Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 80 [Solidarity and Responsibility]

  • 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))

  • 1749 Accesses

Abstract

The term “solidarity” among EU MSs does not have a single, uniform meaning in EU law but can refer to a number of different legal contexts. Solidarity among MSs is mentioned in the treaties in a number of instances and within different policy areas. It is referred to as one of the values that the European Union is founded on (Article 2 TEU) and as one of its principles that guides the Union’s action on the international scene (Article 21 TEU). It is also mentioned in the context of the Union’s external action as “mutual political solidarity among Member States” (Article 24.2 TEU) and “a spirit of mutual solidarity” (Article 31 TEU). Furthermore, the “spirit of solidarity between Member States” is addressed in the case of a shortage of supply of certain products, notably energy (Article 122.1 TFEU). In the context of energy, “a spirit of solidarity between Member States” is invoked as regards the need to preserve and improve the environment in the internal market (Article 194.1 TFEU).

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.

    For identifying the role of solidarity in different areas of EU law, see Ross (2010), pp. 23–45.

  2. 2.

    For example, Case C-184/99, Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (ECJ 20 September 2001) para 44.

  3. 3.

    Council, Presidency Conclusions, Tampere, 15–16 October 1999.

  4. 4.

    Council, Presidency Conclusions: The Hague Programme for Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union, Brussels, 4–5 November 2004.

  5. 5.

    Council, European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, Brussels, 24 September 2008.

  6. 6.

    European Council, The Stockholm Programme – An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens, European Council, O.J. C 115/1 (2010).

  7. 7.

    See e.g. the text “Towards a New Policy on Migration” among the ten priorities of the Juncker Commission. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/archives/juncker-commission/priorities/08/index_en.htm. See also Juncker’s campaign highlights “Europe needs more solidarity to cope with the challenge of immigration”, 2 May 2014. Available at http://juncker.epp.eu/news/europe-needs-more-solidarity-cope-challenge-immigration.

  8. 8.

    See, for example, Case C-61/11 PPU, Hassen El Dridi, alias Karim Soufi (ECJ 28 April 2011).

  9. 9.

    Case C-378/97, Florus Ariël Wijsenbeek (ECJ 21 September 1999) para 40, where the Court of Justice stated that the then Article 7a TEC [now Article 26 TFEU] does not have direct effect as it “presupposes harmonisation of the laws of the Member States governing the crossing of the external borders of the Community, immigration, the grant of visas, asylum and the exchange of information on those questions.”

  10. 10.

    On the meaning and content of solidarity in EU migration and asylum law, see Goldner Lang (2018c).

  11. 11.

    For burden-sharing, see Thielemann (2003), p. 253; Thielemann (2005), Byrne (2003), p. 336.

  12. 12.

    On the critique of the Dublin state-of-first entry rule and the human rights and legitimacy challenges in EU migration and aszlum law, see Goldner Lang (2018b).

  13. 13.

    For example, as provided by Eurostat, in 2012 there were high disparities between MS of incoming Dublin requests (requests received by one MS from other MS, requesting that MS to accept responsibility of an asylum application based on the Dublin rules), with Italy receiving by far the most incoming requests (12358, and followed by Poland with 4725 request). On the other hand, asylum seekers seem to prefer applying for asylum in certain MS which are not necessarily at the EU external borders. In 2013 five MS (Germany, Sweden, France, UK and Italy received 70% of all asylum applications. The picture was, however, different in relative terms, with Malta having received the highest number when compared to its national population (20.2 asylum seekers per 1000 inhabitants) (UNHCR statistics).

  14. 14.

    ECRE Report on the Application of the Dublin II Regulation in Europe, AD2/3/2006/EXT/MH, 2006; Amnesty International, The Dublin II Trap: Transfers of Asylum-Seekers to Greece, 2010; Velluti (2014), p. 9.

  15. 15.

    European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Comment from the European Council on Refugees and Exiles on the European Commission Proposal to recast the Dublin Regulation (April 2009).

  16. 16.

    Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece, O.J. L 239/146 (2015); Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, O.J. L 248/80 (2015). However, Relocation Decisions are not functioning well in practice, as a number of MS feel reluctant to fulfil their relocation quotas. The state of play from 2 June 2017 reveals that, out of 34,953 stipulated relocations from Italy, only 6502 relocations have taken place by this date, whereas, out of 63,303 stipulated relocations from Greece, 13,802 relocations have taken place by the same date (Available at http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/press-material/docs/state_of_play_-_relocation_en.pdf.

  17. 17.

    For example, from 21 August until 21 October 2015 Germany decided to use the sovereignty clause to suspend Dublin transfers of Syrians. Also, in the past couple of years a number of national courts in several MS issued individual decisions suspending Dublin transfers to Hungary.

  18. 18.

    Joined cases C-411/10 and C-493/10, NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department and ME and Others v Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law (ECJ 21 December 2011).

  19. 19.

    Appl. No. 30696/09, MSS v Belgium and Greece (ECtHR, 21 January 2011).

  20. 20.

    Case C-394/12, Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt (ECJ 10 December 2013).

  21. 21.

    Appl. No. 29217/12, Tarakhel v. Switzerland (ECtHR 4 November 2014).

  22. 22.

    Case C-578/16 PPU, C.K. v Slovenia (ECJ 16 February 2017).

  23. 23.

    Case C-394/12, Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt (ECJ 10 December 2013) para 62.

  24. 24.

    Case C-578/16 PPU, C.K. v Slovenia (ECJ 16 February 2017) para 96.

  25. 25.

    Case C-578/16 PPU, C.K. v Slovenia (ECJ 16 February 2017) para 96.

  26. 26.

    Rizcallah (2017).

  27. 27.

    Commission Recommendation addressed to the Member States on the resumption of transfers to Greece under Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013, C(2016) 8525 final.

  28. 28.

    Proposal for a Parliament/Council Regulation 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 (recast), COM(2016) 270 final; see also the recently amended proposal for a Parliament/Council Regulation establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union, COM(2020) 611 final.

  29. 29.

    For the critique of the Dublin IV Proposal, see: ECRE, Comments on the Commission Proposal for a Dublin IV Regulation, COM(2016) 270 October 2016. Available at http://www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ECRE-Comments-Dublin-IV.pdf; European Parliament LIBE Committee Study, Implementation of the 2015 Council Decisions establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece, March 2017. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583132/IPOL_STU(2017)583132_EN.pdf.

  30. 30.

    Case C-490/16, A.S. v Slovenia (ECJ 26 July 2017); Case C-646/16, Jafari (ECJ 26 July 2017).

  31. 31.

    Case C-670/16, Mengesteab (ECJ 26 July 2017).

  32. 32.

    On the discussion of A.S. and Jafari and Mengesteab and the Western Balkans route, see Goldner Lang (2018a).

  33. 33.

    European Parliament Study, What System of Burden-sharing Between Member States for the Reception of Asylum Seekers? January 2010, PE 419.620.

  34. 34.

    Article 3.1 of Parliament/Council Regulation (EU) 516/2014 establishing the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, O.J. L 150/168 (2014). See also Parliament/Council Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 laying down general provisions on the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management, O.J. L 150/112 (2014).

  35. 35.

    Parliament/Council Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa, O.J. L 150/143 (2014); European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 513/2014 establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management, O.J. L 150/93 (2014).

  36. 36.

    For the UNHCR comments on the migration and asylum funding see UNHCR. Available at http://www.unhcr.org/50e6e0099.pdf.

  37. 37.

    Draft amending budget No 1 to the general budget for 2016: New instrument to provide emergency support within the Union, COM(2016) 152 final.

  38. 38.

    Council Press Release. Available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/11/08-2016-eu-budget-prioritisation-of-expenditure/.

  39. 39.

    All cited Internet sources in this comment have been accessed on 29 December 2020.

References

All cited Internet sources in this comment have been accessed on 29 December 2020.

  • Byrne, R. (2003). Harmonization and Burden redistribution in the two Europes. Journal of Refugee Studies, 16(3), 336–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECRE, Comments on the Commission Proposal for a Dublin IV Regulation, COM(2016) 270 October 2016. Retrieved from http://www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ECRE-Comments-Dublin-IV.pdf

  • European Parliament LIBE Committee Study, Implementation of the 2015 Council Decisions establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece, March 2017. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583132/IPOL_STU(2017)583132_EN.pdf

  • Goldner Lang, I. (2018a). Croatia and EU asylum law: Playing on the sidelines or at the centre of events? In V. Stoyanova & E. Karageorgiou (Eds.), The new asylum and transit countries in Europe during and in the aftermath of the 2015/2016 crisis (pp. 93–112). Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldner Lang, I. (2018b). Human rights and legitimacy in the implementation of EU asylum and migration law. In S. Vöneky & G. L. Neuman (Eds.), Human rights, democracy, and legitimacy in a world of disorder (pp. 234–262). Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldner Lang, I. (2018c). The EU financial and migration crises: Two crises—Many facets of solidarity. In A. Biondi, E. Dagilyte & E. Küçük (Eds.), Solidarity in EU law: Legal principle in the making (pp. 133–159). Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizcallah, C. (2017, February 20). The Dublin system: The ECJ squares the circle between mutual trust and human rights protection. EU Law Analysis. Retrieved from http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.hr/2017/02/the-dublin-system-ecj-squares-circle.html

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thielemann, E. (2003). Between interests and norms: Explaining burden-sharing in the European Union. Journal of Refugee Studies, 16(3), 253–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thielemann, E. (2005). Towards refugee burden-sharing in the European Union: State interests and policy options. In Ninth Biennial International Conference of the European Union Studies Association, Austin, 31 March-2 April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velluti, S. (2014). Reforming the common European asylum system – Legislative developments and judicial activism of European Courts. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Iris Goldner Lang

Authors
  1. Iris Goldner Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iris Goldner Lang .

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

1.1 ECJ

  • ECJ 20.09.2001, C-184/99, Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, ECLI:EU:C:2001:458 [cit. in para 1]

  • ECJ 28.04.2011, C-61/11 PPU, Hassen El Dridi, alias Karim Soufi, ECLI:EU:C:2011:268 [cit. in para 2]

  • ECJ 21.09.1999, C-378/97, Florus Ariël Wijsenbeek, ECLI:EU:C:1999:439 [cit. in para 5]

  • ECJ 21.12.2011, C-411/10 and C-493/10, NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department and ME and Others v Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law, ECLI:EU:C:2011:865 [cit. in para 9]

  • ECJ 10.12.2013, C-394/12, Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt, ECLI:EU:C:2013:813 [cit. in para 10]

  • ECJ 16.02.2017, C-578/16 PPU, C.K. v Slovenia, ECLI:EU:C:2017:127 [cit. in paras 10, 12]

  • ECJ 26.07.2017, C-490/16, A.S. v Slovenia, ECLI:EU:C:2017:585 [cit. in para 16]

  • ECJ 26.07.2017, C-646/16 Jafari, ECLI:EU:C:2017:586 [cit. in para 16]

  • ECJ 26.07.2017, C-670/16, Mengesteab, ECLI:EU:C:2017:587 [cit. in para 16]

1.2 ECtHR

  • ECtHR 21.01.2011, 30696/09, MSS v Belgium and Greece [cit. in para 9]

  • ECtHR 04.11.2014, 29217/12, Tarakhel v Switzerland [cit. in para 10]

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

Goldner Lang, I. (2021). Article 80 [Solidarity and Responsibility]. 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_81

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_81

  • 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