Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 52 TEU [Territorial Scope of the Treaties]

(ex-Article 299.1 EC)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Treaty on European Union (TEU)

  • 2785 Accesses

Abstract

Although based on a provision from the former EC Treaty, Art. 52 TEU is essentially a new provision introduced to the EU Treaty by the Treaty of Lisbon. Ex-Art. 299.1 EC has been transferred to the TEU while the other provisions of that Article remained in what is now the TFEU, hence the reference to Art. 355 TFEU in Art. 52.2 TEU. Since the former version of the TEU contained no such provision, and ex-Art. 299.1 EC only referred to the EC Treaty (“This Treaty shall apply to […]”.), one had to determine the TEU’s scope by applying the relevant provisions of international law, especially Art. 29 VCLT (→ para 2).

Since the accession of the Republic of Croatia (1 July 2013), the Treaties also apply to this country and Croatian has become an official language according to Art. 13 and Art. 14 of the Act of Accession of Croatia, O.J. L 112/21 (2012).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. Ziller (2011), p. 75 et seq.

  2. 2.

    See Villiger (2009), Art. 29 para 3.

  3. 3.

    Cf. Akehurst (1984).

  4. 4.

    See Art. 2 et seqq. UNCLOS.

  5. 5.

    Cf. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966, vol. II, p. 213, Art. 25 para 3.

  6. 6.

    Cf. Art. 76 et seqq. UNCLOS.

  7. 7.

    Cf. Art. 55 et seqq. UNCLOS.

  8. 8.

    See Villiger (2009), Art. 29 para 7.

  9. 9.

    Cf. Dörr, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 52 EUV para 16.

  10. 10.

    See Dörr, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 52 EUV para 1.

  11. 11.

    Cf. Schmalenbach, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 52 para 5.

  12. 12.

    Case C-366/10 Air Transport Association of America et al. v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (ECJ 21 December 2011) para 115 et seqq.

  13. 13.

    Dahm et al. (1988), § 50, IV. 2.

  14. 14.

    Zimmermann (2000), p. 690 et seqq.; Klein (1999), p. 941 et seq.; further examples can be found in Dörr, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 52 EUV para 21.

  15. 15.

    Jaeckel, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 355 AEUV para 9.

  16. 16.

    On UN practice and other organisations see Zimmermann (2000), p. 589 et seqq., 612 et seqq.; Hailbronner and Kau (2010), 3rd Section para 192.

  17. 17.

    Dörr, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 52 EUV para 23.

  18. 18.

    Protocol No. 10 on Cyprus annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession for the Republic of Cyprus et al. and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, O.J. L 236/955 (2003). Cf. Iliopoulos (2004), p. 646 et seqq.

  19. 19.

    Cf. Jaeckel, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 355 AEUV para 15; see also the respective information at the EEAS website (http://eeas.europa.eu/countries/index_en.htm).

  20. 20.

    Cf. Art. 6 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, O.J. L 347/1 (2006), last amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, O.J. L 326/1 (2010).

  21. 21.

    The “external affairs” have also acquired a new ratione loci dimension within the Treaty of Lisbon: for instance, the EU is involved in setting up the EU foreign ministry and diplomatic corps (or “external action service”) headed by the HR.

  22. 22.

    For recent developments of the Schengen acquis, see, Bou Franch and Reig Fabado (2009), p. 8: the authors underline the limitations to the territorial scope of application of the Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in MS for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. In connection with this issue, see e.g. Declaration No. 45 on Art. 5(2) of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the EU: “The Conference declares that whenever the United Kingdom or Ireland indicates to the Council its intention not to participate in a measure building upon a part of the Schengen acquis in which it participates, the Council will have a full discussion on the possible implications of the non-participation of that Member State in that measure. The discussion within the Council should be conducted in the light of the indications given by the Commission concerning the relationship between the proposal and the Schengen acquis”.

  23. 23.

    Note that under the EU/EC Treaty, the EU comprised a system of three legal pillars, of which only the European Community pillar had its own legal personality. The Treaty of Lisbon abolishes the pillar system and the EU becomes a consolidated body with a legal personality. Furthermore, Art. 1 TEU now states that the EU “shall replace and succeed the European Community”. Hence, the existing names of EU bodies have the word “Community” removed.

  24. 24.

    Council Decision of 16 December 1980 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community, O.J L 361/1 (1980).

  25. 25.

    Alilonttinen and Ruà (2008).

  26. 26.

    The German version of Art. 52.2 TEU is somewhat unprecise since, as concerns the territorial scope of the Treaties, one might think that this is only dealt with in Art. 355 TFEU (“wird in [Art. 355 TFEU] im Einzelnen angegeben”); cf. Schmalenbach, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 52 EUV para 2. The chapeau of Art. 355 TFEU as well as other language versions of Art.52.2 TEU are clearer on that issue (“is specified”, “est précisé”).

  27. 27.

    See Kochenov (2008). See also Ziller (2007).

  28. 28.

    Ziller (2000).

  29. 29.

    European Council Decision 2010/718/EU of 29 October 2010 amending the status with regard to the European Union of the island of Saint-Barthélemy, O.J. L 325/4 (2010).

  30. 30.

    See Monfort (2009), p. 3: the author distinguishes five types of specific regions: border regions; mountainous regions; island regions; sparsely populated regions; outermost regions.

  31. 31.

    Some former territories of MS have left the EU when they seceded from their ruling country. The 1962 secession of French Algeria, which was an integral part of France and hence of the then European Communities, was the only such occasion on which a territory subject to the Treaty of Rome has seceded (most other territories—Hong Kong and Macau—were not classed as part of the EU and European legislation was not in force in these countries). In connection with the impact of the Algerian case, see Sloane (2009), p. 56: “International human rights law, among other things, tries to protect these social bonds of attachment against a merely formal nationality imposed by law”. This argument is illustrated by the author in relation to the case of Beldjoudi v. France, in which “although it is not technically a decision about nationality, the ECHR in effect protected a ‘quasi-national’ from being deported to a state to which he lacked any genuine links. Beldjoudi had been born and raised in France. He lost his French nationality as a minor, however, because, at the time of Algerian independence, his parents failed to make the required declaration under French law. Yet he lived his entire live in France, received his education there, married a French woman, and, in short, lacked ‘links with Algeria apart from that of nationality’”.

  32. 32.

    Jaeckel, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 355 AEUV para 19.

  33. 33.

    Case C-192/99 The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur (ECJ 20 February 2001) para 19.

  34. 34.

    See on this Kochenov (2011), especially p. 206 et seqq.

  35. 35.

    Case 24833/94 Matthews v United Kingdom (ECtHR 18 February 1999).

  36. 36.

    For a comparative approach to the territorial scope under human rights treaties (and matters of extraterritorial scope), see Buyse (2008), p. 269–296.

  37. 37.

    Protocol No 2 on the Åland islands annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden. O.J. C 241/8 (1994).

  38. 38.

    Protocol No 3 on the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Cyprus annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Cyprus et al. and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded. O.J. L 236/940 (2003).

  39. 39.

    Kochenov (2011), p. 208.

  40. 40.

    See, for example, Declaration No. 43 on Art. 355(6) TFEU: “The High Contracting Parties agree that the European Council, pursuant to Art. 355(6), will take a decision leading to the modification of the status of Mayotte with regard to the Union in order to make this territory an outermost region within the meaning of Art. 355(1) and Art. 349, when the French authorities notify the European Council and the Commission that the evolution currently under way in the internal status of the island so allows”.

  41. 41.

    In this field, it is interesting to refer to the influence that the Lund Recommendations on Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has on Member States adopting the so-called Non-Territorial Arrangements (NTA): see Malloy (2009): “In general, NTA get limited attention in the national minority participation discourse. This is ironic given that the concept of NTA speaks both to security and justice issues. As a conflict prevention tool NTA may de-territorialize security concerns while as a democratization tool may promote justice. One must question, therefore, whether the language of the Lund Recommendation is capable of providing the guidance to governments seeking to address security and justice concerns related to national minority existence” (p. 665–666). The author adds: “The aim of the NTA paragraphs of the Lund document was precisely to suggest ways to achieve minority participation that would not pose a threat to national territorial sovereignty” (p. 673). This is an alternative approach to new paragraph 6 of Art. 355 TFEU.

  42. 42.

    European Council Decision 2010/718/EU of 29 October 2010 amending the status with regard to the European Union of the island of Saint-Barthélemy, O.J. L 325/4 (2010).

  43. 43.

    European Council Decision 2012/419/EU of 11 July 2012 amending the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union, O.J. L 204/131 (2012).

  44. 44.

    Cf. Jaeckel, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 355 AEUV para 24.

  45. 45.

    When dealing with “elements of Statehood”, Griller (2008), p. 37, states: “According to the ‘Three-Elements-Doctrine’ the essential elements of a State are State territory, State people, and State power. Whit regard to the EU it is claimed that it lacks all elements, but especially the third one, since the power to use force is still monopolised by the Member States. It is argued in particular that military and police affairs, as well as the enforcement of European law in general, remain within the national sphere, and that the Union lacks also Kompetenz-Kompetenz. These observations are true. However, they are not really convincing when it comes to the delimitation of confederations or Unions of States under international law and States”.

  46. 46.

    See for example Case C-192/99 The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Manjit Kaur (ECJ 20 February 2001); Case C-110/97 Netherlands v Council (ECJ 22 November 2001); Case C-145/04 Spain v United Kingdom (ECJ 12 September 2006); Case C-300/04 Eman and Sevinger (ECJ 12 September 2006).

  47. 47.

    See the inter-state Case 25781/94 Cyprus v Turkey (ECtHR 10 May 2001).

  48. 48.

    See Joined Cases C-261/08 and C-348/08 Zurita García and Choque Cabrera v Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcia (ECJ 22 October 2009) para 66: “[The relevant provisions] must be interpreted as meaning that, where a third-country national is unlawfully present on the territory of a Member State because he or she does not fulfil, or no longer fulfils, the conditions of duration of stay applicable there, that Member State is not obliged to adopt a decision to expel that person” (emphasis added).

  49. 49.

    See Biondi (2009), p. 238: “the relationship between the ECJ and the national courts is pretty healthy, with both sets of courts striving to provide efficient remedies to guarantee the rights of citizens. The influence of EU law with its emphasis on ‘sovereignty of the law’ is generally a benign one. It also is in line with recent trends in national procedural law, moving away from the trail as an ‘authoritarian’ concept toward a more responsive instrument for the safeguard of individual rights”. See also Jacobs (2007).

  50. 50.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09 (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 334—Lisbon (English translation available online).

  51. 51.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09 (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 343—Lisbon.

  52. 52.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09 (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 345—Lisbon; see also Griller (2008), p. 38: “As for the territorial scope of Union law, it has to be said that international law requires a definition of state territory for the sake of delimiting governmental powers. There is no reason why such delimitation cannot be accomplished by referring to the territories of the Member States. As for the definition of a ‘state people’, it is, under international law, somewhat synonymous with that of population. In other words, the people of a state need not form a nation (or a ‘homogeneous people’) and it may occur that several nations are gathered in one state or that one nation can be spread over or divided into several states—to mention only the well-known examples of Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, South Africa or India. The most salient issue certainly is that of State power”.

  53. 53.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09 (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 346—Lisbon.

  54. 54.

    Czech Constitutional Court, Judgement No. PL. US 29/09 (3 November 2009)—Lisbon II (English translation available online).

  55. 55.

    Lambert (2009), p. 520: Especially in the area of human rights, it has been suggested that the debate on transnational judicial dialogue “has traditionally focused on a three-dimensional dialogue: between national judges and European judges (namely, the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights), between European judges themselves, and between national judges of the different Member States (that is, the transnational dialogue)”.

  56. 56.

    Compare judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 2236/04 (18 July 2005) with judgment of the Court of Justice of Luxembourg in the Case C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW y Leden van de Ministerraad (ECJ 3 May 2007). In doctrine, see Komárek (2007).

  57. 57.

    To illustrate this potential risk, see the judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court, No 348/2007 (24 October 2007), in which it is stated that EU law is “self-executing” and has a “direct effect” within domestic legal order, while the same is not true for the ECHR: a critical view in Conforti (2008), p. 581–585.

Table of Cases

  • ECJ 20.02.2001, C-192/99, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Kaur, ECR I-1237 [cit. in para 14]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 22.11.2001, C-110/97, Netherlands v Council, ECR I-8851 [cit. in para 20]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 12.09.2006, C-145/04, Spain v United Kingdom, ECR I-7917 [cit. in para 20]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 12.09.2006, C-300/04, Eman and Sevinger v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag, ECR I-8055 [cit. in para 20]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 03.05.2007, C-303/05, Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW y Leden van de Ministerraad, ECR I-3633 [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 22.10.2009, C-348/08, Zurita García and Choque Cabrera v Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcía, ECR I-10143 [cit. in para 21]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 21.12.2011, C-366/10, Air Transport Association of America et al. v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, nyr [cit. in para 3]

    Google Scholar 

References

  • Akehurst, M. (1984). Treaties, territorial application. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (Vol. 4, p. 990–993). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alilonttinen, P. & Ruà, S. (2008). Lisbon Treaty ratification: Will the Aland Islands become Finland’s Greenland?. Politics and Institutions (EPIN Commentaries) (12 May 2008). http://www.ceps.be/book/lisbon-treaty-ratification-will-aland-islands-become-finlands-greenland. Accessed 18 Jan 2010.

  • Biondi, A. (2009). How to go ahead as an EU law national judge. European Public Law, 15(2), 225–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bou Franch, V. & Reig Fabado, I. (2009). La Directiva 2008/115/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 16 de diciembre de 2008 relativa a normas y procedimientos comunes en los Estados miembros para el retorno de los nacionales de terceros paises en situación irregular. Revista General de Derecho Europeo, 19, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buyse, A. (2008). A legal minefield – The territorial scope of the European Convention. Inter-American and European Human Rights Journal/Revista Interamericana y Europea de Derechos Humanos, 1–2, 269–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess, C. & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2011). EUV/AEUV. Kommentar. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conforti, B. (2008). Atteggiamenti preoccupanti della giurisprudenza italiana sui rapporti fra diritto interno e trattati internazionali. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2(3), 581–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahm, G., Delbrück, J. & Wolfrum, R. (1988). Völkerrecht (2nd ed., Vol. I/1). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabitz, E., Hilf, M. & Nettesheim, M. (2011). Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Kommentar (loose leaf). München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griller, S. (2008). Is this a constitution? Remarks on a contested concept. In J. Ziller & S. Griller (Eds.), The Lisbon Treaty: EU constitutionalism without a Constitutional Treaty. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hailbronner, K. & Kau, M. (2010). Der Staat und der Einzelne als Völkerrechtssubjekte. In W. Graf Vitzthum (Ed.), Völkerrecht (5th ed.). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iliopoulos, C. (2004). Rechtsfragen der Osterweiterung der EU unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Beitritts der Republik Zypern. Europarecht, 39(4), 637–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, F. F. (2007). The sovereignty of law: The European way. Cambridge: Hamlyn Lectures.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, E. (1999). Treaties, effect of territorial change. In R. Bernhardt (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (Vol. 4, p. 941–944). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov, D. (2008). The sphere of territorial application of European Law: Overseas Countries and territories associated with community and ultra-peripheral regions. In H. E. Broering, et al. (Eds.). Schurende rechtsordes: Over juridische implicaties van de UPG-status voor de eilandgebieden van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba, Groningen University. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1120317. Accessed 8 Jan 2010.

  • Kochenov, D. (2011). EU citizenship in the overseas. In D. Kochenov (Ed.), EU law of the overseas: Outermost regions, associated overseas countries and territories, territories sui generis (p. 199–220). Leiden: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komárek, J. (2007). European constitutionalism and the European arrest warrant: In search of the limits of “contrapunctual principles”. Common Market Law Review, 44(1), 9–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, H. (2009). Transnational judicial dialogue, harmonization and the Common European Asylum System. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 58(3), 519–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malloy, T. H. (2009). The Lund recommendations and non-territorial arrangements: Progressive de-territorialization of minority politics. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 16(4), 665–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monfort, P. (2009, October). Territories with specific geographical features. Directorate-General for Regional Policy (European Union, Working Papers, 2). http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2009_02_geographical.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2011.

  • Sloane, R. D. (2009). Breaking the genuine link: The contemporary international legal regulation of nationality. Harvard International Law Journal, 50(1), 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villiger, M. E. (2009). Commentary on the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (online version).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziller, J. (2000). Flexibility in the geographical scope of EU law: Diversity and differentiation in the application of substantive law on member states’ territories. In G. de Búrca & J. Scott (Eds.), Constitutional change in the EU – From uniformity to flexibility? (p. 113–132). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziller, J. (2007). The European Union and the territorial scope of European territories. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 38(1), 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziller, J. (2011). Outermost regions, overseas countries and territories and others after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. In D. Kochenov (Ed.), EU law of the overseas: Outermost regions, associated overseas countries and territories, territories sui generis (p. 69–88). Leiden: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, A. (2000). Staatennachfolge in völkerrechtliche Verträge. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. National Research Council Institute for Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Government, Rome, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

Authors
  1. Hermann-Josef Blanke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stelio Mangiameli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Sc, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. National Research Council - Institute fo Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Governm, Rome, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (2013). Article 52 TEU [Territorial Scope of the Treaties]. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) The Treaty on European Union (TEU). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31706-4_53

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation