Article 345 TFEU (ex Article 295 EC), Its Meanings and Interpretations

European Law Journal

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 292-314

  Akkermans, Bram ^a   Ramaekers, Eveline ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953888289     PISSN: 13515993     EISSN: 14680386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00509.x     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Article 345 TFEU (ex Art 295 EC).
2. The Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty Establishing the European Community and the preparatory documents show that the text of Art 345 TFEU has not been reconsidered: Arts 294 and 299 EC (now Arts 55, 349 and 355 TFEU and 53 TEU respectively) are dealt with because they have been changed, but the Articles in between these were not discussed. In respect to Art 345 TFEU nothing has changed in the wording of the Article, apart from the fact that 'This Treaty' has been replaced with 'The Treaties', referring to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. As far as the content of the Article is concerned, this change is irrelevant.
3. Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, Green Paper Mortgage Credit in the EU COM(2005) 237 final, White Paper on Mortgage Credit Markets COM(2007) 807 final, Green Paper on Wills and Succession COM(2005) 65 final, and Case C-367/98, Commission v Portugal [2002] ECR I-4731, para 48. See also Case C-483/99, Commission v France [2002] ECR I-4781, para 44, Case C-503/99, Commission v Belgium [2002] ECR I-4809, para 44, Case C-302/97, Klaus Konle v Republik Österreich [1999] ECJ I-3099, and Joined Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and C-526/99 to C-540/99, Hans Reisch and others v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg and others[2002] ECR I-2157.
4. Case C-117/06, Möllendorf and Möllendorf-Niehuus[2007] ECR I-8361.
5. Riegel exclaimed in 1979: 'Es ist erstaunlich, dass es zu diesen Fragen kaum Literatur gibt, obwohl sie doch von zentraler Bedeutung sind für die bisherige und künftige Rechts- und Integrationsentwicklung der EWG.' (It is astonishing, that there is hardly any literature regarding these questions, even though they are of crucial importance for the current and future legal and integration development.) (author's translation); R. Riegel, 'Die Einwirkung des europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts auf die Eigentumsordnung der Mitgliedstaaten - Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Auslegung von Art. 222 EWGV', (1979) 11Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft744-49. See, however, W. Devroe, 'Privatizations and Community Law: Neutrality versus Policy', (1997) 34CMLRev 267; S. Bartels, 'Europees Privaatrecht: Over De Bevoegdheidsverdeling Tussen Unie En Lid-Staat Met Betrekking Tot Het Eigendomsrecht', (1995) 44/4Ars Aequi244-251, Caramelo-Gomes, 'Unification in the Field of Property Law from the Perspective of European Law', in W. Faber and B. Lurger (eds), Rules for the transfer of Movables, a candidate for European Harmonisation or National Reform? (Sellier European Law Publishers, 2008), 239.
6. For example, Exchange of views with Mrs Neelie Kroes, Comissioner for Competition (ECON/6/51938), Meeting of the Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs, 6 October 2008, de auditu.
7. See, for instance, J.H.M. van Erp, European and National Property Law: Osmosis or Growing Antagonism? (Walter van Gerven Lecures, 6; Europa Law Publishing, 2006), 6-7, B. Akkermans, The Principle of Numerus Clausus in European Property Law (Ius Commune Europaeum; Intersentia, 2008), 508-9, Caramelo-Gomes, ibid, at 239, V. Sagaert, 'De verworvenheden van het Europese goederenrecht', in A.S. Hartkamp, C.H. Sieburgh and L.A.D. Keus (eds), De invloed van het Europese recht op het Nederlandse privaatrecht (I; Kluwer, 2007), 301-333.
8. This follows from Art 55 TEU, which lists the 23 authentic versions of the Treaty. See also EEC Council Regulation No 1, 6 October 1958, [1958] OJ L17/385.
9. Case 283/81, CILFIT [1982] ECR 3415.
10. 1See also Case 30/77, Bouchereau [1977] ECR 1999, para 14: 'The different language versions of a Community text must be given a uniform interpretation and hence in the case of divergence between the versions the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms a part'. The two-step method of interpretation here described applies both to Treaty provisions and to secondary legislation; cf G. Van Calster, 'The EU's Tower of Babel - The Interpretation by the European Court of Justice of Equally Authentic Texts Drafted in more than one Official Language', (1997) 17 Yearbook of European Law375.
11. See for instance Case 6/60, Humblet [1960] ECR 559, 575, para 6; Case 90/83, Paterson v Weddel[1984] ECR 1567, para 12; see also F. Vismara, 'The Role of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the Interpretation of Multilingual Texts', in B. Pozzo and V. Jaccometti, Multilingualism and the Harmonisation of European Law (Kluwer Law International, 2006), 67.
12. Case C-305/88, Isabelle Lancray[1990] ECR I-2725. For an overview of cases in which the ECJ applies the semantic approach see Van Calster, op cit n 10 supra, at 370.
13. Cf K. Lenaerts, 'Interlocking Legal Orders in the European Union and Comparative Law', (2003) 52 ICLQ 879.
14. Van Calster, op cit n 10 supra, at 378.
15. Decision No 359/83 of the ECSC, 5 February 1983 and Regulation No 354/83 of the EEC and Euratom, concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and Euratom.
16. These documents are now available in the Historical Archives of the EU at the European University Institute, Firenze, Italy. They can moreover be consulted in S. Neri and H. Sperl, 'Article 222; I.-Historique', Traité instituant la Communauté Économique Européenne: travaux préparatoires, déclarations interprétatives des six gouvernements, documents parlementaires (Cour de Justice des Communautés Européennes, 1960), 410.
17. Joined Cases C-267/95 and C-268/95, Merck and others v Primecrown and others, and Beecham and others v Europharm [1996] ECR I-6285, paras 21-22. The wording of this formula has changed somewhat over the years, but the essence has stayed the same; see N. Fennelly, 'Legal Interpretation at the European Court of Justice', (1996-1997) 20 Fordham Int LJ 664-5.
18. Case 187/87, Land de Sarre v Ministre de l'Industrie [1988] ECR 5013, para 19: 'It is to an interpretation to that effect, which is such as to ensure that the provision retains its effectiveness [effet utile], that preference must be given, in accordance with a line of decided cases [reference omitted]'.
19. Advocate General Colomer's opinion to Cases C-367/98, C-483/99 and C-503/99, [2002] ECR I-4731, para 45.
20. Bartels, op cit n 5 supra, and Sagaert, op cit n 7 supra, at 301-333.
21. At para 2.
22. Although English is not one of the original languages of the EEC Treaty, the English version is provided here to help comparison.
23. Article 55 reads: 'Member States shall accord nationals of the other Member States the same treatment as their own nationals as regards participation in the capital of companies or firms within the meaning of Article 54, without prejudice to the application of the other provisions of the Treaties'.
24. Van Calster, op cit n 10 supra, at 374.
25. The English version states 'drawn up in a single original'. See also Van Calster, op cit n 10 supra, at 366.
26. Because of the change from 'This Treaty' to 'The Treaties', the Article now uses the words préjugent instead of préjuge.
27. 'Prejudge' is incidentally the (non-official) translation of préjuge in the Schuman Declaration.
28. H. Von der Groeben, 'Artikel 222 [Eigentumsordnung]', in Kommentar zum EU-/EG-Vertrag (Nomos, 5th edn, 1997), 5/386-5/387.
29. The meaning of the terms used in English in this section have all been derived from the Oxford English Dictionary.
30. In French, dispositions générales et finales.
31. Article 308 EC requires unanimity in the Council and excludes the European Parliament from participating in the legislative process by not following the co-decision procedure of Art 251 EC.
32. Now Arts 47 TEU (legal personality), 339 TFEU (non-disclosure duties), 340 TFEU (applicable law), 349 and 355 TFEU (application to overseas territories), and 356 TFEU (duration) respectively.
33. French was the original drafting language. However, the initial four official languages in which the Rome Treaty was drafted were French, German, Dutch and Italian. Due to the principle of equality of languages, all four versions were - with retroactive effect as it were - equally authentic; cf Van Calster, op cit n 10 supra, at 369. The languages of the acceding Member States became equally authentic to the others upon the moment of their accession, following the Accession Treaties and Art 314 EC.
