Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Equality Among Member States and Differentiated Integration in the EU

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Principle of Equality in EU Law

Abstract

This chapter examines the relationship between the principle of equality among Member States and the differentiation mechanisms used in the European Union’s integration process. It aims at evaluating the impact of the principle on the possibilities for differentiation at the level of primary EU law—such as the Economic and Monetary Union and Schengen—and secondary EU law. The first part analyses the many faces of the equality principle and its constitutionalization in EU law. The chapter proceeds with an examination of differentiation at the level of primary and secondary EU law and within Member States, and the impact of the equality principle as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice. It appears that the impact of the principle on differentiation mechanisms is multifaceted and complex, presenting ‘multi-layers’ and ‘multi-players’ features.

Pierre Schmitt: The views expressed in this paper do not represent an official position of the General Court of the European Union.

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 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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.

    Wouters (2001).

  2. 2.

    ECJ, Case C-422/02 P Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH v Council and Commission EU:C:2005:56, para 33.

  3. 3.

    See in the same sense Muir (2015) and Tridimas (2007), p. 64.

  4. 4.

    Second Recital of the Charter’s preamble.

  5. 5.

    Article 20 Charter.

  6. 6.

    Article 21 Charter. It may be noted that, although many of the grounds of discrimination listed in this article also appear in Article 19 TFEU, there are some interesting new ones, such as colour and social origin, genetic features, language, political and any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, and birth.

  7. 7.

    Article 23 Charter. The Charter’s chapter on equality also contains three other provisions that by themselves do not mention equality but are related to it: they concern the rights of the child (Article 24), the rights of the elderly (Article 25) and the integration of persons with disabilities (Article 26).

  8. 8.

    For a discussion of the case-law concerning this provision, see Epiney (2007).

  9. 9.

    The Council has to act unanimously, its action must be without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties and, most of all, the action must remain ‘within the limits of the powers conferred by them upon the Union’.

  10. 10.

    Meanwhile, the Council has adopted several directives, decisions and recommendations based on this Article, such as Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303/16); Council Directive 2004/113 of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (OJ 2004 L 373/37); Council Decision 2000/750/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination (2001–2006) (OJ 2000 L 303/23); Council Decision 2001/51/EC of 20 December 2000 establishing a Programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001–2005) (OJ 2001 L 17/22); Council recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (OJ 2013 C 378/01). Moreover, in 2008 the Commission proposed a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, COM(2008) 426. This proposal is still blocked in the Council. For further discussion, see Tomuschat (2008) and Chap. 6 by Di Federico in this volume.

  11. 11.

    See especially Evans (1998). An important step in this process has been ECJ, Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern EU:C:1998:217, paras 60–65. See also ECJ, Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk EU:C:2001:458; ECJ, Case C-148/02 Avello v Belgian State EU:C:2003:539; and ECJ, Case C-209/03 Bidar v Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills EU:C:2005:169.

  12. 12.

    Tridimas (2007), pp. 78–84; Vandenberghe (2015), p. 65; see also ECJ, Case C-428/07 Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EU:C:2009:458.

  13. 13.

    Articles 36 fine, 37(1), 45(2) (which served as basis for Council Regulation (EU) No 420/2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141/1)), 49, 57(3), 61, 63(1), 65(3), 110 and 114(6) TFEU. For further information, see Wouters (2001).

  14. 14.

    See also Article 157 TFEU and Burri and Prechal (2014).

  15. 15.

    See ECJ, Joined Cases 117/76 and 16/77 Ruckdeschel v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen EU:C:1977:160, para 7; more recently inter alia ECJ, Case C-144/04 Mangold v Helm EU:C:2005:709 and ECJ, Case C-115/08 Land Oberösterreich v ČEZ as EU:C:2009:660, para 91, in which the Court held that ‘[a]lthough the principle of prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of nationality within the scope of application of Community law is expressly laid down only in Article 12 EC, it is a general principle which is also applicable under the [Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community]’.

  16. 16.

    ECJ, Case C-101/08 Audiolux SA e.a v Groupe Bruxelles Lambert SA (GBL) and Others and Bertelsmann AG and Others EU:C:2009:626.

  17. 17.

    More (1999), p. 518. See also Waddington (2003).

  18. 18.

    de Búrca (1997), pp. 23–27.

  19. 19.

    Tridimas (2007), p. 76.

  20. 20.

    Cf. the Court’s emphasis on maintaining ‘normal conditions of competition’ in its interpretation of Article 37 (ex Article 31 EC) TFEU: see inter alia ECJ, Case 91/78 Hansen v Hauptzollamt Flensburg EU:C:1979:65, para 19; ECJ, Case 78/82 Commission v Italy EU:C:1983:159, para 19; ECJ, Case C-387/93 Banchero EU:C:1995:439, para 27. See also Craig and de Búrca (2015), pp. 1078, 1154–1155.

  21. 21.

    Starting with ECJ, Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard EU:C:1993:905. A recent illustration of this case-law may be found in the Opinion of Advocate General Wahl delivered on 21 April 2016 in Case C-221/15 Openbaar Ministerie v Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV EU:C:2016:288.

  22. 22.

    See ECJ, Case 149/77 Defrenne v Sabena (Defrenne No. 3) EU:C:1978:130, paras 26–27; ECJ, Joined Cases 75/82 and 117/82 Razzouk and Beydoun v Commission EU:C:1984:116, para 16; ECJ, Case C-13/94 P. v S. and Cornwall County Council EU:C:1996:170, para 19.

  23. 23.

    See especially the following path-breaking cases: ECJ, Case 293/83 Gravier v City of Liège EU:C:1985:69; ECJ, Case 39/86 Lair v Universität Hannover EU:C:1988:322; ECJ, Case 242/87 Commission v Council (‘Erasmus’) EU:C:1989:217; ECJ, Case C-357/89 Raulin v Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen EU:C:1992:87.

