Lisbon Treaty Research Articles

HARMONIZATION OR UNIFICATION? – INSTRUMENTS FOR A MORE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION OF THE FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

The objective of the article is to analyse the efforts of the European Union for the protection of its financial interests. The first part of the paper sets out the brief historical development of the criminal law protection of the financial interests of the European Union with particular emphasis on the strengthened and reinforced legal framework provided by the Treaty of Lisbon. The second part of the study focuses to the newly adopted Directive of the EU on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law. However, the paper does not intend to analyse the provisions of the Directive in details, it only aims to examine whether it can provide for an effective and unified protection to the financial interests of the European Union.

Unboxing the Conference on the Future of Europe: A Preliminary View on its Democratic Raison-d’être and Participatory Architecture

As the European Union undergoes a major, self-proclaimed democratic exercise – the Conference on the Future of Europe –, this article offers a preliminary assessment of the Conference’s participatory architecture and, more broadly, its democratic raison d’etre. After reconstructing the genesis of the Conference by rehearsing the standard account of this initiative, it offers an alternative account, aimed at contextualizing the Conference within past attempts at reforming the Union and framing it as potentially compensating for the lack of a genuine, pan-EU political and media space. The article then moves to unpack the Conference’s participatory design by discussing its legal basis, overall architecture and governance. While it would be naive political solutionism to expect that this ad hoc democratic innovation initiative will magically address the EU democratic malaise, the Conference’s embedded experimentalism can be seen as a promising first step towards the realization of the legitimacy-enhancing potential of participation, as it was originally conceived in the Constitutional Treaty and eventually resurrected into the Treaty of Lisbon. A few concluding remarks suggest that the Conference’s success should not be measured against the sole prospect of Treaty reform, but rather its ability to offer both EU institutions and its citizens a foretaste of a more intelligible, deliberative, and therefore more inclusive, transnational Europe.

Enhancement of the European Parliament's Monitoring for Better Coherence between Trade Policy and Non-Trade Policy Objectives (Ntpos)

Since the Treaty of Lisbon, trade policy has become an explicit part of the EU's external policy and integrated into the general framework of the EU´s external policy, but must also be in conformity with internal policies. Thus, trade policy is subject to a requirement of multiple coherence. Beyond constitutional obligations, other drivers work for the inclusion of non-genuine commercial policy objectives in trade policy, such as the orientation of contemporary trade politics towards the behind the border issues of national regulation, so that trade policy became closely intertwined with domestic regulatory policy. Therefore the actors primarily responsible for legislation, i.e. parliaments, advocate for their extended participation in determining trade policy, and rightly so for reasons of transparency, control and political inclusiveness. Parliaments thus become actors of respect for and positive consideration of non-commercial policy objectives in trade policy, which applies as well to the European Parliament (EP). Hence, an institutional design of policy formulation cycles and decision-making in EU trade policy that strives for better coherence of trade concerns with NTPOs must focus on strengthening the influence of the EP and improve its participatory rights in decision-making and its control and monitoring mechanisms. Consequently, the present paper derives proposals for improving EP´s monitoring mechanisms for the benefit of non-trade policy objectives (NTPOs) in trade policy from an analysis of weaknesses in the negotiation and implementation stage of trade policy.

Shaping New Interregionalism: The EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement and Beyond

The article examines the theoretical concept of interregionalism in the context of the evolving framework between the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). As the EU’s first free trade agreement (FTA) with an ASEAN country, the EU-Singapore FTA is a pathfinder agreement that signifies a new phase of interregionalism and the EU’s new Asia strategy after the Treaty of Lisbon. The article argues that the innovative designs of the EU-Singapore FTA will shape the normative development of EU-ASEAN relations in the post-pandemic era. It also cautions that a comparative analysis of EU and US agreements reveals deficiencies in the FTA that requires remedies. To buttress the contention, key provisions on ASEAN cumulative rules of origin, banking and legal services and non-tariff barriers are analyzed in light of contemporary Asian agreements. The research further provides insight into the effectiveness of new-generation rules on geographical indications, competition, and investor-state arbitration and mediation. Hence, the findings contribute to the understanding of interregionalism and the EU’s Asia-Pacific trade and investment agreements from global and interdisciplinary perspectives.

