BASIC CONCEPTS OF EU LAW
COMITÉ CIENTÍFICO DE LA EDITORIAL TIRANT LO BLANCH MARÍA JOSÉ AÑÓN ROIG
Catedrática de Filosofía del Derecho de la Universidad de Valencia
ANA CAÑIZARES LASO Catedrática de Derecho Civil de la Universidad de Málaga
JORGE A. CERDIO HERRÁN
Catedrático de Teoría y Filosofía de Derecho. Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México
JOSÉ RAMÓN COSSÍO DÍAZ Ministro en retiro de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación y miembro de El Colegio Nacional
EDUARDO FERRER MAC-GREGOR POISOT Presidente de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Investigador del Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la UNAM
OWEN FISS Catedrático emérito de Teoría del Derecho de la Universidad de Yale (EEUU)
JOSÉ ANTONIO GARCÍA-CRUCES GONZÁLEZ Catedrático de Derecho Mercantil de la UNED
LUIS LÓPEZ GUERRA Catedrático de Derecho Constitucional de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
ÁNGEL M. LÓPEZ Y LÓPEZ
Catedrático de Derecho Civil de la Universidad de Sevilla
MARTA LORENTE SARIÑENA
Catedrática de Historia del Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
JAVIER DE LUCAS MARTÍN
Catedrático de Filosofía del Derecho y Filosofía Política de la Universidad de Valencia
VÍCTOR MORENO CATENA
Catedrático de Derecho Procesal de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
FRANCISCO MUÑOZ CONDE
Catedrático de Derecho Penal de la Universidad Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla
ANGELIKA NUSSBERGER
Jueza del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Catedrática de Derecho Internacional de la Universidad de Colonia (Alemania)
HÉCTOR OLASOLO ALONSO
Catedrático de Derecho Internacional de la Universidad del Rosario (Colombia) y Presidente del Instituto Ibero-Americano de La Haya (Holanda)
LUCIANO PAREJO ALFONSO
Catedrático de Derecho Administrativo de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
TOMÁS SALA FRANCO
Catedrático de Derecho del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social de la Universidad de Valencia
IGNACIO SANCHO GARGALLO
Magistrado de la Sala Primera (Civil) del Tribunal Supremo de España
TOMÁS S. VIVES ANTÓN
Catedrático de Derecho Penal de la Universidad de Valencia
RUTH ZIMMERLING
Catedrática de Ciencia Política de la Universidad de Mainz (Alemania)
Procedimiento de selección de originales, ver página web: www.tirant.net/index.php/editorial/procedimiento-de-seleccion-de-originales
BASIC CONCEPTS OF EU LAW
Ana Salinas de Frías Alejandro Sánchez Frías (Dir.)
Ignacio Álvarez Arcá Bernardino León-Gross Enrique Jesús Martínez Pérez Carmen Martínez San Millán Ana Salinas de Frías Alejandro Sánchez Frías
tirant lo blanch Valencia, 2020
Copyright ® 2020 Todos los derechos reservados. Ni la totalidad ni parte de este libro puede reproducirse o transmitirse por ningún procedimiento electrónico o mecánico, incluyendo fotocopia, grabación magnética, o cualquier almacenamiento de información y sistema de recuperación sin permiso escrito de los autores y del editor. En caso de erratas y actualizaciones, la Editorial Tirant lo Blanch publicará la pertinente corrección en la página web www.tirant.com.
© VV.AA.
© TIRANT LO BLANCH EDITA: TIRANT LO BLANCH C/ Artes Gráficas, 14 - 46010 - Valencia TELFS.: 96/361 00 48 - 50 FAX: 96/369 41 51 Email: tlb@tirant.com www.tirant.com Librería virtual: www.tirant.es ISBN: 978-84-1378-009-2 MAQUETA: Innovatext Si tiene alguna queja o sugerencia, envíenos un mail a: atencioncliente@tirant.com. En caso de no ser atendida su sugerencia, por favor, lea en www.tirant.net/index.php/empresa/politicas-de-empresa nuestro Procedimiento de quejas. Responsabilidad Social Corporativa: http://www.tirant.net/Docs/RSCTirant.pdf
Index Table of Abbreviations................................................................................................. 11
Lesson 1 BUILDING UP THE EUROPEAN UNION THROUGH HISTORY. EU COMPETENCES AND VALUES 1.
2.
3.
4. 5. 6.
