31. Points out that Parliament welcomed, in principle, the introduction of delegated acts in Article 290 TFEU as providing greater scope for oversight, but stresses that the conferral of such delegated powers or implementing powers under Article 291 is never an obligation; recognises that the use of delegated acts should be considered where flexibility and efficiency are needed and cannot be delivered by means of the ordinary legislative procedure, provided that the objective, content, scope and the duration of that delegation are explicitly defined and the conditions to which the delegation is subject are clearly laid down in the basic act; expresses concern at the Council’s tendency to insist on using implementing acts for provisions wh ...[+++]ere only the basic act or delegated acts should be used; stresses that the legislator may decide to allow implementing acts to be used only for the adoption of elements which do not amount to further political orientation; recognises that Article 290 explicitly limits the scope of delegated acts to non-essential elements of a legislative act and that delegated acts may not therefore be used in relation to rules essential to the subject matter of the relevant legislation;

31. Points out that Parliament welcomed, in principle, the introduction of delegated acts in Article 290 TFEU as providing greater scope for oversight, but stresses that the conferral of such delegated powers or implementing powers under Article 291 is never an obligation; recognises that the use of delegated acts should be considered where flexibility and efficiency are needed and cannot be delivered by means of the ordinary legislative procedure, provided that the objective, content, scope and the duration of that delegation are explicitly defined and the conditions to which the delegation is subject are clearly laid down in the basic act; expresses concern at the Council’s tendency to insist on using implementing acts for provisions wh ...[+++]ere only the basic act or delegated acts should be used; stresses that the legislator may decide to allow implementing acts to be used only for the adoption of elements which do not amount to further political orientation; recognises that Article 290 explicitly limits the scope of delegated acts to non-essential elements of a legislative act and that delegated acts may not therefore be used in relation to rules essential to the subject matter of the relevant legislation;

As a formal decision of the EIB which is duly published and implemented, a provision governing the scope of the review to be carried out by the EIB’s appeals committee establishes an internal rule of general scope which is legally binding and limits the EIB’s discretion in relation to the organisation of its structures and the management of its staff.

28. Points out that the current Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 seeks to limit the scope of the ‘space to think’ by stipulating that, as a prerequisite for refusal to grant access, disclosure of the document must not merely undermine the decision-making process, but must ‘seriously’ undermine it, and in any case allowing this limit to be overstepped where there is ‘an overriding public interest in disclosure’; stresses however that in spite of the above-mentioned considerations, Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 contains an open-ended definition which does not provide clear conditions for application or take into ...[+++] account the case-law of the Court of Justice; stresses the need for an appropriate definition in accordance with the concept of legal certainty by narrowing the concept;

28. Points out that the current Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 seeks to limit the scope of the ‘space to think’ by stipulating that, as a prerequisite for refusal to grant access, disclosure of the document must not merely undermine the decision-making process, but must ‘seriously’ undermine it, and in any case allowing this limit to be overstepped where there is ‘an overriding public interest in disclosure’; stresses however that in spite of the above-mentioned considerations, Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 contains an open-ended definition which does not provide clear conditions for application or take into ...[+++] account the case-law of the Court of Justice; stresses the need for an appropriate definition in accordance with the concept of legal certainty by narrowing the concept;

In exceptional and duly justified cases, with regard to the scope of the priority axis, this ceiling may reach 85 %.