О трансформации института политических партий в эпоху глобализации на примере Европы

Received 30.10.2020. The article examines the processes of formation and institutionalization of pan-European parties (Europarties) as a new institution in the party-political system of the European Union. This institution emerged relatively recently in the mid‑1970s, on the eve of the first European elections in 1979. The main stages of institutionalization of European parties and their factions in the European Parliament are presented. The article shows the key differences between this type of a party and traditional political parties as well as the way relations between the European parties and national parties from the EU member states are developing. It analyzes the current state of these parties and the impact of the most important challenges that the European Union has faced in the last decade: the global financial and economic crisis, the migration crisis in Europe, Brexit, and the coronavirus pandemic. The article considers the legal basis for ensuring the functioning of these parties, which is contained in the Lisbon Treaty, and a number of other fundamental acts of the European Union regulating the activities of its political system. The results of the 2014 and 2019 pan-European parliamentary elections are analyzed; it is shown how positions of the leading European parties represented in the European Parliament have changed. The reasons for the change in the electoral results of these parties, including the growing popularity of Eurosceptic parties, are indicated. It is noted to which EU member states the most popular European parties belong, and what the reason for this distribution is. The article presents new trends in the development of the Institute of European parties associated with an active use of new communication technologies in party building, as well as the emergence of a new type of European parties that advocate the federalization of the European Union.

The Politics of Differentiated Integration: What do Governments Want? Country Report - Portugal

This country report analyses the salience and position of differentiated integration (DI) in Portugal in the period between 2004-2020. Employing a quantitative and a qualitative analysis, it first examines the salience of DI models and mechanisms for the successive Portuguese governments using documents such as government programmes, Prime-Minister speeches, parliamentary debates, and statements by the Prime Minister in European Council meetings. Secondly, it reviews governments’ general positions on DI, while zooming in on four peaks of salience: the Lisbon Treaty, the debate on the Unitary Patent, the financial crisis and the discussions on the Financial Transaction Tax and the Fiscal Compact, and the White Paper on the Future of Europe. The results from the salience analysis demonstrate a low saliency of differentiated integration (DI) and, more generally, European integration in Portugal. DI models were more salient than DI mechanisms, while DI instances are the most salient. Salience was enhanced by an increasing intersection between domestic and European politics during the euro crisis period, politicising the debate especially around DI instances of an economic nature. The position of Portuguese governments regarding DI during the period analysed was overwhelmingly negative. In general, this stance was also shared by the opposition parties. Over the period of analysis, a wide consensus stood out among Portuguese political parties that DI models clearly go against both the European – by risking a disaggregation of the EU – and the national interest – by possibly pushing Portugal into an even more peripheral position. Notwithstanding this generally negative view of DI, mainstream parties – which alternated in government during the timeframe of the analysis – viewed the enhanced co-operation mechanism in a generally positive manner, recognising its potential to promote advances in European integration when the EU faced critical deadlocks.

The State's Intervention in the System of Loss Distribution in the Event of an Imbalance in German Banks in the Light of Selected Principles and Requirements of the European Economic Constitution in the Lisbon Treaty

The State's Intervention in the System of Loss Distribution in the Event of an Imbalance in German Banks in the Light of Selected Principles and Requirements of the European Economic Constitution in the Lisbon Treaty

Uma década de política europeia de investimento estrangeiro – balanço e perspetivas futuras

Since the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force in 2009, the European Union has been implementing the new competence in the area of foreign direct investment. All European institutions were actively involved in this process. I briefly analyze the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this process, establishing the links between Opinion 2/15 (EU/Singapore); Achmea Case and Opinion 1/17 (CETA), explaining why they are relevant in the overall framework of EU Foreign Investment policy, as it stands today, and what measures are needed to have an EU policy that is more coherent and uniformly applicable to all investors in the EU market.

