ABSTRACT
An increase in the European Parliament’s (EP) powers is generally equated with more democratic and legitimate law-making. However, analysis of the Data Retention Directive – negotiated by means of both consultation and codecision – suggests that although the EP has been empowered under codecision its capacity to translate citizens’ demands into democratic and transparent outputs has been reduced. Against expectations, the EP did not use its new veto powers in the data retention case to maximize its policy preferences because the content of these preferences did not fit with the wider need to be seen as a ‘responsible’ legislator. An institutionalist approach drawing upon rational choice and constructivism helps to explain this seemingly anomalous outcome in the highly politicized Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ).
