Search

INTRODUCTION. The article presents the evolution of legal regulation of the institution of enhanced cooperation as a legal form of flexible integration in European Union (EU) law. Flexible integration is a fairly widespread and objectively existing legal phenomenon in the practice of various integration associations. However, it is within the framework of EU law that the concept of enhanced cooperation has received the greatest development and legal regulation. This was largely due to the EU's desire to regularize and subordinate alternative forms of co natural that interstate cooperation within the framework of one or another integration cooperation acquires more and more complex character, and cooperation of the member states of an integration association within the framework of one or another direction of interaction has uneven and heterogeneous character. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The methodological basis of the study was traditional general scientific and special methods of cognition of legal phenomena: comparative legal method; method of scientific analysis; formal legal method; method of synthesis of social and legal phenomena.RESEARCH RESULTS. As a result of the analysis, the main stages of development of prerequisites and reasons for the legal regulation of enhanced cooperation have been identified and the periodization of the development of legal regulation of this institution has been proposed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Within the framework of the proposals on the periodization of the development of legal regulation of the institution of enhanced cooperation the following stages can be distinguished. The first stage can be labeled as “pre-Amsterdam”. This period is characterized by the formation of conceptual foundations of enhanced cooperation as a legal form of flexible integration. Within the framework of the “pre-Amsterdam” period there is an application of some form of flexible integration (Schengen, euro zone, etc.). The conceptualization of enhanced cooperation as a form of flexible integration was the basis for the normative-legal consolidation of this institution in the founding treaties of the EU. The next stage can be called “Amsterdam-Nicean”. Although the institution of enhanced cooperation received different names in the Amsterdam and Nice versions of the establishing treaties, it seems possible to unite this period into one: despite the normative-legal consolidation of enhanced cooperation as a form of flexible integration, the relevant norms of the establishing treaties have not actually received practical application. Finally, the next stage – the “Lisbon” period is characterized by the active ap[1]plication of the norms of the establishing treaties in the EU practice, including judicial.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2022 7(3), 1145-1164 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Setting the scene: Use and "non-use" of enhanced cooperation. - III. Legal frame-work for enhanced cooperation. - III.1. Establishing of enhanced cooperation. - III.2. The implementation of enhanced cooperation. - IV. On a related note: Pre-Brexit negotiations and differentiation. - V. Outlook: Dusk or dawn for enhanced cooperation? | (Abstract) Enhanced cooperation under art. 20 TEU is a tool introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam to allow a group of at least nine member states to adopt rules of secondary law that binds only these participating States. Introduced as an instrument to tackle problems of a Union of 27 (and more) States, it has only been used on a few occasions. However, its use (and non-use) is not only dependent solely on the number of Union member states. Shifting political attitudes in the member states and - plainly and simply - the legal framework for this tool of differentiate integration influence how and when enhanced cooperation can and will be used as an instrument to overcome deadlocks in negotiation. Against the background of member state practice, the Article sets out to explore the potential of enhanced cooperation.

The Institute of Enhanced Cooperation (EnC) was introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) but it was made more flexible and operational by the Treaty of Lisbon (2007). Its main objective was to overcome the blockages in the law-making process, as well as to strengthen the cooperation among EU member states and deepen the integration process in specific areas. In this paper, the authors examine the institute of enhanced cooperation as a form of flexible and differentiated integration. The authors first present a brief historical overview of the legal regulation of this institute in the provisions of the founding treaties of the EU. Then, they provide an overview of the sources of law adopted within the framework of enhanced cooperation in certain areas of Private International Law, and particularly for the purpose of establishing the European Public Prosecutor's Office. Based on the analysis of a number of legal acts adopted within this institute, the authors draw a conclusion that the institute of enhanced cooperation has only partially justified its contractually defined role. Viewed from the perspective of the legal order of the European Union as a whole, this institute requires special attention due to the particularities of its application, which ultimately entails different solutions in the EU member states on certain issues of particular importance for legal and natural persons in the Union. There is no doubt that this institute provides many opportunities to the EU member states in terms of realizing or deepening their cooperation in certain issues, particularly if it is perceived as a stage on the way to establishing general, common rules for all member states. However, its application may challenge the unity and the integral structure of the EU legal order. It may also be inconsistent with some of the basic EU legal principles which have been continuously strengthened and expanded by the Court of Justice of the EU. Above all, it refers to the principle of unity of the legal order, the principle of prohibition of discrimination on the basis of citizenship, and the principle of legal certainty.

