EUR-Charts

The title of Chart 9/43 should read:

Compensation for public service obligations and state aid        9/43 256

The following abbreviation must be added:

ESM   European Stability Mechanism

Following recent political development, the fourth box must read:

• Uniformity:
The same treaties are signed by all Member States.

• Diversity:
E.g. protocols and accession treaties may lead to differences relating to the applicability of the law (so-called “variable geometry”, “Europe of multiple speed”, “Europe à la carte”, “differentiated integration”).

Special in the EU:
Procedural rules for diversity. Since the Amsterdam revision (1997/1999; see Chart 2/26), there are rules for the creation of specific law: so-called “closer cooperation” or “enhanced cooperation” (Title IV of the TEU and Arts. 326 TFEU et seq.). First example: Decision 2010/405/EU (authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation), Regulation 1259/2010/EU (law applicable to divorce and legal separation); see Chart 2/11.

Following recent political development, the box in the fifth row in the middle must read:

1953: Western European Union

Later to become important due to the so-called “Petersberg tasks”, which were incorporated into Art. 43 TEU.

Note:
The WEU’s activities are planned to end by 30 June 2011, which date is expected to mark the end of the WEU.

Following recent legal developments, the fourth box must read:

Further:
New title on “Closer cooperation”, allowing for variable geometry/specific law for (groups of) Member States instead of uniform law for all; see Chart 1/7. Provides a formal mechanism for introducing specific law. This title allows (groups of) Member States to introduce further harmonising law amongst themselves but within the framework of the EU.

Note:
Not used for some time. In fact, Member States have actively sought to avoid using this procedure; e.g. the Prüm Convention (building on the Schengen law) was concluded outside the EU Treaty framework as an ordinary treaty under public international law. First example: Decision 2010/405/EU (authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation), Regulation 1259/2010/EU (law applicable to divorce and legal separation).

The  box entitled “Citing Articles of the EC Treaty” should read:

Citing Articles of the EC Treaty; e.g.:
• Art. 7a of the EEC Treaty = Art. 14 EC.
• Art. 13 of the EEC Treaty = (provision now deleted).

Following recent political development, the text underneath the title “Candidate States and applicants” must read:

 

EU (plus Euratom_)

Candidate States: Turkey, Croatia, Macedonia, Iceland, Montenegro Applicant States: Albania, _ Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo (plus: a non-active application for membership by Switzerland)

 

On 24/25 March 2011, the European Council agreed on the first Treaty revision effected through a simplified revision procedure. It decided to add to Art. 136 TFEU the following new paragraph:

“3. The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality.”

Therefore, the 5th box on the right hand side must read:

a) On Part Three of the TFEU:

• Proposal from a government of a Member State, the EP or the Commission to the European Council.

• The European Council consults the EP and the Commission and, in certain cases, the ECB.

• The European Council decides unanimously.

• Approval in the Member States.

First revision of this kind: insertion of Art. 136(3) TFEU, concerning the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) in March 2011.

Following recent political development, the last box in the row on “Security / defence” must read:

WEU

Note:
The WEU’s activities are planned to end by 30 June 2011,
which date is expected to mark the end of the WEU.

It would appear that in some copies of the charts book (2nd edition, First Reprint), due to a print shop error, some boxes are simply black (i.e. no text is visible). The correct version can be downloaded here.

The last box at the right hand side must read:

Regulations, directives and decisions adopted by non-legislative procedure.

E.g.:
• Commission acts pursuant to Art. 290(1) TFEU (delegated powers, Regulation 182/2011/EU), e.g. Commission regulations in the field of agriculture;
• Directives adopted through the social partners procedure, Arts. 154 and 155 TFEU; see Chart 5/10;
• European Council and Council decisions pursuant to Art. 31 TEU (CFSP decisions);
• European Council decisions pursuant to Art. 236 TFEU (Council configurations, presidency of Council configurations); see Chart 3/7.

