Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Treaty on European Union (TEU) pp 157–183Cite as

Article 3 [The Objectives of the European Union]

(ex-Article 2 TEU)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 3007 Accesses

Abstract

Art. 3 TEU enshrines the main objectives of the EU. It combines essential elements of ex-Art. 2 TEU and ex-Art. 2 and 3 EC and has largely the same wording as had been given to Art. I-3 TCE which was headed “The Union’s objectives”. This fact already hints at the special relevance of Art. 3 TEU when a provision of the Treaties refers generally to “the objectives of the Union” (see e.g. Art. 120 TFEU which explicitly adds: “as defined in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union”) or to “the objectives set out in the Treaties” (see in particular the “flexibility clause” of Art. 352.1 TFEU).

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. Ziller (2008), p. 72.

  2. 2.

    Cf. Ruffert, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 3 EUV para 1.

  3. 3.

    Cf. Zuleeg, in von der Groeben and Schwarze (2003), Art. 2 EG para 5; Müller-Graff (2008), para 178.

  4. 4.

    Ipsen (1972), p. 127 et seq.

  5. 5.

    Cf. the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950 (English translation available under http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/9-may/decl_en.htm) and the Preamble to the ECSC Treaty of 18 April 1951.

  6. 6.

    As for a possible transformation of the European Community into a European Republic by the Constitutional Treaty cf. von Bogdandy (2005), pp. 913–941.

  7. 7.

    Cf. Kotzur (2005), p. 322; Sommermann (2008), p. 16 et seqq.

  8. 8.

    Cf. Bogdandy (2010), p. 23.

  9. 9.

    Sommermann (1997), p. 372 et seq.; Reimer (2001), p. 62 et seqq., 196 et seq. and 271 et seqq.; Schmidt-Aßmann (2006), p. 246 et seq.

  10. 10.

    Cf. Larik (2011), p. 21 et seqq.

  11. 11.

    Cf. the enumeration in Montalivet (2006), p. 72 et seqq.

  12. 12.

    Firstly the Constitution of Ireland 1937 (Art. 45: “Directive principles of social policy”), later e.g. the Constitution of India of 1949 (Part IV: “Directive Principles of State Policy”) and the Spanish Constitution of 1978 (Part I Chapter 3: “Principios rectores de la política social y económica“, i.e. “Directive Principles of Social and Economic Policy”).

  13. 13.

    In the case of the Irish Constitution of 1937, the guiding effect of the directive principles originally was, in conformity of the wording of Art. 45, only referred to the Irish Parliament (Oireachtas), but later extended to other State organs as a criterion of interpretation, see Casey (1992), p. 314 et seqq. As for the binding character of the directive principles in Spain see Art. 53.3 of the Constitution of 1978: “Recognition, respect and protection of the principles recognized in Chapter 3 shall guide legislation, judicial practice and actions by the public authorities. They may only be invoked before the ordinary courts in accordance with the legal provisions implementing them.” (Official translation available under http://www.senado.es/constitu_i/indices/consti_ing.pdf or http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/IDIOMAS/9/Espana/LeyFundamental/index.htm).

  14. 14.

    About cross-sector clauses (Querschnittsklauseln) and their distinction from specific objectives (spezifische Zielbestimmungen) see Terhechte, in Grabitz et al. (2012), Art. 3 EUV para 16 et seq.

  15. 15.

    The binding character of the objectives set out in the Treaty law has been emphasised by the ECJ already in its early jurisprudence, see for instance Case 6/72, Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (ECJ 21 February 1973) para 23 et seqq. (with regard to Art. 2 and 3 EEC Treaty).

  16. 16.

    Cf. e.g. Case 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission (ECJ 13 February 1979) para 125 (concerning primary Community law), and Case C-314/89, Siegfried Rauh v Hauptzollamt Nürnberg-Fürth (ECJ 21 March 1991) para 17 (concerning secondary Community law): “The Court has consistently held […] that where it is necessary to interpret a provision of secondary Community law, preference should as far as possible be given to the interpretation which renders the provision consistent with the Treaty and the general principles of Community law.” For a further analysis see Schwind (2008), p. 369 et seq.; for the origins of this jurisprudential line see Pescatore (1972), 325 et seqq.; Lenaerts and Van Nuffel (2011), 111 (7-007).

  17. 17.

    See already Case 24/62, Germany v Commission (ECJ 4 July 1963), ECR 1963, p. 64, 67.

  18. 18.

    Cf. Case C-63/06, UAB Profisa v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (ECJ 19 April 2007) para 13: “According to settled case-law, the need for a uniform interpretation of the provisions of Community law makes it impossible for the text of a provision to be considered in isolation, but requires, on the contrary, that it be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages […].” Para 14: “Where there is divergence between the various language versions of a Community text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part […].”

  19. 19.

    Cf. Derlén (2009) (on p. 304 et seq. about the respective multilingual approach of national courts “where the national wording is perceived as vague or ambiguous”).

  20. 20.

    Cf. Ruffert, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 3 EUV para 4.

  21. 21.

    Terhechte, in Grabitz et al. (2012), Art. 3 EUV para 28.

  22. 22.

    Cf. Reimer (2003), p. 1005; Schwind (2008), p. 361 et seq.; Larik (2011), p. 30 et seq.

  23. 23.

    Cf. Case C-227/09, Antonino Accardo and Others v Comune di Torino (ECJ 21 October 2010) para 55: “However, it should be noted that, where European Union law gives to Member States the option to derogate from certain provisions of a directive, those States are required to exercise their discretion in a manner that is consistent with general principles of European Union law, which include the principle of legal certainty. To that end, provisions which permit optional derogations from the rules laid down by a directive must be implemented with the requisite precision and clarity necessary to satisfy the requirements flowing from that principle.”

  24. 24.

    Cf. Case C-555/07, Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG (ECJ 19 January 2010) para 48: “It follows that, in applying national law, the national court called on to interpret it is required to do so, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive in question […] The requirement for national law to be interpreted in conformity with European Union law is inherent in the system of the Treaty, since it permits the national court, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to ensure the full effectiveness of European Union law when it determines the dispute before it […]”.

  25. 25.

    Cf. the analogous conclusions of the ECJ with regard to the principle of equal treatment in the Case C-149/10, Zoi Chatzi v Ypourgos Oikonomikon (ECJ 16 September 2010) para 63: “Observance of the principle of equal treatment, which is one of the general principles of European Union law and whose fundamental nature is affirmed in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, is all the more important in implementing the right to parental leave because this social right is itself recognised as fundamental by Article 33(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”; para 75: “However, read in the light of the principle of equal treatment, this clause obliges the national legislature to establish a parental leave regime which, according to the situation obtaining in the Member State concerned, ensures that the parents of twins receive treatment that takes due account of their particular needs. It is incumbent upon national courts to determine whether the national rules meet that requirement and, if necessary, to interpret those national rules, so far as possible, in conformity with European Union law.”

  26. 26.

    Cf. Senden (2008), p. 363 et seq.

  27. 27.

    Cf. Sommermann (1997), p. 293 et seqq.; Sommermann (2008), p. 37 et seqq.; Plechner-Hochstraßer (2006), p. 206 et seq.

  28. 28.

    Cf. Christian Wolff, Institutiones Juris Naturae et Gentium, Venice 1769, § 46: “Quodsi ergo lex naturae obligat ad finem, jus quoque dat ad media”.

  29. 29.

    Cf. Müller-Graff (2008), para 180; Becker, in Schwarze (2012), Art. 3 EUV para 8; also → para 7.

  30. 30.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 325 —Lisbon.

  31. 31.

    Cf. Sir David Edward quoted in House of Lords (2008), para 2.14: “From the point of view of the citizen and from the point of view of a court, the proliferation of objectives, without any very clear indication of which are to take precedence over others, is going to create difficulty.”

  32. 32.

    About the principles of balancing cf. Alexy (2002), p. 44 et seqq., Pulido (2005), p. 79 et seqq., and Lindahl (2009), p. 355 et seqq. → Art. 1 para 72, 73.

  33. 33.

    Cf. Alexy (2002), p. 102: “The greater the degree of non-satisfaction of, or detriment to, one principle, the greater must be the importance of satisfying the other.”; cf. also Sommermann (1997), p. 413 et seq.

  34. 34.

    With regard to the objectives of the common agricultural policy, the ECJ constantly applies the following principles (Case 29/77, Roquette v Frères v France (ECJ 20 October 1977) para 30): “In pursuing those objectives, the Community Institutions must secure the permanent harmonization made necessary by any conflicts between these objectives taken individually and, where necessary, allow any one of them temporary priority in order to satisfy the demands of the economic factors or conditions in view of which their decisions are made.” Cf. also Case 203/86, Spain v Council (ECJ 20 September 1988) para 10; Case C-280/93, Germany v Council (ECJ 5 October 1994) para 47.

  35. 35.

    Cf. Sommermann (1997), p. 9 et seqq.

  36. 36.

    See above note 5.

  37. 37.

    Cf. Ruffert, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 3 EUV para 15 et seq.

  38. 38.

    For a corresponding interpretation in the UN Charter cf. Wolfrum, in Simma et al. (2002), Art. 1 para 9.

  39. 39.

    Schwind (2008), p. 385.

  40. 40.

    Cf. Sommermann (2007), p. 77 et seqq. For the differences between both traditional concepts see also Fernandez Esteban (1999), p. 66 et seqq.

  41. 41.

    For an analysis of the case law of the ECJ cf. Classen (2008), p. 7 et seqq.

  42. 42.

    Cf. also von Bogdandy (2010), p. 42 et seq.

  43. 43.

    In the existing primary law, the term “standard of living” is still present in provisions concerning the free movement of goods and the agricultural policy (Art. 37.3 and Art. 39.1 lit. b TFEU).

  44. 44.

    Cf. further Piris (2010), p. 177 et seqq.

  45. 45.

    Reproduced in O.J. L 239/13 (2000).

  46. 46.

    Cf. the analysis of Fairhurst (2010), p. 345 et seqq.

  47. 47.

    Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), O.J. C 316/2 (1995).

  48. 48.

    Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, O.J. L 210 (2008).

  49. 49.

    In the Constitutional Treaty, the context was different because the internal market was already mentioned in Art. I-3.2 TCE.

  50. 50.

    Cf. Art. 13–15 SEA of 1987, introducing Art. 8a–8c EEC Treaty.

  51. 51.

    In contrast to ex-Art. 2 EC.

  52. 52.

    Cf. Blanke (2012), p. 370 et seqq.

  53. 53.

    This corresponds to well established case-law of the ECJ, cf. Blanke (2012), p. 378 et seq.

  54. 54.

    Available under http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/strategy/docs/monti_report_final_10_05_2010_en.pdf.

  55. 55.

    Doc EP A7-0132/2010 of 3 May 2010.

  56. 56.

    Commission Communication of 13 April 2011, Single Market Act—Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence—“Working together to create new growth”, COM(2011) 206 final.

  57. 57.

    Parliament/Council Directive 2006/123/EC of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, O.J. L 376/36 (2006).

  58. 58.

    Cf. Stelkens/Weiß/Mirschberger (2012).

  59. 59.

    Cf. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1980): World Conservation Strategy—Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. IUCN-UNEP-WWF. See Introduction para 4: Conservation as “The management of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations”.

  60. 60.

    Cf. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future.

  61. 61.

    Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 42/187, 96th plenary meeting, 11 December 1987, A/RES/42/187.

  62. 62.

    “Les politiques publiques doivent promouvoir un développement durable. À cet effet, elles concilient la protection et la mise en valeur de l’environnement, le développement économique et le progrès social.” Cf. already the World Conservation Strategy (1980) of the IUCN (note 59), Introduction para 3: “For development to be sustainable it must take account of social and ecological factors, as well as economic ones …”.

  63. 63.

    Brown Weiss (1989) with a reproduction of the “Goa Guidelines on International Equity” at p. 293 et seqq.

  64. 64.

    Müller-Armack (1947).

  65. 65.

    Erhard (1957, 1963).

  66. 66.

    Müller-Armack (1956), p. 390 (translation by the author of the commentary).

  67. 67.

    Cf. Sommermann (1997), p. 160 et seqq.

  68. 68.

    Cf. Ruffert, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 3 EUV para 38.

  69. 69.

    Nettesheim (2011), p. 327.

  70. 70.

    For an analysis cf. Calliess, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 191 AEUV 26 et seqq.

  71. 71.

    Lisbon European Council of 23/24 March 2000, Presidency Conclusions.

  72. 72.

    For the early development of programmes in the field of science cf. Niedobitek (1997), p. 49 et seqq.

  73. 73.

    For the new approach see Classen (2011), p. 563 et seq.

  74. 74.

    Cf. already Art. 119 EEC Treaty and from the case-law of the ECJ Case 149/77, Defrenne (ECJ 15 June 1978) para 27: “There can be no doubt that the elimination of discrimination based on sex forms part of those fundamental rights.”.

  75. 75.

    Cf. also recital 6 of the Preamble to the EUCFR according to which the “enjoyment of these rights entails responsibilities and duties with regard to other persons, to the human community and to future generations”.

  76. 76.

    Cf. Rawls (1999), p. 6 et seqq. However, as Becker, in Schwarze (2012), Art. 3 EUV para 14, points out, Art. 3.3 (2) TEU, by addressing the concept of “social justice”, does not establish a “specific relationship between the individual, society and the political community”.

  77. 77.

    United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3.

  78. 78.

    Cf. Borgetto (2003), p. 1427 et seq. For a deeper conceptual analysis in a historical perspective see Volkmann (1998), p. 76 et seq.; Gussone (2006), p. 21 et seqq.; Lais (2007), p. 25 et seq. For the question if solidarity can be considered a principle of international law cf. Wolfrum (2006), p. 1087 et seq.

  79. 79.

    Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950.

  80. 80.

    See Case 39/72, Premiums for slaughtering (ECJ 1 February 1973) para 25: “This failure in the duty of solidarity accepted by Member States by the fact of their adherence to the Community strikes at the fundamental basis of the Community legal order.” For a further analysis of the case law cf. Gussone (2006), p. 227 et seqq.; Lais (2007), p. 148 et seq.; Calliess (2011a), p. 18.

  81. 81.

    Tomuschat (1987), p. 741 et seqq.

  82. 82.

    Calliess 2011a, p. 13 et seq.

  83. 83.

    ETS no. 148.

  84. 84.

    Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 December 2000, CDMM (2000) 44.

  85. 85.

    CM(2008)30 final 2 May 2008.

  86. 86.

    Adopted by the 31st session of the UNESCO General Conference, Paris, 2 November 2001, ed. UNESCO 2002, CLT-2002/WS/9.

  87. 87.

    ETS no. 18.

  88. 88.

    ETS no. 121.

  89. 89.

    ETS no. 143.

  90. 90.

    CETS no. 199.

  91. 91.

    See recital 6 of the preamble and Art. B, first indent, TEU-Maastricht and Art. 2 EC-Maastricht.

  92. 92.

    Cf. Piris (2010), p. 304 et seqq.; Häde (2012), p. 423 et seqq.

  93. 93.

    See European Council Decision 2011/199/EU of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro, O.J. L 91/1 (2011). On the validity of the Council Decision see Case C-370/12 (ECJ 27 November 2012) para 45 et seqq.

  94. 94.

    Council Regulation No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism, O.J. L 118/1 (2010).

  95. 95.

    See Doc. EUCO 9614/10 of 10 May 2010.

  96. 96.

