Prof. Jean-Paul Jacqué

Secretary General

Prof. Jean Paul Jacqué holds a doctorate in Law. He is Professor at the University of Strasbourg, Faculty of Law since 1978 and at the College of Europe since 1988. He is also Visiting Professor at other universities, including universities of Barcelona, Louvain, Lisbon, Madrid and Santiago du Chili. Before joining TEPSA as Secretary General, he was Director of the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union from 1992 to 2008. Prof. Jean Paul Jacqué is now a Honorary Director General and Special Councellor in the Council. He is the author of books and articles on Constitutional and Administrative Law; International Law and Human Rights; as well as European Law.

Prof. Jacqué has been the Secretary General of TEPSA since January 2010. He was elected for another two year mandate by the TEPSA General Assembly in December 2011. As Secretary General of TEPSA, he is a Member of the TEPSA Board and responsible for the daily management of the association. His main responsibilities consist of the overall coordination of TEPSA as well as the representation of the network. Other aspects of the daily management have been delegated to an Executive Director. Prof. Jacqué writes the editorial in the bi-monthly TEPSA Newsletter, which can be found here.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, TEPSA Board

University of Bologna Institute of Advanced Studies (ISA) Medal for Science 2012 to Jean Paul Jacqué.

On proposal of the Council of the Institute of Advanced Studies, Dario Braga, Vice Rector delegated for Research of the University of Bologna, has delivered the ISA Medal for Science to Jean Paul Jacqué for his important contribution to European law and in general European integration on 22nd October 2012. The ISA Medal for Science is the highest honour awarded by the Institute “in recognition of research contributions characterized by both excellence and influence”.
Jean Paul Jacqué, Professor at the University of Strasbourg and at the Collège d’Europe, law expert, is Secretary General of TEPSA since 2010. Prof. Lucia Serena Rossi says that Prof. Jacqué has always got a clear vision that influenced positively the European institutions. His work has contributed to some of the most important European moments, as Spinell’is project, Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, European acts.

Please find more information on this event here.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué

TEPSA Newsletter Editorial “Euro zone governance and democratic legitimacy”, October 2012

In its interim report “Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union” of the 12nd October 2012, President Van Rompuy devoted few lines in the end to democratic legitimacy. This paragraph gives the impression of paying lip service to the concept, rather than reflections on its applicability in the ‘genuine’ Economic and Monetary Union. The report does nonetheless clearly outline the subject matter. To the extent the core aspects of the Euro zone governance are fulfilled at intergovernmental level, the democratic oversight of the Euro zone naturally lies within the competency of national parliaments. The European Parliament also has a role to play in the democratic oversight of the Euro zone insofar the governance of the Euro zone is governed by the community method . No need to emphasize on this second point, since it clearly emerges from the treaties.

Regarding the role of the national parliaments however, it is interesting to assess to what extent national parliaments actually play a role in the system. After all, the decisions taken at European level have not only an impact on the power of the national parliaments, but also and most of all, on the life of citizens in the member states. The last years have demonstrated that national political debates focused on EU’s economic and monetary activities. The successive austerity plans imposed on some Euro zone members have also compelled these governments to feed these constraints into national debates. Another implication is that national Heads of State and Government individually bear the consequences of the decisions taken by the European Council in Brussels in their national arena.

A study currently elaborated by TEPSA in collaboration with Notre Europe on the role of national parliaments in oversight of the positions taken by Head of State or Government in the European Council shows a remarkable development in this field. The study demonstrates that nowadays in 17 Member States formal rules exist on the participation of national parliaments in the preparation of the European Councils. These rules can be applied mutatis mutandis to Euro zone summits. They vary between the member states and are more developed in those which have already established a system of oversight on the activity of the Council of the EU. There is a tendency that can be observed in favour of a priori control by providing documents and organising debates before European Council meetings. This a priori oversight consists more often of issuing non-binding recommendations than giving a legally or politically binding mandate. Meanwhile, the practice of debates on the outcome of European Councils is maintained. Insofar the Prime Minister personally takes part to the European Council and a Euro zone summit, his participation in debates in the national parliament is particularly important. The future will tell whether this practice will become widespread.

The trend shows it is no longer only about submitting politically binding positions ex post that can be adopted. Instead it is also about orienting the position of the government during the European Council meeting in question. However, this trend has some limitations. First of all, it faces the still largely informal character of European Council meetings. It is difficult to provide national parliaments with comprehensive information on future conclusions which are still under negotiation. It is neither possible nor desirable for national positions to be fully publicly discussed before the meeting or even subject to a national mandate. This would risk to reduce the bargaining power. National parliaments can only shape general recommendations, which will be subjected to the Prime Minister or the President’s interpretation while acknowledging that if it deviates too much from the mandate given by his parliament it could impact on his/her political responsibility. The above mentioned report will suggest in this sense a set of best practices.

However, considering that the Euro zone governance uses both community and intergovernmental methods, it is deemed essential to ensure that the positions of national parliaments and of the European Parliament are not entirely in conflict, otherwise difficulties of implementation would soon arise. For this particular reason national parliamentary debates should initiate an exchange of views between national parliaments and the European Parliament. Article 13 of the Treaty on Stability, Cooperation and Governance provides for cooperation between the European Parliament and specialised committees of national parliaments. It would be advisable that this cooperation is set-up at an early stage and not only focuses on Euro zone summits’, but also on the work undertaken in the framework of the European Semester. A parliamentary network has already been formed in the field of foreign policy, it is essential that a similar network starts to function on Euro zone issues without delay.

One cannot request efforts from the European citizens unless they have the conviction of being listened to and understood. Solidarity is not born spontaneously from a generous feeling, it must be based on the idea that efforts undertaken by everyone will benefit to all. So far we have not found any better way to achieve this outcome than through a debate between representatives of the people. Democratic legitimacy is therefore part of the responses to the crisis.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications Tagged With: ,

“Droit institutionnel de l’Union européenne” by Jean Paul Jacqué, 7e Edition, Cours Dalloz, September 2012

This book focus on the study of institutional law of the European Union as it stands after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. All provisions relating to the EU, its institutions, the decision-making process, the legal order as well as the political and judicial controls are comprehensively addressed.

Students of Law Faculties and Institutes of political studies will find in this book the necessary information in order to prepare their examinations. Practitioners, lawyers and officials involved in European affairs will have a useful tool for their daily work.

To this end, the theoretical developments are illustrated with numerous references to the practices and the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty are analyzed in detail and their scope is studied.

 

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications

TEPSA NEwsletter Editorial “Some original visions on Europe” August 2012

The summer holidays are an excellent time to read those publications that our daily routines normally distract us from. I would like to share with you three of my summer readings which you might not have the occasion to read yet.

The first two pieces deal with the constitutionalization of the European Union through the law, more particular the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice. The subject is scarcely original and lawyers have dedicated many studies to it. In the two publications here mentioned, the aim is not to continue on this way, but rather to consider the issue from the perspectives of history and political science.

The Cambridge Contemporary European History journal (volume 21-Special issue 03, Towards a new history of European Law, August 2012) has devoted a special issue to the history of the European construction analyzed through the work of lawyers. Among fascinating studies, two of them seem to me particularly noteworthy.

The first study is written by Bill Davies (Pushing Back: What Happens When Member States Resist the European Court of Justice? A Multi-Modal Approach to the History of European Law) and tackles national resistances to European integration by the example of the German Constitutional Court and the well-known Solange jurisprudence. It describes the political process that led the ‘Bundesverfassungsgericht’ to reconsider its earlier jurisprudence mainly thanks to the contact between the German Chancellery office and the Advocate General Reischl, which had led to the adoption of the Interinstitutional Declaration of 1977 on Fundamental Rights. Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration is not an initiative of the European Parliament as such, but the result of a meeting between a lawyer and the Chancellery. The paper shows how, even in areas that appear to belong exclusively the judiciary process, the role of governmental agencies is essential to ensure the primacy of the EU law.

