Multi-faceted Single Legal Personality and a Hidden Horizontal Pillar: EU External Relations Post-Lisbon

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 87-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inge Govaere
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Important Case ◽  
External Representation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Pillar Structure ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe Lisbon Treaty has fundamentally revised the external relations of the EU in pursuit of more visibility, coherence and consistency. The EU is, for instance, given a single legal personality, the pillar structure is (formally) abolished, new functions are created to reinforce its external representation and external policies appear to be streamlined. But is there more to it than meets the eye? A critical legal assessment is given of the major Treaty modifications relating to the EU external relations whilst addressing two underlying issues. First it is questioned whether the Member States have really given up their traditional reluctance to share fully the international scene with the EU. It is argued that the Lisbon Treaty in fact means to redress the balance in favour of intergovernmentalism under CFSP. A second crucial and related issue links to the silent dialogue with the CJEU to be discerned in the Lisbon Treaty. It wavers between the codification of important case law, such as Kadi, and attempts at containing or even reversing case law which was more prejudicial to the Member States’ interests, such as the Ecowas judgment. In so doing the Lisbon Treaty again raises interesting yet complex legal questions which will most likely necessitate further clarification through case law.

Multi-faceted Single Legal Personality and a Hidden Horizontal Pillar: EU External Relations Post-Lisbon

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 87-111
Author(s):  
Inge Govaere
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Important Case ◽  
External Representation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Pillar Structure ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The Lisbon Treaty has fundamentally revised the external relations of the EU in pursuit of more visibility, coherence and consistency. The EU is, for instance, given a single legal personality, the pillar structure is (formally) abolished, new functions are created to reinforce its external representation and external policies appear to be streamlined. But is there more to it than meets the eye? A critical legal assessment is given of the major Treaty modifications relating to the EU external relations whilst addressing two underlying issues. First it is questioned whether the Member States have really given up their traditional reluctance to share fully the international scene with the EU. It is argued that the Lisbon Treaty in fact means to redress the balance in favour of intergovernmentalism under CFSP. A second crucial and related issue links to the silent dialogue with the CJEU to be discerned in the Lisbon Treaty. It wavers between the codification of important case law, such as Kadi, and attempts at containing or even reversing case law which was more prejudicial to the Member States’ interests, such as the Ecowas judgment. In so doing the Lisbon Treaty again raises interesting yet complex legal questions which will most likely necessitate further clarification through case law.

scholarly journals The Limits of Agencification in the European Union

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 1223-1255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miroslava Scholten ◽  
Marloes van Rijsbergen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Road ◽  
European Court ◽  
On The Road ◽  
The Eu

Although not explicitly regulated by the EU treaties, EU agencies not only exist but also have increased in number and power. In addition, while EU agencies may exercise very similar functions to those of the Commission, Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) do not list agencies among the possible authors of non-legislative acts. The existing situation raises the questions of the extent to which the ongoing agencification in the EU is legitimate and what its limits are. This article addresses these questions in the light of the old and new Treaties and case law, including the just releasedESMA-shortsellingcase. It shows that while the Lisbon Treaty made a few steps forward on the road of legitimizing EU agencies and delegating important powers to them, the scope of powers that EU agencies can have remains unclear. In this respect, the European Court of Justice's lenient approach in theESMA-shortsellingcase is unfortunate because it neither clarifies the issue nor pushes the Union Legislator and the Member States to address it. Consequently, in the absence of clear limits, further agencification is likely to persist at the risk of increasing the democratic legitimacy deficit and remaining accountability gaps.

Providing for European-Level Diplomacy after Lisbon: The Case of the European External Action Service

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Duke
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
External Action ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Level ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Member States ◽  
External Relations ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe Lisbon Treaty may well be on ice, may perhaps even be moribund, but there remain compelling reasons to think through the identified shortcomings of the European Union in external relations. Many of the innovations in the area of external relations that are contained in the treaty are dependent upon ratification by the EU's member states, but some are not; the European External Action Service (EEAS) falls into the latter category. Although the actual implementation of the EEAS will face formidable hurdles, as has been outlined in this contribution, the exercise of thinking through these challenges is essential if the EU and its members are to begin grappling with many of the issues examined in this special issue — ranging from the role of national diplomats in today's world to the successful pursuit of structural diplomacy and the effectiveness of the EU in multilateral organizations.

23. EU external action

2020 ◽  
pp. 731-791
Author(s):  
Geert De Baere
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Composite System ◽  
External Action ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
External Representation ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Policy Fields ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the EU law on external relations. It explores the complex division of competences between the Member States and the Union, and between the different institutions of the Union in the field of external action; the applicable decision-making procedures, including the procedure for concluding international agreements; the Union’s composite system of external representation; and how the Union manages the vertical (between the Union and the Member States) and horizontal (between the different Institutions and policy fields of the EU) division of its external competences.

24. EU external action

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geert De Baere
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Composite System ◽  
External Action ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
External Representation ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Policy Fields ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the EU law on external relations. It explores the complex division of competences between the Member States and the Union, and between the different institutions of the Union in the field of external action; the applicable decision-making procedures, including the procedure for concluding international agreements; the Union’s composite system of external representation; and how the Union manages the vertical (between the Union and the Member States) and horizontal (between the different Institutions and policy fields of the EU) division of its external competences.

scholarly journals Effective Judicial Protection in EU Law: an Evolving Principle of a Constitutional Nature

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 35-62
Author(s):  
Matteo Bonelli
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

Effective judicial protection emerged as a EU law principle in the 1980s, operating alongside the Rewe principles of equivalence and effectiveness as a standard to assess national procedures for the enforcement of EU law. This article argues that the codification of effective judicial protection in Article 19 TEU and 47 of the Charter, operated by the Lisbon Treaty, has stimulated an evolution of the principle, which is evident in the recent case law of the Court of Justice. Today, effective judicial protection operates not only as a procedural principle, but also as a more substantive and structural one, and has generally acquired broader constitutional relevance. This evolution has crucial effects on the EU legal order: most importantly, it affects the division of competences between Member States and the EU, and between the Court of Justice and national courts.

Adapting the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) to the EEA Two-Pillar Structure – A Workable Solution?

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 557-591
Author(s):  
Andri Fannar Bergþórsson
Keyword(s):  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
National Level ◽  
Financial Supervision ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European System ◽  
Pillar Structure ◽  
The Global Financial Crisis ◽  
The Eu

In response to the global financial crisis, the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) was created in 2010. Supranational bodies were established for different financial sectors to act as supervisors of sorts for national-level supervisors in EU Member States. This article focuses on how the system was adapted to three EFTA States that are not part of the EU but form the internal market along with EU Member States through the EEA Agreement – Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein (EEA EFTA States). The aim is to clarify how ESFS has been incorporated into the EEA agreement and to discuss whether this a workable solution for the EEA EFTA States that have not transferred their sovereignty by name in the same manner as the EU Member States. One issue is whether the adaptation has gone beyond the limits of the two-pillar structure, as all initiative and work stem from the EU supranational bodies and not the EFTA pillar.

European Union Plant Variety Protection

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gert Würtenberger ◽  
Martin Ekvad ◽  
Paul van der Kooij ◽  
Bart Kiewiet
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Practical Relevance ◽  
Member States ◽  
Plant Variety Protection ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Plant Variety ◽  
Variety Protection ◽  
The Eu

This book explains how the Community plant variety rights system works and provides guidance regarding the field of law relating to the Basic Regulation and other implementing regulations. It gives an idea of how the grant system works, the advantages of Community plant variety rights, and the aspects to be considered in exploiting and defending. It also explains the mechanisms in the Basic Regulation on how infringements of Community plant variety rights should be dealt with, including certain enforcement systems of the EU Member States. This book analyses major aspects that are considered of practical relevance in infringement proceedings under the applicable national law. It elaborates how the case law is limited in comparison with patent infringement proceedings throughout the EU Member States.

EU Loyalty

2019 ◽  
pp. 45-80
Author(s):  
Christina Eckes
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Membership ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
External Relations ◽  
The Common ◽  
Duty Of Loyalty ◽  
International Representation ◽  
The Eu

Chapter 2 discusses the legal consequences and deeper meaning of EU loyalty with particular attention to external relations. It identifies specific active and passive obligations flowing from the principle of sincere cooperation in the context of EU external relations and argues that they are best understood as forming part of a comprehensive duty of loyalty. EU loyalty endows EU membership with a distinctive meaning. It is central to imposing a quasi-federal discipline and making sovereign states ‘Member States of the EU’ by acting as a tool that can at times take specific legal obligations beyond the letter of the law. EU loyalty legally restrains Member States from exercising their rights as independent international actors in a way that finds no parallel beyond the European Union. It may require placing the common Union interest above national interests. The concept of unity of international representation has a particular capacity to deepen and widen the obligations flowing from EU loyalty. It amplifies the effects of EU loyalty on the scope of legal action of the Member States, including in the field of reserved competences. It is also part of the explanation of why loyalty has more stringent consequences externally rather than internally. This in turn means that the duty of loyalty has a particular integrative force in the context of external relations. Chapter 2 also argues that this stringent understanding of EU loyalty is justified by the nature of external relations and that this justification should be (better) explicated by the EU institutions in order to justify EU external actions vis-à-vis EU citizens.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document