34. Conseil des Communautés Europeennes, Archives Historiques, Negociations des Traités Instituant la communauté Economique Europeenne et la communaute europeenne de l'energie atomiche, CM 3, N. 0261, Conférence intergouvernementale: Historique des articles 210 à 225 du traité instituant la CEE.
35. Doc MAE 641/56 (Art 9).
36. Doc MAE 177/57, and Doc MAE 243/57 (Art 43 quater).
37. Doc MAE 786/57 (Art 282).
38. Cf Riegel, op cit n 5 supra, at 746.
39. The Travaux Préparatoires of the meeting of 6 March 1957 do not mention any explanation on the change in formulation. MAE 786/57, Article 232, Fiche CM3-NEGO-000268.
40. Devroe, op cit n 5 supra.
41. Case C-367/98, Commission v Portugal [2002] ECR I-4731, para 28.
42. Opinion delivered on 9 March 1995; para 29.
43. It was through the judgments of Van Gend and Loos and Costa v ENEL that the ECJ established that the EC Treaty entailed rights and obligations for individuals as well, and then only those Articles of the Treaty that were sufficiently clear and precise. These judgments were rendered after the entry into force of the Treaty and there is thus no reason to assume that the drafters of the Treaty intended its Articles to be directly applicable to individuals.
44. The Advocate General himself concludes, regardless of his own statement, that Art 295 is probably only relevant for nationalisation and privatisation of undertakings; para 29. See further on the addressees of Art 295: G. Burghardt, Die Eigentumsordnungen in den Mitgliedstaaten und der EWG-Vertrag - Zur Auslegung von Art. 222 EWGV (Abhandlungen aus dem Seminar für Öffentliches Recht, 57; Universität Hamburg: Verlag Ludwig Appel & Sohn, 1969), 71. The authors would agree with Riegel (op cit n 5 supra, at 746), that the decision to leave out the reference to undertakings might seem to broaden the scope of the article and might cast doubt to the submission that it nevertheless still only applies to undertakings. ('Gerade die Tatsache aber, dass man letztlich eine weitere Fassung gewählt hat als ursprünglich, spricht doch eher dafür, dass dies dann auch so gemeint ist, zumal der EWGV im Gegensatz zum EGKSV ja nicht nur für Unternehmen relevant ist. Deshalb sind an der Folgerung, Art. 222 EWGV betreffe dennoch nur die Eigentumsordnung der Unternehmen, erhebliche Zweifel angebracht.') However, since there is no evidence in case-law or otherwise that supports this view, we are forced to conclude, as we have, that Art 295 EC is still to be interpreted as referring to the ownership of undertakings only.
45. Conseil des Communautés Europeennes, op cit n 34 supra.
46. ibid, at para 3.1.
47. EC Bulletin 7/8-1991, point 1.2.75. See further Annex 1 (Definition of terms) to the Commission White Paper on Services of General Interest: 'The term "public undertaking" is normally also used to define the ownership of the service provider. The Treaty provides for strict neutrality. It is irrelevant under Community law whether providers of services of general interest are public or private; they are subject to the same rights and obligations', COM(2004) 374 final.
48. H. Rieber, Der Gemeinsame Markt - Wortlaut des Vertrages über die Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft vom 25. März 1957 mit den Erläuterungen der Bundesregierung und einer Einführung von Ministerialrat Dr. Rieber (Schriftenreihe zum Handbuch für Europäische Wirtschaft, 1; Frankfurt-M, 1957), 312: 'Durch den Vertrag soll nicht in die rechtlichen Bestimmungen der Mitgliedstaaten eingegriffen werden, durch die das Eigentum geregelt wird. Das gilt besonders für das Eigentum an Unternehmen. Keine Bestimmung des Vertrags darf daher so ausgelegt werden und keine Maßnahme der Organe der Gemeinschaft darf zum Ziele haben, ein Unternehmen in Gemeinwirtschaft zu überführen oder umgekehrt ein im Gemeineigentum stehendes Unternehmen zu privatisieren'.
