Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Many Faces of Solidarity and Its Role in the Jurisprudence of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Principle of Solidarity

Part of the book series: Global Europe: Legal and Policy Issues of the EU’s External Action ((GELPIEEA,volume 2))

  • 347 Accesses

Abstract

The question moving the inquiry of this chapter is the following: how is solidarity used in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice? Section 13.2 presents a legal-theoretical discussion aimed at ascertaining what exactly is meant by a ‘face of solidarity’, that is, what could the ‘legal nature’ of the concept be. Building upon these theoretical foundations, the chapter zooms in on the case law in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Sections 13.3, 13.4 and 13.5 consider solidarity as a value, as a principle, and as a rule, detailing the applicable case law. Speaking of solidarity as a ‘value’ means that it transcends specific doctrinal domains such as migration law, labour law, human rights etc., and it offers instead a standard of behaviour to strive for and on the basis of which to adopt or interpret other rules. Solidarity is also a principle in the sense that it guides the application or interpretation of other rules, and in this sense, it is akin to a value (the differentiation is defended in the next section). Finally, solidarity is a rule insofar as it provides the solution to a legal controversy in a specific instance, by creating an obligation for the EU legislator or for the Member States.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    Stjernø 2009, p. 27 and work there cited.

  2. 2.

    The part of the Schuman declaration of 9 May 1950 mentioning solidarity, on which more below, was almost verbatim transposed in the preamble of the 1951 Treaty instituting the European Coal and Steel Community. Solidarity between Member States was then inserted in the Treaty on the European Community (Article 2) as modified in 1992 by the (Maastricht) Treaty on the European Union (Article G.2).

  3. 3.

    Hayward 1959, pp. 261, 263.

  4. 4.

    “Solidarity” (2022) Oxford Dictionary. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/solidarity#:~:text=%2F%CB%8Cs%C9%92l%C9%AA%CB%88d%C3%A6r%C9%99ti%2F,%2C%20opinions%2C%20aims%2C%20etc. Accessed 5 October 2022.

  5. 5.

    “Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single, general plan. It will be built through concrete achievements, which first create a de facto solidarity”.

  6. 6.

    Elster 2020, p. 591: ‘Definitions can never be true or false [...]. Those who write about populism, capitalism, democracy and other complex social phenomena sometimes give the impression that one can send out a kind of conceptual probe to discover their ‘true meaning’, just as one can send out a space ship to show us the hidden face of the moon. One writer may, for instance, criticize another for having ‘misunderstood’ populism. Such essentialist practices are common but meaningless. Everyone is entitled to their own definition, provided they stick to it consistently and, for ease of communication, do not deviate too much from common usage’.

  7. 7.

    Nietzsche 1887/2017, paras 13, 55: ‘Definierbar ist nur das, was keine Geschichte hat’.

  8. 8.

    Solidarity between employer and employees (Title IV of the Charter); between Member States if difficulties arise in the area of energy supply (Article 122 TFEU); between the Union and the Member States in case of a terrorist attack or of a natural or man-made disaster (Article 222 TFEU), etc.

  9. 9.

    The total number being 39 at the time of writing.

  10. 10.

    Scheppele et al. 2020.

  11. 11.

    Kassoti and Wessel forthcoming; Sommermann 2013, p. 160; Cannizzaro 2021.

  12. 12.

    Schiek 2020, p. 4.

  13. 13.

    In technical jurisprudential terms, our analysis is not rigidly anchored to legal positivism, as we believe that some concepts, which some would call “non-legal concepts”, are relevant to our understanding of “legal concepts”. The terms are in inverted commas because their distinction obscures more than it reveals.

  14. 14.

    For a history of this concept in relation to law and morality, see “Norma” (2012) Dizionario di Filosofia Treccani. https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/norma_%28Dizionario-di-filosofia%29/#:~:text=Nell'uso%20linguistico%20corrente%2C%20regola,n.%20o%20regola%20tecnica. Accessed 5 October 2022 (ad vocem).

  15. 15.

    Kelsen 1934, p. 267.

  16. 16.

    Kelsen 1979.

  17. 17.

    Baxter 1980, p. 549.

  18. 18.

    But for the distinction between principles and rules in EU law, see Tridimas 2007, drawing on Dworkin 1977.

  19. 19.

    Eliantonio et al. 2021.

  20. 20.

    Türk and Xanthoulis 2019, note 14.

  21. 21.

    Wessel 2016, p. 16.

  22. 22.

    See Ruiter 1993.

  23. 23.

    Dworkin 1977, p. 22.

  24. 24.

    Ibid.

  25. 25.

    Hart 2008.

  26. 26.

    MacCormick 2004, p. 26.

  27. 27.

    Domurath 2013, pp. 459–475; see also Hilpold 2015, p. 257.

  28. 28.

    Thym and Tsourdi 2017, p. 605.

  29. 29.

    Schiek 2020, p. 3.

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Biondi et al. 2018.

  32. 32.

    Wouters 2020, p. 260: ‘it seems a somewhat pointless undertaking to try to distinguish systematically between “values” and “principles”’.

  33. 33.

    Casolari 2021, p. 2.

  34. 34.

    On the distinction, see also the comment on Article 23 TEU by Rosas 2016, p. 641: ‘Whilst this provision thus uses the notion of “principles”, they are referred to in art. 2 TEU as “values”, and values they are’.

  35. 35.

    In addition, in its Article A, the Maastricht TEU stated that the task of the EU ‘shall be to organize, in a manner demonstrating consistency and solidarity, relations between the Member States and between their peoples’.

  36. 36.

    CJEU, Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15 Slovakia and Hungary v Council, Judgment of the Court of 6 September 2017, EU:C:2017:631.

  37. 37.

    Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, OJ L 248.

  38. 38.

    CJEU, Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15 Slovakia and Hungary v Council, EU:C:2017:631, paras 1–31.

  39. 39.

    CJEU, Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15 Slovakia and Hungary v Council, Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 26 July 2017, EU:C:2017:618, para 17.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., para 24.

  41. 41.

    CJEU, Case C-754/18 Ryanair v Országos Rendőr-főkapitányság, Opinion of Advocate General Maciej Szpunar, 27 February 2020, EU:C:2020:131.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., paras 1–2.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., para 81.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., para 32, emphasis added.

  45. 45.

    CJEU, Joined Cases C 322/19 and C 385/19 K.S. M.H.K. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Opinion of Advocate General de la Tour, 3 September 2020, EU:C:2020:642.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., paras 23–40.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., para 40.

  48. 48.

    CJEU, Case C-680/17 Vethanayagam v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, 28 March 2019, EU:C:2019:278.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., para 38.

  50. 50.

    CJEU, Case C-213/17 X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, Judgment of 5 July 2018, EU:C:2018:538.

  51. 51.

    CJEU, Case C-213/17 X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 13 June 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:434, paras 1–10.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., para 71.

  53. 53.

    CJEU, Case C-620/10 Kastrati, Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak, 12 January 2012, EU:C:2012:10.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., para 48.

  55. 55.

    CJEU, Case C-646/16 Jafari, Judgment of 26 July 2017, EU:C:2017:586.

  56. 56.

    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, OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., paras 1–2, 29–36.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., para 36.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., para 85.

  60. 60.

    CJEU, Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15 Slovakia and Hungary v Council, Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 26 July 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:618, para 24.

  61. 61.

    See recently Kaspiarovich and Wessel 2022; Cannizzaro 2021.

  62. 62.

    CJEU, Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15 Slovakia and Hungary v Council, Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 26 July 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:618 EU:C:2017:618, para 17. See also para 84.

  63. 63.

    CJEU, Case C-411/10 N.S. and Others, Judgment of 21 December 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:865.

  64. 64.

    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, OJ L 50, p. 1.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., paras 34–44.

  66. 66.

    Ibid.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., para 123.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., paras 10 and 93.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., paras 93–94.

  70. 70.

    CJEU, Case C-163/17 Jawo v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet, 25 July 2018, EU:C:2018:613, para 145.

  71. 71.

    CJEU, Case C-213/17 X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 13 June 2018, EU:C:2018:434, para 99.

  72. 72.

    CJEU, Case C-646/16 Jafari, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, 8 June 2017, EU:C:2017:443, para 139.

  73. 73.

    CJEU, Case C-638/16 PPU X and X, Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, 7 February 2017, EU:C:2017:93, para 174.

  74. 74.

    CJEU, Case C-278/12 PPU Adil, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, 9 July 2012, EU:C:2012:430, para 33.

  75. 75.

    CJEU, Case C-213/17 X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 13 June 2018, EU:C:2018:434, para 71.

  76. 76.

    Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, OJ L 348, p. 98.

  77. 77.

    CJEU, Case C‑163/17 Jawo, Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet, 25 July 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:613 para 145.

  78. 78.

    CJEU, Case C-638/16 PPU X and X, Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, 7 February 2017, EU:C:2017:93, paras 31–32.

  79. 79.

    Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) OJ L 243, p. 1.

  80. 80.

    CJEU, Case C-638/16 PPU X and X, Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, 7 February 2017, EU:C:2017:93, para 176.

  81. 81.

    CJEU, Case C-638/16 PPU X and X, Judgment of 7 March 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:173.

  82. 82.

    CJEU, Case C-638/16 PPU X and X, Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, 7 February 2017, EU:C:2017:93, para 174.

  83. 83.

    CJEU, Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15 Slovakia and Hungary v Council, Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 26 July 2017, EU:C:2017:618, para 20.

  84. 84.

    CJEU, Case C-278/12 PPU Adil, Judgment of 19 July 2012, EU:C:2012:508.

  85. 85.

    The referring court can file such a request pursuant to Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

  86. 86.

    CJEU, Case C-278/12 PPU Adil, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, 9 July 2012, ECLI:EU:C:2012:430, para 33.

  87. 87.

    CJEU, Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15 Slovakia and Hungary v Council, Judgment of the Court of 6 September 2017, EU:C:2017:631, para 306.

  88. 88.

    Ibid., paras 12, 41.

  89. 89.

    Ibid., paras 308–309.

  90. 90.

    Here, that Article 72 TFEU can be invoked by a Member State to disapply the relocation decisions which were in line “with the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility between Member States which, in accordance with Article 80 TFEU, governs the Union’s asylum policy”. See CJEU, Joined Cases C‑715/17, C-718/17 and Case C-719/17 Commission v Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic, Judgment of 2 April 2020, EU:C:2020:257, para 70.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., para 148.

  92. 92.

    Ibid., paras 80–81. See also CJEU, Case C-848/19 P Federal Republic of Germany v. European Commission (OPAL) (Energy Solidarity), Judgment of 15 July 2021, EU:C:2021:598, where ‘the Court referred to [C v Poland et al.] to highlight that the principle of solidarity under Article 80 TFEU is not merely abstract, but was crucial to the Court’s conclusion that, in essence, Member States had failed to fulfil certain obligations under EU asylum law.

  93. 93.

    CJEU, Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15 Slovakia and Hungary v Council, Judgment of 6 September 2017, EU:C:2017:631.

  94. 94.

    CJEU, Case C-213/17 X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 13 June 2018, EU:C:2018:434, para 10.

  95. 95.

    CJEU, Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15 Slovakia and Hungary v Council, Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 26 July 2017, EU:C:2017:618, para 242.

  96. 96.

    Specifically, with Article 5(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece, OJ 2015 L 239 and Article 5(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, OJ 2015 L 248.

  97. 97.

    Ibid.

  98. 98.

    Elster 2010, p. 248.

  99. 99.

    Consider the ironic title by the Guardian (2021) EU founding father Robert Schuman moves a step closer to sainthood. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/19/eu-founding-father-robert-schuman-moves-a-step-closer-to-sainthood>. Accessed 15 October 2021.

References

  • Baxter RR (1980) International law in “her infinite variety”. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 29:549–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biondi A, Dagilytė E, Küçük E (2018) (eds) Solidarity in EU Law: Legal Principle in the Making. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannizzaro A (2021) The Value of International Values. In: Douma W et al (eds) The Evolving Nature of EU External Relations Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Casolari F (2021) I principi del diritto dell’Unione europea negli accordi commerciali: una visione di insieme. In: Adinolfi G (ed) Gli accordi di nuova generazione dell'Unione europea in materia di commercio ed investimenti. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Domurath I (2013) The Three Dimensions of Solidarity in the EU Legal Order: Limits of the Judicial and Legal Approach. European Integration 35:459–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1977) Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliantonio M, Korkea-aho E, Stefan O (eds) (2021) EU Soft Law in the Member States. Theoretical Findings and Empirical Evidence. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster J (2010) The Cement of Society. A Study of Social Order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster J (2020) Some notes on ‘Populism’. Philosophy and Social Criticism 46:591–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (2008) Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward JES (1959) Solidarity: The Social History of an Idea in Nineteenth Century France. International Review of Social History 4:261–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold P (2015) Understanding Solidarity within EU Law. Yearbook of European Law 34:257–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaspiarovich Y, Wessel R A (2022) The Role of Values in EU External Relations: A Legal Assessment of the EU as a Good Global Actor. In: Fahey E, Mancini I (eds) Understanding the EU as a Good Global Actor: Ambitions, Directions and Values. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassoti E, Wessel R A (forthcoming) The Normative Effect of Article 3(5) TEU: Observance and Development of International Law by the European Union. In: Garcia Andrade P (ed) Interacciones entre el Derecho de la Unión Europea y el Derecho Internacional Público. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1934) Pure Theory of Law. University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1979) Allgemeine Theorie der Normen. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick N (2004) Institutions of Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietzsche F (1887/2017) On the Genealogy of Morality. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosas A (2016) EU Restrictive measures against third states. Il Diritto dell’Unione Europea. http://www.dirittounioneeuropea.eu/eu-measures-third-states-gesture-politics-judicial-control. Accessed 13 September 2022

  • Ruiter DWP (1993) Institutional Legal Facts: Legal Powers and Their Effects. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scheppele et al (2020) EU Values Are Law, after All: Enforcing EU Values through Systemic Infringement Actions by the European Commission and the Member States of the European Union. Yearbook of European Law 39:3–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiek D (2020) Solidarity in the case law of the European Court of Justice – opportunities missed? In: Krunke H et al (eds) Transnational Solidarity. Concept, Challenges and Opportunities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommermann K-P (2013) Article 3. In: Blanke H-J, Mangiameli S (eds) The Treaty on European Union (TEU): A commentary. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Stjernø S (2009) Solidarity in Europe. The History of an Idea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thym D, Tsourdi L (2017) Searching for solidarity in the EU asylum and border policies: Constitutional and operational dimensions. Maastricht Journal of International Law 24:605–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (2007) General Principles of European Community Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Türk A, Xanthoulis N (2019) Legal accountability of European Central Bank in bank supervision: A case study in conceptualizing the legal effects of Union acts. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 26:151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessel R A (2016) Resisting Legal Facts: Are CFSP Norms as Soft as They Seem? European Foreign Affairs Review 20:123–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters J (2020) Revisiting Art. 2 TEU: A True Union of Values. European Papers 5:255–277

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

    Alina Carrozzini

  2. University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Luigi Lonardo

Authors
  1. Alina Carrozzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luigi Lonardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alina Carrozzini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Eva Kassoti

  2. T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Narin Idriz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Carrozzini, A., Lonardo, L. (2023). The Many Faces of Solidarity and Its Role in the Jurisprudence of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. In: Kassoti, E., Idriz, N. (eds) The Principle of Solidarity. Global Europe: Legal and Policy Issues of the EU’s External Action, vol 2. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-575-1_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-575-1_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-574-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-575-1

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation