Sincere cooperation

Last updated

In European Union law, sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU) is one of the foundational principles of the European Union, which determines that the Union and the Member States are required to implement any necessary measures to guarantee compliance with the duties stemming from the Treaties "in full mutual respect". [1] [2]

Contents

Sincere cooperation is mentioned explicitly not only in the Treaty on European Union but also in the Court of Justice of the EU's case law, applicable to different exclusive, shared, supporting competences, such as the environment, the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice, public health, competition rules governing the internal market, and others. [3] [4] [5]

The jurisprudence of the CJEU has elaborated on four main responsibilities that derive from the principle of sincere cooperation: [1]

1) An obligation for respect and assistance between the EU and Member States in attaining the Treaties' objectives

2) Member States have an active obligation to cooperate and comply with original and derivative European law

3) Member States need to refrain from taking any measures that would impede the aims and goals of the Union

4) Member States should facilitate the institutions of the EU to accomplish the Union's objectives.

In Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) from 2002, the provision contains the outlines of what is today known as "the principle of sincere cooperation": [6]

"Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks. They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty."

— Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 2002), Article 10

However, since the Treaty of Lisbon the provisions have been enhanced through Articles 4(3) and Article 24(3) of TEU: [7]

3. Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.

The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.

The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives.

— Treaty on European Union, Article 4

Initially, it is notable that sincere cooperation gained a more significant prominence in the founding treaties and a more central position, that follows immediately after the Union's values. [7] More importantly, the relationship with the principle of sincere cooperation has been widened as a two-way street, that does not only involve the Member States but also requires reciprocity from the Union's institutions. [7] [8] This balance can be witnessed in Article 13 TEU: [9]

2. Each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, and in conformity with the procedures, conditions and objectives set out in them. The institutions shall practice mutual sincere cooperation.

— Treaty on European Union, Article 13

This balance with sincere cooperation between inter-parties relationship, regarding the Member States and the Union, has been extended to intra-institutional relationships, within the EU. The constitutional origin of this intra-institutional commitment to sincere cooperation could be traced in CJEU case law, such as the case Greece v Council from 1986 [10] and Luxembourg v Parliament from 1981, [11] where the Court established that "the operation of the budgetary procedure..., is based essentially on inter-institutional dialogue. That dialogue is subject to the same mutual duties of sincere cooperation which, as the Court has held, govern relations between the Member States and the Community institutions...". [7] [10]

Aside from the extension of sincere cooperation on an intra-institutional level, it is crucial to underscore that there is a mixed relationship between sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU), and the requirement of unity and close cooperation. [12] The latter are duties applicable to the Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy. [13] For instance, Article 24 TEU, underlines:

2. Within the framework of the principles and objectives of its external action, the Union shall conduct, define and implement a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity among Member States, the identification of questions of general interest and the achievement of an ever-increasing degree of convergence of Member States' actions.

3. The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area.

The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.

The Council and the High Representative shall ensure compliance with these principles.

— Treaty on European Union, Article 24

This specific CFSP obligation is to a certain extent related to the principle of sincere cooperation but has its own space in the Treaty as these two principles could be perceived as distinct: the principle of close cooperation under CFSP is applicable "once a decision for mixed external action has been made", as opposed to the principle of sincere cooperation that in other competences applies before, while the decision has been made, and after it comes into force. [12] As a result, and due to the sensitivity of EU external action regarding close cooperation between the Members, the scope of Article 24 leaves little room for exemptions through its direct language ("shall work", "shall refrain", "actively and unreservedly"). [7] [13] The need for a close cooperation among members in this special competence is even more accentuated since the Court of Justice, with the exception of Article 40 TEU and Article 275 TFEU, does not have jurisdiction over CFSP. [14] [15] [7] [13]

Constitutional identities and sincere cooperation

A legal limit to sincere cooperation has been imposed within the same Article 4:

2. The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.

— Treaty on European Union, Article 4

Right before the principle of sincere cooperation is introduced, the legislator notes the importance of national identities. [2] Therefore, by looking at Article 4(2) and 4(3) TEU simultaneously, there are "constitutional limits in an institutional and procedural framework" that are inherent to the framework around which the principle of sincere cooperation operates. [16] Simultaneously, this does not infer that national identity enjoys supreme power within the Union's system, yet it is balanced against the "uniform application of EU law" through a composite constitutional structure of the CJEU and the national courts and institutions. [16] Precisely for this to function in practice, the principle of sincere cooperation is invoked again as it its importance is crucial for the coordination of this multi-dimensional jurisprudence. [16]

Limits regarding Common Foreign and Security Policy

Consequently, this once again, emphasizes the interconnection between national identities, sincere cooperation, and the Union's foreign policy. To this end, the Member States concerned for their rights to sovereignty within this multi-dimensional jurisprudence that requires sincere cooperation on an international level, have emphasized the non-exclusionary rights through Declarations 13 and 14 of the Lisbon Treaty: the mutual political solidarity and sincere cooperation on the CFSP EU level, "do not affect the responsibilities of the Member States... for the formulation and conduct of their [national] foreign policy...". [13]

Case law

ECHR and sincere cooperation

The EU legal order and the ECHR legal system are two separate ones, and while the EU is not a member of the Council of Europe, the Member States of the Union are; consequently, the principle of sincere cooperation has appeared in cases before the European Court of Human Rights. [17]

Hungary

The case Könyv-Tár Kft and Others v. Hungary (Application No. 21623/13) concerned three applicant companies, all schoolbook distributors, which claimed that the creation of a state monopoly on school books is a breach of Article 1 of the Protocol No.1, namely the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. In the ECtHR deliberations, the Court has made the following arguments regarding the principle of sincere cooperation as part of the European Union legislation: [18]

38. The Court further notes that, in accordance with Article 267 of the TFEU and the well-established case-law of the CJEU, a preliminary rulinggiven by the CJEU is binding on the referring national court as to the interpretation of the provision of EU law in question. It clarifies and defines the meaning and scope of that provision as it must be, or ought to have been, understood and applied at the time it came into force. Furthermore, pursuant to the principle of “sincere cooperation”, the authorities of EU member States have the task of ensuring, within the sphere of their competence, that the rules of EU law, as interpreted by the CJEU, are observed and that individuals’ rights under EU law are judicially protected. Consequently, the Court considers that guidance provided by a preliminary ruling must be observed not only in the specific dispute which has given rise to the referral but also, indirectly, in other cases, even those concerning legal relationships which had arisen before the CJEU gave the ruling in question.

— ECtHR, para 38

Here, the ECtHR notes the importance of sincere cooperation on a judicial level between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the national courts, while also stipulating that the Union's authorities have a responsibility to observe the practice of sincere cooperation within their conferred competence. [18]

Court of Justice of the European Union

While the respect for national identities has been enshrined in Article 4 TEU, it is notable that post-Lisbon, for any competences that are not conferred on the Union where the Member States could exercise their sovereignty, they are still restricted in that they need to facilitate the Union's objectives and goals within their sovereignty—according to the principle of sincere cooperation. [19] Consequently, Member States' interactions with the Union is continuously guided by the aforementioned principle. This has been reflected in CJEU case law in different areas of competence across the EU.

United Kingdom

In Case C-516/22 Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland decided on 14 March 2024, the Court assessed the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the case Micula v Romania. [20] The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the aforementioned case ordered Romania to pay a compensation to Swedish investors, despite the Commission prohibiting Romania to do so, as it was incompatible with EU law. [21] As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the CJEU declared that "the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law": [21]

"...Consequently, where the outcome of the dispute before the national court depends on the validity of the Commission decision, it follows from the obligation of sincere cooperation that the national court should, in order to avoid reaching a decision that runs counter to the Commission decision, stay its proceedings pending final judgment in the action for annulment before the Courts of the European Union, unless it takes the view that, in the circumstances of the case, a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the validity of the Commission decision is warranted."

— CJEU, para 98

Therefore, the Court establishes a direct link through the principle of sincere cooperation between the national courts, and the institutions of the European Union: [20]

"...In particular, the application of the rules of EU law on State aid laid down in Articles 107 and 108 TFEU is based on an obligation of sincere cooperation between, on the one hand, the national courts, and, on the other hand, the Commission and the Courts of the European Union, in the context of which each acts on the basis of the role assigned to it by the Treaty."

— CJEU, para 95

Latvia

In the case (C-454/22), Commission v Latvia, the European Commission brought the Republic of Latvia before the Court for failing to adopt all the legal provisions by transposing "necessary to comply with Article 124(1) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code". [22] Consequently, the Court has elaborated on the role of Member States in the process of transposition of a Directive, according to the principle of sincere cooperation:

"In that context, the Court has already held that the expression ‘obligation to notify measures transposing a directive’ in Article 260(3) TFEU refers to the obligation of the Member States to provide sufficiently clear and precise information on the measures transposing a directive. In order to satisfy the obligation of legal certainty and to ensure the transposition of the provisions of that directive in full throughout their territory, the Member States are required, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, to state, for each provision of the directive, the national provision or provisions by means of which they consider that they have fulfilled the various obligations imposed on them by that directive. Once notified, where relevant in addition to a correlation table, it is for the Commission to establish, for the purposes of seeking the financial penalty to be imposed on the Member State in question laid down in Article 260(3) TFEU, whether certain transposing measures are clearly lacking or do not cover all of the territory of the Member State in question, bearing in mind that it is not for the Court, in judicial proceedings brought under that provision, to examine whether the national measures notified to the Commission ensure a correct transposition of the provisions of the directive in question."

— CJEU, para 74

Slovenia

In the case (C‑316/19), Commission (supported by the European Central Bank) v Slovenia, the Commission brought the Republic of Slovenia before the Court because it alleged that it breached the Union's law and failed to cooperate sincerely "by unilaterally seizing at the premises of the Banka Slovenije (Central Bank of Slovenia) documents connected to the performance of the tasks of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and of the Eurosystem". [23] The Court, in its findings, focuses on the reciprocity of the relationship between the Union's institutions and the Member States:

"According to settled case-law of the Court, under the principle of sincere cooperation provided for in Article 4(3) TEU, the Member States are required to eliminate the unlawful consequences of a breach of EU law and such an obligation is owed, within the sphere of its competence, by every organ of the Member State concerned."

— CJEU, para 124

"Admittedly, the obligation of sincere cooperation is, by its very nature, reciprocal (judgment of 16 October 2003, Ireland v Commission, C‑339/00, EU:C:2003:545, paragraph 72). It was consequently for the ECB to assist the Slovenian authorities so that the latter could remedy, as far as possible, the unlawful consequences of its seizure of documents at the premises of the Central Bank of Slovenia on 6 July 2016."

— CJEU, para 125

Therefore, the Court establishes that even in a situation where there is a breach of Union's law on the side of the Member State, thus failing to adhere to the principle of sincere cooperation—reciprocity remains a core component of this principle, and a way to continue to uphold it is by providing assistance from the Union's institutions. [23]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maastricht Treaty</span> 1992 founding treaty of the European Union

The Treaty on European Union, commonly known as the Maastricht Treaty, is the foundation treaty of the European Union (EU). Concluded in 1992 between the then-twelve member states of the European Communities, it announced "a new stage in the process of European integration" chiefly in provisions for a shared European citizenship, for the eventual introduction of a single currency, and for common foreign and security policies, and a number of changes to the European institutions and their decision taking procedures, not least a strengthening of the powers of the European Parliament and more majority voting on the Council of Ministers. Although these were seen by many to presage a "federal Europe", key areas remained inter-governmental with national governments collectively taking key decisions. This constitutional debate continued through the negotiation of subsequent treaties, culminating in the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaty on European Union</span> Treaty setting out the basis of European Union law

The Treaty on European Union (2007) is one of the primary Treaties of the European Union, alongside the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The TEU forms the basis of EU law, by setting out general principles of the EU's purpose, the governance of its central institutions, as well as the rules on external, foreign and security policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Court of Justice</span> Supreme court in the European Union, part of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The European Court of Justice (ECJ), formally just the Court of Justice, is the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its uniform application across all EU member states under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Directive (European Union)</span> Legislative act of the European Union

A directive is a legal act of the European Union that requires member states to achieve particular goals without dictating how the member states achieve those goals. A directive's goals have to be made the goals of one or more new or changed national laws by the member states before this legislation applies to individuals residing in the member states. Directives normally leave member states with a certain amount of leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted. Directives can be adopted by means of a variety of legislative procedures depending on their subject matter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Union law</span> System of rules within the European Union

European Union law is a system of rules operating within the member states of the European Union (EU). Since the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community following World War II, the EU has developed the aim to "promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples". The EU has political institutions, social and economic policies, which transcend nation states for the purpose of cooperation and human development. According to its Court of Justice, the EU represents "a new legal order of international law".

In European Union law, direct effect is the principle that Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights on individuals which the courts of member states of the European Union are bound to recognise and enforce.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of the European Union</span>

The political structure of the European Union (EU) is similar to a confederation, where many policy areas are federalised into common institutions capable of making law; the competences to control foreign policy, defence policy, or the majority of direct taxation policies are mostly reserved for the twenty-seven state governments. These areas are primarily under the control of the EU's member states although a certain amount of structured co-operation and coordination takes place in these areas. For the EU to take substantial actions in these areas, all Member States must give their consent. Union laws that override State laws are more numerous than in historical confederations; however, the EU is legally restricted from making law outside its remit or where it is no more appropriate to do so at a state or local level (subsidiarity) when acting outside its exclusive competences. The principle of subsidiarity does not apply to areas of exclusive competence.

Van Duyn v Home Office (1974) C-41/74 was a case of the European Court of Justice concerning the free movement of workers between member states.

A preliminary ruling is a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the interpretation of European Union law that is given in response to a request from a court or a tribunal of a member state. A preliminary ruling is a final determination of European Union law, with no scope for appeal. The ECJ hands down its decision to the referring court, which is then obliged to implement the ruling.

European labour law regulates basic transnational standards of employment and partnership at work in the European Union and countries adhering to the European Convention on Human Rights. In setting regulatory floors to competition for job-creating investment within the Union, and in promoting a degree of employee consultation in the workplace, European labour law is viewed as a pillar of the "European social model". Despite wide variation in employment protection and related welfare provision between member states, a contrast is typically drawn with conditions in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Justice of the European Union</span> Institution of the European Union

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the judicial branch of the European Union (EU). Seated in the Kirchberg quarter of Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, this EU institution consists of two separate courts: the Court of Justice and the General Court. From 2005 to 2016, it also contained the Civil Service Tribunal. It has a sui generis court system, meaning 'of its own kind', and is a supranational institution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">General principles of European Union law</span> Principles applied by European courts

The general principles of European Union law are general principles of law which are applied by the European Court of Justice and the national courts of the member states when determining the lawfulness of legislative and administrative measures within the European Union. General principles of European Union law may be derived from common legal principles in the various EU member states, or general principles found in international law or European Union law. General principles of law should be distinguished from rules of law as principles are more general and open-ended in the sense that they need to be honed to be applied to specific cases with correct results.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaties of the European Union</span>

The Treaties of the European Union are a set of international treaties between the European Union (EU) member states which sets out the EU's constitutional basis. They establish the various EU institutions together with their remit, procedures and objectives. The EU can only act within the competences granted to it through these treaties and amendment to the treaties requires the agreement and ratification of every single signatory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Union lobbying</span> Lobbying in the European Union

Lobbying in the European Union, also referred to officially as European interest representation, is the activity of representatives of diverse interest groups or lobbies who attempt to influence the executive and legislative authorities of the European Union through public relations or public affairs work. The Treaty of Lisbon introduced a new dimension of lobbying at the European level that is different from most national lobbying. At the national level, lobbying is more a matter of personal and informal relations between the officials of national authorities, but lobbying at the European Union level is increasingly a part of the political decision-making process and thus part of the legislative process. 'European interest representation' is part of a new participatory democracy within the European Union. The first step towards specialised regulation of lobbying in the European Union was a Written Question tabled by Alman Metten, in 1989. In 1991, Marc Galle, Chairman of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities, was appointed to submit proposals for a Code of conduct and a register of lobbyists. Today lobbying in the European Union is an integral and important part of decision-making in the EU. From year to year lobbying regulation in the EU is constantly improving and the number of lobbyists is increasing.

Opinion 2/13 (2014) is an EU law case determined by the European Court of Justice, concerning the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, and more generally the relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights.

The Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union contains the main EU law rules on how the Court of Justice of the European Union should function. Founded in 1951, The CJEU sits in Luxembourg, and it operates in two sections: The European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the General Court (GC). A direct component of the EU, the five main goals of the CJEU are:

Pringle v Government of Ireland (2012) C‑370/12 is a European Union law case, which held the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) was lawful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation</span> Regulation of the European Union and Euratom

The Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation is a regulation of the European Union and Euratom, which allows the European Commission to adopt measures, including the suspension of payment of funds from the EU budget, to member states which violate the principles of rule of law enshrined in article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Identity Clause</span>

National Identity Clause is a legal principle enshrined in article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union. Its original purpose can be linked to the protection of cultural identity, apparently threatened by the free movement of services and goods in the cultural domain. It was supposed to prevent EU competence creep in the areas belonging to complementary competencies. Today it is most typically associated with limits to European integration and protection of core competences of the nation states within the EU.

In EU law, reverse discrimination occurs when the national law of a member state of the European Union provides for less favourable treatment of its citizens or domestic products than other EU citizens/goods under EU law. Since the creation of the Single Market, the right of EU citizens to move freely within the EU with their families. The right to free movement was codified in EU Directive 2004/38/EC which applies across the whole EEA. However, reverse discrimination is permitted in EU law because of the legal principle of subsidiarity, i.e. EU law is not applicable in situations purely internal to one member state. This rule of purely internal situation does not apply if the EU citizens can provide a cross-border link, e.g. by travel or by holding dual EU citizenship. EU citizens and their families have an automatic right of entry and residence in all EU countries except their own, with exceptions created by a cross-EU state border link. For example, an Irish citizen living in Germany with his family before returning to Ireland can apply for EU family rights. This is referred to as the Surinder Singh route. The cross-border dimension has been the focus of many court cases in recent years, from McCarthy to Zambrano.

References

  1. 1 2 Petrescu-Mag, Ruxandra (March 2015). "THE PRINCIPLE OF SINCERE COOPERATION: A PICTURE ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. WHAT DOES THE CJEU HAVE TO SAY?: ACCES LA SUCCESS". Calitatea. 16 (1): 345–348.
  2. 1 2 Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE I COMMON PROVISIONS - Article 4, 2012-10-26, retrieved 2024-05-15
  3. ↑ "Case C‑128/17". curia.europa.eu. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  4. ↑ "Case C‑600/14". curia.europa.eu. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  5. ↑ "C‑615/20 and C‑671/20". curia.europa.eu. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  6. ↑ Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 2002), 2002-12-24, retrieved 2024-05-15
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Van Elsuwuge, Peter (2011). "The duty of sincere cooperation (Art. 4 (3) TEU) and its implications for the national interest of EU Member States in the field of external relations". European Law Review. 36: 522–539.
  8. ↑ Dragišić, Radmila (2023). "The basic principle of sincere cooperation in the law of the European Union". Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine. 95 (2): 611–642. doi: 10.5937/gakv95-37970 . ISSN   0017-0933.
  9. ↑ Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union#TITLE III - PROVISIONS ON THE INSTITUTIONS#Article 13, 2016-06-07, retrieved 2024-05-15
  10. 1 2 "C-204/86 - Greece v Council". curia.europa.eu. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  11. ↑ "C-230/81 - Luxembourg v Parliament". curia.europa.eu. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  12. 1 2 Hillion, Christophe; Chamon, Merijn (2020-06-26), "Facultative Mixity and Sincere Cooperation", EU External Relations Post-Lisbon, Brill Nijhoff, pp. 86–111, doi:10.1163/9789004421981_006, ISBN   978-90-04-42198-1 , retrieved 2024-05-15
  13. 1 2 3 4 Larik, Jaris (2018). "Pars pro toto: The Member States' obligations of sincere cooperation, solidarity and unity". Structural Principles in EU External Relations Law: 175–199.
  14. ↑ Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union#TITLE V - GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY#Chapter 2 - Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy#Section 1 - Common provisions#Article 40(ex Article 47 TEU), 2012-10-26, retrieved 2024-05-15
  15. ↑ Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union#PART SIX - INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS#TITLE I - INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS#Chapter 1 - The institutions#Section 5 - The Court of Justice of the European Union#Article 275, 2012-10-26, retrieved 2024-05-15
  16. 1 2 3 Bogdandy, Armin von; Schill, Stephan W. (2011-10-01). "Overcoming absolute primacy: Respect for national identity under the Lisbon Treaty" (PDF). Common Market Law Review. 48 (5): 1417–1453. doi:10.54648/cola2011057. ISSN   0165-0750.
  17. ↑ Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014. Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU. Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Draft international agreement — Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Compatibility of the draft agreement with the EU and FEU Treaties. Case Opinion 2/13., 2013, retrieved 2024-05-15
  18. 1 2 "KÖNYV-TÁR KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY". hudoc.echr.coe.int. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  19. ↑ Van de Velde Van-Rumst, Paulien (2018). "The principle of conferral and the principle of sincere cooperation in the light of recent case-law of the CJEU" (PDF). Master Thesis: 1–124.
  20. 1 2 "Case C-516/22 | Commission v United Kingdom". curia.europa.eu. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  21. 1 2 Court of Justice of the European Union (14 March 2024). "PRESS RELEASE No 47/24" (PDF).
  22. ↑ "Case C‑454/22". curia.europa.eu. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  23. 1 2 "C‑316/19". curia.europa.eu. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.