Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE; commonly referred to as the European Constitution or as the Constitutional Treaty) was an unratified international treaty intended to create a consolidated constitution for the European Union (EU). It would have replaced the existing European Union treaties with a single text, given legal force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and expanded Qualified Majority Voting into policy areas which had previously been decided by unanimity among member states.

This article is about the abandoned 2004 proposal. For the constitutional basis of the EU, see Treaties of the European Union.
Treaty establishing a
Constitution for Europe
Draft of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, 17 June 2004
TypeUnratified treaty
DraftedJune 2004
Signed29 October 2004
LocationRome, Italy
Sealed8 November 2004
SignatoriesEU member states
Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe at Wikisource
Part of a series on the
History of the
European Union
 European Union portal

The Treaty was signed on 29 October 2004 by representatives of the then 25 member states of the European Union. It was later ratified by 18 member states, which included referendums endorsing it in Spain and Luxembourg. However, the rejection of the document by French and Dutch voters in May and June 2005 brought the ratification process to an end.

Following a period of reflection, the Treaty of Lisbon was created to replace the Constitutional Treaty. This contained many of the changes that were originally placed in the Constitutional Treaty but was formulated as amendments to the existing treaties. Signed on 13 December 2007, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009.

History

Drafting

The drafting for European Constitution began in a call for a new debate on the future of Europe at the Laeken European Council in December 2001. A European Convention was founded shortly afterward which was chaired by former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and composed of two Members of Parliament (generally one from the governing majority and one from the opposition) of each Member State and applicant state, 16 MEPs, 2 members of the European Commission [1] and a representative from each government. It met in public. Giscard d'Estaing proposed to draft a Constitution. Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission backed a draft text, called the 'Penelope Project', which contained a deeper integration of the countries and a clearer institutional model.[2]

After protracted negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) during the Italian presidency, disputes arose over the proposed framework for qualified majority voting: the final text of the TCE was settled in June 2004 under the Irish presidency.

Signing
Main article: Signatories to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was signed in Rome on 29 October 2004 by 53 senior political figures from the 25 member states of the European Union. In most cases heads of state designated plenipotentiaries to sign the treaty, but some presidents also signed on behalf of states which were republics. Most designated plenipotentiaries were prime ministers and foreign ministers.

Ratification
Ratifications in member states and candidate countries
  Yes – Part of accession treaty
  Yes – Parliament vote
  Yes – Referendum
  No – Referendum
  Referendum cancelled and never held
  Referendum never held

On 12 January 2005 the European Parliament voted a legally non-binding resolution in support of the Constitution by 500 votes in favour to 137 votes against, with 40 abstentions.[3]

Before an EU treaty can enter into force, it must be ratified by all member states. Ratification takes different forms in each country, depending on its traditions, constitutional arrangements and political processes. Most member states ratify EU treaties following parliamentary votes, while some — notably Ireland and Denmark — sometimes hold referendums, in Ireland's case where the treaty requires a constitutional amendment as all amendments have to be approved by referendum. As a reaction to what was seen as the novel nature of the Constitution, many advocates and opponents of the Constitution argued that it should be subjected to referendums across the European Union.[4]

On 20 April 2004 then British prime minister Tony Blair unexpectedly announced an intention to hold a referendum, a proposal which he had previously rejected. A further seven member states announced or had already announced that they would hold referendums on the Constitution, these being Denmark, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.

Spain was the first country to hold a referendum on the Constitution. On 20 February 2005, Spanish voters backed the treaty with 76% voting in favour to 24% against, on a turnout of 43%.[5]

On 29 May 2005 the French people rejected the Constitution by margin of 55% to 45% on a turnout of 69%. On 1 June, the Dutch rejected the constitution by a margin of 61% to 39% on a turnout of 62%.

Notwithstanding the rejection in France and the Netherlands, Luxembourg held a referendum on 10 July 2005 approving the Constitution by 57% to 43%. It was the last referendum to be held on the Constitution as all of the other member states that had proposed to hold referendums cancelled them.

