Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Services of General Interest Beyond the Single Market pp 273–298Cite as

Services of General Interest in the European Neighbourhood Policy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 580 Accesses

Part of the book series: Legal Issues of Services of General Interest ((LEGAL))

Abstract

The debate about services of general interest can be extended to the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), a policy embracing different types of legal or quasi-legal instruments. This chapter analyses the role of the services of general interest within the EU as a subject of normative export that can become part of the transposition of the EU’s model of governance. Next, the ENP is discussed to establish the policy-specific avenues for normative export. The role of the SGI is then traced within the policy on the basis of the analysis of general policy documents and bilateral cooperation instruments between the EU and partner states of the Eastern Neighbourhood.

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   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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.

    See for instance Krajewski 2011a.

  2. 2.

    The following countries are addressees of the policy (some do not have immediate borders with the EU at present): Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Israel, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya.

    The ‘cross-Treaty’ nature of the ENP refers to the legal scope of the policy which includes EU competences provided both in the TEU and the TFEU, see Ghazaryan 2014, pp. 32, 62, 179.

  3. 3.

    For the centrality of security considerations within the ENP see Smith and Webber 2008, p. 81; Wallace 2003 p. 27; Zaiotti 2007, p. 149; Cremona and Hillion 2006, p. 24.

  4. 4.

    Council of the European Union, Brussels European Council Conclusions of 19–20 June 2008, p. 19; Council of the European Union, Brussels European Council Conclusions of 13–14 March 2008, p. 19.

  5. 5.

    The EaP countries include Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan.

  6. 6.

    Belarus is excluded from the analysis of bilateral relations below due to the absence of bilateral documents between the latter and the EU.

  7. 7.

    With the exception of Georgia, the EaP states are part of the CIS. Georgia has withdrawn its membership in 2009.

  8. 8.

    Decision on the Conception of Future Development of CIS and the Plan on Central Measures for its Implementation, Council of Head of States of CIS, 5 October 2007, available at http://www.e-cis.info/page.php?id=3616.

  9. 9.

    Article 1 of the Constitution of Ukraine, 28 June 1996; Article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova 29 July 1994; Articles 1, 30.2 and 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, 5 July 1995; Preamble and Article 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Georgia, 24 August 2005; Preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 12 November 1995.

  10. 10.

    According to Article 2 of the Law on the Public Services Regulatory Commission public services include water, energy and electronic communication services. See also Article 30.2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia.

  11. 11.

    See European Commission, Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2009, Progress Report Georgia, SEC(2010) 518 final, 12 May 2010, pp. 4–5.

  12. 12.

    Article 33 of the Georgian Constitution mentions ‘services of vital importance’ in the context of strikes.

  13. 13.

    Ukrainian Law on Social Services, N 966-IV, 2003; Moldovan Law on Social Service No 123, 2010; Azerbaijan Law on Social Services, 2012. Georgia and Armenia have laws on social assistance from 2006 and 2005 respectively.

  14. 14.

    The term ‘Europeanisation’ is used here in its outwards understanding as an export of ‘forms of political organisation’ of the EU; Olsen 2002, p. 924; European Commission, Communication on a Wider Europe-Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours, COM (2003) 104 final, 11 April 2003, pp. 4, 10.

  15. 15.

    European Commission, Communication on a Wider Europe-Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours, COM (2003) 104 final, 11 April 2003, p. 5.

  16. 16.

    European Parliament, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Report on Social Services of General Interest in the European Union, 6 March 2007; European Parliament, Resolution on the Commission’s White Paper on Services of General Interest, 27 September 2006, para 10.

  17. 17.

    The Commission avoids using the term ‘public service’ outside the context of Article 93 TFEU; European Commission, Communication on a Quality Framework for Services of General Interest in Europe, COM(2011) 900 final, 12 December 2011, pp. 3–4.

  18. 18.

    Sauter makes this observation as regards the SGEI; Sauter 2008, p. 192.

  19. 19.

    Ross 2007, pp. 1058–1059.

  20. 20.

    Semmelmann 2010, p. 519.

  21. 21.

    Article 77 EEC made a reference to ‘public service’ in transport area; Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, 1957. Hennig considers that ‘public service’ in former Article 77 EEC (current Article 93 TFEU) denominates the same idea as SGEI; Hennig 2011, p. 191.

  22. 22.

    CJEU, Case C-157/94 Commission v Netherlands [1997] ECR I-5699, para 40.

  23. 23.

    CFI, Case T-17/02 Fred Olsen [2005] ECR II-2031, para 216; CFI, Case T-289/03 BUPA and Others v Commission [2008] ECR II-81, para 165; European Commission, Communication on Services of General Economic Interest in Europe, OJ 2001 C 17/ 4, para 22.

  24. 24.

    Sauter 2008, p. 175.

  25. 25.

    CJEU, Case C-120/78 Cassis de Dijon [1979] ECR 649, para 8.

  26. 26.

    European Commission, Communication on a Single Market for 21st Century Europe, COM(2007) 724 final, 20 November 2007, p. 3.

  27. 27.

    European Commission, Communication on Services of General Interest in Europe, COM(96) 443 final, 11 September 1996, p. 1.

  28. 28.

    For instance European Commission, White Paper on Services of General Interest, COM(2004) 374 final, 12 May 2004; Communication on Services of General Interest, including Social Services of General Interest: A New European Commitment, COM(2007) 725 final, 20 November 2007; Communication on a Quality Framework for Services of General Interest in Europe, COM(2011) 900 final, 20 December 2011.

  29. 29.

    Bauby 1999, p. 52.

  30. 30.

    European Commission, Communication on Services of General Economic Interest in Europe, OJ 2001 C 17/ 4, para 8.

  31. 31.

    European Commission, Green Paper of Services of General Interest, COM(2003) 270 final, 21 May 2003, paras 50–51.

  32. 32.

    European Commission, White Paper on Services of General Interest, COM(2004) 374 final, 12 May 2004, para 2.1.

  33. 33.

    Van de Gronden 2011, p. 150.

  34. 34.

    Behrens 2001, pp. 470–471.

  35. 35.

    See on different interpretations of the significance of Article 16 EC Ross 2007, pp. 1072–1073; Szyszczak 2011, p. 5; Schwintowski 2003, p. 372.

  36. 36.

    Ross 2009, p. 131; Heritier, 2001, p. 829; Ross 2000, pp. 28–35.

  37. 37.

    European Commission, Green Paper of Services of General Interest, COM(2003) 270 final, 21 May 2003, p. 2.

  38. 38.

    Fiedziuk 2011, p. 233.

  39. 39.

    Azoulai 2008, p. 1337.

  40. 40.

    According to Article 51 TEU protocols have the same legal value as the Treaties. Semmelmann doubts that this development signifies major practical changes, as the legislative means to create a social Europe are limited; Semmelmann 2010, pp. 521–522.

  41. 41.

    Chapter IV, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ 2000 C 364/15.

  42. 42.

    Bauby 2011, pp. 19–36.

  43. 43.

    The reference to secondary legislation means Article 2(2)(a) of the Services Directive excluding SGI from the scope of its application; Fiedziuk 2011, p. 233.

  44. 44.

    Behrens 2001, p. 483.

  45. 45.

    CFI, Case T-289/03 BUPA and Others v Commission [2008] ECR II-81, para 172; Ross 2009, pp. 134–136; Sauter 2008, p. 173.

  46. 46.

    Van de Gronden 2009, p. 261.

  47. 47.

    European Commission, Communication on a Quality Framework for Services of General Interest in Europe, COM(2011) 900 final, 12 December 2011, p. 2.

  48. 48.

    Cygan 2008, p. 530.

  49. 49.

    According to the Court’s jurisprudence the non-economic nature of general interest is what makes a difference in terms of derogations form Treaty rules on free movement of trade (economic goals cannot justify restrictions on free movement); Behrens 2001, pp. 480–481.

  50. 50.

    According to the Commission the social nature of the services does not per se classify the service, which can be both economic and non-economic; European Commission, Communication on a Quality Framework for Services of General Interest in Europe, COM(2011) 900 final, 12 December 2011, pp. 3–4.

  51. 51.

    Fiedziuk 2011, p. 235.

  52. 52.

    Bauby 2011, p. 34.

  53. 53.

    Davies and Szyszczak 2011, p. 157.

  54. 54.

    Bekkedal 2011, pp. 92, 98, 99.

  55. 55.

    Schweitzer 2011, p. 53.

  56. 56.

    Fiedziuk 2011, pp. 236–237; Cruz 2005, p. 178.

  57. 57.

    For instance Commission Directive 88/301/EEC of 16 May 1988 on competition in the markets in telecommunications terminal equipment, OJ 1988 L 131/73; The Commission Decision of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) to state aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of SGEIs.

    This power of the Commission was confirmed by the Court of Justice in the following cases: CJEU, Joined Cases C-188-190/80 France, Italy and United Kingdom v Commission [1982] ECR 2545; CJEU, Case C-2020/88 France v Commission [1991] ECR I-1223 para 14.

  58. 58.

    Schweitzer 2011, p. 42; Heritier 2001, pp. 843–844; Sauter 2008, p. 170.

  59. 59.

    Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communication networks and services (Framework Directive) OJ 2002 L 108/33; Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), OJ 2002 L 108/7; Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), OJ 2002 L 108/21 and Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), OJ 2002 L 108/51.

  60. 60.

    Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas, OJ 2003 L176/57; Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity, OJ 2003 L 176/37.

  61. 61.

    Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the involvement of quality of service, OJ 1998 L 15/14.

  62. 62.

    For instance in the area of air transport, see Prosser 2005, p. 205.

  63. 63.

    European Commission, Communication on a Quality Framework for Services of General Interest in Europe, COM(2011) 900 final, 12 December 2011, p. 5; European Commission, Communication on Services of General Interest, including Social Services of General Interest: A New European Commitment, COM(2007) 725 final, 20 November 2007, p. 12; European Commission, Report to the Laeken European Council: Services of General Interest, COM (2001) 598, s 5–6; European Commission, Green Paper of Services of General Interest, COM(2003) 270 final, 21 May 2003, s 40; European Commission, White Paper on Services of General Interest, COM (2004) 374 final, 12 May 2004, s 4.1.; Sauter 2008, pp. 172–173.

  64. 64.

    For the role of EU institutions within the ENP see Ghazaryan 2012; Ghazaryan 2014, pp. 36–53.

  65. 65.

    European Commission, White Paper on Services of General Interest, COM (2004) 374 final, 12 May 2004, p. 4.

  66. 66.

    R. Prodi, A wider europe—a proximity policy as the key to stability. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-02-619_en.pdf. Accessed 11 November 2014.

  67. 67.

    See Eeckhout in Chap. 9 in this volume.

  68. 68.

    Ghazaryan 2014, p. 32.

  69. 69.

    Emphasis added.

  70. 70.

    Smith 2005, p. 28.

  71. 71.

    The relationship between the enlargement policy and the ENP has been extensively explored, see for instance Kelley 2006; A. Magen, The shadow of enlargement: can the European Neighbourhood Policy achieve compliance? Centre on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, Stanford Institute for International Studies, Working Papers No 68, 2006; G. Meloni, Is the same toolkit used during enlargement still applicable to the countries of the new neighbourhood? A problem of mismatching between objectives and instruments. In: Cremona M, Meloni G (eds) The European Neighbourhood Policy: A New Framework for Modernisation? EUI Working Papers, LAW 2007/21, pp. 97–111; Balfour and Rotta 2005.

  72. 72.

    Ghazaryan 2014, pp. 78–81; Hill and Smith 2005, pp. 287–288; Cremona and. Hillion 2006, p. 39; Missiroli 2004, p. 19.

  73. 73.

    Kochenov 2008, p. 116; Magen, The shadow of enlargement: can the European Neighbourhood Policy achieve compliance? Centre on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, Stanford Institute for International Studies, Working Papers No 68, 2006, p. 15; N. Tocci, Can the EU promote democracy and human rights through the ENP? The case for refocusing on the rule of law. In: Cremona M, Meloni G (eds) The European Neighbourhood Policy: A New Framework for Modernisation? EUI Working Papers, LAW 2007/21, pp. 23–35, at p. 31; Emerson 2005, p. 20; Seeberg 2010, p. 676.

  74. 74.

    Tulmets 2006, p. 30.

  75. 75.

    European Commission, Communication on a Wider Europe-Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours, COM (2003) 104 final, 11 April 2003 p. 4; European Commission, European Neighbourhood Policy Strategy Paper, COM(2004) 373 final, 12 May 2004 (hereinafter ENP Strategy Paper), p. 8; On ‘common values’ see further Leino and Petrov 2009.

  76. 76.

    Kochenov 2008, pp. 108–110.

  77. 77.

    Ross 2007; Wernicke 2009.

  78. 78.

    ENP Strategy Paper, p. 8.

  79. 79.

    For instance, conflict resolution.

  80. 80.

    The main ideas of the ENP were circulated through the conclusions of the Council and the European Council, Commission communications and other policy documents, including papers and non-papers, joint letters, statements, EP resolutions and recommendations. See the definition of soft law in Senden 2005, p. 112.

  81. 81.

    European Commission, Communication on a Wider Europe-Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours, COM (2003) 104 final, 11 April 2003, pp. 3, 8.

  82. 82.

    Zaiotti 2007, p. 157.

  83. 83.

    ENP Strategy Paper, p. 14.

  84. 84.

    For instance the 2006 Communication on Strengthening the ENP mentions the benefits of a multilateral dialogues in network and other areas; European Commission, Communication on Strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy, COM(2006) 726 final, 4 December 2006, p. 8. The Communication on Implementation of the ENP in 2008 considers the progress made in ‘social reform’, COM(2009) 188/3, 23 May 2009. The Communication on Taking Stock of the ENP Communication considers various social policy issues as part of the ENP, COM(2010) 207, 12 May 2010, p. 8.

  85. 85.

    European Commission/High Representative, Joint Communication on A New Response to a Changing Neighbourhood: A Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy, COM(2011) 303, 25 May 2011, pp. 2, 8–9, 20–21; European Commission/High Representative, Joint Communication on Delivering on a New European Neighbourhood Policy, JOIN (2012) 14 final, 15 May 2012, pp. 2–4.

  86. 86.

    European Commission/High Representative, Joint Communication on a New Response to a Changing Neighbourhood: A Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy, COM(2011) 303, 25 May 2011, p. 10.

  87. 87.

    European Commission/High Representative, Joint Communication on Delivering on a New European Neighbourhood Policy, JOIN (2012) 14 final, 15 May 2012, p. 9.

  88. 88.

    European Commission/High Representative, Joint Communication on European Neighbourhood Policy: Working towards a stronger partnership, JOIN (2013) 4 final 2013, 20 March 2013, p. 2.

  89. 89.

    European Commission, Communication on Eastern Partnership, COM (2008) 823 final, 3 December 2008, p. 10. For a more detailed discussion of the Eastern Partnership see Hillion and Mayhew 2009; Ghazaryan 2014, pp. 84–94.

  90. 90.

    The structural platform consists of meetings of the heads of the states or governments of Eastern partners held every 2 years and annual spring meetings of Ministers of Foreign Affairs; Hillion and Mayhew 2009, pp. 8–9.