EUROPEAN INTEGRATION THROUGH HISTORY......................................... 13 1.1. Background: the idea of Europe until 1945.................................................. 13 1.2. Europe after World War II............................................................................ 15 FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES TO THE EUROPEAN UNION....... 17 2.1. EU widening process and the enlargement of the ECs.................................. 19 2.2. The deepening process: institutional reforms and new EU powers and policies. 21 EU GOALS, PRINCIPLES AND VALUES............................................................. 23 3.1. EU aims and goals........................................................................................ 23 3.2. Principles and values of the EU.................................................................... 23 EU COMPETENCES............................................................................................ 24 EU MEMBERSHIP............................................................................................... 26 THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS WITHIN THE EU.......................... 28 6.1. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU)......... 29 6.2. EU citizenship.............................................................................................. 30 6.3. The EU and the ECHR................................................................................. 33
Lesson 2 EU INSTITUTIONS (I): THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 1. 2.
3.
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF THE EU.................................................. 39 THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION....................................................................... 40 2.1. Composition and election............................................................................ 40 2.2. Functioning.................................................................................................. 42 2.3. Competences................................................................................................ 43 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT....................................................................... 44 3.1. Composition and election............................................................................ 45 3.2. Functioning.................................................................................................. 46 3.3. Competences................................................................................................ 48 3.3.1. Legislative powers............................................................................. 49 3.3.2. Budgetary powers............................................................................. 50 3.3.3. Political control and consultation powers......................................... 51 3.3.4. Election of the European Commission president and the EU ombudsman........................................................................................... 51
8
1. 2.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1.
2.
Índice
Lesson 3 EU INSTITUTIONS (II): THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL THE COUNCIL................................................................................................... 53 1.1. Composition and functioning....................................................................... 53 1.2. Competences................................................................................................ 56 THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL.............................................................................. 59 2.1. Composition................................................................................................ 59 2.2. Functioning.................................................................................................. 61 2.3. Competences................................................................................................ 62
Lesson 4 OTHER EU INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES THE COURT OF AUDITORS.............................................................................. 65 1.1. Composition................................................................................................ 65 1.2. Competences................................................................................................ 66 THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK.................................................................. 67 2.1. Composition................................................................................................ 67 2.2. Competences................................................................................................ 69 THE UNION’S ADVISORY BODIES................................................................... 70 3.1. The Economic and Social Committee........................................................... 70 3.2. The Committee of the Regions..................................................................... 71 THE EUROPEAN BANK OF INVESTMENT...................................................... 73 OTHER BODIES AND AGENCIES..................................................................... 74
Lesson 5 THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE.................................................................. 75 1.1. The European Court of Justice..................................................................... 75 1.2. The General Court....................................................................................... 77 1.3. The specialised courts.................................................................................. 78 JUDICIAL REMEDIES......................................................................................... 78 2.1. Preliminary references.................................................................................. 78 2.2. Action for annulment................................................................................... 80 2.3. Action for failure to act................................................................................ 85 2.4. Action for damages...................................................................................... 86 2.5. Infringement proceedings............................................................................. 87
Lesson 6 EU LAW: SOURCES AND PRINCIPLES 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 89 2. PRIMARY LAW................................................................................................... 90
Ă?ndice
9
3.
SECONDARY LAW............................................................................................. 91 3.1. Regulations.................................................................................................. 92 3.2. Directives..................................................................................................... 93 3.3. Decisions...................................................................................................... 94 3.4. Inter-institutional agreements....................................................................... 95 3.5. Recommendations and opinions.................................................................. 95 4. PRINCIPLES........................................................................................................ 96 4.1. Principle of supremacy................................................................................. 96 4.2. Principle of direct effect............................................................................... 98 4.3. Enforcement of EU rights and the principle of state liability........................ 101
1. 2.
3. 4.
5.
Lesson 7 THE FOUR FREEDOMS OF THE INTERNAL MARKET THE EVOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IN THE MODELS OF ECONOMIC INTEGRATION..................................................................................... 103 FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS........................................................................ 105 2.1. Scope of the provisions................................................................................ 105 2.2. Fiscal barriers to trade................................................................................. 107 2.3. Non-fiscal barriers to trade.......................................................................... 109 2.4. Justifications and derogations...................................................................... 110 FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS.................................................................... 112 3.1. Scope of the provisions................................................................................ 112 3.2. Rights and prohibitions................................................................................ 112 FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT AND SERVICES.......................................... 114 4.1. Freedom of establishment............................................................................ 114 4.1.1. Scope of the provisions..................................................................... 114 4.1.2. Rights and prohibitions.................................................................... 115 4.2. Freedom of services...................................................................................... 117 4.2.1. Scope of the provisions..................................................................... 117 4.2.2. Rights and prohibitions.................................................................... 117 FREE MOVEMENT OF CAPITAL AND PAYMENTS......................................... 118 5.1. Scope of the provisions................................................................................ 118 5.2. Rights and prohibitions................................................................................ 119
Lesson 8 AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE 1. BACKGROUND................................................................................................... 121 2. GENERAL CHARACTERS.................................................................................. 122 3. MATERIAL SCOPE............................................................................................. 124 3.1. Policies on Border Checks, Asylum and Immigration................................... 125 3.2. Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters.......................................................... 127 3.3. Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.................................................... 128 3.4. Police Cooperation....................................................................................... 130 4. THE SCHENGEN AREA......................................................................................... 131
10
Índice
Lesson 9 FOREIGN POLICY, DEFENCE, EXTERNAL ACTION AND THE DIPLOMATIC SYSTEM OF THE EU 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 133 2. THE COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY..................................... 134 2.1. The HRVP................................................................................................... 136 2.1.1. Institutional framing......................................................................... 137 2.1.2. HRVP’s role and functions................................................................ 138 2.2. The European External Action Service (EEAS)............................................. 140 2.3. EU Special Representatives (EUSR).............................................................. 141 3. THE COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENSE POLICY...................................... 142 3.1. A long but promising evolution.................................................................... 142 3.2. TEU Protocol Number 10 on PeSCO........................................................... 144 4. TRADE................................................................................................................ 146 5. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION.................................... 149 6. HUMANITARIAN AID....................................................................................... 150 7. EU NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY......................................................................... 151
Table of Abbreviations
AFSJ:
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
CEEs:
charges having an equivalent effect
CFREU:
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU
CFSP:
Common Foreign and Security Policy
CJEU:
Court of Justice of the European Union
CoE:
Council of Europe
CoR:
Committee of the Regions
COREPER: Permanent Representatives Committee CSDP:
Common Security and Defence Policy
CSOs:
civil society organisations
EBI:
European Investment Bank
ECHO:
European Community Humanitarian Aid Office
ECJ:
European Court of Justice
ECSC:
European Coal and Steel Community
EEAS:
European External Action Service
ECtHR:
European Court of Human Rights
EDA:
European Defence Agency
EFTA:
European Free Trade Agreement
EMU:
Economic and Monetary Union
ENI:
European Neighbourhood Instrument
EP:
European Parliament
ESC:
Economic and Social Committee
EURATOM: Economic European Community and the European Community for Atomic Energy EUSR:
European Union Special Representatives
12
Table of Abbreviations
GC:
General Court
HR:
High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
IFIs:
international financial institutions
MS:
member state
NATO:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
OECD:
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
QMV:
Qualified Majority Voting
SEA:
Single European Act
TEU:
Treaty of the European Union
TFUE:
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
VCDR:
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
WTO:
World Trade Organization
Lesson 1
Building up the European Union through history. EU competences and values1 SUMMARY: 1. EUROPEAN INTEGRATION THROUGH HISTORY. 1.1. Background: the idea of Europe until 1945. 1.2. Europe after World War II. 2. FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES TO THE EUROPEAN UNION. 2.1. EU widening process: the enlargement of the ECs. 3. EU GOALS, PRINCIPLES AND VALUES. 3.1. EU aims and goals. 3.2. Principles and values of the EU. 4. EU COMPETENCES. 5. EU MEMBERSHIP. 6. THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS WITHIN THE EU. 6.1. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU). 6.2. EU citizenship. 6.3. The EU and the ECHR.
1. EUROPEAN INTEGRATION THROUGH HISTORY 1.1. Background: the idea of Europe until 1945 As a departure point, it can be assumed that the change from the concept of “Christianitas” to “Europe” as such took place progressively from the moment of the signature of the Peace Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which constituted, for the first time in history, a sort of a European system of states. However, “Europe” as a political concept is not at all a new one but has existed through centuries. It has been supported by very diverse statesmen who have tried to materialise it by different means – not always peaceful – and who have shaped it through varied political attempts, all of which, even when grounded on horrifying principles, have had the idea of “peace” as a common basis. In this vein, many examples can be recalled. In ancient times, the unifying idea of the Roman Empire, pursued through colonial power and military dictatorship, existed mainly to ease access to resources, to control commerce and markets, to attain self-sufficiency and to implement a common legal system, and any people outside the empire were considered to be barbarians. The same philosophy guided the actions of the Roman Catholic Church when combating those outside the system by the use of armed force. According to these beliefs, wars were gloomily known by their duration or their casualties: the war of 30 years, Saint Louis’ 100,000 sons war, the war of a hundred years. Some other attempts at unifying Europe are worth mention: Charlemagne and his so-called Holy Roman Empire; Henry IV of
1
Author of this chapter: Prof. Ana Salinas de Frías. Full Professor of Public International Law and International Relations. University of Málaga, Spain.
14
Ana Salinas de Frías
France and his idea of setting up a Christian Commonwealth of Europe; Napoleon Bonaparte and his ambition for a European empire that actually extended beyond European soil; and even Hitler’s attempt to expand his Reich in order to occupy as much European territory as possible under a single regime. Intellectuals, wise men and philosophers e.g. Victor Hugo, St. Pierre’s Abbot or Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace Project, had thought of and written on the idea of European unity as an ideal situation. All these attempts to achieve European unity counted on particular features that could fuel such a reality: the fact of historically shared political concepts inherited from the Greek philosophers (e.g., the concept of democracy); many common legal concepts dating back to the Roman Empire’s legal system (a common system based on Roman law) as the basis for many European domestic legal orders; and finally, a certain religious unity provided by the domination of the Christian religion and the existence of the concept of Christianity. On the other hand, however, there existed the well-known and notorious tendency of European countries to go to war. Additionally, universities (e.g., Oxford, Paris, Bologna, Salamanca, Leuven and Krakow) played a certain role in assisting the work of consolidating the particular common European cultural and social consciousness by using the same methodology of study, the same programmes and Latin as a common language. This was the scenario in which the so-called Alliance for Europe (1815), another European project in search of unity and a world order, took place, provoking a regression in the evolution of international law with the reinstatement of the “ancient regime”. Therefore, the history of Europe resembles a continuous struggle between war and peace with reiterated calls to unity under different models or systems. Nothing but World War II would create the necessary elements to definitively achieve a true European peaceful unification project. World War II killed millions of Europeans and devastated not only European soil and culture but also trade, industry and economy, with Western Europe in particular as the material scenario of all this misery and suffering. The period between the two World Wars witnessed a last attempt to unify Europe, the proposal made by Count Kalergi (1923) and Aristide Briand’s initiative brought before the League of Nations General Assembly (1929). Once World War II ended, Europe would not again be able to afford such a bloody loss of lives (two generations) or such a lack of economic resources. The need of Europeans and Americans for reconstructing the European economy, trade and markets and for reconciliation between France and Germany would finally lead to the Schuman proposal on 9 May 1950.
Building up the European Union through history. EU competences and values
15
1.2. Europe after World War II The devastating effects of World War II on European land made clear not only the urgent need for cooperation among European states to achieve the political, economic and social reconstruction of the continent as quickly as possible but also the urgent need to transform the European market, a natural trade destination for the United States of America, whose untouched economy was in need of a new real international market for sales. This main worry was the basis of the generous – but not pro bono – offer made through the Marshall Plan to the European continent. However, the plan was accepted by only some European countries. The war evidenced the need for a reconstruction of Europe (which had been wholly destroyed) and for a definitive mechanism to enable all wars to be avoided in the future. This mechanism would result in the creation of the three European Communities, which had two main precedents: Churchill’s speech at Zurich’s Polytechnic University in 1946 proposing the establishment of the United States of Europe (https://rm.coe.int/16806981f3) and the celebration at The Hague of the Pan-European Congress in 1948, which gathered more than 1,000 delegates from more than 19 countries and reached the following five conclusions (needs): 1) a united Europe where the free movement of people and ideas would be guaranteed; 2) the setting up of a European Assembly representing all European peoples; 3) the drafting of a charter of fundamental human rights; 4) the setting up of a European Court to adjudicate on persons and states in breach of such rights; and 5) a strong commitment on the part of all European governments to support any initiative in this regard. According to these two key initiatives (Churchill’s proposal and the Hague manifesto), an important associative movement started to take place in Europe around three main fields of action: a common action regarding military defence, an economic association of European states to reconstruct domestic economies and markets, and a strong association of European states with regard to social and political cooperation. The last field proved to be the most difficult to accomplish. Obviously, the political division of Europe that happened as a consequence of the East-West break once the war had ended also affected this associative movement, and many of the emerging organisations were duplicated, although many of them have disappeared today. This associative movement among European states affected different areas and was the result of various proposals that were received in different forms by all addressee states in Europe. In this regard, communist states declined the economic aid offered by the USA because it was obviously linked to a particular ideology and social and economic model that those states rejected.
