The political milieu of the pre- and post-Brexit timeframe witnessed the exponential rise of populism and authoritarian tendencies across the continent and in its vicinity. The success of the Brexit referendum stems also from a couple of inherent deficiencies of the supranational organization. Hence, in order to fully avoid the populist tendency of comparing the European Union with a natural foe of nation-states and of using the above-mentioned deficiencies as incentives to stir up popular disenchantment, some changes in the structure and function of EU are mandatory. This policy paper will explain the aforementioned changes.

The decision-making process of the European Union is a particularly complex one and its democratic legitimacy has almost always been a preoccupation for the citizens involved in European affairs, researchers, practitioners of Union law and, ultimately, political decision-makers. Today, after an evolutionary process that began, we could say, along with the Single European Act and, as the entire union construction, is still underway, this legitimacy is ensured in a multi-level organized system. One of these, alongside the European Parliament, is represented by national parliaments. This role is regulated in detail by the provisions of the Protocols No. 1 and 2. Practically, according to Protocol No. 1, the National Parliaments have the right to receive information about the content and the effects of the institutions issuing the draft normative acts. The obligation to transmit the documents that are necessary for the exercise of their control is a prerequisite for it, since no effecti...

EU technology regulation, act-ification of EU law, GDPR mimesis in EU law, EU law brutality EU regulatory initiatives on technology-related topics has spiked over the past few years. On the basis of its Priorities Programme 2019-2024, while creating "Europe fit for the Digital Age", the EU Commission has been busy releasing new texts aimed at regulating a number of technology topics, including, among others, data uses, online platforms, cybersecurity, or artificial intelligence. This paper identifies three basic phenomena common to all, or most, EU new technology-relevant regulatory initiatives, namely (a) "act-ification", (b) "GDPR mimesis", and (c) "regulatory brutality". These phenomena divulge new-found confidence on the part of the EU technology legislator, who has by now asserted for itself the right to form policy options and create new rules in the field for all of Europe. These three phenomena serve as indicators or early signs of a new European technology law-making paradigm that by now seems ready to emerge.

The EU institutions have always been ‘singular’. From the very inception of the EEC it has been difficult to fit the principal institutions within any neat ordering that corresponds to that within the traditional nation state. The very location of legislative and executive power in the Rome Treaty was problematic, and these problems were exacerbated over time as new institutions developed, often initially outside the strict letter of the Treaty, in response to a complex set of political pressures. Institutional balance, as opposed to strict separation of powers, characterized the disposition of legislative and executive power in the EEC from the outset. The concept of institutional balance has a rich history. It was a central element in the republican conception of democratic ordering, embodying the ideal that the form of political ordering should encapsulate a balance between different interests, which represented different sections within civil society. This balance was perceived ...