  91. 91.

    Core Objectives and Proposed Work Programme 2009–2011, available at http://eeas.europa.eu/eastern/platforms/docs/platform2_151109_en.pdf.

  92. 92.

    European Commission, Communication on Eastern Partnership, COM (2008) 823 final, 3 December 2008, pp. 9–10.

  93. 93.

    European Commission/High Representative, Joint Communication on Eastern Partnership: A Roadmap to Autumn 2013 Summit, JOIN(2012) 13 final, 15 May 2012, p. 13.

  94. 94.

    Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the other, OJ 1999 L 239/3; Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other, OJ 1999 L 246/3; Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Georgia, of the other, OJ 1999 L 205/3; Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other, OJ 1998 L 181; Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other, OJ 1998 L 049; European Commission, Communication on a Wider Europe-Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours, COM (2003) 104 final, 11 April 2003, p. 15; Council of the European Union, Thessaloniki European Council Conlusions, 19–20 June 2003.

  95. 95.

    See for instance Article 4, PCA with Moldova; Maresceau and Montaguti 1995, pp. 1340–1341; Berdiyev 2003, pp. 463–464.

  96. 96.

    See Ghazaryan 2010, p. 225.

  97. 97.

    Common Article 1.

  98. 98.

    Article 51 EU-Moldova PCA; Article 52 EU-Ukraine PCA; Article 44 EU-Armenia PCA.

  99. 99.

    Article 50(2) EU-Moldova PCA, Article 51(2) EU-Ukraine PCA; Article 43 EU-Armenia PCA.

  100. 100.

    Article 63 EU-Moldova PCA; Article 66 of EU-Ukraine PCA; Article 57 EU-Armenia PCA.

  101. 101.

    Article 71 EU-Ukraine PCA; Article 68 EU-Moldova PCA; Article 60 EU-Armenia PCA.

  102. 102.

    Article 48(2)(5) EU-Moldova PCA; Article 49(2)(5) of EU-Ukraine PCA.

  103. 103.

    Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan have originally been excluded from the ENP and were included in 2004; ENP Strategy Paper, pp. 10–11.

  104. 104.

    The Introduction to all Action Plans mentions promotion of social cohesion as one of the objectives of the document. See also Priority Area 2.3 of EU-Moldova Action Plan; Priority Area 21 of EU-Ukraine Action Plan; Priority Area 3 of EU-Georgia Action Plan; Priority Area 3 of EU-Armenia Action Plan; Priority Area 6 of EU-Azerbaijan Action Plan.

  105. 105.

    See Priority 37, 40, 57, 63 and 67 of EU-Moldova Action Plan; Priority Area 39, 42, 51, 52, 58 of EU-Ukraine Action Plan.

  106. 106.

    Priority Area 67, EU-Moldova Action Plan.

  107. 107.

    See for instance the preamble and Article 3 of the Universal Service Directive, OJ 2002 L 108/51.

  108. 108.

    Priority Area 22, EU-Ukraine Action Plan.

  109. 109.

    European Commission, White Paper on Services of General Interest, COM(2004) 374 final, 12 May 2004, p. 16.

  110. 110.

    For instance the access for migrants was noted to be problematic even in 2009, European Commission, Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2009, Progress Report Ukraine, SEC(2010) 524, 12 May 2010, p. 13.

  111. 111.

    For the criticism of the Action Plans with South Caucasian countries see Ghazaryan 2014, pp. 125–140.

  112. 112.

    S 4.4 and 4.7.2 of General Actions, EU-Georgia Action Plan.

  113. 113.

    S 4.3 of General Actions, EU-Armenia Action Plan.

  114. 114.

    S 4.7.2 of General Actions, EU-Armenia Action Plan.

  115. 115.

    S 4.6.3 of General Actions, EU-Armenia Action Plan; S 4.6.4 of General Actions, EU-Azerbaijan Action Plan.

  116. 116.

    S 4.7.2 of General Actions, EU-Azerbaijan Action Plan.

  117. 117.

    Van Vooren 2011a, pp. 203–210.

  118. 118.

    EU-Ukraine Association Agenda, p. 2.

  119. 119.

    Van Vooren 2011b, p. 169.

  120. 120.

    ‘Armenia chooses Russia over EU’ European Voice, 3 September 2013.

  121. 121.

    ‘EU “disappointed” by Ukraine decision’ European Voice, 22 November 2013.

  122. 122.

    ‘Ukraine ready to sign association agreement during March EU summit’ Euractiv, 27 February 2014.

  123. 123.

    Gstohl 2012, p. 98.

  124. 124.

    Articles 1 and 3 of the Draft EU-Ukraine Association Agreement.

  125. 125.

    Krajewski 2011b, p. 6.

  126. 126.

    Arena 2011, p. 494.

  127. 127.

    Krajewski 2009, p. 206; Krajewski 2003, p. 73.

  128. 128.

    See Articles 93–94 of EU-Ukraine draft Association Agreement; Krajewski 2009, p. 208.

  129. 129.

    Krajewski 2011c, p. 182.

  130. 130.

    Such conclusion was drawn by Krajewski as regards EU-Chile agreement, Krajewski 2009, p. 209.

  131. 131.

    See ANNEX XVI-A.

  132. 132.

    See ANNEX XVI-B, s 5 of the list of sub-sectoral commitments.

  133. 133.

    See ANNEX XVI-B, s 8 of the list of sub-sectoral commitments.

  134. 134.

    See ANNEX XVI-B, s 2 of the list of sub-sectoral commitments.

  135. 135.

    Reservation is related to Mode 1, See ANNEX XVI-B, s 6 of the list of sub-sectoral commitments.

  136. 136.

    Steinicke 2012, p. 340.

  137. 137.

    Article 256 of Draft EU-Ukraine Association Agreement.

  138. 138.

    Article 253(2), ibid.

  139. 139.

    See Articles 111 and 120 of Draft EU-Ukraine Association Agreement.

  140. 140.

    Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of community postal service and the improvement of quality of service, OJ 1998 L 15/14; Article 115(g) does the same for communications sector.

  141. 141.

    See for instance Article 3(2) and (5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003, OJ 2003 L 176/37; Article 3(2) and (3) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003, OJ 2003 L 176/57.

  142. 142.

    Specifically Universal Service Directive, OJ 2002 L 108/51; Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market and natural gas, OJ 2003 L 176/57; Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity, OJ 2003 L 176/37; Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, OJ 1998 L 15/14.

References

  • Arena A (2011) The GATS notion of public services as an instance of intergovernmental agnosticism: comparative insights from the EU supranational dialectic. J World Trade 45(3):489–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Azoulai L (2008) The Court of Justice and the social market economy: the emergence of an ideal and the conditions for its realisation. Common Mark Law Rev 45(5):1335–1355

    Google Scholar 

  • Balfour R, Rotta A (2005) Beyond enlargement: the European Neighbourhood Policy and its tools. Int Spect 40(1):7–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauby P (1999) Public service: forging a European conception. In: Haibach G (ed) Services of general interest in the EU: reconciling competition and social responsibility. European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht, pp 49–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauby P (2011) From Rome to Lisbon: services of general interest in primary law. In: Szyszczak E, Davies J, Andenæs M, Bekkedal T (eds) Developments in services of general interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 19–36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Behrens P (2001) Public services and the internal market: an analysis of the Commission’s communication on services of general interest in Europe. Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 2:469–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkedal T (2011) Article 106 TFEU is dead. Long live Article 106 TFEU! In: Szyszczak E, Davies J, Andenæs M, Bekkedal T (eds) Developments in services of general interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 61–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Berdiyev B (2003) The EU and former Soviet Central Asia: an analysis of the partnership and cooperation agreements. Yearb Eur Law 22:463–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cremona M, Hillion C (2006) L’Union fait la force? Potential and limitations of the ENP as an integrated EU foreign and security policy. In: Copsey N, Mayhew A (eds) European Neighbourhood Policy: the case of Europe. Sussex European Institute, SEI seminar papers series, pp 20–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz JB (2005) Beyond competition: services of general interest and European community law. In: de Burca G (ed) EU law and the welfare state in search of solidarity. OUP, Oxford, pp 167–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Cygan A (2008) Public healthcare in the European Union: still a service of a general interest? Int Comp Law Q 57:529–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies J, Szyszczak E (2011) Universal service obligations: fulfilling new generations of services of general economic interest. In: Szyszczak E, Davies J, Andenæs M, Bekkedal T (eds) Developments in services of general interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 155–177

