Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ksp62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T18:26:22.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EU Membership: Formal and Substantive Dimensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2020

Paul CRAIG
Paul CRAIG*
Affiliation:
St John's College Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Membership is central to the EU, as it is to any other international organisation. Withdrawal has assumed centre-stage through Brexit. While there is literature that is relevant to membership, most notably through academic discourse on differentiated integration, there is little more general inquiry concerning membership, the concept of which has importance and implications over and beyond more particular avenues of scholarship. This article examines the formal and substantive dimensions of membership and withdrawal in the EU.

Keywords

membershipaccessionwithdrawaldutiesremediesdifferentiated integration

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 22 , December 2020 , pp. 1 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Emeritus Professor of Law, St John's College, Oxford. This article originated as the 2020 Mackenzie Stuart lecture, which I gave in Cambridge, and then in Durham. I am grateful for the comments that I received on both occasions.

References

1 Arts 9–11 TEU.

2 European Union, ‘Joining the EU’, https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_en#joining; European Commission, ‘Conditions for Membership’, https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership_en.

3 Regulation (EU) 231/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing an Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II) [2014] OJ L77/11, rec 3.

4 Ibid, rec 7; European Commission, ‘European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations', https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/instruments/how-does-it-work_en.

5 European Commission, ‘Chapters of the Acquis’, https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/chapters-of-the-acquis_en.

6 Political declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom [2019] OJ C384 I/02.

7 P Craig, ‘Brexit A Drama, The Endgame – Part I’ (2020) European Law Review 45.

8 The Future Relationship with the EU, The UK's Approach to Negotiations, CP211, February 2020.

9 Prime Minister Theresa May sets out the Plan for Britain, including the 12 priorities that the UK government will use to negotiate Brexit, January 17 2017, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech (hereafter referred to as the Lancaster House speech); Hansard 7 Feb 2017, Vol. [621] Col. [272]; The United Kingdom's Exit from and New Partnership with the European Union, Cm 9417 (2017).

10 Arts 28–36, 45, 49, 56, 63, 110 TFEU.

11 Arts 107–09 TFEU.

12 Art 3(6) TEU.

13 See further Art 26 TFEU.

14 Art 3(5) TEU specifies that the EU ‘shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter’.

15 Art 132(3) TFEU.

16 Art 108(2) TFEU.

17 Art 126(11) TFEU.

18 See, eg, Commission v France, C–304/02 [2005] ECR I–6263; Commission v Greece, C–568/07 [2009] ECR I–4504; Commission v France, C–121/07 [2008] ECR I–9159; Commission v Slovakia, C-626/16, EU:C:2018:525; Commission v Greece, C-93/17, EU:C:2018:903.

19 Krommendijk, J, ‘Is there Light on the Horizon? The Distinction between “Rewe Effectiveness” and the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in Article 47 of the Charter after Orrizonte’ (2016) 53 Common Market Law Review 1395Google Scholar. See also, Xanathi, H, ‘Effective Judicial Protection at the National Level against Breaches of EC Law’ (2005) 5 European Journal of Law Reform 409Google Scholar; Arnull, A, ‘The Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in EU Law: An Unruly Horse?’ (2011) 36 European Law Review 51Google Scholar.

