Elenco delle pubblicazioni del Think Tank del PE - European ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Elenco delle pubblicazioni del Think Tank del PE
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank
Criteri di ricerca utilizzati per generare l''elenco :
Ordina Mostra per data
Autore "DEL MONTE Micaela"
44 Risultati(i)
Data di creazione : 05-05-2022Strengthening citizens' participation: How the European Parliament is responding to citizens' expectations
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data 08-04-2022
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela | KOTANIDIS Silvia
Settore di intervento Democrazia UE
Riassunto Aiming to forge a closer relationship between EU citizens and the EU integration project, the Conference on the Future
of Europe gave 800 citizens gathered in four panels the opportunity to discuss and formulate recommendations for the
EU institutions to follow up. Debated in both the conference plenary and the conference working groups, these
recommendations are intended to permeate the whole discussion within the conference. With Panel 2 having issued
the first set of recommendations in December 2021, the debate has begun, with a focus on how to meet citizens'
expectations. It will also discuss how to take the EU project forward in a way that is supported by the various
institutions involved in the conference, including representatives of Member States and EU institutions, and members
of national parliaments. A closer look at these recommendations reveals that some of the citizens' panel
recommendations address matters that have already been tackled by European Parliament resolutions. Others are
quite close to positions and ideas expressed by Parliament in other ways. This briefing focuses on recommendations
which propose enhanced public participation in the European project, through consultations, petitions, European
citizens' initiatives and referendums. This is the second in a series of briefings looking at citizens' recommendations in
the context of the Conference on the Future of Europe. The first looked at recommendations with an institutional
impact, i.e. ways to reform the EU's institutional set-up, improve the EU decision-making process, achieve closer
cooperation among Member States and strengthen Parliament's prerogatives.
Briefing EN
Referendums on EU issues: Fostering civic engagement
Tipo di pubblicazione Analisi approfondita
Data 05-04-2022
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di intervento Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare
Riassunto Referendums put citizens back at the centre of the political stage. As instruments of direct democracy, they may foster
citizens' involvement and legitimise important decisions. Referendums have been on the rise in Europe and elsewhere
in the world in recent decades, and have become a recurrent feature of European politics. Despite the increased
interest in some Member States, however, referendums remain controversial. On the one hand, advocates of direct
democracy stress that referendums can foster citizens' engagement and thereby improve legitimacy and governance.
Critics, on the other hand, highlight the fact that voters tend to answer questions other than those on the ballot paper.
Some critics, more generally, question the suitability of a binary vote to decide on complex, multidimensional matters
within the European setting.
Analisi approfondita EN
Russia's war on Ukraine: Speeches by Ukraine's President to the European Parliament and national
parliaments
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data 01-04-2022
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di intervento Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare
Riassunto On 24 February 2022, Russia's invasion of Ukraine threw the international status quo into disarray by violating the
country's sovereignty and integrity. Since then, over 1 000 civilian casualties have been reported and over 3.8 million
people have been forced to flee the country. Many others are displaced within Ukraine's borders, while civilian
infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, roads and buildings, is being targeted by Russian military action. The
shelling of civilians and the alleged use of chemical and/or biological weapons by Russian military forces have spurred
the international community to accuse Russia of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Against this
backdrop, Ukraine's President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been addressing parliaments around the world to plead the
cause of the Ukrainian people and ask for both military and humanitarian help. He began by addressing the European
Parliament, before continuing with many others, both in Europe and further afield. The latest in a line of historical
leaders mobilising rhetoric in times of war, Zelenskyy's speeches have each been tailor-made to their specific audience
and have been consistent in reminding policy-makers around the world of the humanitarian tragedy unfolding as a
result of the war and of the Ukrainian people's military needs. Taking a look at speeches given by Zelenskyy to the
European Parliament and several national parliaments between 1 and 24 March 2022, in the month after Russia
invaded Ukraine, this briefing summarises the Ukrainian president's main messages and offers some thoughts about
the narrative used by Zelenskyy to keep Russia's war on Ukraine at the top of national and international agendas.
Briefing EN
Russia's war on Ukraine: The situation of Ukraine's children
Tipo di pubblicazione In sintesi
Data 24-03-2022
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela | MENTZELOPOULOU Maria-Margarita
Settore di intervento Spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia
Riassunto Russia's invasion of Ukraine has forced hundreds of thousands of people, mostly women and children, to flee the
country and seek shelter in neighbouring countries. Ukraine's civilian population is being subjected to shelling and
violence, while outside Ukraine's borders, the international humanitarian community has quickly mobilised to provide
support. As the humanitarian situation deteriorates, children are particularly vulnerable.
In sintesi EN
05-05-2022 Fonte : © Unione europea, 2022 - PE 1Russia's war on Ukraine: Russia ceases to be a member of the Council of Europe
Tipo di pubblicazione In sintesi
Data 21-03-2022
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di intervento Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare
Riassunto The military invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation has pushed hundreds of thousands of people to flee the
country and seek shelter in neighbouring countries. With each passing hour, the humanitarian situation is deteriorating
both within and outside the country. Several Ukrainian cities have reportedly lost access to water, heating, electricity
and basic supplies, while the civilian population is subject to shelling and violence. While outside Ukraine's borders, the
international humanitarian community has quickly mobilised to provide support, the conflict has caused civilian
casualties and destruction of hospitals, schools and other civilian infrastructure. This is an update of an 'At a glance'
note published on 8 March 2022.
In sintesi EN
La riduzione degli spazi per la società civile in Europa
Tipo di pubblicazione In sintesi
Data 02-03-2022
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di intervento Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare
Riassunto Nella prima tornata di marzo 2022 il Parlamento dovrebbe votare su una relazione d'iniziativa della commissione per le
libertà civili, la giustizia e gli affari interni (LIBE) nella quale si chiedono nuove misure per proteggere e rafforzare la
partecipazione delle organizzazioni della società civile alla vita democratica dell'Unione europea. Nel riconoscere il
contributo che le organizzazioni della società civile (OSC) forniscono alla promozione dei valori dell'UE sanciti
dall'articolo 2 del trattato sull'Unione europea (TUE), e in particolare dei diritti fondamentali, la relazione prende atto
delle sfide cui le OSC sono confrontate, non da ultimo a seguito della pandemia di COVID 19.
In sintesi ES, DE, EN, FR, IT, PL
Statuto delle associazioni e delle organizzazioni senza scopo di lucro transfrontaliere europee
Tipo di pubblicazione In sintesi
Data 10-02-2022
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di intervento Democrazia UE | Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare
Riassunto Durante la tornata di febbraio 2022, il Parlamento dovrebbe votare una relazione d'iniziativa legislativa che invita la
Commissione a presentare una direttiva che stabilisce norme comuni per le organizzazioni senza scopo di lucro
(NPO), nonché un regolamento che istituisce uno statuto per le associazioni e le organizzazioni senza scopo di lucro
transfrontaliere europee. La proposta riconosce che le organizzazioni senza scopo di lucro, pur essendo parte
integrante dell'economia dell'Unione, devono affrontare molteplici sfide giuridiche e amministrative quando cercano di
operare a livello transfrontaliero e sostiene che norme minime a livello di Unione e la possibilità di acquisire una
personalità giuridica aiuterebbero le NPO a superare tali ostacoli.
In sintesi ES, DE, EN, FR, IT, PL
Emergency measures on migration: Article 78(3) TFEU
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data 15-12-2021
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela | LUYTEN KATRIEN
Settore di intervento Spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia
Riassunto On 1 December 2021, the Commission proposed a Council decision on emergency measures to help Latvia, Lithuania
and Poland face the complex migratory situation at their respective borders with Belarus. The measures provide for an
extension of the registration period for asylum applications; the application of the border asylum procedure to process
all asylum claims; reception conditions covering only basic needs; and simplified and quicker national return
procedures for rejected asylum-seekers. The proposal is based on Article 78(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
EU (TFEU), which provides for the adoption of provisional measures in the event of a 'sudden increase of arrivals of
third-country nationals'. Article 78(3) TFEU was first used during the 2015 migration crisis to help Greece and Italy. On
the basis of this article and in line with Article 80 TFEU, the Council of the EU at the time adopted binding decisions
providing for the relocation from these two countries of 160 000 people so as to ensure a fair and balanced distribution
of, and sharing of responsibility for, asylum-seekers who were already present in the EU. Despite most Member States'
willingness to relocate asylum-seekers, some challenged the Council decision before the Court of Justice of the EU
(the Court) or refused to implement the decision. As a result, the Court's jurisprudence helped to clarify the concept
and scope of 'provisional measures' within the meaning of Article 78(3) TFEU. Greece was the first EU Member State
to unilaterally invoke Article 78(3) TFEU, in response to a sudden increase of arrivals of third-country nationals from
Turkey in March 2020. The Greek emergency legislative act was heavily criticised because Article 78(3) TFEU is not
intended to enable Member States to take emergency measures unilaterally. It requires the Council to take a decision
on a Commission proposal and after consulting Parliament. This Briefing expands on and updates an 'at a glance' note
from March 2020, written by Anja Radjenovic.
Briefing EN
05-05-2022 Fonte : © Unione europea, 2022 - PE 2European Parliament scrutiny of Frontex
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data25-11-2021
AutoreDEL MONTE Micaela | LUYTEN KATRIEN
Settore di interventoDemocrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare | Spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia
Parole chiave allontanamento | controllo alla frontiera | diritto dell'individuo | Frontex | frontiere esterne dell'UE | politica migratoria
dell'UE
Riassunto Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 transformed Frontex into the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, and gave the
European Parliament a range of tools affording it oversight of the agency's activities. In addition to budgetary
discharge, these include an obligation for the agency to provide information to the Parliament, a key role for the
Parliament in appointing the agency's executive director, and attendance on invitation by a Parliament expert at
Frontex management board meetings. These tools effectively make the Parliament the key player in terms of
democratic oversight of the agency. In 2020, amidst allegations of Frontex's possible involvement in pushbacks and
violations of fundamental rights by Member States' authorities at the EU's external borders, the Parliament's
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) decided to investigate the allegations. The Parliament
used both ex-ante and ex-post accountability instruments, as part of which it asked questions demanding oral and
written answers, requested the Frontex executive director to appear before the LIBE committee to answer Members'
questions, and decided to postpone the discharge of Frontex' accounts in respect of the financial year 2019 (discharge
was subsequently given in October 2021). In January 2021, LIBE decided to step up its action and established the
Frontex Scrutiny Working Group (FSWG) to monitor all aspects of the functioning of the agency, including compliance
with fundamental rights, and transparency and accountability towards Parliament. The FSWG conducted a fact-finding
investigation, collected evidence and presented its final report in July 2021. While the report 'did not find evidence on
the direct performance of pushbacks and/or collective expulsions by Frontex in the serious incident cases that could be
examined', it found 'serious shortcomings'. This briefing looks at the accountability mechanisms at Parliament's
disposal and how they have been used to ensure that migrants' fundamental rights are respected and upheld at the
EU's external borders.
Briefing EN
Affrontare le azioni legali abusive volte a mettere a tacere i giornalisti
Tipo di pubblicazione In sintesi
Data 08-11-2021
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di intervento Democrazia UE | Spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia
Riassunto Durante la tornata di novembre I il Parlamento voterà una risoluzione volta a rafforzare la democrazia, la libertà dei
media e il pluralismo nell'Unione europea. La risoluzione chiede un'azione immediata, sia legislativa che non
legislativa, per affrontare la questione delle azioni legali strategiche tese a bloccare la partecipazione pubblica
(SLAPP).
In sintesi ES, DE, EN, FR, IT, PL
Committee hearings in the European Parliament and US Congress
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data 16-07-2021
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela | DIAZ CREGO Maria
Settore di intervento Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare
Riassunto Hearings are used by parliamentary committees as a way to obtain evidence on specific subjects to inform their work
and as public forums to give citizens access to information on policy issues. Committee hearings take different forms
depending on their specific purposes. Oversight and legislative hearings are frequently used to hold the executive to
account and to inform parliaments' choices as regards proposed or adopted legislation. Investigative hearings, usually
held in the context of parliamentary inquiries, often have distinctive features, with some parliaments granted the right to
summon witnesses and take testimony under oath. Finally, some parliaments have relevant appointment powers as
regards key positions in the executive or the judiciary and may use pre-appointment hearings to test the suitability of
candidates or extract commitments from them. The European Parliament's committees frequently organise public
hearings with experts for oversight and legislative purposes. They also hold public hearings on European citizens'
initiatives, once a given initiative has gathered the necessary public support. Also relevant in the European
Parliament's committee work are pre-appointment hearings, in particular those held as part of the procedure for
appointing the members of the European Commission. European Parliament committees of inquiry can also invite
different categories of witnesses to provide evidence. US Congressional committees, meanwhile, hold oversight,
investigative, legislative and confirmation hearings, the latter being peculiar to the Senate, as the President has the
power to nominate people to key positions in the executive and judiciary branch 'with the advice and consent of the
Senate'. In the context of the ongoing internal discussion launched by the President of the European Parliament, David
Sassoli, on how to make the Parliament a more resilient and effective institution in the wake of the coronavirus
pandemic, this Briefing provides an overview of how committee hearings are organised and conducted in both the
European Parliament and the US Congress.
Briefing EN
05-05-2022 Fonte : © Unione europea, 2022 - PE 3Understanding delegated and implementing acts
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data 07-07-2021
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela | MAŃKO Rafał
Settore di intervento Diritto UE: sistema e atti giuridici
Parole chiave diritto dell'UE | relazione | trattato di Lisbona | trattato sul funzionamento dell'UE
Riassunto Law-making by the executive is a phenomenon that exists not only in the European Union (EU) but also in its Member
States, as well as in other Western liberal democracies. Many national legal systems differentiate between delegated
legislation − adopted by the executive and having the same legal force as parliamentary legislation − and purely
executive acts −aimed at implementing parliamentary legislation, but that may neither supplement nor modify it. In the
EU, the distinction between delegated acts and implementing acts was introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon. The
distinction, laid down in Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), seems
clear only at first sight. Delegated acts are defined as non-legislative acts of general application, adopted by the
European Commission on the basis of a delegation contained in a legislative act. They may supplement or amend the
basic act, but only as to non-essential aspects of the policy area. In contrast, implementing acts are not defined as to
their legal nature, but to their purpose − where uniform conditions for implementing legally binding Union acts are
needed. Under no circumstances may an implementing act modify anything in the basic act. Delegated acts differ from
implementing acts in particular with regard to the procedural aspects of their adoption − the former after consulting
Member States' experts, but their view is not binding; the latter in the comitology procedure, where experts designated
by the Member States, sitting on specialised committees, can object to a draft implementing act. In the case of
delegated acts, however, the Parliament and Council can introduce, in the delegation itself, a right to object to a draft
act or even to revoke the delegation altogether. Both delegated and implementing acts are subject to judicial review by
the Court of Justice of the EU which controls their conformity with the basic act.
Briefing EN
The European Parliament's appointing powers
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data 19-05-2021
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di intervento Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare
Parole chiave competenza istituzionale (UE) | controllo parlamentare | nomina dei membri | organismo dell'UE | Parlamento europeo
| potere di nomina | regolamento del parlamento
Riassunto The role and the prerogatives of the European Parliament have evolved and increased over time, not only as regards
legislative powers and oversight but also in relation to the procedures to nominate, vet and appoint people to other
senior positions in EU institutions, agencies and other bodies. Parliament's role varies from case to case depending on
the legal basis. For instance, Parliament appoints the European Ombudsman, is consulted when appointing the
members of the Court of Auditors and appoints one member to the panel which vets nominees for the European Court
of Justice. Parliament's scrutiny of such candidates, in various different forms, helps in ensuring the credibility,
accountability and legitimacy of the process as well as its transparency. What is today codified in the EU Treaties,
secondary legislation and Parliament's Rules of Procedure is mostly the result of a set of Parliamentary processes that
became established practices over the years. This demonstrates that Parliament has managed to use its political
leverage to expand and formalise its power to nominate and appoint the holders of senior positions in EU institutions,
agencies and other EU bodies. Moreover, through making informed scrutiny of the candidates, Parliament can better
ensure that they are qualified for the job. Despite the heterogeneity of procedures, some common patterns may be
highlighted, in particular, that candidates and nominees generally appear in front of the relevant committee(s) of the
European Parliament, first making a statement and then answering questions from Members. Experience in recent
years shows that Parliament has not been shy in using its powers. Suffice to mention the 2019 hearing process for the
appointment of the von der Leyen Commission and the appointment of the first ever European Chief Prosecutor, where
the Parliament's influence in the final appointments is clear.
Briefing EN
05-05-2022 Fonte : © Unione europea, 2022 - PE 4Understanding trilogue: Informal tripartite meetings to reach provisional agreement on legislative files
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data19-05-2021
AutoreDEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di interventoDemocrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare
Parole chiave Commissione europea | competenza istituzionale (UE) | Consiglio dell'Unione europea | cooperazione interistituzionale
(UE) | Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea | Mediatore europeo | Parlamento europeo | procedura legislativa
ordinaria | trasparenza del processo decisionale
Riassunto Thanks to successive Treaty revisions, the European Parliament has acquired the status of legislator on an equal
footing with the Council. Today the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 294 Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union − TFEU), previously known as co-decision, covers a vast amount of policy areas. In order to pass
legislation, Parliament, representing the EU citizens, and Council, representing the governments of the EU Member
States, have to agree on an identical text, which requires time and negotiations. The complexity of the EU legislative
process has been sometimes criticised for being lengthy and subject to gridlock, thus the risk of not responding to
societal problems in a timely manner. To overcome this criticism, the legislators have developed informal contacts to
speed up the legislative process while ensuring representativeness and oversight. One of the tools commonly used
today to ensure the effectiveness of the legislative process is trilogue, defined as 'informal tripartite meetings on
legislative proposals between representatives of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission'. These tripartite
meetings have been the object of criticism for a number of reasons, including the fact that the number of participants is
limited and that they take place beyond close doors. Due to the absence of any explicit reference in the Treaties,
trilogues started on a very informal basis in the early 1990s and evolved over time. At the beginning, the institutions
filled the legal void with informal practice that was subject to an increasing degree of formalisation over time and then
resulted, inter alia, in successive modifications of Parliament Rules of Procedure (RoP). These modifications were
driven by the need to ensure that trilogues efficiently support the legislative process in Parliament while remaining fully
transparent and representative. Today, RoP define the key elements upon which trilogues are built, how to conduct
negotiations, and how to ensure that both committees and plenary are fully informed and can exercise their oversight
role. Still, some elements such as the number and frequency of meetings, the practical conduct of negotiations depend
very much on the nature of the legislative file to be negotiated, and thus remain uncodified.
Briefing EN
Understanding Eurojust: The European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data 19-05-2021
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di intervento Spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia
Parole chiave cooperazione transfrontaliera | criminalità | Eurojust | metodo di valutazione | paesi terzi
Riassunto In December 2019, Eurojust became the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation. The agency aims
at fighting serious cross-border crimes by strengthening coordination and cooperation among the competent judicial
authorities of the Member States. The agency's most recent activity report shows that criminal activities are increasing
despite the restrictions brought about as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. In fact, since the outbreak of the
pandemic, the Agency has worked on 3 240 new cases, of which 164 were related to Covid 19. The consistent growth
in cases treated by Eurojust in recent years shows the need for cooperation between competent authorities in the
Member States and third countries to share information, and receive guidance and support in the fight against serious
crimes. When Eurojust was set up in 2002, the idea was to create a similar and parallel body to Europol, the EU law
enforcement agency. In 2009, the Lisbon Treaty, and in particular Article 85 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU), opened up new possibilities to further strengthen Eurojust's cooperation and coordination
roles. Some academics even argue that it paved the way to move from 'coordination' to 'integration' in criminal justice
policy. According to Article 85 TFEU, Eurojust may initiate criminal investigations and propose the launch of criminal
prosecutions; and has an enhanced role in coordinating these activities; as well as facilitating judicial cooperation,
including by resolving potential conflicts of jurisdiction. Following the entry into force of the new regulation in 2019, the
competences of Eurojust are clearly established, and Annex I of the same regulation lists the types of serious crime for
which Eurojust is competent. Moreover, the democratic oversight of Eurojust is strengthened, due to regular reporting
to the European Parliament and national parliaments.
Briefing EN
Vacanza di una carica di Vicepresidente del Parlamento
Tipo di pubblicazione In sintesi
Data 05-11-2020
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di intervento Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare
Parole chiave elezioni parziali | nomina dei membri | offerta di impiego | parlamentare europeo | seggio vacante | vicepresidente PE
Riassunto Il 7 ottobre 2020 il Parlamento europeo ha approvato a larghissima maggioranza la nomina di Mairead McGuinness a
Commissaria europea responsabile della Stabilità finanziaria, dei servizi finanziari e dell'Unione dei mercati dei capitali,
nonché la modifica del portafoglio del Vicepresidente esecutivo della Commissione, Valdis Dombrovskis, che è il
nuovo Commissario responsabile per il Commercio. Successivamente, il 12 ottobre, Mairead McGuinness è stata
nominata dal Consiglio a norma dell'articolo 246 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea (TFUE), e ha così
cessato di essere membro del Parlamento europeo nonché suo primo Vicepresidente. È previsto che Il Parlamento si
pronunci sull'elezione di un nuovo Vicepresidente in occasione della tornata di novembre I.
In sintesi ES, DE, EN, FR, IT, PL
05-05-2022 Fonte : © Unione europea, 2022 - PE 5Replacement of individual Commissioners
Tipo di pubblicazione In sintesi
Data 08-09-2020
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela | DIAZ CREGO Maria
Settore di intervento Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare
Parole chiave Cina | commissario europeo | epidemia | Irlanda | malattia da coronavirus | nomina dei membri | Parlamento europeo |
sanità pubblica | sentenza della Corte (UE) | trattato sul funzionamento dell'UE | trattato sull'Unione europea |
Tribunale (UE)
Riassunto On 26 August 2020, Commissioner Phil Hogan tendered his resignation to the President of the European Commission
following controversy over his participation in an Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) Golf Society dinner attended by more
than 80 people, despite the applicable Irish public health guidelines adopted to contain the spread of Covid-19 limiting
gatherings to a fraction of that number. In addition, questions were raised as to whether he had complied with
applicable restrictions on movements after his arrival in Ireland. Although President Ursula von der Leyen had not
formally requested his resignation, she accepted it and thanked Commissioner Hogan for 'his tireless and successful
work' during the current mandate as Trade Commissioner and in his previous mandate as Agriculture and Rural
Development Commissioner. Consequently, the procedure to replace him has started, with President von der Leyen
requesting that the Irish government propose both a female and a male candidate. On 4 September, the Irish
government proposed two candidates to replace Phil Hogan: Mairead McGuinness, current European Parliament First
Vice-President, and Andrew McDowell, a recent European Investment Bank Vice-President. On 8 September,
President von der Leyen announced she had chosen Mairead McGuinness, and that she would take over financial
services, financial stability and the capital markets union from Valdis Dombrovskis. The latter would take the trade
portfolio permanently (having already taken it temporarily in the meantime), while continuing in his role of Executive
Vice-President. Parliament is now expected to organise hearings with both.
In sintesi EN
States of emergency in response to the coronavirus crisis: Situation in certain Member States IV
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data 07-07-2020
Autore CUNDERLIKOVA Zuzana | DEL MONTE Micaela | ECKERT GIANNA | KOTANIDIS Silvia | LANGOVA VENDULA |
RAKOVSKA Violeta
Settore di intervento Coronavirus | Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare | Diritto UE: sistema e atti giuridici
Parole chiave Cechia | Cina | Cipro | epidemia | Grecia | Irlanda | Lituania | malattia da coronavirus | sanità pubblica | Slovacchia |
stato d'emergenza
Riassunto With the virulence of the coronavirus pandemic gradually diminishing, and in the light of the restrictive measures
adopted by Member States, attention remains on the way chosen by the various states to respond to the crisis. With
states at various stages of relaxing emergency constraints, the effects of the coronavirus pandemic are likely to last in
terms of health, economic, social, psychological and possibly even political impact. Although public attention is now
turned towards the widely differing measures that states are taking in order to live with the virus, new challenges are
emerging as international and domestic traffic, trade and free movement of people are re-established, having been all
but frozen. In this context, it is still necessary to complete the overview of Member States' constitutional frameworks in
response to the coronavirus pandemic with the hope that this might offer some guidance or insight, should a
comparable crisis arise in the future. This is the last in a series of four briefings and completes the comparative
overview of Member States' institutional responses to the coronavirus crisis by analysing the legislation of Cyprus,
Czechia, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania and Slovakia. The first in the series gave an overview of the responses in Belgium,
France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Spain, the second covered Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Malta,
Romania and Slovenia, while the third covered Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and
Sweden.
Briefing EN
Coronavirus and prisons in the EU: Member-State measures to reduce spread of the virus
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data 22-06-2020
Autore CIRLIG Carmen-Cristina | DEL MONTE Micaela | LUYTEN KATRIEN | VORONOVA Sofija
Settore di intervento Coronavirus | Spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia
Parole chiave detenuto | epidemia | malattia da coronavirus | prevenzione delle malattie | sanità pubblica | stabilimento penitenziario
Riassunto The coronavirus crisis has put huge pressure on European prisons, already often affected by chronic overcrowding
and poor healthcare services. Ensuring strict sanitary conditions, adequate health monitoring and the necessary
distancing to prevent an outbreak in these closed environments − particularly vulnerable to contagion − has been a
considerable challenge for most, if not all EU Member States. Starting from March 2020, as lockdowns and states of
emergency gradually came into force across Europe, EU Member States have taken a number of containment
measures to protect prisoners' health. These measures have consisted mostly of suspending all visits and regular
activities in order to limit contacts among detainees and also between detainees and the outside world. Transfers of
prisoners between EU countries have been put on hold as well. Improved sanitary measures have been taken in
detention centres, in terms of both personal hygiene and cleanliness of premises. At the same time, several Member
States have sought to reduce overcrowding, by limiting entries and increasing exits, for instance by postponing the
execution of sentences or using alternatives to detention. However, according to the EU Fundamental Rights Agency,
at least half the Member States did not seek alternatives to detention. This briefing looks into the various measures
adopted by Member States between early March and the end of May 2020 in response to the challenges posed to the
Union's prisons by the coronavirus crisis. While, at the time of writing, containment measures in many Member States
are gradually being eased, the long-term impact of the pandemic on prison conditions and populations remains to be
seen.
Briefing EN
05-05-2022 Fonte : © Unione europea, 2022 - PE 6States of emergency in response to the coronavirus crisis: Situation in certain Member States III
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data 17-06-2020
Autore BENTZEN Naja | BOSTRÖM KARL ERIK ALBIN | DEL MONTE Micaela | ODINK Ingeborg | PRPIC Martina |
TUOMINEN ULLA-MARI
Settore di intervento Coronavirus | Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare | Sanità pubblica | Valutazione del diritto e delle
politiche nella pratica
Parole chiave analisi comparativa | epidemia | gestione delle crisi | malattia da coronavirus | stato d'emergenza | Stato membro UE
Riassunto The spread of the coronavirus pandemic has prompted countries to take extensive and far-reaching measures to
tackle the consequences of the outbreak. Apart from curbing the spread of the disease, these measures have also
posed legal and economic challenges, significantly affecting people's lives. Due to the nature of the virus, citizens'
rights and freedoms have been curtailed, inter alia affecting their freedom of movement and assembly, as well as the
right to conduct economic activities. Whilst the measures are currently being relaxed, there is debate in some Member
States over whether the measures were justified and proportionate. Some Member States resorted to declaring a 'state
of emergency', whilst others did not, either because they have no such mechanism in their constitutional framework or
because they chose a different path, giving special powers to certain institutions or using and modifying existing
legislation. In either case, democratic scrutiny over the situation has been highly important, making parliamentary
oversight crucial to ensure the rule of law and respect for fundamental democratic principles. This briefing covers the
following countries: Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden. It focuses on
three key aspects: i) the constitutional framework of the state of emergency or legitimation of the emergency
legislation; ii) the specific measures adopted; and iii) the extent of parliamentary oversight exercised on the adopted
measures. This briefing is the third in a series aimed at providing a comparative overview of Member States'
institutional responses to the coronavirus crisis. The first in the series gives an overview of the responses in Belgium,
France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Spain, while the second covers Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Malta,
Romania and Slovenia.
Briefing EN
States of emergency in response to the coronavirus crisis: Situation in certain Member States
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data 04-05-2020
Autore BINDER Krisztina | DEL MONTE Micaela | DIAZ CREGO Maria | ECKERT GIANNA | KOTANIDIS Silvia
Settore di intervento Coronavirus | Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare | Sanità pubblica | Valutazione del diritto e delle
politiche nella pratica
Parole chiave epidemia | malattia da coronavirus | prevenzione delle malattie | stato d'emergenza | Stato membro UE
Riassunto With the first case of unknown pneumonia reported in the province of Wuhan (People's Republic of China) on 31
December 2019, within few weeks the coronavirus (Covid-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health
Organization on 30 January 2020. Since then it has spread to most corners of the globe. While the health threat it
poses and the challenge it represents for human health is paramount, no less important is the strain it puts on the legal
order. For most of the affected countries, in particular in the EU, this outbreak is posing unprecedented institutional
challenges and has obliged institutions and governments to adopt strict measures affecting citizens' rights in a way
unparalleled since the Second World War. While some Member States' constitutions include mechanisms allowing for
recourse to a 'state of emergency' or the entrustment of special powers to specific institutions, other Member States'
legal orders do not, either for historic reasons or owing to institutional tradition. Crucial aspects of the exercise of public
powers under a pandemic threat include not only the extent of the measures adopted, but also their legitimacy, raising
the question of their duration and of the degree of parliamentary oversight. This briefing is the first in a series intended
to offer a comparative overview of the institutional responses adopted in different Member States, in the light of i) the
constitutional framework for the state of emergency or legitimation of the emergency legislation ii) the specific
measures adopted, iii) the extent of the parliamentary oversight exercised over the measures adopted. This first
briefing, therefore, offers an overview of the responses to the coronavirus pandemic in Belgium, France, Germany,
Hungary, Italy, Poland and Spain.
Briefing EN
US federal and state travel limits and quarantine measures
Tipo di pubblicazione In sintesi
Data 24-04-2020
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di intervento Affari esteri | Coronavirus | Sanità pubblica
Parole chiave epidemia | libera circolazione delle persone | malattia da coronavirus | prevenzione delle malattie | Stati Uniti | Stato
federale
Riassunto Like many other countries around the world, the US federal government has taken measures in an attempt to slow the
spread of the coronavirus pandemic. Moreover, reflecting events in the European Union, the individual states and local
authorities have taken additional measures to protect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens within their respective
jurisdictions. Under the US federal system, in public health emergencies US states may impose quarantine and
isolation measures. The differing emergency measures developed by the 50 states raise both practical issues for
citizens wishing to cross state borders and legal questions as to the extent to which the states are entitled to limit
constitutional freedoms. Mapping the various measures is meanwhile a complex business.
In sintesi EN
05-05-2022 Fonte : © Unione europea, 2022 - PE 7Remote voting in the European Parliament and national parliaments
Tipo di pubblicazione In sintesi
Data 25-03-2020
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di intervento Coronavirus | Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare
Parole chiave aeroporto | Cina | epidemia | fondi strutturali e d'investimento europei | Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea |
lavoro a distanza | malattia da coronavirus | parlamento nazionale | sistema di votazione | tariffazione delle
infrastrutture | ufficio di presidenza del PE | voto del parlamento
Riassunto In the words of Parliament’s President, David Sassoli, the 'European Parliament must remain open, because a virus
cannot bring down democracy'. Ways have therefore had to be found to enable Members of the European Parliament
(MEPs) to exercise their public duties should it become impossible for them to attend committees or plenary sessions
in person. The need to keep parliaments functioning in emergency situations has been on Member States' agendas
too. The European Parliament’s Bureau has taken the unprecedented decision to provide for remote voting during the
extraordinary plenary session on 26 March so as to allow for the rapid adoption of EU legislation to tackle the socio-
economic consequences of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
In sintesi EN
Commission as 'caretaker administration'
Tipo di pubblicazione In sintesi
Data 24-10-2019
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela | KOTANIDIS Silvia
Settore di intervento Democrazia UE, diritto istituzionale e parlamentare
Parole chiave audizione pubblica | commissario europeo | nomina dei membri
Riassunto The hearings of the Commissioners-designate before the European Parliament’s committees took place between 30
September and 8 October 2019. The plenary vote on the entire Commission was originally planned for 23 October in
Strasbourg, after a presentation by the Commission President-elect Ursula von der Leyen of the full College and its
programme. However, three Commissioners-designate did not successfully complete the hearings process, making it
necessary for three Member States to nominate new candidates and for committees to carry out new hearings. The
new Commission will not, therefore, now be able to enter into office on 1 November, as scheduled. The outgoing
Commission will thus remain in office until the formal appointment of its replacement, although questions arise as to its
powers in that period.
In sintesi EN
United States Congress: Facts and Figures
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data19-12-2017
AutoreDEL MONTE Micaela | SABBATI Giulio
Settore di interventoAffari esteri
Parole chiave condizione della donna | elezioni politiche | finanziamento del bilancio | parlamentare | parlamento nazionale | potere
legislativo | scrutinio maggioritario | sistema di votazione | Stati Uniti | statistica
Riassunto Congress is the legislative branch of the US system of government and is divided into two chambers: the House of
Representatives (lower chamber) and the Senate (upper chamber). The formal powers of Congress are set out in
Article 1 of the US Constitution, and include making laws, collecting revenue, borrowing and spending money,
declaring war, making treaties with foreign nations, and overseeing the executive branch. Elections to the US
Congress occur in November every second year, with the Congress convening the following January. The current,
115th, Congress was elected in November 2016 and was convened in January 2017. The US has a long-standing two-
party system, which means that nearly all members of Congress belong to either the Republican or Democratic
Parties, while independent members (if any) generally align or sit with one of the two main parties. At the most recent
US Congressional and Presidential elections, in November 2016, the Republican Party retained its majority in both
houses of Congress, as well as winning the White House. This EPRS Briefing is designed to provide key facts and
figures about the US Congress as an institution, including relevant comparisons with the European Parliament (EP).
The back page contains a map showing the location of the various Congressional buildings on Capitol Hill, home to the
Congress in Washington DC.
Briefing EN
05-05-2022 Fonte : © Unione europea, 2022 - PE 8US Presidential executive action
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data 31-03-2017
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di intervento Affari esteri | Recepimento e attuazione del diritto
Parole chiave potere esecutivo | potere legislativo | Stati Uniti
Riassunto Since Donald Trump took office as President of the United States in January 2017, he has fulfilled several of his
campaign promises by signing executive orders (EOs) and memoranda. These executive actions have raised
questions, including what actions the President may legally and unilaterally take, for what purposes the President may
use his executive authority, and what he can actually do without passing through Congress. Although the data are not
comprehensive, as not all presidential actions have to be published, a historical perspective may help to give insight
into how US Presidents have used their executive authority. It appears that since George Washington, all Presidents
have, to different extents, made use of their executive authority to advance their policy views and organise their
administration. Unilateral Presidential policy-making has raised tensions, in particular with Congress, to which the US
Constitution confers all legislative powers. President Barack Obama was heavily criticised by his opponents for
advancing his policy goals without Congress and by signing executive orders (making policy with the 'stroke of a pen').
Despite a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, President Trump appears to be following the same pattern.
He signed two executive orders on the day of his inauguration and other presidential actions have followed, including a
presidential memorandum to withdraw the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). However, to date,
the most controversial EO introduced temporary measures restricting entry to the country for refugees and citizens
from seven countries defined as of 'particular concern' on national security grounds. The order led to massive protests
in the US and across the world, was challenged in court, and was finally temporarily put on hold nationwide by a
federal judge. On 6 March, President Trump signed a new EO revoking the contested one and introducing new
measures, limiting immigration from six of the countries. But this EO too has run into legal hurdles.
Briefing EN
How Congress and President shape US foreign policy
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data30-03-2017
AutoreDEL MONTE Micaela | LAZAROU Eleni
Settore di interventoAffari esteri
Parole chiave accordo commerciale | accordo internazionale | costituzione | finanziamento del bilancio | ONU | paesi terzi | politica
ambientale | politica commerciale | politica estera | potere esecutivo | potere legislativo | Stati Uniti
Riassunto The United States Constitution regulates the conduct of American foreign policy through a system of checks and
balances. The Constitution provides both Congress and the President, as the legislative and executive branches
respectively, with the legal authority to shape relations with foreign nations. It recognises that only the federal
government is authorised to conduct foreign policy; that federal courts are competent in cases arising under treaties;
and declares treaties the supreme law of the land. The Constitution also lists the powers of Congress, including the
'power of the purse' (namely the ability to tax and spend public money on behalf of the federal government), the power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations, the power to declare war and the authority to raise and support the army
and navy. At the same time, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States (US) army and navy and,
although Congressional action is required to declare war, it is generally agreed that the President has the authority to
respond to attacks against the US and to lead the armed forces. While the President’s powers are substantial, they are
not without limits, due to the role played by the legislative branch. In light of the discussion of the foreign policy options
of the new administration under President Donald Trump, this briefing specifically explores the powers conferred to
conclude international agreements, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to use military force and to declare war.
It also explains how Congress performs its oversight – or ‘watchdog’ – functions with regard to foreign policy, the tools
at its disposal, and the role of committees in the process.
Briefing EN
The incoming US Congress's powers to overturn regulations of the previous administration
Tipo di pubblicazione In sintesi
Data 13-01-2017
Autore DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di intervento Affari esteri | Recepimento e attuazione del diritto
Parole chiave potere esecutivo | potere legislativo | Stati Uniti
Riassunto During the election campaign, President-elect Donald Trump stated his intention to repeal or amend regulations issued
by the Obama administration. Following the 2016 elections in the USA, as well as the White House the Republicans
will hold the majority in both chambers of the 115th Congress. It is thus likely that the legislative branch will work
closely with the executive to achieve common objectives. Congress can always introduce and pass legislation that
modifies regulations made by agencies. However, passing new legislation can be a cumbersome process, and there
are tactics for the opposition to delay action, such as making points of order and tabling certain motions. As an
alternative, under certain circumstances and within a specific timeframe, Congress could use an expedited procedure,
laid down in the Congressional Review Act (CRA) of 1996, to overturn federal regulations passed in the closing months
of the outgoing administration.
In sintesi EN
05-05-2022 Fonte : © Unione europea, 2022 - PE 9Appointment of US Supreme Court Justices
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data23-05-2016
AutoreDEL MONTE Micaela | LEBLANC LUCAS ARRIGO
Settore di interventoAffari esteri | Spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia
Parole chiave audizione pubblica | Capo di Stato | diritto costituzionale | giurisdizione di grado superiore | magistrato | partito
democratico | partito repubblicano | potere di nomina | regolamento del parlamento | situazione politica | Stati Uniti
Riassunto In February 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away, vacating a position on America’s highest court.
That quickly focused American political discussion, in the midst of a heated Presidential campaigning season, on his
possible replacement. The appointment of Supreme Court Justices is broadly depicted in Article II of the US
Constitution as a process in which the President chooses a candidate but the Senate provides its 'advice and consent'
on the nominee. The Republican-controlled Senate argued that President Obama should leave the nomination process
to the next US President. Obama, meanwhile, affirmed his intention to fulfil his constitutional duty, and indeed on 16
March he put forward a nominee. The debate reflects an appointment process that is to a certain extent a bargain
between the executive and legislative branches, framed by Constitutional norms and political considerations. From a
procedural point of view, the process can be divided into two stages, the initial nomination phase, for the executive,
and the subsequent confirmation phase, dominated by the legislative. Although the President maintains considerable
discretion in choosing a candidate, many issues are taken into consideration before he or she submits the formal
nomination. Some factors include the nominee’s professional competence and political affiliation, and the overall
balance of the nine-member court in terms of the geographic, socio-ethnic, or religious backgrounds of the justices.
Once the nominee is formally submitted to the Senate, the Judiciary Committee vets the nominee and organises public
hearings. The Committee scrutinises the nominee's background closely, asking them to provide extensive professional
and personal records which may support or cast doubt on his or her ultimate confirmation. After recommendation by
the Judiciary Committee, the full Senate debates and ultimately votes on the nominee's confirmation.
Briefing EN
Understanding US Presidential elections
Tipo di pubblicazione Briefing
Data15-04-2016
AutoreCIRLIG Carmen-Cristina | DEL MONTE Micaela
Settore di interventoAffari esteri
Parole chiave candidato | diritto elettorale | elettorato | elezioni presidenziali | elezioni primarie | finanziamento elettorale | sistema di
finanziamento | Stati Uniti
Riassunto In July 2016, the two major US parties will nominate their respective official candidate for the 58th US presidential
election which takes place in November. With less than three months before the national conventions, and a large
number of delegates already allocated, on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is running ahead of Bernie Sanders
towards the nomination. On the Republican side there is still much uncertainty about who will finally be named official
candidate. The President is head of state, head of government, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Thus,
presidential elections are an important part of American political life. Although millions of American citizens vote in
presidential elections every four years, the President is not, in fact, directly elected by the people. Citizens elect the
members of the Electoral College, who then cast their votes for the President and Vice President. While key elements
of the presidential election are spelled out in the US Constitution, other aspects have been shaped by state laws,
national party rules and state party rules. This explains why presidential campaigns have evolved over time, from the
days when presidential candidates were nominated in the House of Representatives by the 'King caucus', to an almost
exclusively political party-dominated convention system, and finally to the modern system of nominations based on
primaries, introduced progressively to increase democratic participation. A number of additional developments have
also played an important role in shaping today's presidential elections, notably political party efforts to limit
'frontloading'; the organisation of the Electoral College system and the changes to the campaign financing system.
Briefing EN
Role of the US Congress in trade agreements: The 'Fast-Track' procedure
Tipo di pubblicazione Analisi approfondita
Data01-03-2016
AutoreDEL MONTE Micaela | PUCCIO Laura
Settore di interventoAffari esteri | Commercio internazionale
Parole chiave accordo commerciale | competenza del parlamento | parlamento nazionale | procedura parlamentare | rapporto tra
legislativo ed esecutivo | Stati Uniti
Riassunto Since 1974 the United States Congress has enacted several Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) acts to ensure speedy
ratification of trade agreements in the United States, while maintaining a congressional hold on the objectives to be
pursued by US negotiators. TPA defines the conditions and procedures for using a streamlined or expedited
procedure, also known as the fast-track procedure, to vote in Congress on international trade agreements negotiated
during a specific defined period of time. The current (2015) Trade Promotion Authority Act, which was finally passed in
June 2015, sets out the rules for the expedited procedures applicable to any international agreement entered into by
the US before 1 July 2018 (with possible extension up to 1 July 2021), covering inter alia the recently concluded Trans-
Pacific Partnership and any agreement stemming from the ongoing Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
negotiations. The TPA requirements in terms of negotiating objectives and consultation have constantly evolved to
match the rising political need of Congress to exert greater control over the outcomes of US trade negotiations.
Analisi approfondita DE, EN, FR
05-05-2022 Fonte : © Unione europea, 2022 - PE 10You can also read
