2. The Committee therefore reiterates its position expressed in its opinion of 30 May 2013 to JURI Report on follow-up on the delegation of legislative powers and the control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (2012/2323(INI) stating that ".in the context of any post-Lisbon alignment of a legislative act, those measures previously subject to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny should clearly become delegated acts, and not implementing acts, as delegated acts are foreseen for exactly the same purpos ...[+++]e as measures subject to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (that is, to adopt measures of general scope/application designed to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act), unless exceptionally justified".

4. Insists that, in the context of any post-Lisbon alignment of a legislative act, those measures previously subject to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny should clearly become delegated acts, and not implementing acts, as delegated acts are foreseen for exactly the same purpose as measures subject to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (that is, to adopt measures of general scope/application designed to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act), unless exceptionally justified; considers that such justifications should be evaluated within a reasonable amount of time, bearing in mind the time limit ...[+++]s applicable in legislative procedures;

However, the courts of the country concerned shall have jurisdiction over complaints that enforcement is being carried out in an irregular manner.

However, the courts of the country concerned shall have jurisdiction over complaints that enforcement is being carried out in an irregular manner.

However, the courts of the Member State concerned shall have jurisdiction over complaints that enforcement is being carried out in an irregular manner.

The full implications of this concept of the Commission's responsibility for implementing the budget must be recognised, when one remembers that the control exercised by the body granting the discharge cannot be confined merely to an examination of whether expenditure has been effected in a regular manner while disregarding the requirements of sound management; verifying whether expenditure is desirable clearly goes beyond the powers o ...[+++]f the discharge authority whereas checking whether expenditure has been effected in a regular manner lies well within those powers but between these two extremes it must be acknowledged that factors relating to an assessment of whether funds have been put to the best possible use are playing an increasingly important role in the discharge procedure.