„One too much“: Europa braucht einen (nicht zwei) Präsidenten – ein Plädoyer für mehr Effizienz, geopolitische Glaubwürdigkeit und demokratische Legitimation an der Spitze der Europäischen Union

The executive of the European Union (EU) is currently led by two Presidents: the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council. This double Presidency is the result of a compromise between the supranational and the intergovernmental schools of thoughts at the European Convention 2002/2003. However, in practice, the interplay of the two Presidents and their competencies, which are not always clearly separated by the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, occasionally leads to inefficiencies or even conflict in the external representation of the EU. This is why former Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker proposed, on 13 September 2017, to merge the functions of the two Presidents by always electing the President of the Commission as President of the European Council. The article explains the rationale of the Juncker proposal, which has the potential to make the EU easier to understand for its citizens and more efficient geopolitically, while overcoming the artificial distinction between national and European interests in the leadership of the Union. The current debate about the future of the EU and its more effective positioning in global affairs appears to be a good moment to look again at the Juncker proposal, which could be implemented without the need to change the Treaties.

FURTHER TRANSFORMATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC IN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING THE 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

The amendments to the provisions of the French Constitution concerning the branches of government, the President of the Republic, administrative-territorial entities, the interaction of public authorities of France with the institutions of the European Union are analyzed. Both restrictions and expansion of the powers of the President, expansion of the powers of the Parliament, further settlement of its relations with the Government have been established. Parliament is given the right to adopt resolutions, discuss bills and legislative proposals on the texts of chambers, form the agenda of their sittings, control the activities of the Government and specify the role of the Accounting Chamber, determine the procedure for approving resolutions condemning the activities of the Government. on a specific topic. Requirements for the formation of the Constitutional Council and its members have been increased, its role in monitoring the correctness of all referendum measures on revision of the Constitution, ratification of the treaty on accession of any state to the European Union, etc., in exercising preliminary control over acts that have not yet entered into force , she is given the right in case of human rights violations to make a decision in her defense. The structure of the High Council of Magistracy has been changed (it includes one panel authorized for judges and another panel authorized for prosecutors), its composition has been increased, the procedure of its activity has been modernized, participants in court proceedings have been given the opportunity to apply directly to the High Council Of the High Chamber of Justice, types of criminal liability of members of the Government, reason and procedure for removal of the President from office, the powers of the Economic, Social and Environmental Council were expanded, the position of a human rights defender was established, certain powers and functions were defined, the powers of administrative-territorial entities were modernized, the powers of the French authorities to interact with EU institutions were partially changed. related to the principle of subsidiarity and its observance under the Lisbon Treaty of 2007.

„Handlowe aspekty własności intelektualnej” jako część Wspólnej Polityki Handlowej – konsekwencje dla bezpośredniej skuteczności TRIPS

Przedmiot badań: Nieustanny rozwój technologiczny sprawia, że znaczenie własności inte­lektualnej rośnie, a ochrona prawna m.in. wynalazków nabiera ogromnego znaczenia, zwłasz­cza dla państw, których gospodarki oparte są na innowacyjności. Na przestrzeni lat Wspólna Polityka Handlowa Unii Europejskiej podlegała zmianom traktatowym, co skutkowało m.in. ewolucją jej zakresu przedmiotowego. Również charakter kompetencji Wspólnot Europejskich, a następnie Unii Europejskiej w tym zakresie zmieniał się. Jednym z najistotniejszych, a zara­zem powodującym najwięcej kontrowersji jest kwestia skutku bezpośredniego TRIPS w pań­stwach członkowskich Unii Europejskiej. Istotność tego zagadnienia wynika z postanowień TRIPS, które gwarantują minimalny zakres ochrony praw własności intelektualnej. Cel badawczy: Autor zmierza do ustalenia, jakim zakresem kompetencji dysponuje Unia Euro­pejska w odniesieniu do TRIPS. Artykuł ma na celu odpowiedzenie na pytanie – jak ewolucja Wspólnej Polityki Handlowej Unii Europejskiej wpłynęła na stosowanie TRIPS w państwach członkowskich Unii Europejskiej.
 Metoda badawcza: W artykule wykorzystano głównie metody: formalno-dogmatyczną oraz hi­storyczno-prawną. W zakresie badania orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości posłużono się metodą empiryczno-prawną.1
 Wyniki: Charakter kompetencji Wspólnot Europejskich, a następnie Unii Europejskiej w odnie­sieniu do Wspólnej Polityki Handlowej zmieniał się wraz ze zmianami postanowień traktatów. Od dnia wejścia w życie Traktatu z Lizbony (1.12.2009 r.) Wspólna Polityka Handlowa wchodzi w zakres jej kompetencji wyłącznych oraz obejmuje handlowe aspekty własności intelektualnej. Orzecznictwo Trybunału Sprawiedliwości potwierdziło, że TRIPS w całości objęty jest kompe­tencją UE, z czego mogłoby wynikać, że dla oceny skutku bezpośredniego jego postanowień miarodajne są – wbrew kontrowersjom w uprzednim stanie prawnym, gdy TRIPS miał charakter tzw. umowy mieszanej – unijne reguły skutku bezpośredniego. Z drugiej strony, Trybunał nie zdecydował się na zakwestionowanie dotychczasowego orzecznictwa w tym zakresie, co może prowadzić do wniosku, że odmowa skutku bezpośredniego TRIPS pozostaje w mocy. Niemniej problem stracił na znaczeniu praktycznym, bowiem postanowienia TRIPS zostały (po zakończeniu okresów przejściowych) recypowane do prawa krajowego państw członkowskich.