  24. 24.

    For a far-reaching example, see ECJ, Case 186/87 Cowan v Trésor Public EU:C:1989:47.

  25. 25.

    See supra n. 11. See also Lliopoulou (2008), Neuvonen (2016) and Chap. 6 of this volume by McDonnell.

  26. 26.

    It is consistent case-law of the Court, mounting back to Sotgiu (ECJ, Case 152/73 Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost EU:C:1974:13, para 11), that ‘the rules regarding equality of treatment between nationals and non-nationals forbid not only overt discrimination by reason of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other criteria of differentiation, lead to the same result’. See also ECJ, Case C-464/05 Geurts and Vogten EU:C:2007:631, para 20; for further discussion, see Tobler (2005).

  27. 27.

    ECJ, Case 14/59 Société des Fonderies de Pont-à-Mousson v High Authority EU:C:1959:31, para 231; ECJ, Joined Cases 17/61 and 20/61 Klöckner-Werke and Hoesch v High Authority EU:C:1962:30, para 345.

  28. 28.

    ECJ, Joined Cases 117/76 and 16/77 Ruckdeschel v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen, supra n. 15, para 7. For a recent confirmation, see ECJ, Case C-380/09 P Melli Bank v Council EU:C:2012:137.

  29. 29.

    ECJ, Case 13/63 Italy v Commission EU:C:1963:20, paras 177–178.

  30. 30.

    ECJ, Case 106/83 Sermide v Cassa Conguaglio Zucchero and Others EU:C:1984:394, para 28. This standard phrase has been used in an innumerable amount of cases: see more recently e.g., ECJ, Case C-313/04 Franz Egenberger EU:C:2006:454, para 33; ECJ, Case C-127/07 Société Arcelor Atlantique EU:C:2008:728, para 23.

  31. 31.

    Piris (2010), pp. 85–86.

  32. 32.

    See especially ECJ, Joined Cases C-63/90 and C-67/90 Portugal and Spain v Council EU:C:1992:381, paras 36–37 and 44, where the Court stresses that, since their accession, Portugal and Spain are in an equal position as other Member States under existing Community legislation, that they are entitled to participate as Member States in the allocation of new fishing possibilities and ‘may put forward their claims on the same footing as all the other Member States’ when the system for the distribution of catch quotas among Member States is reviewed.

  33. 33.

    For further discussion, see Chap. 1 of this volume by Rossi.

  34. 34.

    See infra, Sect. 2.2.3.1.

  35. 35.

    Articles 16 TEU and 236 TFEU. Schermers and Blokker (2011), p. 1217, at para 1897, are likewise of the opinion that ‘the principle of sovereign equality also explains […] why all member states of the European Union, large or small, hold the office of President of the Council for a term of six months’.

  36. 36.

    Article 238(1) TFEU.

  37. 37.

    See, with examples of international organisations in which differentiation in the weighting of the votes of Member States applies in order to compensate for the equality of members, (such as the International Energy Agency , the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund ), Schermers and Blokker (2011), pp. 551–559.

  38. 38.

    See on this principle in particular Sangiovanni (2013), p. 220 and Ross and Borgmann-Prebil (2010).

  39. 39.

    See inter alia sixth Recital of the preamble to the TEU, Articles 2 and 3(3) TEU. See also the reference to solidarity in the second Recital of the preamble to the Charter and the elaboration of this principle in chapter IV of the Charter, entitled ‘Solidarity’.

  40. 40.

    ECJ, Case 39/72 Commission v Italy EU:C:1973:13, paras 24 and 25; ECJ, Case 128/78 Commission v The United Kingdom EU:C:1979:32, para 12 (the quotation stems from this judgment; emphasis added).

  41. 41.

    Article 24(3), para 2, TEU.

  42. 42.

    See Article 4(3) TEU and the idea of ‘mutual respect’.

  43. 43.

    Article 24(3), para 2, TEU.

  44. 44.

    See inter alia Crawford (2012), p. 447. See also Chap. 1 of this volume by Rossi.

  45. 45.

    Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, Helsinki, 1 August 1975, under the heading ‘I. Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty’.

  46. 46.

    See Kokott (2004).

  47. 47.

    Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Annex to Resolution 2625(XXV) of the UN General Assembly of 24 October 1970. In light of this inventory of rights, Shaw (2014), p. 155 rightly states that ‘the doctrine of the legal equality of States is an umbrella category’.

  48. 48.

    However, several phenomena have progressively led to a dilution of this requirement of consent, including the development of ius cogens norms and the fact that ‘long and universal acceptance appears to no longer be a prerequisite for the development of customary international law’. See Kokott (2011).

  49. 49.

    A clear example thereof is the principle of most-favoured nation treatment as contained in various multilateral WTO agreements.

  50. 50.

    Jennings and Watts (1992), p. 377, para 114.

  51. 51.

    Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1961), II, 128.

  52. 52.

    Schermers and Blokker (2011), p. 1217. The most illustrious expression of the principle of sovereign equality of members of an international organisation is obviously found in Article 2(1) UN Charter .

  53. 53.

    Chemillier-Gendreau (1999), p. 661.

  54. 54.

    See the opinion of Advocate General Lagrange in Case 13/63 Italy v Commission Italy v Commission, supra n. 29, quoting from the Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion of 6 April 1935, Minority Schools in Albania, Series A/B, No. 64, 19.

  55. 55.

    ECtHR , Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v United Kingdom, Nos. 9214/80, 9473/81, 9474/81, Judgment of 28 May 1985, para 72. See also ECtHR, Belgian Languages, Nos. 1474/62, 1677/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63, 2126/64, Judgment of 23 July 1968, para 10.

  56. 56.

    HRC, General Commentary No. 18, ‘Non-Discrimination’ (1989), points 7 and 10, respectively.

  57. 57.

    Cf. Article 6(3) TEU.

  58. 58.

    This would by itself be an ambitious undertaking since in some countries the principle of equality is not laid down in just one, but in a variety of provisions.

  59. 59.

    A case in point is Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution.

  60. 60.

    See for instance, Article 3 of the German Basic Law; Heun (2013).

  61. 61.

    See Mosler (1992), p. 617, para 32.

  62. 62.

    See for instance German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE), BvG 84, 23 April 1991. See also an Order of 7 February 2012, in which the Bundesverfassungsgericht found the exclusion of non-EU citizens from the grant of Land child-raising benefit under the Bavarian Land Child-Raising Benefit Act unconstitutional. The Court held that the Act violated the principle of equality as guaranteed in Article 3.1 of the Basic Law because no legitimate statutory purpose could justify the unequal treatment of foreign citizens. German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE), 1 BvL 14/07, 7 February 2012, available at https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2012/02/ls20120207_1bvl001407.html (accessed 31 December 2016).

  63. 63.

    See Lavrysen and Theunis (2013), pp. 331–332.

  64. 64.

    See the overview of these provisions in Hanf (2001), p. 3.

  65. 65.

    See infra, Sect. 2.3.2.2.

  66. 66.

    Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism signed on 11 July 2011 (OJ 2011 L 91/1). For further discussion, see Louis (2012), pp. 297–314 and Gregorio Merino (2012), pp. 1621–1623.

  67. 67.

    Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union signed on 2 March 2012, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/pdf/Treaty-on-Stability-Coordination-and-Governance-TSCG/ (accessed 31 December 2016). On this Treaty, see Fabbrini (2013); Craig (2012); Adamski (2012), pp. 1356–1360; de Sadeleer (2012), pp. 364–374, and Peers (2012).

  68. 68.

    Agreement on the Transfer and Mutualisation of Contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, signed on 21 May 2014 and available at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%208457%202014%20INIT (accessed 31 December 2016). This Fund is an essential part of the Single Resolution Mechanism. For further information, see http://ec.europa.eu/finance/general-policy/banking-union/single-resolution-mechanism/index_en.htm (accessed 31 December 2016).

  69. 69.

    European Council, Decision of the Heads of State or Government, Meeting with the European Council, concerning a New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union (OJ 2016 C 69 I/3).

  70. 70.

    European Council, A New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union. Extract of the conclusions of the European Council of 18–19 February 2016 (OJ 2016 C 69 I/01).

  71. 71.

    It would be more exact to use the term ‘pouvoir constituant dérivé’ in the sense of Verfassungsgesetzgeber: Barents (2000), pp. 100 and 166.

  72. 72.

    See infra, Sect. 2.3.2.

  73. 73.

    See ECJ, Case 35/86 LAISA v Council EU:C:1988:211, para 17; ECJ, Case C-313/89 Commission v Spain EU:C:1991:415, para 10. See, concerning the non-reviewability of the Maastricht Treaty under Article 230 EC Treaty, the ECJ’s Order in Case C-253/94 P Roujansky v Council EU:C:1995:4, para 11; and the ECJ’s Order in Case C-264/94 P Bonnamy v Council EU:C:1995:5, para 11. See also Lenaerts and Van Nuffel (2011), p. 820, at para 22-09.

  74. 74.

    See Bieber (1993), p. 348.

  75. 75.

    See also de Witte (1994), p. 332.

  76. 76.

    A notorious illustration thereof is the ‘special case’ protocols attached to the Maastricht Treaty. See Curtin (1993), pp. 46–52.

  77. 77.

    ECJ, Opinion 1/91 Agreement on the Creation of the European Economic Area I (hereinafter ‘Opinion EEA I’) EU:C:1991:490, paras 46 and 71.

  78. 78.

    ECJ, Opinion 1/92 Agreement on the Creation of the European Economic Area II (hereinafter ‘Opinion EEA II’) EU:C:1992:189.

  79. 79.

    ECJ, Opinion EEA I, para. 30; see also paras 35 and 47. See also ECJ, Opinion EEA II, paras 17–18, 22, 24, 29 and 36; CFI, Case T-115/94 Opel Austria GmbH v Council EU:T:1998:166, para 109.

  80. 80.

    See ECJ, Opinion EEA I, paras 63–65 and 71; Opinion EEA II, paras 17, 29, 33–35 and 37.

  81. 81.

    See especially Barents (1992), p. 766, and da Cruz Vilaça and Piçarra (1993), pp. 25–27.

  82. 82.

    de Witte (1994).

  83. 83.

    See, with further reflections, Barents (2000), pp. 400–401.

  84. 84.

    da Cruz Vilaça (2014), p. 32 (footnotes omitted).

  85. 85.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission EU:C:2008:461, para 282.

  86. 86.

    Ibid., para 304.

  87. 87.

    Lenaerts (2007).

  88. 88.

    Lavranos (2010), p. 274.

  89. 89.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/13 Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms EU:C:2014:2454, paras 174 and 179–200.

  90. 90.

    This phrasing refers to the former Article 2(1), first indent, TEU.

  91. 91.

    Section 2.2.2.1.

  92. 92.

    Section 2.2.2.1.

  93. 93.

    See supra, Sect. 2.2.4.

  94. 94.

    See, in the same sense, Tuytschaver (1999), p. 113.

  95. 95.

    ECJ, Case C-431/11 United Kingdom v Council EU:C:2013:589; ECJ, Case C-656/11 United Kingdom v Council EU:C:2014:97; and ECJ, Case C-81/13 United Kingdom v Council EU:C:2014:2449.

  96. 96.

    European Council Decision 2011/199/EU amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the Euro (OJ 2011 L 99/1).

  97. 97.

    ECJ, Case C-370/12 Pringle v Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General EU:C:2012:756, paras 151 and 158. For further developments on this case, see Tomkin (2013) and Van Malleghem (2013).

  98. 98.

    Barents (2000), p. 346, is of the opinion that this ‘institutionalized discrimination’ could complicate the negotiations for accession. In a way, this type of discrimination is not that novel. It also applies, for example, with regard to EMU (since Member States who joined later cannot negotiate an opt-out, though the Swedish case seems to demonstrate that this may even not be necessary to obtain a comparable result).

  99. 99.

    ECJ, Case C-44/14 Spain v Parliament and Council EU:C:2015:554.

  100. 100.

    Protocol (No 19) on the Schengen acquis integrated in the framework of the European Union.

  101. 101.

    Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 establishing the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur) (OJ 2013 L 295/11).

  102. 102.

    ECJ, Case C-44/14 Spain v Parliament and Council, supra n. 99, para 42.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., para 49.

  104. 104.

    Ibid., para 46.

  105. 105.

    European Council, Decision of the Heads of State or Government, Meeting with the European Council, concerning a New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union, cit. supra n. 69.

  106. 106.

    European Council, Decision of the Heads of State or Government, Meeting with the European Council, concerning a New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union, cit. supra n. 69, Section A.

  107. 107.

    Letter by President Donald Tusk to the Members of the European Council on his proposal for a new settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union, 2 February 2016, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/president/pdf/letter-tusk_pdf/ (accessed 31 December 2016).

  108. 108.

    Communication of 26 July 1999 No. 786/1997, A.P.J. Vos v Netherlands (CCPR/C/66/D/786/1997). See van der Steen (1999a).

  109. 109.

    ECJ, Case C-262/88 Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group EU:C:1990:209. In this judgment, the Court confirmed the direct effect of Article 119 TEC only in relation to claims to a pension arising after the date of the judgment (17 May 1990), with the exception of claimants who had already initiated legal proceedings before or raised equivalent claims under national law.

  110. 110.

    ECJ, Case C-7/93 Beune v Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioenfonds EU:C:1994:350.

  111. 111.

    The reaction of the Dutch government was published, together with a Dutch translation of the HRC’s views in the Vos case, in (1999) Staatscourant No. 215, 7. See van der Steen (1999b).

  112. 112.

    ECJ, Case C-262/88 Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group, supra n. 109, para 44.

  113. 113.

    Centrale Raad van Beroep, 26 November 1998, (1999) Rechtspraak Sociale Verzekering No. 92.

  114. 114.

    van der Steen (1999b), p. 322.

  115. 115.

    The duty to interpret and apply EU law in conformity with international law has been repeatedly stressed by the Court of Justice: see inter alia ECJ, Case C-84/95 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS v Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications EU:C:1996:312, paras 13–14; ECJ, Case C-49/02 Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH v OHIM EU:C:2004:384, para 20.

  116. 116.

    ECJ, Case C-249/96 Grant v South-West Trains Ltd EU:C:1998:63, paras 43–47.

  117. 117.

    It could be argued, though, that the Court’s dictum in Grant should most of all be understood in light of para 45, namely that fundamental rights ‘cannot in themselves have the effect of extending the scope of the Treaty provisions beyond the competences of the Community’. Besides, the hint to Article 13 TEC in para 48 (which at the time of the judgment had not yet entered into force) carries an important potential for future qualifications in the Court’s case-law. However this may be, the Court’s downplaying of the HRC’s views in paras 46–47 of the judgment may be deplored. In comparison to the Court’s previous Case C-13/94 P v S and Cornwall County Council (supra n. 22), Grant constitutes a retreat that appears to be ‘borne out of a measure of pragmatism, tinged with an element of conservatism’: Connor (1998), p. 383. So far, the views expressed by the UN monitoring bodies have not played a major role in the case-law of the Court of Justice: de Jesús Butler and De Schutter (2008). Nevertheless, it should be noted that Advocates General have referred to the views of the HRC in several opinions, such as ECJ, Case C-436/04 van Esbroek EU:C:2005:630, opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer (in relation to the ne bis in idem principle); ECJ, Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council EU:C:2005:517, opinion of Advocate General Kokott (in relation to the right to family life); ECJ, Case C-357/09 Said Shamilovich Kadzoev (Huchbarov) EU:C:2009:691, view of Advocate General Mazák (in relation to the detention of asylum applicants).

  118. 118.

    ECtHR , Matthews v The United Kingdom, No. 24833/94, Judgment of 18 February 1999.

  119. 119.

    Gibraltar’s status in EU law is in many more respects an interesting illustration of differentiation at the level of primary EU law, which finds its origins in Article 28 of the Act of Accession of 22 January 1972. It is, for instance, not a part of the customs territory of the EU, which results in the provisions on free movement of goods to not apply, and it is treated as a third country for the purposes of the EC’s common commercial policy . It is also excluded from the common market in agriculture and trade in agricultural products and from the EU rules on VAT , and it makes no contribution to the EU budget. However, EU rules concerning inter alia the free movement of persons, services and capital, health, the environment and consumer protection apply in Gibraltar.

  120. 120.

    ECtHR , Matthews v The United Kingdom, No. 24833/94, supra n. 118, para 32.

  121. 121.

    Ibid., para 33 and see the references to the Court of Justice’s case-law supra, n. 73.

  122. 122.

    In para 33 of Matthews (No 24833/94, supra n. 118), the ECtHR observes that ‘the United Kingdom, together with all the other parties to the Maastricht treaty is responsible ratione materiae under Article 1 of the Convention’, thereby alluding to collective responsibility of the Member States.

  123. 123.

    ECtHR , Chorfi v Belgium, No. 21794/93, Judgment of 7 August 1996, para 38. See previously the Court’s Case of Moustaquim v Belgium, No. 12313/86, Judgment of 18 February 1991, para 49 in fine.

  124. 124.

    Supra, Sect. 2.2.4.

  125. 125.

    It may be noted that the Belgian Constitutional Court has, like the ECtHR in the judgments cited supra, n. 123, considered a preferential treatment given to EU citizens in comparison to nationals of third countries objectively justified because ‘the Member States of the European Union form a community which has a specific legal order and has established its own citizenship which is characterised by a number of rights and obligations’: Judgment 91/98 of 15 July 1998, Navarro Diego v French Community (Moniteur belge, 6 June 1998; authors’ translation).

  126. 126.

    Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, Pl. ÚS 19/08, 26 November 2008 (Treaty of Lisbon I), available at http://www.usoud.cz/en/decisions/20081126-pl-us-1908-treaty-of-lisbon-i-1/ (accessed 31 December 2016); Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, Pl. ÚS 29/09, 3 November 2009 (Treaty of Lisbon II), available at http://www.usoud.cz/en/decisions/20091103-pl-us-2909-treaty-of-lisbon-ii-1/ (accessed 31 December 2016). See Zemánek (2011).

  127. 127.

    Conseil constitutionnel, decision No. 2007-560 DC, 20 December 2007. See Dutheil de la Rochère (2011).

  128. 128.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE), 2 BvE 2/08, 30 June 2009, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2009) 123. See Tomuschat (2009).

  129. 129.

    Polish Constitutional Tribunal, Ref. No. K 32/09, 24 November 2010.

  130. 130.

    See Wendel (2011).

  131. 131.

    See Lenaerts and Van Nuffel (2011), para 22-055.

  132. 132.

    The question has been examined to some extent in the context of the effects of the principle of subsidiarity . Thus, for instance, Lenaerts and Van Ypersele (1994), pp. 65–67, para 76, convincingly argue, with reference to the Court’s case-law, that the combination of the principles of equality and proportionality may allow to differentiate the Community action in function of the different situation of the Member States.

  133. 133.

    Section 2.2.2.3.

  134. 134.

    ECJ, Case 13/63 Italy v Commission, supra n. 29, para 178; emphasis added.

  135. 135.

    Barents (1990).

  136. 136.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-181/88, C-182/88 and C-218/88 Deschamps and Others v Office national interprofessionnel des viandes, de l’élevage et de l’aviculture (Ofival) EU:C:1989:642.

  137. 137.

    Ibid., paras 20 and 24, respectively.

  138. 138.

    Ibid., para 25.

  139. 139.

    This attitude has its consequences also for the Court’s assessment of EU legislation which accords differentiated treatment to traders. When this treatment is merely an automatic consequence of the different treatment accorded by the EU to third countries with which such traders have entered into commercial relations, in other words, when it follows automatically from the exercise of EU external policy-making powers in the area of the commercial policy, it is not prohibited. ECJ, Case C-122/95 Germany v Council EU:C:1998:94, para 56; ECJ, Joined Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95 T-Port v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas EU:C:1998:95, para 76.

  140. 140.

    ECJ, Case 41/84 Pinna v Caisse d’allocations familiales de la Savoie EU:C:1986:1, para 24. For further information on the reaction of the Commission to this judgment, see Sindbjerg Martinsen (2015), pp. 78–89.

  141. 141.

    For a discussion of the Amsterdam Treaty provisions on enhanced cooperation, with further references to literature, see T.M.C. Asser Instituut (1999) and Milner and Kölliker (2000).

  142. 142.

    Kroll and Leuffen (2014).

  143. 143.

    Council Regulation (EU) 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (OJ 2010 L 343/10). See also the Council Decision 2010/405/EU of 12 July 2010 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (OJ 2010 L 189/12).

  144. 144.

    European Parliament and Council Regulation 1257/2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (OJ 2012 L 361/1) and Council Regulation 1260/2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements (OJ 2012 L 361/89). Council Decision 2011/164/EU authorized enhanced cooperation in this case (OJ 2011 L 76/53). For further discussion, see Borges (2013).

  145. 145.

    Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (OJ 2013 C 175/01).

  146. 146.

    In June 2016, ten Member States had ratified this agreement, i.e., Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and Sweden. It will need the ratification of 13 States including the three largest patent granting States being France, Germany and the United Kingdom, to enter into force.

  147. 147.

    Council Decision 2013/52/EU of 22 January 2013 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax (OJ 2013 L 22/11).

  148. 148.

    Article 20(1), para 2, TEU. The Amsterdam Treaty version of Article 43(1)(a) EU only mentioned the objectives of the Union. Furthermore, the Nice Treaty has added the requirement that enhanced cooperation should be aimed at ‘reinforcing their [i.e., the Union’s and the Community’s] process of integration’. These elements were maintained by the Treaty of Lisbon in the TEU. It could be argued that enhanced cooperation that would be contrary to the equality principle, would already be in breach of the latter requirement since it would rather contribute to a disintegration of the EU and the EC.

  149. 149.

    Article 326, para 1, TFEU.

  150. 150.

    Supra, Sect. 2.2.2.

  151. 151.

    Article 326, para 2, TFEU.

  152. 152.

    Supra. Sect. 2.2.2.2.

  153. 153.

    Supra, Sect. 2.2.2.5.

  154. 154.

    Article 326, para 2, TFEU.

  155. 155.

    Supra, Sect. 2.2.2.2.

  156. 156.

    Article 127 TFEU.

  157. 157.

    Supra, Sect. 2.2.2.4.

  158. 158.

    Supra, Sect. 2.2.3.1.

  159. 159.

    de Boer (2011), p. 73.

  160. 160.

    Article 20(1), para 2, TEU.

  161. 161.

    Supra, Sect. 2.2.2.4.

  162. 162.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Council Directive on a common system of financial transaction tax and amending Directive 2008/7/EC, COM(2011) 594 final.

  163. 163.

    Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.

  164. 164.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Council Directive implementing Enhanced Cooperation in the area of Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) , COM(2013) 71 final.

  165. 165.

    Council of the European Union, Opinion of the Legal Service on the Proposal for a Council Directive implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax (FTT) , 2013/0045 (CNS), available at http://daskapital.nl/images/other/RvE-transactietaks-oordeel.pdf (accessed 31 December 2016).

  166. 166.

    European Commission, Letter to the Chairman of the House of Lords, 10 April 2014, C(2014) 2271 final, available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/relations/relations_other/npo/docs/united_kingdom/2013/com20130071/com20130071_lords_reply3_en.pdf (accessed 31 December 2016).

  167. 167.

    ECJ, Case C-209/13 The United Kingdom v Council EU:C:2014:283. For further discussion, see Pilczer (2014) and Cheneviere and Mesdag (2015).

  168. 168.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-274/11 and C-295/11 Spain and Italy v Council EU:C:2013:240, para 79. See Pistoia (2014).

  169. 169.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-274/11 and C-295/11 Spain and Italy v Council EU:C:2013:240, supra n. 168, para 37.

  170. 170.

    Ibid., para 82.

  171. 171.

    See Lamblin-Gourdin (2012), p. 262.

  172. 172.

    ECJ, Case C-146/13 Spain v Council EU:C:2015:298; ECJ, Case C-147/13 Spain v Council EU:C:2015:299.

  173. 173.

    ECJ, Case C-147/13 Spain v Council, supra n. 172, para 34.

  174. 174.

    Ibid., para 43.

  175. 175.

    Himsworth (2007).

  176. 176.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-201/85 and C-202/85 Klensch and Others v Secrétaire d’Etat à l’Agriculture et Viticulture EU:C:1986:439, para 10, as confirmed by ECJ, Case C-36/99 Idéal Tourisme v Belgium EU:C:2000:405, para 36.

  177. 177.

    ECJ, Case C-428/07 Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, supra n. 12.

  178. 178.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No. 2019/93, (EC) No. 1452/2001, (EC) No. 1453/2001, (EC) No. 1454/2001, (EC) No. 1868/94, (EC) No. 1251/1999, (EC) No. 1254/1999, (EC) No. 1673/2000, (EEC) No. 2358/71 and (EC) No. 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270/1).

  179. 179.

    ECJ, Case C-428/07 Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, supra n. 12, para 55. The Court referred to the Joined Cases 185/78 to 204/78 Van Dam and Others EU:C:1979:177, para 10; Case C-177/94 Perfilli EU:C:1996:24, para17; and Case C-403/03 Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München V EU:C:2005:446, para 34.

  180. 180.

    ECJ, Case C-428/07 Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, supra n. 12, paras 47–57.

  181. 181.

    E.g., Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71. This Article has given rise to a whole body of case-law, which we will not enter into here. See inter alia, Kuijper et al. (2015), pp. 813–814. This Regulation has been partially repealed and replaced by Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L166/1).

  182. 182.

    As far as the latter is concerned, obviously Article 354 TFEU (ex Article 307 TEC) comes into play. The third paragraph of this Article contains an explicit reminder of the link between equality and solidarity of Member States (‘the granting of the same advantages by all the other Member States’). See for a confirmation of the Court’s strict attitude under this Article, ECJ, C-84/98 Commission v Portugal EU:C:2000:359; ECJ, Case C-205/06 Commission v Austria EU:C:2009:118; ECJ, Case C-249/06 Commission v Sweden EU:C:2009:119; ECJ, Case C-118/07 Commission v Finland EU:C:2009:715. See further Lavranos (2009) and Koutrakos (2009). See also ECJ, Case C-55/00 Elide Gottardo v Instituto nazionale della previdenza sociale EU:C:2002:16, para 1, where the Court held the following statement: ‘When a Member State concludes a bilateral international convention with a non-member country, the fundamental principle of equal treatment requires that Member State to grant nationals of other Member States the same advantages as those which its own nationals enjoy under that convention unless it can provide objective justification for refusing to do so. When giving effect to commitments assumed under international agreements, be it an agreement between Member States or an agreement between a Member State and one or more non-member countries, Member States are required, subject to the provisions of Article 307 EC, to comply with the obligations that Community law imposes on them.’

  183. 183.

    See ECJ, Case 1/72 Frilli v Belgium EU:C:1972:56, para 19 (guaranteed income for old people); ECJ, Case 186/87 Cowan v Trésor public, supra n. 24, para 12 (compensation for victims of an assault); ECJ, Case C-20/92 Hubbard v Hamburger EU:C:1993:280, para 17 (cautio judicatum solvi for executor); ECJ, Case C-43/95 Data Delecta and Forsberg EU:C:1996:357, para 21 (cautio judicatum solvi) (the quotation stems from this judgment).

  184. 184.

    ECJ, Case 235/87 Matteuci v Communauté française of Belgium EU:C:1988:460.

  185. 185.

    See ECJ, Case C-3/91 Exportur SA v LOR SA and Confiserie du Tech SA EU:C:1992:420, paras 37–38; ECJ, Case C-87/97 Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola v Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG and Eduard Bracharz GmbH EU:C:1999:115, para 20.

  186. 186.

    ECJ, Case 270/83 Commission v France EU:C:1986:37, para 26. See, with further reflections, Farmer and Lyal (1994), pp. 318–319.

  187. 187.

    ECJ, Case C-336/96 Gilly v Directeur des services fiscaux du Bas-Rhin EU:C:1998:221.

  188. 188.

    Ibid., para 30. In para 32 the Court considers that the same type of exception can be found in the OECD Model Convention on Double Taxation.

  189. 189.

    ECJ, Case C-376/03 D. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen EU:C:2005:424.

  190. 190.

    In the same sense, see Schütze (2014), p. 155.

References

  • Adamski D (2012) National power games and structural failures in the European macroeconomic governance. Common Mark Law Rev 49:1319–1364

    Google Scholar 

  • Barents R (1990) The community and the unity of the market. some reflections on the economic constitution of the community. German Yearb Int Law 33:9–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Barents R (1992) The Court of Justice and the EEA agreement. Between constitutional values and political realities. Rivista di diritto europeo 32:751–767

    Google Scholar 

  • Barents R (2000) De communautaire rechtsorde. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Bieber R (1993) Les limites matérielles et formelles à la révision des traités établissant la Communauté européenne. Revue du Marché commun et de l’Union européenne 343–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Borges R-M (2013) Le brevet unitaire européen et la Juridiction du brevet européen: enfin l’aboutissement? Revue du Marché commun et de l’Union européenne 148–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Burri S, Prechal S (2014) EU gender equality law. Update 2013. Report commissioned by the European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/your_rights/eu_gender_equality_law_update2013_en.pdf. Accessed 31 Dec 2016

  • Chemillier-Gendreau M (1999) Principe d’égalité et libertés fondamentales en droit international. In: Yakpo E, Boumedra T (eds) Liber Amicorum Mohammed Bedjaoui. Kluwer Law International, Deventer, pp 659–669

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheneviere C, Mesdag F (2015) Arrêt Royaume-Uni c/ Conseil: taxe sur les transactions financières et incertitudes juridiques. Revue européenne de droit de la consommation 2:397–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor T (1998) Community discrimination law: no right to equal treatment in employment in respect of same sex partner. Eur Law Rev 23:378–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (2012) The stability, coordination and governance treaty: principle, politics and pragmatism. Eur Law Rev 37:231–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P, de Búrca G (2015) EU law: text, cases, and materials, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law, 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Curtin D (1993) The constitutional structure of the Union: a Europe of bits and pieces. Common Mark Law Rev 30:17–69

    Google Scholar 

  • da Cruz Vilaça JL (2014) EU law and integration. Twenty years of judicial application of EU law. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • da Cruz Vilaça JL, Piçarra N (1993) Y a-t-il des limites matérielles à la révision des traités instituant les CE? Cahiers de droit européen 29:3–37

    Google Scholar 

  • de Boer T (2011) Europese oogkleppen: waarom “Rome III” voor Nederland geen optie is. In: Boele-Woelki K et al (eds) Actuele ontwikkelingen in het familierecht—Vijfde UCERF symposium. Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen, pp 73–86

    Google Scholar 

  • de Búrca G (1997) The role of equality in European Community law. In: Dashwood A, O’Leary S (eds) The principle of equal treatment in EC law. Sweet & Maxwell, London, pp 13–34

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jesús Butler I, De Schutter O (2008) Binding the EU to international human rights law. Yearb Eur Law 27:277–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Sadeleer N (2012) The new architecture of the European economic governance: a leviathan or a flat-footed colossus? Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 19:354–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Witte B (1994) Rules of change in international law: how special is the European Community? Neth Yearb Int Law 25:299–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutheil de la Rochère J (2011) French Conseil constitutionnel: recent developments. In: Beneyto JM, Pernice I (eds) Europe’s constitutional challenges in the light of the recent case law of national constitutional courts. Lisbon and beyond. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Epiney E (2007) The scope of Article 12 EC: some remarks on the influence of European citizenship. Eur Law J 13:611–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans AC (1998) Union citizenship and the constitutionalization of equality in EU law. In: La Torre M (ed) European citizenship. An institutional challenge. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 267–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabbrini F (2013) The fiscal compact, the “golden rule,” and the paradox of European federalism. Boston Coll Int Comp Law Rev 36:1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer P, Lyal R (1994) EC tax law. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregorio Merino A (2012) Legal developments in the Economic and Monetary Union during the debt crisis: the mechanisms of financial assistance. Common Mark Law Rev 49:1613–1646

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanf D (2001) Flexibility clauses in the founding treaties, from Rome to Nice. In: de Witte B et al (eds) The many faces of differentiation in EU law. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 3–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Heun W (2013) Art. 3. In: Dreier H (ed) Grundgesetz Kommentar, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 457–543

    Google Scholar 

  • Himsworth C (2007) Devolution and its jurisdictional asymmetries. Mod Law Rev 70:31–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings R, Watts A (1992) Oppenheim’s international law, I.1, 9th edn. Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokott J (2004) Souveräne Gleichheit und Demokratie im Völkerrecht. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 64:517–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokott J (2011) States, sovereign equality. Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition

    Google Scholar 

  • Koutrakos P (2009) Case C-205/06, Commission v. Austria, judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2009, not yet reported; Case C-249/06, Commission v. Sweden, judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2009, not yet reported. Common Mark Law Rev 46:2059–2076

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll DA, Leuffen D (2014) Enhanced cooperation in practice. An analysis of differentiated integration in EU secondary law. J Eur Publ Policy 22:353–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuijper PJ et al (eds) (2015) The law of EU external relations. Cases, materials, and commentary on the EU as an international actor, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamblin-Gourdin A-S (2012) Les coopérations renforcées au secours du brevet unique européen? Revue de l’Union européenne 254–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavranos N (2009) Commission v. Austria. Case C-205/06. Judgment; Commission v. Sweden. Case C-249/06. Judgment. Am J Int Law 103:716–722

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavranos L (2010) Protecting European law from international law. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 15:265–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrysen L, Theunis J (2013) The Belgian constitutional court: a satellite of the ECtHR? In: Alen A et al (eds) Liberae Cogitationes. Liber amicorum Marc Bossuyt. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 331–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2007) La constitutionnalisation de l’ordre juridique de l’Union européenne. In: Andersen R (ed) Mélanges en hommage à Francis Delpérée. Itinéraires d’un constitutionnaliste. Bruylant and LGDJ, Brussels and Paris, pp 815–831

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K, Van Nuffel P (2011) European Union law. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K, Van Ypersele P (1994) Le principe de subsidiarité et son contexte: étude de l’article 3 B du traité CE. Cahiers de droit européen 30:3–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Lliopoulou A (2008) Libre circulation et non-discrimination, éléments du statut du citoyen européen de l’Union européenne. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis J-V (2012) The unexpected revision of the Lisbon Treaty and the establishment of a European stability mechanism. In: Ashiagbor D et al (eds) The European Union after the Treaty of Lisbon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 284–320

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Milner F, Kölliker A (2000) How to make use of closer cooperation? The Amsterdam clauses and the dynamic of European integration. European Commission Working Paper, Forward Studies Unit, http://ials.sas.ac.uk/postgrad/Grotius-civil/Closer%20cooperation.pdf. Accessed 31 Dec 2016

  • More G (1999) The principle of equal treatment: from market unifier to fundamental right? In: Craig P, de Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 517–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosler H (1992) Die Übertragung von Hoheitsgewalt. In: Isensee J, Kirchhof P (eds) Handbuch des Staatsrechts des Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 599–646

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir E (2015) Pursuing equality in the EU. In: Arnull A, Chalmers D (eds) The Oxford handbook of European law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 919–942

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuvonen PJ (2016) Equal citizenship and its limits in EU law: we the burden? Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers S (2012) The stability treaty: permanent austerity or gesture politics? Eur Const Law Rev 8:404–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilczer J-S (2014) Le parcours contentieux de la coopération renforcée en matière de taxe sur les transactions financières: la bataille de l’autorisation est gagnée, celle de la mise en œuvre reste à mener. Réflexions sur l’arrêt du 30 avril 2014, Royaume-Uni/Commission (C-209/13). Cahiers de droit européen 50:597–636

    Google Scholar 

  • Piris J-C (2010) The Lisbon Treaty. A legal and political analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pistoia E (2014) Enhanced cooperation as a tool to… enhance integration? Spain and Italy v. Council. Common Mark Law Rev 51:247–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross M, Borgmann-Prebil Y (eds) (2010) Promoting solidarity in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangiovanni A (2013) Solidarity in the European Union. Oxf J Leg Stud 33:213–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schermers HG, Blokker NM (2011) International institutional law. Unity within diversity, 5th edn. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2014) Foreign affairs and the EU constitution. Selected essays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2014) International law, 7th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sindbjerg Martinsen D (2015) An even more powerful court? The political constraints of legal integration in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • T.M.C. Asser Instituut (1999) Flexibiliteit en het Verdrag van Amsterdam. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobler C (2005) Indirect discrimination. A case study into the development of the legal concept of indirect discrimination under EC law. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomkin J (2013) Contradiction, circumvention and conceptual gymnastics: the impact of the adoption of the ESM Treaty on the state of European democracy. Ger Law J 14:169–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2008) Gleichheit in der Europäischen Union. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 68:327–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2009) The ruling of the German Constitutional Court on the Treaty of Lisbon. Ger Law J 10:1259–1261

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (2007) General principles of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuytschaver F (1999) Differentiation in European Union law. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Steen I (1999a) Toepassing Barber-rechtspraak Hof van Justitie: schending van artikel 26 BuPo-Verdrag. Nederlands Tijdschrift Europees Recht 5:230–232

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Steen I (1999b) Het BuPo-Comité en het Barber-arrest inzake gelijke pensioenen: reactie van de Nederlandse regering. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Europees Recht 5:320–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Malleghem PA (2013) Pringle: a paradigm shift in the European Union’s monetary constitution. Ger Law J 14:141–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberghe J (2015) The single common market organization regulation. In: McMahon J, Cardwell M (eds) Research handbook on EU agriculture law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 62–85

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Waddington L (2003) The expanding role of the equality principle in European Union law. Policy Paper Series on Constitutional Reform in the EU 2003/04—European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendel M (2011) Lisbon before the courts: comparative perspectives. In: Beneyto JM, Pernice I (eds) Europe’s constitutional challenges in the light of the recent case law of national constitutional courts. Lisbon and beyond. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 65–106

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters J (2001) Constitutional limits of differentiation: the principle of equality. In: de Witte B et al (eds) The many faces of differentiation in EU law. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 301–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemánek J (2011) The two Lisbon judgments of the Czech constitutional court. In: Beneyto JM, Pernice I (eds) Europe’s constitutional challenges in the light of the recent case law of national constitutional courts. Lisbon and beyond. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 45–63

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies – Institute for International Law, KU Leuven, House De Dorlodot - Deberiotstraat 34, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Jan Wouters

  2. General Court of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Pierre Schmitt

  3. Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, Leuven, Belgium

    Pierre Schmitt

Authors
  1. Jan Wouters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pierre Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jan Wouters or Pierre Schmitt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Lucia Serena Rossi

  2. Department of Legal Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Federico Casolari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wouters, J., Schmitt, P. (2017). Equality Among Member States and Differentiated Integration in the EU. In: Rossi, L., Casolari, F. (eds) The Principle of Equality in EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66137-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66137-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66136-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66137-7

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation