Aleksandar Andrija PEJOVIĆ
Abstract. The theme of the rule of law Paper has become extremely important as a result of particularly intensive focus that the European Union has been giving to the rule of law when it comes to the obligations of candidate countries in the negotiation process. Scarcely a day passes without the rule of law and European obligations being a topic in the media. Apart of that, there is not a single institution dealing with judiciary, internal affairs, fundamental rights or security, which is not a part of thorough changes and reforms provoked by the process of integration in the European Union.
Within this context, this Paper treats the issues of one of the most important European policies since its establishment in the seventies, through its elaboration through practical work, but also primary sources of the European law i. e. a number of fundamental European treaties. The Paper also provides an overview of ideas that guided the European Union to develop the New Approach in negotiating rule of law, basic documents that have provided a legal rationale for this mechanism, as well as a comparative analysis of an outline of negotiations and special arrangements for some of the current Member States of the EU. Finally, special attention has been paid to concrete examples of the negotiations of Montenegro based on the New Approach, either through an elaborated system of benchmarks as well as through certain institutional and legal solutions created on the basis of this approach.
To this aim, the Paper analyses not only the basic acts of the European Union, scientific texts and works dealing with the development of the policy of rule of law and changes in the policy towards new Member States, but also a variety of materials that follow actual happenings connected with crisis which the European Union has been going through.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past sixty years the European Union has been developing and changing in accordance with the internal situation, but also with the wider external influences. The rule of law i.e. justice and home affairs have not figured among the first policies of the Union and they had a modest beginning in the seventies and the nineties, until they gained significance through the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam. With the big expansion in 2004 and subsequent experiences with entries of Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia, the rule of law, in addition to the significance in the internal EU politics, was given a prominent place also in the enlargement policy. Thus, at the beginning of the second decade of the XXI century a new approach in negotiations with candidate countries was developed, to which the progress made in Chapters 23 and 24 became a precondition, or an indicator of overall progress in the negotiations.
Montenegro, which opened negotiations in mid-2012, became the first carrier of the new approach. In accordance with earlier experiences and importance which this policy has, it can be asserted that the new approach has become the most effective tool of the European Union to make fundamental changes and reforms that are experienced by the countries which are negotiating. And not only that, the rule of law through its development within the European policies, but also with the fact that it has become a central place in the negotiations for membership, has been increasing its significance in the relations between the EU institutions and Member States. Although it is difficult to consider all the important determinants of the process that is taking place in front of us, the first results and the changes it brings are visible.
A HISTORY OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW
FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE EU TO PRESENT
”The Union is a unique construction, as it is not bound together by force, by a common army or a common police force, but only by the strength of the rule of law; it is a Community based on the rule of law. The rule of law means a system in which no one – no government, no public official, and no dominant company – is above the law. It means equality before the law. The rule of law also means fairness and due process. It means guarantees that laws cannot be abused for alien purposes, or retrospectively changed. The rule of law means that justice is upheld by an independent judiciary, acting impartially. It means ultimately a system where justice is not only done, but it is seen to be done, so that the system can be trusted by all citizens to deliver justice.” [1]
EU Justice Commissioner Viviane REDING
The notion of the European Union after World War II was developing for many reasons, aspirations, ideas in respect of the needs of the European continent and desires not to repeat the two world wars. These ideas stretched from idealism, federalism to mere economic interests on which a healthy relationship of the members of the system would be based. However, at the very beginning of the European Union the idea of building a community based on respect for the equal principle of the rule of law was not fully present. That is, if the idea of the rule of law was present, it did not have enough supporters to achieve to be placed among the policies of then communities in the first twenty years of the EU existence. In Article 2 of the Treaty, which contains the Statute of the European Communities from 1953 it is stated: ”contribution to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the member states”[2], but it will take a long time until this area in the context of the rule of law does not get such an important place as it has today.
The rule of law has many definitions, but this term that we took over from English (as opposed to the narrower French or German ”legal state”) has, in a nutshell, originated from the Latin phrase imperium legume – empire, the rule of law, not people.[3] In addition, the diversity of understanding the rule of law is based on the constitutional right (”which means submission of the state, i.e. state authorities, to the objective law, as well as of the individuals”), than liberal-democratic views (as ”philosophical category that has a universal and eternal validity”) or those who believe that the rule of law is the rule of positive law order of specific properties”[4], all the way to the stance that it is ”political or moral principle, whose content depends on political views, national boundaries and time periods”[5]. Exactly in the above quoted speech V. Reding gave a subtle view of many, but not all, EU Member States in respect of the fact of what indeed the rule of law today represents. This quote, in fact, represents the way in which the European Commission today, in addition to the stance in respect of the Member States, relates also to the rule of law in the dialogue with the candidate countries for EU membership, or in respect of the rights, obligations and expectations in the negotiation process.
The gradual change in European policy towards today’s importance of the rule of law has occurred in the seventies when the first steps of the then nine member states were made to gather at the intergovernmental level, in order to exchange information and ideas among officials in charge of justice and home affairs. That is how the first forum for collaboration, called Trevi[6], was officially established by a decision of the European Council at its meeting in Rome on 1 and 2 December 1975. However, Trevi had no secretariat, no headquarters and relied exclusively on rotating chairs of the EU troika[7]. What began as an idea and an answer to the problem of increasing levels of terrorism in the early seventies[8] and the need to exchange information on drug trafficking more closely, in the next fifteen years has slowly been receiving routine and becoming more common form of cooperation among European countries, including three new Mediterranean Member States. Despite the fact that the formation of a number of other groups and systems ensued, such as Group Rhodes, group GAM, Group 92, The System of Customs Regimes, etc[9] it was needed to wait for the fall of the Berlin Wall, the beginning of the nineties and the new awakening of the European idea, in order to enhance this cooperation through a contractual mechanism, by which it received impetus for streaming into the real European policy.
Significant innovations in this field were brought by the Maastricht Treaty which was signed in February 1992, and came into force the following year. It finally introduced provisions of cooperation in justice and home affairs in a European treaty. Thus, in Chapter 6 – The provisions on cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs the Maastricht Treaty, by means of Articles K1 to K9[10] established the so-called Pillar 3 with nine policies: asylum, external borders, immigration, illegal drugs, international fraud, judicial cooperation in civil matters, judicial cooperation in criminal matters, customs cooperation and police cooperation.
The Amsterdam Treaty, which was signed on 2 October 1997 and entered into force on 1 May 1999, has established new mechanisms and significantly improved the way the EU fights against growing challenges that are brought by the common market, removal of borders within Schengen area, instabilities of the post-Soviet era and the need to proceed to much deeper internal integrations based on the ideas of unification of the continent. The Treaty of Amsterdam thus transferred almost half of the judiciary sub-areas from Pillar 3 to Pillar 1, and so the fields such as: visa, asylum and migration were shifted to the jurisdiction of the European Commission and the European Parliament outside the possibility that some of the Member States block further deepening of the cooperation[11]. This Agreement has established also the Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs as we know them today.
Finally, the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Lisbon have completed the process of elimination of special pillars and unification of European policies for the most part in the context of a new redistribution of the jurisdiction in which the area of justice, freedom and security was mainly transferred to the European Commission and the European Parliament, where it is not otherwise regulated. Lisbon has particularly strengthened institutions that previously were not included in the contract, such as the position of Europol, Eurojust and Eurodac, but also the final decisions that the Charter of fundamental rights is found in the most important legal instrument of the European Union.
Today’s Union stands exactly in front of the challenges that strike at the very foundations of the unity achieved in the area of justice, freedom and security. The crisis of the Schengen area, the ineffectiveness of the asylum system, as well as terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels have led to the increased need to continue to build the acquis and deepen cooperation in justice and home affairs. Thus an extraordinary Justice and Home Affairs Council decided to adopt already in April 2016 the Directive on the exchange of information on the names of passengers, to complete the legislation on the fight against terrorism, systematically control the Schengen borders, improve the Schengen visa system and improve the exchange of information with countries in the European neighborhood (including the Western Balkans)[12].
It is, therefore, impossible to accurately predict the future of the entire system of the rule of law. It is possible that in the years to come the strengthening of certain policies will occur, that are right now faced with great challenges, especially in areas such as asylum, border security and hyper-terrorism[13], but also that justice will be under greater focus. Therefore, for each country that is negotiating membership in the Union, Chapters 23 and 24 represent a moving target and extremely sensitive area, which is not subject only to technical requirements, but also to the perception of political developments and the possible repercussions.
ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND RULE OF LAW
The Copenhagen criteria have set the rule of law as one of the requirements for membership in addition to other criteria such as ”stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities”[14]. However, during negotiations of the twelve countries in the late nineties it was not the primary benchmark in respect of which total progress of the country in the negotiations was estimated. Political decision and ideals of a united continent held the primacy of technology and standards, or as Tony Judt writes: ”In the public, politicians and leaders in Brussels insisted that they still wanted enlargement to the east once the conditions were ripe. Unofficially, they were much more honest. As one senior European Commission official noted in the mid-nineties ”Here nobody is serious when it comes to enlargement”[15]. So, although the countries that joined after the Council of Copenhagen had to adhere to numerous rules, group negotiation and package approach prevailed when deciding on the enlargement of the EU to the ten new Member States in 2004. Equally, the Copenhagen criteria were being significantly construed in accordance with the political moment and only Slovakia was forced to wait longer to open negotiations under the Government of Mečiar. Finally, when the agreement was reached for the ten countries to become members in 2004, the rule of law was still in development and transfer to the jurisdiction of the European institutions, the Schengen zone was functioning without problems and the complexity of the system which would emerge in the coming years had not yet accounted for a significant problem. In addition, the old EU Member States believed that the enlargement had absolutely transformed the former socialist countries into the states of democracy and the rule of law.
Since the big enlargement (the Big Bang) in 2004 negotiations were conducted in different ways. Negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania until 2007 had already been the continuation of the established dynamics, and they did not introduce any structural and institutional novelties. Both these countries were simply granted additional three years to catch up with the backlog in respect to the other ten newcomer Member States. Croatia, on the other hand, had to go through the individual accession negotiations with Brussels. Turkey has its own special story related to negotiations with the EU, while Iceland had a brief, but very different way of negotiation in relation to the other candidate countries, which had no real impact on the changes in the package of enlargement for the Balkans countries.
Bulgaria and Romania however entered the European Union with specific approach to the rule of law, i.e. with the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism. This new approach to negotiating and giving importance to the rule of law was established in December 2006. Decision on establishing the mechanism of cooperation and verification of the progress of Romania, in order to meet specific benchmarks in the area of judicial reform and the fight against corruption[16], as well as with the same decision for Bulgaria[17], the European Commission has introduced an important instrument which is in force for ten years already and which makes it impossible for these two EU Member States to exercise full rights when it comes to access to the Schengen zone, and politically puts them in a different order of states. The mechanism in Article 6 of the Decision provides that even the Commission has the right to apply security mechanisms, such as the suspension of obligations of Member States to recognize or perform in a manner that is presented in the Community law, court judgments and decisions, such as the European arrest warrant, and which is listed as an option in Articles 37 and 38 of the Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union[18]. This special arrangement marks the status of Bulgaria and Romania for years and only recently the president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker announced the possibility that Romania, which is held to have better progress in the rule of law, becomes separated from Bulgaria and finishes earlier with the existing mechanism[19]. In any event, the rule of law will remain under the supervision of European institutions when it comes to the two Member States from the previous enlargement in the context of specific policy of conditionality.