Court of Justice of the European Union: historiography of European sources published in the period 1957-1992

Before proceeding to the analysis and characterization of foreign publications, all the sources we found were systematized according to the time criterion, according to which all the publications found, which in one way or another examined the Court of Justice, we divided into three periods, namely: I period (1957–1992); II period (1992–2007); III period (2007-present). The division was based on the periodization of the development of European integration, or rather its main stages. And the period – the creation and functioning of the European Communities (from the Treaties of Rome to the signing of the Maastricht Treaty); II period – the formation of the European Union (signing of the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice treaties); Period III – the functioning of the European Union in its modern form (after the signing of the Lisbon Treaty and until now). Thanks to this systematization, we were able to demonstrate what topics were relevant among scholars in a particular period of development of integration and functioning of the Court of Justice. The main presentation of the material is devoted to the results of the analysis of foreign scientific publications concerning the principles of organization and functioning of the Court of Justice published in the period 1957–1992. We found that most scientific papers were published by scientists from Great Britain, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, France which account for a significant share of the work of judges and Advocates-General of the Court of Justice. All foreign sources published in this period were analyzed by us on the subject of research and grouped by subject. Thus, we found that in the period 1957–1992.current research topics on the Court of Justice of the EU were: protection of individuals in the EU law and order; methods of interpretation in the decision of the Court of Justice of the EU; judicial control in the EU; the legal nature of the interaction between national judicial institutions and the Court of Justice and their impact on the uniform application of the Community legal order and its organic combination with the national legal order; judicial activism; principles of EU law; the role of EU judges in the development of European integration. Keywords: EU Court, judicial activism, EU legal order, principles of EU law, EU court decision.

A divided European data protection framework: a critical reflection on the choices of the European legislator post-Lisbon

The Lisbon Treaty introduced Article 16 in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which establishes the right to data protection. Article 16 TFEU offers the legal basis for the adoption of a framework that ensures the uniform application of data protection rules in all areas of EU law. During the major reform of the secondary European data protection legal framework, the European legislator chose to adopt the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Law Enforcement Directive (LED) as the main legal instruments regulating data protection, instead of opting for one single legal instrument. The GDPR and the LED are complemented with a number of provisions and acts that draw a patchwork of data protection rules depriving the European Union from a harmonised framework. This chapter explores the complex web of provisions in the EU legal framework, focusing on the EU primary law, presents the options that existed in the hands of the European legislator and makes reflections on the favouring of a divided system in European data protection regulation.

Book review: The European polis by George Schöpflin

George Schöpflin’s latest monograph provides a unique understanding of the politics of contemporary Europe in two ‘interconnected essays’. The first part focuses on a comprehensive interpretation of the EU’s political community, the European polis. The author argues that political innovation has slowed considerably in the last decade, particularly after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force and the EU was gradually transformed into a punitive polis. The second part of the book focuses on the relationship between Central Europe and the European Union. Central Europe is European, but differently European. The shortcomings of the Eastern enlargement, Central Europe’s misadventure in the European Union and the unseen and unintended consequences of the 2004–2007–2011 enlargement waves all contributed to the development of a troubled relationship between the EU and its new members. The volume combines both theoretical and practical aspects, making it a relevant contribution to European Studies literature.

EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE: A PARTICIPATORY INSTRUMENT TO STRENGTHEN EUROPEAN GENERAL PUBLIC FOR THE PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT

The Lisbon Treaty introduced the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) as a mechanism to strengthen citizen participation and to obviate the gap between the EU and the citizens. It aims to encourage EU-wide debates and to involve citizens in the decision-making process at the EU level by providing a mechanism of legislative initiative in which new actors could participate in the EU legislative procedure. ECI enables organized civil societies and citizens to have a voice in influencing the EU policy beyond mere information transfer and discussion and therefore can represent a remarkable stage for transnational democracy in the EU by contributing to the establishment of a shared political platform for ordinary citizens. It also provides individuals with a great opportunity to place neglected or politically controversial themes on the agenda of the EU directly. Hence the ECI might be a convenient tool for the protection of the environment. However, there remain obstacles which impede the progression of the ECI to become an effective and sufficient component of participatory democracy.

ВОПРОС О СИСТЕМЕ РАЗРЕШЕНИЯ СПОРОВ В НОВЫХ ИНВЕСТИЦИОННЫХ СОГЛАШЕНИЯХ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СОЮЗА

The system of resolving international investment disputes has been subjected to intense criticism from the professional and lay public in recent decades. The lack of transparency, predictability, coherence of arbitration awards and legitimacy of the investment arbitration system has led to an increase in efforts to reform the existing system. The European Union is not only one of the most vocal critics of the current system, but also one of its most active reformers. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the European Union has acquired exclusive competence in the realm of foreign direct investment as part of the common commercial policy. From that moment on, the European Commission began negotiating free trade agreements, many of which also include investment chapters. The most important ones are the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement concluded between the European Union and Canada (2016), Agreement on Investment between the European Union and Singapore (2018), Agreement on Investment between the European Union and Vietnam (2019), as well as the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment between the European Union and People’s Republic of China, which has been agreed in principle at the end of 2020, even though the agreement has not yet been formally signed. In these treaties the European Union seeks to push for reform steps leading to the adjustment of the system for resolving international investment disputes in that they introduce a new system of investment courts that will gradually lead to the establishment of the multilateral investment court with the option of appeal at an appellate instance. This would undoubtedly increase the credibility, legitimacy and transparency of the entire system of internatnional investment dispute settlement. This paper aims to summarize, on the basis of an analysis of the relevant provisions of the trade and investment agreements concluded by the European Union over the last decade, the practical progress made by the European Union in reforming the international investment dispute settlement system. Since none of these treaties has become fully effective yet due to the lacking ratification of all EU member states, it will take several more years before we see full practical implementation of the discussed provisions.

THE ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EURPEAN UNION IN FORMING THE CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVE DOMINANCE

Antitrust regulation ensures fair competition, which can be undermined by private business entities in the form of distorted conditions of competition through the abuse of dominance. The material content of competition rules in the European Union, which were formulated in the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, remained unchanged in the current Lisbon Treaty on the functioning of the EU. However, the array of legal instruments has undergone fundamental changes throughout the entire existence of the European Community, and subsequently the European Union, due to the transformation of law enforcement practice. In connection with the strengthening of the processes of digitalization, globalization, trade liberalization and the opening of national markets, ensuring fair competition in a market economy becomes a priority task not only for domestic, but also for international legal regulation. In this context, the role of the European Commission is increasing not only as a law enforcement body under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the TFEU), but as the institution capable of determining the further direction of development of legal regulation of market dominance within the EU, applying its own approaches to the concept of dominance. The European Commission, as the main enforcement agency in the field of competition, has significantly developed the concept of dominance and consolidated the regulations under Article 102 of the TFEU in the corresponding document – Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. The European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union have significantly developed the practice of applying and interpreting Article 102 TFEU. This is due to the fact that Article 102 of the TFEU includes an inexhaustible list of examples of abuse of a monopoly (dominant) position, thus providing a certain discretion to the Commission in the application of Article 102 of the TFEU, and the Court of Justice of the EU in its interpretation. The concept of collective dominance has been developed within the TFEU related cases and in the Council Merger Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . A cornerstone in the further development of this concept is the criteria established in the Airtours / First Choice case.

