Abstract
Subsidiarity and transparency are entirely different concepts. … However different, both concepts are twins in the continuing quest of the Framers of European integration to increase the legitimacy of Community decision-making vis-à-vis the citizens. Indeed, there always has been, and there still is a very serious problem of lack of legitimacy. … Increasing the powers of the European Parliament is not sufficient to bridge this legitimacy gap, although the Maastricht Treaty did make progress in that respect, for instance, by introducing the co-decision procedure. The problem is much vaster. At any rate, the negative experiences of the ratification discussions on the Maastricht Treaty were one of the reasons for heads of state and government to undertake serious efforts to bring the subsidiarity principle into practice, to make it operational, and to enhance transparency. The Conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council of December 1992 render this effect abundantly clear. These Conclusions reflect a more general change of attitude towards Community law-making. The present Commission, under President Santer, strongly emphasized its commitment to these goals in the presentation of its first legislative program to the European Parliament in 1995 under the banner: Better Law-Making (Mieux Légiférer): Do less, but do it better. … Much progress has been made since the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty in trying to make the application of the principle of subsidiarity effective and in increasing transparency in its various facets. Subsidiarity has become part and parcel of the institutional setting. The program set out in the Conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council largely has been met. Particularly with regard to subsidiarity, the original fears and objections raised from legal quarters have been allayed.
Recommended Citation
Christian Timmermans,
Subsidiarity and Transparency,
22 Fordham Int'l L.J. S106
(1998).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol22/iss6/8