The second article written by Morten Rasmussen (Establishing a Constitutional Practice of European Law: The History of the Legal Service of the European Executive, 1952-1965) is devoted to the Legal Service of the Commission and its role in ensuring the primacy of the EU law and its direct effect. Again, the stake remains political, the legal service of the Commission has conducted an intense lobby to achieve the Court would retain its principles. The Court partially gave in to the Commission, but the use of the doctrine has been widely sought to strengthen the jurisprudential solution. This article illustrates well the creation of networks that influence judges and doctrines in order to achieve a purpose which is ultimately political.

From the perspective of political science, a book in French (Dans la fabrique du droit européen, edited by Pascal Mbongo and Antoine Vauchez, Bruylant, 2009) seeps into the ‘Holy of Holies’, the Court of Justice, to engage in an analysis of the Courts functioning and its working methods from a more sociological angle instead of a legal one. The conclusion of Antoine Vauchez on the Court magisterium was particularly appreciated, demonstrating to what extent its authority owes as much as from the networks it has built upon, as from the professional identities of its members, as from its relationship with the national courts and the intrinsic quality of her jurisprudence.

Finally, the reading of a book originally written in Dutch, translated into French (it will be published in English), has proven to be particularly rich. The book of the speechwriter of Herman van Rompuy, Luuk van Middelaar (Le passage à l’Europe, histoire d’un commencement, Gallimard 2012) can be read as a novel. It consists of a sharp analysis of the so-called Community method between technocracy, democracy and intergovernmentalism. It particularly shows an interesting vision of what the author calls the “intermediate sphere” between the world of states and that of the institutions whereof the European Council is an illustration. Nolens volens, national leaders reveal themselves jointly responsible for a common destiny. Refreshing reflections on the Commission as well as on the everlasting question of European citizenship illuminate the approach. A must read.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué

TEPSA Newsletter Editorial “About solidarity” June 2012

By Jean-Paul Jacqué

At the last Pre-Presidency Conference in Nicosia, TEPSA members took part in a lively discussion on the topic of solidarity. At this occasion, several participants questioned the legal validity of this principle. This editorial aims at providing some information on this issue.

It is perhaps a commonplace to state that once a society decides to set up frameworks in order to achieve a common goal, solidarity represents the cement of it – regardless of whether it is a fisher’s association or a state. From the beginning of European integration, the concept of solidarity was highlighted by Robert Schuman in his speech in the Salon de l’Horloge which referred to the creation of de facto solidarity. From Westphalia to Rome, we have moved from reciprocity to solidarity. The logic of the Monnet method and the spillover effect are based on this idea; when the challenges are beyond the capacity of a single state, it is necessary to address them jointly and the solidarities already created serve as cement for developing new ones. The concept of subsidiarity, as introduced into EU law by the Treaty of Maastricht, is another aspect of this solidarity. For the fields that can be managed by a single state, national solidarity is enough, however when a transnational link is established, solidarity plays a role at European level.

The concept of solidarity is very present in the treaties since there are six references in the TEU and six others in the TFEU. It is noteworthy that the term of solidarity appears as a mantra precisely in those areas where solidarity is weaker (three times in the CFSP, twice in the asylum and immigration). Article 80 TFEU even uses the term “solidarity principle”. One reference relates to energy, a new policy area introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, another to the financial assistance as an exception to a bail-out, and also one related to the overseas territories. Finally, the treaty contains a solidarity clause in case of financial disaster or terrorism. This variety expresses an important aspect of the issue: solidarity is expressed in different ways depending on the policy of the Union in question.

The general reference to solidarity is made in the preamble of the TEU (“Desiring to deepen the solidarity between their peoples”), which comes on top to the classic statement of a ever closer Union. The new element is the one contained in Article 2 on values. Solidarity is not mentioned as a value here but as a feature of European society. This solidarity is not qualified. Is it the solidarity between member states or the solidarity among citizens within the EU or within the Member States? All forms of horizontal and vertical solidarity seem to be covered. Social solidarity is addressed more specifically in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Under these conditions, is solidarity only one element, sometimes even hypocritical, of political discourse or does it have a legal value? The Court does refers to the principle as such, but mainly in infringement procedure cases.

In order for solidarity to be an operating legal principle it would require its content to be sufficiently precise to be legally tested. As noted by the Court in Case C-149/96 “a general principle of law cannot be derived from programmatic provisions that do not contain a specific obligation.” But the concept of solidarity is programmatic. This does not mean that the recourse to solidarity is stripped of any legal significance.

Solidarity is a constitutional principle inherent in the Union as stated in Article 2 TEU, but it is also a constitutional objective. The Union is based on solidarity and aims at amplifying it. The implications are twofold:

1. During the elaboration of the Charter, there were long discussions on the difference between principles and rights. The result of this is that rights are directly justiciable whereas principles are only justiciable through measures to implement them. Once a policy aims at strengthening solidarity, any attack on it is thus justiciable.

2. If a Union act goes directly against a principle or prevents its achievement, it is invalid (ECJ, 6 and 11/69). In this case, the Court stated that the establishment of preferential discount rates for exports constituted an infringement because it was opposed to the principle of solidarity, based on the community system in its whole.

Under these circumstances, the obligation or the objective of solidarity plays a key role when it materializes through positive or negative measures of implementation. It takes two forms: solidarity between member states and solidarity between citizens of the Union.

I. Solidarity between Member States

Without going into detail on all aspects of solidarity in Union’s policies, it suffices to take some examples such as the institutional solidarity and the financial solidarity.

A. Institutional solidarity

This solidarity is primarily expressed in the principle of loyal cooperation between member states and institutions enshrined in Article 3 TEU. This principle of loyalty is the natural outcome of solidarity since there is no solidarity without mutual trust in the compliance with all of its obligations. This aspect of solidarity is the translation of the rule Pacta sunt servanda in an institutionalized context familiar to lawyers in international law. Within the logic of integration, this rule is not left to the discretion of the individual subject to reciprocity. The rule is controlled by institutions and sanctioned by the infringement procedure. The Court does not say anything else in Case 39-72 where it finds that the non-respect by Italy regarding milk quota affects the balance between benefits and costs of the Common Agricultural Policy, calling into question the equality of Member States and therefore constitutes a breach of the principle of solidarity..

The principle of loyal cooperation takes three forms for member states: to take all appropriate measures to ensure the fulfillment of the treaty obligations, to facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and to refrain from breaching the treaty. This latter requirement is not subject to a restrictive interpretation. In case 6 and 11/69 (aforementioned), France argued that contested measures did not fall under Community competence. The Court replied that the principle of solidarity requires that member states refrain from using their own competences to prevent the compliance with the Treaty. This will lead to important case law that subordinates the use of member states’ competencies in respect to the Treaty, on the basis of solidarity.

Similarly, when it comes to facilitating the achievement of the Union’s tasks, the Court considers it appropriate that member states should refrain from taking any measure which could jeopardise the achievement of the Union’s objectives. Consequently, in the case 266/03, Luxembourg was condemned for having concluded negotiations within the framework of a joint agreement while the Community itself had already opened negotiations.

Thereby, the solidarity principle under the form of loyal cooperation nourishes all the implementation mechanisms of EU law.

B. Financial solidarity

Leaving aside the economic and monetary solidarity which are subject of intense debates, the financial solidarity is one of the pillars of the Union. Budgetary solidarity is evident. Unlike the traditional international organisations, the Union’s budget does not cover merely the functioning of the organisation, but also policies that benefit member states in different degrees, particularly with regard to cohesion.

Union’s policies are based on a redistribution which is, by default, a form of solidarity. The extent of redistribution is certainly subject to constant controversies like witnessed by the claims of “net contributors” and the invocation of the principle of “juste retour”. But even in the British case, there is a place to solidarity as the rebate only covers 66% of the amount by which UK payments into the EU exceed EU expenditure returning to the UK.

The extent of solidarity is a political choice to be made at the time of discussing the EU’s own resources in connection with the Multiannual Financial Framework. But once a decision has been made, solidarity fully plays its role as noted by the Court in the case C-239/05 on the duty-free import of military equipment by Italy. The latter invoked Article 296 EC and the necessity to ensure its external security. According to the Court, this argument is not sufficient to evade from “the obligations imposed by financial solidarity as regard the community budget” at the expenses of other states.

Institutional solidarity is not the only one that has to be taken into account by the treaties. The solidarity between citizens plays an increasing role in the European Union.

II. The development of interpersonal solidarity

This type of solidarity finds its main scope of application within social policy. One could find applications in other fields such as the internal market. Yet in the social field, the development of citizenship shows an emphasis of solidarity at the Union level which may undermine the national solidarity.

A. European citizenship, a support for solidarity

European citizenship is reflected in a set of rights and duties both vis-à-vis the political authority and vis-à-vis the citizens. Of course, the first impact has been political (voting rights, consular protection abroad …), but the essential impact, and perhaps unexpected, comes from the combination of citizenship, freedom of movement and non-discrimination.

Freedom of movement gives access to social and health benefits in the host country. This situation was originally restricted to workers and has been extended to other citizens by law. But this extension was multiplied by the Court of Justice when it indicated that “citizenship is the fundamental status of member states to allow those among them, that are in the same situation to enjoy regardless of their nationality … the same legal treatment “(Martinez Sala, C-85/96). The Court’s jurisprudence will become more extensive, allowing family members of a citizen to benefit in some cases from advantages that are normally restricted to citizens when they are not citizens themselves.

European citizenship provides access to national solidarity in the name of European solidarity, but wouldn’t it in some situations represent a risk to undermine national solidarity?

B. Preservation of national solidarity

National solidarity is now the essential element of national identity. Each member state has developed its own system of redistribution citizens rely on. European solidarity complements these systems and does not challenge them. For this particular reason the treaty contains a number of safeguards designed to protect national solidarity. This is the case of the ‘brake’ clause on social security of migrant workers which allow the possibility to refer an act which would affect important aspects of national security system “regarding the scope, the cost or the financial framework, or would affect the financial balance of that system” to the European Council.

Similarly, Article 14 TFEU recognises the role of services of general interest in social cohesion and requires the legislator to take measures to enable them to accomplish their mission.

The jurisprudence of the Court has also expressed the will to preserve national solidarity. It is willing to do so by requiring the existence of a genuine link with the state of residence to receive certain benefits or by restricting the access to health services by the imposition of a permit from the state of origin to benefit from the reimbursement of certain hospital services delivered in another member state. Or by agreeing that one could limit the enrollment of students from another member state if the recruitment for a profession or the system’s financial balance is put into question.

There is a balance that requires an appreciation of solidarity. But one could question whether it is the judge should make that assessment, or whether the legislator should intervene.

Conclusion

Solidarity is a founding principle that nourishes the entire system. It is a source of rights in many policies, but has direct effect essentially only through its various implementations.

Please click here to read the entire editorial as well as June 2012 Newsletter.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Tepsa Publications Tagged With:

Reflections on the Schuman Declaration by Jean Paul Jacqué, May 2012

9 May 1950 – 9 May 2010

On the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the Schuman Declaration Professor Jean Paul Jacqué, Secretary General of TEPSA, has analysed the Schuman Declaration and its significance both to the process of European integration over the past sixty years as well as to the way ahead for the further development of EU’s institutional structure.

Please click here to download the publication.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications Tagged With:

TEPSA Newsletter Editorial on the EU’s accession to the European Convention of Human Rights, ‘Still one more effort, comrades…’, April 2012

by Jean Paul Jacqué

The endless saga of the EU’s accession to the European Convention of Human Rights seemed to have come to an end. The expert group in charge of preparing a draft agreement seemed to have achieved its goals and had transmitted its text to the Steering Committee of Human Rights of the Council of Europe. Yet, the aforementioned Committee has faced some difficulties mainly coming from EU member states. Being unable to tackle them, the issue was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. However, the United Kingdom holding the biannual presidency of the Committee of Ministers didn’t seem eager to address the issue. Instead, the UK favored focusing on a reform of the Strasbourg Court in a narrower sense as part of a conference to be held in Brighton. It is true that at the Council of the EU thanks to the Commission, negotiations continue in order to cope with this issue.

Please click here to read the entire editorial as well as April Newsletter.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications Tagged With:

TEPSA Newsletter Editorial on “The Architects in the Kingdom, governance of the euro zone”, February 2012

by Jean Paul Jacqué

The Lisbon Treaty has attempted to establish mechanisms for the euro area governance, but the resistance of member states not sharing the common currency had greatly limited the progress in this field. It left a trace in the Protocol No. 14 that foresees informal meetings of euro zone ministers (Euro Group) chaired by an elected president. Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Junker has taken up this responsibility. The difficulties of managing the crisis demonstrated this structure to be insufficient. Tensions notably rose between the President of the Euro Group and the Heads of State and Government concerning the competent authority in charge of the economic management. Indeed, the direct intervention by the Heads of State or Government of the euro zone, meeting in special bodies, has been hardly approved by some finance ministers. Some have suggested creating a finance minister of the Union, yet this wouldn’t solve the problem. It was deemed necessary to restructure the system.

Please click here to read the entire editorial as well as the February Newsletter 2012.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications Tagged With:

TEPSA Newsletter Editorial on “Towards a two-speed Europe?”, December 2011

by Jean Paul Jacqué

The last summits of the Eurogroup and the European Council of 9-10 December paved the way for a new start in the debate on a two-speed Europe. Both President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel envisaged the settling of a Europe composed of a core group around the eurozone within a Europe of twenty-seven. The meeting ended up with the decision to conclude an intergovernmental agreement in which the United Kingdom will not take part. In an article published on 4 November 2011 entitled “Save Europe, divide Europe,” the former legal counsel of the Council Jean-Claude Piris, favored openly a two-speed Europe. It would be set up either in a smooth manner with the use of exemption clauses offered by the treaties, or with the conclusion of a treaty compatible with the Lisbon Treaty in which eurozone members would set up a closer cooperation managed by specific institutions with a separate executive commission and a parliamentary assembly representing national parliaments.

Please click here to read the entire editorial as well as the December Newsletter 2011.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications

TEPSA Newsletter Editorial on “The current state of EU Affairs”, August 2011

by Jean Paul Jacqué

Since this newsletter is published after the summer break, I seize the opportunity to wish you all a good return back to work – despite a difficult climate in the Union. Our Polish Pre-Presidency Conference of last 30 June and 1 July 2011 in the Natolin campus, generously hosted by Paul Demaret and in close cooperation with the European Institute in Lodz, has indeed showed that the economic problems of the Union were far from being solved and that the new institutional architecture has not yet enabled Europe to speak with one voice. We will see whether the request of the Heads of State and Government of the eurozone to President Herman Van Rompuy will bring innovative new initiatives. Also in the field of external relations, the slow implementation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) has not yet fully achieved its objectives.

Please click here to read the entire Editorial as well as August Newsletter 2011.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications

TEPSA Newsletter Editorial on “The European Union and the constitutional identity of its member states”, June 2011

by Jean Paul Jacqué

Debates on the relationship between EU law and national constitutional law have been around since the beginning of community integration. Throughout history, member states wanted to preserve principles that they considered as the foundation of their national identity. For this particular reason, even with the primacy of EU law over national legislation recognized by all national courts, this primacy over national constitutions has always been left open. Certainly, it is often said that “the wisdom of judges” both European and national, have prevented the conflict from degenerating and eventually undermining the whole community construction.

Please click here to read the entire editorial as well as June Newsletter.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications

TEPSA Newsletter Editorial on “The state of play of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI): the birth of participatory democracy”, February 2011

By Jean Paul Jacqué

Under the Belgian Presidency, the European Parliament and the Council reached agreement in first reading on the modalities of the citizens’ initiative. This new initiative allows, under Article 11, paragraph 4, TEU, a million citizens “citizen of a significant number of Member States” to invite the Commission to bring forward legislative proposals in areas where the Commission has the power to do so. With this vagueness in the Treaty, descretion was left to the legislator to determine what exact percentage of the Member States represent a significant number of Member States.

Please click here to read the entire editorial as well as the February newsletter.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications Tagged With:

TEPSA Newsletter Editorial on “Enhanced cooperation”, December 2010

By Jean Paul Jacqué

Enhanced cooperation was introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and responded to the request of many politicians who, pointing out that the continuous EU enlargement would make more and more difficult the step forward on integration, wished to create a special arrangements to enable a group of Member States to move forward without being prevented from doing so by the absence of interest or the hostility of other Member States. Some expressed the idea of a “core group” pre-composed of Member States which would constitute a kind of European avant-garde.

Please click here to read the entire editorial as well as the December newsletter 2010

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications

TEPSA Newsletter Editorial on “The role of the European Council on the future of the CFSP”, September 2010

By Jean Paul Jacqué

Since the beginning of his mandate, the President of the European Council had pointed out that foreign policy is one of the fields the European Council would give priority to work on. He was determined to put fully into practice article 22 TEU which entrusts the European Council to determine the strategic objectives of the Union in the context of the CFSP to the same extent as the Community external policies. The economic crisis had delayed the prioritisation of this matter. It has henceforth been done since the European Council of 16 September 2010.

Please click here to read the entire editorial as well as the September Newsletter 2010.

Please read the conclusions of the European Council of the 16th of September and the remarks made by Herman Van Rompuy at the press conference following the meeting of Heads of State or Governments.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications

TEPSA Newsletter Editorial on “The European External Action Service”, July 2010

By Jean Paul Jacqué

With only two months delay from the original schedule, the European External Action Service (EEAS) has just been established. This delay is due essentially to the negotiations with the European Parliament (EP). The latter linked its consultative opinion on the service to the proposals on the needed adjustments of the Financial Regulation and the staff status, for which it possessed codecision power. This allowed the EP to check all the texts.

Please click here to read the entire editorial as well as the July newsletter 2010.

Please read the Council Decision.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications

Liber Amicorum Professor Jacqué

We congratulate warmly Professor Jean-Paul Jacqué who received the Liber Amicorum on Monday 14th June, “Chemins d’Europe – mélanges en l’honneur de J.P. Jacqué”.

The first hommage was written by Jean-Claude Piris, Director General of the Legal service of the Council of the EU who emphasizes Jean Paul Jacqué’s successful academic career, his valuable contributions notably to the Council as well as his human qualities.

Other authors are Olivier De Schutter, Loïc Azoulai, Ami Barav, Florence Benoît-Rohmer, Frédérique Berrod, Roland Bieber, Thérèse Blanchet, Claude Blumann, Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen, Florence Chaltiel, Jean Charpentier, Vlad Constantinesco, Jacqueline Dutheil de la Rochère, Jean-François Flauss, Jean-Claude Gautron, Constance Grewe, Joël Rideau, Robert Hertzog, Robert Kovar, Hans Christian Krüger, Marie-Françoise Labouz, Koen Lenaerts, Jean-Victor Louis, Alfonso Mattera, Valérie Michel, Dietmar Nickel, Fabrice Picod, Dominique Ritleng, Patrice Rolland, Allan Rosas, Lucia Serena Rossi, Jürgen Schwarze, Antonio Tizzano, Bruno Gencarelli, Françoise Tulkens, Stefano Piedimonte, Georges Vandersanden, Blanca Vila, Patrick Wachsmann, Jean Waline, Joseph H.H. Weiler, Wolfgang Wessels, Jacques Ziller.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications

TEPSA Newsletter Editorial “Descartes revisited:The Reflections on the Method”, April 2011

by Jean Paul Jacqué

Since the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force, one witnesses the revival of the classical debate between the Community method and the intergovernmental method. The establishment of the European Council as institution of the Union is certainly a change largely symbolic, nevertheless the innovation of the creation of the fixed Presidency of the European Council seems to have changed the situation to the disadvantage of the Commission. Member States show greater confidence in their President than in the President of the Commission. The Council is in charge of study tasks and proposals which, in the time of the Delors Commission, were entrusted to the Commission President.

Please click here to read the entire editorial as well as the April Newsletter 2011.

More Information About Jean-Paul Jacqué, Publications, Tepsa Publications, TEPSA-date