49. See for instance J. Schwarze, 'Art. 295 (ex-Art. 222) [Eigentumsordnung]', EU-Kommentar (Nomos, 1st edn, 2000), 2334; P. Léger, 'Article 295 (ex-article 222)', Commentaire article par article des traités UE et CE (Dalloz, 2000), 1879; W. Sauter, 'The Economic Constitution of the European Union', (1998) 4Columbia J Eur L 57. One of the earliest examples is the nationalisation of the Italian electricity sector, which led to the famous Costa v ENEL case (Case 6/64 [1964] ECR 1141). The Commission answered to a written question from MEP Philipp concerning this intended nationalisation, that in accordance with Art 222 EEC every Member State has the right to change the system of property ownership in a sector of its economy: [1962] OJ 121, 2715-2716.
50. See for instance also P. Verloren Van Themaat, 'Het economisch grondslagenrecht van de Europese Gemeenschappen', in W. Van Gerven (ed), Liber amicorum Josse Mertens de Wilmars (Kluwer, 1982), 353-383, 365.
51. A.J. van der Walt and D.G. Kleyn, 'Duplex Dominium: The History and Significance of the Concept of Divided Ownership', in D.P. Visser (ed), Essays on the History of Law (Juta & Co, 1989), 213-260.
52. Cf Advocate General Colomer's opinion to Cases C-367/98, C-483/99 and C-503/99, [2002] ECR I-4731, at para 54.
53. Burghardt, op cit n 44 supra, at 18-19. See also E. Grabitz, 'Art. 295 EGV [Eigentumsordnung]', in Das Recht der Europäischen Union - Kommentar (III; Beck, 2005), Art 295 EGV, 1; C.-O. Lenz, 'Art. 295 (ex-Art. 222) (Eigentumsordnung)', in EG-Vertrag: Kommentar (Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2nd edn, 1999), 1978; Bartels, op cit n 5 supra, at 246.
54. See also Advocate General Colomer's opinion to Cases C-367/98, C-483/99 and C-503/99, [2002] ECR I-4731, at para 50.
55. And to Art 125 EEA, which is discussed in section V B.
56. Article 225 EAEC: 'This Treaty, drawn up in a single original in the Dutch, French, German and Italian languages, all four texts being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Italian Republic, which shall transmit a certified copy to each of the governments of the other signatory States'.
57. See to this effect Von der Groeben, op cit n 28 supra, at 5/386-5/387. The same is true for the Italian version, which differentiates between il regime di proprietà and un diritto di proprietà.
58. The new Treaties entered into force on 1 December 2009.
59. On rights derived from Art 18 EC see Case C-353/06, Grunkin-Paul [2008] ECR I-7639.
60. See also Arts 25 (to the other provisions of this Treaty), 122 (to the other procedures provided for in this Treaty), 156 (to the other provisions of this Treaty), 209 (to the other provisions of this Treaty), 181a (to the other provisions of this Treaty), 226 (to the powers conferred by this Treaty), 262 (other provisions of this Treaty), and 325 (other provisions of this Treaty).
61. It might be that this difference has been unnoticed thus far.
62. See, eg, Green Paper on Wills and Succession COM(2005) 65 final and the questions of the Members of the European Parliament mentioned below in section IV.
63. As may be implied from Joined Cases C-92/92 and C-326/92, Phil Collins v Imtrat Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Patricia Im- und Export Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and Leif Emanuel Kraul v EMI Electrola GmbH [1993] ECR I-05145, paras 18 and 27.
64. See, P. Craig and G. de Búrca, EU Law. Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford University Press, 4th edn, 2007), 1071.
65. Commission Notice 2008/C 155/02, 20 June 2008, [2008] OJ C155/11.
66. See, inter alia, COM(2004) 327 final, 20, COM(2007) 529 final, 6, COM(2007) 530 final, 6, COM(2007) 532 final, 6.
67. Committee of the Regions Resolution on Enlargement, 2004/C 73/16.
68. Council Conclusions of 17 October 2001, COM(2001) 598 final.
69. Written Question E-3216/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997).
70. Written Question E-3543/98 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (1 December 1998).
71. Written Question E-1564/98 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission (20 May 1998).
72. Written Question E-0476/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (20 February 2003).
73. Written Question P-0818/03 by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission (11 March 2003).
74. Written Question E-0530/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission (22 February 2001).
75. Written Question P-3012/00 by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission (19 September 2000).
76. Joint answer to Written Questions E-0194/02, E-0195/02, E-0196/02 and E-0197/02 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission, C309E, 15, [2002] OJ 12 February 2002.
