Treaty Of Amsterdam Research Articles

The Treaty of Amsterdam – Institutional Reform and Innovation

The Treaty of Amsterdam – Institutional Reform and Innovation

Judicial Review of the EU's Informal Migration Tools - Admissibility in Cases of Tunisia and Türkiye Deals

Accountability of the EU in external migration management has become increasingly challenging due to the widespread use of informal tools. Since the Amsterdam Treaty, the EU has exercised this competence primarily through readmission agreements. However, following the urgency of the migration crisis post-2015, coupled with the procedural and legal constraints of readmission agreements and the necessity for flexibility, informal tools like the EU-Turkey Statement (2016) have gained preference over hard law sources. Judicial review of these instruments has only been tested in the case of Türkiye, where the CJEU rejected the case during the admissibility stage. This article evaluates the judicial review of informal migration tools within this context. It does so by examining the potential for annulment against the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (2023) from a procedural perspective, drawing upon criteria derived from the Türkiye case and relevant CJEU jurisprudence. It is concluded that the current criteria regarding the status of applicants are insufficient to bring the EU before the CJEU. Therefore, given the ongoing increase in the use of informal tools, there is a pressing need to reform the procedural rules concerning actions for annulment.

Codification of European Private International Law!

Codification of European Private International Law!

Main treaties of the European Union

The article summarizes the main treaties of the European Union, which in one way or another had a significant impact on its development. It was found that after the end of the Second World War, European leaders decided to protect themselves by uniting into a community. Thus, the first treaty where six states united to create a common coal and steel market was Paris Treaty, which was signed in 1951. Its purpose was to create interdependence of states in coal and steel, so that one state could no longer mobilize its armed forces without the knowledge of the others. This is one of the few treaties that has expired. The following treaties, which became the basis of the European integration movement in Europe, became the Rome Treaties concluded in 1957. As a result, the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community were created. Later, in 1965, the Merger Treaty was signed, the main purpose of which was to streamline the work of European institutions. This agreement has also expired. It was also found that the Single European Act of 1986 reformed the work of the EU institutions in the framework of the Alliance’s preparation for the accession of Portugal and Spain, as well as to speed up the decision-making process in preparation for the creation of the single market. In addition, it was analysed that the Maastricht Treaty was concluded in 1992, which established the modern structure of the EU. In addition, the main purpose of this Treaty is to prepare the European Union for the creation of a monetary union, as well as to introduce the elements of a political union (citizenship, common foreign and domestic policy). Another no less important treaty was concluded in 1997, which was called the Amsterdam Treaty. This Treaty was intended to prepare the EU institutions for future enlargement. It was revealed that in 2001, during the signing of the Nice Treaty, the EU member states determined the need to reform the institutions of the European Union for the purpose of their effective functioning after the expansion to 25 states, to review the system of chairmanship in the Council of the EU. In addition, the last treaty, the main goal of which was to make the EU more democratic, more efficient and capable of solving global problems, was the Lisbon Treaty signed in 2007.

Historical Contextualisation of the Word Loyalty in the Discourse of the European Parliament

This article is an analysis of the meaning of the word loyalty in the discourse of the European Parliament. The European Parliamentary Assembly of the European Economic Community and Euratom replaced the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community. The European Parliament met for the first time in 1958, and initially had a primarily consultative function. However, in the following years, its power increased, and the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Lisbon Treaties transformed it into a legislative body. Together with the Commission, the Council, and the Court of Justice, it forms the complex multi-, inter- and supranational institutional framework of the European Union. Parliamentary discourse can be defined as an argumentative communication genre characterised by official аnd unofficial preconditions. This article examines how loyalty is defined and described in the international parliamentary deliberative discourse with respect to various demands, values, and interests. The research was based on 50 instances of the word loyalty taken from the European Parliament Proceedings Parallel Corpus 1996‒2011, accessed through the web-based system for corpus analysis CQPweb — Lancaster University. The article identifies six meanings of the word loyalty in accordance with the co-text provided by the evidence of quotations and examines the historical context of the development of the European Parliament. The aim of the analysis is to show that a better understanding of the meaning of loyalty in the discourse of the European Parliament depends on the historical contextualisation.

