![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What were the relations between the European Union and these territories before EU member states renounced sovereignty and left?
I'd expect the article to elaborate on the statuses of these former territories within the European community. Montemonte ( talk) 01:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Saint Pierre and Miquelon was a département d'outre-mer until 1985. Was it part of the European Communities until then? Did the Treaty of Rome apply there? Montemonte ( talk) 10:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Are there any villages in the UN Buffer zone? Is there some UN civilian administration? What laws govern civilian activities in the zone (if any - eg. agriculture, etc.)? Alinor ( talk) 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I understand a "local court" is just the court responsible for the area. It can be located outside it (like the "Court of Aruba and the Netherland Antilles" - that is located in Aruba, thus outside of the Netherland Antilles). The opposite of the local court would be for the matters in question to be responsible some "external" court (like ECJ, ECHR, etc.)? Alinor ( talk) 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should try to improve the references by adding such for much of the currently unsourced yes/no/etc-s in the table.
Problematic IMHO are the following cases: 1. Totaly Unclear
2. Missing references
Just to add a note - uninhabitted islands relation to EU laws is not unimportant - EEZ around such islands can be economicaly utilized in some cases. Alinor ( talk) 10:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I just did a big edit doing too much to summarise it in the edit summary. Along with various capitalisation, punctuation, grammar, style etc. fixes:
Hairy Dude ( talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The distinction is hardly "irrelevant" for the UK FCO when it negotiates treaties (as Blue-Haired Lawyer points out without prompting). Nor is it irrelevant for the other parties of those treaties. The United Kingdom Parliament cannot effectively guarantee compliance of these treaties by Gibraltar without the permission of the Gibraltar Parliament. For this reason alone, it seems sensible to separate Gibraltar (and the (former) Crown fiefdoms) from the United Kingdom proper. Physchim62 (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The table given in the summary section has a column called Application of EU law. Possible values are full, yes, no, and explanatory comments for values between yes and no. The distinction between yes and full is not clear. From analyzing the table, I can conclude that full mean that the entire row is green, while yes can come with some red compartments in the row. This is anything but intuitive and perhaps just coincidence.
Is there anyone who could clarify this. Or first explain how to correctly interpret the data. Tomeasy T C 10:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't just add an inappropriate template. I clearly explained myself in my edit summary. Neither of the cited sources actually say that Mount Athos has an opt out from the Schengen Area. In fact just comments on the fact that the monks were protesting on being included in Schengen.
The only reference to Mount Athos in the entire Schengen Acquis is an declaration attached to the Schengen Implementing Convention. By defination such declarations are non-binding and even if it were binding, it doesn't say anything about Mount Athos not being part of the Schengen Area.
If you want to say Mount Athos isn't part of the Schengen Area, you're going to have to find an actual source. Which in this case would be a clear statement in a legal act excluding Mount Athos. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Recognising that the special status granted to Mount Athos, as guaranteed by Article 105 of the Hellenic Constitution and the Charter of Mount Athos, is justified exclusively on grounds of a spiritual and religious nature, the Contracting Parties will ensure that this status is taken into account in the application and subsequent preparation of the provisions of the 1985 Agreement and the 1990 Convention.
Just a heads up to anyone who cares, the map shown in this article is in French not English. It also needs updating to SVG. -- metta, The Sunborn 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC) 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
British overseas territory citizens other than those connected to Gibraltar are not EU citizens. Only those who have acquired British citizenship by registration are EU citizens. Montemonte ( talk) 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
⬅ This all get quite complicated but a reading of the consolidated nationality act shows that the overseas territories are now treated as part of the UK for nationality purposes. The relevant parts of the act read:
The appointed day was 21 May 2002. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Are nationals of the TRNC EU citizens? And are EU elections actually held to the north of the buffer zone? Montemonte ( talk) 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Legally, the EU continues to consider Northern Cyprus as EU territory under foreign military occupation and thus indefinitely exempt from EU legislation until a settlement has been reached. The number of seats assigned to Cyprus in the European Parliament (6 seats) is based on the population of the entire island, despite the fact that the residents of Northern Cyprus currently cannot participate in the election process. Unlike the 1960 constitution where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots were voting separately their members in the Cypriot Parliament, until the solution of the Cyprus Problem, because of the current status quo, the Turkish Cypriot voters can vote only together with Greek Cypriots for Cypriot Members of the European Parliament. In the last European Parliament elections, 97 Turkish Cypriots voted. There is no support as yet for admitting two Cypriot member states into the EU.
EU law only applies fully to the part of the island that is effectively controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus. EU law is suspended in the northern third of the island (the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, whose independence is recognised only by Turkey) by article 1(1) of the Cyprus Protocol Turkish Cypriots living there are nonetheless European citizens and are entitled, at least in principle, to vote in elections to the European Parliament; however, elections to that Parliament are not organised in northern Cyprus.
Since the case of Aruba and the Netherland Antilles, have it ever been challenged that EU citizens in Greenland and the British overseas territories were denied of the right to vote and to stand in EU elections? Montemonte ( talk) 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
After yesterday's referendum, Mayotte seems ready to become an oversease department of France in 2011. Will it automatically become part of the EU, like the overseas departments? Or would further treaty modifications be necessary? -- Jfruh ( talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the arrangement for trade between two OCT entities? Between Greenland and St.Pierre et Miquellon for example? Alinor ( talk) 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Quoth the article:
Article 299(4) applies the treaty to "the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible", a provision which in practice only applies to Gibraltar.
Hmm ... wouldn't that describe the Crown Dependency as well? -- Jfruh ( talk) 03:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Member State of the European Union which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it would add great value if we added another column, entitled Part of the EU, to the table in the section summary. The question is just: Can we do so in a reliable (i.e., referenced) manner?
At the German Wikipedia, a similar table has this column - very up front, the first column next to the territory's name. Arguably, this is the most interesting column to most readers. Unfortunately, the German article does not mention how the information displayed was acquired.
Any thoughts on how we could deal with this? Tomeasy T C 08:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've added the column, now it needs checking by someone else! The problem cases I had were:
We also need to check what will happen to the Netherlands Antilles when that administrative structure is dissolved later this year. Physchim62 (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
"6. The European Council may, on the initiative of the Member State concerned, adopt a decision amending the status, with regard to the Union, of a Danish, French or Netherlands country or territory referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. The European Council shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission."
I am not sure that this column is usefull. What does "Part of the EU" mean? The point of the whole article is to describe the exceptions. I mean that all other columns describe what exactly is applicable and what not. There is no such thing as "part of the EU" - this depends on the context - wheter we mean "apply the EU laws" or "participate in EU VAT" or whatever-column. Currently it seems that the "Part of the EU" is just a copy of "apply EU laws", where Yes/with exemptions is converted to firm Yes and No/Minimal is converted to firm No. While I agree with this conversion (as I agree with placing the "EU law" column as the first column before the addition of "part of the EU") I don't think that it is usefull. Instead I propose to remove the redundant "Part of the EU" column and then separate the "Application of EU law" column from the rest by one empty column - so that its significance is enchanced. Additionaly we could mark "with exemptions" with light green and "minimal" with light red - so that in practice the "part of the EU" column will be implemented by the colors of the "EU law" column? Alinor ( talk) 19:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Do we have an agreement for the proposal from 19:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)? (remove "part of EU" column and modify "Apply EU laws" colors) Alinor ( talk) 14:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Are Britsh and French OCTs in the Antarctic missing in the map on top of the article? Tomeasy T C 23:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
A dual British-Australian citizen cannot chose to be non-EU citizen as British citizens are ipso facto EU citizens. They can of course chose to be treated as if they weren't EU citizens by using their Australian passports, but that's a different matter.
People living in the Faroes can't choose to have an EU passport or not. They are not EU citizens and can't have an EU passport. Of course as Danes they can always move their residence to Denmark where they would become EU citizens and be entitled to an EU passport, but that's also a different matter. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Following the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles, the section on the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba needs to be updated. Styath ( talk) 10:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
As correctly stated here, the Kingdom of the Netherlands attached in 1957 to both Treaties of Rome (EEC and EURATOM) a protocol entitling it to ratify it on behalf of the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea only (and thus not Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles).
The protocol attached to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community was worded as follows:
“ | Treaty establishing the EEC - Protocol on the application of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community to the non-European parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, ANXIOUS, at the time of signature of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, to define the scope of the provisions of Article 227 of this Treaty in respect of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to this Treaty: The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, by reason of the constitutional structure of the Kingdom resulting from the Statute of 29 December 1954, shall, by way of derogation from Article 227, be entitled to ratify the Treaty on behalf of the Kingdom in Europe and Netherlands New Guinea only. Done at Rome this twenty-fifth day of March in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven. |
” |
The protocol attached to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community was worded slightly differently:
“ | Treaty establishing the EAEC — Protocol on the application of the Treaty to the non-European parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, ANXIOUS, at the time of signature of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, to define the scope of the provisions of Article 198 of this Treaty in respect of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to this Treaty: The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, by reason of the constitutional structure of the Kingdom resulting from the Statute of 29 December 1954, shall, by way of derogation from Article 198, be entitled to ratify this Treaty either on behalf of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in its entirety or on behalf of the Kingdom in Europe and Netherlands New Guinea. In the event of ratification being limited to the Kingdom in Europe and Netherlands New Guinea, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands may at any time, by notification to the Government of the Italian Republic as depositary of the instruments of ratification, declare this Treaty also applicable either to Surinam, or to the Netherlands Antilles, or to both Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles. Done at Rome this twenty-fifth day of March in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven. |
” |
The Kingdom of the Netherlands subsequently ratified both treaties only on behalf of the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea ( Ratification Act for the EEC Treaty, Ratification Act for the EAEC Treaty).
The EEC treaty was extended to Suriname, when the Kingdom of the Netherlands deposited on 14 August 1962 a Supplementary Instrument of Ratification with the Italian Government (page 29 in the link), after the EEC Treaty was ratified by Kingdom Act for Suriname as well (Kingdom Act of 19 July 1962, Stb. 1962, 285). Part IV of the EEC Treaty entered into force for Suriname on 1 September 1962 (see note attached to Protocol (No 13) in the link). This was legally possible, as the 1957 protocol entitled and not obliged the Kingdom of the Netherlands to ratify on behalf of the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea only.
A full treaty revision was, however, pursued for the Netherlands Antilles, as the other 5 Member States wanted to attach another protocol to the EEC Treaty on the import of oil products refined in the Netherlands Antillen. See Convention on the association of the Netherlands Antilles with the European Economic Community for this.
I could not find anything that implies that the EAEC Treaty was extended to Suriname (and the Netherlands Antilles) as well. But given the fact that the protocol allowing the Netherlands to ratify for the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea only was abrogated by Article 8 (III) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, my guts tell me that the EAEC Treaty was indeed extended to these territories too. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Article 198 did not have to be included in the Treaty, as application to the entire territory of signatory states follows from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Still, the protocol allowed the Netherlands to ratify on behalf of the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea only, and if that ratification has not been extended, it does not apply to other parts of the Kingdom. You need another Kingdom Act for that. Ask any lawyer. If the ratification has not been extended (which is still quite a possibility), the treaty does not apply across the former Netherlands Antilles. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 21:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
“ | Act of 5 December 1957 containing approval of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, with Annexes and Protocols
WE, JULIANA, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS, PRINCESS OF ORANJE-NASSAU, ETC., ETC., ETC. Greetings to all who shall see or hear these presents! Be it known: Whereas We have considered that the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, signed on Our behalf in Rome on 25 March 1957, with its associated Annexes and with its likewise associated Protocols, signed respectively in Rome on 25 March 1957 and in Brussels on 17 April 1957, pursuant to Article 60, Section 2, of the Constitution requires the approval of the States General before it may receive assent; We, therefore, having heard the Council of State, and in consultation with the States General, have approved and decreed as We hereby approve and decree: Article 1. The Treaty concluded in Rome on 25 March 1957 between the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Italian Republic and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, with the associated Annexes, of which Treaty with Annexes the Dutch and French texts respectively have been placed in the Bulletins of Treaties 1957, 92 and 75, is approved for the Netherlands and Dutch New Guinea. Article 2. The Protocol signed in Rome on 25 March 1957, associated with the Treaty mentioned in Article 1, concerning the application of the Treaty to the non-European parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of which Protocol the Dutch and French texts respectively have been placed in the Bulletins of Treaties 1957, 92 and 75, is approved for the Netherlands and Dutch New Guinea. Article 3. The Protocol signed in Brussels on 17 April 1957, associated with the Treaty referred to in Article 1, concerning the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Atomic Energy Community, and the Protocol signed in Brussels on 17 April 1957, associated with the Treaty referred to in Article 1, concerning the privileges and immunities of the European Atomic Energy Community, of which respective Protocols the Dutch and French texts have been placed in the Bulletins of Treaties 1957, 96 and 97, are approved for the Netherlands and Dutch New Guinea. Article 4. We shall ensure that a report is presented annually to the States General concerning the effect and application of the Treaty referred to in Article 1. Article 5. Insofar as more detailed agreements might be entered into for implementation of the Treaty referred to in Article 1, these shall be submitted for the approval of the States General. Article 6. This Act shall come into force on today’s date. We order and command that this Act shall be published in the Bulletin of Acts and Decrees, and that all Ministerial Departments, Authorities, Bodies and Officials whom it may concern shall diligently implement it. Done at Soestdijk Palace, 5 December 1957. JULIANA |
” |
Abolishing the protocol allowing for a territorially limited ratification does not change the ratification itself, if such a ratification had been territorially limited. For that, another ratification act had to be adopted (which may well have happened, though I don't see any notification here). Treaties cannot bind signatories if they have not ratified it. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 11:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
and
"Aangezien het Verdrag van Amsterdam bepalingen bevat die de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba raken, voorziet het voorstel van Rijkswet tot goedkeuring van het Verdrag in goedkeuring voor het gehele Koninkrijk. De inwerkingtreding van het Verdrag van Amsterdam brengt geen wijziging in de territoriale betrokkenheid van het Koninkrijk bij de bestaande EG-Verdragen. In het bijzonder wat het EG-Verdrag betreft, blijft de zakelijke werking van het EG-Verdrag voor de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba beperkt tot de associatie-regeling van Deel IV. (...) Evenals het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie zal het Verdrag van Amsterdam alleen voor Nederland worden bekrachtigd. " L.tak ( talk) 10:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Alinor, vVlissingen, please let me know until which points you agree! L.tak ( talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have been looking through the Euratom matter today again, and came across a non-validity of a licencing article in patent law which is not valid for Sint Maarten and Curacao ( Article 60 part 4), because... Euratom is not applicable to Sint Maarten and Curacao ( chapter 7, part J)! So I guess for those regions it has been solved so I will change the entries of these countries...
I am tempted to draw conclusions on the Netherlands Antilles (which used to be in that place in the article), but that requires 1 step of interpretation. For Aruba, it doesn't make things clearer, as Article 60 anyway doesn't apply there (article 113). L.tak ( talk) 21:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. The BES islands are not mentioned in the Act on the ratification of treaties for the BES islands, so I guess EURATOM still does not apply there. As for later ratification on behalf of other territories: that was done for the Surinamese application of the EEC treaty as well, even though there was no explicit mentioning of the possibility to ratify later in the EEC protocol (like there was in the protocol attached to the EAEC treaty, see above) (there was the Declaration of Intent on the association of Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles with the European Economic Community of course). The ratification on behalf of a part of a territory is the exception to the rule (a rule established by article 29 of the the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), and such an exception can always be overturned by ratification on behalf of the whole territory. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 14:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Mayotte is not a part of the Union. According to article 355(6) the European Council has to act unanimously after consulting the Commission to amend the status of a Danish, French or Netherlands territory. No such decision has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union. France can not decide by its own if Mayotte shall be a part of the Union or not. Until a decision has been taken by the European Council, Mayotte will remain outside the Union as an OCT-territory. According to Deutsche Welle the transition will take place in 2014. -- Glentamara ( talk) 18:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Some one took out this:
"With respect to the application of EU law to Gibraltar, the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom made the following Declaration which is appended (as Decaration 55) to the Treaty on European Union: "The Treaties apply to Gibraltar as a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. This shall not imply changes in the respective positions of the Member States concerned." (sourced too)
No reason was given; it is bang on point in terms of relevance so it should be included. 84.203.74.43 ( talk) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Text said:
This meant that on paper it was part of the European Community,[citation needed][clarification needed] but not in reality.[citation needed] The Treaty of Rome had clauses allowing a fast reunion of Germany in 1990.[citation needed]
Parts I can find that are relevant are:
ARTICLE 82 The provisions of this Title shall not form an obstacle to the application of measures taken in the Federal Republic of Germany to the extent that such measures are required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic affected by that division.
ARTICLE 92 2. The following shall be compatible with the common market: (c) aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany, in so far as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division.
ARTICLE 227 1. This Treaty shall apply to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
None of which supports that statement so I have removed it. However some comment may be appropriate about reunification. Justinc ( talk) 12:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
As noted in the article, the Finnish renewed leasing of the 19.6km Russian part of the Saimaa Canal do no longer include the Island in the canal but only the waterway. Moreover it is noted, that the water area is not a territorial part of Finland; but instead remain to be a territorial part of Russia (just being Leased to Finland), and that Russian law is in force when/if you are moving ahead on the waterway with a ship. The fact that Finland no longer leases the territorial Island but only the waterway, and the fact that we have a pure Russian law applying for the leased waterway, I think it does no longer make sence to speak of this area as a special Finnish territory. So I have just removed it from the Summary table and moved the description down to the "Former territory section" in the article. Danish Expert ( talk) 00:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
There are problems with the "Summary" table regarding this entity. The yes/no claims are completely unsourced and the section above doesn't really have any information either:
Travelbird ( talk) 08:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Our list claims 9 OMRs, in line with [7]. However, we say there are 24 OCTs, contradicting [8] and [9] which say there are 21, and this post claims French Polynesia is an OMR. This page says there are 25, and includes French Polynesia. Does anyone know why these contradictions exist? CMD ( talk) 16:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This column is either the same as Application of EU law, or a "?". Does anybody know what it means? And is there any source for a single case when it differs from Application of EU law? If not then I think it should be removed. Rob984 ( talk) 15:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
As many of you know about
Brexit the map needs updating and removal of Britain from the blue shaded area. Yes this is a minor update but this is Wikipedia and our mission is to make sure the right information is passed on.
Thank You
CnocBride
17:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The airport Basel-Mulhouse is outside the VAT system, see [11]. -- Glentamara ( talk) 22:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that in the Summary section the flag next to French Guiana should be France's flag, as it is its official flag (like for Réunion, for example). The yellow and green flag currently showed was the flag used by the "Département" between 2010 and 2015 and is no longer the official flag of the territory. What do people think about this proposed change? Westferrian ( talk) 01:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Westferrian ( talk) 23:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
As a general rule, all the EU territory of a member state whose currency is the euro belongs to the euro area. Non-EU territories of a euro country, such as Saint Barthélemy and Saint Pierre and Miquelon, may adopt the euro through special monetary agreements with the European Union. However, I'm wondering about Campione d'Italia, which is EU territory. This Wikipedia article currently claims that the only legal currency of Campione d'Italia is Swiss franc:
Moreover, the only legal tender in Campione d'Italia is the Swiss franc, ...
The references are, I would say, not that reliable. The first one does not even explicitly say that it is the legal tender, but rather that Swiss franc is the tender used in Campione d'Italia, which is another thing. The statement in this Wikipedia article may very well be fully true, but I'm wondering – formally speaking – what exactly is then the legal basis for this? Because I cannot find any legal act of the EU that exempts an EU part of a euro country from having the euro as its currency. Does anyone know if there is any formal exemption for Campione d'Italia? -- Glentamara ( talk) 09:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The map in the Info Box at the top of this page still incorrectly includes some of the British Overseas Territories. The Pitcairn Islands (Pacific Ocean), Turks & Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Montserrat, Cayman Islands (Caribbean Sea) are still showing and need to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.190.73 ( talk) 09:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus is legally part of the European Union, but applicability of the EU acquis has been suspended, pending the resolution of the Cyprus problem. Therefore, it would not be technically correct that Northern Cyprus is not part of the European Union.(Please see the Special cases in Europe section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.218.197.30 ( talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
What would be the EEA status of the OMRs? I am assuming that since they are part of the EU member states, they are also EEA if the EU member state they are part of is also an EEA member (which at the moment is every EU member except Croatia). Perhaps it is worth adding a small sentence clarifying the EU/EEA overlap? I'm not an expert so I thought of asking first. Pinnecco ( talk) 11:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Being part of the EURATOM programme (a research programme) does not mean that a state is an associated state of EURATOM. If so were the case, all countries participating in the Horizon Europe programme should also be listed as associated states of the EU. But that's not how things work. EURATOM and the EU are much more than just research programmes. If someone claims otherwise, please provide an authorative secondary source supporting that UK/Switzerland are associate members of EURATOM (not the EURATOM programme!). -- Glentamara ( talk) 07:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't the post-Brexit status of Northern Ireland be discussed somewhere in this article? I understand it's a unique case with NI being formally outside, but, in practice, inside the EU customs territory. Or maybe I'm not getting it right, but then it's even more a case for having a decent explanation of the new arrangement here. — Kpalion (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
While Greenland holds a lot of autonomy, it is not an independent country in any way and the autonomy it does have, can legally be removed with the stroke of a pen. Presenting Greenland as anything but a Danish territory, with a great deal of deserved autonomy, is confusing -- so confusing in fact, that someone has requested a source on the claim that Greenlanders are citizen of Denmark. I suggest Greenland is presented more accurately, as a Danish territory, with great, but limited, autonomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.107.15.50 ( talk) 20:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Special member state territories and the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "These countries are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Andora," to Andorra (and the correct link). Andora is a town in Italy the correct should be Andorra (two "r", country). Edudasoares ( talk) 21:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
77.188.28.121 ( talk) 21:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
^^, there were some concerns from Commons that CNVM looks like applied many Canadian law instead of EU law, probably declaration of the legal status of this Memorial needed. Liuxinyu970226 ( talk) 03:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What were the relations between the European Union and these territories before EU member states renounced sovereignty and left?
I'd expect the article to elaborate on the statuses of these former territories within the European community. Montemonte ( talk) 01:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Saint Pierre and Miquelon was a département d'outre-mer until 1985. Was it part of the European Communities until then? Did the Treaty of Rome apply there? Montemonte ( talk) 10:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Are there any villages in the UN Buffer zone? Is there some UN civilian administration? What laws govern civilian activities in the zone (if any - eg. agriculture, etc.)? Alinor ( talk) 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I understand a "local court" is just the court responsible for the area. It can be located outside it (like the "Court of Aruba and the Netherland Antilles" - that is located in Aruba, thus outside of the Netherland Antilles). The opposite of the local court would be for the matters in question to be responsible some "external" court (like ECJ, ECHR, etc.)? Alinor ( talk) 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should try to improve the references by adding such for much of the currently unsourced yes/no/etc-s in the table.
Problematic IMHO are the following cases: 1. Totaly Unclear
2. Missing references
Just to add a note - uninhabitted islands relation to EU laws is not unimportant - EEZ around such islands can be economicaly utilized in some cases. Alinor ( talk) 10:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I just did a big edit doing too much to summarise it in the edit summary. Along with various capitalisation, punctuation, grammar, style etc. fixes:
Hairy Dude ( talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The distinction is hardly "irrelevant" for the UK FCO when it negotiates treaties (as Blue-Haired Lawyer points out without prompting). Nor is it irrelevant for the other parties of those treaties. The United Kingdom Parliament cannot effectively guarantee compliance of these treaties by Gibraltar without the permission of the Gibraltar Parliament. For this reason alone, it seems sensible to separate Gibraltar (and the (former) Crown fiefdoms) from the United Kingdom proper. Physchim62 (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The table given in the summary section has a column called Application of EU law. Possible values are full, yes, no, and explanatory comments for values between yes and no. The distinction between yes and full is not clear. From analyzing the table, I can conclude that full mean that the entire row is green, while yes can come with some red compartments in the row. This is anything but intuitive and perhaps just coincidence.
Is there anyone who could clarify this. Or first explain how to correctly interpret the data. Tomeasy T C 10:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't just add an inappropriate template. I clearly explained myself in my edit summary. Neither of the cited sources actually say that Mount Athos has an opt out from the Schengen Area. In fact just comments on the fact that the monks were protesting on being included in Schengen.
The only reference to Mount Athos in the entire Schengen Acquis is an declaration attached to the Schengen Implementing Convention. By defination such declarations are non-binding and even if it were binding, it doesn't say anything about Mount Athos not being part of the Schengen Area.
If you want to say Mount Athos isn't part of the Schengen Area, you're going to have to find an actual source. Which in this case would be a clear statement in a legal act excluding Mount Athos. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Recognising that the special status granted to Mount Athos, as guaranteed by Article 105 of the Hellenic Constitution and the Charter of Mount Athos, is justified exclusively on grounds of a spiritual and religious nature, the Contracting Parties will ensure that this status is taken into account in the application and subsequent preparation of the provisions of the 1985 Agreement and the 1990 Convention.
Just a heads up to anyone who cares, the map shown in this article is in French not English. It also needs updating to SVG. -- metta, The Sunborn 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC) 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
British overseas territory citizens other than those connected to Gibraltar are not EU citizens. Only those who have acquired British citizenship by registration are EU citizens. Montemonte ( talk) 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
⬅ This all get quite complicated but a reading of the consolidated nationality act shows that the overseas territories are now treated as part of the UK for nationality purposes. The relevant parts of the act read:
The appointed day was 21 May 2002. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Are nationals of the TRNC EU citizens? And are EU elections actually held to the north of the buffer zone? Montemonte ( talk) 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Legally, the EU continues to consider Northern Cyprus as EU territory under foreign military occupation and thus indefinitely exempt from EU legislation until a settlement has been reached. The number of seats assigned to Cyprus in the European Parliament (6 seats) is based on the population of the entire island, despite the fact that the residents of Northern Cyprus currently cannot participate in the election process. Unlike the 1960 constitution where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots were voting separately their members in the Cypriot Parliament, until the solution of the Cyprus Problem, because of the current status quo, the Turkish Cypriot voters can vote only together with Greek Cypriots for Cypriot Members of the European Parliament. In the last European Parliament elections, 97 Turkish Cypriots voted. There is no support as yet for admitting two Cypriot member states into the EU.
EU law only applies fully to the part of the island that is effectively controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus. EU law is suspended in the northern third of the island (the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, whose independence is recognised only by Turkey) by article 1(1) of the Cyprus Protocol Turkish Cypriots living there are nonetheless European citizens and are entitled, at least in principle, to vote in elections to the European Parliament; however, elections to that Parliament are not organised in northern Cyprus.
Since the case of Aruba and the Netherland Antilles, have it ever been challenged that EU citizens in Greenland and the British overseas territories were denied of the right to vote and to stand in EU elections? Montemonte ( talk) 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
After yesterday's referendum, Mayotte seems ready to become an oversease department of France in 2011. Will it automatically become part of the EU, like the overseas departments? Or would further treaty modifications be necessary? -- Jfruh ( talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the arrangement for trade between two OCT entities? Between Greenland and St.Pierre et Miquellon for example? Alinor ( talk) 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Quoth the article:
Article 299(4) applies the treaty to "the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible", a provision which in practice only applies to Gibraltar.
Hmm ... wouldn't that describe the Crown Dependency as well? -- Jfruh ( talk) 03:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Member State of the European Union which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it would add great value if we added another column, entitled Part of the EU, to the table in the section summary. The question is just: Can we do so in a reliable (i.e., referenced) manner?
At the German Wikipedia, a similar table has this column - very up front, the first column next to the territory's name. Arguably, this is the most interesting column to most readers. Unfortunately, the German article does not mention how the information displayed was acquired.
Any thoughts on how we could deal with this? Tomeasy T C 08:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've added the column, now it needs checking by someone else! The problem cases I had were:
We also need to check what will happen to the Netherlands Antilles when that administrative structure is dissolved later this year. Physchim62 (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
"6. The European Council may, on the initiative of the Member State concerned, adopt a decision amending the status, with regard to the Union, of a Danish, French or Netherlands country or territory referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. The European Council shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission."
I am not sure that this column is usefull. What does "Part of the EU" mean? The point of the whole article is to describe the exceptions. I mean that all other columns describe what exactly is applicable and what not. There is no such thing as "part of the EU" - this depends on the context - wheter we mean "apply the EU laws" or "participate in EU VAT" or whatever-column. Currently it seems that the "Part of the EU" is just a copy of "apply EU laws", where Yes/with exemptions is converted to firm Yes and No/Minimal is converted to firm No. While I agree with this conversion (as I agree with placing the "EU law" column as the first column before the addition of "part of the EU") I don't think that it is usefull. Instead I propose to remove the redundant "Part of the EU" column and then separate the "Application of EU law" column from the rest by one empty column - so that its significance is enchanced. Additionaly we could mark "with exemptions" with light green and "minimal" with light red - so that in practice the "part of the EU" column will be implemented by the colors of the "EU law" column? Alinor ( talk) 19:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Do we have an agreement for the proposal from 19:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)? (remove "part of EU" column and modify "Apply EU laws" colors) Alinor ( talk) 14:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Are Britsh and French OCTs in the Antarctic missing in the map on top of the article? Tomeasy T C 23:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
A dual British-Australian citizen cannot chose to be non-EU citizen as British citizens are ipso facto EU citizens. They can of course chose to be treated as if they weren't EU citizens by using their Australian passports, but that's a different matter.
People living in the Faroes can't choose to have an EU passport or not. They are not EU citizens and can't have an EU passport. Of course as Danes they can always move their residence to Denmark where they would become EU citizens and be entitled to an EU passport, but that's also a different matter. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Following the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles, the section on the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba needs to be updated. Styath ( talk) 10:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
As correctly stated here, the Kingdom of the Netherlands attached in 1957 to both Treaties of Rome (EEC and EURATOM) a protocol entitling it to ratify it on behalf of the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea only (and thus not Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles).
The protocol attached to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community was worded as follows:
“ | Treaty establishing the EEC - Protocol on the application of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community to the non-European parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, ANXIOUS, at the time of signature of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, to define the scope of the provisions of Article 227 of this Treaty in respect of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to this Treaty: The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, by reason of the constitutional structure of the Kingdom resulting from the Statute of 29 December 1954, shall, by way of derogation from Article 227, be entitled to ratify the Treaty on behalf of the Kingdom in Europe and Netherlands New Guinea only. Done at Rome this twenty-fifth day of March in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven. |
” |
The protocol attached to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community was worded slightly differently:
“ | Treaty establishing the EAEC — Protocol on the application of the Treaty to the non-European parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, ANXIOUS, at the time of signature of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, to define the scope of the provisions of Article 198 of this Treaty in respect of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to this Treaty: The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, by reason of the constitutional structure of the Kingdom resulting from the Statute of 29 December 1954, shall, by way of derogation from Article 198, be entitled to ratify this Treaty either on behalf of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in its entirety or on behalf of the Kingdom in Europe and Netherlands New Guinea. In the event of ratification being limited to the Kingdom in Europe and Netherlands New Guinea, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands may at any time, by notification to the Government of the Italian Republic as depositary of the instruments of ratification, declare this Treaty also applicable either to Surinam, or to the Netherlands Antilles, or to both Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles. Done at Rome this twenty-fifth day of March in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven. |
” |
The Kingdom of the Netherlands subsequently ratified both treaties only on behalf of the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea ( Ratification Act for the EEC Treaty, Ratification Act for the EAEC Treaty).
The EEC treaty was extended to Suriname, when the Kingdom of the Netherlands deposited on 14 August 1962 a Supplementary Instrument of Ratification with the Italian Government (page 29 in the link), after the EEC Treaty was ratified by Kingdom Act for Suriname as well (Kingdom Act of 19 July 1962, Stb. 1962, 285). Part IV of the EEC Treaty entered into force for Suriname on 1 September 1962 (see note attached to Protocol (No 13) in the link). This was legally possible, as the 1957 protocol entitled and not obliged the Kingdom of the Netherlands to ratify on behalf of the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea only.
A full treaty revision was, however, pursued for the Netherlands Antilles, as the other 5 Member States wanted to attach another protocol to the EEC Treaty on the import of oil products refined in the Netherlands Antillen. See Convention on the association of the Netherlands Antilles with the European Economic Community for this.
I could not find anything that implies that the EAEC Treaty was extended to Suriname (and the Netherlands Antilles) as well. But given the fact that the protocol allowing the Netherlands to ratify for the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea only was abrogated by Article 8 (III) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, my guts tell me that the EAEC Treaty was indeed extended to these territories too. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Article 198 did not have to be included in the Treaty, as application to the entire territory of signatory states follows from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Still, the protocol allowed the Netherlands to ratify on behalf of the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea only, and if that ratification has not been extended, it does not apply to other parts of the Kingdom. You need another Kingdom Act for that. Ask any lawyer. If the ratification has not been extended (which is still quite a possibility), the treaty does not apply across the former Netherlands Antilles. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 21:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
“ | Act of 5 December 1957 containing approval of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, with Annexes and Protocols
WE, JULIANA, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS, PRINCESS OF ORANJE-NASSAU, ETC., ETC., ETC. Greetings to all who shall see or hear these presents! Be it known: Whereas We have considered that the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, signed on Our behalf in Rome on 25 March 1957, with its associated Annexes and with its likewise associated Protocols, signed respectively in Rome on 25 March 1957 and in Brussels on 17 April 1957, pursuant to Article 60, Section 2, of the Constitution requires the approval of the States General before it may receive assent; We, therefore, having heard the Council of State, and in consultation with the States General, have approved and decreed as We hereby approve and decree: Article 1. The Treaty concluded in Rome on 25 March 1957 between the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Italian Republic and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, with the associated Annexes, of which Treaty with Annexes the Dutch and French texts respectively have been placed in the Bulletins of Treaties 1957, 92 and 75, is approved for the Netherlands and Dutch New Guinea. Article 2. The Protocol signed in Rome on 25 March 1957, associated with the Treaty mentioned in Article 1, concerning the application of the Treaty to the non-European parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of which Protocol the Dutch and French texts respectively have been placed in the Bulletins of Treaties 1957, 92 and 75, is approved for the Netherlands and Dutch New Guinea. Article 3. The Protocol signed in Brussels on 17 April 1957, associated with the Treaty referred to in Article 1, concerning the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Atomic Energy Community, and the Protocol signed in Brussels on 17 April 1957, associated with the Treaty referred to in Article 1, concerning the privileges and immunities of the European Atomic Energy Community, of which respective Protocols the Dutch and French texts have been placed in the Bulletins of Treaties 1957, 96 and 97, are approved for the Netherlands and Dutch New Guinea. Article 4. We shall ensure that a report is presented annually to the States General concerning the effect and application of the Treaty referred to in Article 1. Article 5. Insofar as more detailed agreements might be entered into for implementation of the Treaty referred to in Article 1, these shall be submitted for the approval of the States General. Article 6. This Act shall come into force on today’s date. We order and command that this Act shall be published in the Bulletin of Acts and Decrees, and that all Ministerial Departments, Authorities, Bodies and Officials whom it may concern shall diligently implement it. Done at Soestdijk Palace, 5 December 1957. JULIANA |
” |
Abolishing the protocol allowing for a territorially limited ratification does not change the ratification itself, if such a ratification had been territorially limited. For that, another ratification act had to be adopted (which may well have happened, though I don't see any notification here). Treaties cannot bind signatories if they have not ratified it. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 11:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
and
"Aangezien het Verdrag van Amsterdam bepalingen bevat die de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba raken, voorziet het voorstel van Rijkswet tot goedkeuring van het Verdrag in goedkeuring voor het gehele Koninkrijk. De inwerkingtreding van het Verdrag van Amsterdam brengt geen wijziging in de territoriale betrokkenheid van het Koninkrijk bij de bestaande EG-Verdragen. In het bijzonder wat het EG-Verdrag betreft, blijft de zakelijke werking van het EG-Verdrag voor de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba beperkt tot de associatie-regeling van Deel IV. (...) Evenals het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie zal het Verdrag van Amsterdam alleen voor Nederland worden bekrachtigd. " L.tak ( talk) 10:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Alinor, vVlissingen, please let me know until which points you agree! L.tak ( talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have been looking through the Euratom matter today again, and came across a non-validity of a licencing article in patent law which is not valid for Sint Maarten and Curacao ( Article 60 part 4), because... Euratom is not applicable to Sint Maarten and Curacao ( chapter 7, part J)! So I guess for those regions it has been solved so I will change the entries of these countries...
I am tempted to draw conclusions on the Netherlands Antilles (which used to be in that place in the article), but that requires 1 step of interpretation. For Aruba, it doesn't make things clearer, as Article 60 anyway doesn't apply there (article 113). L.tak ( talk) 21:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. The BES islands are not mentioned in the Act on the ratification of treaties for the BES islands, so I guess EURATOM still does not apply there. As for later ratification on behalf of other territories: that was done for the Surinamese application of the EEC treaty as well, even though there was no explicit mentioning of the possibility to ratify later in the EEC protocol (like there was in the protocol attached to the EAEC treaty, see above) (there was the Declaration of Intent on the association of Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles with the European Economic Community of course). The ratification on behalf of a part of a territory is the exception to the rule (a rule established by article 29 of the the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), and such an exception can always be overturned by ratification on behalf of the whole territory. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 14:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Mayotte is not a part of the Union. According to article 355(6) the European Council has to act unanimously after consulting the Commission to amend the status of a Danish, French or Netherlands territory. No such decision has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union. France can not decide by its own if Mayotte shall be a part of the Union or not. Until a decision has been taken by the European Council, Mayotte will remain outside the Union as an OCT-territory. According to Deutsche Welle the transition will take place in 2014. -- Glentamara ( talk) 18:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Some one took out this:
"With respect to the application of EU law to Gibraltar, the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom made the following Declaration which is appended (as Decaration 55) to the Treaty on European Union: "The Treaties apply to Gibraltar as a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. This shall not imply changes in the respective positions of the Member States concerned." (sourced too)
No reason was given; it is bang on point in terms of relevance so it should be included. 84.203.74.43 ( talk) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Text said:
This meant that on paper it was part of the European Community,[citation needed][clarification needed] but not in reality.[citation needed] The Treaty of Rome had clauses allowing a fast reunion of Germany in 1990.[citation needed]
Parts I can find that are relevant are:
ARTICLE 82 The provisions of this Title shall not form an obstacle to the application of measures taken in the Federal Republic of Germany to the extent that such measures are required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic affected by that division.
ARTICLE 92 2. The following shall be compatible with the common market: (c) aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany, in so far as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division.
ARTICLE 227 1. This Treaty shall apply to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
None of which supports that statement so I have removed it. However some comment may be appropriate about reunification. Justinc ( talk) 12:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
As noted in the article, the Finnish renewed leasing of the 19.6km Russian part of the Saimaa Canal do no longer include the Island in the canal but only the waterway. Moreover it is noted, that the water area is not a territorial part of Finland; but instead remain to be a territorial part of Russia (just being Leased to Finland), and that Russian law is in force when/if you are moving ahead on the waterway with a ship. The fact that Finland no longer leases the territorial Island but only the waterway, and the fact that we have a pure Russian law applying for the leased waterway, I think it does no longer make sence to speak of this area as a special Finnish territory. So I have just removed it from the Summary table and moved the description down to the "Former territory section" in the article. Danish Expert ( talk) 00:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
There are problems with the "Summary" table regarding this entity. The yes/no claims are completely unsourced and the section above doesn't really have any information either:
Travelbird ( talk) 08:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Our list claims 9 OMRs, in line with [7]. However, we say there are 24 OCTs, contradicting [8] and [9] which say there are 21, and this post claims French Polynesia is an OMR. This page says there are 25, and includes French Polynesia. Does anyone know why these contradictions exist? CMD ( talk) 16:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This column is either the same as Application of EU law, or a "?". Does anybody know what it means? And is there any source for a single case when it differs from Application of EU law? If not then I think it should be removed. Rob984 ( talk) 15:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
As many of you know about
Brexit the map needs updating and removal of Britain from the blue shaded area. Yes this is a minor update but this is Wikipedia and our mission is to make sure the right information is passed on.
Thank You
CnocBride
17:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The airport Basel-Mulhouse is outside the VAT system, see [11]. -- Glentamara ( talk) 22:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that in the Summary section the flag next to French Guiana should be France's flag, as it is its official flag (like for Réunion, for example). The yellow and green flag currently showed was the flag used by the "Département" between 2010 and 2015 and is no longer the official flag of the territory. What do people think about this proposed change? Westferrian ( talk) 01:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Westferrian ( talk) 23:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
As a general rule, all the EU territory of a member state whose currency is the euro belongs to the euro area. Non-EU territories of a euro country, such as Saint Barthélemy and Saint Pierre and Miquelon, may adopt the euro through special monetary agreements with the European Union. However, I'm wondering about Campione d'Italia, which is EU territory. This Wikipedia article currently claims that the only legal currency of Campione d'Italia is Swiss franc:
Moreover, the only legal tender in Campione d'Italia is the Swiss franc, ...
The references are, I would say, not that reliable. The first one does not even explicitly say that it is the legal tender, but rather that Swiss franc is the tender used in Campione d'Italia, which is another thing. The statement in this Wikipedia article may very well be fully true, but I'm wondering – formally speaking – what exactly is then the legal basis for this? Because I cannot find any legal act of the EU that exempts an EU part of a euro country from having the euro as its currency. Does anyone know if there is any formal exemption for Campione d'Italia? -- Glentamara ( talk) 09:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The map in the Info Box at the top of this page still incorrectly includes some of the British Overseas Territories. The Pitcairn Islands (Pacific Ocean), Turks & Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Montserrat, Cayman Islands (Caribbean Sea) are still showing and need to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.190.73 ( talk) 09:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus is legally part of the European Union, but applicability of the EU acquis has been suspended, pending the resolution of the Cyprus problem. Therefore, it would not be technically correct that Northern Cyprus is not part of the European Union.(Please see the Special cases in Europe section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.218.197.30 ( talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
What would be the EEA status of the OMRs? I am assuming that since they are part of the EU member states, they are also EEA if the EU member state they are part of is also an EEA member (which at the moment is every EU member except Croatia). Perhaps it is worth adding a small sentence clarifying the EU/EEA overlap? I'm not an expert so I thought of asking first. Pinnecco ( talk) 11:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Being part of the EURATOM programme (a research programme) does not mean that a state is an associated state of EURATOM. If so were the case, all countries participating in the Horizon Europe programme should also be listed as associated states of the EU. But that's not how things work. EURATOM and the EU are much more than just research programmes. If someone claims otherwise, please provide an authorative secondary source supporting that UK/Switzerland are associate members of EURATOM (not the EURATOM programme!). -- Glentamara ( talk) 07:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't the post-Brexit status of Northern Ireland be discussed somewhere in this article? I understand it's a unique case with NI being formally outside, but, in practice, inside the EU customs territory. Or maybe I'm not getting it right, but then it's even more a case for having a decent explanation of the new arrangement here. — Kpalion (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
While Greenland holds a lot of autonomy, it is not an independent country in any way and the autonomy it does have, can legally be removed with the stroke of a pen. Presenting Greenland as anything but a Danish territory, with a great deal of deserved autonomy, is confusing -- so confusing in fact, that someone has requested a source on the claim that Greenlanders are citizen of Denmark. I suggest Greenland is presented more accurately, as a Danish territory, with great, but limited, autonomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.107.15.50 ( talk) 20:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Special member state territories and the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "These countries are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Andora," to Andorra (and the correct link). Andora is a town in Italy the correct should be Andorra (two "r", country). Edudasoares ( talk) 21:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
77.188.28.121 ( talk) 21:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
^^, there were some concerns from Commons that CNVM looks like applied many Canadian law instead of EU law, probably declaration of the legal status of this Memorial needed. Liuxinyu970226 ( talk) 03:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)