On the other hand, Croatia had to go through the more elaborate system of checks and balance of the determinants in negotiations given that it was exactly the Croatian model whereby the benchmarks had been introduced for the first time during negotiations with the EU. As the first step, the European Commission in its Enlargement Strategy for 2004 in section 3.2. which entails the negotiating framework for Croatia proposed to the Council the introduction of ”benchmarks for the provisional closure of each chapter before the chapter is opened. These benchmarks will refer to legislative alignment or to satisfactory result in the implementation”, and at the same time stated that the ”Commission will recommend the suspension of negotiations in case of a serious and persistent breach of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, which are the basis of the Union. The Council will be able to decide on that recommendation on the basis of a qualified majority of Member States”[20].These recommendations were accepted by the Council already in December 2004 and benchmarks were introduced in all the negotiating frameworks (Turkish, Icelandic, Montenegrin and Serbian) that occurred after the Croatian opening of negotiations. This established a more structured and rigorous system for monitoring and analyzing the quality of reforms and harmonization than ever before. However, the focus on the rule of law, and Chapters 23 and 24 came only later in the final stage of negotiations with Croatia, which didn’t give enough time to the European Commission and the Member States to check the situation in practice and to convince themselves that Zagreb had actually fulfilled all tasks in order to access to the EU. It was exactly this fact that led to the agreement of the Commission and the Member States that it is necessary to arrange a different way of negotiation when it comes to two chapters of the rule of law.
NEW APPROACH IN THE NEGOTIATING RULE OF LAW
ON THE CONCRETE EXAMPLES
”Respect for the rule of law, democratic principles and human rights is still in the focus of the enlargement process. Strengthening the rule of law, improves the ability to fight organized crime and corruption, by which it has direct benefits for the citizens, as well as for the progress in the implementation of human rights and democratic standards and freedoms”.[21]
Commissioner for Enlargement Policy and ENP Stefan FULE
and the Irish Minister for Europe Lucinda CREIGHTON
These words of the EU presidency and EU Enlargement Commissioner came in the year when Croatia was in front of the full membership in the EU, and a new Balkan country was starting the first opening and closing of the chapters. When Montenegro opened negotiations in mid-2012, the European Union did everything to make the new approach in negotiating carefully designed and developed coordination mechanism. In its conclusions of 5 December 2011 the Council underlined that ”the strengthening of the rule of law and public administration reform are essential for the enlargement countries in order to get closer to the EU and to be able to fully able to respond to the obligations of membership later on. The experience gained from the negotiations with Croatia will be used to contribute to future negotiations, especially with regard to the chapters on judiciary and fundamental rights, as well as justice, freedom and security. The Council positively assessed the Commission’s proposal for the new approach to these chapters and expects to develop its position under the new approach in future negotiation frameworks”[22]. The approach itself envisaged support in the form of additional initiatives, as well as corrective measures, should it be needed.
In practice this meant that the rule of law will be the heart of the accession process during the entire period from the opening to the closing of negotiations. The general position of the EU in the negotiations with Montenegro took into account the timeframe experience of negotiations with Croatia, especially in relation to the negotiating chapters on judiciary, fundamental rights and justice, freedom and security. For this reason, it was decided that work on both chapters should begin early enough in the course of negotiations to ensure enough time to adopt the necessary legislation, build institutions and achieve solid measurable results in the implementation before the completion of the negotiations.[23] At the same time, general negotiating position of Montenegro stresses the importance of the rule of law area, as well as the new approach, in relation to the overall negotiating process. The full commitment is expressed to respond to the alignment, implementation and achievement of results in the context of Chapters 23 and 24[24].
The new approach has brought another important mechanism which is reflected in the possibility of using the so-called clause of overall balance in progress between the rule of law and all the remaining chapters as a prerequisite for the overall progress in the negotiations. Thus, the same General Negotiating Position of the EU provides for the establishment of a mechanism that will ensure the overall balance in the progress of negotiations between Chapters 23 and 24 and all other chapters, which in practice means that, should it be assessed that progress in these important chapters is significantly lagging behind the other negotiations, the EU can withhold its recommendations to open and/or close the other negotiating chapters, and take measures to eliminate the imbalance. This initiative can be started either by the European Commission alone, or one-third of the Member States may submit a proposal to launch the mentioned clause. This mechanism hasn’t been initiated yet neither in the case of negotiations of Montenegro, nor Serbia. What is interesting is that Serbia, in addition to the aforementioned two chapters of the rule of law (23 and 24), in the context of the new approach received also Chapter 35 (relations with Pristina) as an indicator of the uniform progress towards the membership[25].
In practice, the new approach actually serves as a platform for measuring progress which is gradually achieved through the whole negotiation process. In the case of Montenegro this means that after the country had opened and provisionally closed two chapters (25 Science and Research in December 2012 and 26 Culture and Education in April 2013) it was not possible to proceed to open or close new chapters before the fulfillment of the opening benchmarks for Chapters 23 and 24.
Montenegrin negotiating team had been working from the end of the screening for the rule of law in May 2012, on the preparation of the opening of the chapters by developing action plans for both chapters, which the Government adopted on 27 June 2013. This opened the way to prepare and hold the intergovernmental conference for the opening of chapters related to the rule of law on 18 December 2013. On this occasion, Montenegro was set a total of 83 interim benchmarks: 45 benchmarks for Chapter 23 and 38 for Chapter 24, which is more than all the opening and closing benchmarks that have so far been set in the process of negotiations of Croatia. Serbia has not yet opened these two chapters although it adopted the action plans and met the additional requirement that the government adopts the Action Plan for the exercise of the rights of national minorities. It is expected that Serbia will get a similar, if not even greater number of interim benchmarks.
These benchmarks of the interim nature were introduced for the first time in the negotiation process and assigned to Montenegro in order to allow the European Commission and Member States to closely monitor progress in the medium term, before the candidate is given the final benchmarks on the basis of which it will be able to close the chapter. The benchmarks are diverse, ranging from those that refer to the legislative work, than the institutional capacities and initial track record. Thus, for example one of the main benchmarks in chapter 23 says: ”Montenegro implements constitutional amendments in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission and the European standards and best practices. Consequently, Montenegro should adopt a sub-constitutional legislation”[26]. This reflects the extent of the expected changes in legislation that the EU expects of the candidates, even if it was the highest legal act. Then, also in Chapter 23, the EU expressed its expectation that: ”Montenegro establishes a new agency for anti-corruption with a clearly defined mandate and effective powers. This agency should demonstrate a proactive attitude, to have the necessary independence, sufficient resources, including recruitment on the basis of merit as well as trained staff, and should be well connected with other relevant institutions (and their databases). Montenegro provides that the appointment of the Head of the Agency for Anti-corruption is transparent, carried out on the basis of merit and objective criteria including professional skills”[27]. This example shows that the candidates are also expected to institutionally regulate the field of activity, and the establishment of new bodies to further improve the work on the rule of law. Finally, the third level of the benchmarks relates to the very initial balance of practical results which demonstrates the success of the system, and so: ”Montenegro provides an opening track record of results achieved in successful processing of applications for international judicial cooperation and the implementation of bilateral agreements on judicial cooperation with other countries in the region”[28].
All this speak volumes about how the interim benchmarks are detailed, complex and demanding and how much time, administrative capacities and energy their fulfillment takes through the strategic document of the Government. The Montenegrin action plans themselves have more than 700 very detailed activities and measures which are foreseen for the purpose of improving the situation in the area of the rule of law. Over 300 persons within 50 institutions in Montenegro are responsible for the smooth implementation of measures and activities from the action plans. They are coordinated by 25 coordinators who continue to follow their work in the working groups for these two chapters. Council for Rule of Law is responsible for the overall coordination in the implementation of the plans while at the final stage the Government takes over the responsibility for meeting the objectives. These activities can roughly be divided into legislation, institutions and measurable results. In the first field, measures concern the preparation, drafting and adoption of laws and by-laws. This is the first and most important layer of work in the area of the rule of law, which provides a platform for the overall progress in the other two areas. So far, through this approach Montenegro has adopted more than 50 laws and hundreds of legal documents relating to both chapters in order to harmonize its system, not only with the EU acquis, but also with the best standards and practices of some EU Member States and international organizations.
In addition, institution-building is an important part of the overall measures. A full range of activities has led to better preparedness of institutions to work with the new legal instruments and standards through training, seminars, educational programs, study visits, etc. A number of measures aims to recruit new employees in a wide range of institutions, but perhaps the most important is the establishment of entirely new institutions to deal with organized crime and corruption, such as the new Special Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime and Corruption, the establishment of which began with the entry into force of the Law on Special Public Prosecutor’s Office [29] on 3 March 2015.
Finally, the crown of efforts in the field of the rule of law is represented by the initial measurable results that Montenegro needs to establish through the accession process. Practical results that a country achieves in this area have the biggest impact on the overall understanding of the progress the country has made in order to demonstrate its resolution to achieve the required standards in the rule of law. It is expected that the closing benchmarks for Chapters 23 and 24 will be, for the most part, based on creating a convincing track record. However, bearing in mind that it is a living process, what we can do is continue to monitor and overview the situation in practice in order to see further development of relations between the EU and candidate countries in this area.
CONCLUSION
The rule of law over the past more than forty years of development within the complex schemes of European policy has reached a very high position both when it comes to Member States, and especially the candidates. From the very modest beginnings in the working groups that have only served for a modest exchange of information, today is an elaborated and diverse pool of the acquis that is developing on a daily basis. It is true that the acquis, in particular in Chapter 23, is still in the sphere of so-called ”Soft acquis”, as well as that the instruments and standards of other international and European organizations and institutions are still used, as well as good practice in some Member States, in accordance with the estimates of the experts; but it is expected that the European Union will continue to further develop its policies in this area. Specific challenges and risks, as many times before, have always been directing the EU to new creative mechanisms in order to further promote deeper internal integration. So the current crisis of Schengen, asylum, non-observance of human rights and generally of what is meant to be a European standard, even if it hasn’t been codified through the acquis, make the European Union to seek and find the solutions.
On the other hand, the new approach, created after years of experience in negotiations with the candidates, proved to be a guiding principle in negotiations and indicator of balance within the process. The Last Enlargement Strategy of Juncker’s Commission pointed out ”positive development in the field of rule of law, especially when it comes to legislative frameworks and institutional structures. In Montenegro, for example, good progress has been made in this part after the opening of negotiations”.[30] In the case of Montenegro, the new approach has proven to be a highly successful mechanism. This allowed the country to move forward during the accession preparations and to get close to the stage of fulfillment of the interim benchmarks, after which it will be able to get closing benchmarks in order to focus on the final phase of accession in the area of the rule of law. Success in the area of the rule of law in the negotiations is not only the success of a candidate country but also the success of the EU and its policies. Therefore, the new approach perfectly illustrates how the EU can adapt to new challenges and circumstances, and create functioning and successful approaches in order to achieve solutions and results.
[1] Speech of the EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding at the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels, Viviane Reding, The EU and the Rule of Law – What next?, 3 September 2013, 4, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-677_en.htm
[2] Branko M. Rakić, Za Evropu je potrebno vreme, (For Europe Time is Needed) Faculty of Law, Belgrade, 2009, 155.
[3] Flora A. N. J. Goudappel, Ernst M. H. Hirsch Ballin, Democracy and Rule of Law in the European Union, Asser Press, Rotterdam 2016, 5.
[4] Ratko Marković, Constitutional Right and Political Institutions (Ustavno pravo i političke institucije), Justinijan, Belgrade, 2006, 603-607.
[5] Radomir D. Lukić, Budimir P. Košutić, Introduction to Law (Uvod u pravo), Faculty of Law, Belgrade, 2007, 219.
[6] It was named after the fountain Trevi in Rome, in the vicinity of which the first meeting of this group took place.
[7] John D. Occhipinti, The Politics of EU Police Cooperation: Toward a European FBI?, Lynne Rienner Publisher, London 2003, 31-32.
[8] Especially significant are terrorist acts at the Olympic Games in Munich in 1972, but also the increased activity of the IRA, the Basque group, the Red Brigades in Italy and Germany or 17 November in Greece.
[9] Željko Nikač, Transnational cooperation in the fight against crime – Europol and Interpol, Institute for Textbooks and Teaching Aids, Belgrade 2003, 144-145.
[10] Treaty on European Union (Maastricht) – Traité sur l’Union européenne, signé à Maastricht le 7 février 1992, Journal Officiel des Communautés européennes, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:1992:191:FULL&from=FR
[11] The Working document of the European Parliament, Brussels 2000; Andrea Subhan (ed), The Impact of the Amsterdam Treaty on Justice and Home Affairs Issues, Brussels, 2000, available at: http://www.europarl. europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2000/228145/IPOL-LIBE_ET(2000)228145_EN.pdf
[12] Joint statement of EU Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs and representatives of EU institutions on the terrorist attacks in Brussels on 22 March 2016, available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/24-statement-on-terrorist-attacks-in-brussels-on-22-march/
[13] This phrase was used by the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls in his speech at the Munich Defense Conference on 13 February 2016, to designate the more common problems the Europe is encountering. Discours de Manuel VALLS, Premier ministre Au Forum de Munich sur les politiques de défense – available at: http://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/document/document/2016/02/20160213_discours_de_manuel_valls_premier_ministre_-_conference_securite_a_munich.pdf
[14] Conclusions of the Presidency, European Council in Copenhagen, 21-22 June 1993; available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/enlargement/ec/pdf/cop_en.pdf
[15] Tony Judt, Postwar – A History of Europe since 1945, The Penguin Press, New York, 2005, 702.
[16] Decision (2006f) establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption; 6569 final, 13 December 2006, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/romania/ro_accompanying_measures_1206_en.pdf
[17] Decision (2006b) establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Bulgaria to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption; 6570 final, 13 December 2006, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/bulgaria/bg_accompanying_measures_1206_en.pdf
[18] Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union; available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2005. 157.01.0029.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2005:157:FULL
[19] Statement of the President Junker after the meeting with Prime Minister of Romania Dacian Ciolos, on 16 February 2016 in Brussels; available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/central-europe/news/juncker-romania-can-see-its-monitoring-lifted-before-bulgaria/
[20] Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament – Strategy Paper of the European Commission on progress in the enlargement process {SEC(2004) 1199, 1200} /*COM/2004/0657 final */, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52004DC0657
[21] Joint article by Irish Minister of State for European Affairs Lucinda Creighton and Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy Stefan Füle); available at: http://www.delmne.ec.europa.eu/code/navigate. php?Id=2396
[22] Council conclusions on enlargement and stabilization and association process 3132nd GENERAL AFFAIRS Council meeting Brussels, 5 December 2011, Article 4; available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/ cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/126577.pdf
[23] General Negotiating Position of the EU for the Ministerial meeting which opens the Intergovernmental Conference on Accession of Montenegro to the European Union, Brussels, 29 June 2012, Article 6, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/st20002_05_mn_framedoc_en.pdf
[24] General Position of the Government of Montenegro for the Ministerial meeting which opens the Intergovernmental Conference on Accession of Montenegro to the European Union, Brussels, 29 June 2012, Article 16.
[25] General Negotiating Position of the EU for the Ministerial meeting which opens the Intergovernmental Conference on Accession of Republic of Serbia to the European Union, Brussels, 21 January 2014; Article 12, available at: http://www.seio.gov.rs/upload/documents/pristupni_pregovori/neg_frame.PDF
[26] EU Common Position for Chapter 23 Judiciary and fundamental rights, page 17; available at: http://www.eu. me/mn/23/23-dokumenti.
[27] EU Common Position for Chapter 23 Judiciary and fundamental rights, page 20.
[28] EU Common Position for Chapter 24 Justice, freedom and security, page 21; available at: http://www.eu.me/ mn/24/23-dokumenti-2.
[29] Law on the Special Prosecutor’s Office of Montenegro, available at: http://www.sluzbenilist.me/PravniAkt Detalji.aspx?tag=%7B0B63F6AE-FBA3-4CA3-A51C-61D046A0916C%7D
[30] EU Enlargement Strategy, November 2015, page 5, available at the address: http://ec.europa.eu/ enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2015/20151110_strategy_paper_en.pdf
Coments