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson M (2005) Is there to be a real European Neighbourhood Policy? In: Youngs R (ed) Global Europe: new terms of engagement. Foreign Policy Centre, London, pp 15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedziuk N (2011) Services of general economic interest and the Treaty of Lisbon: opening doors to a whole new approach or maintaining the ‘status quo’. Eur Law Rev 36:226–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghazaryan N (2010) The ENP and the Southern Caucasus: meeting the expectations. Whitman R, Wolff S (eds) The European Neighbourhood Policy in perspective: context, implementation and impact. Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp 223–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghazaryan N (2012) Pre and post-Lisbon institutional trends in the EU’s neighbourhood. In: Cardwell PJ (ed) EU external relations law and policy in the post-Lisbon era. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 199–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghazaryan N (2014) The European Neighbourhood Policy and democratic values of the EU: a legal analysis. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gstohl S (2012) What is at stake in the internal market? Towards a neighbourhood economic community. In: Lannon E (ed) The European Neighbourhood Policy’s challenges. College of Europe Studies, P.I.E. Peter Lang, Brussels, pp 85–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig M (2011) Public service obligations: protection of public service values in a national and European context. In: Szyszczak E, Davies J, Andenæs M, Bekkedal T (eds) Developments in services of general interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 179–193

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heritier A (2001) Market integration and social cohesion: the politics of public services in European regulation. J Eur Public Policy 8:825–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill C, Smith M (2005) International relations and the European Union. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillion C, Mayhew A (2009) The Eastern partnership: something new or window-dressing. SEI working paper no 109

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley J (2006) New wine in old wineskins: policy learning and adaptation in the new European Neighbourhood Policy. J Common Mark Stud 44:29–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov D (2008) The ENP conditionality: pre-accession mistakes repeated. In: Delcour L, Tulmets E (eds) Pioneer Europe? Testing EU foreign policy in the neighbourhood. Nomos, Baden Baden, pp 105–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2003) National regulation and trade liberalisation in services: the legal impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) on national regulatory autonomy. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2009) Protecting a shared value of the Union in a globalised world: services of general economic interest and external trade. In: van de Gronden J (ed) The EU and WTO law on services: limits to the realisation of general interest policies within the services market. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 188–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2011a) Universal service provisions in international agreements of the EU: from derogation to obligation? In: Szyszczak E, Davies J, Andenæs M, Bekkedal T (eds) Developments in services of general interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 231–252

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2011b) Public services in bilateral free trade agreements of the EU. http://www.epsu.org/IMG/pdf/PublicServicesFTAs_FinalVersion.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2014

  • Krajewski M (2011c) Of modes and sectors: external relations, internal debates and the special case of (trade in) services. In: Cremona M (ed) Developments in EU external relations law. OUP, Oxford, pp 172–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Leino P, Petrov R (2009) Between ‘common values’ and competing universals: the promotion of the EU’s common values through the European Neighbourhood Policy. Eur Law J 15:654–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maresceau M, Montaguti E (1995) The relations between the European Union and Central and Eastern Europe: a legal appraisal. Common Mark Law Rev 32(6):1327–1367

