You are on page 1of 9


Daniel Hegedűs
Legal Background of Territorial Co-operation in Hungary.
International, European and National Legal Frameworks

Albeit it could be hard to deny that the years 2006 and 2007 were historically important
turning points in the evolution of European regional policy and territorial cooperation, and the
financial resources and legal frameworks shifted to be more supportive than ever before, it is
easy to realise that border regions in East-Central-Europe became very deprived regions
during last decades as a result of centralised spatial planning policies of nation states.
Fortunately, the revitalisation of these regions, the creation of territorial cohesion is on
the European political agenda since the middle of the ‘90s. The financial support of East-
Central-European border regions was set forth in 1996 with the Phare CBC program and went
on after the accession of the ten ECE countries in 2004 with the Interreg III community
initiative. In the new budgetary perspective from 2007 cross-border cooperation was not
supported anymore by narrow community initiatives, instead European Territorial
Cooperation became the third objective of the Structural Funds. That is also the first
community budgetary perspective in which the financial resources of cohesion policy were
higher than the CAP’s. But the management of these increased resources needed a new,
modified and uniform regulation at the European level. In its final and accepted form that is
Regulation 1082/2006/EC on the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation, a regulation
with direct effect, supreme character above national legislation, compulsory for all EU
Member States that created a hitherto nonexistent standard legal model for territorial (cross-
border) cooperation in Europe. Such a huge progress at once has never been realised in this
field during the previous fifty years on the Continent.
But why was this legislation necessary at all? For most people cross-border cooperation
is nearly equivalent with the existing structure of euroregions. It might be stated that
euroregion served as an institutional framework of transfrontier cooperation during the last
decades and our first impression could be that they served well. But what are exactly
euroregions? According to the widely used definition of Association of European Border
Regions (AEBR) euroregions are “cross-border organisations with a permanent secretariat,
experts, administrative staff, sometimes parliamentary assembly established by the
amalgamation of regional and local authorities from both sides of the national border”.1
Thus euroregions represent a more or less stable structure for the management of transfrontier
issues but under no circumstances a legal framework. Also euroregions can exist without any
legal personality which can make applications for EU cohesion policy programmes
impossible, or on the other hand can own private and sometimes even public legal personality.
It could also happen, that a euroregion as one institution exist only theoretically, which is
exactly the case concerning many Slovak-Hungarian euroregions. Many of them were
established in a so called “mirror structure”, which means that independent umbrella
associations exist on the two sides of the border and these signed a cooperation agreement
which each other, but do not have common staff, only common policies.
At first sight legal questions do not seem to be very important on the field of territorial
cooperations, but I would like to underline that a lot of unsolved, unregulated legal problems
pulled territorial cooperation back in the last decade even if these challenges were not so
much emphasised as for example the lack of financial support. Without a compulsory
European legal framework the typical questions were, whether and how can a cooperation

Practical Guide to Cross-Border Cooperation, p. 18.
platform gain legal personality? Which national law should be applied in cases concerning
euroregions and cooperation platforms? How many competencies do states have to influence
and control territorial cooperations, narrow the working field and exclude topics from the
cooperation recalling to the principle of state sovereignty? In what form are the members
liable for the debts of the cooperation organs? And which states, which organs have the
competencies for the financial and legal control of the cooperation?
These burning questions were already at least two decades old, when a legislation with
the first package of answers was born at the level of the European Union. Regulation
1082/2006/EC which established the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation was the
first community legal norm in the institutional field of cross-border/territorial cooperation. It
has a direct effect and is compulsory for all EU Member States and prescribes obligations for
them as a European law, which has primacy above the national legislation. The EGTC
regulation does not wish to substitute or replace the existing legal norms in the sphere of
territorial cooperation (bilateral agreements, international law elaborated by Council of
Europe, e.g.) because the aim was to create a fully new alternative, a platform for
But independently from the newly established European legal framework, the political
environment for territorial cooperation is still not sufficiently supportive in East-Central-
Europe. There are still subsisting tendencies of centralisation (for example in Hungary and
Slovakia) and the establishment of currently existing regions was lead centrally in the form of
top-down regionalisation, instead of grassroots regionalism. The NUTS II regions were
formed with the aim of distributing cohesion policy resources, which resulted in the effect that
the regions are more often artificial than organic ones. We can also not forget the cases when
the borders of these regions were drafted with ethnopolitical, ethnonational motivations too,
as it happened in Romania and Slovakia. And last but not least it should be mentioned that
even now cross-border and territorial cooperations in East-Central-Europe are often only
resource oriented, and not problem oriented. It means that the partners are mainly active on
those fields in connection which it is possible to apply for European funds and resources. In
contrary to that, many burning everyday problems in border regions cannot be handled and
solved without additional external financial support.
The problems mentioned above have arisen partially from the non sufficient overtaking
and implementation of previously existing international norms and from the lack of
international legislation.3 The fundaments of the European international legislation in that
field are Madrid Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial
Communities or Authorities (ETS. No. 106) from 1980, its Optional Protocols (1995,1998)
and the European Charter of Local Self-governments from 1985.
Concerning overtaking of international obligations in that field, Hungary ratified the
Madrid Outline Convention in 1994,4 but still has depts concerning the ratification of the
optional protocols, which would allow for cross-border co-operation platforms to gain legal
personality5 and extend the regulations of Madrid Outline Convention between the
transfrontier to the interterritorial dimension of co-operation.6 It has the consequence that
since the implementation of Reg. 1082/2006/EC on the European Grouping of Territorial
Regulation 1082/2006/EC, Preamble, paragraph (5)
We should just think on the failure of European Charter of Regional Self-governments.
It was promulgated by law Nr. 1997:XXIV.
Additional Protocol to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial
Communities or Authorities (CETS No. 159)
Protocol No. 2. to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial
Communities or Authorities concerning Interterritorial Co-operation (CETS. No. 169)
Cooperation already exists, a huge inconsistency arose between the European and
international legal obligations of Hungary in the field of territorial cooperation since the
country does not recognise the same obligations vis-a vis Council of Europe which are
acknowledged and fulfilled vis-à-vis the European Union.
The motivation of the European Commission with the EGTC legislation was not the
establishment of a parallel regulatory framework beside the Council of Europe Conventions.
The main goal of EGTC is to facilitate territorial and social cohesion in EU Member States in
a border-crossing way, mainly through the implementation of community programmes.7 The
competencies of EGTCs are not narrowed only on the management of community
programmes and initiatives, but first of all line they should serve the aims of these programs
and initiatives. 8 EGTC can cover all three forms of European Territorial Cooperation, namely
cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperations. 9 At this point it should be
emphasised that the decisive factor is not the geographical scope of cooperation – however
transnational and interregional networks do not, or not always have territorial character – but
the common legal form of cooperation grouping.
The main advantages of EGTC grouping in contrary to previously existing various
cooperation forms are the following. EGTC has always, under any circumstances got legal
personality with the most extensive type accorded to legal persons in the national law. That
means particularly that EGTC is able to acquire or dispose movable or immovable property,
to employ staff, or to be a party in legal procedures.10 On the other hand EGTC has its own
financial management and budget, holds its own institutional structure and last but not least
derived from the full legal personality has the competence to sign contracts in its own name.
Albeit EGTC is a grouping or association of members under the sovereignty of several states,
is established by EU community law, is registered in one of the EU Member States as a legal
person and an autonomous body and is a legal person according that national law.
Owning a full legal personality is a decisive success factor in the field of territorial
cooperation. It has at least four very important advantages concerning the quality of
cooperation.11 First of all it simplifies and shortens the decision making procedures. An
EGTC or cooperation body with legal personality has generally one competent decision
making body concerning every question. The institutional structure and the relation of
competencies are always clear, public and laid down in the statute of the organisation.
Contrary to that, in a mirror structure generally a duplicated decision making process is
applied, because the entities on both side of the border should accept separately the same
agenda-point. If the mirror organisations are bound together institutionally in an umbrella
organisation without legal personality, even a triplicated decision making procedure is
Legal personality can be a second great advantage in financial management and
especially in the management of EU-funds. An EGTC by itself fulfils the principle of
partnership being a partnership network in itself, but a cooperation platform with legal

Regulation 1082/2006/EC, Preamble, paragraph (11)
Regulation 1082/2006/EC, Preamble, paragraph (16)
Regulation 1082/2006/EC, Preamble, Article 1 (2)
Regulation 1082/2006/EC, Preamble, Article 1 (3)-(4)
Johannes Maier: European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) – Regions‘ new instrument for
‘Cooperation beyond borders‘, 44.p.
Concerning the triplicated decision making procedure we can mention the case of the ”Euroregio Salzburg-
Berchtesgadener Land-Traunstein”. The difficulties in decision making were the main motivating elements of
starting an EGTC forming process in the euroregion. In. Johannes Maier: European Grouping of Territorial
Cooperation (EGTC) – Regions‘ new instrument for ‘Cooperation beyond borders‘, 26.p.
personality can also be the leading partner in EU-fund applications. Without legal personality
the participation in Structural Fund management is nearly impossible. Under that
circumstance exclusively the Members can apply to the Funds and manage the projects and
the finances, and the cooperation platform itself is not more than just a matchmaking network.
Thirdly we should mention that without a legal personality it is unimaginable to own the
capability of legally binding and implementable decisions. Without that capacity the
implementation of decisions depends on the mutual trust and interest of Members, which is
objectionable, if the decision affects financial questions or project management. Without the
facility of judicial execution the single possibility of sanction against non-cooperating
Members or “Free Riders” is the withdrawal of cooperative actions on behalf of the other
Members which clearly results in the failure of the territorial cooperation.
And last but not least owing legal personality increases the legal certainty of cooperation
and even the trust of partners to the cooperation body.13
Concerning the personal scope of EGTC regulation, the range of possible members is
limited to public law entities. According to Article 3 (1) of the Regulation members of EGTC
can belong to the following categories: Member States, regional and/or local authorities, or
bodies governed by public law. Public law entities are defined by the Directive 2004/18/EC
on public works, public supply and public service contracts with the meaning that public law
bodies are those, which are obliged to public procurement procedure. Based on that point the
final circle of possible members is set by the national public procurement laws.14
In the field of personal scope an additional point should be discussed. In the case of
working communities in the frame of euroregions, the level of cooperation and the members
were chosen by territorial-administrative principle, i.e. administrative and self-governmental
units at the same level should participate. Higher territorial units (NUTS II-III entities,
regions, counties, federal states/Länder) cooperated with similar higher territorial units, on the
other hand municipalities and local self-governments cooperated with the same low-level
entities. Due to the different legal-administrative system of States and to the delegation of
political-administrative competencies to different administrative levels in different countries
the cooperating entities did not always have authority over the same field of public-service.
For example primary education can belong to the competence of local self-governments (as is
the case in Hungary) or of central territorial-administrative units (as in the Slovak Republic).
This fact will result in that neither local self-governments nor higher territorial units along the
border will be able to cooperate on that field with each other. The solution could be
cooperation based on competency and not on the territorial-administrative principle. EGTC
allows the possibility to create policy cooperation networks among different partners.

Legal Background
The establishment and functioning of an EGTC is regulated by several community and
national level legal norm. The basic one is Regulation 1082/2006/EC accepted on the 6th of
July, 2006 and came into force on the 1st of August, 2007. As a Regulation it is theoretically
naturally a compulsory community legal norm for all EU Member States and has direct effect.
It should be implemented directly without the promulgation by an internal legal norm and can
be referred and used before national courts. But as a matter of fact EGTC regulation is slightly

Johannes Maier: European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) – Regions‘ new instrument for
‘Cooperation beyond borders‘, 44.p.
In the Slovak Republic Act Nr. 263/1999, in Hungary Act. Nr. 2003:CXXIX., in Romania Government
Emergency Ordinance 34/2006.
different from archetypical regulations, because is more or less only a framework legislation.
Beside the common core of community regulation a lot of questions should be regulated by
national EGTC legal norms for effective implementation.
The mentioned uncertainty of which national law should be applied in the case of an
EGTC does not exist anymore. Concerning Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Regulation it is
always the national law of that Member State where the registered office of EGTC is situated
that should be used.
The national EGTC legal norms are in Slovakia Act Nr. 90/2008 of the 15th of February,
2008 on EZUS (Európske Zozkupenie Územnej Spolupráce) amending Act Nr. 540/2001, in
Romania Governmental Emergency Ordinance from the 13th of November, 2007 on GECT
(Gruparea Europeană de Cooperare Teritorială) and in Hungary Act Nr. 2007:XCIX, which
came into force on the 1st of August, 2007.
But what do national EGTC legislations regulate? Primarily the establishment and
notification of EGTC, the authorisation of member’s participation, the dissolution of an
EGTC and its deleting from official register and last but not least the competent authorities in
these administrative processes. Beside these the form of liability (limited or unlimited,
because if legislations of neighbouring countries are not compatible, it can hamper the
establishment of an EGTC15) and the control of financial management (audition, liquidation,
insolvency – procedures and competent organs) are always important questions.
Beside the given EGTC national laws the full national legal system also has a factual
and general effect on the functioning of an EGTC. The concrete impact is that the scope of
cooperation is determined by the competencies of members laid down in the national
legislation. (Art. 7 paragraph (2) of EGTC Regulation does not establish new fields of
competencies for the members, so cooperation can take place only in the common scope of
the member’s authority. Only one exception exists from this general rule. EGTC should
always be capable of managing community programs on the field of cohesion policy. (Art. 7
paragraph (3)).
The general effect of national legal system on the functioning of an EGTC is that in any
question that is not regulated by the EGTC Regulation or national EGTC law, the national
legislation of that State should be used where EGTC has its seat.
The Slovak EGTC law is Act Nr. 90/2008 of the 15th of February, 2008 amending Act
540/2001 on state statistics. It is a high level legal norm, an act which was accepted by the
Slovak National Council, the highest organ of the legislative branch. The level of legislation
is an important political question, because if the EGTC norm is only a governmental
regulation, a legislative act of an executive organ, in that case a shift in the executive branch
or a political change can influence the issue of territorial cooperation negatively, which
should be originally a politics-neutral policy field. This problem may also arise in connection
with the Notification Authority. In the Slovak Republic it is an executive organ, the Ministry
of Construction and Regional Development, thus the possibility of governmental influence on
the decisions of the Notification Authority exists.

For example theoretically in this question there is a full incompatibility between the Hungarian and Romanian
national legislation. The Hungarian law on self-governments – which is an organic law with 2/3 majority quorum
in the Parliament – prescribes that self-governments can participate in economic activity and different
cooperations only with limited liability, based on the reason of protecting public financial resources. But the
Romanian EGTC law which is the emergency ordinance of the Romanian government of the 13th of November,
2007 contains clear prescription of full liability for every members of EGTCs established under Romanian law.
The result is that theoretically no Hungarian self-government could participate in a Romanian EGTC.
It is positive and important that Slovak entities can also participate in an EGTC with
only limited liability, thus Slovak and Hungarian national EGTC legislations are in this
dimension fully compatible with each other.
From the point of view of the level of legislation and the character of the Notification
Authority the Romanian national legislation is the least satisfactory in the East-Central-
European area among the existing national norms. The Governmental Emergency Ordinance
from the 13th of November, 2007 is a low level legal source accepted by the executive branch
that do not serve the principle of legal certainty and rule of law. The Notification Authority is
the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Housing, again an executive branch organ, so
we can make the same statements as in the case of Slovakia. But there is one huge difference
between the two, namely the behaviour of the Authority. Concerning Slovakia our objections
could be exclusively theoretical yet, since of the Slovak Notification Authority did not abuse
the power arisen from its situation and competencies until now. On the other hand the
Romanian Ministry has been delaying the establishment of Ung-Tisza-Túr EGTC for more
than a year denying the approval from the prospective Romanian members with unremarkable
reasons. Previously I have already mentioned the incompatibility of the liability regulations
between Hungarian and Romanian EGTC legislations – more strictly, the Romanian
ordinance prescribes exclusively full16, meanwhile the Hungarian a limited liability for
municipalities17 as members – which makes the participation of Hungarian self-governments
impossible in an EGTC established in Romania and parallelly renders more difficult the
participation of Romanian members in an EGTC established in Hungary.
The Hungarian national legislation is Act Nr. 2007:XCIX, which came into effect on the
1 of August, 2007, on the same day as the European Regulation 1082/2006/EC itself. It was
one of the first national EGTC legislations in Europe. The law was accepted by the Hungarian
Parliament, it is a high level norm of the legislative branch. The Notification Authority is the
Metropolitan Court of Budapest, an organ of the politically independent judicative branch. It
means that neither through legislation nor through the Notification Organ can territorial
cooperations or the activities of an EGTC be politically influenced by the executive branch or
by the government itself.
Johannes Maier states in his work that Nation States – being afraid of the legal
personality of cross-border cooperation bodies – are following a twofold strategy.18 Being
afraid of losing cross-border cooperation’s control and of harming the principle of States’
territorial sovereignty, they try to exclude the use and implementation of foreign national law
in cooperations where entities of the State are taking part, meanwhile try to expand the own
national law in all possible cooperations where own entities are involved. To shade the
picture, this tendency may exist but definitely it is not the most influential motivation of states
concerning territorial cooperations. Naturally it is an advantage for the Country when e.g. an
EGTC is established under the own national law, but probably it might be more important that
the cooperation should be successful and effective, because it is the only way through which it
is able to apply for the resources of the European Territorial Cooperation. The most
distinctive step is not the selection of the national law, but that the national laws of the
different members should be compatible with each other. European Commission, Committee
of Regions and different INGO-s active in this field should pay a great attention to this
question which should be a key element of the prospective supervision of EGTC legislations
in 2011.
