Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:13:58.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The legal personality of the European Communities and the European Union1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Jaap W. de Zwaan
Get access

Extract

In this article, the meaning and scope of the legal personality of the European Communities will be discussed. As a complementary exercise the question will be raised if the European Union as such is in the possession of a similar capacity.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 30 , December 1999 , pp. 75 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1999

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.)

References

3. Hereafter also to be referred to as ‘Communities’ or ‘EC’.

4. Hereafter also to be referred to as ‘Union’ or ‘EU’.

5. Art. N(2) EU (‘Maastricht’ version).

6. See for Art. 282 (ex Art. 211) EC, the commentary of Grunwald, J. in der Groeben, H. von, Kommentar zum EWG-Vertrag (Baden-Baden, Nomos 1993) pp. 5–60.Google Scholar

7. See for the procedures to be applied during international negotiations, the parallel provision of Art. 300(1) (ex Art. 228(1)) EC.

8. See for Art. 281 (ex Art. 210) EC, the commentary of Chr. Tomuschat in Von Der Groeben, op. cit. n. 6, pp. 5–17.

9. Commission v. Council, case 22/70 [1971] ECR 263 at 274.

10. Para. 14.

11. Para. 15.

12. Paras. 16–19.

13. Kramer et al., [1976] ECR 1279, notably paras. 19–20.

14. European Laying-up fund for inland waterway vessels, [1977] ECR 741, notably para. 3.

15. ILO Convention on safety in the use of chemicals at work, [1993] ECR I-1061, notably para. 7.

16. Third Revised Decision of the OECD on National Treatment, [1995] ECR I-521, notably para. 29.

17. WTO-GATS and TRIPS, [1994] ECR I-5267, notably para. 48.

18. Reparation for Injuries, Opinion, ICJ Rep. 1949, p. 182.Google Scholar

19. ICJ Rep. 1949, p. 182Google Scholar. See also Schwarze, in der Groeben, H. von et al. , Kommentar zum EWG-Vertag, 3rd edn., (Baden-Baden, Nomos 1983) p. 774.Google Scholar

20. For this discussion see also Kapteyn, P.J.G. and van Themaat, P. VerLoren, Introduction to the Law of the European Communities, 3rd edn., revised and edited by Gormley, L. (London, Kluwer Law International 1998) pp. 97–100 and pp. 1256–1258.Google Scholar

21. See also Kapteyn and VerLoren van Themaat, op. cit. n. 20, p. 99.

22. Accession to FAO, see Commission v. Council, case C-25/94, judgment of 19 March 1996, [1996] ECR I-1497; accession to WTO, see Opinion 1/94, supra n. 17.

23. E.g., the WTO agreement. On the other hand, see also Opinion 2/94, decision of 28 March 1996 [1996] ECR I-1759, in which the Court concluded that the Community is not competent to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) of the Council of Europe.

24. E.g., in the context of the ILO: see Opinion 2/91, supra n. 15.

25. Arts. 302–304 EC. Art. 302 EC concerns the EC relations with the organs of the United Nations and its specialised agencies as well as internatonal organisations as such; Art. 303 EC cooperation with the Council of Europe; and Art. 304 EC cooperation with the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).

26. Art. 310 reads: ‘The Community may conclude with one or more States or international organisations agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedure.’ Examples of such association agreements are: the Association Agreements with Turkey, Cyprus and Malta; the Lomé cooperation; the European Economic Area cooperation; and the so-called Europe Agreements, concluded with candidate Member States from Central and Eastern Europe.

27. Art. 300(1) (ex Art. 228(1)) EC.

28. Art. 300(2 and 3) EC.

29. Art. 300(7) EC.

30. The international law personality is mentioned in Art. 107(2) EC, the private law personality is embodied in Art. 9.1 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank.

31. The international law personality is mentioned in Art. 266(1) EC, the private law personality is embodied in Art. 28(1) of the Protocol on the Statute of the European Investment Bank.

32. Art. 54(1) EAEC.

33. See also the explanations of Chr. Tomuschat in Von Der Groeben, op. cit. n. 6, p. 5/62.

34. OJ 1990, L 372/1.

35. See also Kapteyn and VerLoren van Themaat, op. cit. n. 20, p. 98.

36. Entered into force on 1 November 1993. In Chapter 4 as a rule reference is made to the (old) numbering of the treaty provisions as they result from that treaty.

37. Everling, U., ‘Reflections of the Structure of the European Union’, 29 CMLRev. (1992) p. 1061Google Scholar; Pliakos, A.D., ‘La nature juridique de l'Union européenne’, 29 RTD eur. (1993) pp. 213Google Scholar; Eaton, M.R., ‘Common Foreign and Security Policy’, in O'Keeffe, D. and Twomey, P.M., eds., Legal Issues of the Maastricht Treaty (London, Wiley Chancery Law 1994) p. 224Google Scholar; Heukels, T. and de Zwaan, J.W., ‘The Configuration of the European Union: Community Dimensions of Institutional Interaction’, in Curtin, D. and Heukels, T., eds., Institutional Dynamics of European Integration, Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. II, (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1994) pp. 201, 202 et seq. and 227Google Scholar; Kapteyn and VerLoren van Themaat, op. cit. n. 20, pp. 99 et seq, and 1254; Schermers, H.G. and Blokker, N.M., International Institutional Law, 3rd rev. edn. (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1995) p. 977Google Scholar; MacLeod, I., Hendry, I.D. and Hyett, S., The external relations of the European Communities (London, Clarendon 1996) p. 25Google Scholar; Gautron, J-Cl., ‘l'Union européenne et le concept d'organisation internationale’, in Dormoy, D., ed., L'Union européenne et les organisations internationales (Brussels, Bruylant 1997) p. 16.Google Scholar

38. Cloos, J., Reinesch, G., Vignes, D. and Weyland, J., Le Traité de Maastricht, genèse, analyse, commentaires, (Brussels, Bruylant 1993) p. 115Google Scholar. There it is said: ‘L'Union, dans cette approche, est un concept politique bien plus que juridique, et elle ne dispose dès lors pas de la personalité juridique. On n'est pas arrivé au stade où les Etats membres seraient prêts à transférer leurs compétences en matière de politique étrangère à une entité juridique distincte. Ils sont d'accord pour agir collectivement sur la scène internationale, mais non pas pour disparaître en tant qu'acteurs juridiquement distincts.’

39. Art. N(1) EU (‘Maastricht’ version).

40. See e.g., Becker v. Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt, case 8/81, judgment of 19 January 1982 [1982] ECR 53.

41. See Francovich, joined cases C-6 and C-9/90, judgment of 19 November 1991 [1991] ECR I-5357.

42. White, N.D., The Law of International Organisations, (Manchester, University Press 1996) p. 50Google Scholar; van Ooik, R.H., ‘Externe bevoegdheden van de Europese Unie – Colloquium verslag en synthese’Google Scholar [‘External competences of the European Union – Colloquium report and synthesis’], in Externe bevoegdheden van de Europese Unie [External competences of the European Union], Asser Instituut Colloquium Europees recht, Drieëntwintigste Zitting (1993) pp. 128–129Google Scholar; Ress, G., ‘Ist die Europäische Union eine juristische Person?’, 2 EuR (1995) p. 27Google Scholar et seq.; Wessel, R.A., ‘The International Status of the European Union’, 2 European Foreign Affairs Review (1997) p. 128Google Scholar; McGoldrick, D., International Relations Law of the European Union (London, Longman 1997) p. 36Google Scholar et seq.; Klabbers, J., ‘Presumptive Personality: The European Union in International Law’, in Koskenniemi, M., ed., International Law Aspects of the European Union (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1998) p. 243 et seq.Google Scholar

43. Klabbers, loc. cit. n. 42, p. 243.

44. Decision of the Council of 8 November 1993, OJ 1993, L 281/18. On the other hand, the Commission and the Court of Justice still are designated as institutions ‘of the European Communities’. See, however, as far as the Court is concerned: Curtin, D.M. and van Ooik, R.H., ‘Een Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie?’ [‘A Court of Justice of the European Union?’], 1 SEW (1999) pp. 24–38Google Scholar. The official name of the European Parliament contains no reference to either the Communities or the Union.

45. See – for CFSP – Art. J.1(1–4); Art. J.3(1); Art. J.4(1, 2 and 4); Art. J.5(1, 2 and 4); Art. J.7(1) and Art. J.8(2)(1). See – for JHA – Art. K.1 and Art. K.3(2)(a-b).

46. Art. O EU. In a similar context reference can be made to the ‘Citizenship of the Union’, a capacity for persons holding the nationality of a Member State, elaborated in Art. 17–22 EC.

47. See e.g., the old Art. 237 EC.

48. ICJ Rep. 1949, p. 180Google Scholar. See also supra section 3.3.

49. Idem.

50. See for the characteristics of the ‘pillar structure’: Everling, loc. cit. n. 37, at pp. 1053–1077; Wellenstein, E.P., ‘Unity, Community, Union – what's in a name?’ (Guest Editorial), 29 CML Rev. (1992) pp. 205–212Google Scholar; A.D. Pliakos, loc. cit. n. 37, at pp. 187–224; Curtin, D., ‘The Constitutional Structure of the Union: A Europe of Bits and Pieces’, 30 CML Rev. (1993) pp. 17–69Google Scholar; Curtin, D. and Heukels, T., eds., Institutional Dynamics of European Integration, Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. II (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1994).Google Scholar

51. Art. B and C EU (‘Maastricht’ version).

52. See Art. C and Art. E EU (‘Maastricht’ version). See also Heukels and De Zwaan, loc. cit. n. 37, at p. 198 where mention is made of the German notion of ‘Institutionenleihe’.

53. Protected by the principles of Art. 250 (ex Art. 189a) EC.

54. Respectively Art. J.8(3) and Art. K.3(2)(first indent) EU (‘Maastricht’ version).

55. Respectively Art. J.8(2)(2) and Art. K.4(3) EU (‘Maastricht’ version).

56. Respectively Art. 251 and 252 (ex Art. 189b and 189c) EC.

57. Respectively Art. J.7 and Art. K.6 EU (‘Maastricht’ version).

58. See notably Art. 226–243 (ex Art. 169–186) EC.

59. In Art. L EU (‘Maastricht’ version) no reference to Title V is found.

60. Art. K.3(2)(c)(3) EU (‘Maastricht’ version).

61. The European Council is not mentioned in Art. 7(1) (ex Art. 4(1)) EC.

62. Above, n. 45.

63. See notably Art. J.1(1–4); Art. J.2(1–3); Art. J.3(4, 6 and 7); Art. J.4(4–5); Art. J.5(3–4); Art. J.6; Art. J.8(3–4) and Art. J.11(2)(2).

64. Above, n. 45.

65. See notably Art. K.1; Art. K.2(1–2); Art. K.3(1–2); Art. K.5; Art. K.7; Art. K.8(2)(2) and Art. K.9.

66. No example taken from the Third Pillar cooperation can be mentioned here.

67. The formal title was ‘Memorandum of Understanding on the European Union Administration of Mostar’. See for the text: Tractatenblad (Trb., Dutch Treaty Series) 1994 No. 183.

68. The approval was given through the application of the so-called ‘silence’ procedure. In such a case no official publication of the fact of the approval has to take place.

69. Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law (1990) p. 681Google Scholar; Pliakos, loc. cit. n. 37, at pp. 208 et seq.; Van Ooik, op. cit. n. 42, at p. 125; Klabbers, op. cit. n. 37, at p. 242; Schermers and Blokker, op. cit. n. 37, at pp. 22 et seq. However, Klabbers refers to an unanimous agreement between scholars according to which a comprehensive definition of the concept ‘international organisation’ is impossible: n. 54 at p. 242. Also Schemers and Blokker recall that there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes an international organisation: para. 32 at p. 22.

70. See also de Witte, B., ‘The Pillar Structure and the Nature of the European Union: Greek Temple of French Gothic Cathedral’, in Heukels, T., Blokker, N., Brus, M., eds., The European Union after Amsterdam, A Legal Analysis, (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1998) pp. 51–68, notably p. 62.Google Scholar

71. Art. R EU (‘Maastricht’ version).

72. Supra section 4.2.

73. Art. J.5(1 and 2) EU (‘Maastricht’ version).

74. Art. J.5(2) EU (‘Maastricht’ version).

75. Art. B-E EU (‘Maastricht’ version), the proper organ being the European Council, mentioned in Art. D EU. See also supra, sections 4.2 and 4.3.

76. See the subject mentioned under 9 of Art. K. 1 EU (‘Maastricht’ version).

77. OJ 1995, C 316/1.

78. Trb. 1998 No. 241.

79. See also Barents, R., Het verdrag van Amsterdam [The Treaty of Amsterdam], Europese Monografieën No. 51 (Deventer, Kluwer 1997) pp. 3–9 and 155 et seqGoogle Scholar; De Witte, op. cit. n. 70, at pp. 51–68; Dashwood, A., ‘External relations provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty’, 35 CMLRev. (1998) pp. 1019–1045Google Scholar; de Zwaan, J.W., Het recht als fundament van de Europese Unie, Schets van belangrijke beginselen en recente vernieuwingen [The law as foundation of the European Union, sketch of important principles and recent innovations] (Deventer, Kluwer 1998) pp. 19 et seqGoogle Scholar; de Zwaan, J.W., ‘Het Verdrag van Amsterdam, Etappe in het proces van Europese Integratie’ [‘The Treaty of Amsterdam, Stage in the process of European Integration’], 11 NJB (1999) pp. 492–500Google Scholar; Drijber, B.J., ‘De Europese instellingen na het Verdrag van Amsterdam: evenwicht zonder overzicht?’ [The European Institutions after the Treaty of Amsterdam, a balance without overall picture?’], 13 NJB (1999) pp. 587–596Google Scholar; Curtin, D.M. and Dekker, I.F., ‘The European Union as a ‘Layered’ International Organisation: Institutional Unity in Disguise’, in Craig, P. and de Búrca, G., eds., European Law: An Evolutionary Perspective (Oxford, Oxford University Press 1999) pp. 83–136.Google Scholar

80. Chapter IV of Title III of Part Three of the EC Treaty.

81. A further strengthening of the Community cooperation results from the conferral of new competences to the Community, e.g., in the area of employment policy (Art. 125–130 EC) and social policy (Art. 136–145 EC).

82. Respectively Art. 30 and 31 EU.

83. See de Zwaan, J.W., ‘Community Dimensions of the Second Pillar’Google Scholar in Heukels, op. cit. n. 70, at pp. 179–193.

84. Respectively Art. 23(1)(1 and 2) EU. In case a declaration is made, the Member State concerned is not obliged to apply the decision.

85. Art.23(2)(1)EU.

86. Art. 12, second indent, EU, to be read in conjunction with Art. 13(2) EU.

87. Art. 23(2)(2) EU.

88. Art. 17(1)(1) EU.

89. See the contribution of de Zwaan, J.W. and Vrouenraets, M. ‘The future of the Third Pillar: an evaluation of the Treaty of Amsterdam’Google Scholar in Heukels, op. cit. n. 70, at pp. 203–214.

90. Art. 34, opening words, EU:

91. Art. 39(1) EU.

92. Indeed, before the entry into force of the Single European Act, EC decisions were as a rule taken (on a proposal of the Commission) by unanimous decision of the Council, after the European Parliament had delivered an opinion.

93. Art. 34(2)(b. respectively c.) EU.

94. Of course it is to be regretted that it is added in Art. 34(2)(b and c) EU that these decisions ‘shall not entail direct effect’. In this way the national and European iudiciary is prevented to make its own appreciation, on a case by case basis and in view of the wording and context of the provision concerned.

95. This follows from the phrase in the opening words of Art. 35(3) EU ‘A Member State making a declaration …’.

96. See the options a. and b. in Art. 35(3) EU.

97. Art. 234(2) (ex Art. 177(2)) EC.

98. Supra sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.

99. In this respect reference can be made to Art. 13 (instruments of the Second Pillar), Art. 17(1) (common defence and integration of the WEU into the Union) and Art. 23 (decision making in the Second Pillar) related to the Second Pillar cooperation, as well as to Art. 40(2) (closer cooperation in the Third Pillar) concerning the Third Pillar cooperation. As far as closer cooperation is concerned, it is to be added that the equivalent provision in the First Pillar – Art. 11(2)(2) EC–provides for decision making by ‘the Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or Government’.

100. Supra section 4.1. See also Blokker, N.M. and Heukels, T., ‘The European Union: Historical Origins and Institutional Challenges’Google Scholar, in Heukels et al., op. cit. n. 70, at pp. 27 et seq.; Curtin and Dekker, op. cit. n. 79, at p. 105; De Witte, op. cit. n. 70, at p. 63; Wessel, R., The European Union's Foreign and Security Policy, a Legal Institutional Perspective (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1999) notably Chapter 7.Google Scholar

101. See – for CFSP – Art. 11(1–2); Art. 12; Art. 13(2–3); Art. 14(1); Art. 15; Art. 16; Art. 17(1 and 3); Art. 18(1–2); Art. 19(2); Art. 21 and Art. 23(1) EU. See – for Police and Justice Cooperation in Criminal Matters (PJCCM) – Art. 29(1); Art. 34(2) and Art. 40(1) EU.

102. Supra sections 3.1 and 3.2.

103. A number of states, albeit a minority, was of the opinion that the Union already possesses legal personality, in view of the fact that the Union is accepted in practice, in international relations, as a seperate and formal entity. This argument seems to be not well-founded. It may occur that third partners do recognize the Union as a separate entity, however this happens only in a purely political context. So far there is no indication that the same may happen when the conclusion of (binding) agreements is at stake.

104. See, on this point for instance, the relevant paragraph in the final report of the Reflection Group of December 1995: ‘A majority of members points to the advantage of international legal personality for the Union so that it can conclude international agreements on the subject-matter of Titles V and VI concerning the CFSP and the external dimension of justice and home affairs. For them, the fact that the Union does not legally exist is a source of confusion outside and diminishes its external role. Others consider that the creation of international legal personality for the Union could risk confusion with the legal prerogatives of Member States.’: Reflection Group Report and Other References for Documentary Purposes, 1996 Intergovernmental Conference, General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union (Brussels 1996) para. 150 p. 76.

105. See also R. Barents, op. cit. n. 79, at p. 24 and p. 125; Besselink, L.F.M., ‘Tussen supranationaliteit en soevereiniteit: over het niet-communautaire recht van de Europese Unie’ [‘Between supranationality and sovereignty: the non-Community law of the European Union] in Europese Unie en nationale soevereniteit [The European Union and national sovereignty], Publikatie van de Staatsrechtkring (Zwolle, W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink 1997) pp. 132–133Google Scholar; Barents, R. en Brinkhorst, L.J., Grondlijnen van Europees recht [Basic principles of European law], 8th edn. (Alphen ad Rijn, Samson 1998) p. 45 and 525Google Scholar; Lenaerts, K. and de Smijter, E., ‘The United Nations and the European Union: living apart together’, in Wellens, K., ed., International Law: Theory and Practise (The Hague, Kluwer International Law 1998) p. 441.Google Scholar

106. See also Besselink, op. cit. n. 105, at pp. 125–158, notably p. 138; Dashwood, loc. cit. n. 79, notably p. 1038 et seq.

107. The declaration is mentioned under III.4 of the Final Act.

108. Mentioned under II.B.2 of the Final Act of the Amsterdam Treaty.

109. This as a consequence of the Agreement signed on 19 December 1996 between, on the one side, the at the time Schengen states and, on the other side, the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway.

110. The necessity to draw up such a second agreement results from the fact that Ireland and the United Kingdom, which countries never joined the Schengen cooperation, will in principle not participate in the continuation of ‘Schengen’ through the legal and institutional framework of the Union.

111. Art. 6(1) Schengen Protocol has been implemented through an Agreement of 18 May 1999. This Agremeent is published in OJ 1999, L 176/36. Art. 6(2) Schengen Protocol has been implemented through an Agreement of 30 June 1999. This Agreement is published in OJ 2000, L 15/2.

112. See also Wessel, op. cit. n. 100, at p. 261.

113. Art. 300(4) EC.

114. See France v. Commission, case C-329/91, judgment of 9 August 1994 [1994] ECR I-3641, para. 19–24, notably para. 24.

115. In which case the Member States acted ‘within the framework of the Union in full association with the European Commission’ as contracting parties: supra section 4.2.

116. Art. 300(1) (ex Art. 228(1)) EC.

117. E.g., decision of the Council to strengthen or to adapt the facilities for European citizenship (Art. 22 – ex Art. 8e – EC); decision of the Council to lay down a uniform procedure for the direct elections of the members of the European Parliament (Art. 190(4) – ex Art. 138(4) – EC; decision of the Council to lay down provisions on the system of own resourses of the Community (Art. 269 – ex Art. 201 – EC).

118. Establishment, by the Council, of conventions (Art. 34(2)(d) EU); decision of the Council to ‘communitarize’ Third Pillar subject matters (Art. 42 EU).

119. De Witte, op. cit. n. 70, at p. 63, argues that ‘… this sentence creates an analogy with the so-called federal clause, whereby federal governments, when concluding a treaty, stipulate that the treaty will bind only the Member State governments in their country with the express approval of the latter; this does not mean that those Member State governments become parties to the agreement itself.’ However, in view of the specific nature of the Union cooperation, in the context of which the Union in fact represents the ‘forum’ where the discussions do take place whereas the Member States are the real ‘players’, this interpretation seems hardly plausible.

120. See the first and second para. of Art. 23(1) EU.

121. See also De Zwaan, Het recht als, op. cit. n. 79, at pp. 24 et seq; De Zwaan, Het Verdrag van, loc. cit. n. 79, at p. 495 (para. 3.5) and p. 496 (para. 6).

122. See the reference to the ‘rule of law’ in Art. 6(1) EU, holding the general principles for membership of the Union. Art. 7 EU contains the modalities of the procedure to look after the respect, by the Member States, of the principles of Art. 6(1) EU.

123. Supra sections 4.2 and 5.1.

124. Art. J.7 EU (‘Maastricht’ version).

125. Art. 21 EU, the wording of which provision is identical to the one of the former Art. J.7 EU.

126. Art. K.6 EU (‘Maastricht’ version).

127. Art. 39(1) EU.

128. See the former Art. L and the new version of Art. 46 EU, where no reference to Title V is found.

129. Former Art. K.3(2)(c)(3) EU.

130. See notably Arts. 226–243 (ex Arts. 169–186) EC.

131. Para. 2–3 of Art. 35 EU.

132. For the First Pillar cooperation, see the modalities of Art. 300 (ex Art. 228) EC.

133. See also De Zwaan, Het recht als, op. cit. n. 79, at pp. 24 et seq.

134. This exercise is a feasible one. The structure of the single Treaty ‘on European Union’ would be similar to the present version of the Maastricht Treaty, thus be composed of eight titles: general principles (Title I), EC-Treaty (Title II); ECSC Treaty (Title III); EAEC Treaty (Title IV); CFSP (Title V); JHA (Title VI); closer cooperation (Title VII) and final provisions (Title VIII). Moreover, a restructuring of certain parts of the treaty contents could be considered. Eg the institutional parts of the four treaties involved could be merged into one. In fact, such a text has already been prepared, namely in 1997, in the course of the Intergovernmental Conference leading to the Amsterdam Treaty, under the Netherlands Presidency. To this exercise a Declaration ‘on the consolidation of the Treaties’ has been dedicated. The text of this Declaration – mentioned under III.42 of the Final Act of the Amsterdam Treaty – reads as follows: ‘The High Contracting Parties agreed that the technical work begun during the course of this Intergovernmental Conference shall continue as speedily as possible with the aim of drafting a consolidation of all relevant Treaties, including the Treaty on European Union. They agreed that the final results of this technical work, which shall be made public for illustrative purposes under the responsability of the Secretary-General of the Council, shall have no legal value’. Now the Treaty of Amsterdam has entered into force, the version of such an integrated treaty text may be published.

135. See Art. 1(3), Art. 2 (5th indent), Art. 3(1) and Art. 47 EU, each of them underlining the relevance of the Community working methods for the future development of the Union cooperation.

136. In fact, a resemblance would arise with the model presented in September 1991 by the – at the time – Netherlands Presidency to the Intergovernmental Conference leading to the Maastricht Treaty. At that moment, however, no consensus could be reached over such a proposal.

137. See also De Zwaan, Het recht als, op. cit. n. 79, at pp. 24 et seq.; De Zwaan, Het Verdrag van, loc. cit n. 79., at p. 498 (para. 11).

138. The European Council of Helsinki of December 1999 agreed to accept 12 states as new Members of the Union (Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta), and to accept Turkey as a possible Member of the Union.

139. Art. 3 EU.

140. In this context it is once more recalled that Art. 1(3), 2 (fifth indent), 3(1) and 47 EU indeed require the further development of the ‘acquis communautaire’.