20 See, eg, von Bogdandy, A et al. , ‘Reverse Solange–Protecting the Essence of Fundamental Rights against EU Member States’ (2012) 49 Common Market Law Review 489Google Scholar; Canor, I, ‘My Brother's Keeper? Horizontal Solange: “An Ever Closer Distrust among the Peoples of Europe”’ (2013) 50 Common Market Law Review 383Google Scholar; von Bogdandy, A and Sonnevend, P (eds), Constitutional Crisis in the European Constitutional Area: Theory, Law and Politics in Hungary and Romania (Hart, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kochenov, D and Pech, L, ‘Monitoring and Enforcement of the Rule of Law in the EU: Rhetoric and Reality’ (2015) 11 EuConst 512Google Scholar; Müller, J-W, ‘Should the European Union Protect Democracy and the Rule of Law in Its Member States’ (2015) 21 European Law Journal 141CrossRefGoogle Scholar; S Carrera, E Guild, and N Hernanz, The Triangular Relationship between Fundamental Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law in the EU, Towards an EU Copenhagen Mechanism (2013), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/493031/IPOL-LIBE_ET(2013)493031_EN.pdf, pp 4–15; Closa, C and Kochenov, D (eds), Reinforcing the Rule of Law Oversight in the European Union (Cambridge University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kochenov, D and Pech, L, ‘Better Late than Never: On the European Commission's Rule of Law Framework and Its First Activation’ (2016) 54 Journal of Common Market Studies 1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jakab, A and Kochenov, D (eds), The Enforcement of EU Law and Values: Ensuring Member State Compliance (Oxford University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pech, L, ‘The Rule of Law’ in Craig, P and de Búrca, G, The Evolution of EU Law, 3rd ed (Oxford University Press, 2021)Google Scholar.

21 Pech, ‘The Rule of Law’, note 20 above; Craig, P and de Búrca, G, EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials, 7th ed (Oxford University Press, 2020), ch 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Ramón Margarit Panicello v Pilar Hernández Martínez, C-503/15, EU:C:2017:126, paras 37–38. See also, Wilson, C-506/04, EU:C:2006:587, paras 51–52; Vindel v Ministerio de Justicia, C-49/18, EU:C:2019:106.

23 Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117.

24 Ibid, para 32.

25 Ibid, paras 33–43.

26 C-619/18, EU:C:2019:531.

27 Ibid, para 58.

28 Ibid, para 77. See also, Commission v Poland, C-192/18, EU:C:2019:924; AK v Sąd Najwyższy, C–585, 624, 625/18, EU:C:2019:982, paras 120–25.

29 Miasto Łowicz and Prokurator Generalny zastępowany przez Prokuraturę Krajową, formerly Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku v Skarb Państwa – Wojewoda Łódzki, C-558, 563/18, EU:C:2020:234, paras 57–59.

30 Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy, C–6, 9/90 [1991] ECR I–5357.

31 Ibid, para 33.

32 Ibid, para 36.

33 C-391/17, EU:C:2019:919, paras 96–98, 127.

34 C-395/17, EU:C:2019:918, paras 98–101.

35 Ibid, para 102.

36 See, eg, Wells, C-201/02, EU:C:2004:12, paras 64–65; Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre Wallonne, C-41/11, EU:C:2012:103, paras 42–43, 46; Comune di Corridonia and Others v Provincia di Macerata and Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 – Ambiente, C-196-197/16, EU:C:2017:589, para 35.

37 OPR-Finance sro v GK, C-679/18, EU:C:2020:167, para 25.

38 See also, Berlusconi, C-381, 391, 403/02, [2005] ECR I-3565, paras 64–65; Textdata Software, C-418/11, EU:C:2013:588, para 50; LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais SA v Fesih Kalhan, C-565/12, EU:C:2014:190, para 44.

39 NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, 26/62 [1963] ECR 1.

40 Ibid, pp 6–9.

41 Ibid, p 12.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid, pp 12-13.

46 Ibid, p 13.

47 Ibid.

48 Weiler, J, ‘The Community System: The Dual Character of Supranationalism’ (1981) 1 YBEL 267Google Scholar, and ‘The Transformation of Europe’ (1991) 100 Yale Law Journal 2403; Craig, P, ‘Once Upon a Time in the West: Direct Effect and the Federalization of EEC Law’ (1992) 12 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 453CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Van Gend, note 39 above, p 13.

50 Closa, C, ‘The Concept of Citizenship in the Treaty on European Union’ (1992) 29 Common Market Law Review 1137Google Scholar; Everson, M, ‘The Legacy of the Market Citizen’ in Shaw, J and More, G (eds), New Legal Dynamics of European Union (Oxford University Press, 1995), p 73Google Scholar; Lyons, C, ‘Citizenship in the Constitution of the European Union: Rhetoric or Reality?’ in Bellamy, R (ed), Constitutionalism, Democracy, and Sovereignty: American and European Perspectives (Avebury, 1996), p 96Google Scholar; D'Oliveira, H, ‘European Citizenship: Its Meaning, Its Potential’ in Dehousse, R (ed), Europe after Maastricht (Law Books in Europe, 1994)Google Scholar.

51 Maas, W, ‘The Origins, Evolution, and Political Objectives of EU Citizenship’ (2014) 15 German Law Journal 797CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Menendez, A, ‘Which Citizenship? Whose Europe? The Many Paradoxes of European Citizenship’ (2014) 15 German Law Journal 907CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kochenov, D, ‘EU Citizenship without Duties’ (2014) 20 European Law Journal 482CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Grzelczyk v Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, C–184/99, [2001] ECR I–6193, para 31.

53 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, C–413/99, [2002] ECR I–7091. See also, Zhu and Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, C–200/02, [2004] ECR I–9925.

54 Kohll, C-300/15, EU:C:2016:361.

55 Ruiz Zambrano v ONEM, C–34/09, [2011] ECR I–1177.

56 Maria Martinez Sala v Freistaat Bayern, C–85/96, [1998] ECR I–2691.

57 Trojani v CPAS, C–456/02, [2004] ECR I–7573.

58 Dereci, C–256/11 [2011] ECR I–11315.

59 McCarthy, C–434/09 [2011] ECR I–3375.

60 Dano v Jobseeker Leipzig, C–333/13, EU:C:2014:2358.

61 Alimanovic, C-67/14, EU:C:2015:597.

62 Thym, D, ‘The Elusive Limits of Solidarity: Residence Rights of and Social Benefits for Economically Inactive Union Citizens’ (2015) 52 Common Market Law Review 17Google Scholar; Shuibhne, N Nic, ‘“What I Tell You Three Times Is True”, Lawful Residence and Equal Treatment after Dano’ (2016) 23 Maastricht Journal 908Google Scholar; O'Brien, C, ‘The ECJ Sacrifices EU Citizenship in Vain: Commission v. United Kingdom’ (2017) 54 Common Market Law Review 209Google Scholar.

63 Ehlermann, C-D, ‘Differentiation, Flexibility, Closer Cooperation: The New Provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty’ (1998) 4 European Law Journal 246CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shaw, J, ‘The Treaty of Amsterdam: Challenges of Flexibility and Legitimacy’ (1998) 4 European Law Journal 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stubb, A, ‘A Categorization of Differentiated Integration’ (1996) 34 Journal of Common Market Studies 283CrossRefGoogle Scholar; de Búrca, G and Scott, J (eds), Constitutional Change in the EU: From Uniformity to Flexibility (Hart, 2000)Google Scholar; de Witte, B, Hanf, D, and Vos, E (eds), The Many Faces of Differentiation in EU Law (Intersentia, 2001)Google Scholar.

