CHAPTER THREE

DRAFTING THE

§ 1. Structure and Legal Nature of the Accession Treaty

Pursuant to Article 49 (2) EU, the results of the accession negotiations are embodied in an agreement between the Member States and the acceding state(s). The drafting of the fth Accession Treaty in the history of the E(E)C/EU formally started in March 2002 and was nalised six weeks after the end of the negotiations so that it could be signed in on 16 April 2003 with a view of accession of ten new Member States on 1 May 2004. Following previous practice, the 2003 Accession Treaty or “Treaty of Athens” includes the conditions of accession and adjustments to the Treaties for all acceding countries. This practice has important legal consequences because it denies the Member States’ Parliaments and the the right to approve or refuse individual applicant countries. A failure of rati cation, therefore, means a veto of the entire enlargement process. If, however, an acceding country fails to ratify the Treaty of Accession, the Council could decide unanimously upon the necessary adjustments to allow its entry into force for those states that had deposited their instruments of rati cation.186 The term ‘Accession Treaty’ is somewhat confusing because, in fact, it entails a single series of documents comprising three complementary elements: the Treaty itself (TA), the Act of Accession (AA) and a Final Act (FA). The TA is very short (three articles) and basically provides that the , , , , , , , , and become members of the - pean Union and thereby parties to the Treaties on which the Union is founded on the basis of the conditions of admission and adjustments to the Treaties as set out in the AA.187 Such ‘conditions’ are basically the transitional arrangements agreed during the negotiations, while

186 This so-called “Norwegian clause” is included in Art. 2 (2) TA. 187 As set out in Art. 1 (2) TA, the provisions of the AA form an integral part of the TA. 356 the accession negotiations: a post-factum analysis the ‘adjustments’ are limited to technical adaptations in so far as they do not alter the fundamental principles of the integration process.188 Changes to the Treaties that go beyond mere adjustments need to follow the Treaty amendment procedure of Article 48 EU. The ECJ con rmed the limits of changes to the Treaties on the basis of Article 49 EU in Hauptzollambt v. OHG Koenig. In this case of 1974 the Court spelled out that: “no provision in the Treaty of Accession or in the Act accompanying can be construed as validating measures, whatever their form, which are incompatible with the Treaties establishing the Com- munities”.189 In this respect, the introduction of a unanimity requirement for changes to the transit of persons regime between Kaliningrad and other parts of Russia in Article 3 of Protocol No. 5 to the Accession Treaty is remarkable because, in fact, it creates an exception to the Treaty provisions of Articles 62 EC and 67 EC (cf. supra). On the relationship with the founding Treaties, Article 1 (3) TA reveals that the provisions concerning the rights and obligations of the Member States and the powers and jurisdiction of the Union apply in respect to the Accession Treaty. This provision has also been included in all previous Accession Treaties and illustrates—together with the obliga- tion for the acceding countries to accept the —the continuity of the Community legal order after the accession of new Member States.190 The Court’s judgment in a case concerning the accession of that “the provisions of the Act of Accession must be interpreted with reference to the foundations of the Community, as established by the Treaty, [and that] derogations permitted by the Act of Accession from the rules laid down in the Treaty must be interpreted in such a way as to facilitate the achievement of the objectives of the Treaty and the application of all of its rules” con rms this view.191

188 C. Hillion, “The in dead. Long live the European Union . . . A commentary on the ”, 29 European Law Review (2004), p. 584. 189 ECJ, Case 185/73, Hauptzollamt Bielefeld v. OHG Koenig [1974] ECR 607 at para. 3. 190 J.P. Puissochet, L’élargissement des Communautés européennes, Paris, Editions techniques et économiques, 1974, p. 50. In this respect, the ECJ proclaimed the principle that “the provisions of Community law apply ab initio and in toto to new Member States, derogations being allowed only in so far as they are expressly laid down by transitional provisions”. Case 258/81 Metallurgiki Halyps A.E. v. Commission ECR [1982] 4261 at para. 8; Case C-233/97 KappAhl Oy [1998] ECR I-8069 at para. 15. 191 ECJ, Joint Cases 194/85 and 241/85, Commission v. Greece [1988] ECR 1037 at para. 20.