Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 25 [The Instruments for the Conduct of the CFSP]

(ex-Article 12 TEU)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Treaty on European Union (TEU)

  • 2734 Accesses

Abstract

The Union shall conduct the common foreign and security policy by 1–4,6:

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 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
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.

    For further reflections see Remacle (2004), pp. 193–197; Novi (2005), p. 177 et seqq.; Addalon (2008), p. 61 et seqq.; Biscop (2008); Blockmans (2008), p. 7 et seqq.; Cremona and De Witte (2008), p. 79 et seqq.; Crowe (2008) p. 199 et seqq.; Dashwood and Marescau (2008), p. 11 et seqq.; Puoti (2008), p. 539 et seqq.; Yakemtchouk (2009), p. 217 et seqq.; Adam and Tizzano (2010), p. 13 et seqq; Tesauro (2010), p. 16 et seqq.; Thym (2010), p. 309–344; De Wilde d’Estmael (2011), p. 10–108; Peroni (2011), p. 809 et seqq.; Terpan (2011), p. 157–176; Villani (2011), p. 9 et seqq.

  2. 2.

    See Presidency Conclusions Lisbon European Council, 27–28 June 1992.

  3. 3.

    Mode d’emploi concernant les positions commune définies sur la base de l’article J.2 du Traité sur l’Union européenne, adopted by the Council on 6 March 1995, Doc. 5194/95.

  4. 4.

    Hofmann (2007), p. 800 et seqq.; Gross (2009), p. 10–218; Hillion and Wessel (2009), p. 551 et seqq.; Jones and Van Genugten (2009), p. 6–199; Lazowski (2008), p. 1433 et seqq.

  5. 5.

    A problem similar to the one occurring in the previous system with regard to the overlap between first and second pillar will continue to stand out. See Baratta (2002), p. 52 et seqq.

  6. 6.

    Thus in this field the most important role still belongs to the MS and the Council, while the institutions representing the interest of the Union (the Commission) and of the people (the EP) have a fringe role, since any MS, the HR, and the latter with the Commission’s support, may submit initiatives or proposals to the Council (Art. 30.1 TEU).

  7. 7.

    See the almost identical formulation in Art. 308.4 TEC-Amsterdam.

  8. 8.

    Case T-315/01, Kadi et al. v Council and Commission (CFI 21 September 2005) para 120; Case T-306/01, Ahmed Ali Yusuf et al. v Council and Commission (CFI 21 September 2005).

  9. 9.

    It must be reminded that, after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the elimination of the pillars, all the policies—except CFSP—are ruled through the adoption of regulations, directives and decisions.

  10. 10.

    In this way there was an attempt to support the will of some European countries, intended to limit interpretations tending to increase the power of the EU with regard to the MS’ powers. Declaration No. 13, annexed to the final act, underlines that “the provisions in the Treaty on European Union covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy […] do not affect the responsibilities of the Member States, as they currently exist, for the formulation and the conduct of their foreign policy nor of their national representation in third countries and international organisations”. Furthermore, in the Declaration No. 14, concerning the CFSP too, the Conference notes the provisions covering CFSP “do not give new powers to the Commission to initiate decisions nor do they increase the role of the European Parliament”.

  11. 11.

    For further reflection on these implications see De Pasquale (2008), p. 60 et seqq.

  12. 12.

    Munari (2008), p. 16 et seqq.; Munari (2011), p. 941 et seqq.

  13. 13.

    See De Baere (2008), p. 25 et seqq.; De Hert and Pakonstantinou (2009), p. 885 et seqq.; Cherubini (2012), p. 471–479.

  14. 14.

    Louis (2006) p. 285 et seqq.

  15. 15.

    For a complete overview of legal acts in this area see: Annual report from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP, June 2010, pp. 55–67.

  16. 16.

    As argued by Novi (2005), p. 161 et seqq.

  17. 17.

    E.g. The European Council endorsed the conclusions on Belarus adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council on 31 January, including the decision to impose restrictive measures—European Council, 4 February 2011, Conclusions.

  18. 18.

    E.g. Declaration on Egypt and the region—Annex II to the European Council, 4 February 2011, Conclusions.

  19. 19.

    Milano (2008), p. 967 et seqq.

  20. 20.

    E.g. Council Decision 2010/112/CFSP of 22 February 2010 extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for Central Asia, O.J. L 46/27 (2010); Council Decision 2010/118/CFSP of 25 February 2010 extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Kosovo, O.J. L 49/22 (2010).

  21. 21.

    Council Joint Action of 13 April 2000 on a European Union assistance programme to support the Palestinian Authority in its efforts to counter terrorist activities emanating from the territories under its control, O.J. L 97/4 (2000).

  22. 22.

    See Annual report from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP, June 2010—the acts adopted on the basis of Art. 29 TEU.

  23. 23.

    Annual report from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP, June 2010.

  24. 24.

    Cf. → Art. 19 para 29 with regard to the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

  25. 25.

    No role is acknowledged to the EP in the procedure of concluding agreements in CFSP matters and in the adoption of a decision aimed at suspending the application of an agreement. See: Rossi (2007), p. 1008 et seqq.

  26. 26.

    Council Joint Action 2002/210/CFSP of 11 March 2002 on the European Union Police Mission, O.J. L 70/01 (2002), last renewed by Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP of 8 December 2009 on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), O.J. L 322/22 (2009) as amended by Council Decision 2010/755/CFSP of 6 December 2010, O.J. L 320/10 (2010).

  27. 27.

    Council Joint Action 2003/681/CFSP of 29 September 2003 on the European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (EUPOL ‘Proxima’), O.J. L 249/66 (2003), extended by Council Joint Action 2004/87/CFSP of 26 January 2004, O.J. L 21/31 (2004).

  28. 28.

    O.J. L 88/3 (2010).

  29. 29.

    O.J. L 143/1 (2011).

  30. 30.

    O.J. L 163/1 (2011).

  31. 31.

    O.J. L 26/31 (2010).

  32. 32.

    O.J. L 115/50 (2006).

  33. 33.

    Palladini (2009), p. 341 et seqq.

  34. 34.

    It must be reminded that restrictive measures can also be established under Art. 75 TFEU: “as regards preventing and combating terrorism and related activities, the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall define a framework for administrative measures with regard to capital movements and payments, such as the freezing of funds, financial assets or economic gains belonging to, or owned or held by, natural or legal persons, groups or non-State entities. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt measures to implement the framework referred to in the first paragraph. The acts referred to in this Article shall include necessary provisions on legal safeguards.”

  35. 35.

    Case T-362/04, Minin v Commission (CFI 31 January 2007) para 107.

  36. 36.

    Council Common Position (2001/930/CFSP) of 27 December 2001 on combating terrorism, O.J. L 344/90 (2001).

  37. 37.

    Council Common Position (2001/931/CFSP) of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, O.J. L 344/93 (2001).

  38. 38.

    First, in Case T-315/01, Kadi et al. v Council and Commission (CFI 21 September 2005), the Tribunal has found that no fundamental human rights had been infringed (effective judicial safeguard, right of defence ) and has confirmed the supremacy of the Charter of the UN and, thus, of the Resolutions of the Security Council, over other conventional obligations (same approach in Case T-306/01, Ahmed Ali Yusuf et al. v Council and Commission (CFI 21 September 2005)). Then the Tribunal has made a real revirement (Case T-228/02, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council (CFI 12 December 2006)). The Court has confirmed this approach in Case C-229/05P, Ocalan (ECJ 18 January 2007), and on the appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Kadi (Joint Cases C-402/05P and C-415/05P, Kadi v Council and Commission (ECJ 3 September 2008)).

  39. 39.

    For more details, see Fiengo (2008), p. 111–118.

  40. 40.

    The lack and failure of motivation entail violation of the substantial forms under Art. 263 (2) TFEU.

  41. 41.

    See Annual report from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP, June 2010.

  42. 42.

    Case T-362/04, Minin v Commission (CFI 31 January 2007) para 76.

Table of Cases

ECJ

  • ECJ 18.01.2007, C-229/05P, Ocalan, ECR I-439 [cit. in para 23]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 03.09.2008, C-402/05P and C-415/05P, Kadi v Council and Commission, ECR I-6351 [cit. in para 23]

    Google Scholar 

CFI

  • CFI 21.09.2005, T-306/01, Ahmed Ali Yusuf et al. v Council and Commission, ECR II-3533 [cit. in para 3, 23]

    Google Scholar 

  • CFI 21.09.2005, T-315/01, Kadi et al. v Council and Commission, ECR II-3649 [cit. in para 3, 23]

    Google Scholar 

  • CFI 12.12.2006, T-228/02, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council, ECR II-4665 [cit. in para 23]

    Google Scholar 

  • CFI 31.01.2007, T-362/04, Minin v Commission, ECR II-2003 [cit. in para 23, 29]

    Google Scholar 

References

  • Cf. also the references in Art. 26

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam, R., & Tizzano, A. (2010). Lineamenti di Diritto dell’Unione europea. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Addalon, P. (2008). L’action extérieure de l’Union européenne. In D. Simon (Ed.), Le traité de Lisbonne: oui, non mais à quoi? in Europe (p. 6). Actualité du droit communautaire

    Google Scholar 

  • Baratta, R. (2002). Overlaps between European community competence and European Union. Foreign policy activity. In E. Cannizzaro (Ed.), The European Union as an actor in international relations (pp. 52–75). The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biscop, S. (2008). The European Security Strategy in context: A comprehensive trend. In S. Biscop & J. J. Andersson (Eds.), EU and the European Security Strategy: Forging a global Europe (pp. 5–20). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blockmans, S. (2008). The European Union and crisis management: Policy and legal aspects. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cherubini, P. (2012). The role and the interactions of the European Council and the Council in the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon. Constitutional basis, economic order and external action (pp. 471–479). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cremona, M., & De Witte, B. (2008). EU foreign relations law. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, R. (2008). The Treaty of Lisbon: A revised legal framework for the organisation and functioning of the European Union. ERA Forum, 9(2), 163–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood, A., & Marescau, M. (2008). Law and practice of EU external relations: Salient features of a changing landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Baere, G. (2008). Constitutional principles of EU external relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Hert, P., & Pakonstantinou, V. (2009). The PNR agreement and transatlantic anti-terrorism cooperation: No firm Human Rights Framework on either side of the Atlantic. Common Market Law Review, 46(3), 885–919.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Pasquale, P. (2008). Il riparto di competenze tra Unione europea e Stati membri nel Trattato di Lisbona. DPCE, 60–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wilde d’Estmael, T. (2011). La PESC au lendemain du traité de Lisbonne. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiengo, G. (2008). Gli atti “atipici” della Comunità europea. Naples: Editoriale scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, E. (2009). The Europeanization of National Foreign Policy: Continuity and change in European Crisis Management. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hillion, C., & Wessel, R. A. (2009). Competence distribution in EU external relations after Ecowas: Clarification or continued fuzziness? Common Market Law Review, 46(2), 551–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, R. (2007). Agreements in EU law. European Law Review, 31(6), 800–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E., & Van Genugten, S. (2009). The future of European Foreign Policy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazowski, A. (2008). Enhanced multilateralism and enhanced bilateralism: Integration without membership in the European Union. Common Market Law Review, 45(5), 1433–1458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, J. V. (2006). La Cour et les relations extériures de la Communauté. Cahiers de droit européen, 285–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mignolli, A. (2009). L’azione esterna dell’Unione europea e il principio di coerenza. Naples: Jovene Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milano, E. (2008). Il trasferimento di funzioni da UNMIK a EULEX in Kosovo. Riv. dir. intern., 967–990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F. (2008). Le relazioni esterne. Sud in Europa, 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F. (2011). La politica e di sicurezza comune (PESC) e il sistema delle fonti ad essa relative. Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 941–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novi, C. (2005). La politica di sicurezza esterna dell’Unione europea. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palladini, L. (2009). Le misure restrittive adottate nell’ambito della PESC: prassi e giurisprudenza. Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 14(2), 341–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peroni, G. (2011). Alcune considerazioni sulla personalità giuridica dell’Unione europea dopo Lisbona. Dir. Comm. Int., 809–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puoti, P. (2008). La PESC nella prospettiva del Trattato di revisione. Studi sull’integrazione europea, 539–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remacle, E. (2004). L’intégration de la politique de défense européenne. Potentiel et limites. In P. Magnette (Ed.), La grande Europe (pp. 321–334). Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risi, C. (2010). L’azione esterna dell’Unione europea dopo Lisbona. Naples: Editoriale Scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, L. S. (2007). Conclusione di accordi internazionali e coerenza del sistema:l’esclusività della competenza comunitaria. Rivista di diritto internazionale, 1008–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terpan, F. (2011). La prise de décision dans la PESC: un mode de fonctionnement intergouvernemental controversé. In M. Blanquet (Ed.), La prise de décision dans le système de l’Union européenne (pp. 157–176). Brussels: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesauro, G. (2010). Diritto dell’Unione europea. Padova: Cedem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thym, D. (2010). Foreign affairs. In A. von Bogdandy & J. Bast (Eds.), Principles of European Constitutional Law (2nd ed., pp. 309–344). Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villani, U. (2011). Gli sviluppi del Trattato di Lisbona in materia di politica estera e di sicurezza comune. St. integr. eur., 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yakemtchouk, R. (2009). “La politique étrangère” de l’Union européenne. Revue du Marché Commun, 217–227.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. National Research Council Institute for Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Government, Rome, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

Authors
  1. Hermann-Josef Blanke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stelio Mangiameli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Sc, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. National Research Council - Institute fo Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Governm, Rome, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (2013). Article 25 [The Instruments for the Conduct of the CFSP]. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) The Treaty on European Union (TEU). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31706-4_26

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation