Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union"

The title of this paper comes from the famous ‘Schuman Declaration’ of 1950, which signaled the placing of Franco-German production of coal and steel under a single High Authority. It is quite astonishing that from this humble beginning, evolved the European Union of today. The phrase takes on new relevance as the Treaty of Nice paves the way for the biggest single enlargement of the European Union. The current Treaty, completes the Intergovernmental Conference which began in February, 2000. The founding treaties, signed in Paris and Rome in 1951 and 1957 respectively, and the amending treaties, most notably the Treaty on European Union, (Maastricht), and the Treaty of Amsterdam, form the Constitution of the European Union. It is important to note that while the earlier treaties concentrated on economic integration, the later treaties have shifted towards political questions. Bibliographic references to the various treaties have become quite complicated because the Treaty of Amsterdam brought about a renumbering of the articles to both the Treaty on European Union (EU) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC).

The subject of this article is to analyze the meaning of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality in the light of the provisions of primary and secondary European Union law and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is inherent to the functioning of the internal market and EU citizenship. The prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality is undoubtedly one of the main goals of the European Union[1] in the social and economic context, which was reflected in the localization of the matter in question in the primary law of the European Union[2], in secondary law and in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Treaty on European Union (TEU)[3] and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)[4] indicate equality as one of the EU values (Article 2 TEU), require it to be promoted and combat all discrimination (Articles 8 and 10 TFEU) and prohibit discrimination due to the criteria indicated therein (Articles 18 and 19 TFEU). In secondary law, this principle was expressed primarily in the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council No. 492/2011 on the free movement of workers within the Union and in art. 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their relatives to move freely[5]. A special role in this area is played by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which stated that all authorities of the Member States are obliged to refuse to apply a provision of national law that is contrary to the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of citizenship (Article 18 TFEU)[6]. Moreover, national measures may be examined in the light of art. 18 TFEU, but only to the extent that they apply to situations not covered by specific non-discrimination provisions included in the Treaty[7]. The author puts forward the thesis that the analysis of CJEU jurisprudence reveals a visible dissonance between the application of national regulations of the Member States and the provisions of EU law in this matter, which significantly hinders the implementation of the principle of non-discrimination in practice. Discrepancies mainly occur in domestic legal acts due to the improper drafting of national legal provisions and / or their misinterpretation by national judicial or administrative authorities. It should be emphasized that the Member States are obliged to comply with EU law, which is not tantamount only to the obligation of state authorities to respect directly applicable acts, or to implement required regulations into internal law, but also the obligation to interpret and apply internal law in a manner that does not violate the requirement resulting from EU law[8]. Judicial and administrative authorities of the Member States should therefore interpret national law as far as possible, in line with EU law, because the limits of the pro-EU interpretation will be determined by the powers conferred by domestic law[9]. The study uses the legal-comparative method, consisting in a comparative analysis of the legal systems of the Member States and the European Union in the field of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality, rights and restrictions on the freedom of movement of authorized entities. Comparative verification of EU acts with the internal standards of individual EU Member States allows to reveal the degree of advancement of the implementation process of EU law provisions under the free movement of EU citizens and their family members in the discussed area in the legal systems of European Union Member States. The purpose of this analysis is to, inter alia, diagnose areas in which these countries have not implemented or improperly implemented EU regulations, or have misinterpreted them. The second method used is the method of analyzing the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union - the rulings of the CJEU constitute a significant part of the study. The case law in question covers the period from the establishment of the Treaties of Rome to the present day. The use of the latter obligated the author to apply the comparative method of judgments based on same or similar legal bases in similar circumstances from different stages of the evolution of the free movement of citizens of the European Union and their family members under the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality. [1] Cf. Olivier De Schutter, Links between migration and discrimination. A legal analysis of the situation in EU Member States (Brussels: European Commission, 2016), 102 and next; See also Brita Sundberg-Weitman, Discrimination on Grounds of Nationality. Free Movement of Workers and Freedom of Establishment under the EEC Treaty (Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1977). [2] Erica Szyszczak, “Antidiscrimination Law in the European Union,” Fordham International Law Journal, no. 32 (2008): 635. [3] The Treaty on European Union (consolidated version) OJ of the EU 2012, No. C 326/01. [4] The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated version) OJ of the EU 2012, No. C 326/01. [5] Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council No. 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (O.J.E.C. L 158, 30 April 2004). [6] CJEU Judgement of 7 May 1998, Clean Car Autoservice GmbH p. Landeshauptmann von Wien, Case C-350/96, ECLI:EU:C:1998:205. [7] CJEU Judgement of 18 June 2019, Republic of Austria v Federal Republic of Germany, Case C-591/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:504, pt 41. [8] Marek Górski, “Wpływ orzecznictwa Europejskiego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości na interpretację i stosowanie przepisów o ochronie środowiska,” in Wspólnotowe prawo ochrony środowiska i jego implementacja w Polsce trzy lata po akcesji, ed. Jerzy Jendrośka and Magdalena Bar (Wrocław: Centrum Prawa Ekologicznego Press, 2008), 31. [9] Monika Niedźwiedź, “Stosowanie prawa wspólnotowego przez organy administracyjne,” Casus, no. 32 (October 2004): 6.

Since the signing of the Treaty on European Union in Maastricht in 1992, calls have gradually been increasing for a greater recognition of, and firmer foundation for, fundamental (social) rights within the European Union. These calls naturally became louder following the Opinion of the European Court of Justice excluding the possibility of EC accession to the European Convention of Human Rights and during the lead up to the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. Academics, independent EU Advisory Committees, groups representing the interests of EU citizens and residents and the European Parliament lamented the almost complete absence of fundamental social rights in the Treaty, and called for an ambitious revision of the Treaty. To a large extent these calls went unheard in Amsterdam, and the new Treaty does not incorporate a comprehensive list of social fundamental rights.

Since the signing of the Treaty on European Union in Maastricht in 1992, calls have gradually been increasing for a greater recognition of, and firmer foundation for, fundamental (social) rights within the European Union. These calls naturally became louder following the Opinion of the European Court of Justice excluding the possibility of EC accession to the European Convention of Human Rights and during the lead up to the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. Academics, independent EU Advisory Committees, groups representing the interests of EU citizens and residents and the European Parliament lamented the almost complete absence of fundamental social rights in the Treaty, and called for an ambitious revision of the Treaty. To a large extent these calls went unheard in Amsterdam, and the new Treaty does not incorporate a comprehensive list of social fundamental rights.

Within the widening European Union, large-scale movements of people, animals and food-products increasingly contribute to the potential for spread of communicable diseases. The EU was given a mandate for public health action only in 1992, under the Treaty of European Union ("Maastricht Treaty"), which was broadened in the 1997 with the Treaty of Amsterdam. While all EU countries have statutory requirements for notifying communicable diseases, national and regional communicable disease surveillance practices vary considerably (1). The Network Committee (NC) for the Epidemiological Surveillance and Control of Communicable Diseases in the EU was established in 1998 to harmonise these activities.

Various provisions of the Treaty on European Union (“TEU”) and of the EC Treaty specifically require action to be taken, at the definitive stage or at some preparatory or intermediate stage of decision-making, by the European Council, or by the Council of the European Union meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government (“the HSG Council”); and there is one instance of an appointing power exercisable by an intergovernmental conference at the level of Heads of State or Government (“an HSG Conference”). Reserving a role for the political leaders of the Union in the adoption of particular decisions was an innovation of the TEU, more especially in the Title of the EC Treaty on economic and monetary policy, and further instances have been added by the Treaty of Amsterdam (“TA”) and the Treaty of Nice (“TN”).

Various provisions of the Treaty on European Union (“TEU”) and of the EC Treaty specifically require action to be taken, at the definitive stage or at some preparatory or intermediate stage of decision-making, by the European Council, or by the Council of the European Union meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government (“the HSG Council”); and there is one instance of an appointing power exercisable by an intergovernmental conference at the level of Heads of State or Government (“an HSG Conference”). Reserving a role for the political leaders of the Union in the adoption of particular decisions was an innovation of the TEU, more especially in the Title of the EC Treaty on economic and monetary policy, and further instances have been added by the Treaty of Amsterdam (“TA”) and the Treaty of Nice (“TN”).

This paper elaborates the evolving role of national parliaments in the different stages of the European integration process. The Review begins with the first stage (the foundation of the European Union) where national parliaments showed no or little interest in the matters of Community, and then the impact of Single European Act, following the first changes in the Maastricht Treaty, through the two Declarations attached to it and then the Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam. Finally the paper focuses on the changes and innovations presented in the Lisbon Treaty which will enhance the role of national parliaments in the European Union governance. For this purpose, the paper analyzes chronologically the rights that national parliaments had before the Lisbon Treaty and the new role of national parliaments after the Lisbon Treaty came into force.

When it enters into force on 1 May 1999, the Treaty of Amsterdam will bring amendments to, among other things, the legislative process of the European Community. There will be no change as far-reaching as the introduction of the so-called “co-decision procedure” by the Treaty on European Union (TEU), but a genuine attempt is made to streamline the process, to render it more transparent and to enhance democratic accountability. Inevitably, though, not all the changes will be for the better. Two steps forwards and one back is, as ever, the favoured locomotive style of the Union’s constitution-makers.

The article summarizes the main treaties of the European Union, which in one way or another had a significant impact on its development. It was found that after the end of the Second World War, European leaders decided to protect themselves by uniting into a community. Thus, the first treaty where six states united to create a common coal and steel market was Paris Treaty, which was signed in 1951. Its purpose was to create interdependence of states in coal and steel, so that one state could no longer mobilize its armed forces without the knowledge of the others. This is one of the few treaties that has expired. The following treaties, which became the basis of the European integration movement in Europe, became the Rome Treaties concluded in 1957. As a result, the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community were created. Later, in 1965, the Merger Treaty was signed, the main purpose of which was to streamline the work of European institutions. This agreement has also expired. It was also found that the Single European Act of 1986 reformed the work of the EU institutions in the framework of the Alliance’s preparation for the accession of Portugal and Spain, as well as to speed up the decision-making process in preparation for the creation of the single market. In addition, it was analysed that the Maastricht Treaty was concluded in 1992, which established the modern structure of the EU. In addition, the main purpose of this Treaty is to prepare the European Union for the creation of a monetary union, as well as to introduce the elements of a political union (citizenship, common foreign and domestic policy). Another no less important treaty was concluded in 1997, which was called the Amsterdam Treaty. This Treaty was intended to prepare the EU institutions for future enlargement. It was revealed that in 2001, during the signing of the Nice Treaty, the EU member states determined the need to reform the institutions of the European Union for the purpose of their effective functioning after the expansion to 25 states, to review the system of chairmanship in the Council of the EU. In addition, the last treaty, the main goal of which was to make the EU more democratic, more efficient and capable of solving global problems, was the Lisbon Treaty signed in 2007.

The thesis analyses the negotiations at the 1996-97 Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) of the European Union (EU) and outlines an array of ideas, interests and issues at stake for the actors involved. The thesis has three objectives: (1) to explain the 1996-97 IGC negotiations which led to the Amsterdam Treaty, (2) to identify the key players throughout this process and (3) to examine the concept and characteristics of the EU IGC. This thesis aims to provide both breadth and depth in its analysis, presenting an overview of almost all the significant topics on the IGC agenda while focusing on three major issue areas: institutional reform. Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) and Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). At the same it concentrates on the governments of Britain, France and Germany, while outlining the positions of all other governments and the European institutions. The thesis has three basic lines of argumentation. The first argues that the 1996-97 IGC was an incremental process where member governments often had poorly defined objectives, leaving the process to drift along with little direction for the greater part of the sixteen months. In turn governments either drifted into agreement without being fully aware of the consequences of their decisions, or they postponed taking decisions on difficult and divisive issues until a future IGC or the post-negotiation phase. The second argument relates to the key players in the IGC process. While all member governments played a role in the IGC process the most influential actor was the Dutch Presidency, followed by the Irish Presidency and the French, British and German governments. Given that the Presidencies played such an important role it is also possible to gain some insight to the 'behind the scenes' role of the Council Secretariat. Finally, there were also occasions when the Commission also proved influential. The third strand of argumentation relates to the concept of the IGC, arguing that since the first Conference the IGC has evolved, being gradually institutionalised into the European Union.

This thesis aims at answering two research questions at the topic of Reshaping the Future of the European Union. The questions are: Will the future of the European Union be flexible? and if so, Which model will be the most suitable one?. To answer these questions flexibility is analyzed through the context that necessitates its usage, its earlier and recent models, its evolution at the official realm, and the institutional and country views on it chapters. At the end of this analysis, this thesis&
#8217
answer to the first question is: Yes, although there is quite skepticism against the term flexibility at almost every realm of the Union
its gradual evolution at all dimensions of the Union shows that this term would continue to develop and has a chance to become the main ruling mechanism at the future. The answer of the second question is: a modified Variable Geometry in addition to the introduction of radical comprehensive structural changes would be the most sufficient future flexible model of integration at the future.

Denna uppsats ämnar att undersöka arbetet med den gemensamma asyl policyn inom EU.Beslutet för policyn togs 1999 vid EU mötet i Finska Tammerfors och började med en plan på fem år.Jag vill i denna studie se vad som har hänt sedan 1999 och effekten av detta på personer som söker asyl inom EU:s gränser. Detta är ett interdisciplinärt arbete genom att jag ser på faktorer som de legala utvecklingarna genom vilka lagar som presenterats och implementerats samt ett frågeformulär som jag sänt till personer som jobbar för organisationer i samarbete med the European Council for Refugees and Exiles för att få deras syn på utvecklingen. Jag presenterar även statistik och diagram från the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees för att illustrera mönster i utvecklingen av migrationsmönster. Utgångspunkten för harmoniseringen är att alla Medlems Stater ska behandla ansökningar om asyl på ett likvärdigt sätt, men under nuvarande omständigheter verkar det som att det finns stora skillnader i antalet ansökningar, antalet erkända flyktingar och vilken status som godkänns inom EU:s medlemsländer.Dublin regulationen uppfattas som ett orättvist verktyg mot asylsökanden eftersom staterna har olikheter i erkännandet och olika status för flyktingar. EU:s medlemsländer har en ganska lång väg kvar i harmoniseringsarbetet innan de kan hävda att de har likvärdig hantering av asylsökanden.
The aim of this study is to investigate the development of the Common European Asylum System which was called for at the Tampere European Council in 1999. The intention was to harmonize the legal standards of asylum seekers and refugees and coordinating the policies Thus, with this study I want to give an account as to what has happened so far and what effect this might have had on asylum seekers in the Member States of the European Union.This is done through an interdisciplinary approach by looking at the developments in the legal section as to what laws have been passed and implemented so far but also with a questionnaire sent to organizations working in connection to European Council for Refugees and Exiles aiming to understand their perception of the harmonization process. Further, I present statistics and diagrams taken from statistic publications of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in order to illustrate patterns in the history of migration as to trends and patterns.The main idea of the harmonization process is that all Member States should treat asylum applications in a similar way. However at present there still seems to be major differences in the numbers of applications, the recognition rates and what status granted between the Member States of the European Union. The Dublin Regulation is perceived as an unjust tool against the asylum seekers since states have differences in the recognition and statuses. The Member States of the European Union still have a very long way to go in this harmonization process to claim equal treatment of asylum seekers.

My thesis is based on description of asylum policy of Czech Republic after year 1989, as well as the fact about influence of entering Czech Republic in EU, according to asylum policy and the number of immigrants. There is a description of immigration after year 1989. There is also a description of the number of immigrants and the common view of these questions. This situation is compared with the situation in similar Belgium. The main purpose of my thesis is to make description in the domain of immigration in both countries and further comparation in the domain of asylum policy, the number of immigrants and their nationality origin. My thesis also includes common asylum and migration policy of EU. According to a fact that immigration to Belgium started earlier and that Belgium is called the "Land of asylum", this country was always very attractive destination with many new opportunities and better standards of life. There was also a big immigration influence to local culture. There is a big difference between Belgium and Czech Republic, because Czech Republic has not had yet open approach to other nationalities. The immigration to Czech Republic started much later and there is no important influence to czech culture. The nationalities of incoming immigrants to both countries are also different.

AbstractGender equality is an increasingly topical issue, but it has deep historical roots. The principle of gender equality found its legitimacy, even if limited to salary, in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC). This treaty, in Article 119, sanctioned the principle of equal pay between male and female workers. The EEC continued to protect women’s rights in the 1970s through equal opportunity policies. These policies referred, first, to the principle of equal treatment between men and women regarding education, access to work, professional promotion, and working conditions (Directive 75/117/EEC); second, to the principle of equal pay for male and female workers (Directive 76/207/EEC); and finally, enshrined the principle of equal treatment between men and women in matters of social security (Directive 79/7/EEC). Since the 1980s, several positive action programmes have been developed to support the role of women in European society. Between 1982 and 2000, four multiyear action programmes were implemented for equal opportunities. The first action programme (1982–1985) called on the Member States, through recommendations and resolutions by the Commission, to disseminate greater knowledge of the types of careers available to women, encourage the presence of women in decision-making areas, and take measures to reconcile family and working life. The second action programme (1986–1990) proposed interventions related to the employment of women in activities related to new technologies and interventions in favour of the equal distribution of professional, family, and social responsibilities (Sarcina, 2010). The third action programme (1991–1995) provided an improvement in the condition of women in society by raising public awareness of gender equality, the image of women in mass media, and the participation of women in the decision-making process at all levels in all areas of society. The fourth action programme (1996–2000) strengthened the existing regulatory framework and focused on the principle of gender mainstreaming, a strategy that involves bringing the gender dimension into all community policies, which requires all actors in the political process to adopt a gender perspective. The strategy of gender mainstreaming has several benefits: it places women and men at the heart of policies, involves both sexes in the policymaking process, leads to better governance, makes gender equality issues visible in mainstream society, and, finally, considers the diversity among women and men. Among the relevant interventions of the 1990s, it is necessary to recall the Treaty of Maastricht (1992) which guaranteed the protection of women in the Agreement on Social Policy signed by all Member States (except for Great Britain), and the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997), which formally recognised gender mainstreaming. The Treaty of Amsterdam includes gender equality among the objectives of the European Union (Article 2) and equal opportunity policies among the activities of the European Commission (Article 3). Article 13 introduces the principle of non-discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or handicaps. Finally, Article 141 amends Article 119 of the EEC on equal treatment between men and women in the workplace. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Nice Union of 2000 reaffirms the prohibition of ‘any discrimination based on any ground such as sex’ (Art. 21.1). The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also recognises, in Article 23, the principle of equality between women and men in all areas, including employment, work, and pay. Another important intervention of the 2000s is the Lisbon strategy, also known as the Lisbon Agenda or Lisbon Process. It is a reform programme approved in Lisbon by the heads of state and governments of the member countries of the EU. The goal of the Lisbon strategy was to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010. To achieve this goal, the strategy defines fields in which action is needed, including equal opportunities for female work. Another treaty that must be mentioned is that of Lisbon in 2009, thanks to which previous treaties, specifically the Treaty of Maastricht and the Treaty of Rome, were amended and brought together in a single document: the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has assumed a legally binding character (Article 6, paragraph 1 of the TEU) both for European institutions and for Member States when implementing EU law. The Treaty of Lisbon affirms the principle of equality between men and women several times in the text and places it among the values and objectives of the union (Articles 2 and 3 of the TEU). Furthermore, the Treaty, in Art. 8 of the TFEU, states that the Union’s actions are aimed at eliminating inequalities, as well as promoting equality between men and women, while Article 10 of the TFEU provides that the Union aims to ‘combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation’. Concerning the principle of gender equality in the workplace, the Treaty, in Article 153 of the TFEU, asserts that the Union pursues the objective of equality between men and women regarding labour market opportunities and treatment at work. On the other hand, Article 157 of the TFEU confirms the principle of equal pay for male and female workers ‘for equal work or work of equal value’. On these issues, through ordinary procedures, the European Parliament and the Council may adopt appropriate measures aimed at defending the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and women. The Lisbon Treaty also includes provisions relating to the fight against trafficking in human beings, particularly women and children (Article 79 of the TFEU), the problem of domestic violence against women (Article 8 of the TFEU), and the right to paid maternity leave (Article 33). Among the important documents concerning gender equality is the Roadmap (2006–2010). In 2006, the European Commission proposed the Roadmap for equality between women and men, in addition to the priorities on the agenda, the objectives, and tools necessary to achieve full gender equality. The Roadmap defines six priority areas, each of which is associated with a set of objectives and actions that makes it easier to achieve them. The priorities include equal economic independence for women and men, reconciliation of private and professional life, equal representation in the decision-making process, eradication of all forms of gender-based violence, elimination of stereotypes related to gender, and promotion of gender equality in external and development policies. The Commission took charge of the commitments included in the Roadmap, which were indirectly implemented by the Member States through the principle of subsidiarity and the competencies provided for in the Treaties (Gottardi, 2013). The 2006–2010 strategy of the European Commission is based on a dual approach: on the one hand, the integration of the gender dimension in all community policies and actions (gender mainstreaming), and on the other, the implementation of specific measures in favour of women aimed at eliminating inequalities. In 2006, the European Council approved the European Pact for Gender Equality which originated from the Roadmap. The European Pact for Gender Equality identified three macro areas of intervention: measures to close gender gaps and combat gender stereotypes in the labour market, measures to promote a better work–life balance for both women and men, and measures to strengthen governance through the integration of the gender perspective into all policies. In 2006, Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and Council regulated equal opportunities and equal treatment between male and female workers. Specifically, the Directive aims to implement the principle of equal treatment related to access to employment, professional training, and promotion; working conditions, including pay; and occupational social security approaches. On 21 September 2010, the European Commission adopted a new strategy to ensure equality between women and men (2010–2015). This new strategy is based on the experience of Roadmap (2006–2010) and resumes the priority areas identified by the Women’s Charter: equal economic independence, equal pay, equality in decision-making, the eradication of all forms of violence against women, and the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment beyond the union. The 2010–2015 Strategic Plan aims to improve the position of women in the labour market, but also in society, both within the EU and beyond its borders. The new strategy affirms the principle that gender equality is essential to supporting the economic growth and sustainable development of each country. In 2010, the validity of the Lisbon Strategy ended, the objectives of which were only partially achieved due to the economic crisis. To overcome this crisis, the Commission proposed a new strategy called Europe 2020, in March 2010. The main aim of this strategy is to ensure that the EU’s economic recovery is accompanied by a series of reforms that will increase growth and job creation by 2020. Specifically, Europe’s 2020 strategy must support smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. To this end, the EU has established five goals to be achieved by 2020 and has articulated the different types of growth (smart, sustainable, and inclusive) in seven flagship initiatives. Among the latter, the initiative ‘an agenda for new skills and jobs’, in the context of inclusive growth, is the one most closely linked to gender policies and equal opportunities; in fact, it substantially aims to increase employment rates for women, young, and elderly people. The strategic plan for 2010–2015 was followed by a strategic commitment in favour of gender equality 2016–2019, which again emphasises the five priority areas defined by the previous plan. Strategic commitment, which contributes to the European Pact for Gender Equality (2011–2020), identifies the key actions necessary to achieve objectives for each priority area. In March 2020, the Commission presented a new strategic plan for equality between women and men for 2020–2025. This strategy defines a series of political objectives and key actions aimed at achieving a ‘union of equality’ by 2025. The main objectives are to put an end to gender-based violence and combat sexist stereotypes, ensure equal opportunities in the labour market and equal participation in all sectors of the economy and political life, solve the problem of the pay and pension gap, and achieve gender equality in decision-making and politics. From the summary of the regulatory framework presented, for the European Economic Community first, then for the European Community, and finally for the European Union, gender equality has always been a fundamental value. Interest in the issues of the condition of women and equal opportunities has grown over time and during the process of European integration, moving from a perspective aimed at improving the working conditions of women to a new dimension to improve the life of the woman as a person, trying to protect her not only professionally but also socially, and in general in all those areas in which gender inequality may occur. The approach is extensive and based on legislation, the integration of the gender dimension into all policies, and specific measures in favour of women. From the non-exhaustive list of the various legislative interventions, it is possible to note a continuous repetition of the same thematic priorities which highlights, on the one hand, the poor results achieved by the implementation of the policies, but, on the other hand, the Commission’s willingness to pursue the path initially taken. Among the achievements in the field of gender equality obtained by the EU, there is certainly an increase in the number of women in the labour market and the acquisition of better education and training. Despite progress, gender inequalities have persisted. Even though women surpass men in terms of educational attainment, gender gaps still exist in employment, entrepreneurship, and public life (OECD, 2017). For example, in the labour market, women continue to be overrepresented in the lowest-paid sectors and underrepresented in top positions (according to the data released in the main companies of the European Union, women represent only 8% of CEOs).

This chapter explores the emergence and implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon. Its origins lie in the Constitutional Treaty of 2004 and its rejection in the French and Dutch referendums of 2005, which led to a period of so-called reflection. Then, mainly under the German Council presidency of early 2007, there was an emphatic drive to produce not a constitution, but an orthodox amending treaty to carry forward the basic reforms of the Constitutional Treaty. A deal was reached in October 2007. However, while parliamentary ratification went successfully, an initial referendum rejection in Ireland in June 2008 cast doubt on the new Treaty’s future. In part, this symbolized a rejection of some elements of the Treaty, but it also owed much to a deeper unease about the EU. Once Irish concerns had been assuaged, a second referendum produced the necessary ‘yes’ to ratification and, following some last-minute concessions to the Czech Republic, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009. Its implementation proceeded relatively smoothly but was complicated by the eurozone crisis, which in turn pushed the EU to pursue some further treaty reform. In the face of increasing Euroscepticism, and persistent question marks over the popular legitimacy of the EU, the appetite for treaty reform all but evaporated for much of the 2010s, even if for integrationists the eurozone crisis demanded further reform. Towards the end of the decade, with Emmanuel Macron as French President calling for a ‘re-founding’ of the EU and the UK negotiating its withdrawal from the EU, opportunities for and some interest in a new round of treaty reform appeared to be emerging.