Page 183 - Секретаријат за законодавство

fect and should always be considered as valuable tools for the correct,
proper and effective implementation of EU law. Although the majority
of EU “soft law” acts are not explicitly mentioned in the Article 288 of
the TFEU, the same article does not preclude their adoption.

There is no ofÞcial classiÞcation of the “soft law instruments”. The
classiÞcation is based on the practice of EU institutions and the case
law of the Court of Justice:

• Preparatory instruments: Green Papers, White Papers, Action
Programmes;
• Informative instruments: Communications;
• Interpretative and decisional instruments: Interpretative com-
munications and notices of the Commission, Guidelines, codes
and frameworks;
• Formal and non-formal steering instruments: European Com-
mission opinions, Council conclusions, Council declarations
and EU Member States’ declarations, Joint Declarations and
Inter-Institutional Agreements, Council resolutions, Council
and Commission Codes of conduct or practice and mixed con-
clusions, declarations and resolutions.

In principle, the acts of “soft law” are instruments designed to clarify
the state of play of the EU legislation in the area concerned, outline
intentions as regards to future legislative measures or provide interpre-
tation of binding EU legislation. For example, European Commission
guidelines provide indication of how the European Commission in-
tends to interpret provisions of primary or secondary law.
It is noteworthy that guidelines issued by the European Commission
in the area of state aid have a particular status. From the formal point
of view they are not listed in Article 288 TFEU and are not binding.
However, the Court of Justice has underlined that Member States have
an obligation to cooperate with the European Commission under the
provisions of the Treaty relating to state aid. Therefore, as a result of
this obligation and because they have accepted the rules laid down in
the guidelines, Member States “must apply the guidelines when decid-
ing on an application for aid”. 40

40 IJssel-Vliet Combinatie BV v Minister van Economische Zaken (Case C-311/94)

36