Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T20:19:08.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

4 Economic and Monetary Union – A Model for Flexibility?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

John Usher
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With hindsight, the Maastricht Treaty introduced two different forms of flexibility or differentiated integration. The Social Protocol took the form of a permission by all the Member States to a group of Member States to use Community institutions and legislation, which can be seen as the precursor of the general provisions on “closer cooperation” in the Amsterdam Treaty. On the other hand, the provisions on Economic and Monetary Union provide for some Member States to receive opt-outs or derogations from binding Treaty obligations and thus provide the model for the new Title of the EC Treaty on visa, asylum and immigration introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 1 , 1998 , pp. 39 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Protocol 11 para.2. Notice given on 3 November 1997.

2 [1991] ECR I-6079.

3 OJ 1990 L78/23.

4 OJ 1990 L78/25.

5 Article 122 (Article 109K).

6 Article Article 122 (5) (Article 109K (5)).

6a OJ 1998 L154/33.

7 Article 116 (Article 109e (3)).

8 Article 122 (Article 109k(3) and (4)).

9 UK Protocol Article 5.

10 Though it will be recalled that under Article 118(1) (Article 109(1)) it needs to act unanimously to conclude the resultant agreement.

11 Report of the EMI to the informal ECOFIN Council, Verona, 12–13 April 1996.

12 OJ 1997 C236/5, printed as Appendix I to this paper.

13 European Council Resolution of 5 December 1978, EC Bulletin 1978 No.12 point 1.1.11.

14 Annex I to the Conclusions of the Luxembourg European Council, 12 and 13 December 1997, printed as Appendix II to this paper.

15 Council Regulation 1103/97 OJ 1997 L162/1, printed as Appendix III to this paper.

16 OJ 1997 C 236/7.

16a OJ 1998 L139/1, printed as Appendix IV to this paper.

17 Case 166/78 [1979] ECR 2575, 2596.

18 E.g. Case 45/86 Commission v. Council [1987] ECR 1493.

19 See Case 90/74 Deboeck v. Commission [1975] ECR 1123.

20 Case 259/87 France v. Commission [1987] ECR 4393.

21 Case C–298/89 [1993] ECR I-3605.

22 Usher, J. “Variable Geometry or Concentric Circles: Patterns for the European Union” (1997) 46 ICLQ 243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Case 12/76 [1976] ECR 1473.

24 Case 12/76 [1976] ECR 1473.

25 See, to take a couple of random examples, Case 60/81 IBM v. Commission [1981] ECR 2639, or Case C–49/88 Al-Jubail Fertiliser v. Council [1991] ECR I–3187.

26 Cases C–294/88 & C–194/89 Dzodzi [1990] ECR I–3763, and Case 231/89 Gmorzynska-Bscher [1990] ECR I-4003.