Textbook Eu Agencies Legal and Political Limits To The Transformation of The Eu Administration 1St Edition Chamon Ebook All Chapter PDF

EU agencies legal and political limits to
the transformation of the EU

administration 1st Edition Chamon
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/eu-agencies-legal-and-political-limits-to-the-transform
ation-of-the-eu-administration-1st-edition-chamon/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Brexit and Internal Security Political and Legal

Concerns on the Future UK EU Relationship Helena
Carrapico
https://textbookfull.com/product/brexit-and-internal-security-
political-and-legal-concerns-on-the-future-uk-eu-relationship-
helena-carrapico/
The Role of EU Agencies in the Eurozone and Migration

Crisis: Impact and Future Challenges Johannes Pollak
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-role-of-eu-agencies-in-the-
eurozone-and-migration-crisis-impact-and-future-challenges-
johannes-pollak/
Going Past Limits To Growth A Report to the Club of

Rome EU Chapter 1st Edition Patrick Corsi
https://textbookfull.com/product/going-past-limits-to-growth-a-
report-to-the-club-of-rome-eu-chapter-1st-edition-patrick-corsi/
EU Citizens in the European Public Sphere: An Analysis

of EU News in 27 EU Member States 1st Edition Stefanie
Walter
https://textbookfull.com/product/eu-citizens-in-the-european-
public-sphere-an-analysis-of-eu-news-in-27-eu-member-states-1st-
edition-stefanie-walter/
The Participation of the EU in International Dispute
Settlement: Lessons from EU Investment Agreements Luca
Pantaleo
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-participation-of-the-eu-in-
international-dispute-settlement-lessons-from-eu-investment-
agreements-luca-pantaleo/
Regulation of the EU Financial Markets MiFID II and

MiFIR Oxford EU Financial Regulation 1st Edition Danny
Busch (Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/regulation-of-the-eu-financial-
markets-mifid-ii-and-mifir-oxford-eu-financial-regulation-1st-
edition-danny-busch-editor/
Opposition In The EU Multi-Level Polity: Legal

Mobilization Against The Data Retention Directive
Stefan Thierse
https://textbookfull.com/product/opposition-in-the-eu-multi-
level-polity-legal-mobilization-against-the-data-retention-
directive-stefan-thierse/
EU Health Law & Policy: The Expansion of EU Power in

Public Health and Health Care 1st Edition Anniek De
Ruijter
https://textbookfull.com/product/eu-health-law-policy-the-
expansion-of-eu-power-in-public-health-and-health-care-1st-
edition-anniek-de-ruijter/
Legal Risks in EU Law Interdisciplinary Studies on

Legal Risk Management and Better Regulation in Europe
1st Edition Emilia Miš■eni■
https://textbookfull.com/product/legal-risks-in-eu-law-
interdisciplinary-studies-on-legal-risk-management-and-better-
regulation-in-europe-1st-edition-emilia-miscenic/
OX F OR D S T U DI E S I N E U ROPE A N L AW
Series Editors
PAUL CR A IG
Professor of English Law at St John’s College, Oxford
GR Á INNE DE BÚRC A
Professor of Law at New York University School of Law
EU Agencies
OX F OR D S T U DI E S I N E U ROPE A N L AW
Series Editors
Paul Craig, Professor of English Law at St John’s College, Oxford and
Gráinne de Búrca, Professor of Law at New York University School of Law
The aim of this series is to publish important and original research on EU
law. The focus is on scholarly monographs, with a particular emphasis on
those which are interdisciplinary in nature. Edited collections of essays will
also be included where they are appropriate. The series is wide in scope and
aims to cover studies of particular areas of substantive and of institutional
law, historical works, theoretical studies, and analyses of current debates,
as well as questions of perennial interest such as the relationship between
national and EU law and the novel forms of governance emerging in and
beyond Europe. The fact that many of the works are interdisciplinary will
make the series of interest to all those concerned with the governance and
operation of the EU.
Other titles in this ser ies

Economic Governance in Europe National Identity in EU Law
Comparative Paradoxes, Constitutional Elke Cloots
Challenges The Constitutional Foundations of European
Federico Fabbrini Contract Law
Foreign Policy Objectives in European A Comparative Analysis
Constitutional Law Kathleen Gutman
Joris Larik The Criminalization of European
Private Regulation and the Internal Market Cartel Enforcement
Sports, Legal Services, and Standard Setting Theoretical, Legal, and Practical
in EU Economic Law Challenges
Mislav Mataija Peter Whelan
The EU Deep Trade Agenda Fundamental Rights in Europe
Law and Policy Challenges and Transformations in
Billy A. Melo Araujo Comparative Perspective
The Human Rights of Migrants and Refugees Federico Fabbrini
in European Law The Principle of Loyalty in EU Law
Cathryn Costello Marcus Klamert
An Ever More Powerful Court? Constitutional Pluralism in the EU
The Political Constraints of Legal Integration Klemen Jaklic
in the European Union EU Consumer Law and
Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen Human Rights
The Concept of State Aid under EU Law Iris Benöhr
From Internal Market to Competition The Principle of Mutual Recognition
and Beyond in EU Law
Juan Jorge Piernas López Christine Janssens
Justice in the EU The Coherence of EU Free
The Emergence of Transnational Solidarity Movement Law
Floris de Witte Constitutional Responsibility and
The Euro Area Crisis in Constitutional the Court of Justice
Perspective Niamh Nic Shuibhne
Alicia Hinarejos European Law and New Health
The European Fundamental Freedoms Technologies
A Contextual Approach Edited by Mark Flear, Anne-Maree Farrell,
Pedro Caro de Sousa Tamara Hervey, and Thérèse Murphy
EU Agencies
Legal and Political Limits to the Transformation of
the EU Administration
M E R I J N C H A MON
1
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© M. Chamon 2016
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2016
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence
Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI
and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016934696
ISBN 978–0 –19–878448–7
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
The present book is the abridged version of my doctoral thesis. As a
result, I would first like to thank my supervisor, Professor Govaere, for her
guidance and trust in me. I would also like to thank the other members
of my jury, Professors Everson, Lenaerts, Türk, Van Elsuwege, and
Lannon, for their observations and questions on the thesis, from which
the present book has evidently benefited. I would also like to thank the
people of OUP for the friendly and professional co-operation leading to
the publication of this volume. Finally, for their support, I would like to
thank my parents.
Series Editors’ Preface
This books aims to explore the striking growth and spread of agencies within the
EU, and to examine the institutional and constitutional implications of this phe-
nomenon for the EU more generally.
Merijn Chamon sets out to provide a thoroughly comprehensive account of
the field of EU agencies, and to define and classify the array of different types of
agencies in existence, given the absence of a single formal model of EU agency
and in view of their ad hoc development. He then proceeds to examine the driv-
ers of this development as well as the political and legal limits to their spread.
As the book notes, there is now almost no area of EU law and policy without
an agency which is responsible for much of the governance and administration
of that area.
The author argues that the political limits to the process of agency-â•‰creation
and spread are related to the origins of the agencies, most of which emerged
from some existing committee or bureaucratic structure already in existence at
EU level, and were driven by the political interests of the relevant actors rather
than by a purely functional logic. He suggests ultimately that the process of
‘agencification’ (to use the rather ugly term which is increasingly used to de-
scribe the process of agency spread in the EU) is unlikely to develop in ways
which the Commission, the Council, or the Parliament considers to be contrary
to its interests.
On the other hand, the author argues that the legal limits to the establishment
of EU agencies, and the legal principles which should inform their establishment,
are to be found in the treaty provisions: in the principle of conferred powers, as
well as in the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality, and—â•‰despite the diffi-
culty in defining this as a legal principle—â•‰institutional balance. The book also
contains an extensive discussion of the famous Meroni doctrine on delegation and
institutional balance, and its relevance for EU agencies today.
A comparison with the legal and constitutional controls over the establishment
and functioning of agencies in Germany and the USA not only sheds some light
on the importance of the kind of federal system in question, but also highlights
differences between the kind of agencies which have been created in the EU and
elsewhere. Ultimately, the author concludes that while agencies in the EU rest still
on a somewhat uncertain legal and treaty foundation, their legitimacy resides in
the broad political support they enjoy. He proposes an amendment to the treaties
that would more securely anchor existing and future EU agencies within the EU
institutional and constitutional framework.
At a time when the EU’s legitimacy is under constant question and scrutiny,
and when its political and legal structures are contested and under strain, a thor-
ough and comprehensive inquiry into the phenomenon of agency growth in
viii Series Editors’ Preface
the EU is welcome and timely. Chamon’s thorough and careful analysis of this
phenomenon and his proposals for a better anchoring of agencies under EU law
should be of interest to legal scholars and political scientists alike, and to all those
concerned with EU administration.
Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca
Table of Contents
List of Figures xiii

Table of Cases xv
Table of Legislation xxiii
List of Abbreviations xxvii
Introduction 1
I. Setting the Scene:Â€EU Agencies, Agencification,

and the EU Administration 3
1 EU Agencies and the Agency Phenomenon 3
1.1 Definition 5
1.2 EU agencies 15
1.3 Agencification 45
1.4 The EU administration 46
2 Situating the EU Agencies in the EU Administration 47
2.1 Executive federalism in the EU 48
2.2 EU agencies under a functional and procedural perspective 50
2.3 Conclusion 51
II. In Search of an Agency Model:Â€The Provisions in Agencies’
Establishing Acts 52
1 Introduction 52
2 The EU’s Sources of Legitimacy 53
2.1 The EU’s democratic deficit 53
2.2 Legitimacy of the EU administration 61
3 The EU Agencies’ Statutes 64
3.1 The Boards 65
3.2 The Directors 76
3.3 Work programmes and annual reports 81
3.4 External relations 86
3.5 Seat Agreement 93
3.6 The Common Approach’s contribution to an agency model 97
4 Practice Following the Common Approach 98
4.1 Review of agencies’ acts following the Common Approach 99
5 Conclusion 100
III. The Political Limits to Agencification 102
1 The Origins of Agencies 102
2 Explaining Agencification 106
2.1 The functional accounts of agencification 107
2.2 Non-â•‰functional accounts of agencification 109
2.3 Concluding remarks 113
x Table of Contents
3 Agencification and Its Effects 114
3.1 EU agencies: Trojan horses, part of executive centre formation,
or part of a multi-layered administration? 115
4 Identifying the Political Limits 118
4.1 The Council 119
4.2 The Commission 123
4.3 The European Parliament 126
4.4 The role of the Court of Justice 131
5 Conclusion on the Political Limits 132
IV. The Legal Limits to Agencification 134

1 Limits Flowing from the Principle of Conferred Powers 136
1.1 The competence to establish a new body within
the EU’s institutional architecture 136
1.2 The choice of instrument 153
1.3 Conclusion 157
2 Limits Flowing from the Principle of Subsidiarity 157
2.1 The agency instrument under the subsidiarity principle 159
2.2 Individual tasks and powers of EU agencies under
the subsidiarity principle 162
2.3 Conclusion 164
3 Limits Flowing from the Principle of Proportionality 164
3.1 EU agencies’ tasks and powers under the principle of proportionality 166
3.2 EU agencies’ establishment under the principle of proportionality 167
3.3 The proportionality of agencification in legislative practice 171
3.4 Conclusion 173
4 Concluding Remarks: Limits Flowing from the General Principles
of EU Law 174
5 The Meroni Jurisprudence and the Notion of Delegation 175
5.1 The original Meroni ruling 176
5.2 Contemporary reception of the Meroni ruling 183
5.3 Present-day reception and valuation of the Meroni ruling 185
5.4 EU agencies under Meroni: Does it make sense? 192
5.5 Meroni in the subsequent case law of the Court 212
5.6 Assessment of Meroni and deducing a doctrine 225
5.7 Delegating powers in the EU legal order 230
5.8 EU agencies and an EU Meroni doctrine 242
5.9 Conclusion 248
6 A Prelude to the Institutional Balance: Romano 249
6.1 The Romano case 250
6.2 Conclusion 258
7 Limits Flowing from the Institutional Balance 258
7.1 Separation of powers 259
7.2 The EU’s institutional balance 268
7.3 Conclusion 296
8 Conclusion on the Legal Limits 297
Table of Contents xi
V. Controlling Agencification 299

1 Agencification in the United States of America 299
1.1 Designing the executive sphere 300
1.2 Designing independent agencies vs. the President’s control
over the executive 300
1.3 Control over which powers? 301
1.4 Interpretation of agencies’ statutory mandates 302
1.5 US agencies’ constitutionality 304
2 Agencification in the Federal Republic of Germany 306
2.1 German agencies 307
2.2 The relation between Bund and Länder 307
2.3 German agencies and the separation of powers 310
2.4 Deference to agencies’ decisions 313
3 Agencification in the US and Germany 315
4 Controlling EU Agencies 316
4.1 Controlling agencification 316
4.2 Controlling individual agencies 317
5 Concluding Remarks on the Political Control of Agencification 326
6 Judicial Scrutiny of EU Agencies’ Acts 327
6.1 Passive locus standi of EU agencies 328
6.2 Active locus standi of EU agencies 362
6.3 Conclusion 367
VI. Conclusions and Proposal 369

1 The EU Agency Instrument—Conclusions 369
2 The EU Agency Instrument—Proposal 372
2.1 Proposals in the IGCs and the Convention 373
2.2 A legal basis in the Treaties 376
Selected Bibliography 383

Index 387
List of Figures
1.1 Functional classifications of EU agencies 21

1.2 A functional typology of EU agencies 24
1.3 Hierarchy of agencies’ operational powers 26
1.4 Hierarchy of agencies’ (non-)decision-making powers 27
1.5 Number of EU agencies and number of staff 46
1.6 Number of EU agencies and budget size 46
Table of Cases
DE C ISIONS OF T H EÂ€EU C OU RTS A N D OPI N IONS OF
T H EÂ€A DVO C AT E SÂ€G E N E R A L
Opinion of AG Roemer in Cases 9/â•‰56 & 10/â•‰56, Meroni & Co. v. High Authority,
[1957–1958] ECR 177. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175, 177, 179, 199, 230, 252
Case 9/â•‰56, Meroni & Co. v. High Authority,
[1957–1958] ECR 133. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . 8, 9, 39, 68, 127, 175–â•‰249, 250, 252–â•‰6, 257–â•‰8,
279–â•‰81, 283, 293, 297, 301, 327, 335, 336,
350, 353, 359, 367, 370, 375, 376–â•‰7, 381
Case 10/â•‰56, Meroni & Co. v. High Authority, [1957–1958] ECR 157 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . 177
Joined Cases 32/â•‰58 & 33/â•‰58, SNUPAT v. High Authority, [1959] ECR 127. . . . 230, 331–â•‰4, 356–â•‰7
Case 3/â•‰59, Germany v. High Authority, [1960] ECR 53. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Case 18/â•‰60, Louis Worms v. High Authority, [1962] ECR 195. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356–â•‰7, 361, 367
Case 25/â•‰62, Plaumann & Co. v. Commission, [1963] ECR 95. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . 361
Opinion of AG Gand in Case 19/â•‰67, Van der Vecht, [1967] ECR 345. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . 253
Case 19/â•‰67, Van der Vecht, [1967] ECR 345 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . 253–â•‰4
Case 48/â•‰69, Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Commission, [1972] ECR 619. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Case 25/â•‰70, Köster, [1970] ECR 1161 . . . . . . . . 194, 204, 206, 209, 221, 222, 225, 228, 233, 234,
237, 240, 241, 247, 248, 252, 275, 283, 285, 287, 381
Case 46/â•‰72, De Greef v. Commission, [1973] ECR 543. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Case 131/â•‰73, Criminal proceedings against Giulio et Adriano Grosoli, [1973] ECR 1555 . . . . . . . 234
Opinion 1/â•‰76, re the draft Agreement establishing a European laying-â•‰up fund for
inland waterway vessels, [1977] ECR 741. . . . . . 200–â•‰1, 206, 213–â•‰17, 224, 228, 234–â•‰5, 238–â•‰9
Case 5/â•‰77, Tedeschi, [1977] ECR 1555. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . 194
Case 92/â•‰78, Simmenthal v. Commission, [1979] ECR 777. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Case 138/â•‰79, Roquette Frères v. Council, [1980] ECR 3333. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . 275, 280, 285
Opinion of AG Warner in Case 98/â•‰80, Romano, [1981] ECR 1259. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251–â•‰3, 257
Case 98/â•‰80, Romano, [1981] ECR 1241. . . . . . . . . . . 146, 196, 207, 209, 211, 235, 240–â•‰1, 249–â•‰58,
275, 289, 293, 297–â•‰8, 327, 370, 377
Joined cases 188 to 190/â•‰80, France, Italy and UK v. Commission, [1982] ECR 2545. . . . . . . . . . 263
Case 16/â•‰81, Alaimo v. Commission, [1982] ECR 1559. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Joined Cases 213 to 215/â•‰81, Norddeutsches Vieh-â•‰und Fleischkontor Herbert Will,
[1982] ECR 3583. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . 234
Opinion of AG Rozès in Case 302/â•‰81, Eggers, [1982] ECR 3443. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . 256
Case 13/â•‰83, Parliament v. Council, [1985] ECR 1513. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
Case 294/â•‰83, Parti écologiste ‘Les Verts’ v. Parliament,
[1986] ECR 1339. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252, 263, 288, 328–â•‰30, 362, 367
Joined Cases 279/â•‰84, 280/â•‰84, 285/â•‰84 & 286/â•‰84, Walter Rau
Lebensmittelwerke e.a. v. Commission, [1987] ECR 1069. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . 223
Case 5/â•‰85, AKZO Chemie v. Commission, [1986] ECR 2585. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . 217
Case 20/â•‰85, Roviello, [1988] ECR 2805. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . 288
Case 149/â•‰85, Wybot, [1986] ECR 2391. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . 275, 285
Joined Cases 281, 283–â•‰5, 287/â•‰85, Germany e.a. v. Commission, [1987] ECR 3203. . . . . . . . . . . 141
Case 415/â•‰85, Commission v. Ireland, [1988] ECR 3097. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . 275, 285
Case 68/â•‰86, UK v. Council, [1988] ECR 855. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . 282
Case 204/â•‰86, Greece v. Council, [1988] ECR 5323 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Case 21/â•‰87, Borowitz, [1988] ECR 3715. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . 255
xvi Table of Cases
Opinion of AG Lenz in Case 236/87, Bergemann, [1988] ECR 5125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Opinion of AG Darmon in Case 302/87, Parliament v. Council, [1988] ECR 5615 . . . . . . . . . . 288
Case 302/87, Parliament v. Council, [1988] ECR 5615. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273, 275, 362
Case 22/88, Vreugdenhil BV, [1989] ECR 2049. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Opinion of AG Van Gerven in Case C-70/88, Parliament v. Council,
[1990] ECR I-2041 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202, 271, 274
Case 70/88, Parliament v. Council, [1990] ECR I-2041 . . . . . . . . . . 202, 269, 270–1, 273–4, 279,
281, 283, 284–6, 288, 290, 327, 329, 362, 363
Case C-322/88, Grimaldi, [1989] ECR 4407 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Case 353/88, Briantex Sas and Antonio Di Domenico v. EEC and
Commission, [1989] ECR 3623 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Case C-370/89, SGEEM and Etroy v. EIB, [1992] ECR I-6211 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 355, 357, 361, 364
Joined cases T-68/89, T-77/89 & T-78/89, Società Italiana Vetro SpA,
e.a. v. Commission, [1992] ECR II-1403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275, 285
Case C-240/90, Germany v. Commission, [1992] ECR I-5383. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223, 234, 283
Opinion of AG Jacobs in case C-269/90, Technische Universität München,
[1991] ECR I-5469 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Opinion of AG Darmon in Case C-282/90, Vreugdenhil BV v. Commission,
[1992] ECR I-1937. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .279
Case C-282/90, Vreugdenhil BV v. Commission, [1992] ECR I-1937. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279, 280, 283
Opinion of AG Gulmann in Joined Cases C-15/91 & C-108/91,
Buckl e.a. v. Commission, [1992] ECR I-6074. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Case C-102/91, Knoch, [1992] ECR I-4341. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Case C-201/91, Grisvard and Kreitz, [1992] ECR I-5009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Case C-316/91, Parliament v. Council, [1994] ECR I-625. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Opinion 1/92, re the draft agreement relating to the creation of the European
Economic Area, [1992] ECR I-2821. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Opinion of AG Darmon in Case C-41/92, The Liberal Democrats v.
Parliament, [1993] ECR I-3153. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Case C-91/92, Faccini Dori, [1994] ECR I-3325. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Opinion of AG Van Gerven in Case C-137/92 P, Commission v.
BASF AG e.a., [1994] ECR I-2555. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217, 229, 242, 359
Case C-359/92, Germany v. Council, [1994] ECR I-3681. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146–8, 299
Joined Cases C-46/93 & C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur, [1996] ECR I-1029. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Case C-65/93, Parliament v. Council, [1995] ECR I-6 43. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Opinion 2/94, re Accession by the Community to the ECHR, [1996] ECR I-1759. . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Case C-25/94, Commission v. Council, [1996] ECR I-1469. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62–3
Case C-58/94, Netherlands v. Council, [1996] ECR I-2169. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Case T-243/94, British Steel plc v. Commission, [1997] ECR II-1887. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213, 280, 283
Joined Cases T-369/94 & T-85/95, DIR International Film
e.a. v. Commission, [1998] ECR II-357 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218–19, 237, 331–4
Case C-191/95, Commission v. Germany, [1998] ECR I-5449. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Joined Opinion of AG Fennelly in Case C-286/95 P and Joined Cases C-287/95
P & C-288/95 P, Commission v. ICI and Commission v. Solvay SA [2000] ECR I-2341. . . . . 230
Joined Cases T-132/96 & T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and
Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH v. Commission, [1999] ECR II-3663. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Case C-95/97, Région wallonne v. Commission, [1997] ECR I-1787. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Case C-180/97, Regione Toscana v. Commission, [1997] ECR I-5245. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Case C-202/97, Fitzwilliam, [2000] ECR I-883. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Case T-148/97, Keeling v. OHIM, [1998] II-2217 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Case T-277/97, Ismeri Europa Srl v. Court of Auditors, [1999] ECR II-1825 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Opinion of AG Léger in Case C-452/98, Nederlandse Antillen v. Council,
[2001] ECR I-8853 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Case C-452/98, Nederlandse Antillen v. Council, [2001] ECR I-8973. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Table of Cases xvii
Case T-163/98, The Procter & Gamble Company v. OHIM, [1999] ECR II-2383 . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council, [2002] ECR II-3318. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Case T-120/99, Kik v. OHIM, [2001] ECR II-2235 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Opinion of AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Case C-315/99 P,
Ismeri Europa Srl v. Court of Auditors, [2001] ECR I-5281 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218, 362, 364
Case C-315/99 P, Ismeri Europa Srl v. Court of Auditors, [2001] ECR I-5281. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Case T-326/99, Olivieri v. Commission and EMEA, [2003] ECR II-6053. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Case T-331/99, Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH v. OHIM,
[2001] ECR II-433 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
Opinion 1/0 0, re the proposed agreement on the establishment of a
European Common Aviation Area, [2002] ECR I-3493. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Opinion 2/0 0, re the Cartagena Protocol, [2001] ECR I-9713. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Case C-15/0 0, Commission v. EIB, [2003] ECR I-7281. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Case C-50/0 0 P, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council, [2002] ECR I-6677. . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Case C-345/0 0 P, FNAB, Setrab & Est Distribution Biogam SARL v. Council,
[2001] ECR I-3811 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131, 281
Opinion of AG Geelhoed in Case C-378/0 0, Commission v. Parliament and
Council, [2003] ECR I-937. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Case C-378/0 0, Commission v. Parliament and Council, [2003] ECR I-937. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Case T-17/0 0 R, Rothley e.a. v. Parliament, [2000] ECR II-2085. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Case T-17/0 0, Rothley e.a. v. Parliament, [2002] ECR II-579. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Case T-74/0 0, Artegodan v. Commission [2000] ECR II-2583. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Case T-106/0 0, Streamserve Inc. v. OHIM, [2002] ECR II-723 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
Case T-123/0 0, Dr Karl Thomae GmbH v. Commission, [2002] ECR II-5193. . . . . . . . . . 131, 331–3
Case T-209/0 0, Lamberts v. Ombudsman, [2002] ECR II-765 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Case T-319/0 0, Borremans e.a. v. Commission, [2002] ECR II-905. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Case T-353/0 0 R, Le Pen v. Parliament, [2001] ECR II-125. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Joined Cases T-377/0 0, T-379/0 0, T-380/0 0, T-260/01 & T-272/01,
Philip Morris International e.a. v. Commission, [2003] ECR II-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277, 281
Case C-239/01, Germany v. Commission, [2003] ECR I-10333. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Case C-416/01, ACOR, [2003] ECR I-14083. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Opinion of AG Geelhoed in Case C-491/01, British American Tobacco
(Investments) Ltd, [2002] ECR I-11453. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Case C-491/01, British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd, [2002] ECR I-11453 . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Case T-63/01, The Procter & Gamble Company v. OHIM, [2002] ECR II-5255 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Joined Cases T-6 4/01 & T-65/01, Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie
GmbH v. Council and Commission, [2004] ECR II-521. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223, 279
Case T-77/01, Diputación Foral de Álava e.a. v. Commission,
[2002] ECR II-81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
Opinion of AG Stix-Hackl in Case C-118/02, Industrias de
Deshidratación Agrícola SA, [2004] ECR I-3073. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Case C-134/02 P, Ombudsman v. Lamberts, [2004] ECR I-2803. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274, 355
Case C-167/02 P, Rothley e.a. v. Parliament, [2004] ECR I-3149 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Case C-233/02, France v. Commission, [2004] ECR I-2759 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276, 284, 285, 286–8
Opinion of AG Léger in Case C-301/02 P, Tralli v. ECB,
[2005] ECR I-4071. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189, 221–2
Case C-301/02 P, Tralli v. ECB, [2005] ECR I-4071. . . . 175, 193, 221–5, 235, 245, 248, 280, 286
Joined Cases T-124/02 & T-156/02, The Sunrider Corp. v. OHIM,
[2004] ECR II-1149. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
Case T-273/02, Krüger GmbH & Co. KG v. OHIM, [2005] ECR II-1271. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Joined Cases C-154/04 & C-155/04, Alliance for Natural Health, [2005]
ECR I-6 451. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175, 193, 220, 222–5, 235, 248
Opinion of AG Léger in Case C-40/03 P, Rica Foods NV v. Commission, [2005]
ECR I-6814. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
xviii Table of Cases
Case C-94/03, Commission v. Council, [2006] ECR I-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
Case C-131/03 P, Reynold Tobacco e.a. v. Commission, [2006] ECR I-7795 . . . . . . . . . . . . 277, 281
Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in Case C-160/03, Spain v. Eurojust, [2005]
ECR I-2077. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Case C-160/03, Spain v. Eurojust, [2005] ECR I-2077. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Opinion of AG Stix-Hackl in Case C-436/03, Parliament v. Council,
[2006] ECR I-3733. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Case C-436/03, Parliament v. Council, [2006] ECR I-3733. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143, 148
Case C-533/03, Commission v. Council, [2006] ECR I-1025. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Case T-123/03, Pfizer Ltd. v. Commission, [2004] ECR II-1631. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
Case T-133/03, Schering-Plough Ltd v. Commission and EMEA,
ECLI:EU:T:2007:365 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330, 333
Case T-346/03, Krikorian e.a. v. Parliament, Council and Commission,
[2003] ECR II-6037 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Case T-369/03 R, Arizona Chemical BV e.a. v. Commission, [2004] ECR II-205. . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Case C-18/04 P, Krikorian e.a. v. Parliament, Council and Commission,
ECLI:EU:C:2004:691. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Case C-66/04, UK v. Parliament and Council, [2005] ECR I-10553. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Opinion of AG Kokott in Case C-217/04, UK v. Parliament and Council,
[2006] ECR I-3771. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143–4, 168
Case C-217/04, UK v. Parliament and Council, [2006] ECR I-3771. . . . . . . . 121, 131, 142, 143–6,
148, 152–3, 166, 174, 370, 378–80
Case C-310/04, Spain v. Council, [2006] ECR I-7285 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Order of the Court in Case C-317/04, Parliament v. Council, [2005] ECR I-2457. . . . . . . . . . . 366
Opinion of AG Mengozzi in Case C-354/04 P, Gestoras Pro Amnistía
e.a. v. Council, [2007] ECR I-1579. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Case C-417/04 P, Regione Siciliana v. Commission, [2006] ECR I-3881. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Case T-49/04, Hassan v. Council and Commission, [2006] ECR II-52. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Case T-474/04, Pergan Hilfsstoffe v. Commission, [2007] ECR II-4225. . . . . . . . . . . . 276, 285, 329
Opinion of AG Sharpston in Case C-29/05 P, OHIM v. Kaul GmbH,
[2007] ECR I-2213. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Case C-29/05 P, OHIM v. Kaul GmbH, [2007] ECR I-2213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Case C-77/05, UK v. Council, [2007] ECR I-11459 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Case C-214/05 P, Sergio Rossi SpA v. OHIM, [2006] ECR I-7057. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
Case T-69/05, Evropaïki Dynamiki v. EFSA, ECLI:EU:T:2007:314. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Case T-70/05, Evropaïki Dynamiki v. EMSA, [2010] ECR II-313. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330, 337
Case C-38/06, Commission v. Portugal, [2010] ECR I-1569 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Case C-55/06, Arcor AG & Co. KG, [2008] ECR I-2931. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313–4
Joined cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P, FIAMM and Fedon v. Council
and Commission, [2008] ECR I-6513. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274–5
Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in Case C-133/06, Parliament v. Council,
[2008] ECR I-3189. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Case C-133/06, Parliament v. Council, [2008] ECR I-3189 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265, 277, 285
Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in Case C-411/06,
Commission v. Parliament and Council, [2009] ECR I-7585. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Case T-63/06, Evropaïki Dynamiki v. EMCDDA, [2010] ECR II-177 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Case T-107/06, Inet Hellas v. Commission, [2009] ECR II-4591. . . . . . . . . . 220, 224, 247, 251, 332
Case T-165/06, Fiorucci v. OHIM, [2009] ECR II-1375. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276, 284, 285
Case T-187/06, Schräder v. CPVO, [2008] ECR II-3151. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Case T-258/06, Germany v. Commission, [2010] ECR II-2027. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Case T-311/06, FMC Chemical and Arysta Lifesciences v. EFSA, [2008] ECR II-88 . . . . . . 219, 330
Case T-312/06, FMC Chemical v. EFSA, [2008] ECR II-89. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Case T-397/06, Dow AgroSciences v. EFSA, [2008] ECR II-90. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Table of Cases xix
Case T-411/06, Sogelma v. EAR, [2008] ECR II-2771 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329–30, 333, 367
Case C-424/07, Commission v. Germany, [2009] ECR I-11431. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312, 315
Case C-518/07, Commission v. Germany, [2010] ECR I-1885 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
Joined Cases T-252/07, 271/07 & 272/07,
Sungro, SA e.a. v. Council and Commission, [2010] ECR II-55. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Case T-264/07, CSL Behring v. Commission and EMA, [2010] ECR II-4 469. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Case C-58/08, Vodafone Ltd e.a., [2010] ECR I-4999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170–1
Opinion of AG Trstenjak in Case C-101/08, Audiolux e.a., [2009]
ECR I-9823. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259, 268, 269
Case T-135/08, Schniga GmbH v. CPVO, [2010] ECR II-5089. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276, 285, 363
Case T-196/08, Srinivasan v. Ombudsman, [2009] ECLI:EU:T:2008:470 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Case T-228/08, Szomborg v. Commission, [2009] ECR II-224. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Case T-539/08, Etimine SA and Ab Etiproducts Oy v. Commission,
[2010] ECR II-4017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Case C-279/09, DEB Deutsche Energiehandels-und Beratungsgesellschaft
GmbH, [2010] ECR I-13849. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Case T-36/09, dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG v. OHIM, [2011] ECR II-6079. . . . . . . . . . 341
Case T-52/09, Nycomed Danmark v. EMA, [2011] ECR II-8133. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Case T-292/09, Mugraby v. Council and Commission, [2011] ECR II-255. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Case C-137/10, Communautés européennes v. Région de Bruxelles-Capitale,
[2011] ECR I-3515. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Case T-1/10, SNF SAS v. ECHA, [2011] ECR II-6576 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
Case T-93/10, Bilbaína de Alquitranes e.a. v. ECHA, ECLI:EU:T:2013:106. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Case T-94/10, Rütgers Germany e.a. v. ECHA, ECLI:EU:T:2013:107. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349, 354
Case T-95/10, Cindu Chemicals e.a. v. ECHA, ECLI:EU:T:2013:108. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Case T-96/10, Rütgers Germany GmbH e.a. v. ECHA, ECLI:EU:T:2013:109. . . . . . . 206, 349, 350
Case T-262/10, Microban v. Commission, [2011] ECR II-7697. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
Opinion of AG Bot in Case C-221/10 P, Artegodan GmbH v. Commission,
ECLI:EU:C:2011:744 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195, 279
Case C-221/10 P, Artegodan GmbH v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2012:216. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Case C-77/11, Council v. Parliament, ECLI:EU:C:2013:559. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Case C-199/11, Europese Gemeenschap v. Otis NV e.a., ECLI:EU:C:2012:684. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Case T-496/11, UK v. ECB, ECLI:EU:T:2015:133 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Case C-370/12, Pringle, ECLI:EU:C:2012:756. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Opinion of AG Jääskinen in Case C-270/12, UK v. Parliament and Council,
ECLI:EU:C:2013:562. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146–8, 243–5, 257, 290, 292–3
Case C-270/12, UK v. Parliament and Council, ECLI:EU:C:2014:18. . . . . . . . . . . 1, 28, 38, 39, 61,
112, 118, 124–6, 131, 146–9, 155, 176, 187, 194, 196–9, 201,
204, 206, 207, 210, 221, 236, 241, 242–9, 256–8, 285, 289,
293–8, 312, 319, 326, 350, 359–60, 367, 370–1, 379
Opinion of AG Cruz Villalón in Case C-427/12, Commission v. Parliament
and Council, ECLI:EU:C:2013:871. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206, 235
Case C-427/12, Commission v. Parliament and Council,
ECLI:EU:C:2014:170 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287, 289, 295
Opinion 2/13, re Accession to the ECHR, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Case C-65/13, Parliament v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2289. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Case C-146/13, Spain v. Parliament and Council, ECLI:EU:C:2015:298. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224, 295
Case C-147/13, Spain v. Council, ECLI:EU:C:2015:299. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Case C-409/13, Council v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2015:217. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Opinion of AG Jääskinen in Case C-507/13, UK v. Parliament and Council,
ECLI:EU:C:2014:2394. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Case T-102/13, Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v. EASA,
ECLI:EU:T:2014:1064. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206, 247, 338, 343, 351
xx Table of Cases
Order of the President in Case T-â•‰201/â•‰13, Rubinum v. Commission,
ECLI:EU:T:2013:562 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
Case T-â•‰201/â•‰13, Rubinum v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:562. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . 366
Opinion of AG Mengozzi in Case C-â•‰88/â•‰14, Commission v.
Parliament and Council, ECLI:EU:C:2015:304. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Case C-â•‰88/â•‰14, Commission v. Parliament and Council, ECLI:EU:C:2015:499. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Case C-â•‰363/â•‰14, Parliament v. Council, ECLI:EU:C:2015:579 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 39, 265
Case T-â•‰660/â•‰14, SV Capital v. EBA, ECLI:EU:T:2015:608 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 341
DEC ISIONS OF T H E BOA R DS OF A PPE A L