The Challenges of the “Ever Closer Union” Concept and the Protection of the Sovereignty and Constitutional Identity of EU Member States

The concept of an “ever closer Union” has been central to the European project since the Treaty of Rome in 1957. Initially focused on unity among European peoples, subsequent treaties have nuanced this idea, emphasising open and citizen-centric decision-making. This paper explores the evolving dynamics within the European Union, especially regarding the marginalisation of the European Parliament, recurring financial crises, and challenges in freedom, security, and justice. Recent geopolitical events, such as the war in Ukraine, intensified migration, and terrorist attacks within the EU, have catalysed these conflicts, prompting a renewed emphasis on national sovereignty. Against this backdrop, the paper analyses the shifts in the EU’s constitutional framework, considering the Treaty of Amsterdam's addition of transparency and proximity to citizens. The Treaty of Lisbon reaffirmed the commitment to an “ever closer Union,” aligning decisions with citizen concerns. However, crises, particularly those triggered by external events, have led to a re-evaluation of these principles. The paper contends that the EU’s responses to crises have revealed tensions between supranational integration and member states’ desire to safeguard national interests. As the Union navigates these complexities, understanding the evolving role of institutions like the European Parliament becomes crucial. By examining the interplay of sovereignty, crisis response, and institutional dynamics, this paper contributes to the broader discourse on the future trajectory of the European Union.

AN ANALYSIS: REFUGEE CRISIS IN EUROPE

The migration wave caused by the Syrian civil war has spread to neighboring countries, especially Turkey, and the process that has turned into a crisis has started to affect the European continent in many areas. This process, which became symbolic when the lifeless body of a little girl washed up on the southern shores of Turkey and in which many people lost their lives, was on the agenda of the world. The crisis led to administrative and societal issues within the EU, particularly during the sharing of responsibilities. The European Union has taken steps against the crisis with legal infrastructures such as the Amsterdam and Lisbon Treaties, which are elements of regulatory action on immigration problems and are based on the 1951 Immigration Convention. In social terms, the EU countries' inability to convince their citizens to implement certain policies has put them in a difficult situation in domestic politics. This situation was largely exploited by anti-EU right-wing populist parties, who found support among the public and obstructed the progress of the process. In the study, which emerged through the method of literature review, it was observed that while the EU appeared to have sufficient legal infrastructure, the reluctance of EU countries to take initiative based on domestic politics hindered the management of the problem.

Philosophy of Law or Philosophy of Reason –The Idea of a Treaty Establishing a Constitution for the European Union

The main purpose of the study is to analyze the feasibility and necessity of an EU Constitution. Briefly, the history of the draft constitution is as follows: The draft treaty aims to codify the two main treaties of the European Union - the Treaty of Rome of 1957 and the Treaty of Maastricht of 1992, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) and the Treaty of Nice (2001). The debate on the future of Europe is believed to have begun with a speech by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in Berlin in 2000. The process began after the Laeken Declaration, when the European Convention was set up, chaired by former French President Valerie Giscard d'Estaing, with the aim of drafting a constitution. The draft contract was published in July 2003. After lengthy discussions and debates over the proposal for qualified majority voting, the final text was approved in June 2004 and signed by representatives of the Member States on 29 October 2004. The failure of the treaty in France and the Netherlands is a serious blow to the European Union because these two countries are considered to be loyal supporters of the European project. The text of the treaty was subsequently rewritten by the Amato Group, officially the Active Committee on European Democracy (ACED), a group of high-ranking European politicians. During the German presidency of the Union, a new treaty was proposed - the Treaty of Lisbon - to replace the original draft of the Constitution. On 12 June 2008, the Lisbon Treaty was also rejected in a referendum in Ireland. But if we want to look beyond history, we can ask - Why does the EU need a Constitution and how can the Constitution be the roadmap to an advanced future for the EU? The answers to this question can be found by analyzing several directions (these are the main points of the article): historical reflexivity; socio-cultural analysis of the philosophical concepts of well-known political and social philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, John Locke; the modern constellation through the prism of Jürgen Habermas and the decision to make a text as a Constitution which its aim is to reach the starting point of an entire community like the EU. Keywords: constitution, EU, philosophy, law, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Jurgen Habermas

Experience of legal regulation of copyright in the European Union: search for ways to harmonize the legislation of Ukraine.

This article reveals the peculiarity of the legal regulation of copyright as a component of intellectual property in the legal system of the European Union, primarily through the prism of the study of the stages of its formation and development.
 Within the framework of this article, the stages of formation and development of the copyright institution from the time of the founding of the European Economic Community to the present time were investigated. Important attention is paid to the study of copyright regulation in the provisions of the founding treaties of the European Union, in particular in the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, the Treaty on the European Union (Maastricht Treaty), the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Treaty of Nice, the Treaty of Lisbon and the sources of "secondary law" of the European Union, in particular, directives, regulations, decisions of the European Parliament and the Council on the harmonization of intellectual property rights of the member states of the European Union.
 The position is argued, according to which at the initial stages of the formation of the legal system of the European Union in terms of the legal regulation of copyright, an approach was used, according to which the legal acts did not establish direct requirements for its legal regulation and instead established provisions that would contribute to the formation of the functioning of the common market of the European Union. It is noted that parallel to the "primary sources" of the European Union, the sources of "secondary law" were formed. It was noted that a special place in the legal regulation of copyright in the European Union was played by the directives, which, being binding on the member states to which they were addressed, left the freedom of choice of the form and methods of their implementation to the national bodies of the latter.
 In order to achieve the goal, the author used the methods characteristic of legal science. The research was conducted primarily using the historical-legal, comparative-legal, formal-legal method and the dialectical method of learning legal reality.
 On the basis of the conducted research, the author comes to the conclusion that the law of the European Union is characterized by a rather exhaustive list of sources, their hierarchy, as a result of which this law is well organized, systematized and internally agreed. It was established that the formation of European intellectual property rights took place on the one hand under the influence of international law, and on the other hand, the peculiarities of the legal regulation of copyright in the member states.

Zdrowie publiczne w europejskiej polityce zdrowotnej

Public health encompasses a wide range of activities related to almost all aspects of the society’s health. Public health influences the shape of social and health policy of the state, and cooperates with all socio-economic sectors and social organizations. The goal of public health is to reduce morbidity rate, premature deaths and conditions leading to suffering and disability. Public health activities in the European Union are determined by specific regulations which include: the Treaty of Maastricht, the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Treaty of Lisbon. The Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection is responsible for the implementation of health policy in the European Union. Other institutions include: Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC), European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), European Medicines Eval uation Agency (EMEA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Environment Agency (EEA), European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU – OSHA), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The European Union plays a significant role in the organization and functioning of health care systems in the Member States. The activities of the European Union determine the directions of cooperation in health services, aimed at the creation of supranational, highly specialized centres focusing on rare medical concerns and problems that require very specific and expensive medical procedures.

Institut unaprijeđene saradnje u pravu Evropske unije - očekivanja i postignuti rezultati

The Institute of Enhanced Cooperation (EnC) was introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) but it was made more flexible and operational by the Treaty of Lisbon (2007). Its main objective was to overcome the blockages in the law-making process, as well as to strengthen the cooperation among EU member states and deepen the integration process in specific areas. In this paper, the authors examine the institute of enhanced cooperation as a form of flexible and differentiated integration. The authors first present a brief historical overview of the legal regulation of this institute in the provisions of the founding treaties of the EU. Then, they provide an overview of the sources of law adopted within the framework of enhanced cooperation in certain areas of Private International Law, and particularly for the purpose of establishing the European Public Prosecutor's Office. Based on the analysis of a number of legal acts adopted within this institute, the authors draw a conclusion that the institute of enhanced cooperation has only partially justified its contractually defined role. Viewed from the perspective of the legal order of the European Union as a whole, this institute requires special attention due to the particularities of its application, which ultimately entails different solutions in the EU member states on certain issues of particular importance for legal and natural persons in the Union. There is no doubt that this institute provides many opportunities to the EU member states in terms of realizing or deepening their cooperation in certain issues, particularly if it is perceived as a stage on the way to establishing general, common rules for all member states. However, its application may challenge the unity and the integral structure of the EU legal order. It may also be inconsistent with some of the basic EU legal principles which have been continuously strengthened and expanded by the Court of Justice of the EU. Above all, it refers to the principle of unity of the legal order, the principle of prohibition of discrimination on the basis of citizenship, and the principle of legal certainty.

The Human Perspective in Consumer Ethics and Animal Welfare Issues: Envisioning a Future for Change

Animal welfare has been a subject of interest for the European Union since the 1970s, with the definition of animal protection guidelines during international transport, on farms and for slaughter. However, the Legislator’s concern found its highest expression in the Animal Welfare Protocol of the Treaty of Amsterdam, where animals are defined as sentient beings, therefore worthy of attention in the policies developed by the European Union and its Member States. Nowadays, the interpretation of the animal welfare concept as an element that contributes to increasing profitability is also integrated by respect for the animal’s feelings and, consequently, the related different biological manifestations. Food scandals and diseases, on the one hand, and the emergence of a new approach to consumer ethics, on the other, have also strongly sensitized the European population about the importance of protecting animal welfare. Based on the above considerations, this study provides a framework to understand whether animal welfare should merely be considered as a product of EU strategies dedicated to the economic and competitive performance of agricultural and agro-industrial enterprises or whether it can also be assessed as a useful tool to minimize the environmental impact, through breeding practices and food habits, and therefore encourage more sustainable development.

The Future of the Common European Asylum System: Dystopian or Utopian Expectations?

After the end of the Cold War, a decade started within which the idea of European unity gained considerable traction. The Maastricht Treaty transformed the Economic Community into the European Union and the scope of collaboration between its member states widened to include justice and home affairs. By the end of the decade, it had become clear this was not enough to address the challenges caused by refugee migration. Thus the Amsterdam Treaty aimed at proper joint policy and law‐making in the sphere of migration and asylum. This ought to be done with full respect to the 1951 Refugee Convention. By 2004, when the Union was joined by ten new member states, the essence of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) had been formulated and turned into Regulations and Directives as part of the Union’s body of common law. The system was further fine‐tuned during the next decade, but during the 2015 “refugee crisis” the system collapsed for lack of solidarity and solid agreements on responsibility‐sharing between the member states. Since then, the single goal member states share is that asylum seekers and refugees are best kept from finding a way into Europe—for once they arrive political stress is the unavoidable consequence. Paradoxically, precisely the ideal of a CEAS has introduced practices that deviate from the EU’s norms regarding international protection. This thematic issue reviews some of those issues but also finds examples of harmonization and good practices.

The role of soft law in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities in the EU: A ‘hybridity’ approach to EU disability law

AbstractThis article discusses the role of soft law in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities in the European Union (EU). In doing so, it revisits the emergence of the standalone, yet cross‐cutting, field of ‘EU disability law’ through the lens of the ‘hybridity theory’ advanced inter alia by Trubek and Trubek. Being speculative in nature, this article construes EU disability law as a fruitful area for an enquiry into the dynamic relationship between hard and soft law. Until the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, soft law was crucial to attract disability within the sphere of action of the EU and to embed the social model of disability, displaying a value‐setting role. In the post‐Amsterdam period, soft law and hard law coexisted, being complementary to one another. Both contributed to a common objective, namely that of advancing equality of opportunities for persons with disabilities. After the conclusion of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the dynamic relationship between hard and soft law has become more complex and akin to what Trubek and Trubek define as ‘transformation’.