64 See, eg, Holzinger, K and Schimmelfennig, F, ‘Differentiated Integration in the European Union: Many Concepts, Sparse Theory, Few Data’ (2012) 19 Journal of European Public Policy 292CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M Sion-Tzidkiyahu, Europe à la Carte. Comparing the Paths of Opt-Outs in the European Union (Hebrew University, 2012); Bolleyer, N and Börzel, T, ‘Balancing Integration and Flexibility in the European Union: Constitutional Dispositions and Dynamics of Coordination’ (2014) 12 Comparative European Politics 384CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cananea, G della, ‘Differentiated Integration in Europe after Brexit: An Institutional and Legal Analysis’ in Pernice, I and Martins, A Guerra (eds), Brexit and the Future of EU Politics. A Constitutional Law Perspective (Nomos, 2019), pp 45–89Google Scholar; Schimmelfennig, F, Leuffen, D, and Rittberger, B, ‘The European Union as a System of Differentiated Integration: Interdependence, Politicization and Differentiation’ (2015) 22 Journal of European Public Policy 764CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lord, C, ‘Utopia or Dystopia? Towards a Normative Analysis of Differentiated Integration’ (2015) 22 Journal of European Public Policy 783CrossRefGoogle Scholar; de Witte, B, Ott, A, and Vos, E (eds), Between Flexibility and Disintegration: The Trajectory of Differentiation in EU Law (Edward Elgar, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leruth, B, Gänzle, S, and Trondal, J, ‘Exploring Differentiated Disintegration in a Post-Brexit European Union’ (2019) 57 Journal of Common Market Studies 1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cardwell, P, ‘The End of Exceptionalism and a Strengthening of Coherence? Law and Legal Integration in the EU Post-Brexit’ (2019) 57 Journal of Common Market Studies 1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelemen, R, ‘Is Differentiation Possible in the Rule of Law’ (2019) 17 Comparative European Politics 246CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmidt, V, ‘The Future of Differentiated Integration: A “Soft-Core”, Multi-Clustered Europe of Overlapping Policy Communities’ (2019) 17 Comparative European Politics 294CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bellamy, R and Kröger, S, ‘A Demoicratic Justification of Differentiated Integration in a Heterogeneous EU’ (2017) 39 Journal of European Integration 625CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Curtin, D, ‘From a Europe of Bits and Pieces to a Union of Variegated Integration’ in Craig, P and de Búrca, G (eds), The Evolution of EU Law, 3rd ed (Oxford University Press, 2021)Google Scholar.

65 D Thym, ‘Competing Models for Understanding Differentiated Integration’ in de Witte, Ott, and Vos (eds), Between Flexibility and Disintegration, note 64 above.

66 Bellamy and Kröger, note 64 above.

67 de Larosiere, J, The High Level Group on Financial Supervision in the EU (Brussels, 2009)Google Scholar; Craig, P, ‘Subsidiarity: A Political and Legal Analysis’ (2012) 50 Journal of Common Market Studies 72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 See, eg, European Council, 18–19 October 2012, para 5. See also, Review of the Balance of Competence between the United Kingdom and the European Union, Economic and Monetary Union (2014), paras 5.31–5.52; Review of the Balance of Competence between the United Kingdom and the European Union, The Single Market: Financial Services and the Free Movement of Capital (2014), paras 5.26–5.30, 5.33, 5.35; Craig, P and Markakis, M, ‘The Euro Area, Its Regulation and Impact on Non-Euro Member States’ in Koutakos, P and Snell, J (eds), The Law of the EU's Internal Market (Elgar, 2017), pp 289–316Google Scholar.

69 Kelemen, note 64 above.

70 Piris, J-C, The Future of Europe: Towards a Two-Speed EU? (Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp 62–63Google Scholar.

71 Ibid, p 122 (italics in the original).

72 Ibid, pp 122–23.

73 Schmidt, note 64 above.

74 Ibid, p 295.

75 COM(2017) 2025, White Paper on the Future of Europe—Reflections and Scenarios for the EU27 by 2025.

76 Craig, P, ‘Two-Speed, Multi-Speed and Europe's Future: A Review of Jean-Claude Piris on the Future of Europe’ (2012) 37 European Law Review 800Google Scholar.

77 Schmidt, note 64 above, pp 310–11.

78 Ibid, p 311.

79 R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5.

80 Wightman v Secretary of State for the EU, C-621/18, EU:C:2018:999.

81 Ibid, para 50.

82 Ibid, para 57.

83 Ibid, para 63.

84 Ibid, para 65.

85 Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community [2020] OJ L29/7.

86 Political declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom [2019] OJ C384 I/02.