The Treaty of Lisbon: Articles

This study examines the functioning of EU Justice and Home Affairs cooperation in light of the reforms and innovations introduced by the Lisbon Treaty since the end of 2009. It identifies the main challenges and deficits characterising the practical and effective implementation of these transformations and suggests specific ways for the European Parliament to address them.

Although the Lisbon Treaty recognises the necessity to limit the power of the European Union, some of its limitations are poorly expressed. As a result, the European Commission has the possibility to act arbitrarily by expanding Union power. The position of the Commission is pre‐eminent, notably with respect to the drafting of EU measures. Not only can the Commission expand Union power, but it may also favour certain actors at the expense of the principals (Member States and their citizens). Indeed, the Commission may apply definitions of the ‘common European interest’ that go beyond the preferences of the principals.

In the field of CSDP, some provisions in the Lisbon Treaty are yet to be implemented. Article 44 is one of them. It posits that within the framework of the decisions adopted in accordance with Article 43, the Council may 'entrust the implementation of a task to a group of Member States which are willing and have the necessary capability for such a task'. In this context, the EU and its member states have recently started to look into what Article 44 is – or is not – potentially about.

The Treaty of Lisbon explicitly classifies the Council of the European Union as part of the legislative branch; yet, few analyses treat it as such. Instead, most treat the Council as an intergovernmental organisation governed by homogenous member state interests. This research squarely repositions the Council within the legislative studies literature and examines the character of its organisational structure.

The main task of the research in this paper is the approach of the provisions of the EU Reform Treaty (Lisbon Treaty) in terms of constitutional law. Research conducted prior to permit formulation of a general belief, namely that common European history of all its successes and difficulties demonstrates the viability of the European idea and the correct direction of institutional developments in the EU and the Member States.

"The story in this Essay is written in honor of one of the characters who played a key role in achieving the Treaty of Lisbon: Jean-Claude Piris, who was for more than twenty two years, Director General of the Legal Service of the Council of the EU. But to understand this story, to understand the reasons behind it, one should know its roots."

This article first looks at the making of the Lisbon Treaty, including the role of Member States as well as the German and Portuguese presidencies. Next it singles out the most important institutional choices made by the treaty and how these changes may be expected to affect the major policies of the Union. Finally the author tries to assess the changes. Although not revolutionary, the changes should contribute to making the Union more efficient and legitimate.

This article analyses the evolving nature of the foreign policy of the European Union (EU) as a consequence of the set-up of new structures such as the office of the High Representative/Vice-President (HR/VP) and the European External Action Service (EEAS). The first developments under the Lisbon Treaty hint a process of institutionalization by practice in EU foreign policy initiative, which relates to the personalities at the top of new EU structures, the changes of procedures in the elaboration of policy papers and meeting agendas, and the management of crisis situations.

The ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon will have a number of potentially important implications for decision-making in EU external trade and investment policy. This article summarises the main changes and discusses some key implementing measures that will shape the medium to long-term impact of the treaty changes.

Even though the Lisbon Treaty avoids the constitutional foundation of the European Union, it contains the same strategies as the Constitution for Europe to strengthen its democratic legitimacy. This article explores the Lisbon Treaty's 'Provisions on Democratic Principles' and, particularly, the strategies of democratization based on the participation of citizens and organized civil society in European governance. The article provides a legal analysis of the principles of participatory democracy and the rules governing civil dialogue, external consultations and citizens' initiative.

This contribution analyzes the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on the so-called “structural equilibrium” of European integration. It stands for rules and principles that govern the relationship between the constituent entities of the integration — Member States and the European Union as a supranational level — so that the integration can achieve its selected objectives efficiently while simultaneously preserving the Member States’ prerogatives. While the Treaty of Lisbon strikes a delicate balance between the Member States and the European Union, the post-Lisbon structural equilibrium might come as a disappointment for many. However, this is another incentive to move European legal and political theory out of the federal-confederal box.

The article looks at previous assessments, including those that see the Treaty as a major breakthrough for efficiency backed by a new political dynamic and as the unnecessary and undemocratic imposition of a superstate and noxious policies. The article assesses the status, structure and style of the treaty and its contents, highlighting its provisions on values and rights, powers and policies, institutional changes, democratization and enhanced external activity. These, like assessments of the treaty, are often contradictory and point to the fact that Lisbon was yet another compromise document and not a master blueprint.

The article examines the Lisbon Treaty and asserts that the treaty's effects would be to revamp rather than revolutionize the existing arrangements for the CFSP/ESDP. With the future of the Lisbon Treaty in doubt since the Irish referendum on 12 June 2008, the article considers what the future scenarios might be for the CFSP/ESDP provisions of the treaty.

The Treaty of Lisbon 2007 (TL) along with the main reforms to the Unions' primary law contained in the TL is discussed. Some of the problems created by these reforms as well as the problems that may arise in the future are highlighted.

After sketching out with a broad brush the main stages in the European integration process and outlining somewhat more in detail the circumstances surrounding the Constitutional project, this introductory essay will consider a number of general issues regarding the Treaty of Lisbon, in particular the way in which it has been negotiated, the fact that it has been concluded at all, and the actual form it takes; it will also reflect upon the wisdom of its adoption.

Le cadre mis en place à Lisbonne semble stable et les suggestions de réforme institutionnelle sont rares. Mais a-t-il tenu toutes ses promesses?Bien des éléments introduits par le Traité de Lisbonne constituent une codification des pratiques antérieures ou de la jurisprudence de la Cour. La théorie de compétences en est une illustration et cette systématisation ne pouvait guère produire d’effets nouveaux. Sans entrer dans une revue de détail, trois questions principales peuvent être examinées même si elles ne couvrent pas l’ensemble du spectre des innovations intervenues dans le cadre du Traité de Lisbonne. La première a trait à ce que l’on qualifie classiquement de méthode communautaire. La seconde porte sur le discours relatif aux valeurs et la troisième sur l’efficacité institutionnelle.

In December 2009, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, aiming at making the EU more democratic, more transparent and more efficient. In this anthology, four scholars analyse the institutional and constitutional changes that the Lisbon Treaty has brought. It examines whether the Treaty has strengthened the EU during the past decade.

Over the last years, the role of national parliaments (NPs) in the European Union (EU) has been upgraded in several ways, most importantly through the Early Warning System (EWS) and a new role in Treaty revisions established by the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL). The aim of this research agenda is therefore threefold: to take stock of the impact of these provisions by contrasting the formal structures and the actual involvement of NPs; to propose a conceptualization of this new role of NPs in EU affairs as 'multi-arena players'; and to sketch new avenues for research.

The goal of this article is to provide an overview of the progressive augmentation of the supranational character of the governmental structure of the initial EEC, gradually evolving into the present European Union, particularly as a consequence of revisions to the constituent Treaties.

The following analysis is in need of a prior clarification of the concept of "institutional balance‟ on which it is based. The concept originally emerged as a legal principle according to which the EC (later EU) institutions have to act within the limits of their respective powers in the context of a division of powers defined by the Treaties.

The focus of this contribution the two Irish referenda and other major milestones in the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty in the other EU Member States. Yet its objective is to go beyond Irish socio-political borders and to probe the broad constitutional implications and ramifications of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty for the future of European integration.

This study aims to explain how changes in the institutional setting influenced and shaped member states' capabilities and negotiation behaviour in the Council of the EU, focusing on the asylum policy. By combining the actor-centred institutionalism framework with the literature on EU decision-making, bargaining, and Europeanisation, it argues that the observed 'mixed-motive game' in the Council can be explained by the interrelation and interaction of five factors: issue-salience, voting rule, consensus norm, the ordinary legislative procedure, and the type of legal instrument.

By examining the active role of the European Council in setting the justice and home affairs (JHA) agenda and the continuous centrality of the JHA Council in decision-making, this article demonstrates an important blend of supranationalisation and intergovernmentalisation in post-Lisbon JHA governance.

This contribution deals with the role of the European Council in the institutional framework of the European Union, as it has been laid down by the Lisbon Treaty. It focuses on its rising influence, even beyond the wording of the Treaty, and the increasing criticism stimulated by this evolution.

The Lisbon Treaty fundamentally changed the presidency regime of the European Union at the expense of one of the oldest and most central institutions of European integration: the rotating presidency. The chair positions of the European Council, the Foreign Affairs Council and the Eurogroup have been decoupled from the rotating presidency. Understanding the reduced role of the rotating presidency requires attention for the changing dynamics of EU policymaking, especially for the new intergovernmentalism which implies decision-making outside the classic community method and for the rise of the European Council to the status of a lead institution.

This article assesses the institutional role of the European Council in light of the Treaty of Lisbon and its practical application over the past two and a half years. It will be seen that several legal ambiguities persist regarding the scope of the European Council’s powers and the nature of its role in the Union’s system of institutional balance.

The Lisbon Treaty introduced significant changes to the Presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU). The new Treaty combines a permanent chair with the principle of rotation based on three member states collaborating during an 18-month period, without specifying the responsibilities of trio groups. This left wide scope for the first post-Lisbon trio to establish new working mechanisms. By discussing the joint Presidency of Spain, Belgium and Hungary, this article interprets the trio model and its combination with the permanent chair model as an attempt to re-adjust the balance between consistency and diversity.

With this cursory description of the European Council prior to the Treaty of Lisbon, this Essay turns to the major changes produced by that treaty. Part I discusses the impact of the European Council's new status as one of the institutions of the European Union ("EU"). Part II considers its designated power to take by qualified majority vote many important legally-binding decisions. Part III reviews two of its major roles: deciding when the Treaties should be amended and setting the procedure for amendment, and determining the timing and terms of accession of candidate nations. Part IV discusses the status and role of the new President of the European Council.

This article reviews the European Council's CFSP performance since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The yardstick used in this assessment is the degree to which the European Council has managed to foster a common approach to the international foreign and security problems confronting the European Union. While the European Council has, in the past, been reasonably successful in shaping and establishing the basic structures for the CFSP and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), analysis shows that its intergovernmental nature and the sporadic character of its meetings make it entirely unsuited for the role of CFSP 'executive' in crisis moments.

This article argues that the post-Lisbon EU legal framework better equips the European Union to be more receptive towards the protection of diversity than was the case in the pre-Lisbon European Union. The relevant aspects of this new framework comprise new EU legal sources, new legal provisions and new directions in interpretation of EU law. Nonetheless, this article also notes several remaining limitations.

Article 260 TFEU (the former Article 228 EC) now provides for financial sanctions to be applied more easily and in more situations. This paper examines the operation of the new rules and the impact that they could have on the enforcement of EU law in practice.

The legal framework regarding EU Justice and Home Affairs Law was changed fundamentally by the Treaty of Lisbon, so that the usual rules on decision-making, jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, legal instruments and legal effect are now largely applied to this area of law. This paper examines the application of the new rules in practice, in particular the impact of extending QMV; the extended legislative powers of the European Parliament; the role of the Commission as compared to the Member States; and the role of national parliaments.

This contribution analyses the effects of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for European environmental law and policy. The central conclusion is that, apart from the new numbering and some new names for procedures and institutions, this does not entail any major changes. The new Energy Title, it is submitted, does not go beyond confirming the status quo. One potentially interesting innovation is the special treaty infringement procedure for non-communication of implementing measures. Similarly, a new paragraph on standing to challenge the legality of European acts (Article 230 EC) may result in wider access to justice also in environmental matters.

The CFSP is a relatively recent add-on to the external action toolkit of the EU. Introduced as a distinct policy framework cohabitating with that of the classic Community external relations, its hallmark remains its predominant intergovernmental nature. In this report, the author provides a perceptive and timely analysis of the particular impact that the Lisbon Treaty has had on the CFSP, within the broader constitutional and substantive legal context of the Union. It also deciphers the implications of the Lisbon reforms on the EU as a global actor more generally.

This report analyses the changes made to the ESDP since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. It concludes that the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty provide for increased consistency of policies and instruments. This is primarily due to the new foreign policy system of an empowered High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the creation of the EEAS. The road is also paved for more ambitious arrangements between the Member States. That said, several of the Lisbon provisions have not yet been fully realised in practice.

The creation of the Treaty of Lisbon sparked high hopes for a greater level of coherence within the application of European Union (EU) external policies. Now, more than two years after its entry into force, the question remains to what extent the Treaty actually succeeded in fostering greater external unity. Through a systematic analysis of EU and Member State actions in the areas of EU external energy and climate policies, both prior and immediately after the Treaty’s arrival, this article aims to critically evaluate whether Lisbon is able to live up to the initial expectations.

In order to enhance the consistency and coherence of the EU's foreign policy, the Heads of States and Governments reformed the position of High Representative and created a European External Action Service (EEAS) under the Treaty of Lisbon. This article deals with negotiations on the decision regarding the organization and functioning of the EEAS by examining the preferences of the actors involved, the negotiation process and the eventual outcome. Will the institutional set-up of the EEAS and the new position of the High Representative enable the EU to play a more consistent and coherent role in the world?

The Lisbon Treaty reforms aim to equip EU policy with a stronger sense of strategic direction by bringing external assistance instruments of the EU under the guidance of the High Representative. However, pursuing the norm of a more holistic, strategic international security policy has arguably threatened a key norm which contributes to the EU's normative identity, namely the apolitical character of its aid. This article explores the friction between these two norms in the EU's international policy, particularly in the context of the arrangements concerning the European External Action Service.

After the Treaty of Lisbon, certain changes have been made to the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) as an integral part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Based on the results achieved so far, member states of the European Union have expressed their wish to take more responsibility in protecting the security of Europe and the whole world, through civilian, police-led or combined action. Europe is also starting to demonstrate its readiness for military action, either independently or in cooperation with NATO.

This article starts with an overview of the main changes that the Lisbon Treaty brings to the domain of foreign affairs and external relations. The main focus of the analysis, however, lies in the actual implementation of the key provisions related to the role of the High Representative (HR)/Vice-President (VP) and, in particular, the set-up and functioning of the fledgling European External Action Service (EEAS).

L'analyse de l'évolution des rapports interinstitutionnels relatifs aux relations extérieures de l'Union suite à l'entrée en vigueur du Traité de Lisbonne révèle une tentative d'intégration et d'unification plus poussée de ce domaine, caractérisé par la multiplicité tant des régimes juridiques qui le gouvernent que des acteurs impliqués dans sa direction. La conduite des relations extérieures reste cependant particulièrement marquée par la perpétuelle tension entre l'affirmation progressive du supranationalisme et la place incontournable des institutions intergouvernementales.

The European Charter of Fundamental Rights has a major influence on the evolution of the European Union, given that, for the first time since the creation of the European Economic Community, the Charter covers, in a single document, the entire array of social, economical and political rights that all European citizens benefit from. The value of the document also lies in its being the only text of its kind in the world. The Charter is therefore a cornerstone; it is inclusion in the Treaty of Lisbon guaranteeing the full and unhindered acknowledgement of the rights mentioned within.

Scope of application of Charter – What does ‘implementing Union law’ mean? – Application of v. derogation from EU law – Asylum cases, N.S. – Familiapress, Schmidberger, Viking – Implementing to include derogation – Annibaldi and Dereci – Interpretation of the Charter – ‘Provided for by law’ – The ‘essence’ of a right or freedom – Legitimate objectives and proportionality – Rights both in EU Treaties and in Charter: citizenship – Charter and ECHR – Constitutional Traditions, level of protection and deference – Article 53 not according to Solange, but like Omega and Sayn-Wittgenstein – Principles and Rights

Without a doubt, the entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ("Charter") is a major legal innovation of the Lisbon Treaty and will have a significant impact on the constitutionalization of the European Union legal order in the long run. Some observers comment that the way in which the European Court of Justice ("ECJ" or "Court") will conduct its jurisprudence vis-a-vis the Charter might ultimately answer the question of the Union's finalite in the daily practice of the European Court.

As is well known, the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009 enhanced the legal status of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights by making it legally binding. Has this change had any impact upon the protection of the right to equality within the EU legal order? As we shall see, the case law of the Court of Justice has already addressed some interesting issues as regards the principle of equality in the context of the Charter, but has also raised some important questions which it needs to clarify.

This article considers the state of human rights protection in the European Union (EU) after the Treaty of Lisbon. It examines how the higher profile for human rights under the Charter is likely to change the nature of the EU's relationship with the ECHR. the complex procedure for the EU's accession to the ECHR, highlighting particularly significant aspects of this.

This paper, based on an overarching project, focuses on the role of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) (also known as the Luxembourg Court) in shaping legal integration in Europe. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the new legally binding nature of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the future EU’s accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) bring significant changes to the fundamental rights discourse within the European Union.

This essay will address three main questions. First, a question of legitimacy: is it of any consequence that the Charter has the same legal value as the treaties but is not part of the treaties? Second, a question of subsidiarity: what is the right level for the protection of fundamental rights? Last, a question of efficiency of the protection of fundamental rights: what role can the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency play.

The article attempts to shed some light on certain legal issues that might arise as a direct result of the charter's new legal status after the Treaty of Lisbon.

The present article explores the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty relating to fundamental rights. Among these, the discussion focuses on the amendment of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union which declares the binding nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, also providing that it will have the same legal status as the EU treaties.