Issues related to Cultural Heritage in the Practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The paper is devoted to the study of the Court of Justice of the European Union practice on cases related to cultural heritage. The author highlights important aspects connected with the judicial institution jurisdiction in this area and the European Union as whole, names the issues on which it is possible to apply to the Court of Justice of the European Union to ensure the protection of cultural heritage. The author also outlines the thematic focus of cases related to cultural heritage considered by this judicial institution, highlights the roles of cultural heritage reflected in the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The author dwells upon the issues of conflict before the judicial institution under consideration of economic interests (in particular, the interests of freedom of movement of goods) and cultural considerations, including the protection of cultural heritage. An attempt is made to interpret certain provisions of Art. 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which is central in this context. Case studies from the Court of Justice of the European Union illustrate its long-standing skepticism about culturally based derogations from the single market, which has not changed much in the wake of the cultural innovations of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam. The author concludes that in the event of a confrontation before the Court of the European Union between national considerations for the protection of cultural heritage and the interests of the single market of the European Union, in particular the freedom of movement of goods, this judicial institution tends to give priority to the considered economic interests of this integration association.

Why Does Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 Provide for the Imposition of Penalties Only on Undertakings?: A Historical Perspective

According to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission may impose any fines for the breach of substantive competition rules only on ‘undertakings’. The provision does not contemplate the imposition of fines on individuals considered responsible for the conduct of the undertaking concerned, even though, as explained in this article, this position is not imposed by the relevant legal basis (Article 83 EC [the Treaty establishing the European Community in the version following the Treaty of Amsterdam], corresponding to Article 87 EEC Treaty [the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community in its version of 1957] and the present Article 103 TFEU [the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]) That legal basis would indeed allow such liability to be established. From a policy point of view, however, it is often argued that sanctions should also be imposed on such individuals. This raises the question as to why the Union legislator chose not to provide for corresponding powers on the Commission’s part. From the relevant legislative history exposed in this article, it emerges that the approach of Article 23(2)(a) ultimately originates from the ECSC Treaty [theTreaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community]. In this latter context, it reflected the particular limits placed by its authors on that Treaty. It did not reflect the contemporary orientations at national level regarding punitive sanctions. The approach gradually found its way into Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 without any further specific discussion on the way, despite the different context offered by the relevant provisions of the EEC/EC Treaty. It was first transplanted into Regulation No 11, based on Article 79 EEC Treaty (today Article 95 TFEU) and concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions. The negotiations preceding the adoption of this Regulation brought to light strong reserves regarding the conferral of sanctioning powers upon the (then) EEC, and it was no doubt unrealistic to expect that it would have been granted powers more far-reaching than those available under the ECSC Treaty. When Regulation No 17 (and specifically Article 15) was elaborated, the drafters were aware of the scheme established by Regulation No 11, which served as a reference. No genuine discussion regarding possible powers to punish the persons considered responsible for the conduct of the ‘undertaking’ took place. It is likely that any such innovation would not have been realistic at that point. Lastly, the reform brought about by Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 focused on other aspects regarding the implementation of competition law, and the scheme of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 has been taken over into Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2013 without major changes. No consideration was given to the possible imposition of penalties on natural persons implicated in the commission of breaches of competition law. EU antitrust sanctions, European Commission, individual sanctions, Regulation No. 1/ 2003, Regulation No 17, Regulation No 11, ECSC Treaty, history

Who owns public spaces? The trailblazer exhibition on women’s everyday life in the City of Vienna (1991)

