The Europe agreements compared in the light of their pre-accession reorientation

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 2000, Pages 1173-1210

  Stroux, Kirstyn Inglis ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85102843656     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: 18758320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1005684817122     Document Type: Article

References (152)

1. 1. Commission Communication to the Council COM(90)278 final of 27 Aug. 1990, the Conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council of 11–12 Dec. 1992, based on the Commission’s report entitled Europe and the Challenge of Enlargement. See the contribution by Maresceau and Montaguti, “The relations between the European Union and central and eastern Europe: a legal appraisal”, (1995) CML Rev., 1327–1367 at 1328.
2. 2. On the evolution and substance of the Europe Agreements, see Gaudissart, in “L’association des pays d’Europe centrale et orientale”, Chapt. VII of L’association: un mode de co-ope´ration privile´gie´ et les Etats tiers, PhD Thesis, European Institute, University of Gent, Faculty of Law, 1999–2000, not yet published.
3. 3. See the EAs with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia.
4. 4. Approved by the Dec. 1997 Luxembourg European Council.
5. 5. Already in 1993, and this notwithstanding the de facto division of the island, the European Commission had given a positive opinion on Cyprus’ application for membership. See Gaudissart, “Cyprus and the European Union. The long road to accession”, 8 The Cyprus Review, (Spring 1996), 1–31.
6. 6. However, accession negotiations have not been opened with Turkey due to its inability to meet the political criteria outlined later in this article.
7. 7. And Malta too, following its reactivation of its application to become a Member of the EU, 10 Sept. 1998.
8. 8. E.g. Enlargement Commissioner Verheugen declared his own personal “political objective” that Poland should be among the first new Members and considered the possibility of fixing a timetable before the end of 2000 either to conclude negotiations with each candidate or to set the actual dates for accession, at least for the “first wave” of countries with which negotiations had been opened in 1998. Interview reported in the Financial Times, 3 April 2000.
9. 9. Indeed, the enthusiasm of the CEECs to follow the political, economic and legal order of the then European Communities was apparent even before the existence of formal agreements and facilitate that re-orientation. See Mu¨ ller-Graff, “General Report” in Mu¨ller-Graff (Ed.) East Central Europe and the European Union: from Europe Agreements to a Member Status (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1993), pp. 14–15.
10. 10. With the accession process, the distinction between EC and EU competences has become increasingly blurred. Each EA with one of the CEECs is a mixed agreement of the EC and of the Member States, giving the Commission provisional competence to act beyond the competences set down in the EC Treaty. In contrast, the Accession Partnerships are based on the EC Treaty but are instruments of the Council of the European Union (See 2.1.2 below) as they include non-EC areas of competence such as political competences and justice and home affairs.
11. 11. The Association Councils adopted Decisions amending protocols to the Europe Agreements in 1996 and 1997 providing for the cumulation of origin of products originating in the EC and the CEEC partner countries.
12. 12. Regulation 3069/89.
13. 13. The Bank is also active in the CIS (and in South-eastern Europe).
14. 14. See e.g. Arnold and Nedelka, “Different Models of Adjusting to European integration with a View to the implementation and enforcement of the Europe Agreement”, in Mu¨ller-Graff op. cit. supra note 9, pp. 357–367.
15. 15. See Commission Press Release IP/00/736, 10 July 2000. The Commission has initialled PECAs with Hungary, the Czech republic and Latvia. Four more PECAs are in progress with Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Slovakia.
16. 16. A further condition is also relevant, that of the capacity of the EU to absorb new members.
17. 17. See Europe and the challenge of enlargement, Bull. EC, Supp. 3/92 at 12.
18. 18. Previously this Article read “The Union shall respect the national identities of its member States whose systems of goverment are founded on the principles of democracy”.
19. 19. PHARE extends to South Eastern Europe.
20. 20. See esp. COM(93)172, 10 May 1993, Second Annual Report of the Commission on the implementation of Community assistance to the countries of East and Central Europe (PHARE) in 1991. The Third Annual Report (also COM(93)172, 10 May 1993) made the first references to the Copenhagen criteria and the Europe Agreements, but they form a category alongside humanitarian aid, national programmes and sectors, regional co-operation etc.
21. 21. See the other Phare Programme Annual Reports for 1997 (COM(1999)234, 18 May 1999), 1996 (COM(1998)178, 24 March 1998), 1995 (COM(1996)360, 23 July 1996), 1994 (COM(1994)366, 20 July 1995).
22. 22. Cross Border Co-operation was introduced by Regulation 1624/94, O.J. 1994, L 171/14.
23. 23. COM(95)163, 3 May 1995.
24. 24. See the Commission’s country opinions that accompanied Agenda 2000.
25. 25. See Inglis, “Extending the environmental acquis to Central and eastern Europe: Implications of the previous enlargement and the Amsterdam Treaty”, (1999/1) Revue des Affaires Europe´ennes, 61–79 at 68.
26. 26. Such potential risks are outlined in the Conclusions to the Section on reinforcing the pre-accession strategy in Agenda 2000, Vol. 2. P.57.
27. 27. Agenda 2000, Vol. 2, p. A-10.
28. 28. See Arnold and Nedelka, supra note 14, at p. 364.
29. 29. Designed to cover all the Common policies, especially those having a trans-European dimension, the common foreign and security policy, as well as justice and home affairs. See Communication from the Commission to the Council “Follow up to Commission Communication on ‘the Europe Agreements and Beyond: a strategy to prepare the countries of Central and Eastern Europe for accession”’, COM (94)361, 27 July 1994.
30. 30. On the Structured Dialogue, see Lippert and Becker, “Structured Dialogue Revisited”, 3 EFA Rev. (1998), 341–365.
31. 31. It has even been described as a structural monologue rather than dialogue. See Klau, “Tackling the Structural Monologue”, (1996/Feb.) European Voice, 22–28.
32. 32. Agenda 2000, Vol. 1, p. 62. which reads “the present structured dialogue no longer appears appropriate”.
33. 33. Following the December 1995 Madrid European Council. 34. Agenda 2000 (Vol. 2, A-11).
34. 34. See Art. 1 of all the EAs.
35. 35. Agenda 2000, Vol.1, 41.
36. 36. O.J. 1998, L 85/1.
37. 37. Unilateral in the sense of being adopted by the Union, following consultation with each candidate, but without formal agreement of the candidates. The Commission drafts the APs on the basis of its findings in the annual regular country reports.
38. 38. This is made clear in the objectives of each of the APs which reads: “The purpose of the accession partnership is to set out in a single framework the priority areas for further work identified in the Commission’s opinion on Hungary’s application for membership of the European Union, the financial means available to help Hungary implement these priorities and the conditions which apply to that assistance. The accession partnership will provide a framework for a number of policy instrument which will be used to help the candidate countries in the preparations for membership. These will include, inter alia, the national programme for the adoption of the acquis to be adopted by Hungary, the joint assessment of economic policy priorities, the pact against organized crime and the internal market road maps. Each of these instruments is different in nature and will be prepared and implemented according to specific procedures. They will not be an integral part of this partnership but the priorities they contain will be compatible with it”.
39. 39. “Accession process” involves all candidates with which accession negotiations have been launched and “accession strategy” refers to the Agenda 2000 strategy as implemented by the various legal instruments described.
40. 40. The specific legal basis for the adoption of the AP by qualified majority in Council is founded on Art. 2 of Regulation 622/98, and the mobilization of all Community assistance within a single framework on Art. 1.
41. 41. Regulation 622/98, Art. 4.
42. 42. See O.J. 1998, L 121; O.J. 1999, L 335.
43. 43. See e.g. the 1998 APs, O.J. 1998, L 121.
44. 44. This new form of instrument was called for by the European Council when it met in Dublin (1996). Their content and role in the accession strategy was outlined in Agenda 2000 (Vol.1, pp. 63–64) before subsequent approval by the Luxembourg European Council in December 1997 and their adoption and publication in 1998.
45. 45. This is expressly outlined in the preamble to Regulation 622/98: “Community assistance is conditional upon the respect of commitments contained in the Europe Agreements and upon progress towards fulfilment of the Copenhagen Criteria” and this provision is echoed in Art.
