EUR-Charts

Again, the pillar structure of the EU as based on the Amsterdam Treaty was reflected in the structure of the EU Treaty [Chart 2/10].

must read:

Again, the pillar structure of the EU as based on the Amsterdam Treaty was reflected in the structure of the EU Treaty [Chart 2/13].

Official candidate states at present are: Albania, Iceland (though accession appears no longer to be a political aim of the country), Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey.

must read:

Official candidate states at present are: Albania, _ Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. Iceland withdrew its application for membership. In March 2015, Iceland’s government requested that “Iceland should not be regarded as a candidate country for EU membership.

 

In the case of the Lisbon Treaty, the process of ratification was particularly difficult. Most notably, the people in Ireland  […]  In November 2009, the Czech Republic ratified the Treaty as the last of the then 27 Member States to do so.

must read:

In the case of the Lisbon Treaty, the process of ratification was particularly difficult. Most notably, the people in Ireland rejected the revision in a vote in 2008. After certain concessions had been granted to Ireland (namely the assurance that it would continue to be able to send an Irish member to the Commission), a second referendum was held in 2009, which led to a positive outcome. As in the case of the Maastricht Treaty, the compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the German constitution was challenged before the German Bundesverfassungsgericht. In 2009, this court handed down its important “Lisbon Judgment”, in which it essentially held that the Lisbon Treaty is compatible with the German constitution, provided that the German national law introduce certain safeguards, notably in relation to the role of the German parliament. The German national law was changed accordingly in 2009. In the end, the completion of the ratification process was delayed by a second challenge in the Czech Constitutional Court (which had ruled already on the Treaty revision in 2008). The court gave its judgment in early November 2009. Essentially, it held that the Lisbon Treaty is consistent with the Czech constitutional order. That, together with the granting of an opt-out for the Czech Republic from the Charter of Fundamental Rights11 cleared the way for completing the ratification process. In November 2009, the Czech Republic ratified the Treaty as the last of the then 27 Member States to do so.

 

 

At the time of negotiation, Denmark and the United Kingdom obtained opt-out clauses concerning their participation in the third stage of EMU (see the Protocols No 15 and 16). At present, 18 out of the 28 EU Member States have adopted the euro.

must read:

At the time of negotiation, Denmark and the United Kingdom obtained opt-out clauses concerning their participation in the third stage of EMU (see the Protocols No 15 and 16). At present, 19 out of the 28 EU Member States have adopted the euro.

Similarly, the revised TEU is much more explicit in relation to the nature of the powers attributed to the EU. According to Art. 2 TFEU, there are three types of competences of the EU [Chart 4/2]: competences of the EU may be either exclusive or shared with the Member States or they may be of a merely supporting, coordinating or supplementing nature. In the case of exclusive competences, only the EU can act. In the case of shared competences, the Member States can act so long and insofar as the EU has not acted (“occupied the field”, also called “pre-emption”). In the case of supporting, coordinating or supplementing competences, EU action is parallel to Member State action (i.e. there is no pre-emption in this case).

must read:

Similarly, the revised TFEU is much more explicit in relation to the nature of the powers attributed to the EU. According to Art. 2 TFEU, there are three types of competences of the EU [Chart 4/2]: competences of the EU may be either exclusive or shared with the Member States or they may be of a merely supporting, coordinating or supplementing nature. In the case of exclusive competences, only the EU can act. In the case of shared competences, the Member States can act so long and insofar as the EU has not acted (“occupied the field”, also called “pre-emption”). In the case of supporting, coordinating or supplementing competences, EU action is parallel to Member State action (i.e. there is no pre-emption in this case). 

Free trade area:
A free trade area provides for free movement of goods produced within this area. Examples are provided by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA; ASEAN is the Association of Southeast Nations) and also, originally, the European Free Trade Area (EFTA; after a major revision in 2001, this agreement now also includes provisions on free movement in other areas).

must read:

Free trade area:
A free trade area provides for free movement of goods produced within this area. Examples are provided by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA; ASEAN is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and also, originally, the European Free Trade Area (EFTA; after a major revision in 2001, this agreement now also includes provisions on free movement in other areas).

An important additional element is provided through Art. 53 TFEU, which recognises the need for certain facilitating secondary legislation [Chart 8/47]. Art. 53 TFEU concerns requirements imposed by the host Member State in the interest of the protection of the general public. For instance, the national law may make the access to certain professions dependent on the possession of a national diploma, in order to make sure that the people exercising such professions have sufficient training (e.g. doctors, lawyers, architects etc. – i.e. the so-called regulated professions). Against that background, the Treaty provides for the adoption of secondary law on the mutual recognition of diplomas (Art. 53(1) TFEU). Originally, a number of directives on different professions were adopted in this context [Chart 8/57]. Subsequently, these were replaced by Directive 2005/36, which is not limited to the freedom of establishment, but is of broader relevance. Similarly, Art. 53(1) TFEU provides a legal basis provision for other rules monitoring the professions (such as those concerning compulsory membership with a professional body which supervises its members) imposed by the State in the interest of the protection of the public (so-called prudential supervision).

Block exemptions are regulations (i.e. legislative measures) wherein groups of cases falling under the exemption are described in a general way (e.g. within the area of research and development [Chart 9/17]).

must read:

Block exemptions are regulations (i.e. legislative measures) wherein groups of cases falling under the exemption are described in a general way (e.g. within the area of vertical agreements [Chart 9/17]).

Art. 48 TFEU envisages secondary EU measures in the field of social security “as are necessary to provide freedom of movement for workers” [Chart 10/17]. In this way, the TFEU expressly recognises the importance of social security issues for migrant workers. However, the guidelines given in Art. 48 TFEU concerning the substance of EU measures in this field reveal that the competence given to the EU is merely that of coordinating the social security systems of the Member States, rather than of harmonising them. EU law does not set up common positive rules on social security, which remain rather different in the various Member States. There is, therefore, no positive integration. Rather, coordination aims at improving the interplay of national systems in favour of migrant workers having participated in more than one system [Chart 11/1, Chart 11/4].

must read:

Art. 48 TFEU envisages secondary EU measures in the field of social security “as are necessary to provide freedom of movement for workers”, more specifically, arrangements for employed and self-employed migrant workers and their dependents [Chart 10/17]. In this way, the TFEU expressly recognises the importance of social security issues for migrant workers. However, the guidelines given in Art. 48 TFEU concerning the substance of EU measures in this field reveal that the competence given to the EU is merely that of coordinating the social security systems of the Member States, rather than of harmonising them. EU law does not set up common positive rules on social security, which remain rather different in the various Member States. There is, therefore, no positive integration. Rather, coordination aims at improving the interplay of national systems in favour of migrant workers having participated in more than one system [Chart 11/1, Chart 11/4].