ABSTRACT This article contributes to shedding light, documenting, and disseminating a pioneer event that has not been part of the recorded history of urban planning. In 1991, two feminist engineers working at the City of Vienna’s Urban Planning Office organized a ground-breaking exhibition with the aim of understanding gender bias in urban design. The event exceeded their prospects in an unanticipated way. Since 1991, the City of Vienna led the way to the conceptualization of gender mainstreaming that was happening at the European level – and that did not take place until 1997, when the Amsterdam Treaty came into effect. In 1992, the City of Vienna established the Women’s Office, with authority in urban affairs. Paradoxically, the success of the exhibition did not allow the organizers to properly document and preserve it, nor was it conserved in the City’s Archive. This unprecedented research relies on unreleased archival material gathered from the personal archives of the exhibition’s photographers, as well as from ad-hoc interviews with the organizers, Jutta Kleedorfer and Eva Kail. Thirty years later, the City of Vienna is known for this approach to urban planning. The exhibition ‘Who Owns Public Spaces? Women’s Everyday Life in the City’ was the turning point.

Innere Sicherheit im System der Europäischen Union: Politiken, Kompetenzen und Herausforderungen für rechtsstaatliche Standards

This article analyses the European Union’s (EU) internal security policy as a core element of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) established by the Treaty of Amsterdam in the 1990s. In official EU internal security documents, the AFSJ has been gradually replaced by the label Security Union since the mid-2010s. Even if internal security became a fully integrated part of the new EU when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force in 2009, the member states’ governments and intergovernmental patterns still play an important role in this policy area, as security agencies and justice institutions still differ significantly between the member states. Despite the increased importance of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the member states’ strong role and the trend towards a Security Union are challenges for the establishment of rule-of-law style internal security structures in the EU.

ДИНАМИКА ЗАКОНОТВОРЧЕСКОГО ПРОЦЕССА В ОБЛАСТИ ЕДИНОГО ВНУТРЕННЕГО РЫНКА ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СОЮЗА

The article examines the variety of factors that can influence the speed of decision-making in the European Union in the area of the Single Market (SM), and also assesses the degree of such influence. We use quantitative analysis methods based on spatial analysis and the Cox model to determine which factors accelerate and which ones slow down the legislative process in the area of the SM during the period from 1990 to 2019. The results of our work show that the speed of decision-making in the field of the SM is influenced by the same factors as the legislative process in the EU in general, namely: a type and complexity of a legislative act, an institutional and a regulatory framework that determines a decision-making procedure. We conclude that only the Amsterdam Treaty and the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2007 have significantly accelerated the decision-making process. We’ve managed to identify a fundamental difference regarding the legislative process in the area of the SM. In contrast to secondary legislation in general in the area of the SM a decision-making procedure (consultation or regular legislative procedure) does not affect the speed of decision-making. We found out that out of seven strategic documents, only two had given a significant impetus to the development of the SM. These features of decision-making process in the area of SM constitute a basis for further research and the proposed methods of analysis can be extended in order to assess integration dynamics in other areas of regulation in integration entities.

On the Lack of a General Part for EU Private International Law

The question of a general part for EU Private International Law has attracted research and debate among PIL scholars long before the EU started to codify this legal field after the Amsterdam Treaty. However, the EU has made no attempt to make use of the existing research to adopt a comprehensive regulation of the general part of EU PIL and has adopted sector-specific regulation with inconsistent regulation of several general institutes. For the occasion of the anniversary of the Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien this paper revisits the topic to answer the question which institutes of PIL should be codified in a general part of EU PIL. The conclusions are made based on four criteria: which general institutes of PIL are already regulated in the EU; are they generally applicable to all special parts of EU PIL; what is their practical relevance; and is there a need for their uniform regulation. The paper analyzes the discrepancies between existing general institutes of EU PIL and offers brief discussions on the possible formulation of some of the institutes for the general part.