77. Documents concerning the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union, Protocol No 6 on the acquisition of secondary residences in Malta, 23 September 2003, [2003] OJ 947.
78. Case 182/83, Robert Fearon and Company Ltd v The Irish Land Commission [1984] ECR 3677.
79. ibid, at para 6.
80. ibid, at paras 7 and 8.
81. Case C-367/98, Commission v Portugal[2002] ECR I-4731, para 48. See also Case C-483/99, Commission v France [2002] ECR I-4781, para 44, and Case C-503/99, Commission v Belgium[2002] ECR I-4809, para 44.
82. Joined Cases 56 and 58/64, Consten & Grundig [1966] ECR 429, 345, para 6. See also Schwarze, op cit n 49 supra, at 2335; EP Fact Sheet 3.4.4. of 10 November 2000 at 2(a); Bartels, op cit n 5 supra, at 247.
83. Case 24/67, Parke Davis[1986] ECR 81, 72; Case 78/70, Deutsche Grammophon [1971] ECR 487, para 11: 'Although the Treaty does not affect the existence of rights recognized by the legislation of a Member State with regard to industrial and commercial property, the exercise of such rights may nevertheless fall within the prohibitions laid down by the Treaty'.
84. Case C-235/89, Commission v Italy[1992] ECR I-777, para 14: 'However, the provisions of the Treaty, and in particular Article [295] . . . cannot be interpreted as reserving to the national legislature, in relation to industrial and commercial property, the power to adopt measures which would adversely affect the principle of free movement of goods within the common market as provided for and regulated by the Treaty'. More generally Advocate General Colomer's opinion to Cases C-367/98, C-483/99 and C-503/99, [2002] ECR I-4731, at para 67: 'Article 295 EC does not detract from application of the fundamental rules of the Treaty'; Case C-30/90, Commission v UK[1992] ECR I-829, paras 16-18.
85. Case C-350/92, Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union[1995] ECR I-01985, paras 18-22. Also Advocate General Jacobs' opinion to this case, para 20: 'The case-law cited by Spain does indeed distinguish between the existence of intellectual property rights and their exercise. It does so, however, in relation to the application of substantive Treaty rules, such as Articles 30, 36, 85 and 86, and not with a view to determining the scope of the Community's competence to harmonize national legislation, or to introduce new rules. Such is the tenor of Consten and Grundig v Commission, Parke, Davis v Centrafarm, Deutsche Grammophon v Metro, Commission v United Kingdom and Commission v Italy [references omitted], and numerous other cases which could be cited, most of which are dealt with by the Commission in its observations'. See further W. Drasch, 'Die Rechtsgrundlagen des europäischen Einheitsrechts im Bereich des gewerblichen Eigentums (Artt.100a, 235, 36 und 222 EGV)', (1998) 6(1) ZEuP 128.
86. Case C-350/92, Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union[1995] ECR I-01985, paras 19 and 23. See also ECJ Opinion 1/94 [1994] ECR I-5267, para 59.
87. Riegel, op cit n 5 supra, at 745.
88. See C. Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU. The Four Freedoms (Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2007), 176.
89. See, in particular, Case C-302/97, Klaus Konle v Republik Österreich [1999] ECJ I-3099, and Joined Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and C-526/99 to C-540/99, Hans Reisch and others v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg and others[2002] ECR I-2157. Moreover, see Case C-503/04, Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-6153 in which the ECJ holds that the particular features of the system of property ownership in a Member State cannot justify the continuation of a failure to fulfil obligations which consists of an obstacle to, in that case, the freedom to provide services, and Case C-117/06, Möllendorf and Möllendorf-Niehuus[2007] ECR I-8361 in which the ECJ holds that a transfer of ownership of land may be blocked on the basis of secondary Community legislation in case one of the parties is registered as a potential terrorist.
90. Case E-2/06, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway, [2007] EFTA Court Reports 167.
91. For example, The Kingdom of Norway argued that the Article applied and took precedence over the other Articles in the EEA Agreement, para 3.
92. Paras 33-34.
93. Para 41.
94. Paras 49, 50, 51 and 52 respectively.
95. See, for example, Joined Cases 56 and 58/64, Consten & Grundig [1966] ECR 429, 345. See, further, section V A.