Between normalcy and emergency: the use of delegated and implementing acts during crises

Delegated and implementing acts are considered as integral part of EU decision making in times of normalcy, but they have also been increasingly employed during crisis situations – with the most notable example being the Covid-19 pandemic and, in particular, the establishment of the Recovery and Resilience Facility. The literature on emergency politics in the EU mainly focuses on the individual role of supranational or intergovernmental institutions and the related questions on legitimacy that naturally arise from such debates. This paper brings delegated and implementing acts in the conceptual debate about emergency politics and legitimacy, seeking to establish a comprehensive theoretical framework and to evaluate their role as tools to counter crises. More specifically, it focuses on analysing whether the full democratic control of delegated and implementing acts during times of normalcy renders them legitimate tools during times of crisis. The democratic deficit problem which they arguably entail, and extensively discussed in the literature, could potentially impinge on their legitimacy as part of an emergency-tackling process.