Scholar

²² See Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 26, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).Google Scholar

²³ See Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 23, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).Google Scholar

²⁴ See Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 20, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C340).Google Scholar

²⁵ In the narrow sense that the EP provides a forum in which the arguments for and against legal acts are voiced, even though it might fail in the wider sense of providing a public sphere.Google Scholar

²⁶ Richard Corbett et al., The European Parliament 197 (2003).Google Scholar

²⁷ Until 2002, this happened in 25% of all co-decision procedures, see id., at 186.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Article 251(2). See also Article 9(1)(a) of the Council's Rules of Procedure 2004, which provides for a publication of the results of votes, the explanation of votes and statements in the Council minutes and the items in those minutes in relation to the adoption of a common position.Google Scholar

²⁹ See also Rule 74 of the EP's Rules of Procedure.Google Scholar

³⁰ It should be emphasised that a distinction has to be made between the deliberations on the one hand and the discussion in the parliamentary committees or in plenary on the other hand. It is not argued that the discussions that takes place in public in these fora reflect in their entirety the deliberations which take place informally between the EP and the Council, or the deals that are struck behind closed doors or in the corridors between the political groups. At public display are the arguments for and against a proposed act.Google Scholar

³¹ Arts. III-125(2), III-126, III-127, III-157(3), III-171, III-176(2), III-184(13), III-185(6), III-210(3), III-234(2), III-251(3), III-256(3), III-269(3), III-275(3), III-277, III-393 sentence 4, III-424 sentence 1 CT.Google Scholar

³² Arts. III-124(1), III-129, III-223(2), III-274(1), III-330 CT.Google Scholar

³³ Arts. III-390(2), III-333 sentence 3, III-335(4) CT.Google Scholar

³⁴ Art. III-163 CT.Google Scholar

³⁵ Corbett, et al., supra note 26, 119.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Case C-388/92, European Parliament v. Council, 1994 E.C.R. I-2067.Google Scholar

³⁷ Corbett, et al., supra note 26, 119.Google Scholar

³⁸ These are decisions “in principle” or “subject to Parliament's opinion,” see Corbett et al., supra note 26, 176.Google Scholar

³⁹ See Corbett, et al., supra note 26, at 199.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ For a discussion of the concept, see Türk, supra note 3, at 89-198.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Id.Google Scholar

⁴² Arts. III-130(3), III-151(5), III-159, III-160(2), III-163, III-167(3)(e), III-169, III-183(2), III-184(13), III-186(2), III-187(4), III-190(3), III-198(3), III-201(2), III-212(2), III-230(2), III-231(3), III-232(2), III-240(3), III-253, III-260, III-263, III-266(3), III-400(1) and (2), III-424(1), III-433 CT.Google Scholar

⁴³ Arts. III-165, III-166(3) and III-168(4) CT.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Art. III-190(1) CT.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See, supra note 32.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See, e.g., Art. III-163 CT.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Bogdandy, Armin von & Bast, Jürgen, La Loi Europeénne: Promise and Pretence, in The EU Constitution: The Best Way Forward? (Deirdre Curtin et al., eds.) (forthcoming, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ Id.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Case 25/70, Einfuhrstelle v. Köster, 1970 E.C.R. 1161, para. 6. See also Case C-240/90, Germany v. Commission, 1992 E.C.R. I-5383, para. 36, and Case C-104/97P, Atlanta and Others v. Council and Commission, 1999 E.C.R. I-6983, para. 76.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Türk, Alexander, The Role of the Court of Justice, in Delegated Legislation and the Role of Committees in the EC 217, 224-227 (Mads Andenas & Alexander Türk eds., 2000).Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Art. I-36 CT.Google Scholar

⁵² See Art. I-37 CT.Google Scholar

⁵³ However, , see Arts. I-46(1) and (2) CT‥Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Case C-104/97P, Atlanta AG and Others v. Council and Commission, 1999 E.C.R. I-6983, paras. 37 and 38 and Joined Cases C-48/90 and C-66/90, Netherlands and Others v. Commission, 1992 ECR I-565, in which the Court seemed to have accepted a right to be heard, where the individuals are directly and individually concerned.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The term Court of Justice is used in the meaning of Article I-29(1) CT.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ The application of such marginal review is not entirely consistent. On the link between the nature of the act and the margin of review of the Community Courts, see on fundamental rights: Paul Craig & Gráinne Debúrca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials 323 (2003). On proportionality: see Francis Jacobs, Recent Developments in the Principle of Proportionality in European Community Law, in The Principle of Proportionality, 20 (Evelyn Ellis, ed., 1999); Takis Tridimas, The General Principles of EC Law 89-123 (1999); Gráinne DeBúrca, The Principle of Proportionality and its Application in EC Law, 13 Yearbook of European Law 105, 111 (1993); on equality: Tridimas (above), at 57.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ The definition in Article 2 of Protocol 1 and equally in Article 2 of Protocol 2 of a draft legislative act refers to proposals or initiatives that lead to the adoption of European legislative acts, a term that encompasses European laws and European Framework laws in accordance with Article I-33(1) CT.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Bogdandy, von & Bast, , supra note 47.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Art. II-107 CT. See also the discussion in Case C-50/00P, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council, 2002 E.C.R. I-6677 (opinion of AG Jacobs).Google Scholar