Skip to main content
Book cover

Between Compliance and Particularism pp 49–78Cite as

EU Loyalty and the Protection of Member States’ National Interests

A Mapping of the Law

Abstract

In a general analysis on the protection of national interests of the Member States of the European Union, it is particularly apt to investigate their interplay with the principle of sincere cooperation. Enshrined in EU primary law, in particular in Article 4(3) TEU, that principle has evolved during the time into a veritable cornerstone of the EU legal order. Even though scholars have recently (re)started to pay attention to the loyalty principle and related implications, a general reflection on the role it plays—or should play—in considering/protecting the national interests of the Member States is still lacking. This contribution tries to fill the gap by charting the major possible interactions between loyalty and Member States’ national interests and the consequent legal trajectories. Our basic assumption is that of a progressive integration between the Member States’ and the Union’s legal orders—what will be called here the “Ever Closer Union Model”. According to this model, the gradual integration of the national and the EU legal orders will give rise to an expanding common legal area, which is where the loyalty principle and Member State interests interact. This chapter argues principally that in such a space the principle of loyalty plays a defining role in strengthening the protection of the common Union interests, securing in turn the related national interests of the Member States. This does not mean, however, that national interests cannot diverge from the EU common interests. Beyond the political tools, there are concrete legal avenues provided in the Treaties enabling the Member States to preserve their interests within the Union. Our analysis is completed by examining how the protection of Member State interests may play out in emergency scenarios, such as common policy crises, how a principle of solidarity may influence the operation of the principle of loyalty, and how loyalty towards the Union and the other Member States is affected by a State acceding to or leaving the EU.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-05782-4_3
  • Chapter length: 30 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-05782-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Other explicit references to loyalty are present in Articles 13(2) and 24(3) TEU concerning respectively cooperation among EU institutions and the Member States’ support to the Common Foreign and Security Policy. A specific manifestation of a more general duty of loyalty of the Member States towards the Union may also found in Articles 344 and 351(2) TFEU, see Judgment of 30 May 2006, Commission v Ireland, C-459/03, EU:C:2006:345, paragraph 169; AG Tizzano Opinion of 22 May 2003, Budvar, C-216/01, EU:C:2003:302, paragraph 150.

  2. 2.

    For a survey of other relevant Treaty provisions, see Klamert (2014), pp. 13–19.

  3. 3.

    See AG Mazák Opinion of 8 May 2008, Greece v Commission, C-203/07 P, EU:C:2008:270, paragraph 33 and the corresponding footnote, where he argued that “it is recognized that a strengthened good faith seems to be at least implicitly reflected in the obligation of loyal cooperation contained in Article 10 EC [now 4(3) TEU]”.

  4. 4.

    Judgment of 15 July 1964, Costa v Enel, 6/64, EU:C:1964:66, and, with regard to the doctrine of consistent interpretation, Judgment of 10 April 1984, Sabine von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann, 14/83, EU:C:1984:153, paragraph 26.

  5. 5.

    Judgment of 19 June 1990, The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd, C-213/89, EU:C:1990:257, paragraph 19.

  6. 6.

    Order of 6 December 1990, Imm. J.J. Zwartveld, C-2/88, EU:C:1990:315, paragraphs 16–17.

  7. 7.

    Opinion of 18 December 2014, Accession of the European Union to the ECHR, 2/13, EU:C:2014:2454, paragraphs 168 and 173.

  8. 8.

    Judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea BV, C-284/16, EU:C:2018:158, paragraph 34.

  9. 9.

    See also the contribution by Van Elsuwege to this volume.

  10. 10.

    For a corresponding definition of the European Union by legal scholars, see Weiler (1991); Rossi (2014), p. 6; Maduro and Wind (2017).

  11. 11.

    Order of 6 December 1990, Imm. J.J. Zwartveld, C-2/88, EU:C:1990:315, paragraph 17.

  12. 12.

    See, in connection with the latter two crises, Cannizzaro (2016), Schrauwen (2016) and von Bogdandy et al. (2018).

  13. 13.

    See, with particular regard to the position of the Czech Republic, Neuman (2017).

  14. 14.

    See the contribution by Van Elsuwege to this volume.

  15. 15.

    For questioning whether that objective can still be effectively realised, see de Búrca (2014), p. 37; von Bogdandy (2016), p. 528.

  16. 16.

    AG Kokott Opinion of 11 November 2004, Pupino, C-105/03, EU:C:2004:712, paragraph 26; emphasis added.

  17. 17.

    AG Bot Opinion of 16 October 2012, Hungary v Slovak Republic, C-364/10, EU:C:2012:124, paragraphs 58–59.

  18. 18.

    Judgment of 20 April 2010, Commission v Sweden, C-246/07, EU:C:2010:203, paragraph 69. For a detailed analysis of the meaning of “the Union’s objectives” under loyalty, see Roes (2016), pp. 267–278.

  19. 19.

    Ibid.

  20. 20.

    See Azoulai’s corresponding term of the “totalization of EU law” as a substantive feature of the EU’s structural principles, Azoulai (2018), p. 37.

  21. 21.

    For an analysis of the ruling raising that it entails a specific use of loyalty, see Klamert (2014), pp. 276–277.

  22. 22.

    Judgment of 16 November 1977, INNO, 13/77, EU:C:1977:185, paragraph 31.

  23. 23.

    For an overview of that trend, see De Witte (2013).

  24. 24.

    Judgment of 15 January 1986, Hurd, 44/84, EU:C:1986:2, paragraph 38.

  25. 25.

    See ibid. paragraph 39.

  26. 26.

    On the potential risks of such practice, see Dimopoulos (2014).

  27. 27.

    Judgment of 27 November 2012, Pringle, C-370/12, EU:C:2012:756, paragraph 151. For a critical appraisal of the structural risks posed by the ruling, see Azoulai (2018), p. 39.

  28. 28.

    Judgment of 20 September 2016, Ledra, C-8/15 P to C-10/15 P, EU:C:2016:701, paragraphs 59 and 67.

  29. 29.

    Ibid. paragraph 67.

  30. 30.

    See the Schengen acquis as referred to in Article 1(2) of Council Decision 1999/435/EC of 20 May 1999, [2000] OJ L239/19.

  31. 31.

    Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, [1997] OJ C340/93.

  32. 32.

    For an overview of similar schemes throughout the EU, see Dzankic (2012).

  33. 33.

    Judgment of 7 July 1992, Mario Vicente Micheletti and others, C-369/90, EU:C:1992:47, paragraph 10; emphasis added.

  34. 34.

    Order of 6 December 1990, Imm. J.J. Zwartveld, C-2/88, EU:C:1990:315, paragraph 23.

  35. 35.

    Ibid. paragraph 21.

  36. 36.

    For further analysis, in connection with the principle of proportionality’s role in reconciling loyalty and the conferred powers doctrine, see Sect. 2.2.

  37. 37.

    For a general analysis, see Cloots (2015) and Di Federico (2017).

  38. 38.

    For a sceptical view on the linkage between the two clauses, see Klamert (2014), p. 22.

  39. 39.

    AG Bot Opinion of 18 July 2017, Criminal proceedings against M.A.S., M.B., C-42/17, EU:C:2017:564, paragraph 18.

  40. 40.

    AG Maduro Opinion of 16 December 2008, Michaniki AE, C-213/07, EU:C:2008:544, paragraph 33; emphasis added.

  41. 41.

    AG Wathelet Opinion of 5 June 2018, Coman, C-673/16, EU:C:2018:2, paragraph 40.

  42. 42.

    For a recent evaluation of its efficiency in preserving Member State interests, see Papadopoulos (2017).

  43. 43.

    See, inter alia, Judgment of 27 June 2006, European Parliament v Council of the European Union, C-540/03, EU:C:2006:429, paragraph 105.

  44. 44.

    See Sect. 2 above.

  45. 45.

    For a general analysis on the role of proportionality in defending EU actors’ interests, see Michel (2015), and for a critical analysis of the Court’s practice, see Reich (2012).

  46. 46.

    Judgment of 18 December 1997, Garage Molenheide BVBA and others, C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 and C-47/96, EU:C:1997:623, paragraph 48. See also Judgment of 28 February 2018, Sporting Odds Limited, C-3/17, EU:C:2018:130, paragraph 57.

  47. 47.

    See Judgment of 11 July 2008, Rinau, C-195/08 PPU, EU:C:2008:406, paragraph 50 and Judgment of 25 July 2018, LM, C-216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, paragraph 36.

  48. 48.

    See Judgment of 22 March 1983, Commission of the European Communities v French Republic, 42/82, EU:C:1983:88, paragraph 36; Judgment of 27 September 1988, Matteucci, 235/87, EU:C:1988:460, paragraph 19; Judgment of 11 June 1991, Nikolaos Athanasopoulos and others v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, C-251/89, EU:C:1991:242, paragraph 57. In connection with the Schengen acquis, see Judgment of 31 January 2006, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain, C-503/03, EU:C:2006:74, paragraph 56; Judgment of 26 July 2017, Proceedings brought by Khadija Jafari and Zainab Jafari, C-646/16, EU:C:2017:586, paragraph 88.

  49. 49.

    See also, on the limits of mutual recognition Möstl (2010).

  50. 50.

    Judgment of 22 January 2002, Conseil national de l’ordre des architects v Nicolas Dreesen, C-31/00, EU:C:2002:35, paragraph 30.

  51. 51.

    Judgment of 6 February 2018, Criminal proceedings against Ömer Altun and others, C-359/16, EU:C:2018:63, paragraph 40; emphasis added.

  52. 52.

    Judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea BV, C-284/16, EU:C:2018:158. On mutual trust as a general constitutional principle in the EU, see Herlin-Karnell (2014), p. 36; Lenaerts (2015), p. 2.

  53. 53.

    Judgment of 25 July 2018, LM, C-216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, paragraph 36.

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    See Sect. 2 above.

  56. 56.

    For a general overview of the limits to the differentiated integration within the Union, see Pistoia (2018).

  57. 57.

    Section 2 above.

  58. 58.

    See also Judgment of 3 September 2008, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, EU:C:2008:461, paragraphs 282 and 304. The ruling led Koen Lenaerts, the president of the Court of Justice, to argue for the existence of “an untouchable core of fundamental […] rights, values, and principles that may be not modified under any circumstances, which in turn confirms the constitutional nature of the Community legal order”, Lenaerts (2007).

  59. 59.

    A New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union, [2016] OJ C69l/1.

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    Ibid.

  62. 62.

    Judgment of 16 April 2013, Kingdom of Spain and Italy v Council of the European Union, C-274/11 and C-295/11, EU:C:2013:240, paragraph 49.

  63. 63.

    On the interplay between loyalty and solidarity, see Klamert (2015).

  64. 64.

    Judgment of 10 December 1969, Commission of the European Communities v France, 6/69 and 11/69, EU:C:1969:8, paragraph 16.

  65. 65.

    See AG Bot Opinion of 6 September 2017, Slovak Republic and Hungary v Council of the European Union, C-643/15 and C-647/15, EU:C:2017:618, paragraphs 17–21.

  66. 66.

    See View of 26 October 2012 AG Kokott, Thomas Pringle v Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General, C-370/12, EU:C:2012:675, paragraphs 142–144.

  67. 67.

    Judgment of 10 December 1969, Commission of the European Communities v France, 6/69 and 11/69, EU:C:1969:8, paragraph 16.

  68. 68.

    See, in the context of the Treaty provisions on economic cooperation, Bieber and Maiani (2012), pp. 304–311.

  69. 69.

    Judgment of 10 December 1969, Commission of the European Communities v France, 6/69 and 11/69, EU:C:1969:8, paragraph 16.

  70. 70.

    See, concerning the related “substantive nature” of solidarity obligations under EU law, Bieber and Maiani (2012), p. 297.

  71. 71.

    See AG Bot Opinion of 6 March 2012, Hungary v Slovak Republic, C-364/10, EU:C:2012:124, paragraph 17.

  72. 72.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, [2003] OJ L50/1. It has been recently recast by Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, [2013] OJ L180/31.

  73. 73.

    Judgment of 21 December 2011, N.S. et al., C-411/10 and C-493/10, EU:C:2011:865, paragraph 94.

  74. 74.

    See the observations made in ibid. paragraphs 87 and 93.

References

  • Azoulai, L. (2015). Appartenir à l’Union—Liens institutionnels et liens de confiance dans les relations entre États membres. In C. Mestre et al. (Eds.), Retrouvez Europe(s), droit(s) européen(s). Une passion d’universitaire. Liber Amicorum en l’honneur du professeur Vlad Constantinesco (pp. 23–48). Bruylant: Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azoulai, L. (2018). Structural principles in EU law: Internal and external. In M. Cremona (Ed.), Structural principles in EU external relations law (pp. 31–45). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. (2009). Derogations, justifications and the four freedoms: Is state interest really protected? In C. Barnard & O. Odudu (Eds.), The outer limits of European law (pp. 273–305). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bast, J. (2018). Deepening supranational integration: Interstate solidarity in EU migration law. In A. Biondi et al. (Eds.), Solidarity in EU law – Legal principle in the making (pp. 114–132). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bieber, R., & Maiani, F. (2012). Sans solidarité point d’Union européenne – regards croisés sur les crises de l’Union économique et monétaire et du système européen commun d’asile. Revue trimestrielle de droit européen, 48, 295–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanquet, M. (1994). L’article 5 du Traité CEE. Recherche sur les obligations de fidélité des États membres de la Communauté. Paris: LGDJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borger, V. (2013). How the debt crisis exposes the development of solidarity in the Euro Area. European Constitutional Law Review, 9, 7–36.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boutayeb, C. (2011). La solidarité, un principe immanent au droit de l’Union européenne – éléments pour une théorie. In C. Boutayeb (Ed.), La solidarité dans l’Union européenne – éléments constitutionnels et matériels (pp. 5–37). Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannizzaro, E. (2016). Disintegration through law? European Papers, 1, 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrera, S. (2014). The price of EU citizenship – The Maltese citizenship-for-sale affair and the principle of sincere cooperation in nationality matters. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 21, 406–427.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Casolari, F. (2014). EU loyalty after Lisbon: An expectation gap to be filled? In L. S. Rossi & F. Casolari (Eds.), The EU after Lisbon – Amending or coping with the existing treaties? (pp. 93–133). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casolari, F. (2015a). The principle of loyal cooperation: A ‘master key’ for EU external representation? In S. Besson & N. Levrat (Eds.), L’Union européenne et le droit international – The European Union and international law (pp. 91–125). Geneva: Schulthess.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casolari, F. (2015b). EU citizenship and money: A liaison dangereuse? International and EU legal issues concerning the selling of EU citizenship. Biblioteca della libertà, 50, 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cîrlig, C. C., Tilindyte, L., Mazur, S., & Members’ Research Service. (2018). The EU-UK withdrawal agreement – Progress to date and remaining difficulties. European Parliamentary Research Service. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/625110/EPRS_IDA(2018)625110_EN.pdf

  • Cloots, E. (2015). National identity in EU law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coicaud, J. M. (2008). Conclusion: Making sense of national interest and international solidarity. In J. M. Coicaud & J. Wheeler (Eds.), National interest and international solidarity – Particular and universal ethics in international life (pp. 288–301). Tokyo, New York, Paris: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona, M. (2009). Extending the reach of the AETR principle: Comment on Commission v Greece (C-45/07). European Law Review, 34, 754–768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagilyte, E. (2018). Solidarity: A general principle of EU law? Two variations on the solidarity theme. In A. Biondi et al. (Eds.), Solidarity in EU law – Legal principle in the making (pp. 61–90). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • De Baere, G., & Roes, T. (2015). EU loyalty as good faith. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 64, 829–874.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • de Búrca, G. (2014). Europe’s raison d’être. In D. Kochenov & F. Amtenbrink (Eds.), The European Union’s shaping of the international legal order (pp. 21–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Witte, B. (2013). Using international law in the Euro crisis – Causes and consequences (ARENA Working Paper No. 4).

    Google Scholar 

  • De Witte, B. (2017). Variable geometry and differentiation as structural features of the EU legal order. In B. De Witte et al. (Eds.), Between flexibility and disintegration – The trajectory of differentiation in EU law (pp. 9–27). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado Casteleiro, A., & Larik, J. (2011). The duty to remain silent: Limitless loyalty in EU external relations? European Law Review, 36, 524–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Federico, G. (2017). L’identità nazionale degli Stati membri nel diritto dell’Unione europea – natura e portata dell’art. 4, par. 2, TUE. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimopoulos, A. (2014). The use of international law as a tool for enhancing governance in the Eurozone and its impact on the EU institutional integrity. In M. Adams et al. (Eds.), The constitutionalization of budgetary constraints (pp. 41–63). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan, M. (2015). The critical turn in EU legal studies. Common Market Law Review, 52, 881–888.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Draft Agreement. (2018). Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_agreement_coloured.pdf

  • Dzankic, J. (2012). The pros and cons of ius pecuniae: Investor citizenship in comparative perspective (EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2012/4). Retrieved July 31, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESM. (2012). Treaty establishing the ESM. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from http://www.esm.europa.eu/pdf/esm_treaty_en.pdf

  • European Commission. (2014). Joint Press Statement by the European Commission and the Maltese Authorities on Malta’s Individual Investor Programme (IIP), Memo 29 January 2014. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-70_en.htm

  • European Commission. (2017). Report from the European Commission under Article 25 TFEU on progress towards effective EU citizenship 2013-2016, COM (2017) 32 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2018). Speakings by Commissioner Jourová on the occasion of her visit to Malta on 14 June 2018. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-4182_en.htm

  • European Council. (2012). Treaty on stability, coordination and governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/20399/st00tscg26_en12.pdf

  • European Council. (2017). European Council (Art. 50) guidelines for Brexit negotiations, Press Release 220/17, 29 April 2017. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/04/29/euco-brexit-guidelines/pdf

  • European Parliament. (2014). European Parliament resolution of 16 January 2014 on EU citizenship for sale. OJ [2016] C 482/117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fartunova, M. (2016). La coopération loyale vue sous le prisme de la reconnaissance mutuelle: quelques réflexions sur les fondements de la construction européenne. Cahiers de droit européen, 52, 193–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbrandy, A., & Scholten, M. (2015). Core values: Tensions and balances in the EU shared legal order. In A. den Brink et al. (Eds.), Sovereignty in the shared legal order of the EU – Core values of regulation and enforcement (pp. 9–30). Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gestri, M. (2012). EU disaster response law: Principles and instruments. In A. de Guttry et al. (Eds.), International disaster response law (pp. 105–128). The Hague: Asser Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Grief, N. (2008). The domestic reach of general principles of law: First City Trading revisited. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 10, 199–214.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Guastaferro, B. (2018). Sincere cooperation and respect for national identities. In R. Schütze & T. Tridimas (Eds.), Oxford principles of the European Union. Volume I: The European Union legal order (pp. 350–382). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam, D. (2004). Of power and responsibility: The political morality of federal systems. Virginia Law Review, 90, 731–834.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Herlin-Karnell, E. (2014). Constitutional principles in the EU area of freedom, security and justice. In D. Acosta & C. Murphy (Eds.), EU security and justice law – After Lisbon and Stockholm (pp. 38–53). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillion, C. (2010). Mixity and coherence in EU external relations: The significance of ‘duty of cooperation’. In C. Hillion & P. Koutrakos (Eds.), Mixed agreements revisited – The EU and its Member States in the World (pp. 87–115). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillion, C. (2018). Withdrawal under article 50 TEU: An integration-friendly process. Common Market Law Review, 55, 29–56.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Juncker, J. C. (2016). State of the Union 2016. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klamert, M. (2014). The principle of loyalty in EU law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Klamert, M. (2015). Loyalität und Solidarität in der Europäischen Union. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, 70, 265–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuijper, P. J., & Paasivirta, E. (2013). EU international responsibility and its attribution: From the inside looking out. In M. Evans & P. Koutrakos (Eds.), The international responsibility of the European Union: European and international perspectives (pp. 33–71). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, T. (2008). Article 10 EC – The most important ‘general principle’ of community law. In U. Bernitz et al. (Eds.), General principles of EC law in a process of development (pp. 75–113). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larik, J. (2017). Sincere cooperation in the common commercial policy: Lisbon, a ‘joined-up’ Union, and ‘Brexit’. In M. Bungenberg et al. (Eds.), European yearbook of international economic law (pp. 83–110). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larik, J. (2018). Pars pro toto: The Member States’ obligations of sincere cooperation, solidarity and unity. In M. Cremona (Ed.), Structural principles in EU external relations law (pp. 175–199). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, K. (2007). La constitutionnalisation de l’ordre juridique de l’Union européenne. In R. Andersen (Ed.), Mélanges en homage à Francis Delpérée. Itinéraires d’un constitutionnaliste (pp. 815–831). Brussels/Paris: Bruylant/LGDJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, K. (2015). The principle of mutual recognition in the area of freedom, security and justice. The Fourth Annual Sir Jeremy Lever Lecture. All Souls College, University of Oxford, 30 January 2015. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/the_principle_of_mutual_recognition_in_the_area_of_freedom_judge_lenaerts.pdf

  • Levade, A. (2011). La valeur constitutionnelle du principe de solidarité. In C. Boutayeb (Ed.), La solidarité dans l’Union européenne – éléments constitutionnels et matériels (pp. 41–52). Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maduro, M. P., & Wind, M. (Eds.). (2017). The transformation of Europe – Twenty-five years on. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinico, G. (2013). The tangled complexity of the EU constitutional process – The frustrating knot of Europe. London: Routledge.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Michel, V. (2015). Contrôle de proportionnalité et balance des intérêts: variation du contrôle selon les intérêts invoqués par l’État. In E. Neframi (Ed.), Renvoi préjudiciel et marge d’appréciation du juge national (pp. 209–243). Brussels: Larcier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miglio, A. (2018a). Differentiated integration and the principle of loyalty. European Constitutional Law Review, 14(3), 475–498. Published online. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/C831733570526C975BD402B358050046/S1574019618000275a.pdf/differentiated_integration_and_the_principle_of_loyalty.pdf

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Miglio, A. (2018b). Solidarity in EU asylum and migration law: A crisis management tool or a structural principle? In E. Kuzelewska et al. (Eds.), Irregular migration as a challenge for democracy (pp. 23–49). Antwerp: Intersentia.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Möstl, M. (2010). Preconditions and limits of mutual recognition. Common Market Law Review, 47, 405–436.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Neframi, E. (2010). The duty of loyalty: Rethinking its scope through its application in the field of EU external relations. Common Market Law Review, 47, 323–359.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Neframi, E. (2011). La solidarité et les objectifs d’action extérieure de l’Union européenne. In C. Boutayeb (Ed.), La solidarité dans l’Union européenne – éléments constitutionnels et matériels (pp. 137–154). Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neframi, E. (2016). Principe de coopération loyale et principe d’attribution dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre du droit de l’Union. Cahiers de droit européen, 52, 221–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, M. (2017). The Visegrád Group as a vehicle for promoting national interests in the European Union: The case of the Czech Republic. Politics in Central Europe, 13, 55–67.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Oliva, A. M. (2005). Solidarité et construction européenne. In J. C. Beguin et al. (Eds.), La solidarité en droit public (pp. 65–96). Paris: L’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, M. C. (2017). Do the decision-making mechanisms in the EU undermine Member States’ national interests?: A case study of the sanctions regime. Emory International Law Review, 31, 553–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers, S. (2013). Towards a new form of EU law? The use of EU institutions outside the EU legal framework. European Constitutional Law Review, 9, 37–72.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pescatore, P. (2005). Le droit de l’integration – émergence d’un phénompne nouveau dans les relations internationals selon l’expèrience des Communautés européennes. Brussels: Bruylant (réimpression de l’ouvrage poublié chez A.W. Sijthoff-Leiden en 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • Picheral, C. (2011). La solidarité dans la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union. In C. Boutayeb (Ed.), La solidarité dans l’Union européenne – éléments constitutionnels et matériels (pp. 93–105). Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pistoia, E. (2018). Limiti all’integrazione differenziata dell’Unione europea. Bari: Cacucci Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reflection Group. (2010). Reflection group project Europe 2030 – Challenges and opportunities, report to the European Council, May 2010, 13–14. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/en_web.pdf

  • Reich, N. (2012). How proportionate is the proportionality principle? Some critical remarks on the use and methodology of the proportionality principle in the internal market case law of the ECJ. In B. De Witte & H. W. Micklitz (Eds.), The European Court of justice and the autonomy of the Member States (pp. 83–111). Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roes, T. (2016). Limits to loyalty. The relevance of Article 4(3) TEU. Cahiers de droit européen, 52, 253–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rome Declaration. (2017). Rome Declaration 2017. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/03/25/rome-declaration/

  • Ross, M. (2010). Solidarity – A new constitutional paradigm for the EU? In M. Ross & Y. Bourgmann-Prebil (Eds.), Promoting solidarity in the European Union (pp. 23–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, L. S. (2014). A new revision of the EU treaties after Lisbon? In L. S. Rossi & F. Casolari (Eds.), The EU after Lisbon – Amending or coping with the existing treaties? (pp. 3–19). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, L. S. (2017). The principle of equality among Member States of the European Union. In L. S. Rossi & F. Casolari (Eds.), The principle of equality in EU law (pp. 3–42). Cham: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • SAA Albania. (2009). Stabilisation and Association Agreement concluded with Albania. OJ [2009] L 107/166.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAA Montenegro. (2010). Stabilisation and Association Agreement concluded with Montenegro. OJ [2010] L 108/3.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAA Serbia. (2013). Stabilisation and Association Agreement concluded with Serbia. OJ [2013] L 278/13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrauwen, A. (2016). Cracks in the EU. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 43, 107–112.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman Declaration. (1950). Retrieved September 15, 2018, from https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/doc/questions-d-europe/qe-204-en.pdf

  • Schwarze, J. (2013). Balancing EU integration and national interests in the case-law of the Court of Justice. In Court of Justice of the European Union – Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne (Ed.), The Court of Justice and the construction of Europe: Analyses and perspectives on sixty years of case-law – La Cour de Justice et la construction de l’Europe: Analyses et perspectives de soixante ans de jurisprudence (pp. 257–278). The Hague: Asser Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Spaak. (1948). “The Need for European Solidarity”, speech delivered by the Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak on 13 March 1948. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from http://www.cvce.eu

  • Stjernø, S. (2005). Solidarity in Europe: The history of an idea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thies, A. (2013). Le devoir de coopération loyale dans l’exercice des compétences externes de l’Union européenne et des États membres. In E. Neframi (Ed.), Objectifs et compétences dans l’Union européenne (pp. 315–340). Brussels: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas, T. (2006). The general principles of EU law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN. (2008). doc. A/HRC/9/10, 15 August 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert, S., & Borger, V. (2017). Differentiated integration in EMU. In B. De Witte et al. (Eds.), Between flexibility and disintegration – The trajectory of differentiation in EU law (pp. 290–236). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Elsuwege, P., & Merket, H. (2012). The role of the Court of Justice in ensuring the unity if the EU’s external representation. In S. Blockmans & R. A. Wessel (Eds.), Principles and practices of EU external representation (CLEER Working papers 2012/5, 37–57).

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, A. (2013). Constitutional principles. In A. von Bogdandy & J. Bast (Eds.), Principles of European constitutional law (pp. 3–52). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, A. (2016). European law beyond ‘ever closer Union’ – Repositioning the concept, its thrust and the ECJ’s comparative methodology. European Law Journal, 22, 519–538.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, A., et al. (2018). A potential constitutional moment for the European rule of law – The importance of red lines. Common Market Law Review, 55, 983–996.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, J. H. H. (1991). The transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal, 100, 2403–2483.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wessel, R. A. (2018). Consequences of Brexit for international agreements concluded by the EU and its Member States. Common Market Law Review, 55, 101–132.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, J., & Schmitt, P. (2017). Equality among Member States and differentiated integration in the EU. In L. S. Rossi & F. Casolari (Eds.), The principle of equality in EU law (pp. 43–82). Cham: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Berramdane A (2011) Solidarité, loyauté dans le droit de l’Union européenneIn: Boutayeb C (ed) La solidarité dans l’Union européenne—Éléments constitutionnels et matériels. Dalloz, Paris, 53–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Berramdane A (2011) Solidarité, loyauté dans le droit de l’Union européenneIn: Boutayeb C (ed) La solidarité dans l’Union européenne—Éléments constitutionnels et matériels. Dalloz, Paris, 53–79

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Studies, Alma Mater Studiorum – Università degli Studi di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Federico Casolari

Authors
  1. Federico Casolari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federico Casolari .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary

    Marton Varju

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Casolari, F. (2019). EU Loyalty and the Protection of Member States’ National Interests. In: Varju, M. (eds) Between Compliance and Particularism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05782-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05782-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05781-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05782-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)