46. 46. The APs also contain a specific section on conditionality, section 5.
47. 47. Unlike the EAs, which had to be ratified by each Member State in turn, the APs were adopted under the EC Treaty but by the Council of the European Union. These are not bilateral legal instruments in that it was the Council of the European Union that adopted, after consultation with the candidate, the AP in respect of each of them. See the Composite Paper for all progress reports COM(1999) 500, 13 Oct. 1999 and COMs(1999)500 to 510 of the same date for country progress reports.
48. 48. See Art. 1, Regulation 622/98, cited supra note 37.
49. 49. This Regulation, adopted by unanimity, is based on Art. 308 (ex 235) EC, which in the absence of any other appropriate Treaty Articles, enables the Community to take “appropriate measures” to “attain one of the objectives of the Community”. Art. 308 could only be used where no other Treaty Article provided the legal basis for appropriate measures. Aid programmes are provided for in the Treaties and the programming of financial resources is, rather, dealt with in the financial instruments and programmes adopted under the pertinent Treaty provisions.
50. 50. Regulation 1266/99 on co-ordinating aid to the applicant countries in the framework of the pre-accession strategy and amending Regulation 3906/89, O.J.1999, L 161/68.
51. 51. The main one being PHARE, ISPA (the environmental and transport structural funding instrument) and SAPARD (the agricultural and integrated rural development funding instrument).
52. 52. Art. 6.
53. 53. Art. 5.
54. 54. Art. 10.
55. 55. Of course, PHARE is the financing instrument used for the South-eastern European stabilization process, and the conditionality applied in respect of these countries is different: see Lannon, Inglis and Haenebalcke, “The many faces of EU conditionality in Pan-Euro-Mediterranean relations”, in Maresceau and Lannon (Eds.), The EU’s Enlargement and Mediterranean Strategies (Macmillan, London and New York, 2000), forthcoming.
56. 56. The Phare Programme, Annual Report 1998, not yet published.
57. 57. Council Regulation 1267/99 establishing an instrument for structural policies for pre-accession, O.J. 1999, L 161/73.
58. 58. Council Regulation 1268/99 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the pre-accession period. O.J. 1999, L 161/87.
59. 59. Section 4. of each Accession Partnership (1999).
60. 60. World Bank Group, the EBRD, the Council of Europe Development Bank, the Nordic Investment Bank and the Nordic Environment Finance Corporation.
61. 61. Focus is to concentrate on development of the financial sector, enterprise policy, and small and medium sized enterprises, environmental protection, large infrastructure projects, social and rural development, and the reinforcement of institutions and development of the regulatory framework. The adoption of the acquis will guide the collaboration of all IFIs.
62. 62. Art. 4, Regulation 622/98, cited supra note 37.
63. 63. Section 5, (conditionality) in all the APs.
64. 64. Agenda 2000, Vol. 1. p. 62.
65. 65. The candidates are being included at an operational level in Community programmes and through participation in Community agencies and bodies. See COM(1999)710 final, 20 Dec. 1999.
66. 66. At the very beginning of the screening process, multi-lateral screening was done, but it took more the form of informative seminars by the European Commission officials on the content of the acquis than any sort of dialogue as such.
67. 67. Apart from in the case of the Political Dialogue Title, see below.
68. 68. The ten EAs entered into force on four separate dates over a period of five years, beginning 1 Feb. 1994. The last to enter into force, on 1 Feb. 1999, was that with Slovenia, with which accession negotiations had already been opened on 30 March 1998. The EAs entered into force on the following dates: on 1 Feb. 1995: Poland (O.J. 1993, L 348) and Hungary (O.J. 1993, L 347); on 1 Feb. 1994: Bulgaria (O.J. 1994, L 358), Romania (O.J. 1994, L 357), Czech Republic and Slovakia (O.J. 1994, L 359); on 1 Feb. 1998: Estonia (O.J. 1999, L 68), Latvia (O.J. 1998, L 26) and Lithuania (O.J. 1998, L 51); on 1 Feb. 1999: Slovenia (O.J. 1999, L 51).
69. 69. Thus e.g. the EAs with the Baltic States and Slovenia make specific reference to co-operation in the Union’s CFSP within the political dialogue.
70. 70. The new Czech and Slovak EAs, following succession, even contained such a clause (see Art. 6 EA Czech Republic).
71. 71. Signed December 1994.
72. 72. See Bull. EC 5-1992, point 1.2.13. For a more in depth analysis see Pollet, “Human rights clauses in Agreements between the European Union and Central and Eastern European Countries”, R.A.E., III, 1997, 290–301.
73. 73. See Art. 5 of the EAs with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia.
74. 74. The INTERREG Initiative was introduced in 1990 to develop cross-border co-operation and help areas on the internal and external borders of the Union to overcome the problems arising from their isolation. The new INTERREG III Initiative for 2000–2006, adopted May 2000, provides further support for that goal while also supporting interregional and transnational co-operation.
75. 75. Co-operation among the Baltic States is provided for in Art. 2(2) of the EAs with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
76. 76. See Art. 8 of the EA with Estonia which differs completely from all other EAs.
77. 77. EA Slovenia Art. 3(1) that transitional period beginning date of entry into force of the EA.
78. 78. See Decision 1/2000 of the EU-Hungary Association Council, O.J. 2000, L 114/32. Poland too, according to its 1999 Association Council minutes, is due to move on to the second stage.
79. 79. See Art. 6 of the EU-Hungary EA: normally, the Hungary Association Council must adopt a decision formally launching the second phase within 12 months of expiry of the first phase.
80. 80. See the Explanatory Memorandum to the proposed decision, COM (1999)692 of 15 Dec. 1999.
81. 81. Title VII in all Baltic EA and in the EA with Slovenia.
82. 82. On 28 April 1997 the Council of the EU adopted an action programme against organized crime (O.J. 1997, C 251) setting out a range of measures to be taken over the following two years. These included the signing of a pre-accession pact on this subject with the States of Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus.
83. 83. See Arts. 107–109 of the EA with Slovenia.
84. 84. Art. 107.
85. 85. EAs with Estonia (Art. 71(4)), Lativa (Art. 72(4)) and Lithuania (Art. 72(4)).
86. 86. That is to say all EAs except those with Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.
87. 87. The transitional period starting from the dates of entry into force of the EAs and the Agreements on Trade-Related Matters with the Baltic States. The last transitional period to expire is that of Bulgaria.
88. 88. These provisions included general principles, trade in goods, current payments for trade in goods, competition, protection of intellectual, industrial and commercial property, institutional, general and financial provisions and the protocol on mutual assistance between administrative authorities in customs matters.
89. 89. Compare e.g. the EA Estonia, Art. 19(3), which allows Estonia concession in respect of agricultural products which “shall cease to apply at the latest by 31 December 1999”, compared to a more standard form, such as that set out in the EA Bulgaria, which reads “they shall cease to apply at the least at the expiration of the transitional period”.
90. 90. See e.g. the replacement of various Articles of the EA with Poland in order to speed up the abolition of customs duties on imports. Additional Protocol to the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters and EA with Poland, O.J. 1994, L 025, p. 0002–0005 94/129.
91. 91. See e.g. the Exchange of Letters of 25 Oct. 1994 between the EC and Hungary further reducing levies on agricultural produce and adding to that list.
92. 92. See e.g. 99A0202(01) Protocol for the adaptation of the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the results of the agricultural negotiations of Uruguay Round, including the improvements of the existing preferential regime. O.J. 1999, L 28/3-0063.
93. 93. See e.g. Decision 1/1999 of the Association Council with Hungary, O.J. 1999, L 049/33.
94. 94. Exchange of Letters EC/Poland amending Annex IVb to the Interim Agreement and to the Europe Agreement between them and the Declaration by the Community, O.J. 1994, L 202/0020–0024.
95. 95. See Art. 11 EA Romania, which provides that the final reduction of basic duty to 0% on EC products shall be 9 years from the date of entry into force of the Interim Agreement Romania.
96. 96. Art. 11(4) EA Bulgaria.
97. 97. A subtle distinction is made between tariff and non-tariff aspects of mutual trade in textiles. Only tariff measures are actually taken into account in Protocol 1 to the EAs on textile and clothing products. The dismantling of non-tariff measures is only really anticipated within a timeframe that is half of the period agreed in the Uruguay negotiations, up to a minimum of 5 years, beginning 1 Jan. 1993. See Gaudissart, op. cit. supra note 2, p. 229.
98. 98. See Art. 20(6) EA Poland.
99. 99. Poland has increased import duties on imports of EC produce including pig meat, cereals, sugar and rapeseed. Accession Negotiations with Poland are in stalemate. Negotiations on agriculture are also a problem in the negotiations with Slovenia.
100. 100. See 1999 AP for Poland, p.10.
101. 101. These products are listed in Annex VI to the EA Estonia.
102. 102. See Arts. 23 and 24.
103. 103. Art. 69 EA Romania. The wording can differ from EA to EA. See e.g. Art. 67 EA Hungary.
104. 104. O.J. 1999, L 335/10.
105. 105. Commission Press Release IP/00/736, infra. Examples of the products concerned include: machinery, electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, gas appliances, hot water boilers, good manufacturing practices for medicinal products, good laboratory practices for medicinal products and medical devices, equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres (ATEX), lifts and personal protective equipment.
106. 106. See Art. 28 EA Slovenia. The EA does not affect specific trade arrangements between the EC Member States and the ex-Yugoslavia as succeded to by Slovenia.
107. 107. The Commission’s interim report 2000/1 covering statistics for anti-dumping and antisubsidy activities of the Union for the first quarter of 2000 describes a sharp increase in the number of provisional measures taken by the EC, attributed in the executive summary thereto as a result of the Asian financial crisis and world-wide difficulties experienced in the steel sector. See http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/policy/dumping/reports.htm
108. 108. See Title V of each EA.
109. 109. Again, transitional arrangements can differ from EA to EA in the establishment provisions too.
110. 110. See Art. 51 of the EAs with Latvia and Lithuania and Art. 50 of the EA with Estonia.
111. 111. EA Bulgaria Art. 51.
112. 112. Art. 52 EA Slovenia; Art. 51 EAs Slovakia and Czech Republic.
113. 113. See e.g. Art. 50(2)(c) EA with Slovenia; Art. 48(2)(c) EA with Estonia; and Art. 49(2)(c) EA with Latvia and Lithuania.
114. 114. See e.g. Art. 53, EA Bulgaria.
115. 115. See Art. 50(3).
116. 116. See e.g. Art. 52 EA Estonia.
117. 117. See e.g. Art. 54(1) EA Estonia.
118. 118. See e.g. Art. 57(2) EA Slovenia.
119. 119. Hungary, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovak Republic, Bulgaria, Romania.
120. 120. See e.g. Art. 53(4) EA Estonia.
121. 121. COM(97)0188, O.J. 1997, C 176/3.
122. 122. Indeed, the EA Bulgaria was completed by an Exchange of Letters on inland transport infrastructure dating back to 1994, in which Bulgaria undertook to facilitate EC/Bulgaria traffic in the event that the Yugoslav crisis did not return to normal. O.J. 1994, L 358/0215–0216.
123. 123. C-257/99, The Queen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex. Parte J. Barkoci and M. Malik, O.J. 1999, C 265/2.
124. 124. C-63/99, Gloszczuk, O.J. 1999, C 121/12; C-235/99, Kondova, O.J. 1999, C 246/15; C-268/99, Jany, O.J. 1999, C 265/4.
125. 125. Registered 5 Feb. 1999, N?99NC00282. This case effectively extends the jurisprudence established by the ECJ in the Bosman ruling (Case C-415/93, [1995] ECR 1995 I-4921), to all association agreements of the EU, with the result that it is forbidden to impose quotas on non-EC nationals legally employed in the EU. However, in a more recent preliminary ruling, Delie‘ge (Joined Cases, C-51/96 and 191/97, judgment of 11 April 2000, nyr) from the Belgian Trinual de Premie‘re Instance of Namur, the ECJ underlined that fact that selection system which takes into account the nature, organization and financing of the sport concerned does not in itself constitute a restriction on the freedom of athletes to provide services, as these considerations are unconnected with the personal situation of the athlete in question – even where it favours one athlete over another. Thus in contrast to the Bosman ruling, the selection rules applying to Delie‘ge did not impinge upon her access as a professional athlete to the labour market nor did they contain nationality clauses limiting foreign sportspersons from participating.
126. 126. Case A.M.J. v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie, AWB 97/1311 VREWT and AWB 97/1016 VREWT.
127. 127. See Van Ooik, “Vrije vestiging van Oost-Europese prostituees in Nederland”, 3 Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht (1997), 245–248. See also Van den Hende, “Free movement of services and the right of establishment in a pan-Euro-Mediterranean economic area: between EU membership and GATS”, in Maresceau and Lannon (Eds.), op. cit supra note 55.
128. 128. See Van den Bossche, “Competition Provisions in the Europe Agreements” in Maresceau (Ed.), “Enlarging the European Union: relations between the EU and Central and Eastern Europe” (Longman, 1997).
129. 129. Annex VIII to the EA with Slovenia – Exchange of Letters based on Art. 64(2) of the EA with Slovenia.
130. 130. See the Regular Report of the Commission for Slovenia of 10 Oct. 1999: Law to define reciprocity, and the Rules to establish the permanent residence were adopted in February 1999.
131. 131. See e.g. Art. 45(7) EA Czech Republic.
132. 132. Art. 61(3) EA with Bulgaria; Art. 60(3) EA with Hungary; Art. 62(4) EA with Lithuania.
133. 133. See e.g. Art. 66 EA Hungary.
134. 134. O.J. 1993, L 199/84.
135. 135. See e.g. Art. 68 EA Slovenia, or Art. 67 EAs Latvia and Lithuania, Art. 66 EA Estonia.
136. 136. E.g. the EA with Lithuania is the only EA (see Art. 92) to contain a provision on housing and construction, which briefly provides for co-operation to modernize and restructure the sector, taking account of health, safety, environment and energy efficiency. Neither of the Lithuania APs have referred to pre-accession objectives in this field.
137. 137. Art. 84.
138. 138. See e.g. Art. 95 EA with Hungary, or Art. 98 EA with Estonia.
139. 139. Art. 73 EA with Hungary.
140. 140. See Art. 76 EA with Slovenia, compared to Art. 76 EA with Latvia or Art. 75 EA with Bulgaria.
141. 141. See Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on “Current and future EU policy on the Baltic Sea region with specific reference to local and regional aspects”, CdR 141/96 fin, O.J. 1997, C 42/6. “The starting point for successful development is relatively favourable since the western part of the Baltic Sea possibly has greater potential than anywhere in the world while the eastern part has a fairly efficient telecommunications network compared with many other regions of Europe”. As early on as 1994, the Commission had identified the potential economic expansion of the region.
142. 142. A complement to the Europe Agreements, EC assistance programmes, and regional co-operation programmes such as the Council of Baltic States and the Barents Euro Artic Council and the Artic Council, it is designed to address the challenges for EU policies towards the countries bordering the Baltic Sea, the North/West Russian regions and Kaliningrad. See COM(1998)589, 25 Nov. 1998. To this end, it brings in funding under INTERREG, TACIS and PHARE.
143. 143. See e.g. Additional Protocol to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part. O.J. 1995, L 317/40–43.
144. 144. The second phase of LIFE expires this year and the third phase will apply from 2000 to 2004. Council Regulation 1404/96 of 15 July 1996 amending Regulation 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (Life), O.J. 1996, L 181/1.
145. 145. See e.g. Art. 108 EA Bulgaria.
146. 146. See Lannon, Inglis and Haenebalcke, op. cit. supra note 55.
147. 147. Or, in the case of Turkey, between the self-declared and the recognized candidates.
148. 148. On accession procedures, see Boos and Forman, “Enlargement: Legal and procedural aspects”, (1995) CML Rev., 98–99.
149. 149. Lannon, Inglis and Haenebalcke, op. cit. supra note 55.
150. 150. Regulation 622/98, Art. 4.
151. 151. Maresceau, “The pre-accession strategy: a political and legal analysis”, in Maresceau and Lannon, op. cit. supra note 55.
152. 152. See point 26 of the 1997 Luxembourg European Council.