Introduction The European Union is standing at the most critical crossroads on its path towards Integration. Voices of criticism, also strong in the past, are transforming into a direct questioning of the European project, and lately even to secessionist rhetoric. Called upon to manage the most serious economic crisis since its establishment, the EU is displaying inherent weaknesses in its effort to implement a cohesive, European plan to exit this crisis, giving way to the interests and power correlations of its Member States. At the same time, the political inadequacy and the shortsightedness shown by leaders of Member States in the management of the greatest economic and fiscal crisis, coupled with their apparent unwillingness to allow the Union to take over the "ownership" of a European exit plan, ultimately form a vicious cycle, since the effectiveness of the common EU institutions is directly called into question. Without doubt, the EU was called upon also in the past to strike a balance between the conflicting interests of its Member States, to reconcile often diametrically opposite priorities within a common, European narrative of development and progress for all its citizens, absorbing criticism for an irrational, unbalanced, or even unfair management of the prosperity created in its midst. The challenges however in managing affluence are quite different from those images of total devastation and the massive death toll, with the victims primarily identified as civilians, vulnerable people and small children, moved and continue to move the European and international public opinion. The mass flight of people from the hotbeds of the conflicts, in any way possible, using any means available, was the only visible hope for salvation. Faced with this situation, the leaders of the EU Member States –who, more or less, retain the privilege of formulating its external policy- displayed an unjustified bewilderment. They were late in grasping the magnitude of the issue, and when they actually did, they reacted in a piecemeal manner, instead of acting in the context of a coherent plan. Yet again, they hesitated to assign to the Union institutions the "ownership" of an integrated narrative for the management of the mixed flows of migrants and refugees, allowing in this way -in addition to the humanitarian crisis in the southern borders of the EU, mainly in Greece and Italy- also for an outbreak of racist and xenophobic tendencies within the fold of Europe. The issue amplified political squabbles between Member States and informed political and party-political confrontations within Member States. Once again within a decade, Europe, acting rather as a transnational construction than an integrated political entity premised on the principle of solidarity, appeared unable to stand up against major challenges. posed in managing poverty. And in the second, cardinal crisis which Europe is called upon to address, this time a humanitarian one, its reflection is alarmingly similar. The signs were evident long ago, and the time was adequate for formulating an integrated and cohesive plan for addressing it. After the humanitarian nightmare caused by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the so-called "Arab Spring" that dawned at the periphery of the European Union -aiming to bring democracy into these societies- inevitably led to the deconstruction of the old power structures, to a degree, in fact, that it uprooted any institutional foundation and led to fierce civil strife and tribal conflicts. The tragic One of the most characteristic expressions of the common, European political structure giving way before the individual priorities and imperatives of the Member States is the so-called EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016, which, without being a convention of the Union with a third country, from a legal aspect, introduced a host of derogations from the EU regulatory framework. Nevertheless, according to the authentic interpretation of the legal substance of this statement by the General Court of the EU, and regardless whether it is a political text with binding legal consequences, its content, and most importantly its commitments, cannot be attributed to the European Council or any other Union body, but 7