    See Blanke (2011), p. 417 et seq.; Fassbender (2010), p. 799 et seqq.; justification of a more flexible interpretation by Calliess (2011b), p. 239 et seqq. Cf. also ECJ 27 November 2012 (note 93) para 65.

  97. 97.

    See, however, Calliess (2011b), p. 256 et seqq.

  98. 98.

    Cf. Weber (2011), p. 938.

  99. 99.

    Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Finland, EU Doc T/ESM 2012/en.

  100. 100.

    Available under http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/579087/treaty.pdf.

  101. 101.

    Cf. the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 12 September 2012 - 2 BvR 1390/12 et al. - upon applications for the issue of a temporary injunction aiming at prohibiting the Federal President to sign the statutes concerning the ESM and the TSCG (no. 198: “... no permanent mechanisms may be created under international treaties which are tantamount to accepting liability for decisions by free will of other states, above all if they entail consequences which are hard to calculate. The Bundestag must individually approve every large-scale federal aid measure on the international or European Union level made in solidarity resulting in expenditure.”).

  102. 102.

    About the development of the external action of the EU cf. Kruse (2013), Parts III and IV.

  103. 103.

    Cf. Larik (2011), p. 9 et seqq.

  104. 104.

    Piris (2010), p. 242.

Table of Cases

  • ECJ 04.07.1963, 24/62, Germany v Commission, ECR 63 [cit. in para 7]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 01.02.1973, 39/72, Commission v Italy, ECR 101 [cit. in para 41]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 21.02.1973, 6/72, Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company Inc. v Commission of the European Communities, ECR 215 [cit. in para 6]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 20.10.1977, 29/77, Roquette v Frères v France, ECR 4563 [cit. in para 17]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 15.06.1978, 149/77, Defrenne v Societé Anonyme Belge de Navigation Aérienne Sabena, ECR 1365 [cit. in para 38]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 13.02.1979, 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission, ECR 461 [cit. in para 7]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 20.09.1988, 203/86, Spain v Council, ECR 4563[cit. in para 17]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 21.03.1991, C-314/89, Siegfried Rauh v Hauptzollamt Nürnberg-Fürth, ECR I-1647 [cit. in para 7]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 05.10.1994, C-280/93, Germany v Council, ECR I-5039 [cit. in para 17]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 19.04.2007, C-63/06, UAB Profisa v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos, ECR I-3241 [cit. in para 7]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 19.01.2010, C-555/07, Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG, ECR I-365 [cit. in para 10]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 16.09.2010, C-149/10, Zoi Chatzi v Ypourgos Oikonomikon, ECR I-8489 [cit. in para 10]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 21.10.2010, C-227/09, Antonino Accardo and Others v Comune di Torino [cit. in para 10]

    Google Scholar 

References

  • Alexy, R. (2002). A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke, H.-J. (2011). The European Economic and Monetary Union – Between vulnerability and reform. International Journal of Public Law and Policy, 1(4), 402–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanke, H.-J. (2012). The economic constitution of the European Union. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon. Constitutional basis, economic order and external action (pp. 369–420). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Borgetto, M. (2003). Solidarité. In D. Alland & S. Rials (Eds.), Dictionnaire de la culture juridique (pp. 1427–1430). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown Weiss, E. (1989). In fairness to future generations: International law, common patrimony, and intergenerational equity. Tokyo/New York: Transnational Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess, C. (2011a). Das europäische Solidaritätsprinzip und die Krise des Euro – von der Rechtsgemeinschaft zur Solidaritätsgemeinschaft? Lecture given at the Humboldt-University Berlin on 18 January 2011. Paper FCE 01/11 of the Forum Constitutionis Europae, Walther-Hallstein-Institut. http://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/en/v/transformeurope/publications/latest_publications/authors/HU_FCE_Rede_Calliess.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2012.

  • Calliess, C. (2011b). Perspektiven des Euro zwischen Solidarität und Recht – Eine rechtliche Analyse der Griechenlandhilfe und des Rettungsschirms. Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien, 14(2), 213–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2011). EUV/AEUV. Kommentar (4th ed.). Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, J. (1992). Constitutional law in Ireland. London: Round Hall Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Classen, C. D. (2008). Rechtsstaatlichkeit als Primärrechtsgebot in der Europäischen Union – Vertragsrechtliche Grundlagen und Rechtsprechung der Gemeinschaftsgerichte. In P.-C. Müller-Graff, & D. H. Scheuing (Eds.), Gemeinschaftsgerichtsbarkeit und Rechtsstaatlichkeit. EuR Beiheft 3 (pp. 7–23). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Classen, C. D. (2011). Forschung, Bildung, Kultur und Rundfunk: Zur Europäisierung des Kulturverwaltungsrechts. In T. Oppermann, C. D. Classen, & M. Nettesheim (Eds.), Europarecht (5th ed., pp. 563–584). München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Montalivet, P. (2006). Les objectifs de valeur consitutionnelle. Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derlén, M. (2009). Multilingual interpretation of European Union Law. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erhard, L. (1957). Wohlstand für Alle. Düsseldorf: Econ-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erhard, L. (1963). The economics of success. Princeton: Van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairhurst, J. (2010). Law of the European Union (10th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender, K. (2010). Der europäische “Stabilisierungsmechanismus” im Lichte von Unionsrecht und deutschem Verfassungsrecht. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, 23(13), 799–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez Esteban, M. L. (1999). The rule of law in the European Constitution. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabitz, E., Hilf, M., & Nettesheim, M. (Eds.). (2012). Das Recht der Europäischen Union, EUV/AEUV (loose-leaf). Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gussone, P. (2006). Das Solidaritätsprinzip in der Europäischen Union und seine Grenzen. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häde, U. (2012). The Treaty of Lisbon and the Economic and Monetary Union. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon. Constitutional basis, economic order and external action (pp. 421–442). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords. (2008). The Treaty of Lisbon: An impact assessment, Vol. 1: Report (HL Paper 62-I). London: The Stationary Office. http://www.just.ro/Portals/0/Analiza%20aprofundat%C4%83%20a%20impactului%20Tratatului%20de%20la%20Lisabona.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2012.

  • Ipsen, H. P. (1972). Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotzur, M. (2005). Die Ziele der Union: Verfassungsidentität und Gemeinschaftsidee. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung, 58(8), 313–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, F. (2013). Der Europäische Auswärtige Dienst zwischen intergouvernementaler Koordination und supranationaler Repräsentation. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lais, M. (2007). Das Solidaritätsprinzip im europäischen Verfassungsverbund. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Larik, J. (2011). Shaping the international order as a union objective and the dynamic internationalisation of constitutional law (CLEER Working Papers 2011/5). The Hague: Centre for the Law of EU External Relations/Asser instituut Inter-university Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, K., & Van Nuffel, P. (2011). European Union law (3rd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl, L. (2009). On Robert Alexy’s weight formula for weighing and balancing. In A. Silva Dias, et al. (Eds.), Liber Amicorum de José de Sousa e Brito em comemoração do 70.° Aniversário (pp. 355–375). Coimbra: Ediçoes Almedina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Armack, A. (1947). Wirtschaftslenkung und Marktwirtschaft. Hamburg: Verlag Wirtschaft und Finanzen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Armack, A. (1956). Soziale Marktwirtschaft. In E. Becherath, H. Bente, & C. Brinkmann (Eds.), Handwörterbuch der Sozialwissenschaften (Vol. 9, pp. 390–392). Stuttgart: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Graff, P.-C. (2008). Verfassungsziele der EG/EU. In M. A. Dauses (Ed.), Handbuch des EU-Wirtschaftsrechts (Vol. 1). München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettesheim, M. (2011). Wirtschaftsverfassung und Wirtschaftspolitik. In T. Oppermann, C. D. Classen, & M. Nettesheim (Eds.), Europarecht (5th ed., pp. 303–327). München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedobitek, M. (1997). The cultural dimension in EC law. London: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pescatore, P. (1972). Les objectives de la Communauté européenne comme principes d’interprétation dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice. Contribution à la doctrine de l’interprétation téléologique des traités internationaux. In Miscellanea W.J. Ganshof van der Meersch. Studia ab discipulis amicisque in honorem egregii professoris edita (Vol. 2, pp. 325–363). Bruxelles/Paris: Bruylant/LGDJ.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Plechner-Hochstraßer, B. (2006). Zielbestimmungen im Mehrebenensystem. München: Martin Meidenbauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulido, C. B. (2005). The structure and the limits of balancing. In S. Eng (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st IVR world congress, Part II (ARSP Beiheft Nr. 97). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice, rev. ed. (first ed. published in 1971). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, F. (2001). Verfassungsprinzipien. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, F. (2003). Ziele und Zuständigkeiten – Die Funktionen der Unionszielbestimmungen. Europarecht, 38(6), 992–1013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Aßmann, E. (2006). Verfassungsprinzipien für den Europäischen Verwaltungsverbund. In W. Hoffmann-Riem, E. Schmidt-Aßmann, & A. Voßkuhle (Eds.), Grundlagen des Verwaltungsrechts (Vol. 1, pp. 241–306). Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, J. (Ed.). (2012). EU-Kommentar (3rd ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwind, J. (2008). Zukunftsgestaltende Element im deutschen und europäischen Staats- und Verfassungsrecht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senden, L. (2008). Conceptual convergence and judicial cooperation in sex equality law. In S. Prechal & B. van Roermund (Eds.), The coherence of EU law – The search for unity in divergent concepts (pp. 363–396). Oxford: OUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simma, B., et al. (Eds.). (2002). The charter of the United Nations. A commentary (2nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommermann, K.-P. (1997). Staatsziele und Staatszielbestimmungen. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommermann, K.-P. (2007). Entwicklungsperspektiven des Rechtsstaates: Europäisierung und Internationalisierung eines staatsrechtlichen Leitbegriffs. In S. Magiera & K.-P. Sommermann (Eds.), Freiheit, Rechtsstaat und Sozialstaat in Europa (pp. 75–90). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommermann, K.-P. (2008). Herkunft und Funktionen von Verfassungsprinzipien in der Europäischen Union. In H. Bauer, & C. Calliess (Eds.), Verfassungsprinzipien in Europa/Constitutional Principles in Europe/Principes constitutionnels en Europe. SIPE 4 (pp. 15–44). Athens/Berlin/Bruxelles: Ant. N. Sakkoulas/Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag/Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelkens, U., Weiß, W., & Mirschberger, M. (Eds.). (2012). The implementation of the EU Services Directive. Transposition, problems and strategies. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat, C. (1987). Solidarität in Europa. In F. Capotorti et al. (Eds.), Du droit international au droit de l’intégration. Liber Amicorum Pierre Pescatore (pp. 729–757). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkmann, U. (1998). Solidarität – Programm und Prinzip der Verfassung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, A. (2005). The prospect of a European republic: What European citizens are voting on. Common Market Law Review, 42(4), 913–941.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, A. (2010). Founding principles. In A. von Bogdandy & J. Bast (Eds.), Principles of European constitutional law (2nd ed., pp. 11–54). Oxford: Hart Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • von der Groeben, H., & Schwarze, J. (2003). Kommentar zum Vertrag über die Europäische Union und zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft (6th ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, A. (2011). Die Reform der Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion in der Finanzkrise. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 22(24), 935–940.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum, R. (2006). Solidarity amongst States: An emerging structural principle of international law. In P.-M. Dupuy, et al. (Eds.), Common values in international law—essays in honour of Christian Tomuschat (pp. 1087–1102). Kehl: N.P. Engel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziller, J. (2008). Les nouveaux traités européens: Lisbonne et après. Paris: Montchrestien.

    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 3 [The Objectives of the European Union]. 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_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation