¹ Anton Chekhov, The Cherry Orchard 27 (Richard Nelson, Richard Pevear & Larissa Volockonsky trans., Theatre Comm. Group 2015).Google Scholar

² Eur. Comm'n, Communication on Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in All Community Policies and Activities, COM (1996) 67 final (Feb. 21, 1996), endorsed by Council Resolution of 2 December 1996 on Mainstreaming Equal Opportunities for Men and Women into the European Structural Funds, 1996 O.J. (C 386) 1 (EU); Eur. Comm'n, Communication on Equality of Opportunity for People with Disabilities, A New European Community Disability Strategy, COM (1996) 406 final (Dec. 20, 1996).Google Scholar

³ Treaty of Amsterdam Amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties Establishing the European Communities and Certain Related Acts art. 2, 3(2), Oct. 2, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 340) 1 [hereinafter Treaty of Amsterdam].Google Scholar

⁴ See infra Part B.II.Google Scholar

⁵ Id. Google Scholar

⁶ Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013, art. 2(33), 19, annex XI, points 1–3, 2013 O.J. (L 347) 320. See also Eur. Comm'n, Internal Guidance on Ex Ante Conditionalities for the European Structural and Investment Funds Part I (2014), http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/eac_guidance_esif_part1_en.pdf; Eur. Comm'n, Guidance on Ex ante Conditionalities for the European Structural and Investment Funds Part II (2014), http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/eac_guidance_esif_part2_en.pdf.Google Scholar

⁷ Regulation(EU) No. 1303/2013, supra note 6, annex XI. Annex XI counts thirty-four ex ante conditionalities, of which seven are general and twenty-seven are thematic. While the general conditionalities may apply to all funds, the thematic conditionalities only apply to the specific investment priorities they are attached to.Google Scholar

⁸ Id. art. 19(5).Google Scholar

⁹ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Armin Von Bogdandy et al., Reverse Solange: Protecting the Essence of Fundamental Rights Against EU Member States, 49 CMLR 489 (2012); Armin Von Bogdandy & Michael loannidis, Systemic Deficiency in the Rule of Law: What It Is, What Has Been Done, What Can Be Done, 51 CMLR 59 (2014); Carlos Closa, Dimitry Kochenov & J.H.H., Reinforcing Rule of Law Oversight in the European Union (2014), http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/30117/RSCAS_2014_25_FINAL.pdf; Dimitry Kochenov, How to Turn Article 2 TEU into a Down-to-Earth Provision?, VerfBlog (Dec. 8, 2013), http://verfassungsblog.de/how-to-turn-article-2-teu-into-a-down-to-earth-provision/.Google Scholar

¹¹ Étienne Deschamps, Interview with Pierre Pescatore: Composition and Working Methods of the Legal Group (Luxemburg, Sept. 10, 2003), CVCE (Sept. 10, 2003), http://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/interview_with_pierre_pescatore_composition_and_working_methods_of_the_legal_group_luxembourg_10_september_2003-en-888d433d-2571-452c-a19e-4e64102d36c2.html.Google Scholar

¹² Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013, supra note 6.Google Scholar

¹³ Within the total EU Budget, the ERDF, ESF, and Cohesion Fund jointly amount to 34 %, while the EAFRD and EMFF amount to 8 % and 1%, respectively. See Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 1311/2013 of Dec. 2, 2013 Laying Down the Multiannual Financial Framework for the Years 2014–2020, 2013 O.J. (L 347) 890. See also Eur. Comm'n, Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 and EU Budget 2014 8 (2013).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of Oct. 25, 2012 on the Financial Rules Applicable to the General Budget of the Union and Repealing Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 1605/2002, art. 59, 175–80, 2012 O.J. (L 298) 1.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013, supra note 6.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013, supra note 6, art. 14–15.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013, supra note 6, art. 2(6), 96.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 317, May 9, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 47 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

¹⁹ COM (1996) 67 final (1996), supra note 2, point 2.Google Scholar

²⁰ Treaty of Amsterdam art. 2, 3(2).Google Scholar

²¹ Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Dec. 13, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306) 1 [hereinafter Treaty of Lisbon]; Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union art. 3(3), Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 13.Google Scholar

²² Treaty of Lisbon; TFEU art. 8.Google Scholar

²³ Id. art. 10.Google Scholar

²⁴ Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Oct. 26, 2012, O.J. 2012 (C 326) 391 [hereinafter the Charter].Google Scholar

²⁵ Id. art. 51(1) (emphasis added).Google Scholar

²⁶ Id. art. 20–21, 26.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Schutter, Olivier De, Champ d'application, in Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 389, 395 (EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights 2006).Google Scholar

²⁸ Case C-236/09, Ass'n Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats v. Conseil des ministres, 2011 E.C.R I-00773, paras. 20–21 [hereinafter Test-Achats]. Google Scholar

²⁹ Id. Google Scholar

³⁰ The 1988 funding regulations refer to the integration of young people and groups at risk of social exclusion. See Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2052/88 of June 24, 1988 on the Tasks of the Structural Funds and Their Effectiveness and on Coordination of Their Activities Between Themselves and with the Operations of the European Investment Bank and the Other Existing Financial Instruments, art. 1, 3, 1988 O.J. (L 185) 9. Furthermore, by 1989, the Commission guidance encouraged Member States to budget ESI Funds' resources in the social inclusion of women, people with disabilities, and youth. See also Eur. Comm'n, Guidelines Concerning European Social Fund Intervention in Respect of Action Against Long-Term Unemployment and Occupational Integration of Young People (Objectives 3 and 4 in the Context of the Reform of the Structural Funds), 1989 O.J. (C 45) 6.Google Scholar

³¹ See, e.g., Eur. Comm'n, Notice to the Member States Laying Down Guidelines for Operational Programmes/Global Grants, which Member States Are Invited to Establish, Within the Framework of a Community initiative to Promote Equal Opportunities for Women in the Field of Employment and Vocational Training—NOW INITIATIVE, 1990 O.J. (C 327) 5. Eur. Comm'n, The Future of Community Initiatives under the Structural Funds, at 32, COM (1993) 282 final (June 19, 1993).Google Scholar

³² COM (1996) 67 final (Feb. 21, 1996), supra note 2, at 2. The mainstreaming model was initially focused on gender equality and inspired by the gender equality strategy as agreed on at the 1995 United Nations World Conference on Women. See Fourth World Conference on Women, Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women, U.N. DOC. A/CONF.177/20 (Sept. 4, 1995).Google Scholar

³³ COM (1996) 67 final (Feb. 21, 1996), supra note 2, at 15–19.Google Scholar

³⁴ Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999, 1999 O.J. (L 161) 1.Google Scholar

³⁵ Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006, art. 16, 2006 O.J. (L 210) 25.Google Scholar

The Member States and the Commission shall ensure that equality between men and women and the integration of the gender perspective is promoted during the various stages of implementation of the Funds.Google Scholar

The Member States and the Commission shall take appropriate steps to prevent any discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation during the various stages of implementation of the Funds and, in particular, in the access to them. In particular, accessibility for disabled persons shall be one of the criteria to be observed in defining operations co-financed by the Funds and to be taken into account during the various stages of implementation.Google Scholar

³⁶ Id. Google Scholar

³⁷ Id. at art. 66.Google Scholar

³⁸ Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999, supra note 34, at art. 41.Google Scholar

³⁹ Id. at art. 10.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006, supra note 35, at art. 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 20, 29, 41, 46.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Brodolini, Fondazione G., Evaluation of the European Social Fund's Support to Gender Equality 138–39 (2011). See also Eur. Comm'n, Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion 113 (2007), http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion4/pdf/4cr_en.pdf.Google Scholar

⁴² Pub. Policy and Mgmt. Inst., Study on the Translation of Article 16 of the Regulation (ec) N° 1083/2006 on the Promotion of Gender Equality, Non-Discrimination and Accessibility for Disabled Persons into Cohesion Programmes 2007–2013 (2009).Google Scholar

⁴³ John Bachtler & Sandra Taylor, Eur. Policies Research Ctr. Univ. of Strathclyde, Objective 2: Experiences, Lessons and Policy Implications 195 (1999).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Id. See also Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999, supra note 34.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Id. Bachtler & Taylor at 3.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Id.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Eur. Court of Auditors, Special Report No. 22/98, 1998 O.J. (C 393) 24.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Mary Braithwaite, Mainstreaming Gender in European Public Policy Workshop at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: Mainstreaming Gender in the European Structural Funds (Oct. 14–15, 2000).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Eur. Comm'n, Ex-Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2000-06 Co-Financed by the ERDF (Objectives 1 & 2) 110 (2010), http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/synthesis_eval2000_2006.pdf (“[S]imply including an issue [gender mainstreaming] a horizontal priority, therefore, does not ensure that it actually has a significant effect on policy unless it is perceived as being important, in which case action would probably be taken irrespective of whether it is a horizontal priority or not.”).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini, Eur. Parl. Information note PE 462.426, ‘The multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 from a gender equality perspective’ (2012) 43, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201201/20120123ATT36024/20120123ATT36024EN.pdf. (“[T]he programmed resources specifically dedicated to gender-equality actions have decreased by 34%.”).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Fabrizio Barca, An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A Place-Based Approach to Meeting European Challenges and Expectations 50 (2009).Google Scholar

⁵² Eur. Comm'n, Implementation of Gender Mainstreaming in the Structural Funds Programming Documents 2000–2006 COM (2002) 748 final (Dec. 20, 2002); Eur. Comm'n, Communication Concerning the Structural Funds and Their Coordination with the Cohesion Fund Guidelines for Programmes in the Period 2000 to 2006, 1999 O.J. (C 267) 2; Eur. Comm'n, The Structural Funds and Their Coordination with the Cohesion Fund—Revised Indicative Guidelines, COM (2003) 499 final (Jul. 18, 2003).Google Scholar

⁵³ See, e.g., Eur. Comm'n, Technical Paper 3: Mainstreaming Equal Opportunities for Women and Men In Structural Fund Programmes And Projects, (2000), http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/mainst_en.pdf.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013, supra note 6, annex XI, pt. II, points 1–3. The equality conditionalities had a hard journey during the negotiations on the 2014–2020 Funding Regulations. These conditionalities have been the object of sharp disputes in regards to their appropriateness and necessity in the context of ESI Funds. As such, the equality conditionalities were initially completely set aside during the Danish presidency negotiations. Later, they were reinserted under the Lithuanian presidency compromise after being substantially changed as compared to the initial Commission's proposal. See EU Council, Cohesion Policy Legislative Package. Presidency compromise on ex ante conditionalities, no 12543/2/11 REV 2 Annex IV (2012) 20 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%208207%202012%20ADD%202%20REV%202; Eur. Comm'n, Proposal, annex IV, COM (2011) 615 final/2 (Mar. 14, 2012).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Id., Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Id. Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Id. Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Id. Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Id. at point 3.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Id. at art. 2(33).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Regulation (EU) No. 508/2014, art. 6(1)(f), 6(2)(e), 2014 O.J. (L 149) 1.Google Scholar

⁶² Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 966/2012, art. 3(2), 2012 O.J. (L 298) 1.Google Scholar

⁶³ Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013, supra note 6, at art. 19.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Id. Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Id. at art. 19(2).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Id. Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Id. at art. 19(5).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013, supra note 6, at art. 19. See also Internal Guidance on Ex Ante Conditionalities for the European Structural and Investment Funds Part I, supra note 6.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013, supra note 6, at art. 19.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Id. at art. 4(5).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Id. at art. 4(5), 19(3) (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁷² Id. at art. 19(5).Google Scholar

⁷³ Eur. Court of Auditors, Opinion No. 7/2011, 2012 O.J. (C 47) 1, 9.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Findings based on an analysis of EMFF operational programs. See Eur. Comm'n, EMFF - Country Files: Operational Programmes 2014–2020, Eur. Comm'n, http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/country-files/index_en.htm (last updated June 4, 2017).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Public procurement, state aid, EU environmental law, and statistical systems. See Eur. Comm'n, Draft Guidance: EMFF Specific Ex-Ante Conditionalities Version 3 (Mar. 7, 2014) (2014), http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/emff/doc/10-guidance-emff-specific-eacs_en.pdf.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Eur. Comm'n, EMFF - Country Files: Operational Programmes 2014-2020, supra note 74.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013, supra note 6, art. 4(5), 19 (3).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Regulation (EU) No. 508/2014, supra note 61, at 2 (“The Union should, at all stages of implementation of the EMFF, aim to eliminate inequalities and promote equality between men and women, as well as to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.”) (emphasis added). Moreover, under Article 113 the monitoring Committee should: “[E]xamine actions to promote equality between men and women, equal opportunities, and non-discrimination, including accessibility for disabled persons.” Id. at 55 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Findings based on an analysis of EAFRD national programs and ESF national programs. See Eur. Comm'n, Rural Development 2014–2020: Country Files, Eur. Comm'n, https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-development-2014-2020/country-files_en (last updated June 4, 2017); Eur. Comm'n, European Social Fund - Operational Programmes, Eur. Comm'n, http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catld=576&langld=en (last updated Dec. 12, 2015).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ This conclusion is based on the analysis of the published programming documents of the 28 Member States.Google Scholar

⁸¹ For instance, the Operational Programs on Environment, Transport, and Regional Development for Bulgaria do not mention any of the three equality conditionalities despite the programs implying social inclusion action. Comparatively, all the Operational Programs for the Czech Republic adopted in the same areas mention the three conditionalities. See Eur. Comm'n, Programmes—Regional Policy, Eur. Comm'n, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/atlas/programmes?search=1&keywords=&periodId=3&countryCode=ALL&regionId=ALL&objectiveId=ALL&tObjectiveId=ALL (last updated Apr. 6, 2017).Google Scholar

⁸² Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, and United Kingdom. Findings based on the analysis of approved ESF, ERDF, and Cohesion Fund Operational Programmes. See Eur. Comm'n, Programmes—Regional Policy, European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/atlas/programmes?search=1&keywords=&periodId=3&countryCode=ALL&regionId=ALL&objectiveId=ALL&tObjectiveId=ALL (last updated Apr. 6, 2017).Google Scholar

⁸³ Bulgaria and Italy.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Portugal, Romania, and Spain.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Latvia, Luxembourg, and Slovakia.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Croatia, Estonia, Poland, and Slovenia.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See Eur. Comm'n, Communication from the Commission: Investing in Jobs and Growth—Maximising the Contribution of European Structural and Investment Funds, COM (2015) 639 final (Dec. 14, 2015).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Stine Anderson, The Enforcement of EU Law: The Role of the European Commission 181–86 (Press, Oxford U. 2012).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See supra Part C.II.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See supra Part B.II.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See supra note 85.Google Scholar

⁹² Analogously, the United Nations have had an equally difficult experience with mainstreaming. See Charlesworth, Hilary, Not Waving but Drowning: Gender Mainstreaming and Human Rights in the United Nations, 18 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 1 (2005).Google Scholar

⁹³ Shirin Rai, Institutional Mechanisms for the Advancement of Women: Mainstreaming Gender, Democratizing the State?, in Perspectives on Democratization 15, 18 (2003).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Shirin Rai, Perspectives in Democratization 271–74 (Press, Manchester U. 2003).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ European Ombudsman, Decision of the European Ombudsman Closing Her Own-Initiative Inquiry OI/8/2014/AN Concerning the European Commission, Eur. Ombudsman (May 11, 2015), http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/decision.faces/en/59836/html.bookmark.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Id. at para. 25.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Id. at para. 28.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Open Society Foundation, Main Risks of Misusing EU Funding in the Field of Roma Inclusion 12 (2015).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ European Ombudsman, supra note 95, at para. 28(iii). See generally Rees, Teresa, Women and the EC Training Programmes: Tinkering, Tailoring and Transforming (1995) (describing the shortcomings of the early EU programs).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Open Society Foundation, supra note 98.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁰² Olivier de Schutter, Mainstreaming Fundamental Rights the Role of the Fundamental Rights Agency, in Monitoring Fundamental Rts. in the EU: The Contribution of the Fundamental Rts. Agency 34 (Philip Aston & Olivier de Schutter eds., Oxford 2005).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Test-Achats, supra note 23, at para. 20.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Id. at para. 21.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Christopher McCrudden, Mainstreaming Equality in the Governance of Northern Ireland, 22 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1696, 1772–75 (1998). Rai, supra note 93, at 15–39; Rai, supra note 94, at 265–74.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ McCrudden, supra note 105, at 1772.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Rai, supra note 93, at 26–34.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Id. Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ McCrudden, supra note 105, at 1173.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Rai, supra note 94, at 266–67.Google Scholar

¹¹² Id. at 272; McCrudden, supra note 105, at 1173.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Sonia Mazey, Gender Mainstreaming Strategies in the E.U.: Delivering on an Agenda?, in 10 Feminist Legal Studies227, 228 (2002).Google Scholar