A Legal and Political Interpretation of Articles 224 and 225 of the Treaty of Rome
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Cases
Nonfiction, Social & Cultural Studies, Social Science, Sociology
| Author: | Constantin Stefanou, Helen Xanthaki | ISBN: | 9780429876394 |
| Publisher: | Taylor and Francis | Publication: | January 15, 2019 |
| Imprint: | Routledge | Language: | English |
| Author: | Constantin Stefanou, Helen Xanthaki |
| ISBN: | 9780429876394 |
| Publisher: | Taylor and Francis |
| Publication: | January 15, 2019 |
| Imprint: | Routledge |
| Language: | English |
First published in 1997. Article 224 is one of the most powerful Articles of the Treaty of Rome, allowing a member state to take unilateral measures and to suspend some or all its Treaty-based obligations in times of what can loosely be described as serious internal turmoil or external threat. It is for this reason that the very next Article of the Treaty, Article 225, allows the Commission or a member state to challenge invocation of Art.224, before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), on grounds of improper use. In practice, the use of Art.224, by a member state presents multiple problems. The obvious connection with defence and security issues has inhibited the ECJ which still has not given and authentic interpretation of this Article. As the recent former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) cases (Greek referral for the embargo on FYROM) indicate, unless the use of Art.224 is blatantly flippant, the ECJ is not in a position to challenge a member state’s unilateral measures.
First published in 1997. Article 224 is one of the most powerful Articles of the Treaty of Rome, allowing a member state to take unilateral measures and to suspend some or all its Treaty-based obligations in times of what can loosely be described as serious internal turmoil or external threat. It is for this reason that the very next Article of the Treaty, Article 225, allows the Commission or a member state to challenge invocation of Art.224, before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), on grounds of improper use. In practice, the use of Art.224, by a member state presents multiple problems. The obvious connection with defence and security issues has inhibited the ECJ which still has not given and authentic interpretation of this Article. As the recent former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) cases (Greek referral for the embargo on FYROM) indicate, unless the use of Art.224 is blatantly flippant, the ECJ is not in a position to challenge a member state’s unilateral measures.
