must be established according to the parameters laid out by the EU legal order, but also declares that such a recognition is not unconditional, as it must comply with the fundamental principles of the democratic rule of law. In other words, the Portuguese Constitution recognizes the primacy of EU law as long as both legal systems are compatible in systemic terms. That compatibility can be found in the mutual respect of the fundamental principles of a democratic rule of law, which I will argue were breached with the adoption of the MoU. However, any constitutional review of the MoU is conditioned to a previous assessment of its validity by the Court of Justice in a preliminary reference submitted by Portuguese courts. XI Statement of the Heads of State or Government of the Euro Area, p. 2, available at http://ec.europa.eu/archives/commission_2010-2014/president/news/speechesstatements/pdf/114295.pdf. XII Press release of the Extraordinary Council meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs 9596/10, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/114324.pdf. XIII That reads that ‘the Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project. A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.’ XIV ECJ, Case C-370/01, Pringle, ECLI:EU:C:2012:756, at 130 and 137. Previously to this decision of the Court of Justice, several commentators questioned the conformity of the financial assistance provided by the EFSF with Article 125 TFEU (Ruffert 2011: 1785; Menendez 2012: 90-91 and footnote 42). XV The Articles of Agreement of the IMF state that access to the Fund´s resources is conditioned by the presentation of ‘adequate safeguards’ by the State seeking financial assistance [Article I (v) and Article V (3) (a)]. The safeguards require the drafting and implementation of a program of economic and financial reforms capable of correcting the macroeconomic imbalances that created maladjustments in the balance of payments. The program is negotiated and presented in a letter of intent addressed to the Fund´s Executive Board. In annex to that letter is usually included a memorandum that specifies the structural economic measures to be taken to correct imbalances and the key macroeconomic targets to be reached through the duration of the program. An IMF Executive Board decision named Stand-by Arrangement grants access to the Fund´s general resources during a specified period and up to a certain amount [Article XXX (b)]. That access is conditioned to the accomplishment of certain macroeconomic objectives (quantitative performance criteria) and to the adoption of structural reforms that are crucial to the fulfillment of those objectives (structural benchmarks). Both the quantitative performance criteria and the structural benchmarks are included in the memorandum attached to the letter of intent sent by the State to the Executive Board. The first disbursement of the financial assistance is available immediately after the adoption of the Stanbyarrangement. Further disbursements are conditioned on a positive review by the Executive Board of the fulfillment of the conditionality included in the Stand-by Arrangement. See IMF Guidelines on Conditionality, para. 9 (Denters 2006: 196). XVI The By-Laws of the EFSF were published in the Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché du Luxembourg, 8 Juin 2010, C, 1189, p. 570026, and are available at http://www.mf.public.lu/publications/divers/efsf_memorial_080610.pdf. XVII The framework-agreement is available at http://www.efsf.europa.eu/about/legal-documents/index.htm. XVIII In the history of European integration episodes abound of treaties that were not ratified after parliamentary decisions (e. g. the Treaty of the European Community of Defense, adopted in 1950, and abandoned two years afterwards with the rejection of its ratification by the French Parliament) or referenda (e. g. the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, signed in 2004, but rejected in 2005 in referenda held in France and in the Netherlands). XIX The exercise of these tasks was authorized by a decision of the Eurozone Member States taken within the Ecofin meeting of 9 May 2010 (‘Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Euro Area Member States Meeting within the Council of the European Union’, published as Note 9614/10 of the General Secretariat of the Council, p. 2, available at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st09/st09614.pt10.pdf). Although adopted within the meeting of an EU institution, this is a decision of Member States´ representatives ‘wearing their intergovernamental hats’ (De Witte 2011: 6). In other words, Member States used their ius tractuum to allow EU institutions to participate in the EFSF. Except where otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.5 Italy License E -126