ECHA Board of Appeal, Case A-â•‰005-â•‰2011, Honeywell Belgium N.V.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ 351, 352
ECHA Board of Appeal, Case A-â•‰001-â•‰2012, Dow Benelux. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . 350, 351
ECHA Board of Appeal, Case A-â•‰004-â•‰2012, Lanxess. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
EASA Board of Appeal, Case AP/â•‰01/â•‰2012, Heli-â•‰Flight GmbH & Co. KG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ 351
EASA Board of Appeal, Case AP/â•‰03/â•‰2012, Luck. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . 342
EASA Board of Appeal, Case AP/â•‰04/â•‰2013, Robinson Helicopter Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
ESAs Joint Board of Appeal, Case 2013-â•‰8, SV Capital OÜ v. EBA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 342
ESAs Joint Board of Appeal, Case 2013-â•‰14, Global Private Rating
Company ‘Standard Rating’ Ltd v. ESMA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . 361
FOR E IGN A N D M E M BE R S TAT E S’ C OU RTS’ DE C ISIONS

US Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, [1803] 5 United States Reports 137. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
US Supreme Court, McCulloch v. State of Maryland,
[1819] 17 United States Reports 316 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . 300
US Supreme Court, Union Bridge Co. v. US, [1907] 204 United States Reports 364. . . . . . . . . . 301
US Supreme Court, United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., [1909] 213
United States Reports 366. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
US Supreme Court, Myers v. US, [1926] 272 United States Reports 52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . 300
US Supreme Court, Hampton & Co. v. US, [1928] 276 United States Reports 394 . . . . . . . . . . . 301
US Supreme Court, United States v. Chicago, [1931] 282 United States Reports 311. . . . . . . . . . . 301
US Supreme Court, New York Central S. Corp. v. United States, [1932]
287 United States Reports 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
US Supreme Court, Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Bros. B. & M. CO.,
[1933] 289 United States Reports 266. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . 301
US Supreme Court, Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, [1935] 293 United States Reports 388. . . . . . 301
US Supreme Court, A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States,
US Supreme Court, Humphrey’s Executor v. US, [1935] 295 United States Reports 602. . . . . . . . 300
US Supreme Court, Skidmore v. Swift & Co., [1944] 323 United States Reports 134. . . . . . . . . . 302
US Supreme Court, Atlas Roofing Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety Commission,
US Supreme Court, Industrial Union Department, AFL-â•‰CIO v. American Petroleum
Institute, [1980] 448 United States Reports 607 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
US Supreme Court, INS v. Chadha, [1983] 462 United States Reports 919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
US Supreme Court, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., [1984] 467 United States Reports 837. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 302–â•‰3
US Supreme Court, United States v. Varig Airlines, [1984] 467 United States Reports 797. . . . . . 359
US Supreme Court, Bowsher v. Synar, [1986] 478 United States Reports 714. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
US Supreme Court, South Dakota v. Dole, [1987] 483 United States Reports 203. . . . . . . . . . . . 161
US Supreme Court, Berkovitz v. United States, [1988] 486 United States Reports 531. . . . . . . . . 359
US Supreme Court, Morrison v. Olson, [1988] 487 United States Reports 654. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Table of Cases xxi
US Supreme Court, Mistretta v. United States, [1989] 488 United States Reports 361. . . . . 301, 305
US Supreme Court, New York v. United States, [1992] 505 United States Reports 144. . . . . . 49, 160
US Supreme Court, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone and
Telegraph Co., [1994] 512 United States Reports 218. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
US Supreme Court, Printz v. United States, [1997] 521 United States
Reports 898. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49, 160, 266, 306
US Supreme Court, Clinton v. City of New York, [1998] 524 United States
Reports 417. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301, 306
US Supreme Court, Reno v. Condon, [2000] 528 United States Reports 141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
US Supreme Court, FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., [2000]
529 United States Reports 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302, 302
US Supreme Court, Christensen v. Harris County, [2000] 529 United States
Reports 576. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
US Supreme Court, Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc.,
[2001] 531 United States Reports 457. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
US Supreme Court, US v. Mead Corp., [2001] 533 United States Reports 218. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
US Supreme Court, Barnhart v. Walton, [2002] 535 United States Reports 212. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
US Supreme Court, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board, [2010] 561 United States Reports 477. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Bundesverfassungsgericht, Kreditwesen, [1962] 14 BVerfGE 197. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309, 310

Bundesverfassungsgericht, Behördliches Beschwerderecht, [1973] 35 BVerfGE 263. . . . . . . . . . . . 314
Bundesverfassungsgericht, Mitbestimmungsgesetz Schleswig-Holstein, [1995]
93 BVerfGE 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
Bundesverfassungsgericht, Moratorium Gorleben, [2001] 104 BVerfGE 238. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Bundesverfassungsgericht, Lippeverband, [2002] 107 BVerfGE 59. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
Bundesverfassungsgericht, Zollkriminalamt, [2004] 110 BVerfGE 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Bundesverfassungsgericht, Hartz IV-Arbeitsgemeinschaften, [2007] 119 BVerfGE 331. . . . . . . . 307
Table of Legislation
Décision (CECA) 33/53 de la Haute Regulation (EC) 2666/2000 of the
Autorité, J.O. 1953 8 137�� 177 Council, OJ 2000 L 306/1 ��11
Autorité, J.O. 1954 4 286 ��176, 178 Council, OJ 2000 L 306/7 ��11
Autorité, J.O. 1955 8 685�� 177, 178 European Parliament and of the
Regulation (EEC) 574/72 of the Council, OJ 2001 L 8/1�� 239
Council, OJ 1972 L 74/1��251 Directive (EC) 2001/83 of the
Regulation (EEC) 907/73 of the European Parliament and of
Council, OJ 1973 L 89/2��17 the Council, OJ 2001
Directive (EEC) 75/319 of the L 311/67��25, 26, 31
Council, OJ 1975 L 147/13��102 Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the
Regulation (EEC) 337/75 of European Parliament and of the
the Council, OJ 1975 Council, OJ 2001 L 145/43��211, 239
L 39/1 ��13, 16, 335, 349 Regulation (EC) 178/2002 of the
Regulation (EEC) 1365/75 of the European Parliament and of the
Council, OJ 1975 L 139/1��13, 16, Council, OJ 2002 L 31/1��16, 51
335, 349 Decision (JHA) 2002/187 of the
Directive (EEC) 81/851 of the Council, OJ 2002 L 63/1�� 16, 40
Council, OJ 1981 L 317/1 ��102 Framework Decision (JHA) 2002/465
Regulation (EEC) 3245/81 of the of the Council, OJ 2002 L 162/1�� 42
Regulation (EC) 2062/94 of the European Parliament and of the
Council, OJ 1994 L 216/1��16, 335, 349 Council, OJ 2002 L 208/1��16, 33
Regulation (EC) 2100/94 of the Regulation (EC) 58/2003 of the
Council, OJ 1994 L 227/1��16, 335, Council, OJ 2003 L 11/1��10, 157
338–46 Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 of the
Council, OJ 1994 L 314/1��16 Council, OJ 2003 L 268/1��25, 335
Directive (EC) 95/46 of the European Regulation (EC) 1831/2003 of the
Parliament and of the Council, European Parliament and of the
OJ 1995 L 281/31 ��163 Council, OJ 2003 L 268/29 �� 32
Joint Action (JHA) 96/277 of the Regulation (EC) 2065/2003 of the
Council, OJ 1996 L 105/1��103 European Parliament and of the
Joint Action (JHA) 97/12 of the Council, OJ 2003 L 309/1�� 32
Council, OJ 1997 L 7/5�� 41 Directive 2004/49 of the European
Joint Action (JHA) 98/428 of the Parliament and of the Council,
Council, OJ 1998 L 191/4��103 OJ 2004 L 164/4 4�� 36
Directive (EC) 98/8 of the European Regulation (EC) 460/2004 of the
Parliament and of the Council, European Parliament and of the
OJ 1998 L 123/1 �� 32 Council, OJ 2004 L 77/1��11
Joint Action (JHA) 98/245 of the Regulation (EC) 726/2004 of the
Council, OJ 1998 L 99/8�� 41 European Parliament and of the
Decision (EC, ECSC, Euratom) 1999/ Council, OJ 2004 L 136/1�� 16, 43,
352 of the Commission, OJ 1999 331, 332, 337
L 136/20 ��14 Regulation (EC) 851/2004 of the
Directive (EC) 2000/43 of the Council, European Parliament and of the
OJ 2000 L 180/22��163 Council, OJ 2004 L 142/1��16, 335
xxiv Table of Legislation
Regulation (EC) 881/2004 of the Decision (JHA) 2008/976 of the
European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2008 L 348/130 ��103
Council, OJ 2004 L 164/1 ��16 Regulation (EC) 1007/2008 of the
European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2008 L 293/1��11
Council, OJ 2004 L 166/1�� 250 Regulation (EC) 1331/2008 of the
European Parliament and of Council, OJ 2008 L 354/1�� 32
the Council, OJ 2004 Regulation (EC) 1339/2008 of the
L 338/4 ��32, 335, 349 European Parliament and of the
Regulation (EC) 2007/2004 of the Council, OJ 2008 L 354/82��16
Council, OJ 2004 L 349/1��17 Directive (EC) 2009/72 of the
Decision (JHA) 2005/681 of the European Parliament and of the
Council, OJ 2005 L 256/63��16 Council, OJ 2009 L 211/55��117
Regulation (EC) 768/2005 of the Directive (EC) 2009/73 of the
Council, OJ 2005 L 128/1��17, 42–3 European Parliament and of the
European Parliament and of the Regulation (EC) 73/2009 of the
Council, OJ 2006 L 378/1�� 33 Council, OJ 2009 L 30/16�� 41
Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 of the Directive (EC) 2009/140 of the
European Parliament and of European Parliament and of the
the Council, OJ 2006 Council OJ 2009 L 337/37��117
L 396/1 ��17, 337, 338–46 Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the
Regulation (EC) 1920/2006 of the Council, OJ 2009 L 78/1��16, 152,
European Parliament and of the 335, 338–46
Council, OJ 2006 L 376/1��16, 337 Decision (JHA) 2009/371 of the
Regulation (EC) 1922/2006 of the Council, OJ 2009 L 121/37�� 17, 39, 42
Council, OJ 2006 L 403/9 ��17 European Parliament and of the
European Parliament and of the Decision (EC) 633/2009 of the
Council, OJ 2006 L 404/9 �� 32 European Parliament and of the
Regulation (EC) 168/2007 of the Council, OJ 2009 L 190/1�� 9
European Commission, OJ 2007 Council, OJ 2009 L 211/1�� 17, 337,
L 155/10�� 33 338–46
Regulation (EC) 717/2007 of the Decision (JHA) 2009/935 of the
European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2009 L 325/12�� 39
Decision (EC) 70/2008 of the European Parliament and of the
European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2009 L 302/1 �� 38
Directive (EC) 2008/95 of the European Parliament and of the
European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2009 L 300/1 �� 32
the Council, OJ 2008 Regulation (EC) 1211/2009 of the
L 79/1 �� 16, 337, 338–46 European Parliament and of the
Council, OJ 2008 L 97/1�� 17, 337 Council, OJ 2009 L 343/1 �� 42
Table of Legislation xxv
Decision (EU) 2010/427 of the Directive (EU) 2012/34 of the
Council, OJ 2010 L 201/30��15 European Parliament and of the
Regulation (EU) 439/2010 of the Council, OJ 2012 L 343/32��117
European Parliament and of the Regulation (EU) 236/2012 of the
Council, OJ 2010 L 132/11��17, 42 European Parliament and of
Regulation (EU) 912/2010 of the the Council, OJ 2012
European Parliament and of the L 86/1 �� 28, 39, 124, 242
Council, OJ 2010 L 276/11��16 Regulation (EU) 528/2012 of the
Regulation (EU) 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the
the Council, OJ 2010 Regulation (EU) 648/2012 of the
L 331/12 ��17, 38, 337, 338–46 European Parliament and of
Regulation (EU) 1094/2010 of the the Council, OJ 2012 L 201/1��37, 38
European Parliament and of Regulation (EU) 100/2013 of the
the Council, OJ 2010 European Parliament and of the
L 331/48 ��17, 38, 337, 338–46 Council, OJ 2013 L 39/30��33, 110
Regulation (EU) 1095/2010 of the Regulation (EU) 526/2013 of the
European Parliament and of European Parliament and of the
the Council, OJ 2010 Council, OJ 2013 L 165/41��11
L 331/84 ��17, 38, 337, 338–46 Regulation (EU) 1024/2013 of the
Regulation (EU) 182/2011 of the Council, OJ 2013 L 287/63��167
European Parliament and of the Decision (CFSP) 2014/75 of the
Council, OJ 2011 L 55/13��239, 292 Council, OJ 2014 L 41/13��16
Decision (CFSP) 2011/411 of the Decision (CFSP) 2014/401 of the
Council, OJ 2011 L 183/16��16 Council, OJ 2014 L 188/73��16
European Parliament and of European Parliament and of
the Council, OJ 2011 L 165/3��11 the Council, OJ 2014
Regulation (EU) 1077/2011 of the L 225/1 �� 17, 323, 338–46
European Parliament and of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1835 of the
the Council, OJ 2011 L 286/1��17 Council, OJ 2015 266/55 ��16
European Parliament and of the European Parliament and of the
Council, OJ 2011 L 304/18�� 33 Council, OJ 2015 L 319/1��16
List of Abbreviations
ACER Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators
AEC Association européenne pour la coopération
AFDI Annuaire français de droit international
AFSJ Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
AöR Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts
AVR Archiv des Völkerrechts
BEREC Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications
BEREC Office Office of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CCP Common Commercial Policy
CDE Cahiers de droit européen
CdT Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union
Cedefop European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
CEPOL European Police College
CFI Court of First Instance
CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy
CIREA Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum
CIREFI Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of
Frontiers and Immigration
CJEUL Columbia Journal of European Law
CLRev Columbia Law Review
CLS Council Legal Service
CMLRev Common Market Law Review
CPVO Community Plant Variety Office
CUP Cambridge University Press
CYELS Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies
DÖV Die Öffentliche Verwaltung
EAC European Agency for Cooperation
EAR European Agency for Reconstruction
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
EASO European Asylum Support Office
EBA European Banking Authority
ECB European Central Bank
ECDC European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
ECHA European Chemicals Agency
ECLR European Competition Law Review
ECMA European Electronic Communications Market Authority
ECSC European Coal and Steel Community
EDA European Defense Agency
EEA European Environment Agency
EEAS European External Action Service
EFCA European Fisheries Control Agency
EFDO European Film Distribution Office
xxviii List of Abbreviations
EFSA European Food Safety Authority
EFTA European Free Trade Area
EIB European Investment Bank
EIGE European Institute for Gender Equality
EIOPA European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority
EIT European Institute of Innovation and Technology
ELJ European Law Journal
ELRev European Law Review
EMA European Medicines Agency
EMCDDA European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction
EMCF European Monetary Cooperation Fund
EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency
ENISA European Network and Information Security Agency
ENP European Neighbourhood Policy
ENPI European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
EPL European Public Law
EPO European Patent Organisation
ERA European Railway Agency
ERG European Regulators Group
ERGECNS European Regulators Group for Electronic Communications Networks
and Services
ESA European Supervisory Authority
ESDC European Security and Defence College
ESGAB European Statistical Governance Advisory Board
ESMA European Securities and Markets Authority
ETF European Training Foundation
EUI European University Institute
EUISS European Union Institute for Security Studies
eu-LISA Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
EUMC European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
EU-OSHA European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
Eurofound European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions
Eurojust European Union’s Judicial Cooperation Unit
Europol European Police Office
EUSC European Union Satellite Centre
EuZW Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht
FRA Fundamental Rights Agency
FRC Federal Radio Commission
Frontex European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the
External Borders of the Member States of the European Union
FTC Federal Trade Commission
GG Grundgesetz
GSA European GNSS Agency
IAC Interstate Aviation Committee
ICC Interstate Commerce Commission
IGC Intergovernmental Conference
IIA Inter-institutional Agreement
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
mind, and directed Secretary Hay to make the following reply,
on the 26th: "The information which has come to the President
since your departure convinces him that the acceptance of the
cession of Luzon alone, leaving the rest of the islands
subject to Spanish rule, or to be the subject of future
contention, can not be justified on political, commercial, or
humanitarian grounds. The cession must be of the whole
archipelago or none. The latter is wholly inadmissible and the
former must therefore be required. The President reaches this
conclusion after most thorough consideration of the whole
subject, and is deeply sensible of the grave responsibilities
it will impose, believing that this course will entail less
trouble than any other and besides will best subserve the
interests of the people involved, for whose welfare we can not
escape responsibility."
Two days later, the moral and political reflections of the

President on the subject were expressed still further to the
commissioners by Secretary Hay, in the following telegram:
"While the Philippines can be justly claimed by conquest,

which position must not be yielded, yet their disposition,
control, and government the President prefers should be the
subject of negotiation as provided in the protocol. It is
imperative upon us that as victors we should be governed only
by motives which will exalt our nation. Territorial expansion
should be our least concern; that we shall not shirk the moral
obligations of our victory is of the greatest.
{624}
It is undisputed that Spain's authority is permanently
destroyed in every part of the Philippines. To leave any part
in her feeble control now would increase our difficulties and
be opposed to the interests of humanity. The sentiment in the
United States is almost universal that the people of the
Philippines, whatever else is done, must be liberated from
Spanish domination. In this sentiment the President fully
concurs. Nor can we permit Spain to transfer any of the
islands to another power. Nor can we invite another power or
powers to join the United States in sovereignty over them. We
must either hold them or turn them back to Spain.
Consequently, grave as are the responsibilities and unforeseen
as are the difficulties which are before us, the President can
see but one plain path of duty—the acceptance of the archipelago.
Greater difficulties and more serious
complications—administrative and international—would follow
any other course. The President has given to the views of the
commissioners the fullest consideration, and in reaching the
conclusion above announced in the light of information
communicated to the commission and to the President since your
departure, he has been influenced by the single consideration
of duty and humanity. The President is not unmindful of the
distressed financial condition of Spain, and whatever
consideration the United States may show must come from its
sense of generosity and benevolence, rather than from any real
or technical obligation. The terms upon which the full cession
of the Philippines shall be made must be left largely with the
commission."
On the 3d of November, Judge Day cabled: "After a careful

examination of the authorities, the majority of the commission
are clearly of opinion that our demand for the Philippine
Islands can not be based on conquest. When the protocol was
signed Manila was not captured, siege was in progress and
capture made after the execution of the protocol. Captures
made after agreement for armistice must be disregarded and
status quo restored as far as practicable. We can require
cession of Philippine Islands only as indemnity for losses and
expenses of the war. Have in view, also, condition of islands,
the broken power of Spain, anarchy in which our withdrawal would
leave the islands, etc. These are legitimate factors."
On the 4th, Senator Davis added a personal telegram as

follows: "I think we can demand cession of entire archipelago
on other and more valid grounds than a perfected territorial
conquest of the Philippine Islands, such as indemnity or as
conditions of peace imposed by our general military success
and in view of our future security and general welfare,
commercial and otherwise. I think the protocol admits all
these grounds, and that the ground alone of perfected
territorial conquest of the Philippine Islands is too narrow
and untenable under protocol."
Secretary Hay replied, for the President, on the 5th: "The

President has no purpose to question the commission's judgment
as to the grounds upon which the cession of the archipelago is
to be claimed. His only wish in that respect is to hold all
the ground upon which we can fairly and justly make the claim.
He recognizes fully the soundness of putting forward indemnity
as the chief ground, but conquest is a consideration which
ought not to be ignored. How our demand shall be presented,
and the grounds upon which you will rest it, he confidently
leaves with the commissioners. His great concern is that a
treaty shall be effected in terms which will not only satisfy
the present generation but, what is more important, be
justified in the judgment of posterity."
Discussion followed, in which Judge Day and Senator Gray

repeated the views they had formerly expressed, in dissent
from the policy determined upon by the President and his
cabinet, the latter saying: "Believing that the result of a
failure to obtain a treaty would be the forcible seizure of
the whole Philippine Islands group, an event greatly to be
deprecated as inconsistent with the traditions and
civilization of the United States, I would be willing to take
the islands by the cession of a treaty of peace, and I would,
to that end, make such reasonable concessions as would comport
with the magnanimity of a great nation dealing with a weak and
prostrate foe. I mean that I would prefer the latter
alternative to the former, not that I have changed my mind as
to the policy of taking the Philippine Islands at all."
So far as concerned the demands of the United States (which
Spain was powerless to resist), the question was settled, on
the 13th of November, by a telegram from Secretary Hay to Mr.
Day, in which he said: "We are clearly entitled to indemnity
for the cost of the war. We can not hope to be fully
indemnified. We do not expect to be. It would probably be
difficult for Spain to pay money. All she has are the
archipelagoes of the Philippines and the Carolines. She surely
can not expect us to turn the Philippines back and bear the cost
of the war and all claims of our citizens for damages to life
and property in Cuba without any indemnity but Porto Rico,
which we have and which is wholly inadequate. … You are
therefore instructed to insist upon the cession of the whole
of the Philippines, and, if necessary, pay to Spain ten to
twenty millions of dollars, and if you can get cession of a
naval and telegraph station in the Carolines, and the several
concessions and privileges and guaranties, so far as
applicable, enumerated in the views of Commissioners Frye and
Reid, you can offer more."
United States, 56th Congress, 2d Session,

Senate Document Number 148
(Papers relating to the Treaty with Spain).
Discussion between the Spanish and American commissioners at

Paris was prolonged until the 10th of December, when the
former yielded to what they protested against as hard terms,
and the following Treaty of Peace was signed:
Treaty of Peace.
ARTICLE I.
Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to
Cuba. And as the island is, upon its evacuation by Spain, to
be occupied by the United States, the United States will, so
long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the
obligations that may under international law result from the
fact of its occupation, for the protection of life and
property.
ARTICLE II.
Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and
other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West
Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.
{625}
ARTICLE III.
Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the
Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within
the following line: A line running from west to east along or
near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the
middle of the navigable channel of Bachi, from the one hundred
and eighteenth (118th) to the one hundred and twenty seventh
(127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence
along the one hundred and twenty seventh (127th) degree
meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the parallel of
four degrees and forty five minutes (4° 45') north latitude,
thence along the parallel of four degrees and forty five
minutes (4° 45') north latitude to its intersection with the
meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and
thirty five minutes (119° 35') east of Greenwich, thence along
the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and
thirty five minutes (119° 35') east of Greenwich to the
parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty minutes (7° 40')
north, thence along the parallel of latitude of seven degrees
and forty minutes (7° 40') north to its intersection with the
one hundred and sixteenth (116th) degree meridian of longitude
east of Greenwich, thence by a direct line to the intersection
of the tenth (10th) degree parallel of north latitude with the
one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of
longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along the one hundred
and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of
Greenwich to the point of beginning. The United States will
pay to Spain the sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000)
within three months after the exchange of the ratifications of
the present treaty.
ARTICLE IV.
The United States will, for the term of ten years from the
date of the exchange of the ratifications of the present
treaty, admit Spanish ships and merchandise to the ports of
the Philippine Islands on the same terms as ships and
merchandise of the United States.
ARTICLE V.
The United States will, upon the signature of the present
treaty, send back to Spain, at its own cost, the Spanish
soldiers taken as prisoners of war on the capture of Manila by
the American forces. The arms of the soldiers in question
shall be restored to them. Spain will, upon the exchange of
the ratifications of the present treaty, proceed to evacuate
the Philippines, as well as the island of Guam, on terms
similar to those agreed upon by the Commissioners appointed to
arrange for the evacuation of Porto Rico and other islands in
the West Indies, under the Protocol of August 12, 1898, which
is to continue in force till its provisions are completely
executed. The time within which the evacuation of the
Philippine Islands and Guam shall be completed shall be fixed
by the two Governments. Stands of colors, uncaptured war
vessels, small arms, guns of all calibres, with their
carriages and accessories, powder, ammunition, livestock, and
materials and supplies of all kinds, belonging to the land and
naval forces of Spain in the Philippines and Guam, remain the
property of Spain. Pieces of heavy ordnance, exclusive of
field artillery, in the fortifications and coast defences,
shall remain in their emplacements for the term of six months,
to be reckoned from the exchange of ratifications of the
treaty; and the United States may, in the meantime, purchase
such material from Spain, if a satisfactory agreement between
the two Governments on the subject shall be reached.
ARTICLE VI.
Spain will, upon the signature of the present treaty, release
all prisoners of war, and all persons detained or imprisoned
for political offences, in connection with the insurrections
in Cuba and the Philippines and the war with the United
States. Reciprocally the United States will release all
persons made prisoners of war by the American forces, and will
undertake to obtain the release of all Spanish prisoners in
the hands of the insurgents in Cuba and the Philippines. The
Government of the United States will at its own cost return to
Spain and the Government of Spain will at its own cost return
to the United States, Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines,
according to the situation of their respective homes,
prisoners released or caused to be released by them,
respectively, under this article.
ARTICLE VII.
The United States and Spain mutually relinquish all claims for
indemnity, national and individual, of every kind, of either
Government, or of its citizens or subjects, against the other
Government, that may have arisen since the beginning of the
late insurrection in Cuba and prior to the exchange of
ratifications of the present treaty, including all claims for
indemnity for the cost of the war. The United States will
adjudicate and settle the claims of its citizens against Spain
relinquished in this article.
ARTICLE VIII.
In conformity with the provisions of Articles I, II, and III
of this treaty, Spain relinquishes in Cuba, and cedes in Porto
Rico and other islands in the West Indies, in the island of
Guam, and in the Philippine Archipelago, all the buildings,
wharves, barracks, forts, structures, public highways and
other immovable property which, in conformity with law, belong
to the public domain, and as such belong to the Crown of
Spain. And it is hereby declared that the relinquishment or
cession, as the case may be, to which the preceding paragraph
refers, cannot in any respect impair the property or rights
which by law belong to the peaceful possession of property of
all kinds, of provinces, municipalities, public or private
establishments, ecclesiastical or civic bodies, or any other
associations having legal capacity to acquire and possess
property in the aforesaid territories renounced or ceded, or
of private individuals, of whatsoever nationality such
individuals may be. The aforesaid relinquishment or cession,
as the case may be, includes all documents exclusively
referring to the sovereignty relinquished or ceded that may
exist in the archives of the Peninsula. Where any document in
such archives only in part relates to said sovereignty, a copy
of such part will be furnished whenever it shall be requested.
Like rules shall be reciprocally observed in favor of Spain in
respect of documents in the archives of the islands above
referred to. In the aforesaid relinquishment or cession, as
the case may be, are also included such rights as the Crown of
Spain and its authorities possess in respect of the official
archives and records, executive as well as judicial, in the
islands above referred to, which relate to said islands or the
rights and property of their inhabitants. Such archives and
records shall be carefully preserved, and private persons
shall without distinction have the right to require, in
accordance with law, authenticated copies of the contracts,
wills and other instruments forming part of notarial protocols
or files, or which may be contained in the executive or
judicial archives, be the latter in Spain or in the islands
aforesaid.
{626}
ARTICLE IX.
Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the
territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes
or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or may
remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights
of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such
property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have the
right to carry on their industry, commerce and professions,
being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are
applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain in the
territory they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of
Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from
the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a
declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in
default of which declaration they shall be held to have
renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the
territory in which they may reside. The civil rights and
political status of the native inhabitants of the territories
hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the
Congress.
ARTICLE X.
The inhabitants of the territories over which Spain
relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be secured in the
free exercise of their religion.
ARTICLE XI.
The Spaniards residing in the territories over which Spain by
this treaty cedes or relinquishes her sovereignty shall be
subject in matters civil as well as criminal to the
jurisdiction of the courts of the country wherein they reside,
pursuant to the ordinary laws governing the same; and they
shall have the right to appear before such courts, and to
pursue the same course as citizens of the country to which the
courts belong.
ARTICLE XII.
Judicial proceedings pending at the time of the exchange of
ratifications of this treaty in the territories over which
Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be
determined according to the following rules:
1. Judgments rendered either in civil suits between private
individuals, or in criminal matters, before the date
mentioned, and with respect to which there is no recourse or
right of review under the Spanish law, shall be deemed to be
final, and shall be executed in due form by competent
authority in the territory within which such judgments should
be carried out.
2. Civil suits between private individuals which may on the

date mentioned be undetermined shall be prosecuted to judgment
before the court in which they may then be pending or in the
court that may be substituted therefor.
3. Criminal actions pending on the date mentioned before the

Supreme Court of Spain against citizens of the territory which
by this treaty ceases to be Spanish shall continue under its
jurisdiction until final judgment; but, such judgment having
been rendered, the execution thereof shall be committed to the
competent authority of the place in which the case arose.
ARTICLE XIII.
The rights of property secured by copyrights and patents
acquired by Spaniards in the Island of Cuba and in Porto Rico,
the Philippines and other ceded territories, at the time of
the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, shall
continue to be respected. Spanish scientific, literary and
artistic works, not subversive of public order in the
territories in question, shall continue to be admitted free of
duty into such territories, for the period of ten years, to be
reckoned from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of
this treaty.
ARTICLE XIV.
Spain will have the power to establish consular officers in
the ports and places of the territories, the sovereignty over
which has been either relinquished or ceded by the present
treaty.
ARTICLE XV.
The Government of each country will, for the term of ten
years, accord to the merchant vessels of the other country the
same treatment in respect of all port charges, including
entrance and clearance dues, light dues, and tonnage duties,
as it accords to its own merchant vessels, not engaged in the
coastwise trade. This article may at any time be terminated on
six months notice given by either Government to the other.
ARTICLE XVI.
It is understood that any obligations assumed in this treaty
by the United States with respect to Cuba are limited to the
time of its occupancy thereof; but it will upon the
termination of such occupancy, advise any Government
established in the island to assume the same obligations.
ARTICLE XVII.
The present treaty shall be ratified by the President of the
United States, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate thereof, and by Her Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain;
and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington within
six months from the date hereof, or earlier if possible. In
faith whereof, we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have
signed this treaty and have hereunto affixed our seals. Done
in duplicate at Paris, the tenth day of December, in the year
of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight.
[Signed]
William R. Day,
Cushman K. Davis,
William P. Frye,
Geo. Gray,
Whitelaw Reid,
Eugenio Montero Ríos,
B. de Abarzuza,
J. de Garnica,
W. R. de Villa Urrutia,
Rafael Cerero.
That the treaty would be ratified by the Senate of the United

States was by no means certain when it was signed, and
remained questionable for two months.
See below:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY-
FEBRUARY).
Some time after the conclusion of the treaty, it was

discovered that the boundaries defined in it for the cession
of the Philippine Islands failed to include the islands of
Cagayan, or Kagayan, and Sibutu, in the southern part of the
archipelago. Still later, it was found that several small
islands (the Bachi or Bashee group, and others) belonging to
the Spanish possessions in the East were left lying outside of
the northern Philippine boundary, as laid down in the treaty
of cession. It is said that the Japanese government called
attention to this latter error, desiring to have the islands
in question, which are near to Formosa, controlled by the
United States, rather than by Spain. By a new treaty with
Spain, negotiated in 1900, all these outlying islands were
acquired by the United States, for the sum of $100,000.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (August).

Losses of the armies at Santiago and in the Philippines.
See below:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (JUNE).
{627}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (August 21).

The War with Spain.
Letter from departing Spanish soldiers to the soldiers
of the American army.
The following letter, addressed, on the eve of their departure

for Spain, by the Spanish soldiers at Santiago, to the
soldiers of the American army, "is surely," says
Lieutenant-Colonel Miley, who quotes it in his book entitled
"In Cuba with Shafter"—"is surely the most remarkable letter
ever addressed by vanquished soldiers to their conquerors:
'Soldiers of the American Army: We would not be fulfilling our

duty as well-born men in whose breasts there lives gratitude
and courtesy, should we embark for our beloved Spain without
sending you our most cordial and sincere good wishes and
farewell. We fought you with ardor and with all our strength,
endeavoring to gain the victory, but without the slightest
rancor or hate toward the American nation. We have been
vanquished by you, so our generals and chiefs judged in
signing the capitulation, but our surrender and the
blood-battles preceding it have left in our souls no place for
resentment against the men who fought us nobly and valiantly.
You fought and acted in compliance with the same call of duty
as we, for we all but represent the power of our respective
States. You fought us as men, face to face, and with great
courage, as before stated—a quality we had not met with during
the three years we have carried on this war against a people
without a religion, without morals, without conscience, and of
doubtful origin, who could not confront the enemy, but shot
their noble victims from ambush and then immediately fled.
This was the kind of warfare we had to sustain in this
unfortunate land. You have complied exactly with all the laws
and usages of war as recognized by the armies of the most
civilized nations of the world; have given honorable burial to
the dead of the vanquished; have cured their wounded with
great humanity; have respected and cared for your prisoners
and their comfort; and lastly, to us, whose condition was
terrible, you have given freely of food and of your stock of
medicines, and have honored us with distinction and courtesy,
for after the fighting the two armies mingled with the utmost
harmony. With this high sentiment of appreciation from us all,
there remains but to express our farewell, and with the
greatest sincerity we wish you all happiness and health in
this land, which will no longer belong to our dear Spain, but
will be yours. You have conquered it by force and watered it
with your blood, as your conscience called for under the
demands of civilization and humanity; but the descendants of
the Congos and Guineas, mingled with the blood of unscrupulous
Spaniards and of traitors and adventurers—these people are
not able to exercise or enjoy their liberty, for they will
find it a burden to comply with the laws which govern
civilized humanity. From eleven thousand Spanish soldiers.
(Signed) Pedro Lopez De Castillo, Soldier of Infantry.

Santiago de Cuba, August 21, 1898.'"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (August-December).

Situation in the Philippines following the occupation
of Manila by American forces.
Growing distrust and unfriendliness of the Tagalos.
Report of General Otis.
See (in this volume)

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1898 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (December).

Organization of military government in Cuba.
See (in this volume)

CUBA: A. D. 1898-1899 (DECEMBER-OCTOBER).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899.

Statistics of the Spanish-American War.
The following military and naval statistics of the war with

Spain, compiled from official sources, were submitted to the
House of Representatives, during its debate on the Army Bill,
in December, 1900, as part of an appendix to a speech made in
support of the Bill by Honorable Charles Dick, of Ohio:
ORGANIZATION AND STRENGTH OF THE ARMY

DURING AND AFTER THE WAR.
By an Act of Congress approved April 22, 1898, providing for

the temporary increase of the military establishment of the
United States, "the organized and active land forces were
declared to consist of the Regular Army and of the militia of
the several States when called into service, constituting two
branches, designated, respectively, as be Regular Army and the
Volunteer Army of the United States. And the President was
authorized to organize the regular and volunteer troops into
divisions of three brigades, each brigade to be composed of
three or more regiments, and when three or more divisions are
present in the same army, to organize them into army corps,
each corps to consist of not more than three divisions. Under
the authority conferred upon him by the joint resolution of
April 20 and the act of April 22, 1898, the President issued a
proclamation, dated April 23, 1898, calling for volunteers to the
number of 125,000 men, to be apportioned as far as practicable
among the several States, Territories, and the District of
Columbia, according to population, to serve for two years
unless sooner discharged. Among the several arms of the
service the troops were apportioned as follows: Five regiments
and 17 troops of cavalry, 16 batteries of light artillery, 1
regiment and 7 batteries of heavy artillery, 119 regiments and
10 battalions of infantry. May 25, 1898, the President issued
a proclamation calling for an additional force of 75,000 men.
For controlling military reasons, it was determined to utilize
so much of this additional force as was necessary to bring up
the several State organizations in service to the full legal
strength, the remainder to be apportioned among the several
States and Territories according to their respective quotas as
nearly as possible. The apportionment to the several arms of
service under this second call was for 16 batteries of light
artillery, 3 battalions of heavy artillery, and 22 regiments,
ten battalions, and 46 companies of infantry."
The strength of the Regular Army on the 1st of April, 1898,

just before the breaking out of the war, was as follows:
Officers.
Enlisted Men.
General officers and staff corps. 532

2,026
Cavalry. 437
6,047
Artillery. 288
4,486
Infantry. 886
12,828
Miscellaneous.
653
Total. 2,143
26,040
The Regular Army was authorized to be increased to 65,000 men

as a war footing. The total strength of the armies, Regular
and Volunteer, at several later dates, was as follows:
{628}
DATE. Regulars. Volunteers.

Total.
April 15, 1898 28,183
28,183
May 31, 1898 38,816 124,776
162,592
August 31, 1898 56,362 216,256
272,618
January 31, 1899 65,531 90,241
155,772
June 30, 1899 63,535 16,550
80,085
Maximum force at any one time during Spanish-American war,

274,717 officers and men. On the 29th of November, 1898, the
Army of the United States consisted of 2,324 officers and
61,444 enlisted men of the regular force, and of 5,216
officers and 110,202 enlisted men of the volunteer force,
making an aggregate of 7,540 officers and 171,646 enlisted
men.
PAY OF ARMY.
Payments made to Regular and Volunteer armies engaged during

Spanish-American war, from April 21, 1898, to April 11, 1899,
$67,065,629.56.
CASUALTIES IN ACTION.
In Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines between May 1, 1898,

and June 30, 1899.
Killed Cuba Porto Rico

Philippines
Officers 21
16
Enlisted men 223 4
219
Wounded:
Officers 101
92
Enlisted men 1,344 36
1,349
Died of Wounds:
Officers 10
10
Enlisted men 64 8
82
Died of Disease:
Officers 34 4
11
Enlisted men. 888 251
369
Grand total, 5,136.
Casualties in Fifth Army Corps in campaign against Santiago,

June 22, 1898, to July 17, 1898.
Officers. Enlisted Men.
Killed. 21 222
Wounded 101 1,344
At battle of Las Guasimas, June 24, 1898.

Killed. 1 15
Wounded 6 43
At battle of El Caney, July 1, 1898.

Killed. 4 77
Wounded 25 335
At Aguadores, July 1-2, 1898.

Killed. 2
Wounded 10
At battle of San Juan, July 1-3, 1898.

Killed. 15 127
Wounded 69 945
Casualties around Santiago, July 10-12, 1898.

Killed. 1 1
Wounded 1 11
Grand total of casualties in killed and wounded

during the war with Spain.
WHERE. KILLED.
WOUNDED.
Officers. Enlisted Men. Officers.

Enlisted Men.
Cuba 23 237 99
1,332
Porto Rico. 3 4
36
Manila 17 10
96
Total 23 257 113

1,464
The deaths from all causes (including casualties in action) in

the whole Army, regulars and volunteers, for the fourteen
months from May, 1898, to June, 1899, inclusive, were 6,619.
This is equivalent to an annual rate of 33.03 per thousand of
strength. The deaths from disease during the whole period were
at an annual rate of hut 25.68 per thousand. These were as
follows:
STATIONS. Number of Deaths Rate per

1,000.
United States 3,577 23.81

Cuba 928 45.14
Porto Rico 238 38.15
Philippines 402 17.20
{629}
Deaths in the armies of the United States, by countries,

Textbook Eu Agencies Legal and Political Limits To The Transformation of The Eu Administration 1St Edition Chamon Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Eu Agencies Legal and Political Limits To The Transformation of The Eu Administration 1St Edition Chamon Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EU agencies legal and political limits to

the transformation of the EU

Brexit and Internal Security Political and Legal

The Role of EU Agencies in the Eurozone and Migration

Going Past Limits To Growth A Report to the Club of

EU Citizens in the European Public Sphere: An Analysis

Regulation of the EU Financial Markets MiFID II and

Opposition In The EU Multi-Level Polity: Legal

EU Health Law & Policy: The Expansion of EU Power in

Legal Risks in EU Law Interdisciplinary Studies on

Other titles in this ser ies

List of Figures xiii

I. Setting the Scene:Â€EU Agencies, Agencification,

IV. The Legal Limits to Agencification 134

V. Controlling Agencification 299

VI. Conclusions and Proposal 369

Selected Bibliography 383

1.1 Functional classifications of EU agencies 21

DEC ISIONS OF T H E BOA R DS OF A PPE A L

FOR E IGN A N D M E M BE R S TAT E S’ C OU RTS’ DE C ISIONS

Bundesverfassungsgericht, Kreditwesen, [1962] 14 BVerfGE 197. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309, 310

Two days later, the moral and political reflections of the

"While the Philippines can be justly claimed by conquest,

On the 3d of November, Judge Day cabled: "After a careful

On the 4th, Senator Davis added a personal telegram as

Secretary Hay replied, for the President, on the 5th: "The

Discussion followed, in which Judge Day and Senator Gray

United States, 56th Congress, 2d Session,

Discussion between the Spanish and American commissioners at

2. Civil suits between private individuals which may on the

3. Criminal actions pending on the date mentioned before the

That the treaty would be ratified by the Senate of the United

Some time after the conclusion of the treaty, it was

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (August).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (August 21).

The following letter, addressed, on the eve of their departure

'Soldiers of the American Army: We would not be fulfilling our

(Signed) Pedro Lopez De Castillo, Soldier of Infantry.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (August-December).

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (December).

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899.

The following military and naval statistics of the war with

ORGANIZATION AND STRENGTH OF THE ARMY

By an Act of Congress approved April 22, 1898, providing for

The strength of the Regular Army on the 1st of April, 1898,

General officers and staff corps. 532

The Regular Army was authorized to be increased to 65,000 men

DATE. Regulars. Volunteers.

Maximum force at any one time during Spanish-American war,

Payments made to Regular and Volunteer armies engaged during

In Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines between May 1, 1898,

Killed Cuba Porto Rico

Grand total, 5,136.

Casualties in Fifth Army Corps in campaign against Santiago,

Officers. Enlisted Men.

At battle of Las Guasimas, June 24, 1898.

At battle of El Caney, July 1, 1898.

Officers. Enlisted Men.

At Aguadores, July 1-2, 1898.

Officers. Enlisted Men.

At battle of San Juan, July 1-3, 1898.

List of Figures xiii

IV. The Legal Limits to Agencification 134

V. Controlling Agencification 299

VI. Conclusions and Proposal 369

Selected Bibliography 383

1.1 Functional classifications of EU agencies 21