    Google Scholar 

  • Missiroli A (2004) The EU and its changing neighbourhood. In: Dannreuther R (ed) European Union foreign and security policy: towards a neighbourhood strategy. Routledge, London, pp 12–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser T (2005) The limits of competition law: markets and public services. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ross M (2000) Article 16 EC and services of general interest: from derogation to obligation? Eur Law Rev 25:22–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross M (2007) Promoting solidarity: public services to a European model of competition. Common Mark Law Rev 44:1057–1080

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross M (2009) A healthy approach to services of general economic interest? The BUPA judgement of the Court of First Instance. Eur Law Rev 34:127–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauter W (2008) Services of general economic interest and universal service in EU law. Eur Law Rev 33:167–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer H (2011) Services of general economic interest: European law’s impact on the role of markets and of Member States. In: Cremona M (ed) Market integration and public services in the European Union. OUP, Oxford, pp 11–62

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwintowski HP (2003) The common good, public subsistence and the functions of public undertakings in the European internal market. Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 4:353–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeberg P (2010) The European Neighbourhood Policy, post-normativity and pragmatism. Eur Foreign Affairs Rev 15:663–680

    Google Scholar 

  • Semmelmann C (2010) The European Union’s economic constitution under the Lisbon Treaty: soul-searching shifts the focus to procedure. Eur Law Rev 35(4):516–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Senden L (2005) Soft law in European community law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith KE (2005) Engagement and conditionality: incompatible or mutually reinforcing? In: Youngs R (ed) Global Europe: new terms of engagement. The Foreign Policy Centre, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith ME, Webber M (2008) Political dialogue and security in the European Neighbourhood Policy: the virtues and limits of ‘new partnership perspective’. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 13(1):73–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinicke M (2012) Trade in services. In: Olsen BE, Steinicke M, Engsig Sorensen K (eds) WTO law: from a European perspective. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 321–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Szyszczak E (2011) Introduction: why do public services challenge the European Union? In: Szyszczak E, Davies J, Andenæs M, Bekkedal T (eds) Developments in services of general interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 1–16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tulmets E (2006) Adapting the experience of enlargement to the neighbourhood policy: the ENP as a substitute to enlargement? In: Kratochvil P (ed) The European Union and its neighbourhood: policies, problems and priorities. Institute of International Relations, Prague, pp 29–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Gronden JW (2009) The EU and WTO law on free trade in services and the public interest: towards a framework directive on services of general economic interest? In: van de Gronden JW (ed) The EU and WTO law on services: limits to the realisation of general interest policies within the services market. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 249–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Gronden JW (2011) Social services of general interest and EU law. In: Szyszczak E, Davies J, Andenæs M, Bekkedal T (eds) Developments in services of general interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 123–153

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vooren B (2011a) External relations law of the EU and the European Neighbourhood Policy: a paradigm for coherence. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vooren B (2011b) The European Union as an international actor and progressive experimentation in its neighbourhood. In: Koutrakos P (ed) European foreign policy: legal and political perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 147–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace W (2003) Looking after the neighbourhood: responsibilities for the EU-25. Notre Europe, Policy Papers no 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernicke S (2009) Services of general economic interest in European law: solidarity embedded in the economic constitution. In: van de Gronden JW (ed) The EU and WTO law on services: limits to the realisation of general interest policies within the services market. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 121–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaiotti R (2007) Of friends and fences: Europe’s Neighbourhood Policy and the ‘gated’ Community syndrome. Eur Integr 29(2):143–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lecturer in Law, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK

    Narine Ghazaryan

Authors
  1. Narine Ghazaryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Narine Ghazaryan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ghazaryan, N. (2015). Services of General Interest in the European Neighbourhood Policy. In: Krajewski, M. (eds) Services of General Interest Beyond the Single Market. Legal Issues of Services of General Interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-063-3_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation