Укр Eng
+380 (44) 278-80-24
“Almanac of Law”
  1. Home
  2.  ⇒ 
  3. Almanac of law. Issue 17 (2026)
  4.  ⇒ 
  5. European Union’s treaty practice in the area of the free movement of capital: features and trends

Almanac of law. Issue 17 (2026), pages 430–435.

DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2026-17-430-435

Strilets B. V.
European Union’s treaty practice in the area of the free movement of capital: features and trends

The study aims to identify the legal features and trends in the treaty-concluding practice of the European Union (EU) with third countries in the area of free capital movement, focusing on changes in the competence after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the characteristics of “new generation” agreements and the role of unilateral EU protection instruments. It has been noted that the 2007 Lisbon Treaty signifi cantly changed the division of competences between the EU and its Member States and gave rise to a model of “splitting” agreements into trade (“EU-only”) and investment parts.

The features of the conclusion and some provisions of the “new generation” EU agreements with diff erent countries, including those with Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, Canada and India, have been analysed. It has been revealed that they incorporate provisions on the free movement of capital, particularly with regard to investment activities, within a broader framework of sustainable development, competition policy and digitalisation. Meanwhile, provisions that fall outside the EU’s exclusive competence may be set out in separate agreements. In parallel, it has been stated that the EU has developed a system of unilateral instruments, which concern: (1) framework for the screening of foreign direct investments; (2) foreign subsidies distorting the internal market; (3) protection from economic coercion by third countries. They complement the practice of concluding treaties involving ex ante and ex post control of capital fl ows.

It has been concluded that, currently, the EU’s practice of concluding treaties with third countries in the fi eld of the free movement of capital refl ects a shift towards a combination of market openness and instruments aimed at protecting security, public order and the Union’s “strategic autonomy”, rather than a model of maximum liberalisation. While continuing to conclude ambitious, broad-scope agreements with partners that share its values and standards, the EU is also strengthening control over capital movements from third countries where equal and reciprocal market access conditions are absent, or where investments pose security risks.

The article has been prepared within the implementation of an EU grant project “EU Law Postgraduate Studies” (EULPS) No 101126964 — EULPS–ERASMUS-JMO-2023-HEI-TCHRSCH. Funded by the European Union.

Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily refl ect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

Key words: free movement of capital, EU common commercial policy, EU law, EU investment policy, EU competences, third countries, international agreements, foreign

 References

  1. Dourado A. P. The EU Free Movement of Capital and Third Countries: Recent Developments. Intertax. 2017. Vol. 45, Issue 3. P. 192–204. DOI: 10.54648/taxi2017016
  2. Bajzíková L., Nováčková D., Paškrtová L. New Generation EU Agreements — The Basis for Future World Trade. Juridical Tribune — Review of Comparative and International Law. 2024. Vol. 14, Issue 1. P. 116–129. DOI: 10.62768/TBJ/2024/14/1/07 
  3. García M. J. Implementation of EU Trade Agreements Under an Assertive, Open, and Sustainable Trade Policy. Politics and Governance. 2023. Vol 11, Issue 4. P. 212–222. DOI: 10.17645/pag.v11i4.7224 
  4. Conconi P., Herghelegiu C., Puccio L. EU Trade Agreements: To Mix or Not to Mix, That Is the Question. Journal of World Trade. 2021. Vol. 55, No 2. P. 231–260. 
  5. Segura-Serrano A. The Recurrent Crisis of the European Union’s Common Commercial Policy: Opinion 2/15. European Papers. 2017. Vol. 2, No. 3. P. 829–843. DOI: 10.15166/2499-8249/178 
  6. Mykiyevych M. M. Transformatsiia kontseptsii zmishanykh uhod (mixity) u torhivelnii ta investytsiinii politytsi YeS: vid protsedurnoho instrumentu do stratehichnoho vyboru. Yevropeiski perspektyvy. 2024. № 2. S. 404–411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.71404/EP.2024.2.60 (in Ukr.). 
  7. Buromenskiy M. V. Investytsiina avtonomiia YeS ta kontrol za priamymy inozemnymy investytsiiamy. Nashe pravo. 2025. № 3. S. 426–435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.71404/NP.2025.3.59 (in Ukr.).
  8. Palienko A. V. Novi kompleksni torhovelni uhody YeS i vnutrishnii rozpodil fi nansovoi vidpovidalnosti: avtonomiia prava Soiuzu, investytsiinyi sud i vykhid z DEKh. Pravo.ua. 2024. № 4. S. 401–406 (in Ukr.). 
  9. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Offi ce of the European Union, 2019. URL: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2860/542859 
  10. Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 16 May 2017 — European Commission (Opinion 2/15). URL: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document?source=document&text=&docid=190727&doclang=EN 
  11. Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. Offi cial Journal of the European Union. L 186/3. 12.6.2020. P. 3–1400. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2020:186:FULL&from=EN#page=132 
  12. Agreement between the European Union and Japan for an Economic Partnership. Offi cial Journal of the European Union. L 330/3. 27.12.2018. P. 3–899. URL: https://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d40c8f20-09a4-11e9-81b4-01aa75ed71a1.0006.02/DOC_1 
  13. Free trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore. ST/7972/2018/ADD/5. Offi cial Journal of the European Union. L 294, 14.11.2019. P. 3–755. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/2019/1875/oj/eng 
  14. Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 30 April 2019 — Kingdom of Belgium (Opinion 1/17). ECLI:EU:C:2019:341. URL: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document?source=document&docid=213502%5C&doclang=EN 
  15. Hinz J., Langhammer R., Mahlkow H., Thakur V. The EU-India Trade Deal: Strategic Diversifi cation in an Era of Uncertainty. Kiel Policy Brief. 2026. No. 202. 17 p. 
  16. Mykiyevych M. M., Bratsuk I. Z. Kryzy ratyfi katsii zmishanykh investytsiinykh uhod YeS: analiz prychyn, naslidkiv ta mekhanizmiv zapobihannia. Pravo.ua. 2024. № 4. S. 420–427 (in Ukr.). 
  17. EU strategic autonomy 2013–2023 From concept to capacity. European Parliamentary Research Service. URL: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/733589/EPRS_BRI(2022)733589_EN.pdf 
  18. Buromenskiy M. V. Investytsiini pravovidnosyny mizh YeS ta KNR. Nashe pravo. 2025. № 4. S. 288–298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.71404/NP.2025.4.38 (in Ukr.).

Дата першого надходження рукопису до видання: 10.03.2026
Дата прийнятого до друку рукопису після рецензування: 09.04.2026
Дата публікації: 30.04.2026

     

    Back to contents