Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T00:52:29.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. Constitutional Aspects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Karl Newman and
Sophie Boyron
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Although these last two years have been relatively quiet in terms of institutional developments, a number of important inter-institutional agreements have been negotiated in order to facilitate the working of some of the powers granted by the Maastricht Treaty, while some other powers were used for the first time: the European Ombudsman has issued his first report, the European Parliament has set up two Committees of Inquiry. Lastly, the European Court of Justice delivered an important opinion as regards the European Convention on Human Rights.

Information

Type
Current Developments: European Community Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 1997, pp. 701 - 703
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1997

References

1. A third text, a modus vivendi on the implementing measures for acts adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Art.189b of the EC Treaty, was also agreed. It deals with the question of implementation of acts taken under the co-decision procedure. The European Parliament argued that it should also have co-decision powers in relation to implementation.

2. Res.95/3 (1995) O.J. C43/37.Google Scholar

3. Art.138e.

4. The European Parliament can extend this period for twice three months.

5. Res.95/3 (1995) O.J. C43/41.Google Scholar

6. Söderman was at the time the Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman (1989–1995). He was elected by 241 votes.

7. Art.138e EC.

8. The office of the European Ombudsman has produced a leaflet, “How to Complain to the European Ombudsman”. Among other indications, it gives the conditions for a complaint to be admissible: it must be made within two years of the situation becoming known; it must constitute maladministration; it must have been perpetrated by a Community institution or body; appropriate administrative steps must have been taken first.

9. Recently the Ombudsman has called on all the institutions and bodies of the Community to adopt provisions on access to documents. See Agence Europe, p.14.

10. Res.95/3 (1995) O.J. C43/37.Google Scholar

11. It was rejected by 326 votes to 118 on 20 Feb. See Agence Europe, Friday 21 Feb. 1997.

12. See EP Session News—Directorate for Press and Audiovisual Services—PE 256.698, p.9.Google Scholar

13. Opinion 2/94 Accession by the Community to the E.C.H.R. [1996] E.C.R. I–1759.Google Scholar

14. Decision 95/553/EC (1995) O.J. L314/95.Google Scholar