Skip to main content

Current Obstacles and Future Challenges of Integration in Europe

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe

Abstract

This book argues that the history of the EU advances in steps, starting from the founding EEC Treaty to the most recent developments, which include the Draft Accession Agreement (DAA) of the EU to the ECHR and UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement(s). Our belief is that, whist European integration proceeds through different stages and is a building block exercise, profound interconnectedness between Member States has been fostered. Yet, each country in Europe has experienced a fate of its own, which was triggered by internal political and economic crises and has fuelled Euroscepticism. The latter, rooted and framed by people’s national experiences, is an increasing sentiment. It is evident that the wave of Euroscepticism is spreading across the continent and no longer tied to small segments of society or extremist political parties. Hence, scholars argue that the EU project is exposed to greater public contestation, at time when Europe is challenged from North to South by economic and austerity measures and from East to West by migration and human rights concerns. We submit that particularly in this political and economic climate, the EU needs to rely on public support for its continued legitimacy more than ever before. This can be achieved by focusing the attention on values which are shared by individuals. Interestingly, the political climate that we are experiencing resembles the crisis of the European political order in the years between the two World Wars characterised by clashes of rival ideologies: Christianity and Islam, the social and the capitalist ideals and the emerging concept of European polity. The Second World War was a devastating event and the lessons that have been drawn are ‘that it is so difficult to appraise aggressive dictators, that democracies must maintain their unity and strength”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

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 129.99
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.

    De Vries (2018b) and Dijkstra et al. (2018).

  2. 2.

    De Vries (2018a).

  3. 3.

    Jervis (2003), p. 207.

  4. 4.

    De Vries (2018a).

  5. 5.

    Bickerton et al. (2015).

  6. 6.

    Cappelletti et al. (1985), p. 4.

  7. 7.

    This was due to the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty in France and the Netherlands following a referendum and the halt from the first referendum in Ireland in relation to the Treaty of Lisbon.

  8. 8.

    Morano-Foadi and Andreadakis (2011), p. 596.

  9. 9.

    On 17th January 2012, the European Commission launched infringement procedures against Hungary in relation to the age-limit for compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries, and the protection of individuals with respect to the processing of personal data and the free movement of the same data. See cases C-286/12 Commission v Hungary (2012) and C-288/12 Commission v Hungary (2014).

  10. 10.

    Usherwood and Startin (2013), p. 1.

  11. 11.

    European Commission 2014.

  12. 12.

    Von Bogdandy 2019, 10 et seq.; Sadurski (2019); Halmai (2018).

  13. 13.

    European Council 2016.

  14. 14.

    European Council 2017.

  15. 15.

    European Commission 2016.

  16. 16.

    European Commission, White Paper on the Future of Europe, 2017.

  17. 17.

    European Commission, White Paper on the Future of Europe: Five Scenarios, 2017.

  18. 18.

    European Commission Press Release 2017.

  19. 19.

    European Council 2019.

  20. 20.

    European Parliament 2019.

  21. 21.

    European Commission, A Blueprint for Action, 2019.

  22. 22.

    European Commission Communication, 2019.

  23. 23.

    European Commission Press Release 2019.

  24. 24.

    European Commission Statement 2019.

  25. 25.

    Hogic (2019)

  26. 26.

    Nugent and Rhinard (2019), pp. 203–204.

  27. 27.

    Kuper (1998), p. 1; Mancini (1991), p. 178.

  28. 28.

    Weiler (1991), pp. 2405–2406; Stein (1981).

  29. 29.

    Weiler (1991), Kumm (2005), Lenaerts (1990) and Timmermans (2003).

  30. 30.

    On the development of the doctrine of direct effect and supremacy, see C-26/62 Van Gend en Loos (1963) and C-6/64 Costa (1964).

  31. 31.

    Interesting the views of Bingham J on the advantages enjoyed by the Court of Justice. See ApS Samex (1983) paras 1055-1056.

  32. 32.

    Burley and Mattli (1993).

  33. 33.

    See Giddens (1984), p. 914; Stones (2005). See also Mouzelis (1989), p. 106.

  34. 34.

    See Bengoetxea (1993), p. 100; Mancini (1989), p. 598. See also Weiler (1999), p. 186.

