’Yellow Card, but No Foul’: The Role of the National Parliaments Under the Subsidiarity Protocol and the Commission Proposal for an EU Regulation on the Right to Strike
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyses the role of the national Parliaments under the Subsidiarity Protocol, taking the recent Commission proposal for a regulation on the exercise of the right to strike and the reaction of national Parliaments as a case study. In this case, for the first time since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, national Parliaments activated the "yellow card" procedure set up by Protocol No. 2 to ensure compliance by the EU institutions with the principle of subsidiarity. The article claims, however, that the Commission proposal was sanctioned with a "yellow card" without having committed any foul. The article analyses the role of national Parliaments under the Subsidiarity Protocol and - on the basis of textual, structural and functional reasons - advances the argument that the review of national Parliaments should focus exclusively on violations of the principle of subsidiarity and should not extend to the evaluation of the proportionality, legal basis or political merits of a draft EU legislative proposal. The article then outlines the context and the content of the Commission proposal and examines the reasoned opinions of the national Parliaments against the draft regulation. By testing the previously developed framework, the article explains that in the present case national Parliaments have gone beyond their role, failing to identify any subsidiarity violation in the draft regulation. The article concludes by maintaining that the Commission proposal, in fact, was compatible with the principle of subsidiarity and suggests that the draft regulation may have been the most appropriate tool to strike a new balance between free movement and social rights in the EU. Because of the decision of the Commission to withdraw its proposal, nevertheless, the article warns that the Commission may have inadvertently encouraged a misuse of the subsidiarity review by the national Parliaments with potentially negative effects on the delicate balance of powers between the States and the EU.
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 | 0.065 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".