Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2114
Date: 2014-07-17
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: United Kingdom

summary is to be found in, for example, Opinion 1/03 (EU:C:2006:81, paragraphs 114 to 133). 69 – To the same effect, see my Opinion in Commission v Council (EU:C:2013:441) and Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Commission v Council (C‑114/12, EU:C:2014:224), referring to Article 3(2) TFEU, a provision related to Article 216(1) TFEU. 70 – In the Treaties, the Union has set itself the aim of establishing or ensuring the functioning of the internal market (first sentence of Article 3(3) TEU and Article 26(1) TFEU). Only for that purpose does the Union legislature have competence under the Treaties for coordinating social security systems within the European Union (first paragraph of Article 48 TFEU); see also above, points 67 to 86 of this Opinion). 71 – Haegeman (181/73, EU:C:1974:41, paragraph 5); IATA and ELFAA (C‑344/04, EU:C:2006:10, paragraph 36); and Air Transport Association of America and Others (C‑366/10, EU:C:2011:864, paragraph 73). 72 – See above, points 87 to 98 of this Opinion. 73 – See again, in this regard, Parliament v Council (EU:C:2008:605, paragraph 34), according to which a measure must always be founded on the more specific of two possible legal bases. 74 – In the present proceedings the United Kingdom and Ireland have expressly objected to such a strict interpretation of Protocol 21, but without putting forward any specific arguments to support their view. 75 – In the case of the association between the Union and Turkey, the association programme expressly provides for the progressive securing of freedom of movement for workers through the adoption of social security measures for migrant workers (see, in that regard, Article 12 of the Association Agreement and Articles 36 and 39 of the Additional Protocol). 76 – See again, in this regard, the principle of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in Article 9 of the Association Agreement. 77 – With regard to the concept of the purely formal error, see Commission v Council (165/87, EU:C:1988:458, paragraphs 18 to 21); Spain and Finland v Parliamentand Council (C‑184/02 and C‑223/02, EU:C:2004:497, paragraphs 42 to 44); Swedish Match (C‑210/03, EU:C:2004:802, paragraph 44); and Commission v Council (EU:C:2009:590, paragraphs 61 and 62); see also my Opinion in Commission v Council (C‑94/03, EU:C:2005:308, point 53). 78 – See above, point 97 of this Opinion.