  35. 35.

    Moravcsik (1993, 1999).

  36. 36.

    Tallberg (2000), p. 848.

  37. 37.

    See C-4/73 Nold (1974); C-44/79 Hauer (1979); C-11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (1970).

  38. 38.

    Frowein et al. (1985), p. 300.

  39. 39.

    For example, in the sphere of external affairs, which comprise diverse EU activities, such as trade, security policy and defence policy. This area had remained in the hands of Member States for much of the integration process. However, competences have since gradually been transferred to the EU. First, in relation to economic trade from 1957, then the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was added to the Maastricht Treaty, under the so-called (intergovernmental) second pillar; then, the Lisbon Treaty has created the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy as its leading diplomat. A limited policy in defence co-operation is now under the Common Security and Defence Policy. Conflict exists as specific institutional interests of the EP, Commission and Council ‘are often at loggerheads with a common interest to maximize power over bargaining and to ‘speak with a single voice’ in the international realm’. For further detail, see Hartlapp (2018).

  40. 40.

    Luis Da Cruz Vilaca (2014), pp. 115–116.

  41. 41.

    Afilalo and Patterson (2012), p. 297.

  42. 42.

    Introduced by Art 2 EU and 17-22 EC of the Treaty of Maastricht.

  43. 43.

    Yong (2018), pp. 115–116.

  44. 44.

    Ibid.

  45. 45.

    Ross (2010), pp. 30–31.

  46. 46.

    Interview 1, Luxembourg (13/12/2010); Interview 3, Luxembourg (13/12/2010); Interview 7, Luxembourg (14/12/2010); Interview 13, Luxembourg (15/12/2010).

  47. 47.

    Morano-Foadi and Andreadakis (2011), pp. 595 et seq.

  48. 48.

    Scharpf (2009), p. 181.

  49. 49.

    C-184/99 Grzelczyk (2001), para 31.

  50. 50.

    C-333/13 Dano (2014).

  51. 51.

    C-67/14 Alimanovic (2015).

  52. 52.

    Yong (2018), p. 130.

  53. 53.

    C-216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality (2018).

  54. 54.

    Von Bogdandy (2019), p. 8.

  55. 55.

    See Von Bogdandy and Spieker (2019); Von Bogdandy et al. (2012), p. 489.

  56. 56.

    Lenaerts (2017), p. 805.

  57. 57.

    Lenaerts (2007), pp. 1635–1636.

  58. 58.

    Interview 6F, Luxembourg (19/04/2016).

  59. 59.

    Opinion 2/2013 (2014).

  60. 60.

    Interview 2B, Luxembourg (15/04/2016); Interview 4D, Luxembourg (18/04/2016).

  61. 61.

    Lambrecht (2015), p. 185.

  62. 62.

    View of AG Kokott (2014), para 280.

  63. 63.

    See Morano-Foadi and Andreadakis (2016). See also Polakiewicz (2016b).

  64. 64.

    C-399/11 Melloni (2013), para 60.

  65. 65.

    See, for example, C-617/10 Fransson (2013); C-418/11 Texdata (2013); C-105/14 Taricco (2015); C-42/17 M.A.S. and M.B (2017).

  66. 66.

    Di Francesco Maesa (2018), p. 52. See also C-399/11 Melloni (2013), paras 57-64, and particularly para 58.

  67. 67.

    For an overview, see Van de Heyning (2011), p. 73.

  68. 68.

    Lambrecht (2015), p. 187; See also Appl. No 20665/92 Markopoulou (1994), para 4; Appl. No 22225/93 EM v Greece (1993), para 4.

  69. 69.

    See Appl. No 43546/02 EB v France (2008), para 49.

  70. 70.

    Opinion 2/13 (2014), para 194.

  71. 71.

    Joined cases C-411/10 N.S. (2011) and C-493/10 M.E. (2012), paras 78-88. See also on this point, Appl. No 30696/09 MSS v Belgium and Greece (2011), paras 358, 360 and 367.

  72. 72.

    Appl. No 29217/12 Tarakhel (2014).

  73. 73.

    As in the cases of MSS and Tarakhel.

  74. 74.

    Appl. No 45036/98 Bosphorus (2006), paras 152-153.

  75. 75.

    It has been suggested by our interviewees that such a clause should be included. See Interview 6F, Luxembourg (19/04/2019).

  76. 76.

    Lambrecht (2015), p. 188.

  77. 77.

    Interview 2B, Luxembourg (15/04/2016).

  78. 78.

    Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Georgia, Lithuania, The Netherlands, San Marino, Slovenia and Ukraine. For a list of the ratification, see Chart of Signatures and Ratifications of Treaty 214.

  79. 79.

    View of AG Kokott (2014), para 140.

  80. 80.

    Lambrecht (2015), p. 188.

  81. 81.

    See C-6/64 Costa (1964); C-11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (1970), para 3 and C-399/11 Melloni (2013), para 59. See also Opinion 1/91 (1991), para 21 and Opinion 1/09 (2011), para 65.

  82. 82.

    C-26/62 Van Gend en Loos (1963) para 12 and Opinion 1/09 (2011), para 65.

  83. 83.

    Willem van Rossem (2013), p. 15.

  84. 84.

    Opinion 1/91 (1991), para 35.

  85. 85.

    Ibid para 42.

  86. 86.

    C-459/03 Mox Plant (2006).

  87. 87.

    Ibid para 154.

  88. 88.

    Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi (2008), paras 318-326.

  89. 89.

    Council Regulation 881/2002, which provides, inter alia, for the freezing of the funds and other economic resources of those individuals and entities that also appear in a list annexed to the regulation and are regularly updated on the basis of successive UN resolutions.

  90. 90.

    Kadi para 317.

  91. 91.

    Ibid para 316.

  92. 92.

    For further discussion on this issue, see Willem van Rossem (2013), p. 17.

  93. 93.

    Magen (2009), p. 63.

  94. 94.

    See Joined Cases C-402/05 and 415/05 P Kadi (2008), in particular paras 281–283, 331 et seq. (Kadi I); Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Commission and UK v Kadi (2013) (Kadi II).

  95. 95.

    Editorial Comments (2016), pp. 598–599.

  96. 96.

    Opinion 2/13 paras 178, 183, 191, 194, 197, 199. See also Halberstam (2015), p. 120.

  97. 97.

    Peers (2014).

  98. 98.

    Douglas-Scott (2014).

  99. 99.

    O’Neill (2014).

  100. 100.

    European Court of Human Rights 2015, 6.

  101. 101.

    Ibid.

  102. 102.

    Lock (2015) and Hart (2015).

  103. 103.

    UK House of Commons 2014.

  104. 104.

    Interview 1A, Luxembourg (15/04/2016), Interview 5E, Luxembourg (18/04/2016) and Interview 6F, Luxembourg (19/04/2016).

  105. 105.

    Interview 4D, Luxemburg (18/04/2016), Interview 5E, Luxembourg (18/04/2016) and Interview 6F, Luxembourg (19/04/2016).

  106. 106.

    Interview 1A, Luxembourg (15/04/2016), Interview 2B, Luxemburg (15/04/2016), Interview 5E, Luxembourg (18/04/2016) and Interview 6F, Luxembourg (19/04/2016).

  107. 107.

    Interview 2B, Luxemburg (15/04/2016), Interview 4D, Luxemburg (18/04/2016) and Interview 6F, Luxembourg (19/04/2016).

  108. 108.

    Kelemen (2006), p. 104; Stone Sweet and Brunell (2012), p. 212.

  109. 109.

    For example, in the UK Directive 2004/38 has been transposed into the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, which was amended by Statutory Instruments (SI) 2009/1117 and SI 2011/1247. Then this Regulations have been amended following binding citizenship cases of the CJEU.

  110. 110.

    Interview 5E, Luxembourg (18/04/2016).

  111. 111.

    Interview 6F, Luxembourg (19/04/2016).

  112. 112.

    Usherwood and Startin (2013).

  113. 113.

    Bickerton et al. (2015).

  114. 114.

    Alter (2001), Ch 1.

  115. 115.

    Habermas (2011). Some commentators envisage the decline of the nation-state and the move towards a new, more complex system. For further discussion on this, see van Creveld (1999) and Slaughter (2004).

  116. 116.

    Interview B, Brussels (21/6/12).

  117. 117.

    De Londras and Dzehtsiarou (2018), p. xxv.

  118. 118.

    Kosař (2017), p. 113.

  119. 119.

    Stone Sweet (2012), p. 68. See also Popović (2008), p. 194; Kosař (2012).

  120. 120.

    Interview I, Strasbourg (18/6/2012); Interview IV, Strasbourg (19/6/2012); Interview VI, Strasbourg (20/6/2012).

  121. 121.

    Helfer (2008), p. 126.

  122. 122.

    Barkhuysen and van Emmerik (2005), pp. 15 and 19. See also Ress (2005), p. 374.

  123. 123.

    Carozza (2003), p. 39.

  124. 124.

    Arai-Takahashi (2002), p. 235. See also Moravcsik (2000).

  125. 125.

    Kumm and Ferreres Comella (2005), p. 286; Mahoney (1997), p. 369.

  126. 126.

    Helfer and Slaughter (1997), pp. 367–373 and 389–391. See also Helfer (1998).

  127. 127.

    Carozza (2003), p. 75.

  128. 128.

    Appl. No 15318/89 Loizidou (1995), para 27.

  129. 129.

    See De Londras and Dzehtsiarou (2015).

  130. 130.

    Tsarapatsanis (2015), p. 684.

  131. 131.

    Polakiewicz (2016a).

  132. 132.

    Interview I, Strasbourg (18/6/2012).

  133. 133.

    Kratochvil (2011), pp. 345–346. See also McHarg (1999) and Spielmann (2012).

  134. 134.

    Cruz Villalón (2012), pp. 9–10.

  135. 135.

    See, for example, Interview 4D, Luxembourg (18/04/2016).

  136. 136.

    Interview 1, Luxembourg (13/12/2010).

  137. 137.

    See C-216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality (2018).

  138. 138.

    The acts in question are: European Commission (2016), Opinion regarding the Rule of Law in Poland, C(2016) 3500 final; European Commission (2018), recital 3.

  139. 139.

    Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland (2018), para 166.

  140. 140.

    European Commission Communication 2019, 2.

  141. 141.

    Ibid 5.

  142. 142.

    European Council (2019) European Council Meeting (17 and 18 October 2019) – Conclusions. General Secretariat of the Council, Brussels, EUCO 23/19 CO EUR 22 CONCL 7.

  143. 143.

    For example, from 1970 to 1985, the then European Community experienced the so-called ‘Eurosclerosis’, where national interests prevailed over common interests. Although the veto by Member States’ representatives in the Council blocked legislation, individual challenges on the conformity of national measures to EU law facilitated integration through case law. These early days were marked by periods of crisis due to a clear tension between MS’s sovereignty issues and a supranational dimension adopted by the Commission. It was only after the French President De Gaulle retreated from active politics in 1972 that integration was truly revived.

  144. 144.

    See Croon-Gestefeld (2017), p. 671; Voßkuhle (2013), pp. 94–97; Kochenov (2013), p. 145.

  145. 145.

    Luis Da Cruz Vilaca (2014).

  146. 146.

    Council of Europe 2019, 7. The EU is already an active participant in the Council of Europe, including with the Commission as observer in the Venice Commission or European Commission for Democracy through Law, which is an advisory body under the Council of Europe composed of independent experts.

  147. 147.

    Ibid.

References

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources

  • Afilalo A, Patterson D (2012) Statecraft and the foundations of European Union law. In: Dickson J, Eleftheriadis P (eds) Philosophical foundations of European Union Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 275–306

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alter K (2001) Establishing the supremacy of European Law. The making of an international rule of law in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Arai-Takahashi Y (2002) The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkhuysen T, van Emmerik M (2005) A comparative view on the execution of judgments of the European Court of human rights. In: Christou T, Raymond JP (eds) European Court of human rights: remedies and execution of judgments. BIICL, London, pp 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengoetxea J (1993) The legal reasoning of the European Court of justice: towards a European jurisprudence. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickerton C, Hodson D, Puetter U (2015) The new intergovernmentalism: European integration in the post-Maastricht era. J Common Market Stud 53(4):703–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burley A-M, Mattli W (1993) Europe before the court: a political theory of legal integration. Int Organ 47(1):41–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappelletti M, Seccombe M, Weiler JHH (1985) Integration through law: Europe and the American federal experience — a general introduction. In: Cappelletti M, Weiler JHH (eds) Integration through law: Europe and the American federal experience, vol 1: methods, tools and institutions, Bk 1: a political, legal and economic overview. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 3–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Carozza P (2003) Subsidiarity as a structural principle of international human rights law. Am J Int Law 97(1):38–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland (2018) White paper on the reform of the Polish judiciary, Warsaw, 7 March 2018, https://www.premier.gov.pl/files/files/white_paper_en_full.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Croon-Gestefeld J (2017) Reverse Solange – Union citizenship as a detour on the route to European rights protection against national infringements. In: Kochenov D (ed) EU citizenship and federalism: the role of rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 665–684

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz Villalón P (2012) Rights in Europe: the crowded house. King’s College London Centre of European Law Working Papers in European Law, Working Paper 01/2012

    Google Scholar 

  • De Londras F, Dzehtsiarou K (2015) Managing judicial innovation in the European Court of human rights. Hum Rights Law Rev 15(3):523–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Londras F, Dzehtsiarou K (2018) Great debates on the European Convention on human rights. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries C (2018a) Euroscepticism and the future of European integration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries C (2018b) What is the future of the European Union?. In: OUPblog, 11 March 2018, https://blog.oup.com/2018/03/future-european-union-euroscepticism. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Di Francesco Maesa C (2018) Effectiveness and primacy of EU Law v. Higher National Protection of fundamental rights and national identity: a look through the lens of the Taricco II judgment. EUCRIM 1:50–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra L, Poelman H, Rodriguez-Pose A (2018) The geography of EU discontent. European Commission Working Papers, WP 12/2018, https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2018_02_geog_discontent.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Douglas-Scott S (2014) Opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the ECHR: a Christmas bombshell from the European Court of Justice. In: UK Constitutional Law Association, https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2014/12/24/sionaidh-douglas-scott-opinion-213-on-eu-accession-to-the-echr-a-christmas-bombshell-from-the-european-court-of-justice/. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Editorial Comments (2016) The rule of law in the Union, the rule of Union law and the rule of law by the Union: three interrelated problems. Common Market Law Rev 53:597–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Frowein J, Schulhofer S, Shapiro M (1985) Fundamental human rights as a vehicle of legal integration in Europe in forces and potential for a European identity. In: Cappelletti M, Weiler JHH (eds) Integration through law: Europe and the American federal experience, volume 1: methods, tools and institutions, book 2: forces and potential for a European identity. De Gruyter, New York, pp 231–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (2011) Europe’s post-democratic era. The Guardian, 10 November 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam D (2015) It’s the autonomy, stupid! A modest defense of opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the ECHR, and the way forward. German Law J 16:105–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halmai G (2018) Illiberal constitutionalism? The Hungarian constitution in a European perspective. In: Kadelbach S (ed) Verfassungskrisen in der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 84–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart QCD (2015) Dogfight continues: Strasbourg not happy with EU court on accession to ECHR. In: UK Human Rights Blog, http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2015/01/30/dogfight-continues-strasbourg-not-happy-with-eu-court-on-accession-to-echr/#more-. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Hartlapp M (2018) Power shifts via the judicial Arena: how annulments cases between EU institutions shape competence allocation. J Common Market Stud 56(6):1429–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfer L (1998) Adjudicating copyright claims under the TRIPs agreement: the case for a European human rights analogy. Harv Int Law J 39(2):357–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer L (2008) Redesigning the European court of human rights: embeddedness as a deep structural principle of the European human rights regime. Eur J Int Law 19(1):125–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfer L, Slaughter A-M (1997) Toward a theory of effective supranational adjudication. Yale Law J 107(2):273–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogic N (2019) The rule of law and the EU enlargement to the Western Balkans. In: European Law Blog, 11 December 2019, https://europeanlawblog.eu/2019/12/11/the-rule-of-law-and-the-eu-enlargement-to-the-western-balkans. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Jervis R (2003) Political science perspectives. In: Boyce R, Maiolo J (eds) The origins of World War two – the debate continues. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke, pp 207–226

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen D (2006) Suing for Europe adversarial legalism and European Governance. Comp Polit Stud 39(1):101–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov D (2013) On policing Article 2 TEU compliance – reverse solange and systemic infringements analyzed. Polish Yearb Int Law 33:145–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosař D (2012) Policing separation of powers: a new role for the European court of human rights? Eur Const Law Rev 8(1):33–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosař D (2017) Nudging domestic judicial reforms from Strasbourg: how the European Court of human rights shapes domestic judicial design. Utrecht Law Rev 13(1):112–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratochvil J (2011) The inflation of the margin of appreciation by the European Court of human rights. Neth Q Hum Rights 29(3):324–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumm M (2005) The jurisprudence of constitutional conflict: constitutional supremacy in Europe before and after the constitutional treaty. Eur Law J 11(3):262–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumm M, Ferreres Comella V (2005) The primacy clause of the constitutional treaty and the future of constitutional conflict in the European Union. Int J Const Law 11(3):262–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuper R (1998) The politics of the ECJ. Kogan Page, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht S (2015) The sting is in the tail: CJEU opinion 2/13 objects to draft agreement on accession of the EU to the European Convention on human rights. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 2:185–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (1990) Constitutionalism and the many faces of federalism. Am J Comp Law 38(2):205–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2007) The rule of law and the coherence of the judicial system of the European Union. Common Market Law Rev 44(6):1625–1659

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2017) La Vie Après l’avis: exploring the principle of mutual (yet not blind) trust. Common Market Law Rev 54(3):805–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Lock T (2015) Will the empire strike back? Strasbourg’s reaction to the CJEU’s accession opinion. In: Verfassungsblog, https://verfassungsblog.de/will-empire-strike-back-strasbourgs-reaction-cjeus-accession-opinion/. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Luis Da Cruz Vilaca J (2014) EU law and integration: 20 years of judicial application of EU law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Magen A (2009) The rule of law and its promotion abroad: three problems of scope. Stanford J Int Law 45(1):51–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney P (1997) Universality versus subsidiarity in the Strasbourg case law on free speech: explaining some recent judgments. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 4:364–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancini F (1989) The making of a constitution for Europe. Common Market Law Rev 26(4):595–614

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancini F (1991) The making of a constitution for Europe. In: Keohane R, Hoffman S (eds) The new European community. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 177–194

    Google Scholar 

  • McHarg A (1999) Reconciling human rights and the public interest: conceptual problems and doctrinal uncertainty in the jurisprudence of the European Court of human rights. Modern Law Rev 62(5):671–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morano-Foadi S, Andreadakis S (2011) Reflections on the architecture of the EU after the Treaty of Lisbon: the European judicial approach to fundamental rights. Eur Law J 17(5):595–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morano-Foadi S, Andreadakis A (2016) The EU accession to the ECHR after opinion 2/13: reflections, solutions and the way forward. Public hearing on “Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Stocktaking after the ECJ’s Opinion and way forward” European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs, 20 April 2016, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/104503/EP%20Hearing%20Contribution%20MoranoFoadi%20Andreadakis%20April%202016.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Moravcsik A (1993) Preferences and power in preferences and power in the European community: a liberal intergovernmentalist approach. J Common Market Stud 31(4):473–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik A (1999) The choice of Europe. UCL Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik A (2000) The origins of international human rights regimes: democratic delegation in postwar Europe. Int Organ 54(2):217–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouzelis N (1989) Restructuring structuration theory. Sociol Rev 37(4):613–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nugent N, Rhinard M (2019) The ‘political’ roles of the European Commission. J Eur Integr 41(2):203–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill QCA (2014) Opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the ECHR: the CJEU as humpty dumpty. In: Eutopia Law, http://eutopialaw.com/2014/12/18/opinion-213-on-eu-accession-to-the-echr-the-cjeu-as-humpty-dumpty/. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Peers S (2014) The CJEU and the EU’s accession to the ECHR: a clear and present danger to human rights protection. In: EU Law Analysis, http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-cjeu-and-eus-accession-to-echr.html. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Polakiewicz J (2016a) Accession to the European convention on human rights’ – an insider’s view addressing one by one the CJEU’s objections in opinion 2/13. Hum Rights Law J 36:10–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Polakiewicz J (2016b) Europe’s multi-layered human rights protection system: challenges, opportunities and risks. Lecture at Waseda University Tokyo, https://www.coe.int/en/web/dlapil/speeches-of-the-director/-/asset_publisher/ja71RsfCQTP7/content/europe-s-multi-layered-human-rights-protection-system-challenges-opportunities-and-risks#_ftnref8. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Popović D (2008) European Court of human rights and the concept of separation of powers. In: Prabhakar M (ed) Separation of powers: global perspectives. ICFAI University Press, Hyderabad, pp 194–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Ress G (2005) The effect of decisions and judgments of the European Court of human rights in the domestic legal order. Texas Int Law J 40(3):359–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross M (2010) Solidarity—a new constitutional paradigm for the EU? In: Ross M, Borgmann-Prebil Y (eds) Promoting solidarity in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 23–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sadurski W (2019) Poland’s constitutional breakdown. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf F (2009) Legitimacy in multilevel European polity. Eur Polit Sci Rev 1(2):173–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter A-M (2004) A new World order. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Spielmann D (2012) Allowing the right margin: the European Court of human rights and the national margin of appreciation doctrine: waiver or subsidiarity of European review? Camb Yearb Eur Leg Stud 14:381–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein E (1981) Lawyers, judges and the making of a transnational constitution. Am J Int Law 75(1):1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A (2012) A cosmopolitan legal order: constitutional pluralism and rights adjudication in Europe. Global Constitutionalism 1(1):53–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A, Brunell T (2012) The European Court of justice, state non-compliance, and the politics of override. Am Polit Sci Rev 106(1):204–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stones R (2005) Structuration theory. Palgrave McMillan, Basingstoke

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tallberg J (2000) The anatomy of anatomy: an institutional account of variation in supranational influence. J Common Market Stud 38(5):843–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans C (2003) Lifting the veil of Union Citizens’ rights. In: Colneric N, Edward D, Puissochet J-P, Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer D (eds) Une Communauté de droit. Festschrift für Gil Carlos Rodriguez Iglesias. BWV, Berlin, pp 195–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsarapatsanis D (2015) The margin of appreciation doctrine: a low-level institutional view. Legal Stud 35(4):675–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usherwood S, Startin N (2013) Euroscepticism as a persistent phenomenon. J Common Market Stud 51(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Creveld M (1999) The rise and decline of the state. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Heyning C (2011) No place like home: discretionary space for the domestic protection of fundamental rights. In: Popelier P (ed) Human rights protection in the European legal order: the interaction between the European and the National Courts. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 65–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bogdandy A (2019) Principles and challenges of a European Doctrine of systemic deficiencies, MPIL Research Paper 2019-14

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bogdandy A, Spieker LD (2019) Countering the judicial silencing of critics - Article 2 TEU values, criminal liability and reverse solange. MPIL Research Paper 2019-08

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bogdandy A, Kottmann M, Antpöhler C, Dickschen J, Hentrei S, Smrkol M (2012) Reverse solange – protecting the essence of fundamental rights against EU member states. Common Market Law Rev 49(2):489–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Voßkuhle A (2013) The cooperation between European Courts: the Verbund of European Courts and its legal toolbox. In: Rosas A, Levits E, Bot Y (eds) The Court of justice and the construction of Europe: analyses and perspectives on sixty years of case-law. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 81–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler JHH (1991) The transformation of Europe. Yale Law J 100(8):2403–2483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiler JHH (1999) The constitution of Europe: do the new clothes have an Emperor? and other essays on European integration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Willem van Rossem J (2013) The autonomy of EU law: more is less? In: Wessel RA, Blockmans S (eds) Between autonomy and dependence. Asser Press, De Haag, pp 13–46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yong A (2018) The rise and fall of fundamental rights in EU citizenship. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Morano-Foadi, S., Andreadakis, S. (2020). Current Obstacles and Future Challenges of Integration in Europe. In: Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42367-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42367-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42366-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42367-4

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics