Le Parlement européen (PE) n’a occupé en 1957 qu’une place secondaire, ce qui entraînait une grande déception auprès des parlementaires, mettant en cause ses pouvoirs consultatifs qui ne portait qu’un sens symbolique. En valorisant la démocratie et la séparation des pouvoirs, le PE pourrait sortir de l’impasse à travers l’exploitation maximale de la procédure consultative. Jusqu’à l’Acte unique européen, le champ d’application de la consultation ne cesse de s’élargir. Idem pour l’augmentation des revendications du respect de son droit d’information et de consultation envers le Conseil. Le manque de moyens juridiques de contraindre le Conseil à accepter les avis du PE, qui se voient systématiquement refusés, nécessite le changement de position parlementaire dans les années 70 dans les relations entre les deux institutions. Les nouvelles procédures à effets juridiques, telles que la reconsultation, le droit d’approbation sur les accords internationaux et la codécision, ont été revendiquées, pourtant de manière irrégulière. Les mesures pour le renforcement des pouvoirs budgétaires se voient s’adopter, de sorte qu’elles favorisent non seulement le contrôle parlementaire en la matière, mais aussi le renforcement des pouvoirs dans les questions non-budgétaires : les pouvoirs législatifs. Le droit d’information et le pouvoir de consultation sur les activités budgétaires, ainsi que le contrôle effectif sur les budgets et leurs dépenses, font eux aussi l’objet de revendications parlementaires. Le Conseil européen et la Cour des comptes étaient également invoquées comme destinataires de ces revendications afin de persuader le Conseil et la Commission. Cette présente analyse démontre que le PE, tel qu’il est aujourd’hui, est un résultat de la collaboration dans les premières décennies avec les autres institutions et les grandes figures des États membres, lesquels jouent un rôle important pour orienter la discussion dans les Communautés. / The nature of the secondary place reserved for the European Parliament (EP) in 1957 brought about a big disappointment of the European representatives and critics of its consultative powers only of, then, symbolic significance. Putting emphasis on the principles of democracy and separation of powers, the EP attempted to come out of impasse by using at maximum the consultative procedures. Until the Single European Act, the demands of the EP on respect for information and consultation obligation by the Council continue to increase. Also was asserted an extended application of consultative procedure to the issues, for which the EP had not been obligatorily consulted by the Council. Lack of legal means to make the Council accept the opinions and demands of the EP, which had scarcely been adopted by the Council, can explain the position change of the EP during the 70s vis-à-vis the Council and the Commission. The new procedures with legal effects, such as re-consultation, the power of approbation regarding of international agreements and co-decision, have been insisted, but not consistently.Reinforcement of the EP’s budgetary powers aimed not only at enhancement of parliamentary control in the budgetary activities of the European Communities, but also at reinforcement of non-budgetary powers: legislative powers. The parliamentary demands for the respect by the Council of information and consultation obligations and for effective control over budgets and expenditures were part of the EP’s struggles to be justly recognized in the map of European political institutions. When the European Council and the Court of Auditors were also addressed the sort of demands, the EP aimed to persuade thereby the Council and the Commission.This present analysis shows that the EP, as is today, is a result of the collaboration with other institutions and important figures of the Member States, which played an important role to guide the discussion in the Communities.

To categorize groups of people is a necessity in our society. Categorization of people is used by decision makers and authorities. In the national social service legislation, categorization can be used to instruct municipalities to prioritize vulnerable groups of clients in need of support and services. The negative aspect of categorizing is that people are being labeled in a certain way, which can affect how people are being treated. The current Social Services Act in Sweden contains specific regulations to certain groups in society. One of the proposals in the extensive investigation for a new Social Services Act is to tone down these certain groups. The investigation for a new Social Services Act was sent out for consultation to 193 relevant community actors, including municipalities, government authorities and interest groups. These are given the opportunity to submit opinions and comments before the legislation is amended. This study is based on the received responses from the community actors through a qualitative text analysis. 55 of the received 157 responses addressed categorization of the target groups in the legislation. The results show that the majority of the 55 responses are in favour of target groups being toned down. In the responses there are arguments that highlight an increased individual perspective and a holistic view in social work. Other actors highlight risks with toning down the target groups, such as an increased difficulty for individuals to claim their rights and that it increases the risk of inequality. The results also show that there is a difference in the responses depending on whether the respondent is a municipality, a government authority or an interest group. The municipalities are in favour of the target groups being toned down while we find government authorities and interest groups on both sides of the argument. It also shows how different organizations take their interests into account in a consultation procedure.