Art. 14 (3) of the Romanian Governmental Emergency Ordinance from the 13th of November, 2007 on EGTC.
2.§ (3) of Hungarian Act Nr. 2007:XCIX on EGTC
Johannes Maier: European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) – Regions‘ new instrument for
‘Cooperation beyond borders‘, 40.p.
Of course it is necessary to make it clear that an EGTC can be established primarily for
non-profit purposes, especially for the strengthening territorial and social cohesion. The
Hungarian law also allows to establish EGTCs with limited and unlimited liability, but as we
mentioned, Hungarian self-governments can participate only with limited liability. It provides
the possibility for EGTCs to participate in commercial activity – this possibility also exists for
local self-governments – if it does not endanger the fulfilling of the cooperation’s main aims.
The same regulation can be found in the Slovak law concerning economical activity, so these
two national norms are compatible even in this important field. But it also means that the
establishment of an EGTC solely with commercial aim is prohibited also by the European
Regulation and of course by the national norms itself.
And last but not least, if the topic of EGTCs legal background is discussed, an
important, but also questionable topic cannot be bypassed, and that is the question of
administrative – perhaps sometimes even political – control of territorial cooperation and
especially the activities of EGTCs’. Concerning Art. 4. paragraph (2)-(3) of Regulation
1082/2006/EC the Notification Authority19 takes into consideration the participation of
prospective members under national jurisdiction and the establishment of the EGTC based on
the constitutional structure of the state and on the conformity with national law, and finally it
can approve it or prohibit it. Article 13 about public interest helps us to understand the range
of consideration. It contains that, if an EGTC carries out any activity in contravention of the
country’s public policy, public security, public health or public morality (together: “public
interest”), than the activity of the EGTC can be prohibited by a competent authority.
At first sight the space for consideration of the States is really wide, because the above
mentioned concepts of public interest seem to be very fluid. Naturally, the possibility of
political influence is even greater in Member States where Notification Authority is an organ
of the executive power. But the impression concerning the character of public interest’s
phenomenon is false. These concepts are also mentioned in the Treaty establishing the
European Communities (TEC) as possible reasons for the limitation of the four European
freedoms. It means that they are very often interpreted phenomena by the European Court of
Justice, their content and meaning was elaborated by the Court itself. Therefore the possibility
of free interpretation – or perhaps misinterpretation – does not exist for the States, because
they are strongly bound to the ECJ’s one. Finally, Article 13 of the EGTC Regulation
prescribes that under any circumstances legal remedy should be granted against the decision
of the competent administrative authority on the prohibition or limitation of the EGTC’s
activity. In the final instance of course it also means the possibility of legal remedy before the
European Court of Justice. So finally we can summarize that states’ possibility of influencing
politically the activities of EGTCs’ is narrow because of the judicial legal remedy available
on the national and also on the European level.
That is also true regarding the possibility of EGTCs’ dissolution, regulated in Article 14
of 1082/2006/EC. Practically any competent authority with legitimate interest can initiate the
dissolution of an EGTC by the Notification Authority, if it no longer complaints with the
requirements of the EC Regulation or acts outside the accepted competencies. But of course
even in this case legal remedy should be granted against the decision of the Notification
Authority. Thus it is visible that many legal barriers and balances exist against serious
political influence or the denial of an EGTCs’ activity.


As it was mentioned in Hungary the Metropolitan Court of Budapest, in Slovakia the Ministry of Construction
and Regional Development and in Romania the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Housing.
Theoretically it is correct to say, that the establishment of the institution of EGTC not just
solved existing problems of territorial cooperation (e.g. questions of legal personality, legally
binding decisions for Members, which jurisdiction and national law has to be used), but also
resulted in the incurrence of new problems with the new form of cooperation (e.g. questions
of implementation and state supervision).20 Even beside that fact we can not deny or reduce
the importance of the advance made with EGTC on the field of territorial cooperation.
Practically Slovakia and Hungary have played a pioneer role in the implementation of
EU’s EGTC regulation. The Hungarian Act Nr. 2007:XCIC was one of the first national
EGTC norms on act level. The EGTC Ister-Granum in the area of Esztergom (which is the
seat of the EGTC) and Sturovo (Párkány) in the Slovakian-Hungarian borderland was one of
the first21 EGTCs established in Europe and definitely the first one in East-Central-Europe.
The second EGTC between Slovakian and Hungarian members, Karst-Bodva –
established with the Slovakian headquarter Turňa nad Bodvou (Torna), under Slovakian law –
was registered on 11 February 2009 and several other EGTCs are in different phases of
preparation and establishment.
Naturally there are many questions concerning EGTCs to which there are still no
answers. Mainly that is the reason why European Commission planned a comprehensive
supervision of EGTC legislation and experiences in 2011. It means that with their pioneer-like
role, experiences and proposals Slovakia and Hungary can strongly influence the future of
European Territorial Cooperation if they continue their activity on the same, intensive level.
The planned EGTC Ung-Tisza-Túr with Slovakian, Hungarian, Romanian and Ukrainian
partners can be the first EGTC with third state members in Europe. There is an another EGTC
in the preparatory phase – Banat-Triplex Confinium – which also involves a third state on the
Hungarian-Romanian-Serbian common border, which could contribute to the European
integration of Serbia. So, the possibility is given that countries of East-Central-Europe –
Slovakia, Romania and Hungary – could play an important, perhaps even leading role in the
implementation of the new European framework of transfrontier cooperation, if the idea is
supported, and not tripped by the central governments.

List of literature:
Hegedűs Dániel: A határokon átívelő együttműködés nemzetközi jogi háttere I. Multilaterális
keretek és a Magyar Köztársaságot érintő kelet-közép-európai bilaterális együttműködési
formák áttekintő elemzése. EÖKiK Műhelytanulmány 19. Európai Összehasonlító
Kisebbségkutatások Közalapítvány, Budapest, 2006.
Hegedűs Dániel: Új elemek, új lehetőségek a határokon átnyúló együttműködések európai
szabályozásában – Az Európai Területi Együttműködési Csoportosulás a magyar
nemzetpolitika nézőpontjából In. Európai Tükör 2007. március, p. 86-105.
Hegedűs Dániel: Komplementer vagy redundáns struktúrák a területi együttműködés európai
szabályozásában? – Az Európa Tanács készülő Euroregionális Együttműködési
Csoportosulásának előzetes elemzése a magyar nemzetpolitika, illetve a létező EGTC-
struktúrával történő összehasonlítás komparatív nézőpontjából In. Európai Tükör 2008.
február, p. 96–115. és 2008. március, p. 97–107.

Johannes Maier: European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) – Regions‘ new instrument for
‘Cooperation beyond borders‘, 4.p.
Precisely, Ister-Granum was the firstly established, but secondly registered EGTC in Europe. The agreement
was signed by the members on the 6th of May, 2008, but the EGTC was registered by the Metropolitan Court of
Budapest only on the 12th of November, 2008.
Kruppa Éva.: Régiók a határon – határmenti együttműködés az Európai Unióban és Közép-
Európában. Ph.D. értekezés. Budapesti Közgazdaságtudományi és Államigazgatási Egyetem,
Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Doktori Iskola, Budapest, 2003.
Maier, Johannes: European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) – Regions’ New
Instrument for ‘Co-operation beyond Borders’. A New Approach to Organize Multi-Level-
Governance Facing Old and New Obstacles. M.E.I.R., 2008.
Orova Márta: A határon átnyúló együttműködések nemzetközi jogi keretei. In Stratégiai
kutatások-Magyarország 2015. Hidak vagy sorompók. Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó, Budapest,
Pintér Edit: A határon átnyúló regionális együttműködések összefoglaló elemzése, különös
tekintettel a magyar vonatkozásokra és a jogi fejlődésre – az egységes európai jogi modell.
PhD-értekezés. Széchenyi István Egyetem, Multidiszciplináris Társadalomtudományi Doktori
Iskola, Győr, 2007.
Ricq, Charles ed.: Handbook of Transfrontier Co-operation. Council of Europe, 2006.
INTERACT Handbook on the European Territorial Cooperation (EGTC). What use of
European Territorial Cooperation Programmes and Projects? INTERACT Secretariat,
Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning, 2008.
Practical Guide to Cross-Border Cooperation. European Commission – Association of
European Border Regions, 2000.
The European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC): State of Play and Prospects.
European Union, 2009.