16
Ana Salinas de Frías
The Marshall Plan (1947) was accepted mostly by Western European states and meant the acceptance of certain economic and political premises. To control the use and distribution of such financial aid, the OEEC (Organisation for European Economic Cooperation) was created (1948). This organisation soon accomplished its goals, and by 1970 it was transformed into the OECD. At the same time, a European Free Trade Association (EFTA) was created by the UK with 10 MSs, which gradually left that organisation later in order to join the European Communities. Meanwhile, at the military level, the original mutual assistance treaty signed at Dunkirk against a potential reinforcement of the German army (1947) gave place in 1949 to a less ambitious although much more famous mutual assistance treaty: the NATO, whose existence immediately provoked the adoption of the Warsaw Pact by the USSR and their satellite states. Cooperation among European states at the political level, even if foreseen since the very beginning in The Hague Congress’ manifesto, was more difficult to achieve. After a number of discussions among those in favour of intergovernmental cooperation and those in favour of federalism, the London Treaty was signed on 4 November 1949, creating the Council of Europe (https://www.coe.int/en/web/ portal), which was originally composed of 10 MSs that would soon become 12 and whose symbols – flag and anthem – would later be taken by the new-born European Communities (1986). The Council of Europe meant the so-called greater Europe, in contrast with those countries that soon would become parties to the European
Building up the European Union through history. EU competences and values
17
Communities. Most of The Hague Congress leaders played relevant roles in the establishment of an organisation with general competence for cooperation that included all areas except national defence. Although their goals were ambitious, and the leadership of the political personalities at the forefront was undisputed, the final structure resulting from a confrontation among federalist partisans (France, Benelux) and supporters of mere intergovernmental cooperation (UK, Nordic European countries) was weak, and the overall functioning of the organisation was considered unsatisfactory by a number of European states that wished to go further. As a result of this disappointing situation, six of the twelve member countries of the Council of Europe (CoE) decided to design a new proposal for a more politically committed organisation. Nevertheless, after its creation, the CoE would take over and symbolise the highest responsibility of reinforcing democracy and the rule of law within its member countries and became the main organisation worldwide in promoting, supporting and protecting human rights through a revolutionary international treaty – the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR, in accordance with the mandate in the Manifesto for Europeans adopted by The Hague Congress, not only included a sort of summarised European charter of human rights but also set up a procedural mechanism, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR; https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/), to protect individuals from breaches of their fundamental rights carried out by state parties to the Convention.
2. FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES TO THE EUROPEAN UNION Wishing to put an end to the war industry on a historical date – 9 May 1950, currently officially Europe Day – and at a solemn venue such as the French Foreign Office, French Minister of Foreign Affairs Robert Schuman issued a promising official declaration offering Germany the opportunity to take part, together with France, in an innovative way forward in search of a durable peace (https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/declaration-of-9-may-1950). The proposal’s key point of departure was that it put in common and under the sole power of an independent European institution the production and trade of the two essential natural resources for war at that time – coal and steel – and suggested the possibility of achieving political stability and a durable peace as midterm objectives. The Ruhr basin between France and Germany had experienced war machinery more than any other place in Europe. Robert Schuman, in a speech drafted by a leader of the World War II resistance, Jean Monnet, invited France to put the exploitation and trade of these resources under a common independent and “supranational” authority, the main organ of a new organisation: the
18
Ana Salinas de Frías
European Coal and Steel Community, the first of the three coming European Communities. The invitation was extended to other allied countries. Germany as well as Italy and the BENELUX (Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg) countries accepted. The UK, most committed to Atlantic interests and to its former colony, the USA, preferred to decline the offer and to propose an alternative and rather less engaging proposal: the EFTA with no supranational institution, that is, without creating any international European institution with the power to adopt legal decisions that could be binding on sovereign states but rather set up on the basis of mere intergovernmental cooperation among MSs. An important remark needs to be underlined: all previously existing international organisations were founded on a strict interpretation of the principle of the absolute sovereignty of states – a cornerstone principle as far as public international law is concerned – whereas the new-born ECSC rested on a constitutive international treaty consented to by all parties (sovereign MSs) that allowed the ECSC High Authority the power of legislating in the areas included in the treaty and made this legislation binding on MSs. Some years later, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) would rule on the so-called supremacy of EU law over domestic law, and even over MSs’ domestic constitutions, as will be seen