Towards a European Constitution? The European Parliament and the Institutional Reform of the European Communities 1979-84

Drawing on archival sources of the European Parliament (EP), the EP Groups, and Spinelli’s private papers as well as contemporary media reports and 13 semi-structured interviews with eyewitnesses, this article examines the EP’s attempt to foster European union after its first direct election in 1979. In tracing the conflicts and compromises within the EP during the preparation of its Draft Treaty on European Union (DTEU) the article makes a three-fold argument. First, it demonstrates how this internal process enhanced cross-party cooperation on institutional reform in the EP. Second, it shows how the EP’s work on institutional reform impacted the inter-institutional dynamics with the European Commission and the European Council. Third, it elaborates how the DTEU, although not ratified, nevertheless constituted an important constitutional marker with long-term effects on European integration until the 2009 Lisbon Treaty.

Two sides of the contemporary system of quasi-legislative acts of the Commission of the European Union

The scientific article is devoted to the issue of complex legal analysis of both advantages and disadvantages of the contemporary system of Commission’s quasi-legislative acts which is composed of implementing and delegated acts. Commission’s implementing and delegated acts play a crucial role in the EU, but the abusive application by the EU legislator of the delegation of quasi-legislative powers to the Commission of the EU cause various negative consequences on the EU legal order. The author outlines the following positive sides of Commission’s quasi-legislative acts: acceleration of the EU decision-making process, adding the EU decision-making process flexibility, improvement of the quality of the EU legislative acts and unloading the overall EU legislature’s workload. Taking into account the latest statistics, the author has proved that the process of the adoption of implementing and delegated acts is in four times faster than ordinary and special legislative procedures. It is emphasized that COVID-19 outbreak in 2020 made the EU urgently enact a bunch of legislative acts that were mainly adopted in the form of Commission’s quasi-legislative acts. The author also points out that the quality of the EU’s legislation has been improved as well as EU’s legislator workload has been greatly reduced because of Commission’s implementing and delegated acts. At the same time, the author specifies that the absence of an explicit legal distinction between Commission’s implementing and delegated acts leads to numerous interinstitutional litigations and disputes and undermines the hierarchy of legal acts under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. It is established that an excessive application by the Commission of the EU of the quasi-legislative instruments may breach the principle of institutional balance and may lead to the replacement of the sole EU legislator – the European Parliament and the Council. Eventually, the author argues that the lack of transparence and accountability of the Commission of the EU during the process of adoption of implementing and delegated acts deepen the ‘democratic deficit’ problem within the EU.

Sud pravde Evropske unije i autonomne restriktivne mere protiv pravnih i fizičkih lica i nedržavnih entiteta u okviru zajedničke spoljne i bezbednosne politike

As a part of its specific policies, the EU creates and implements numerous restrictive measures against different subjects. In recent years, the most interesting ones, especially from the perspective of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), have been the autonomous restrictive measures against natural and legal persons and other non-state entities within the Union`s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). After years of legal wandering in this regard, the Lisbon Treaty finally offered an explicit legal basis for this kind of measures, envisaging, as well, for the first time, the CJEU`s jurisdiction in the field of CFSP in some cases, including the one related to reviewing the legality of decisions providing for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons adopted by the Council of the EU on the basis of Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty of the European Union. In this regard, the subject matter of this paper are the activities of the EU courts related to the autonomous restrictive measures against individual subjects, analyzed at several relevant although inseparable levels. The first one considers the intention of the CJEU to "use" the situation regarding the autonomous restrictive measures in order to strengthen its position and competences within the CFSP. The second one is oriented to the efforts of the courts to secure the balance between the effectiveness of the CFSP instruments, on the one hand, and the protection of some of the major principles and values of the EU legal order, on the other hand, such as the rule of law, legal certainty, effective judicial protection or the protection of human rights as guaranteed by the EU Law in general. Thirdly, a very important step in this context has been the jurisprudential identification of the key procedural requirements that the Council`s decisions providing for restrictive measures must fulfill as well (aka the designation criteria, statements of reasons criteria and supporting evidence criteria). By constantly insisting on the fulfillment of these criteria, the EU courts exerted a pressure on the Council to improve its decisions providing restrictive measures in a qualitative manner. Recent jurisprudence, such as the Rosneft or Bank Refah Kargaran cases, shows that there is still enough space for the Court`s interventions in this field, and that some interesting Court`s decisions, related to its position within the CFSP or the general relation between the CFSP and other forms of Union`s external activities, could be expected in the years to come.