Regarding the second box there is new national case law in France. Hence, the last sentence should read:

• The EEC Treaty did not mention the practical effect of Community law in the national legal orders in relation to individuals.
• According to the ECJ: in the event of a conflict between national law and EEC law/measures which grant individuals rights, the national courts must protect rights of individuals under EEC law and the right of individuals to rely directly on EEC law in a national court. Reasoning: as distinct from traditional public international law, EEC law concerns not only states, but also individuals; Van Gend en Loos (1963).
• Lisbon Treaty: no mention of direct effect in the Treaties. Assumption that the doctrine of primacy now relates to all binding EU law that grants rights to individuals.

In practice, direct effect is usually observed; very few obvious problems in the Member States, except e.g. the French “Conseil d’État” in Cohn-Bendit (1978); revoked by Perreux (2009).

The box in the fourth row at the right hand side must read:

The measure must grant rights to one or several individuals
Two examples:
• Dahms (2005): a provision in a directive stating that awards and medals may be featured on the labels of table wines does not grant rights to individual consumers/traders;
• Janecek (2008): a provision in a directive obliging the Member States to draw up an environmental action plan for the protection of public health implies the right of individuals directly concerned by the health risks to require the national authorities to draw up an action plan.

The box in the fifth row at the left hand side must read:

Duty of the national court to interpret the national law, as far as possible, in the light of EU law. This requires a certain flexibility within the national law (i.e. room for interpretation).

• Von Colson and Kamann (1984), Marleasing (1990), based on Art. 288 TFEU and Art. 4 TEU, in relation to what was then EEC law;
• Pupino (2005), based on the EU’s obligation to respect fundamental rights, in relation to what was then EU law (third pillar). Duty of the Member States to compensate for damage caused by national law infringing EU law. No explicit Treaty provision, based on case law: Francovich (1991).

The box entitled entitled “Some important aspects” (last row, to the right-hand side) should read:

Some important aspects:
• A single monetary policy;
• The European System of Central Banks (see Chart 3/12) defines and implements the monetary policy;
• Monopoly of the European Central Bank to issue euro banknotes;
• Conditions for the adoption of the euro, as stated in Art. 140(1) TFEU.
Note:
Not all Member States have adopted the euro; see Chart 1/7.

On 24/25 March 2011, the European Council agreed on the first Treaty revision effected through a simplified revision procedure. It decided to add to Art. 136 TFEU the following new paragraph:

“3. The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality.”

Further to this decision to change the Treaty, the European Council has agreed on the need for euro-area Member States to establish a permanent stability mechanism, namely the so-called European Stability Mechanism (ESM) which will be activated by mutual agreements, if indispensable to safeguarding the financial stability of the euro area as a whole (see http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/120296.pdf#page=22 )

Therefore, the last box on the right hand side must read:

Some important aspects:

• A single monetary policy;
• The European System of Central Banks (see Chart 3/12) defines and implements the monetary policy;
• Monopoly of the European Central Bank to issue euro banknotes;
• Conditions for the adoption of the euro, as stated in Art. 140(1) TFEU;
• A permanent European Stability Mechanism (ESM), Art. 136(3) TFEU (decided on in March 2011; see Chart 2/27).

Note:
Not all Member States have adopted the euro; see Chart 1/7.

Regarding the box entitled “Political rights” (bottom, in the middle), first bullet point, Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation 211/2011.

Accordingly the box at the bottom in the middle must read as follows:

• Art. 11 TEU, citizens’ initiative: right of not less than 1 million citizens of a significant number of Member States to invite the Commission to submit proposals for legal acts. Procedures and conditions: Art. 24 TFEU, Regulation 211/2011/EU.
• Arts. 20(2)(b) and 22 TFEU: right of citizens to both vote and stand in communal elections in the host Member State and in elections to the EP; e.g. Commission v Belgium (1998).
• Arts. 20(2)(d) and 24 TFEU: making petitions to the EP, applications to the Ombuds- man and writing to EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies.

The text to the right of the first diamond-shaped box  (“Does the case fall within the
field of application (scope) of EU free movement law?”) must read as follows:

E.g. free movement for workers, Art. 45(1) and (4) TFEU:
• Is there a cross-border element?
• Does the case involve a worker?
• Does it involve issues other than access to employment in the public service?

The text in the third row at the left hand side must read as follows:

Positive examples

• Agricultural products, such as strawberries; Art. 38(1) TFEU; Strawberries (1997);
• Animals; Bluhme (1998); note, however, Art. 13 TFEU on animal welfare;
• Electricity; PreussenElektra (2001);
• Gold; Gold and Gold Alloy (2004);
• Coins that are no longer legal tender; Thompson (1978);
• Recyclable waste; Wallonian Waste (1992).
• Exceptionally even items that cannot be valued in money; Wallonian Waste (1992), in relation to non-recyclable and non-reusable waste transported to another country for the purpose of its treatment or its disposal; also e.g. Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten (2007)

It would appear that in some copies of the charts book (2nd edition, First Reprint), due to a print shop error, some boxes are simply black (i.e. no text is visible). The correct version can be downloaded here.

The box  entitled “Measures having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction (MEEQR)” (fourth row, on the right hand side) should read:

Measures having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction (MEEQR)

Defined through important case law:
• Dassonville (1974) – definition;
• Cassis de Dijon (1979) – clarification;
• Keck (1993) – further clarification;
• Towing Trailers (2009) – further clarification.
See Chart 8/19, Chart 8/20, Chart 8/21, Chart 8/22

It would appear that in some copies of the charts book (2nd edition, First Reprint), due to a print shop error, some boxes are simply black (i.e. no text is visible). The correct version can be downloaded here.

In spring 2011, Regulation 1612/68/EEC was replaced by Regulation 492/2011/EU on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141/12). The new Regulation is simply a codification (i.e. a restatement) of the old one, as it results after numerous amendments, including in particular from the changes brought about by Directive 2004/38/EC (though this latter Directive, Arts. 10 and 11 of Regulation 1612/68/EEC on family rights were abolished).

In spring 2011, Regulation 1612/68/EEC was replaced by Regulation 492/2011/EU on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141/12). The new Regulation is simply a codification (i.e. a restatement) of the old one, as it results after numerous amendments, including in particular from the changes brought about by Directive 2004/38/EC (though this latter Directive, Arts. 10 and 11 of Regulation 1612/68/EEC on family rights were abolished).

The box entitled “Substantive provisions:” (third row, on the left-hand side) should read:

Substantive provisions:
• Arts. 56 and 57 TFEU: free movement of services;
• Art. 62 TFEU in conjunction with Art. 52(1) TFEU: derogations.
Directly effective right to free movement even in the absence of facilitating legislation, “at least with regard to nationality and residence requirements”; Van Binsbergen (1974).

The Topic sentence must read:

In 2006, a Directive on services in the internal market was adopted. Its main practical contribution appears
to be rules on administrative simplification.

The box in the fourth row at the right hand side must read:

Main substantive provisions in relation to (temporary) services, Arts. 16-27

Rules on:
• Freedom to provide services, including additional derogations and case-by-case derogations;
• Rights of recipients of services;
• Quality of services.

The title of Chart 9/43 should read:

Compensation for public service obligations and state aid        9/43 256

The 2nd box must read:

Importance of the definition of the relevant market

• For the purposes of Art. 102 TFEU, the proper definition of the relevant market is a necessary precondition for any judgment as to allegedly anti-competitive behaviour; Volkswagen (2000); see Chart 9/21;
• In other contexts (e.g. Art. 101 TFEU, merger control under Regulation 139/2004/EC and sectoral competition law), it may be an important element, e.g. in relation to the effect on trade between Member States and on competition and in relation to product_turnover and market shares; Heubach (2005).

The 3rd box must read:

Examples of joint action that does not fall under Art. 101(1) TFEU:
• Parent company and subsidiary, if the subsidiary has no real freedom to determine its course of action in the market, and if the conduct is concerned merely with the internal allocation of tasks; Centrafarm (1974), Viho (1996);
• Collective agreements between employers and workers that pursue social policy objectives; Albany (1999), Van der Woude (2000);
• Principle and agent relationships where the agent is not an independent economic operator; CEEES (2006), CEPSA (2008).

The European Commission in 2010 renewed an imported part of  its legislation on block exemptions.

Therefore, the 2nd box on the right side, entitled “Block exemption regulations”, must read:

Block exemption regulations (BERs)

• Vertical restraints: Regulation 330/2010/EU, with Commission Guidelines (2010); see Chart 9/17);

• Specialisation agreements: Regulation 1218/2010/EU, with Commission Guidelines on horizontal co-operation agreements (2010);

• Research and development: Regulation 1217/2010/EU, with Commission Guidelines on horizontal co-operation agreements (2010);

• Motor vehicle distribution: Regulation 461/2010/EU;

• Insurance: Regulation 267/2010/EU, with an Explanatory Communication from the Commission (2010);

• Technology transfer: Regulation 772/2004/EC, with a Commission Notice (2004);

• Liner shipping: Regulation 906/2009/EC;

• Air passenger tariffs and slot allocation: Regulation 1459/2006/EC (transitional regime).

Further, the 3rd box on the right side, entitled “Other regulations containing general exemptions”, must read:

Other regulations containing general exemptions

• Agriculture: Regulation 1184/2006/EC;
• Transport: Regulations 169/2009/EC (road, rail, inland waterway) and 487/2009/EC (air).

It would appear that in some copies of the charts book (2nd edition, First Reprint), due to a print shop error, some boxes are simply black (i.e. no text is visible). The correct version can be downloaded here.

In the box in the 5th row, entitled “Consequence for the Member States”, the last reference (to Chart 9/42) must be deleted. Therefore, the box must read:

Consequence for the Member States

Conduct meeting the above conditions is contrary to EU law (“prohibited as incompatible with the internal market”, Arts. 101 and 102 TFEU) …

… unless an exemption or a derogation applies; see Chart 9/16, Chart 9/36.

It would appear that in some copies of the charts book (2nd edition, First Reprint), due to a print shop error, some boxes are simply black (i.e. no text is visible). The correct version can be downloaded here.

The box entitled “Art. 106(2) TFEU” (2nd row, in the middle) should read:

Art. 106(2) TFEU

See Chart 9/36, Chart 9/42

The box entitled “Harmonisation” (bottom, right hand side) should read:

Harmonisation

In certain fields, Regulation 1370/2007/EC applies instead of Art. 93 TFEU:
• National and international operation of public passenger transport services by rail and other track-based modes and by road;
• If the Member States so chose: public passenger transport by inland waterways and national sea waters (without prejudice to Regulation 3577/92/EEC on maritime transport).

Recent case law (Deutsche Post (2010)) has confirmed that Altmark (2003) concerns the very definition of state aid under Art. 107(1) TFEU in relation to public service obligations, rather than Art. 106(2) TFEU. Therefore, the following parts in the chart have to be adapted:

The chart title should read:

Compensation for public service obligations and state aid

The topic sentence should read:

Compensation for public service obligations does not fall under Art. 107(1) TFEU provided that the conditions defined by the ECJ in the important Altmark (2003) decision are met.

The box reading “Art. 106(2) TFEU and state aid” (top) should read:

Compensation for public service obligations

The box entitled “The ECJ’s decision in the Altmark (2003) case” (2nd from top) should read:

The ECJ’s decision in the Altmark (2003) case

Compensation for public service obligations does not amount to state aid (i.e. it is not caught by Art. 107(1) TFEU) and does not have to be notified (see Chart 9/44) to the Commission if the following conditions are met:

The box entitled “Follow up on Altmark (2003)” (bottom) should read:

Follow up on Altmark (2003)

• For certain types of public service obligations: codification of Altmark (2003) in Commission Decision 2005/842/EC on state aid in the form of public service compensation.
• For other cases, with the exception of the transport and the public service broadcasting sectors: Community (now: Union) Framework for state aid in the form of public service compensation (2005).
• Transport: in particular Regulation 1370/2007/EC; see Chart 9/42; broadcasting: Commission Communication on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (2001).

Add recent case law: The box entitled “effect of notification” must read:

Effect of notification

• The aid cannot be granted before being approved by the Commission.

• Non-notified aid is unlawful and in principle must be paid back; e.g. Deufil (1978), CELF I (2008), CELF II (2010).

• Following notification, there is a stand-still obligation on the Member States which is enforced by the national courts.

The box in the last row at the right hand side must read:

Various directives adopted in different contexts; e.g.:
• Prohibition on the abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships: Directive 1999/70/EC;
• Prescription of four months of (unpaid) parental leave for workers; Directive 2010/18/EU (as of 8 March 2012, until then three months: Directive 96/34/EC).

The new directive on self-employment was adopted on 7 July 2010. Accordingly the first box in the 5th row should read:

• Directive 79/7/EEC (statutory social security);
• Directive 2010/41/EU (self-employment).

The new directive on parental leave was adopted on 8 March 2010. Accordingly the third box in the 5th row should read:

• Directive 2010/18/EU (Parental Leave Directive);
• Directive 97/81/EC (Part-time Work Directive).

It would appear that in some copies of the charts book (2nd edition, First Reprint), due to a print shop error, some boxes are simply black (i.e. no text is visible). The correct version can be downloaded here.

A new directive on self-employment was adopted on 7 July 2010. Accordingly the box entitled “Comparatively narrow: sex equality law” (4th row) should read:

Comparatively narrow: sex equality law

Prohibition of sex discrimination:
• Art. 157 TFEU: equal pay and positive action;
• Directive 2006/54/EC (Recast Directive): employment and occupation, including occupational social security;
• Directive 79/7/EEC: statutory social security;
• Directive 2010/41/EU: self-employment, including agriculture;
• Directive 2004/113/EC (Goods and Services Directive): access to, and supply of, goods and services available to the public.

The box in the last row, to the very right, must read:

Direct discrimination:
• Art. 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC (age discrimination); Mangold (2005);
• Art. 4(5) of Directive 2004/113/EC (sex discrimination, in relation to goods and services).

In the last row at the right hand side, add a new box:

Sexual orientation

There is a general principle of equal treatment or non-discrimination on  grounds of sexual orientation.

Römer (2011)

A codified version of the audiovisual media services was adopted on 10 March 2010. Accordingly the notes box at the bottom should read:

Notes:

• After Cassis de Dijon (1979) and through the development of the definition of restrictions as a legal concept by the ECJ, the Cassis de Dijon principle also applies in other fields of EU Treaty law; see Chart 8/35, Chart 8/63.

• The Cassis de Dijon principle also applies in the framework of certain secondary legislation; e.g. Art. 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC (e-commerce Directive); Arts. 2 and 3 of Directive 2010/13/EU (Audiovisual Media Services Directive).

Regarding the box entitled “For non-privileged applicants: only certain types of acts” (bottom, on the right-hand side), second bullet point, a case involving the definition of the terms “regulatory act” has been decided by the General Court: Case T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, order of 6 September 2011, n.y.r.

In a previous order of 30 April 2010 concerning the application for interim measures, the General Court stated (para. 44 et seq. of the Order): “[...] should Article 263 TFEU be applicable to the present case, the admissibility of the main action could depend on the interpretation of the concept of “regulatory act” in the fourth paragraph of that provision. In that regard, as the Parliament and the Council point out, that category of act would probably have to be defined in relation to that of “legislative acts”, subject to the particular circumstance, in the present case, that Regulation No 1007/2009 was not adopted in accordance with the legislative procedure laid down in Article 294 TFEU. [...] in the context of the interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the question would arise as to the circumstances in which a regulatory act does not require implementing measures.” The General Court observed that the Courts of the European Union had not, as yet, had the opportunity to rule on these issues “which are, moreover, of some legal complexity”.

