In the exercise of their powers and in compliance with the procedures laid down in the TFEU, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (hereinafter referred to as `the three institutions`) shall cooperate throughout the procedure in order to ensure the proper exercise of the delegated powers and the effective control of that power by the European Parliament and the Council. To this end, appropriate contacts shall be maintained at the administrative level. Delegated acts adopted pursuant to this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is raised in accordance with paragraph 2. Where a delegated act is transmitted to the European Parliament and to the Council, the reasons for the application of the urgency procedure must be specified. This agreement complements the Better Law-Making agreements and declarations to which the three institutions remain fully committed: the Treaty of Lisbon distinguished between the powers conferred on the Commission to adopt non-legislative acts of general application supplementing or amending certain non-essential elements of a legislative act (delegated acts), and the powers conferred on the Commission in order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the Union juri diquely binding. Legal acts (implementing acts). This means that all existing legal acts relating to the former `regulatory procedure with scrutiny` must be aligned with the Treaty of Lisbon. In some cases, this has already been done. Furthermore, in the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Regulation, the Council, parliament and commission recognised the need for swift alignment. Proposals for criteria were made by Parliament and the Commission, but were not accepted.
In its first judgment in the Biozide case of 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) helped to establish fundamental principles, but also advised against reaching agreement on criteria by stating (paragraph 40) that the EU legislature had a `margin of discretion` when deciding on the power it would confer on the Commission. The Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making (IIABL) of April 2016 and the revised Joint Agreement on annexed delegated acts resolved most of the issues relating to delegated and implementing acts, while leaving aside delimitation criteria for subsequent negotiations. It did not take long to ask questions, given the weak definition of the scope of these acts and the differences in interpretation and preference between the institutions. Positions in legislative negotiations often reflected generalised institutional preferences as regards procedures. In general, Council members have felt more comfortable with ex ante control of `comitology` and are in favour of implementing acts where possible. Parliament favours delegated acts which, as EU legislators, give it the right to control the EU executive. In addition, the negotiations depended on links between this issue and other parts of the legislation under discussion. EIPA provides general and specific training on delegated and implementing acts under our framework agreement with the European Commission on the provision of EU governance training services. On the basis of the impact assessment and evaluation work of the institutions and the contributions of Member States and stakeholders, and taking into account the costs and benefits of Union regulation, the Commission will quantify, as far as possible, the potential of each proposal or legislative act to reduce the administrative burden or achieve potential savings. The Commission shall [adopt/be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article [A] concerning . [Content and scope].
. . .