later. The conferral of this lawmaking power on a European institution was revolutionary at this stage and was only possible due to the restricted scope of the aforementioned constitutive treaty. The ECSC thus inaugurated a new model for an IO: integration and transfer of sovereignty. When using this legislative power, the High Authority would seek to satisfy or cope with collective goals and needs rather than domestic (national/ individual) ones. On 18 April 1951, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg signed the ECSC Treaty, which came into force in 1952. The UK decided to stand aside and instead proposed and encouraged all other Western European states to join the EFTA. The initiative was revealed to be very successful, and the same formula was proposed for setting up two more European organisations, a European (political) Community and a European Community of Defence. Both projects failed, and the six “founding fathers” ultimately gathered in Messina in 1955 at an international conference, the final result of which was the signature in Paris in 1957 of two new treaties establishing two more European Communities: the Economic European Community and the European Community for Atomic Energy (EURATOM). All six ECSC MSs became parties to these new constitutive treaties. The more successful the three European Communities were, the sooner other European countries would wish to join them. As a consequence, from here onwards, a paradox would materialise: the successful alliance of these six European states would need to choose whether to broaden the geographical scope of this strong coalition and allow the membership
Building up the European Union through history. EU competences and values
19
of more European states (by means of signing accession treaties with these new members) or to deepen the supranational power of the new-born organisations by progressively amending the constitutive treaties to transform European institutions and to confer more powers – in particular legislative and judicial powers – on them (by means of consecutive amending treaties).
2.1. EU widening process and the enlargement of the ECs Only six countries from central Europe signed the three constitutive treaties and joined this European integration project at the very beginning. Three of them counted on previous experience, as they had previously established the BENELUX, a customs union among the three countries. The new project engaged the central core of Europe. The absence of the UK was remarkable from the very beginning. However, after the establishment of the EFTA, the British premier applied for accession to the ECs. The French veto prevented the UK from joining the European integration process until 1969, once General De Gaulle had left office and the British Labour government succeeded in its application. The first enlargement allowed the UK, Ireland and Denmark to become new MSs in 1973. Norway, which also applied for membership, finally declined after a negative national referendum result. The three accession treaties were signed, and from that moment on, these three countries practised a certain Euro-scepticism that was manifested as reluctance on their part to enact EU law or accept the EU’s enlarged powers. The second enlargement was simpler in the sense that a single country was accepted as a new member: Greece, the first purely southern Mediterranean country. By 1980, the ECs would be composed of 10 MSs. Soon the widening of the ECs would reach the two major coastal sea states: Portugal and Spain joined the ECs by 1 January 1986, becoming the eleventh and twelfth MSs through this third enlargement. In 1991, when the intergovernmental conference to adopt the so-called Treaty of Maastricht was convoked, negotiations were also in place to accomplish the fourth enlargement, according to which Austria plus three Nordic states – Finland, Norway and Sweden – would join the European Union. Due to the complex issues to be considered at the conference, the decision on the enlargement was postponed. Finally, in 1995, once the Treaty of Maastricht had entered into force, three more states (Austria, Sweden and Finland) became members of the three organisations, with Norway once more stepping away after another consultation with its population. The new enlargement to fifteen MSs was less complex since these new members did not need very important adjustments in order to converge with EU law. Additionally, they were not very populous states, and their political stability was guaranteed.
20
Ana Salinas de FrĂas
The fifth enlargement constituted the riskiest widening of the EU, with most of the former Eastern European countries joining it. The pre-accession period was long as candidate states emerged after the fall of the USSR and the decline of its influence over this part of Europe. The brief experience of these states with democracy, their less powerful economies, and the fact of large populations ready to make prompt use of the four EU freedoms after being absorbed by the EU offered little in favour of this enlargement. However, the need for stability at the external border of the EU could no longer be achieved through the neighbouring policy but by accepting the accession of these states, some of which had gained their independence after the Balkan Wars. In fact, this enlargement has been said to be the real and material end to the Cold War. However, this new enlargement was very complex due to the intrinsic features of the candidate states and the dimensions of the procedure, involving 10 states. Finally, the Athens Treaty allowed the largest EU enlargement to succeed, increasing the organisation to twenty-five MSs. It involved the three Baltic republics, four long-time USSR satellite countries, one former Yugoslavian country and two Mediterranean islands. Bulgaria and Romania also joined the EU in 2007, but they did not enjoy the full effects of their accession, as the free movement of persons was limited until 2011. Finally, on 1 July 2013, Croatia became the 28th MS of the EU.