Post-rejection

After the French and Dutch referendum results European leaders decided to hold a "period of reflection" on what to do next.[6] As part of this reflection period a "group of wise men" was set up to consider possible courses of action.[7] This group of high-level European politicians – former prime ministers, ministers and members of the European Commission – first met on 30 September 2006 in Rome.[8]

On 4 June 2007, this group, known as the Amato Group, presented its report. They proposed to establish a new Inter-Governmental Conference with a view to writing a new treaty which would rewrite the Maastricht Treaty, amend the Treaty of Rome and give the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union a legally binding status. The new treaty would be based on the first and fourth parts of the Constitution, the rest of the Constitution's changes being achieved through amendments to the Treaty of Rome.[9]

In the June 2007 European summit meeting, Member States agreed to abandon the constitution and to amend the existing treaties, which would remain in force. They also agreed a detailed mandate for a new intergovernmental conference to negotiate a new treaty containing such amendments to the existing treaties (primarily the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Maastricht). These negotiations were completed by the end of the year. The new treaty, which had previously been referred to as the Reform Treaty, became the Lisbon Treaty on its signing in Lisbon on 13 December 2007.

National processes at a glance
Member state[10] Date Result[11] Deposition with Italian Government[12]
 Lithuania11 November 2004Yes. Seimas: 84 to 4 in favour, 3 abstentions.[13] 17 December 2004
 Hungary20 December 2004Yes. Országgyűlés: 323 to 12 in favour, 8 abstention.[14] 30 December 2004
 Slovenia1 February 2005Yes. Državni zbor: 79 to 4 in favour, 0 abstentions.[15] 9 May 2005
 Italy25 January 2005
6 April 2005		Yes. Camera dei Deputati: 436 to 28 in favour, 5 abstentions.[16]
Yes. Senato della Repubblica: 217 to 16 in favour, 0 abstentions.[17]		 25 May 2005
 Spain20 February 2005
28 April 2005
18 May 2005
20 May 2005		Yes. Consultative referendum: 76.73% to 17.24% in favour, 6.03% blanks, 42.32% participation.[18][19]
Yes. Congreso de los Diputados: 311 to 19 in favour, 0 abstentions.[20]
Yes. Senado: 225 to 6 in favour, 1 abstention.[21]
Royal Assent. HM the King[22]		 15 June 2005
 Austria11 May 2005
25 May 2005		Yes. Nationalrat: Approved by show of hands with 1 against.[23]
Yes. Bundesrat: Approved by show of hands with three against.[24]		 17 June 2005
 Greece19 April 2005Yes. Hellenic Parliament: 268 to 17 in favour, 15 abstentions.[25] 28 July 2005
 Malta6 July 2005Yes. Il-Kamra: Agreed without a division.[26] 2 August 2005
 Cyprus30 June 2005Yes. Cyprus Parliament: 30 to 19 in favour, one abstention.[27] 6 October 2005
 Latvia2 June 2005Yes. Saeima: 71 to 5 in favour, six abstentions.[28] 3 January 2006
 Luxembourg10 July 2005
25 October 2005		Yes. Consultative referendum: 56.52% to 43.48% in favour, 87.77% participation.[29][30]
Yes. Châmber: 57 to 1 in favour, no abstentions.[31]		 30 January 2006
 Belgium28 April 2005
19 May 2005
17 June 2005
20 June 2005
29 June 2005
19 July 2005
8 February 2006		Yes. Senaat/Sénat: 54 to 9 in favour, one abstention.[32]
Yes. Kamer/Chambre: 118 to 18 in favour, one abstention.[33]
Yes. Parlement Bruxellois/Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Parlement: 70 to 10 in favour, 0 abstentions.[34]
Yes. Parlament der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft: 21 to 2 in favour, no abstentions.[35]
Yes. Parlement wallon: 55 to 2 in favour, 0 abstention.[36]
Yes. Parlement de la Communauté française: 79 to 0 in favour, no abstentions.[37]
Yes. Vlaams Parlement: 84 to 29 in favour, one abstention.[38]		 13 June 2006
 Estonia9 May 2006Yes. Riigikogu: 73 to 1 in favour, no abstentions.[39] 26 September 2006
 Bulgaria1 January 2007Yes. Due to the provisions of Treaty of Accession 2005 Not required
 Romania1 January 2007Yes. Due to the provisions of Treaty of Accession 2005 Not required
 Slovakia11 May 2005Yes. Národná rada: 116 to 27 in favour, four abstentions.[40]
 Germany12 May 2005
27 May 2005
31 October 2006		Yes. Bundestag: 569 to 23 in favour, two abstentions.[41]
Yes. Bundesrat: 66 to 0 in favour, three abstentions.[42]
Frozen. Constitutional Court
 Finland
incl.  Åland[43]		5 December 2006
Cancelled		Yes. Eduskunta/Riksdag: 125 to 39 in favour, four abstentions.[44]
Lagting[45]
 France29 May 2005
Cancelled
Cancelled		No. Referendum: 54.68% to 45.32% against, 69.34% participation.[46][47]
Assemblée Nationale:
Sénat:
 Netherlands1 June 2005
Cancelled
Cancelled		No. Consultative referendum: 61.54% to 38.46% against, 63.30% participation.[48][49]
Tweede Kamer:
Eerste Kamer:
 Czech RepublicCancelled
Cancelled
Cancelled		Referendum:
Senát:
Poslanecká sněmovna:
 DenmarkCancelled
Cancelled		Referendum:
Folketinget:
 IrelandCancelled
Cancelled
Cancelled		Referendum:
Dáil Éireann:
Seanad Éireann:
 PolandCancelled
Cancelled
Cancelled		Referendum:
Sejm:
Senat:
 PortugalCancelled
Cancelled		Referendum:
Assembleia da Republica:
 SwedenCancelledRiksdag:
 United KingdomCancelled
Cancelled
Cancelled
Cancelled		Referendum:
House of Commons:
House of Lords:
Her Majesty The Queen:

Content

Institutional structure

Under the TCE, the Council of the European Union would have been formally renamed the "Council of Ministers", which is already its informal title. The "General Affairs Council" would have been formally split from the "Foreign Affairs Council", which had informally held meetings separately since June 2002.

The TCE proposed the formal recognition of a flag, an anthem and a motto for the Union, although none of them were new.

Conferral, subsidiarity, proportionality

The TCE would have reiterated several key principles of how the Union functions:

  • the principle of conferral: that all EU competences are conferred on it voluntarily by member states;
  • the principle of subsidiarity: that governmental decisions should be taken at the lowest level possible while still remaining effective;
  • the principle of proportionality: that the EU may only act to exactly the extent that is needed to achieve its objectives;
  • the primacy of EU law: in areas where member states have made legally binding agreements at EU level, they may not then pass national laws incompatible with those EU laws.

The TCE would have specified that the EU is a union of member states, and that all its competences (areas of responsibility) are voluntarily conferred on it by its member states according to the principle of conferral. The EU would have no competences by right, and thus any areas of policy not explicitly specified in the Constitution would have remained the domain of the sovereign member states (notwithstanding the ‘flexibility clause').

According to the TCE, the EU may act (i.e. make laws) only where its member states agree unanimously that actions by individual countries would be insufficient. This is the principle of subsidiarity, and is based on the legal and political principle that governmental decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible while still remaining effective. It is a main argument against claims that Europe limits national sovereignty but critics say that it is a principle to which lip service only is paid, and, in practice, the reach of the EU has been increasingly ambitious.

Primacy of Union law

Amongst European countries, the European Court of Justice has consistently ruled since 1964 that EU law has primacy over the laws of member states in the areas where member states allow it to legislate. National law which is incompatible with an agreement already made at European level is deemed to be 'disapplied' when questions arise in courts. This controversial and fundamental principle of European Community law was first recognised in the case of Van Gend en Loos in 1963 which was followed in Costa v. ENEL in 1964.

A European Constitutional Court

To enforce compliance of the European Law with the EU Constitution, especially for the Acts approved by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the Treaty doesn't mention a European Constitutional Court, nor names it explicitly with this traditional clause for the EU member States.

According to the European Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), natural or legal persons are allowed to:

  • institute proceedings to the Court against an act addressed to them or a "direct and individual concern to them" (article 263; e.g. a subjective right or a legitimate interest). Such a type includes direct "proceedings against the EU institutions for annulment and for failure to act";[50]
  • comply actions to the Court for a failure to act, which happens when the counterpart, after two months from the call upon act, has failed to produce and address "any act other than a recommendation or an opinion" (article 265).

At the Article 256 it is stated that the "General Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine actions or proceedings brought against decisions of the specialised courts" and also it has "jurisdiction in all first instance actions or proceedings".[51] Such a type includes direct "actions for annulment of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the EU or for failure to act brought against the institutions by individuals or legal persons"[50]

Also the European Court of Human Rights (EHCR) has competence on EU constitutional matters. It enforces the EU Convention for Human Rights, promulgated and currently concerning with the Council of Europe: the Treaty of Lisbon states that the "agreement on Union accession to the Convention for Human Rights" shall be acted and approved unanimously by the Council, and "after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament". The Council -which is an unelective organism- shall adopt any decision without involving the Parliament, "where agreements relate exclusively to the common foreign and security policy".[52] The EU Constitution mentions the EHCR explicitly only in the declarations as a regularly dialoguing counterpart of the Court of Justice, and with Czech Republic stressing that "nothing in the Charter may be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognised...by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms".

In the Loizidou v. Turkey case of 1995, the ECHR defined itself as "a constitutional instrument of European public order"[53] and, in the Bosphorus case of 2005, as the (ultimate) competent Court when an EU member State "could as a matter of law exercise independent discretion".[54][55] It also ruled that "the Contracting Parties to the ECHR are not prohibited from transferring sovereign power to an international organisation, but that they remain responsible for all acts and omissions of their organs, regardless whether the act or omission was a consequence of domestic law or of the necessity to comply with international legal obligations", providing that "Convention rights continue to be ‘secured’".[54][56]

Common values of the Union's member states

As stated in Articles I-1 and I-2, the Union is open to all European States that respect the member states' common values, namely:

Member states also declare that the following principles prevail in their society:

Some of these provisions would have been codified for the first time in the TCE.

Aims of the Union

The aims of the EU were stated to be (Article I-3):

In its relations with the wider world the Union's objectives are:

  • to uphold and promote its values and interests.
  • to contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth.
  • solidarity and mutual respect among people.
  • free and fair trade.
  • eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child.
  • strict observance and development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

Scope of the Union

Competences

The EU has six exclusive competences, policy areas in which member states have agreed that they should act exclusively through the EU and not legislate at a national level. The list remains unchanged from the previous treaties:

  • customs union;
  • those competition rules that govern the internal market;
  • eurozone monetary policy;
  • conservation of marine biological resources (the Common Fisheries Policy);
  • common commercial policy;
  • the conclusion of certain limited international agreements.

There are a number of shared competences. These are areas in which member states agree to act individually only where they have not already acted through the EU, or where the EU has ceased to act (though these are areas where member states may act both nationally and through the EU if they wish). Three new competences have been added to those in previous treaties.

There are a number of areas where the EU may take only supporting, coordinating or complementary action. In these areas, member states do not confer any competences on the Union, but they agree to act through the Union in order to support their work at national level. Again, three new competences have been added to those from previous treaties.

Flexibility clause

The TCE's flexibility clause allows the EU to act in areas not made explicit in the TCE, but only:

  • if all member states agree;
  • with the consent of the European Parliament; and
  • where this is necessary to achieve an agreed objective under the TCE.

This clause has been present in EU law since the original Treaty of Rome, which established the EEC in 1958.

Common foreign and security policy

The EU is charged with defining and implementing a common foreign and security policy in due time. The wording of this article is taken from the existing Treaty on European Union.

New provisions

The TCE was going to state explicitly that the EU had a legal personality. Prior to this, the treaties explicitly stated that the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom each had their own separate legal personality, but remained silent over whether the European Union itself had one. They did mandate the EU "to assert its identity on the international scene",[57] and permitted the European Union to enter into treaties. Brsakoska-Bazerkoska,[58] and Choutheete and Ndoura[59] argue that the EU had an implicit legal personality prior to the Treaty of Lisbon; the latter treaty also contained an express statement that the EU had a legal personality.

New competences

The TCE would have conferred upon the EU as new 'shared competences' the areas of territorial cohesion, energy, and space. These are areas where the EU may act alongside its individual member states. The EU has conferred upon it as new areas of 'supporting, coordinating or complementary action' the areas of tourism, sport, and administrative co-operation.

Criminal justice proceedings

Member states would have continued to co-operate in some areas of criminal judicial proceedings where they agree to do so, as at present. Under the TCE, seven new areas of co-operation would have been added:

Solidarity clause

The new solidarity clause of the TCE specifies that any member state which falls victim to a terrorist attack or other disaster will receive assistance from other member states, if it requests it. The type of assistance to be offered is not specified. Instead, the arrangements will be decided by the Council of Ministers should the situation arise.[60]

European Public Prosecutor

Provision exists for the creation of a European Public Prosecutor's Office, if all member states agree to it and if the European Parliament gives its consent.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Main article: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The TCE includes a copy of the Charter already agreed to by all EU member states. This is included in the Constitution so that EU institutions themselves are obliged to conform to the same standards of fundamental rights. At the time of the Charter's original agreement, the British Government said that it did not have binding effect. Incorporation into TCE would have put its importance beyond doubt.

Simplification

The TCE made an effort to simplify jargon and reduce the number of EU legal instruments. However, it is a long document couched in technical terms, which proved unpopular when presented (for example) to French voters in their referendum on the TCE.

The TCE unifies legal instruments across areas of policy (referred to as pillars of the European Union in previous treaties). Specifically:

Position of Union Minister for Foreign Affairs

Under the TCE, the role of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy would be amalgamated with the role of the Commissioner for External Relations. This would create a new Union Minister for Foreign Affairs who would also be a Vice President of the Commission. This individual would be responsible for co-ordinating foreign policy across the Union, representing the EU abroad in areas where member states agree to speak with one voice.

Functioning of the institutions

Qualified majority voting

More day-to-day decisions in the Council of Ministers would be to be taken by qualified majority voting, requiring a 55% majority of members of the Council representing a 65% majority of citizens. (The 55% is raised to 72% when the Council acts on its own initiative rather than on a legislative proposal from the Commission or the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs.) The unanimous agreement of all member states would only be required for decisions on more sensitive issues, such as tax, social security, foreign policy and defence.

President of the European Council

The six-month rotating Presidency of the European Council would switch to a chair chosen by the heads of government, in office for 2½ years and renewable once. The role itself would remain administrative and non-executive, but rather than the Presidency being held by a member state as at present, it would be held by an individual elected by and accountable to the Council.

President of the Council of Ministers

The six-month rotating Presidency of the Council of Ministers, which currently coincides with the Presidency of the European Council, would be changed to an 18-month rotating Presidency shared by a trio of member countries, in an attempt to provide more continuity. The exception would be the Council's Foreign Affairs configuration, which would be chaired by the newly created Union Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Smaller Commission

The Commission would be reduced in size from 27 to 18 by the year 2014. There would be fewer Commissioners, with member states taking it in turn to nominate Commissioners two times out of three.

Parliamentary power and transparency
  • President of the Commission: The candidate for President of the European Commission would be proposed by the European Council, after consultation with the European Parliament, and would be elected by the European Parliament. Parliament would have the final say.
  • Parliament as co-legislature: The European Parliament would acquire equal legislative power under the codecision procedure with the Council in virtually all areas of policy. Previously, it had this power in most cases but not all.
  • Meeting in public: The Council of Ministers would be required to meet in public when debating all new laws. Currently, it meets in public only for texts covered under the codecision procedure.
  • Budget: The final say over the EU's annual budget would be given to the European Parliament. Agricultural spending would no longer be ring-fenced, and would be brought under the Parliament's control.
  • Role of national parliaments: Member states' national parliaments would be given a new role in scrutinising proposed EU laws, and would be entitled to object if they feel a proposal oversteps the boundary of the Union's agreed areas of responsibility. If the Commission wishes to ignore such an objection, it would be forced to submit an explanation to the parliament concerned and to the Council of Ministers.
  • Popular initiative: The Commission would be invited to consider any proposal "on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Constitution" which has the support of one million citizens. The mechanism by which this would be put into practice has yet to be agreed. (See Article I-46(4) for details.)

Further integration, amendment and withdrawal

Enhanced co-operation

There would have been a tightening of existing rules for 'enhanced cooperation', where some member states would have chosen to act together more closely and others not. A minimum of one third of member states would now be forced to participate in any enhanced cooperation, and the agreement of the European Parliament is needed. The option for enhanced cooperation would also be widened to all areas of agreed EU policy.

Treaty revisions

Traditionally amendments to the EU treaties were considered in inter-governmental conferences in which the European Council would meet in long private sessions in order to reach unanimous agreement on the proposed changes. The Convention which wrote the draft constitutional treaty was quite different in this regard. It met in public and was composed of a mix of national and European politicians. The Constitution proposed that amendments to the Constitution would be drafted by a convention unless both the Council of Minister and the European Parliament agreed otherwise.

A simplified revision was created for changes which might be proposed to be made to Title III of Part III of the TCE on the internal policies and action of the Union. Changes to this Title could be made by a decision of the European Council subject to it being ratified by all member states.

The Constitution also proposed a general 'passerelle clause' (Article IV-444) with which the European Council could agree to:

  • move from unanimity voting to qualified majority voting, or
  • move from a special legislative procedure to the ordinary legislative procedure.

in a specific policy area.

Although the Lisbon Treaty, was itself drafted behind closed doors, it adopted the amendment procedures proposed by the Constitution.

Withdrawal clause

A new clause in the TCE provided for the unilateral withdrawal of any member state from the Union (clause I-60). Under this clause, when a country notifies the Council of its intent to withdraw, a settlement is agreed in the Council with the consent of Parliament. If negotiations are not agreed within two years, the country leaves anyway. An identical provision was subsequently inserted into the treaties by the Lisbon Treaty.

gollark: This will happen after RPNcalc68.
gollark: Apioprotocol 113-Sigma.
gollark: esoteric programming language.
gollark: Everyone, PRODUCE REVERSE POLISH NOTATION CALCULATOR.
gollark: You wake up at *6:30*? Weird.

See also

References
  1. "The European Convention". European-convention.eu.int. Archived from the original on 2012-01-25. Retrieved 2012-01-01.
  2. "Penelope project on constitution" (PDF) (in Italian). Retrieved 2012-01-01.
  3. cs – čeština (2005-01-12). "Daily Notebook – 12-01-2005". Europarl.europa.eu. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  4. Honor Mahony (31 May 2003), "Ratification problems loom over Convention", EUObserver.com, retrieved 27 February 2009; Sarah Hall (26 May 2003), "Giscard backs calls for referendum on EU constitution", The Guardian, London, retrieved 27 February 2009; David Charter (21 October 2003), "Tories issue demand on Europe referendum", The Times, London, retrieved 27 February 2009
  5. "Spain voters approve EU charter". BBC News. 20 February 2005. Retrieved 26 May 2010.
  6. Patrick Wintour (17 June 2005), "EU scraps timetable for ratifying constitution", The Guardian, London, retrieved 27 February 2009
  7. Honor Mahony (28 September 2006). "Select group of politicians to tackle EU constitution". EUobserver.com. Retrieved 27 February 2009.
  8. Beunderman, Mark. "/ Institutional Affairs / EU 'wise' group welcomes new debate on constitution". Euobserver.com. Retrieved 2012-01-01.
  9. A New Treaty and Supplementary Protocols – Explanatory Memorandum (PDF), Brussels: Action Committee for European Democracy, 4 June 2007, p. 2, archived from the original (PDF) on 8 July 2007, retrieved 27 February 2009
  10. Article IV-447 of the Treaty requires that instruments of ratification be deposited with the Government of the Italian Republic in order for the Treaty to enter into force. Each country deposits the instrument of ratification after its internal ratification process is finalised by all required state bodies (parliament and the head of state). Countries are ordered according to the date of deposition of ratification documents. When two countries have deposited the necessary documents on the same date the order is alphabetical.
  11. Results refer to the final round of parliamentary vote when more than one vote is required.
  13. "Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas – Balsavimo rezultatai". 2004-11-11. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  14. "Szavazás adatai". Mkogy.hu. 2004-12-20. Archived from the original on 2012-09-11. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  15. 3C016AB288C3FDCBC1256FA100348841&showdoc=1
  16. "Camera dei Deputati – XV legislatura – Documenti – Progetti di legge – Progetto di legge numero 6194". Legxiv.camera.it. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  17. "Parlamento Italiano – Disegno di legge S. 3269 – 14ª Legislatura". Senato.it. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  18. Participation in Spanish referendum is calculated based on the total number of votes. Results are calculated based on the valid votes only.
  19. Archived February 28, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  20. "Cortes Generales: Diario de Desiones del Congreso de los Diputados" (PDF). Congreso.es. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  21. "SEN PLENO 40" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-01-01.
  22. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2005/05/21/pdfs/A17260-17260.pdf
  23. "Parlamentarische Materialien" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-01-01.
  24. "Parlamentarische Materialien" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-01-01.
  25. Archived June 15, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  26. "Kamra tad-Deputati (Malta)". Parliament.gov.mt. Archived from the original on 2009-03-25. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  27. Archived June 15, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  28. Izstrādātsmendo. "Latvijas Republikas Saeima – Arhīvs". Saeima.lv. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  29. Participation in Luxemburg referendum is calculated based on the total number of valid, non-blank votes. Results are calculated based on the valid, non-blank votes.
  30. "Verfassung fir Europa – Résultat du référendum". Verfassung-fir-europa.lu. 2011-06-22. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  32. "Annales n° 3-110". Senate.be. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  33. "Compte Rendu Analytique : Beknopt Verslag" (PDF). Dekamer.be. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  34. "Verenigde Vergadering van de Gemeenschappelijke Gemeenschapscommissie" (PDF). Weblex.irisnet.be. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  35. "Ausfuhrlicher Bericht Vom 20 Juni 2005" (PDF). Dgparlament.be. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-06-15. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  36. "Parlement Wallon – Session 2004–2005" (PDF). Nautilus.parlement-wallon.be. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  37. "Untitled". Archive.pcf.be. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  38. "Vlaams Parlement" (PDF). Jsp.vlaamsparlement.be. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-03-25. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  41. "Plenarprotokoll 15/175" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-01-01.
  42. "Plenarprotokoll811" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-03-08. Retrieved 2012-01-01.
  43. Åland is an autonomous province of Finland. It is part of the European Union, but is subject to certain exemptions. Åland is not party to the Treaty to establish European constitution, but according to Article IV-440, Paragraph 5 the Treaty will apply on the territory but with derogation. So Åland Parliament ratification is not necessary for the European Constitution to enter into force, but it is needed for provisions of Article IV-440, Paragraph 5 to be applied.
  44. Archived March 7, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  45. Archived October 10, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  46. Participation in French referendum is calculated based on the total number of votes(2.51% of votes were blank or invalid). Results are calculated based on the valid, non-blank votes.
  47. "Proclamation des résultats du référendum du 29 mai 2005". Admi.net. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  48. Participation in Dutch referendum is calculated based on the total number of votes (0.76% of votes were blank or invalid). Results are calculated based on the valid, non-blank votes.
  49. Archived June 10, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  50. "Competences of the Court of Justice of the European Union as a General Court". European Parliament. Archived from the original on 19 July 2019. Retrieved 18 July 2019.
  51. "Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union". Eur-Lex. 26 October 2012. Archived from the original on 28 May 2019.
  52. Treaty of Lisbon - article 300. Archived from the original on 21 July 2015. on Official Journal of the European Union, C 306/1, 17 December 2007
  53. Case of Loizidou vs Turkey - Preliminary objections
  54. "Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland". hudoc.echr.coe.int. Strasbourg. 30 June 2005. Archived from the original on 19 July 2019., at nn. 109, 52, 100 and 152.
  55. Jacob Mchangama (March 2012). The European Court of Human Rights - A European Constitutional Court?. The Federalist Society. 13. Archived from the original on 6 September 2018. Retrieved 19 July 2019.
  56. Tobias Lock. Beyond Bosphorus: the European Court of Human Rights' case law on the responsibility of member States of international organisations under the European Convention on Human Rights (PDF). Human Rights Law Review, Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 10. p. 529–520. doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngq02/ (inactive 2020-01-22). Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 July 2019.
  57. Article B of the Maastricht Treaty as originally signed.
  58. Brsakoska-Bazerkoska, Julija. "The Legal Personality of the EU" (PDF). Iustinianus Primus Law Review. 2011. 2 (1). Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  59. de S Choutheete, Philippe; Ndoura, Sami A. "The Legal Personality of the European Union" (PDF). Studia Diplomatica. 2007. 60 (1). Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  60. Ondarza, Nicolai and Roderick Parkes. "Implementing the Lisbon Treaty's Solidarity Clause], SWP Comment, 2010; Ekengren, Markus et al. (2006) "Solidarity or Sovereignty? EU Cooperation in Civil Protection" in Journal of European Integration 28/5". Swp-berlin.org. pp. 457–476. Retrieved 2012-10-28.

Media overviews
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.