New Categories of Acts after the Lisbon Reform: Dynamics of Parliamentarization in EU Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lisbon Treaty has introduced new categories of acts that cut across the familiar typology of instruments provided for in Article 288 TFEU. The three main innovations are "legislative acts", "regulatory acts" and "delegated acts". The article critically analyses these legal concepts in the light of the institutional practice recently developed under the EU Treaties. It includes the first generation of "special" legislative acts adopted by the Council, the landmark rulings of the General Court in Inuit and Microban, the Comitology Regulation of February 2011 and the "Common Understanding on delegated acts" concluded in March 2011. The theme common to the three studies is the progressive parliamentarization of the Union. The Lisbon Treaty's re-arrangements in the system of legal acts are part of the difficult process of reworking the EU's constitutional settlement in view of a powerful European Parliament and the demand to translate this new political reality into the operations of the legal order. For instance, Parliament's persistent objection to the previous regime of supervising the Commission's law-making powers through a system of committees was the driving force behind the new rules of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU. In the case of "regulatory acts", however, the parliamentarization of the Union has provoked a dysfunctional spillover into EU procedural law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".