Article 49 [Accession to the Union]

(ex-Article 49 TEU)
  • Hermann-Josef Blanke
  • Stelio Mangiameli
Chapter

Abstract

Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union. 4–14 The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall be notified of this application. The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members. The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account. 15–27

Keywords

European Council Legal Order Candidate Country Political Practice National Parliament 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Table of Cases

  1. ECJ 22.11.1978, 93/78, Mattheus v Doego, ECR 2203 [cit. in para 38]Google Scholar
  2. ECJ 29.03.1979, 231/78, Commission v United Kingdom, ECR 1447 [cit. in para 31, 35, 39]Google Scholar
  3. ECJ 16.02.1981, Joined Cases 39/81, 43/81, 85/81 and 88/81 Halyvourgiki and Helleniki Halyvourgia v Commission, ECR 593 [cit. in para 31]Google Scholar
  4. ECJ 23.03.1983, 77/82, Peskeloglou, ECR 1085 [cit. in para 31]Google Scholar
  5. ECJ 17.01.1985, 11/82, Piraiki-Patraiki et al. v Commission, ECR 207 [cit. in para 31]Google Scholar
  6. ECJ 30.01.1985, 143/83, Commission v Denmark, ECR 427 [cit. in para 29]Google Scholar
  7. ECJ 28.04.1988, Joined Cases 31 and 35/86, LAISA, ECR 2285 [cit. in para 37]Google Scholar
  8. ECJ 14.12.1989, C-3/87, Agegate, ECR 4459 [cit. in para 31]Google Scholar
  9. ECJ 26.02.1991, C-292/89 R, The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Antonissen, ECR I-745 [cit. in para 29]Google Scholar
  10. ECJ 23.02.1996, Joined Cases C-197/94 and C-252/94, Bautiaa and Société Française Maritime v Directeur des Services Fiscaux, ECR I-505 [cit. in para 29]Google Scholar
  11. ECJ 02.10.1997, C-122/96, Saldanha e MTS, ECR I-5325 [cit. in para 33]Google Scholar
  12. ECJ 02.10.1997, C-259/95, Parliament v Council, ECR I-5303 [cit. in para 32]Google Scholar
  13. ECJ 03.12.1998, C-233/97, KappAhl Oy, ECR I-8069 [cit. in para 29]Google Scholar
  14. ECJ 11.09.2003, C-445/00, Austria v Council, ECR I-8549 [cit. in para 36]Google Scholar
  15. ECJ 28.11.2006, C-413/04, Parliament v Council, ECR I-11221 [cit. in para 31, 32]Google Scholar
  16. ECJ 28.11.2006, C-414/04, Parliament v Council, ECR I-11279 [cit. in para 32]Google Scholar
  17. ECJ 23.10.2007, C-273/04, Poland v Council, ECR I-8925 [cit. in para 32]Google Scholar
  18. ECJ 11.12. 2007, C-161/06, Skoma-Lux, ECR I-10841 [cit. in para 34]Google Scholar
  19. ECJ 28.04.2009, C-420/07, Apostolides v Orams, ECR I-3571 [cit. in para 31]Google Scholar
  20. ECJ 12.11.2009, C-441/08, Elektrownia Pątnów II sp. zoo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu, ECR I-10799 [cit. in para 33]Google Scholar
  21. ECJ 28.10.2010, C-350/08, Commission v Lithuania, ECR I-10525 [cit. in para 31]Google Scholar

References

  1. Albi, A. (2009). Ironies in human rights protection in the EU: Pre-accession conditionality and post-accession conundrums. European Law Journal, 15(1), 46–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amalfitano, C. (2009). L’acquis comunitario: da esperienza giuridica a fattore di integrazione. Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 789–824.Google Scholar
  3. Beauvais, G. (2010). L’intégration dans l’Union Européenne des micro-Etats tiers: du rapprochement à l’adhésion? RMCUE, 315–322.Google Scholar
  4. Blockmans, S. (2009). Raising the threshold for further EU enlargement: Process, problems and prospects. In A. Ott & E. Vos (Eds.), Fifty years of European integration: Foundations and perspectives (pp. 203–220). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgorgue-Larsen, L., Levade, A., & Picod, F. (Eds.). (2007). Traité établissant une Constitution pour l’Europe: commentaire article par article. Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  6. Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2011). EUV/AEUV. Kommentar (4th ed.). Munich: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  7. Craig, P. (2011). The European Union Act 2011: Locks, limits and legality. Common Market Law Review, 48(6), 1915–1944.Google Scholar
  8. De Burca, G. (2004). Beyond the charter: How enlargement has enlarged the human rights policy of the European Union. Fordham International Law Journal, 27(2), 679–714.Google Scholar
  9. De Ridder, E., & Kochenov, D. (2011). Democratic conditionality in the eastern enlargement: Ambitious window dressing. European Foreign Affairs Review, 16(5), 589 seqq.Google Scholar
  10. De Witte, B. (2003). The impact of enlargement on the Constitution of the European Union. In M. Cremona (Ed.), The enlargement of the European Union (pp. 209–252). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grabitz, E., Hilf, M., & Nettesheim, M. (2010). Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Kommentar. Munich: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  12. Hillion, C. (2004). The Copenhagen criteria and their progeny. In C. Hillion (Ed.), EU enlargement: A legal approach (pp. 1–23). Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  13. Hillion, C. (2010). The creeping nationalisation of the EU enlargement policy. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies (SIEPS).Google Scholar
  14. Hillion, C. (2011). Enlarging the constitutional order of states. In A. Arnull (Ed.), A constitutional order of States? Essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood (pp. 485–499). Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  15. Kochenov, D. (2005). EU enlargement law [on-line]: History and recent developments: Treaty custom concubinage? European Integration Online Papers, 9(6), 1–23.Google Scholar
  16. Kochenov, D. (2006). Why the promotion of the Acquis is not the same as the promotion of democracy and what can be done in order to also promote democracy instead just promoting the Acquis. Hanse Law Review, 2(2), 171–195.Google Scholar
  17. Kochenov, D. (2008). EU enlargement and the failure of conditionality. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  18. Lenaerts, K. (2000). Respect for fundamental rights as a constitutional principle of the European Union. The Columbia Journal of European Law, 6(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  19. Maresceau, M. (2003). Preaccession. In M. Cremona (Ed.), The enlargement of the European Union (p. 9). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mori, P. (2010). Rapporti tra fonti nel diritto dell’Unione europea – il diritto primario. Turin: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
  21. Pingel, I. (Ed.). (2010). Commentaire article par article des Traités UE et CE. Paris: Bâle.Google Scholar
  22. Streinz, R. (Ed.). (2012). EUV/AEUV: Vertrag über die Europäische Union und Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union. München.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hermann-Josef Blanke
    • 1
  • Stelio Mangiameli
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty for Economics, Law and Social ScienceUniversity of ErfurtErfurtGermany
  2. 2.National Research Council Institute for Regionalism, Federalism and Self-GovernmentRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations