Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 68 [Strategic Guidelines]

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – A Commentary

Part of the book series: Springer Commentaries on International and European Law ((SCIEL))

  • 1713 Accesses

Abstract

Article 68 TFEU is a new provision, but one that catches up with reality since the European Councilhas been performing this function for decades. The Lisbon Treaty codifies the practice whereby the European Council has been setting out broad guidelines concerning the AFSJ. One can ask therefore if this article is superfluous today in the new institutional framework resulting from the Lisbon Treaty or if there is still added value to it.

With the contribution of Julia Burchett, research assistant.

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 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
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.

    Presidency Conclusions—Cardiff European Council, 15 and 16 June 1998, SN 150/1/98 REV 1 EN 15 (1998), para 37–43.

  2. 2.

    Council and Commission Action Plan of 3 December 1998 on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice, O.J. C 19 (1999).

  3. 3.

    COM(1998) 459 final.

  4. 4.

    Monar (2010), p. 70.

  5. 5.

    Presidency Conclusions—Tampere European Council, 15 and 16 October 1999.

  6. 6.

    Commission Communication, Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Assessment of the Tampere Programme and future orientations, COM(2004) 4002 final; See also Monar (2010), p. 70. The lack of cooperation of the JHA Council has led to mixed results regarding the implementation of the Programme. The probable reason for this might be the sensitive nature of the ambitious objectives set at the Tampere European Council. In any case, the Justice and Home Affairs ministers took a much more active part in the preparations of the subsequent Hague programme.

  7. 7.

    Murphy and Acosta Arcarazo (2014), p. 211.

  8. 8.

    Council Doc. 16054/04, The Hague Programme: Strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, Introduction para 6, JAI 559.

  9. 9.

    Council Doc. 16054/04, The Hague Programme, p. 5.

  10. 10.

    Council and Commission, Action Plan implementing The Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, O.J. C 198/01 (2005).

  11. 11.

    Balzacq and Carrera (2006), p. 6.

  12. 12.

    Council Doc. 5731/10, The Stockholm Programme: An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, Brussels, 3 March 2010 (82 pages compared to the 14 pages of the Hague Programme).

  13. 13.

    Commission Communication, Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens—Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme, COM(2010) 171 final.

  14. 14.

    Murphy and Acosta Arcarazo (2014), p. 211.

  15. 15.

    Kornobis-Romanowska (2005).

  16. 16.

    Craig (2013), p. 529.

  17. 17.

    Herrnfeld, in Schwarze (2012), Article 68 AEUV para 1.

  18. 18.

    Poli (2011), p. 27.

  19. 19.

    Poli (2011), p. 27.

  20. 20.

    Monar (2008), p. 82.

  21. 21.

    Carrera and Guild (2014).

  22. 22.

    Council Doc. 9935/10, Draft Council Conclusions on the Commission Communication “Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens-Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme” (COM(2010) 171 final), Brussels, 19 May 2010. The JHA Council reminded the Commission “that the Stockholm Programme is the only guiding frame of reference for the political and operational agenda of the European Union in the Area of Justice, Security and Freedom”.

  23. 23.

    Carrera and Guild (2012), p. 3.

  24. 24.

    Howorth (2014).

  25. 25.

    European Council Conclusions, 26/27 June 2014, EUCO 79/14 (2014).

  26. 26.

    Carrera and Guild (2014).

  27. 27.

    In para 2 Sentence 2 of the EC Conclusions “The answer to many of the challenges in the area of freedom, security and justice lies in relations with third countries, which calls for improving the link between the EU’s internal and external policies.”

  28. 28.

    Internal Security Strategy for the European Union-Towards a European security model.

  29. 29.

    Carrera and Guild (2014).

  30. 30.

    Commission Communication, An open and secure Europe: making it happen, COM (2014) 154.

  31. 31.

    Commission Communication, The EU Justice Agenda for 2020 – Strengthening Trust, Mobility, and Growth within the Union, O.J. C 451/104 (2014).

  32. 32.

    Commission Communication, A new EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law, COM (2014) 158.

  33. 33.

    EP Report on the Mid-Term Review of the Stockholm Programme, 2013/2024(INI), 4.3.2014, Rapporteurs: Luigi Berlinguer, Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar, Carlo Casini.

  34. 34.

    Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan, O.J. C 182/2 (2014), p. 2.

  35. 35.

    Kotzur, in Geiger et al. (2015), Article 68 AEUV para 3.

  36. 36.

    Carrera and Guild (2014).

  37. 37.

    EP Report on the Mid-Term Review of the Stockholm Programme (2013/2024(INI), 4 March 2014, Rapporteurs: Luigi Berlinguer, Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar, Carlo Casini. In para 114, the Report stated that the EP “Believes that the multiannual programming should be based on an interinstitutional agreement, as provided for in Article 17(1) TEU; expects the Commission, therefore, to submit a proposal on this basis”.

  38. 38.

    Carrera and Guild (2014).

  39. 39.

    Peers (2006), p. 51; Peers (2008).

  40. 40.

    Poli (2011), p. 27.

  41. 41.

    Doc. N° 7653/2000 of 6 June 2000.

  42. 42.

    Presidency conclusions—Santa Maria Da Feira European Council, 19 and 20 June 2000, para 51.

  43. 43.

    European Council conclusions, EUCO 79/14, Brussels, 26 and 27 June 2014, p. 1.

  44. 44.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, O.J. L 190 (2002).

  45. 45.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism, O.J. L 164 (2002).

  46. 46.

    EC, Informal meeting of the Heads of States or Government Brussels, 12 February 2015—Statement by the members of the European Council, 56/15 JHA (2015).

  47. 47.

    Monar (2010), p. 7.

  48. 48.

    Thym (2004).

  49. 49.

    C-643/15 and C-647/15, Slovak Republic and Hungary v Council (ECJ 6 September 2017).

  50. 50.

    Holzhacker and Luif (2014), p. 2.

  51. 51.

    All cited internet sources in this comment have been accessed on 9 December 2019.

References

All cited internet sources in this comment have been accessed on 9 December 2019.

  • Balzacq, T., & Carrera, S. (2006). The Hague programme. In T. Balzacq & S. Carrera (Eds.), Security versus freedom?: A challenge for Europe’s future (pp. 1–33). Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrera, S., & Guild, E. (2012). Does the Stockholm programme matter? The struggles over ownership of ASFJ multiannual programming. CEPS Essay. No. 51/December 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrera, S., & Guild, E. (2014). The European Council’s guidelines for the area of freedom, security and justice 2020 subverting the ‘Lisbonisation’ of justice and home affairs? CEPS Essay, No. 13/14 July 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P. (2013). The Lisbon treaty: Law, politics, and treaty reform (529 p). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R., Khan, D.-E., & Kotzur, M. (Eds.). (2015). European Union treaties. Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzhacker, R., & Luif, P. (2014). Introduction: Freedom, security and justice after Lisbon. In R. Holzhacker & P. Luif (Eds.), Freedom, security and justice in the European Union (pp. 1–12). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Howorth, J. (2014). The European Council’s “Strategic Agenda”: An agenda, maybe, but not strategic, Retrieved July 16, 2014, from http://www.e-ir.info/2014/07/16/the-european-councils-strategic-agenda-an-agenda-maybe-but-not-strategic

  • Kornobis-Romanowska, D. (2005). Developments in the area of freedom, security and justice brought about by the constitutional treaty. German Law Journal, 6(11), 1624–1639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monar, J. (2008). The reforms in justice and home affairs domains: The end of the “Third Pillar”. In F. Laursen (Ed.), The rise and fall of the EU’s constitutional treaty (pp. 79–104). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Monar, J. (2010). The institutional dimension of the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice, College of Europe Studies, No. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, C., & Acosta Arcarazo, D. (2014). Rethinking Europe’s freedom, security and justice. In D. Acosta Arcarazo & C. C. Murphy (Eds.), EU security and justice law: After Lisbon and Stockholm (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers, S. (2006). EU justice and home affairs law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers, S. (2008). EU immigration and asylum competence and decision-making in the Treaty of Lisbon. European Journal of Migration and Law, 10, 219–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poli, S. (2011). The institutional setting and the legal toolkit. In M. Cremona, J. Monar, & S. Poli (Eds.), The external dimension of the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice (pp. 25–75). Brussels: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, J., et al. (Eds.). (2012). EU-Kommentar. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thym, D. (2004). The area of freedom, security and justice in the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. WHI – Paper 12/04.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France

    Constance Chevallier-Govers

Authors
  1. Constance Chevallier-Govers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Constance Chevallier-Govers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. Università degli Studi di Teramo, Teramo, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

List of Cases

List of Cases

  • ECJ 06.09.2017, C-643/15 and C-647/15, Slovak Republic and Hungary v Council, ECLI:EU:C:2017:631 [cit. in para 19]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chevallier-Govers, C. (2021). Article 68 [Strategic Guidelines]. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – A Commentary. Springer Commentaries on International and European Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_69

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_69

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43509-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43511-0

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation