1. Parliamentary oversight at EU level:
Challenges facing classic scrutiny instruments and emergence of new forms of ‘steering’ scrutiny
Eva-Maria Poptcheva
Former policy analyst at EPRS

2. CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT AT EU LEVEL
Oversight legitimises exercise of executive power if uninterrupted chain of responsibility: decisions are attributable and influenceable
EU context:
input legitimacy
decision-making
output legitimacy
politicisation through parliamentarisation
(fusion of powers)
effectiveness of legislation
(separation of powers)
objective (apolitical?) implementation scrutiny
effective scrutiny?

3. CHALLENGES FACING EU PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT
Who to control? Institutional vs. functionalist approach
Vertically: Challenges of a multi-level system of interwoven competences
diffusion of executive functions in a multilevel system
Horizontally: contest to exercise executive power
Commission, Council, European Council (CFSP), HR
What to control?
No uniform executive process;
No catalogue of policy areas over which Commission has executive power
EU executive action outside EU framework
How to control?
Challenges of a ‘consensus democracy’
Predetermination of decision-making at agenda-setting stage; role of the European Council

4. CLASSIC INSTRUMENTS OF PUNITIVE (EX-POST) SCRUTINY
Motion of censure, Art. 234 TFEU
“activities of the Commission”: COM can act as an EU body also outside Treaties' framework
- institutional approach: political control only over COM, but not only over executive action
Consequences of a stronger political link between EP and COM?

5. CLASSIC INSTRUMENTS OF PUNITIVE (EX-POST) SCRUTINY
Power of Inquiry, Art. 226 TFEU
Contraventions and maladministration also by national authorities, natural and legal persons implementing EU law
Addressees’ compliance with investigative requests and recommendations
- Commission
- Member States

6. CLASSIC INSTRUMENTS OF PUNITIVE (EX-POST) SCRUTINY
Parliamentary control over implementing acts, Art. 291 (2) TFEU
Generally, implementation by national authorities
Implementing acts by Commission and Council only where necessary for uniform implementation.
Who controls Commission’s implementing acts?
- EP and Council: only ultra vires
- Member States: advisory and examination procedures
→ national executive control over EU executive action
Who controls the Council?
Collaborative decision-making under national parliamentary control?

7. CLASSIC INSTRUMENTS OF PUNITIVE (EX-POST) SCRUTINY
Questions for oral and written answer, Art. 230 (2) TFEU
Questions for written answer:
- to the Commission: individual Members
- Treaty right to question Council only re. CFSP, Art. 36 TEU, but Council practice and RoP
- No Treaty right to question European Council, but EUCO President agrees to be questioned about own political activities (Rule 130 RoP)
Questions for oral answers: to the Council, the Commission or to the VP/HR (Rule 128)
Advantages of oral and written questions
- ad hoc, no specific previous steps, quick reaction to events
- scrutiny tool at disposal of individual MEPs, parliamentary minority
- soft sanction character: obtain information, highlight problems

8. SOLUTIONS TO SCRUTINY CHALLENGES?
Personification of executive powers in the Commission and clear-cut executive competences
But interlocking of agenda-setting, legislation and implementation through checks and balances
Steering (ex-ante) oversight to compensate for classic instruments’ shortfalls
stronger political link between EP and Commission
quality of accountability

9. ‘STEERING’ OVERSIGHT
Monitoring the implementation of political priorities and legislative programming
Commission Work Programme
State of the Union debate
Joint Declaration on annual inter-institutional programming (2016 BLM agreement)
Review of Commission impact assessments and ex-post evaluations
Implementation reports
Concern transposition and implementation in the Member States
Complementary to classic ex-post scrutiny instruments