On 6 September 2011, the General Court (7th Chamber, extended composition consisting of 5 judges) issued an order deciding of the admissibility of the action in the Inuit case, and more specifically about the question of whether the Regulation at issue in this case (Regulation 1007/2009 on trade in seal products) is a „regulatory act“ within the meaning of Art. 263(4) TFEU. The Court, relying on a literal, historical and teleological interpretation approach, decided that the term „regulatory act“ within the meaning of Art. 263(4) TFEU covers „all acts of general application apart from legislative acts“. In the context of the historical interpretation element, the Court relied on the history of the new part of Art. 263 TFEU, i.e. the corresponding provision in the Constitutional Treaty, and the meaning given to it by the Praesidium of the Convention. As for the term “legislative act”, following the Lisbon revision, under Art. 289 TFEU legislative acts are acts adopted in a legislative procedure, i.e. in a procedure in which the European Parliament and the Council jointly adopt the act in question. That was the case in relation to the specific regulation in question in the Inuit case, which had been adopted on the basis of Art. 95 EC, and thus in the ordinary legislative procedure (co-decision).

The fifth box must read:

Art. 263 TFEU: “acts intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties”.

Meaning: measures with legal effects which are binding on the applicant and are capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his or her legal position; Bank Austria (2006), Vischim (2009).

Examples of non-reviewable acts:
• Informal communications such as telex messages; Sucrimex (1980); unless they have legal effects; France v Commission (1997);
• Internal instructions, unless in reality they constitute a decision; France v Commission (1990);
• Preliminary, preparatory or intermediary measures; e.g. IBM (1981), Fern Olivieri (2003), Reynolds Tobacco (2006), Cestas (2008).

The box in the 3rd row, at the right hand side, must read:

E.g.:
• Lack of consultation with the EP in the consultation procedure (see Chart 5/8); Roquette Frères (1980);
• Refusal of information; Timex (1985);
• In the enforcement procedure (see Chart 12/14), the Commission issued a letter of formal notice relating to the failure to transpose a directive in respect of which the time-limit for implementation had not yet expired; Commission v Luxembourg (2005).

The box in the 3rd row at the right hand side must read:

Urgent procedure

So-called “PPU”: Procédure préjudicielle d’urgence

The box in the 4th row at the right hand side must read:

Sufficiently serious breach

Factors to be taken into account include:
• The clarity and precision of the rule breached;
• The measure of discretion left by the rule to the authorities;
• Whether the infringement and the damage caused was intentional or involuntary;
• Whether any error of law was excusable or inexcusable;
• The fact that the position taken by an EU institution may have contributed towards the omission, the adoption or retention of national measures or practices contrary to EU law.

A breach of EU law is certainly sufficiently serious if it has persisted despite a judgment finding the infringement, or a preliminary ruling or settled case-law from which it is clear that the conduct constitutes an infringement.

Brasserie du Pêcheur (1996), Köbler (2003)

Due to republication of certain official texts in the Official Journal in March 2010, the list under the heading „I.1. Community and EU Treaties, Charter of Fundamental Rights, Protocols and Declarations“ on pp. 324 and 325 must be adapted in order to read as follows:

• Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, signed in 1951, not published in the OJ, see: http://www.eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/treaties_founding.htm, English translation: 261 U.N.T.S. 143 (expired 23 July 2002; “Paris Treaty”)

• Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, signed in 1957, not published in the OJ in its original version, see: http://www.eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/treaties_founding.htm, English translation: 298 U.N.T.S. 169 (as amended; “Rome Treaty”), most recent codified version: OJ 2010 C 84/1

• Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, signed in 1957, not published in the OJ in its original version, see: http://www.eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/treaties_founding.htm, English translation: 298 U.N.T.S. 11 (as amended; “Rome Treaty”; later renamed “Treaty Establishing the European Community”, since 1 December 2010 “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”), most recent codified version: OJ 2010 C 83/47

• Treaty establishing a single Council and a single Commission of the European Communities, signed in 1965, OJ L 152/2 (“Merger Treaty”)

• Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage, signed in 1976, attached to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom, OJ 1976 L 278/1

• Single European Act, signed in 1986, OJ 1987 L 169/1

• Treaty on European Union, signed in 1992, OJ 1992 C 191/1, most recent codified version: OJ 2010 C 83/13

• Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and related acts, signed in 1997, OJ 1997 C 340/1 (“Amsterdam Treaty”)

• Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts, signed in 2001, OJ 2001 C 80/1 (“Nice Treaty”; consolidated versions: OJ 2002 C 325/01)

• Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, signed in 2004, OJ 2004 C 319 (not entered into force; ”Constitutional Treaty”)

• Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed in 1997, OJ 2007 C 306 (“Lisbon Treaty”, consolidated versions: OJ 2008 C 115, OJ 2010 C 83)

• Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, signed in 1957 (as amended and renamed), OJ 1992 C 191/1, most recent codified version: OJ 2010 C 83/47

• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (including explanations relating to the interpretation of the Charter), OJ 2010 C 83/389 (originally: OJ 2000 C 364/01, subsequently reenacted: OJ 2007 C 303/1)

 

• Protocol on social policy, OJ 1992 C 191/90 (no longer in force)

• Protocol on protection and welfare of animals, OJ 1997 C 340/110 (no longer in force)

• Protocol (No 1) (annexed to the Lisbon Treaty) amending the Protocols annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty establishing the European Community and/or to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, OJ 2007 C 306/165

• Protocol (No 2) (annexed to the Lisbon Treaty) amending the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, OJ 2007 C 306/199

• Protocol (No 1) on the role of national parliaments in the European Union, OJ 2010 C 83/203

• Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, OJ 2010 C 83/206

• Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice, OJ 2010 C 83/210

• Protocol (No 6) on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union, OJ 2010 C 83/265

• Protocol (No 8) relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, OJ 2010 C 83/273

• Protocol (No 12) on the excessive deficit procedure, OJ 2010 C 83/279

• Protocol (No 13) on the convergence criteria, OJ 2010 C 83/281

• Protocol (No 15) on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, OJ 2010 C 83/284

• Protocol (No 16) on certain provisions relating to Denmark, OJ 2010 C 83/287

• Protocol (No 19) on the Schengen Acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, OJ 2010 C 83/290

• Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest, OJ 2010 C 83/308

• Protocol (No 27) on the internal market and competition, OJ 2010 C 83/309

• Protocol (No 30) on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and the United Kingdom, OJ 2010 C 83/313

• Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, OJ 2010 C 83/322

 

• Declaration (No 4) on the composition of the European Parliament, OJ 2010 C 83/337

• Declaration (No 7) on Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ 2010 C 83/338

• Declaration (No 9) on Article 16(9) of the Treaty on European Union concerning the European Council decision on the exercise of the Presidency of the Council, OJ 2010 C 83/341

• Declaration (No 17) concerning primacy, OJ 2010 C 83/344

• Declaration (No 18) in relation to the delimitation of competences, OJ 2010 C 83/344

• Declaration (No 38) on Article 252 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding the number of Advocates-General in the Court of Justice, OJ 2010 C 83/350

Replace the following entry:

Regulation 2658/2000/EC on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of specialisation agreements, OJ 2000 L 304/3 (as amended; end of validity: 31 December 2010)

with

Regulation 1218/2010/EU on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of specialisation agreements, OJ 2010 L 335/43 (end of validity: 31 December 2022)

Replace the following entry:

Regulation 2659/2000/EC on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of research and   development agreements, OJ 2000 L 304/7 (as amended; end of validity: 31 December 2010)

with

Regulation 1217/2010/EU on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of research and development agreements, OJ 2010 L 335/36 (end of validity: 31 December 2022)

Add the following new entries:

Regulation 182/2011/EU laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, OJ 2011 L 55/13

Regulation 1259/2010/EU of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, OJ 2010 L 343/10

Regulation 211/2011/EU on the citizens’ initiative, OJ 2011 L 65/1

Complete the following entry:

Directive 86/613/EEC on the application of the principle of equal treatment bet ween men and womenengaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self- employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood, OJ 1986 L 359/56 (as of 5 August 2012 no longer in force)

Replace the following entry:

Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services, OJ 1989 L 298/23 (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (as amended)

with

Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), OJ 2010 L 95/1

Complete the following entry:

Directive 96/34/EC on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, OJ 1996 L 145/4 (as amended, as of 8 March 2012 no longer in force)

Add the following entries:

Directive 2010/18/EU implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC, OJ 2010 L 68/13

Directive 2010/41/EU on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Council Directive 86/613/EEC, OJ 2010 L 180/1

Add the following entry:

Decision 2010/405/EU authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, OJ 2010 L 189/12

Replace the following entry:

Commission Notice: Guidelines on horizontal co-operation agreements, OJ 2001 C 3/2

with

Commission Guidelines on horizontal co-operation agreements, OJ 2011 C 11/1

Replace the following entry:

Commission Notice: Guidelines on vertical restraints, OJ 2000 C 29/11

with

Commission Notice: Guidelines on vertical restraints, OJ 2010 C 130/1

The following entries should read:

Rules of Procedure of the General Court, OJ 1991 L 136/1, as amended

Add two cases:

CELF I (2008)          Case C-199/06 CELF and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v SIDE [2008] ECR I-469 (Grand Chamber)……………9/44

CELF II (2010)          Case C-1/09 CELF and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v SIDE, judgment of 10 March 2010, n.y.r…………….9/44

The following entry should read:

Chemical Farmaceutici (1981):          Case 140/79 Chemial Farmaceutici SpA v DAF SpA [1981] ECR 1……………8/12

The following entry should read:

Excessive Deficit Procedure (2004):          Case C-27/04 Commission v Council [2004] ECR I-6649 (Full Court)…………………..7/5, 12/12

The following entry should be added (update):

Inuit (2011):          Case    T-18/10    Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, order of 6 September 2011, n.y.r…………….12/7

The following entries should read:

Janecek (2008):          Case    C-237/07    Dieter    Janecek    v    Freistaat    Bayern    [2008]    ECR    I-06221……………6/3

Job Centre (1997):          Case C-55/96 Job Centre coop. arl. [1997] ECR I-7119 ……………9/3

The following missing entry should be added:

Jégo-Quéré (2002):          Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA v Commission [2002] ECR 2002 II-2365……………12/8

Add the following new case:

Römer (2011)          Case C-147/08 Jürgen Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, judgment of 10 May 2011, n.y.r. (Grand Chamber)……………10/14

The following entry should read:

Royal Scholten-Honig (1978):          Joined cases 103 and 145/77 Royal Scholten-Honig (Holdings) Limited v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce; Tunnel Refineries Limited v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce [1978] ECR 2037 ……………7/13, 12/29

Add two missing cases:

Schneider (2007) Case T-351/03 Schneider Electric SA v Commission [2007] ECR II-2237 ……………12/29

Schneider (2009) Case C-440/07 P Commission v Schneider Electric SA, judgment of 16 July 2009, n.y.r. (Grand Chamber) ……………12/29

The following entry should read:

Strawberries (1997):          Case    C-265/95    Commission    v    France    [1997]    ECR    I-6959……………1/12, 8/3, 8/5, 8/30, 12/16

Add case:

Perreux (2009)          Emmanuelle Perreux, judgment of the French Conseil d’État of 30 October 2009……………6/3