Interinstitutional Agreement Research Articles

The AI Act: A compass for approaching legislation with innovative and disruptive effects

This paper aims to provide an overview of the EU regulation on artificial intelligence (hereafter the AI Act) by navigating through its main proposals and innovations. A geopolitical framework will be provided with reference to the balance to be struck between innovation and the protection of fundamental rights and the decisions that led to the final version of the AI Act, during the inter-institutional agreement. The overview will include each risk category, including how the regulation dealt with AI for general purposes, which was not considered in the European Commission's first draft published in April 2021. In addition to the risk categories, the governance model and innovation support measures will also be analysed. The paper is addressed to practitioners, academics, policy makers and postgraduate researchers who are approaching the AI Act for the first time.

Codification of European Private International Law!

Codification of European Private International Law!

How evaluation is understood and practised in the European Parliament

Over the past 10 years, the European Parliament has stepped up its use of evaluation to inform its law-making activities. This work has been guided in large part by the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making signed in 2016 by the European Parliament, the European Commission (which is the EU executive organ) and the Council of the European Union (representing the EU Member States). This article describes how evaluation is carried out in practice in the European Parliament and how it is shaped by the institutional setting. It argues that evaluation activities are inextricably linked with the law-making process, and that timing is a critical factor in evaluation uptake. Outstanding inter-institutional issues are identified and ways in which future trends and shocks can be integrated into European Parliament evaluation are described. There remain opportunities to better anticipate demands for evaluation, which could increase the time and resources available for such analysis, and for more transparency across the European Union institutions in the underlying data and evidence used to support evaluation findings.

A dual-center validation of the PIRAMD scoring system for assessing the severity of ischemic Moyamoya disease.

Prior Infarcts, Reactivity, and Angiography in Moyamoya Disease (PIRAMD) is a recently proposed imaging-based scoring system that incorporates the severity of disease and its impact on parenchymal hemodynamics in order to better support clinical management and evaluate response to intervention. In particular, PIRAMD may have merit in identifying symptomatic patients that may benefit most from revascularization. Our aim was to validate the PIRAMD scoring system. Patients with ischemic Moyamoya disease, who underwent catheter angiographic [modified Suzuki Score (mSS) and collateralization status], morphological MRI and a parenchymal hemodynamic evaluation with blood oxygenation-level dependent cerebrovascular reactivity (BOLD-CVR) at two transatlantic centers, were retrospectively included. The primary outcome was the presence of neurological symptoms. The diagnostic capacity of each PIRAMD feature alone was evaluated, as well as combined and the inter-institutional differences of each parameter were evaluated. Seventy-two hemispheres of 38 patients were considered for analysis, of which 39 (54%) were classified as symptomatic. The presence of a prior infarct had the highest odds ratio [odds ratio (OR) =24; 95% CI: 6.7-87.2] for having neurological symptoms, followed by impaired CVR (OR =17; 95% CI: 5-62). No inter-institutional differences in the odds ratios or area under the curve (AUC) were found for any study parameter. The PIRAMD score had an AUC of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80-0.96) with a similar AUC for the PIRAMD grading score. Our multicentric validation of the recently published PIRAMD scoring system was highly effective in rating the severity of ischemic Moyamoya disease with excellent inter-institutional agreement. Future studies should investigate the prognostic value of this novel imaging-based score in symptomatic patients with Moyamoya disease.

THE EUROPEAN UNION FORUM FOR ECONOMIC LOBBYING

In Europe with the exception of Germany, European countries only began experimenting with lobbying tools after 2005, to the effect that currently some form of lobby registration is required in 12 European Union (EU) member states. The current system dubbed symbolically the Transparency Register (TR) that was launched in 2011 through an interinstitutional agreement (IIA) and is jointly managed by the European Commission (EC) and the European Parliament (EP). The TR is the successor of schemes that had previously been run separately by the two institutions, namely the quasi‐accreditation system of the EP, in place since 1996, and the EC's Register of Interest Representatives (ROIR), set up in 2008 as a voluntary database for groups. It is managed by a team of five staff members seconded from both the EC and the EP, who make up the Joint Transparency Register Secretariat (JTRS). Recent research states that between 10,000 and 90,000 lobbyists operate in Bruxelles . Many more lobbyists operate in states and localities throughout the country. The presence of this many lobbyists begs the following question: What kinds of organizations engage in lobbying? The short answer to this question is: all kinds. More specifically, political scientists have found that 12 basic types of organized interests engage in lobbying. What is the time dimension of decision-making? What is decision logic? What are the principles of persuasion? What does mixed lobbying mean?

The interinstitutional agreement in the peruvian practice of international law: Reexamination of “the concept of treaty in international law” of Klabbers

El derecho internacional ofrece a la comunidad internacional varios tipos de instrumentos internacionales, y no todos han sido explorados completamente por la doctrina. En ese contexto, el presente artículo tiene como objetivo reexaminar el análisis planteado por Jan Klabbers en su libro “The Concept of Treaty in International Law” (1996) sobre los administrative agreements, que en la legislación peruana reciben el nombre de “acuerdos interinstitucionales” (AI). En ese sentido, se revisarán cuatro críticas que Klabbers plantea sobre tales tipos de acuerdos: i) la textura abierta de la definición de Estado en la Convención de Viena sobre el Derecho de los Tratados (CVDT); ii) el rechazo hacia la hipótesis sobre la subjetividad internacional de las entidades públicas y la existencia de un tercer orden jurídico distinto al derecho interno y al derecho internacional; iii) las dificultades de reconciliar los AI con la teoría de la responsabilidad internacional; y iv) la facilidad de repudio de los administrative agreements. Siguiendo este propósito, el artículo explora soluciones a los principales problemas identificados por el jurista holandés, revisando esos dilemas a través del caso del AI peruano, mediante una metodología analítica.

Unveiling forms of participation in the governance of UNESCO world heritage sites

This paper focuses on the issues of governance and participation of World Heritage sites. It inquiries how decision-making structures to locally managed World Heritage sites may encompass public participation. Through an in-depth qualitative approach, the paper analyses the World Heritage Arab-Norman Palermo and the Cathedral Churches of Cefalù and Monreale serial site (Italy). By examining the participatory dynamics that occurred during the creation and development of the selected World Heritage serial site, this paper reveals three coexisting forms of participation in WHsite decisions: inter-institutional agreement, social aggregation, and multi-actor collaboration. The main findings suggest that although formal decision-making arenas may be participative weakly, the unpacking of participatory practices in urban spaces uncovers a vibrant scene, as it emerges from the Cassaro Alto and Danisinni districts in the city of Palermo.

Dummy run quality assurance study in the Korean Radiation Oncology Group 19 − 09 multi-institutional prospective cohort study of breast cancer

BackgroundThe Korean Radiation Oncology Group (KROG) 19 − 09 prospective cohort study aims to determine the effect of regional nodal irradiation on regional recurrence rates in ypN0 breast cancer patients. Dosimetric variations between radiotherapy (RT) plans of participating institutions may affect the clinical outcome of the study. We performed this study to assess inter-institutional dosimetric variations by dummy run.MethodsTwelve participating institutions created RT plans for four clinical scenarios using computed tomography images of two dummy cases. Based on a reference structure set, we analyzed dose-volume histograms after collecting the RT plans.ResultsWe found variations in dose distribution between institutions, especially in the regional nodal areas. Whole breast and regional nodal irradiation (WBI + RNI) plans had lower inter-institutional agreement and similarity for 95% isodose lines than WBI plans. Fleiss’s kappa values, which were used to measure inter-institutional agreement for the 95% isodose lines, were 0.830 and 0.767 for the large and medium breast WBI plans, respectively, and 0.731 and 0.679 for the large and medium breast WBI + RNI plans, respectively. There were outliers in minimum dose delivered to 95% of the structure (D95%) of axillary level 1 among WBI plans and in D95% of the interpectoral region and axillary level 4 among WBI + RNI plans.ConclusionWe found inter-institutional and inter-case variations in radiation dose delivered to target volumes and organs at risk. As KROG 19 − 09 is a prospective cohort study, we accepted the dosimetric variation among the different institutions. Actual patient RT plan data should be collected to achieve reliable KROG 19 − 09 study results.

Lobbying in the European Union and Interinstitutional Agreement on a Mandatory Transparency Register for Lobbyists

The article presents the effects of an attempt to ascertain to what extent the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register affects the phenomenon of lobbying in the European Union (EU). In order to examine the issue, the concept and essence of lobbying in the EU were introduced. Legal regulations concerning EU lobbying were also identified. A further portion of the article analyses the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 May 2021 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission on a mandatory transparency register (IAMTR) in relation to the previously binding Agreement between the Parliament and the European Commission on the transparency register for organisations and self-employed individuals in EU Policy-making and Policy implementation (ATR). The article uses the formal-dogmatic method. As a result of the analysis, it was concluded that the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register contains numerous exclusions, both subjective and objective, to registration in the Transparency Register. One positive aspect is the application of the IAMTR to the EU Council also.

And yet, it moves: Lobbying Regulation in the Council of Ministers of the European Union

This study aims to explain the commitment of the Council of the European Union to the Inter-Institutional Agreement on a common Transparency Register for interest representatives with the Commission and European Parliament in 2021. To scrutinize this surprising turn in the hitherto transparency-averse position of the Council, this study draws on a set of elite interviews with Council sources and transparency stakeholders. The emerging data are analyzed through a theoretical framework grounded in institutionalist theory, grouped in a strategic, institutional, and ideational dimension. Evidence on a strategic dimension suggests a transparency-averse majority in the Council that explains the overall skepticism of the institution towards advancing lobbying transparency. The institutional dimension reveals the Council as compelled by norm-entrepreneurship and a logic of appropriateness instilled by other institutional actors in the Inter-Institutional Agreement. Lastly, the ideational dimension reveals shifting notions of transparency, as well as effective change agency and knowledge sharing through pro-transparency actors within the Council. The study concludes that, while a merely strategic analysis of institutional change fails to explain reform, a holistic institutionalist perspective, considering different dimensions of institutional change, is well suited to explain the advance of lobbying transparency in the Council. Further research could draw on the tentative findings of this research and attempt a longitudinal assessment of drivers and inhibitors of lobbying transparency in the Council.

ДИНАМИКА ЗАКОНОТВОРЧЕСКОГО ПРОЦЕССА В ОБЛАСТИ ЕДИНОГО ВНУТРЕННЕГО РЫНКА ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СОЮЗА

The article examines the variety of factors that can influence the speed of decision-making in the European Union in the area of the Single Market (SM), and also assesses the degree of such influence. We use quantitative analysis methods based on spatial analysis and the Cox model to determine which factors accelerate and which ones slow down the legislative process in the area of the SM during the period from 1990 to 2019. The results of our work show that the speed of decision-making in the field of the SM is influenced by the same factors as the legislative process in the EU in general, namely: a type and complexity of a legislative act, an institutional and a regulatory framework that determines a decision-making procedure. We conclude that only the Amsterdam Treaty and the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2007 have significantly accelerated the decision-making process. We’ve managed to identify a fundamental difference regarding the legislative process in the area of the SM. In contrast to secondary legislation in general in the area of the SM a decision-making procedure (consultation or regular legislative procedure) does not affect the speed of decision-making. We found out that out of seven strategic documents, only two had given a significant impetus to the development of the SM. These features of decision-making process in the area of SM constitute a basis for further research and the proposed methods of analysis can be extended in order to assess integration dynamics in other areas of regulation in integration entities.

Алексей Доманов Скорость законодательного процесса в Европейском Союзе

This article investigates the impact of various institutional factors on the duration of legislative process negotiations in the European Union. The empirical data consists of EU secondary law directives adopted in 1990-2019 (1124 directives). We use the methodology of survival analysis (Cox model). We detected that after 2004 the rules of voting in the Council (unanimity or qualified majority) do not affect the duration of the legislative process; this conclusion changes the traditional vision of the functioning of the Council. We prove that of all the EU enlargements, only that of 1995 has influenced the legislative process and slowed it down. Other EU enlargements, including one in 2004 when 10 CEE countries joined the EU, did not show a significant impact. We demonstrate that of all basic treaty reforms that have taken place since 1990 only the Amsterdam Treaty has accelerated the decision-making process. In addition, we conclude that the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2007 between the Council and the European Parliament had a stronger impact on the legislative process than most treaty reforms. It favoured the acceleration of decision-making by consolidating cooperative practices between EU institutions based on trilogues. Besides, the study confirms some previous conclusions tested on the new dataset: more active involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process (ordinary legislative procedure), the novelty and complexity of the act slow down the decision-making process.

The Reform of the EU Transparency Register

This paper looks at the latest reform of the EU Transparency Register (TR). I will approach the negotiations on the TR from the angle of the legislative process and will focus in particular on the life cycle of the TR proposal all the way from its preparatory phase within the Commission until the trilogue negotiations and the adoption of the TR package. I will be arguing that peer pressure between EU institutions had a significant impact on the negotiations. Furthermore, peer pressure inside EU institutions was also important. The final outcome of the TR will be analysed with regard to the effectiveness and added value of the TR interinstitutional agreement and the accompanying legal and political instruments. Solutions aimed at increasing transparency will be discussed in terms of their practical effect on EU institutions, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The findings of this paper suggest that the achieved compromise provides added value to the TR regime of the EU. Moreover, the compromise has contributed to transforming the EU TR towards a hybrid transparency system consisting of elements of a different nature. Finally, I will conclude by discussing the future prospects of developing the EU TR regime. Keywords: EU law, transparency, transparency register, lobbying, interinstitutional agreements.   This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution − Non-Commercial − No Derivatives 4.0 International License.   Suggested citation: K Fyhr, ‘The Reform of the EU Transparency Register’ (2021) 17 CYELP 177.

At the crossroads of a frozen conflict: Political oversight of the Council’s administrative budget by the European Parliament

The European Parliament’s practice has turned budget discharge into a fully-fledged democratic accountability mechanism to oversee the use of public funds by EU institutions, agencies, and bodies on an annual basis. The Council is firmly opposed to submitting its budget management to parliamentary control, on the grounds of a lack of explicit legal basis vesting such power in the Parliament, which, in turn, has refused to grant budget discharge to the Council since 2011. This protracted conflict is rooted in the rigid and path-dependent EU legal framework of budget management and control. After considering the downsides of litigation and an interinstitutional agreement, the article proceeds to propose legal reform as a suitable option, not only to defuse institutional conflict, but also to restore consistency and align budget control with the values of transparency and accountability that have gained traction in other areas of the EU legal order.

A more than useful cooperation of the Trakia university and the university of southampton under. The Erasmus+ programme

PURPOSE: The aims of this Erasmus+ are to establish an academic partnership, to exchange practice in teaching and research. In September 2016 was signed an inter-institutional agreement for staff mobility for teaching between the University of Southampton, UK and Trakia University, Bulgaria for the period 2016-2021. Assoc. Prof. Dr Borislav Dimitrov, a former colleague from Stara Zagora working at the University of Southampton and Assoc. Prof. Katya Peeva from the Medical faculty were the contact persons for this contract. RESULTS: Until the year 2020 in the program have participated six professors from the University of Southampton, who delivered lectures and courses to teaching staff at Trakia University “Introduction into Biostatistics with R” and “Medical Statistics using SPSS”. From the Medical Faculty the participants were four professors with lectures, seminars, posters and taking part as a teaching assistant in a statistical course at the University of Southampton. CONCLUSIONS: Assoc. Prof. Dr Borislav Dimitrov created a fantastic opportunity. The plus in Erasmus+ signifies learning as more than just an academic exercise. I'm sure that Borislav would have hoped we learn that academic endeavour and partnership could be an area able to rise above the differences between individual countries.

Carrier as a subject of contractual obligations to provide transport services

The article is devoted to the study of the concept of as a subject of contractual obligations for the provision of transport services. Its relevance is due to the fact that, taking into account the European integration vector of our state, the legislation of Ukraine, including in the field of contractual regulation of transport services, must go the way of maximum approximation to European standards. In this context, reference should be made to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the EU Commission on general guidelines for quality assurance in the design of Community legislation of 22 December 1998 (1999 / C 73/01), the preamble to which states that clear, simple and clear drafting of legislation by the members of the Community is necessary, as such acts must be transparent and understandable to the public and participants in economic relations; concepts or terminology specific to any legal system should be used with caution. It is important that the terminology is stable, uniform both within such an act and in the whole array of existing acts, in particular those relating to one area of regulation. Identical concepts should be expressed in the same terms as far as possible, without deviating from their meaning in ordinary, legal or technical language. Given this, the analysis through the prism of the established requirements of the conceptual apparatus, which is used in the legislation of Ukraine in the regulation of contractual relations for the provision of transport services. The purpose of the study is to formulate the concept and define the legal requirements for the as a subject of contractual obligations to provide transport services in accordance with international and law of Ukraine, distinguishing the concept of with other closest concepts. The concept of in international regulations and legislation of Ukraine is clarified and legal definitions are classified into two groups: 1) in the content of which attention is focused on the object of transportation; 2) in the content of which the object of transportation and the type of transport are indicated. Based on the analysis of special features inherent exclusively to the the model concept of the is proposed: “The is a natural or legal person who has entered into a contract of carriage, owns or otherwise legally owns vehicles and this type of transportation requires its receipt . The main requirements to the as a subject of contractual obligations for the provision of transport services are formulated: 1) it is a party to the contract of carriage, which undertakes to provide transport services on a paid contractual basis; 2) it is a person who on the basis of ownership or other legal grounds owns a vehicle and carries out its operation; 3) obtaining a license, if the implementation of this type of transportation requires its receipt. The concepts of national carrier, carrier, consecutive carrier, substitute carrier are distinguished. The content of the terms carrier and substitute carrier has been found to be identical. The introduction of the concept of the actual is associated with the definition of the liability of the as a party to the contract. In cases where all or part of the carriage is entrusted to the actual the under the contract remains responsible for all carriage. It is argued that the may transfer the performance of the contract of carriage to the actual only in cases where this is established in the content of the contract of carriage. The successive in contrast to the actual is a party to the contract of carriage and, as a rule, is responsible for the part of the carriage that he performed.

Better Regulation and Post-Legislative Scrutiny in the European Union

This article analyses the manner in which the EU’s Better Regulation agenda impacts pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny by national parliaments, as two important dimensions of their function of democratic control over EU decision making. To this end, the article critically assesses the institutional arrangements and procedures foreseen under the Commission’s 2015 Better Regulation package and examines the 2017 review of the Better Regulation Agenda, which is a fresh push towards its enhancement. The article is structured as follows. After an overview of the legal grounding and evolution of better regulation in EU law, the analysis surveys the implications for parliaments of the Juncker Commission’s package of reforms, which are laid out in a Communication and implemented through a set of guidelines, a refurbished toolbox for practitioners, a revised Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT), and an Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking adopted in 2016. On this basis, the article discusses post-legislative scrutiny of EU legislation on its own merits as well as from the perspective of its relationship with pre-legislative scrutiny. The latter is important since it is the most efficient way for parliaments to influence the contents of EU policies. The article concludes that the Better Regulation Agenda maintains the status quo in parliamentary participation in EU affairs and misses the opportunity to fortify their European embeddedness.

THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN POLAND

The EU system for the protection of fundamental rights had been developing since 1969 until the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which established three areas for the protection of human rights. The first is based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the second refers to the general principle, as emphasized by the Court of Justice in its case law in the 1970s. The last area is the future one and it assumes strengthening the protection of fundamental rights within the Council of Europe system by obliging the EU to join the ECHR.The Charter of Fundamental Rights initially had the status of an inter-institutional agreement, which acquired binding force only under the Treaty of Lisbon. Currently, it is a document with normative power equal to primary law. Each of the Member States is bound by the provisions of the Charter within the scope of EU competences and when implementing the EU law. Poland and the United Kingdom are additionally parties to Protocol No. 30, which is also treated as primary law. In addition, Poland attached two Declarations to the Treaty of Lisbon. The analysis of the Charter’s provisions and views of the doctrine clearly indicates that it is not a classic opt-out clause and the parties cannot release themselves from the obligation to apply the provisions of the Charter. The Declarations, on the other hand, are only political in nature and do not affect the scope of the Charter's application, but they define certain values that are important from the perspective of the Polish legal system.

Los acuerdos interinstitucionales en la práctica peruana de derecho internacional

In the Peruvian practice of international law, the universe of international agreements is not reduced merely to treaties. In that context, this article seeks to examine the international instrument par excellence that is celebrated between public entities of at least two States. Such accord, within the framework of Peruvian legislation, is called «interinstitutional agreement».First, this paper will study the main characteristics of this kind of agreement with the purpose of identifying its legal nature. Subsequently, it will examine some of the main challenges the use of an interinstitutional agreement faces: (1) the difficulty of classifying an interinstitutional agreement as a legal norm within the Peruvian system of law sources; (2) the possible confusion with other international instruments, such as twinning arrangements (a kind of interinstitutional agreement), memoranda of understanding or collaboration agreements; (3) the possible consequences than an interinstitutional agreement infers in regard to the commission of an international illicit act in the sphere of the international responsibility of the State.

Regulating European Union lobbying: in whose interest?

ABSTRACTDesigning a regime regulating supranational lobbying is a contentious topic in the EU interinstitutional dialogue. Recently, the Commission drafted a proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement on a Mandatory Transparency Register, and during this formulation process it consulted broadly with stakeholders. A key question is to which stakeholders has the Commission aligned itself with when designing this proposal? I argue the Commission acted as a legitimacy maximizer aiming to bolster its leverage in interinstitutional negotiations. To enhance input legitimacy, it had to build a reputation for being a responsive and representative policy initiator. To enhance output legitimacy, it needed a reputation for being a competent regulator. The analyses show the Commission prioritized input over output legitimacy and building a reputation for regulating lobbying in line with preferences of stakeholders representing the public interest. In politicized contexts, the Commission trades long-standing policy networks for a realignment with stakeholders that serve its legitimacy needs.