Copyright of Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Nisu is the property of Law Faculty in Nis and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Amidst the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic, the German Federal Constitutional Court rendered a little-noticed, but potentially far-reaching decision regarding European integration. When it declared the law ratifying the Unitary Patent Court Agreement unconstitutional, it did so because it is a treaty "supplementing or being otherwise closely tied to the EU", in other words, a satellite treaty, inter-se agreement, or more generally: an international law agreement furthering European integration outside the EU law framework. This commonly used integration technique is therefore going to be a lot more difficult in future whenever Germany is involved. At the same time, the court order gives all German citizens a far-reaching right to have laws ratifying such treaties checked before the Constitutional Court, which is a significant extension compared to its earlier case-law. In future cases of disagreement, EU Member States may have to find different ways to proceed than resorting to international law, such as using the enhanced cooperation mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020 5(2), 983-988 | Dialogue | (Abstract) This contribution to the Dialogue discusses the contribution by Federico Fabbrini, in which he proposes an innovative way forward for the reform of the European Union (F. Fabbrini, Reforming the EU Outside the EU? The Conference on the Future of Europe and Its Options, in European Papers, Vol. 5, 2020, No 2, www.europeanpapers.eu, forthcoming). Given the extreme difficulty of reaching a unanimous agreement among all the Member States on a formal revision of the European Treaties, he proposes the use of international agreements among "willing" States to take forward an ambitious reform. This would take the form of a "Political Compact" among those States, whereas the other States would not participate in it and would not be bound by its content. This contribution discusses the legal feasibility of this "Political Compact" option.

This paper investigates the salience of and the position on Differentiated integration (DI) for the Austrian government. The analysis is based on both an analysis of government programmes, programmatic government speeches and parliamentary debates between 2004 and 2019/20. It shows that DI is overall not a salient issue in Austria, at least with regard to general DI concepts and models. Specific instances of DI were, of course, subjects of intense debates but, with very few exceptions such as the financial transaction tax as an instance of enhanced cooperation, rarely discussed with specific reference to DI. Overall, most Austrian parties are also not generally in favour of DI, quite the opposite. The dominant vision of the EU is that of a community of closely cooperating Member States with the same rights and responsibilities where opt-outs are seen as cherry picking. Only one party has forcefully supported the development of a core Europe, namely the right-wing populist Bündnis Zukunft Österreich (Alliance for the Future of Austria, BZÖ). In this case, however, DI is mainly regarded as a means to exclude groups of Member States (especially the financially more vulnerable or net recipients) from areas of integration.

This paper investigates the salience of and the position on Differentiated integration (DI) for the Austrian government. The analysis is based on both an analysis of government programmes, programmatic government speeches and parliamentary debates between 2004 and 2019/20. It shows that DI is overall not a salient issue in Austria, at least with regard to general DI concepts and models. Specific instances of DI were, of course, subjects of intense debates but, with very few exceptions such as the financial transaction tax as an instance of enhanced cooperation, rarely discussed with specific reference to DI. Overall, most Austrian parties are also not generally in favour of DI, quite the opposite. The dominant vision of the EU is that of a community of closely cooperating Member States with the same rights and responsibilities where opt-outs are seen as cherry picking. Only one party has forcefully supported the development of a core Europe, namely the right-wing populist Bündnis Zukunft Österreich (Alliance for the Future of Austria, BZÖ). In this case, however, DI is mainly regarded as a means to exclude groups of Member States (especially the financially more vulnerable or net recipients) from areas of integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2019 4(2), 447-469 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Two visions of Europe. - II.1. A first cut at the argument. - II.2. An ever closer union. - II.3. A wider and looser union. - III. Institutional mechanisms of differentiated integration within the EU. - III.1. No "ever closer" monetary integration within the EMU. - III.2. Enhanced cooperation: nature, rationale and impact. - III.3. "Internal" international agreements: the Fiscal Compact. - III.4. A two-speed Europe: concept and issues. - IV. Legal mechanisms of integration beyond the EU. - IV.1. A single market beyond the Union: the European Economic Area. - IV.2. Schengen's mixed membership. - IV.3. A Europe of concentric circles: a "misleading simple idea". - V. Conclusion. | (Abstract) It is self-evident that the European Union has evolved over time and so has the relationship between unity and differentiation. Understanding the nature of this evolution is more difficult. This Article seeks to explicate this development, not by a temporal analysis, but by delineating two opposite political visions of the European construction, that is, the vision that is centred on the "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" and that which postulates a wide and loose union. The differing solutions provided by these visions are examined with regard, first, to some mechanisms of differentiated integration, which are considered against the twin criteria of clarity and coherence and, second, with regard to other legal mechanisms, which imply an interaction between EU members and third countries. This can be useful for a better understanding of the institutional and legal options that are available for the future.

Enhanced cooperation (originally closer cooperation) was inserted into the EU institutional and legal system by the Amsterdam Treaty in a response to political calls for establishment of a mechanism that would allow for deeper integration of only some Member States (“coalitions of the willing”) in the ever-enlarging EU. As such, this step meant a break with the unity dogma the European integration had been traditionally built upon and provided for institutionalised differentiation in the EU. Redesigned by both the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Lisbon, enhanced cooperation has materialized in 5 cases since 2010. Apart from that, possibility of a recourse to enhanced cooperation has played a role in negotiation strategies within the EU decision-making process and in reflections on the future of the EU. While enhanced cooperation is not a magic panacea to divergences of opinions on the European integration between individual Member States, in particular, middle-sized and small Member States including the Czech Republic shall not underestimate the potential this mechanism might have.

The paper is dedicated to the alternative solution to Dublin Regulation reform after its failure, which presupposes shared Member States responsibility for resettlement of migrants and asylum seekers rescued in sea. Based on statistics, the author demonstrates reduction of migrants’ arrivals via the Mediterranean Sea to Europe but points to an increase in deaths during traveling. The proposals of enhanced cooperation in asylum policy are analyzed, as well as the similar principles of the «temporary mechanism» for MS cooperation for resettlement of migrants rescued at sea. The author comes to conclusion that the adoption of «temporary mechanism» is vitally important for the Commission on the eve of the European Parliament elections to demonstrate the unity of the European Union in the issue of asylum. However, enhanced cooperation on this field is unlikely to lead the reform out of deadlock, as it is built on «flexible solidarity»», which has not been supported by all Member States.

INTRODUCTION. At present, the European Union in the security area is represented by a wide list of institutions, bodies and structures. They formed in stages, essentially evolving “from Maastricht to Lisbon”. As the result of the legal evolution the European Union the constitutional documents contain the rules of law that allow to apply the enhanced cooperation in different areas and to approach the necessary flexibility to various integration processes. In addition, as the result of this work, was launched Permanent Structured Security Cooperation format.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article is based on treaties, declarations of States and doctrinal research on the law of treaties. The author relies on various methods to reach their conclusions, among which treaty interpretation is most frequently used.RESEARCH RESULTS. In November 2017, the Ministers signed a common notification on the Permanent Structured Cooperation and handed it over to the High Representative to the Council. In December of the same year, at the European Union leaders summit the start of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (European Defense Union) format was proclaimed. In March 2018, the Council approved a resolution defining the list of projects that are to be launched in PESCO. This circumstance had a sign effect and now new security mechanism of the EU obviously should be taken into account in Russian and the EU relations strengthening European security area.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In the current geopolitical turbulence, the Russian Federation's relations with Western and Western European partners are going through “hard times”, and Russia is perceived more as a “threat” than as a “good neighbor” and partner in the security area. In such case, the legal evolution analysis of the defense and security cooperation mechanism described in this article will be useful for understanding the prospects of the potential new form of cooperation between Russia and the EU in peace strengthening and security in the European region.

Copyright of European Mirror / Európai Tükör is the property of National University of Public Service and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2018 3(2), 933-946 | European Forum Insight of 18 June 2018 | (Table of Contents) I. Introducción. - II. Antecedentes de la Fiscalía Europea. - III. Motivos subyacentes a la creación de la Fiscalía Europea. - IV. Fundamentación jurídica de la Fiscalía Europea. - V. El Reglamento (UE) 2017/1939 del Consejo, de 12 de octubre de 2017. - V.1. Naturaleza, funciones y competencia. - V.2. Estructura y organización. - V.3. Procedimiento, garantías procesales y relación entre colaboradores. - VI. Conflictos derivados de la creación de la Fiscalía Europea. - VII. Conclusiones. | (Abstract) The European Public Prosecutor's Office does not start from scratch, but from a number of efforts of the EU institutions which have paid off with the adoption of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017. This Regulation facilitates enhanced cooperation between Member States on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, whose aims are to achieve a more effective fight combating the perpetrators or suspects of crimes against the Community's financial interests. However, the implementation of this Office will require some legislative developments in Member States such as Spain, where the Public Prosecutor has not been assigned the same powers the Regulation entrusts it with.

The paper offers insight into the current practice of the passerelle(s), the enhanced cooperation and the flexibility clause, which may serve in the future the implementation of the Commission's White Paper on the Future of Europe (2017) without Treaty revision, in light of recent developments in the policy of the new Commission, Council and European Parliament on the future of EU integration. The ex-ante and ex-post control mechanisms available at Member State level concerning the freedom of their governments to support such European initiatives, are also discussed from a comparative perspective. The paper concludes by presenting the risks associated with the activation of these mechanism of integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Initially, before the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty, differences in integration between members of the European Communities (EC; later the European Union) were relatively few and usually temporary in nature. The Schengen Agreement, the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Amsterdam, and the possibility of establishing enhanced cooperation meant that the problem was becoming more and more important in the functioning of the EU—both in theory and in practice.

Two-speed or multi-speed Europe and other concepts related to differential or flexible integration occurred in the 90s after Maastricht, and led to the introduction into the Treaties of some provisions on enhanced cooperation. After the failure of the Constitutional Treaty, and especially after the strong shock triggered by Brexit, the idea of a two-speed Europe came up again, leading to Scenario No. 3 (out of 5) advanced by the President of the European Commission regarding the EU evolution until 2025, presented on March 1, 2017, and promoted by the hard core of the European Community, but not endorsed by countries outside the euro area. In Rome on March 25, 2017, EU Member States have expressed their intention of joint action, with different paces and intensities where necessary, but going in the same direction as in the past, in accordance with the Treaties and keeping the door open to those wishing to join later

This article briefly presents the attitude towards same sex-marriages and registered partnerships of legislators in those EU Member States which have decided not to participate in the adoption of EU regulations concerning property matters for spouses and registered partners. It also provides an overview of these regulations in order to indicate which provisions have triggered such decisions. Finally, it points out some examples of clashes resulting from the different systems being applied in participating Member States and non-participating Member States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) is envisaged to take up its functions by the end of 2020. Therefore, the build-up phase will be of about three years. In the Romanian national legal system, and in general, in the states who have decided to join this enhanced cooperation, numerous changes must be made. To exemplify, in Romania, Law no. 303/2004 regarding the status of judges and prosecutors, Law no. 304/2004 regarding the organization of the judiciary and Law no. 135/2010 on Criminal Procedure have to be updated to incorporate Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939. The purpose of this article is to try and analyze some of the challenges that arise from implementing said regulation, such as the relationship between the local prosecutor's office and the European one and which is the national authority to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper aims at establishing the meaning of the notion of 'undermining the internal market It is not only a general notion of EU law, but also a specific, negative condition for employing enhanced cooperation procedure in European Union law. The problem is significant for both theoretical and practical reasons. Firstly, it concerns the proper method of interpretation of the notion in question - especially when we consider the fact that in case law, the Court of Justice of the EU relies solely on arguments of economic (pragmatic) nature and does not employ any methods of legal interpretation. Secondly the proper method of interpretation of the notion of,, undermining the internal market" may lead to the conclusion that enhanced cooperation is not allowed in certain situations. To deal with the issue, we briefly present the procedure of enhanced cooperation with its hitherto adoptions in the EU law. We also analyse the Court's case-law on these adoptions, with an emphasis on the interpretation of the notion of 'undermining the internal market'. Having done this, we suggest another method of interpretation of the discussed notion. Against such a background, the suggested method is confronted with the system of unitary patent protection being introduced in the internal market through the enhanced cooperation procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Collected Papers of Zagreb Law Faculty / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu is the property of Sveuciliste u Zagrebu, Pravni Fakultet and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ankara Review of European Studies (ARES) / Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi (AAÇD) is the property of Ankara University European Union Research Centre and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Multiplying and diversifying family relationships with an externality element is a reality nowadays. In this context, the issue of matrimonial regimes remains a sensitive one, given the different foundations of the existing normative solutions in this field in different states. For the uniformization of the conflictual norms in this area, at the level of the European Union was adopted the Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes, applicable since 29 January 2009 in Member States participating in the enhanced cooperation. This Regulation aimed to be a legislative instrument allowing the elimination of the difficulties faced by international couple with regard to the administration or division of their assets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decision-making in the European Union is a complex phenomenon and often difficult to articulate with clarity and conciseness, both because of the numerous stages and institutions involved, and because of the important variations it carries, depending on the concrete situation in which it is applied. Thus, without wishing to enter into this issue in this abstract, for which we have reserved a distinct place in our study, we can generally state that this decision-making process presents a rule applicable to the adoption of legislative acts and represented by the ordinary legislative procedure, numerous exceptions represented by special legislative procedures, but also other configurations represented by the procedures for the adoption of non-legislative acts, implementing acts, acts of each institution, issued in the exercise of their attributions, inter institutional documents, agreements concluded by the Union with third parties (a procedure finally governed by the Treaties) and, last but not least, enhanced cooperation. The cooperation in question is a special area of research, as they not only allow states wishing to deepen integration in a certain area to a higher level than the general one but also give the possibility of building their own decision-making mechanisms. A special case, which in turn presents both similarities and differences in the situation of enhanced cooperation, is the Permanent Structured Co-operation, regulated in the EU primary law and translated into reality, relatively recently, by 25 Member States, including Romania. Taking into account the actuality of this subject, in this study we bring to your attention the main elements of the specific decision-making process of this Co-operation that addresses the field of defense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most institutions that play crucial role in enforcement of EU law regulating judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation today had existed before the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, which transformed the nature of European legislation in that area from intergovernmental to supranational. The Lisbon Treaty afforded judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation a pronounced idiosyncrasy: the greatest degree of flexibility of Member State participation. The experience gained in applying the mechanism of enhanced cooperation, including the concept of the European public order, contributes to the utility of the entire body of law on judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation as the new unifying factor of the EU.

The discussion about the possible taxation of the financial sector has started in the European Union as a result of the financial crisis which has spread to the Europe from the United States in 2008 and consequently of the massive financial interventions by governments made in favour of the financial sector. On 14 February 2013, after rejection of the draft of the directive introducing a common system of financial transaction tax in 2011, the European Commission introduced the financial transaction tax through enhanced cooperation. The aim of the paper is to research economic impact of financial transaction tax on EU (EU27 or EU11) with respect to the DSGE model which was used for the determination of impacts. Based on our analysis the DSGE model can be considered as underestimated in case of the impact on economic growth and an overestimated in case of the revenue collection. Particularly, the overall impact of the financial transaction tax considering cascade effects of securities (tax rate 2.2%) and derivatives (tax rate 0.2%) is ranged between −4.752 and 1.472 percent points of GDP. And further, is assumed that the relocation effects of business/trade can be in average 40% causes a decline of expected tax revenues in the amount of 13bn EUR. Thus, at a time of fragile economic growth across the EU and the increased risk of recession in Europe, the introduction of the FTT should be undesirable.

Copyright of Journal of Public Law / Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A radical decision at the time, the 2004 enlargement constituted a critical juncture for the Central and Eastern European Countries. Although a great deal of literature has been written in regard to other aspects of Europeanization, the effects of EU membership on the foreign policy of the new member states have been rarely discussed. This is what the volume coordinated by Michael Baun and Dan Marek seeks to accomplish, namely to fill a gap in the European Studies with a series of articles explaining the more or less significant institutional and behavioural changes which occurred at the level of the new member states’ political elites. Focusing on three main domains in which Europeanization purportedly occurred, namely national preferences and interests, institutions and procedures, foreign policy strategies and actions, the studies gathered in this volume provide a useful overview of the effects of EU membership on what was traditionally known as “foreign policy”.

The article is dedicated to implementation of the enhanced cooperation in the EU. Actually two such projects are шn progress (the law applicable to divorce and legal separation and unitary patent protection) and other two are under discussionffmandai transaction tax and European Public Prosecutor's Office). Active use of the enhanced cooperation recently shows that such kind of the promoting integration is more and more required in the EU. However its implementation can jeopardize the principles of the EU functioning and undermine the status of the institutions in the integration process. This mechanism can also be used in order to exclude the discordant states from integration process instead of traditional search of compromises. This argument is based on analysis of the implementation conditions of the project on the unitary patent protection. At the same time the projects of the enhanced cooperation obviously make the interaction in different spheres more efficient. In addition they can be used for testing the new types of cooperation. That's why the search for an optimal balance between promotion integration through the mechanism of enhanced cooperation and preserving the unity of the EU should be considered as main goal by participants of the integration process. Otherwise the gradual separation on the vanguard group may lead to EU division. Nevertheless taking into consideration enlargement of the EU and its diversity, the enhanced cooperation Should be used onlyas "extreme measure".

The article is dedicated to implementation of the enhanced cooperation in the EU. Actually two such projects are шn progress (the law applicable to divorce and legal separation and unitary patent protection) and other two are under discussionffmandai transaction tax and European Public Prosecutor's Office). Active use of the enhanced cooperation recently shows that such kind of the promoting integration is more and more required in the EU. However its implementation can jeopardize the principles of the EU functioning and undermine the status of the institutions in the integration process. This mechanism can also be used in order to exclude the discordant states from integration process instead of traditional search of compromises. This argument is based on analysis of the implementation conditions of the project on the unitary patent protection. At the same time the projects of the enhanced cooperation obviously make the interaction in different spheres more efficient. In addition they can be used for testing the new types of cooperation. That's why the search for an optimal balance between promotion integration through the mechanism of enhanced cooperation and preserving the unity of the EU should be considered as main goal by participants of the integration process. Otherwise the gradual separation on the vanguard group may lead to EU division. Nevertheless taking into consideration enlargement of the EU and its diversity, the enhanced cooperation Should be used onlyas "extreme measure".