Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Jurisdiction of the Court on EU International Agreements

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU International Agreements

  • 476 Accesses

Abstract

As mentioned earlier, prior to the Lisbon Treaty treaty-making had different legal bases (CFSP and non-CFSP legal bases) for EC (by now EU) agreements, on the one hand, and CFSP and PJC (by now FSJ) agreements, on the other hand. As indicated by Francis G. Jacobs, the Court has taken a broad view of its jurisdiction in relation to EC (by now EU) agreements. According to ex-Articles 24 (modified 1997 and 2000) and 38 of the former TEU the European Union had the capacity to conclude CFSP and PJC (by now FSJ) agreements. Post-Lisbon, Article 218 TFEU has become the sole legal basis (with respect to monetary policy, see Article 219 TFEU and Common Commercial Policy (CCP) Article 207 TFEU). The purpose of this chapter is to give an overview of the jurisdiction of the Court on EU international agreements. Accordingly the discussion that follows is in three main parts: Section 2 looks at the jurisdiction of the Court on EC (by now EU) agreements before and after the Lisbon Treaty reforms, Sect. 3 looks at the jurisdiction of the Court on CFSP and PJC (by now FSJ) agreements before and after the Lisbon Treaty reforms and Sect. 4 considers the standard of review in general, and Yusuf/Kadi in particular.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Francis G Jacobs, ‘Direct effect and interpretation of international agreements in the recent case law of the European Court of Justice’ in Alan Dashwood and Marc Maresceau (eds), Law and practice of EU external relations: salient features of a changing landscape (CUP, Cambridge 2008) 14.

  2. 2.

    Kadi I concerned the legality of Community acts listed by the UN Sanction Committee. Kadi II, concerned the re-listing after the judgment in Kadi I of 2008. The Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that the standard required by the EU legal order requires more than limited procedural review.

  3. 3.

    Further on ex-Article 300 (6) TEC. See Panos Koutrakos, EU international relations law (Hart, Oxford/Portland 2006) 186–192. The broad construction of pre-emptive jurisdiction under ex- Article 300 (6) TEC.

  4. 4.

    See Geert de Baere, Constitutional Principles of EU External Relations (OUP, Oxford 2008) 95.

  5. 5.

    Opinion 1/75 (Local Cost Standard) EU:C:1975:145, [1975] ECR 1355; Opinion 1/76 (European laying-up fund) EU:C:1977:63, [1977] ECR 741; Opinion 1/78 (Natural Rubber Agreement) EU:C:1979:224, [1979] ECR 2871; Opinion 1/91 (EEA Draft Agreement) EU:C:1991:490, [1991] ECR I-6079; Opinion 2/91 (ILO Convention 170) EU:C:1993:106, [1993] ECR I-1061; Opinion 1/92 (EFTA Agreement II) EU:C:1992:189, [1992] ECR I-2821; Opinion 2/92 (Third Revised OECD Decision) EU:C:1995:83, [1995] ECR I-521; Opinion 1/94 (WTO Agreement) EU:C:1994:384, [1994] ECR I-5267; Opinion 2/94 (Accession of the Community to the ECHR) EU:C:1996:140, [1996] ECR I-1759 (the predecessor to Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR EU:C:2014:2454); Opinion 3/94 (Banana Framework Agreement) EU:C:1995:436, [1995] ECR I-4577; Opinion 1/00 (European Common Aviation Area) EU:C:2002:231, [2002] ECR I-3493; Opinion 2/00 (Cartagena Protocol) EU:C:2001:664, [2001] ECR I-9713; Opinion 1/03 (Lugano Convention) EU:C:2006:81, [2006] ECR I-1145; Opinion 1/08 (General Agreement on Trade in Services) EU:C:2009:739, [2009] ECR I-11129 – Opinion pursuant to ex-Article 300 (6) TEC. See the discussion in Robert Schütze, European constitutional law (CUP, Cambridge 2012) 209. Further – The EC-US Agreement on the processing and transfer of passenger name record data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection – the European Parliament requested an Opinion under ex-Article 300 (6) TEC (Case C-317/04 Parliament v Council, notice in [2004] OJ C228/31). As indicated by Panos Koutrakos, EU international relations law (Hart, Oxford/Portland 2006) 190 – Parliament’s request for an accelerated procedure was rejected by order of the President. Parliament instead brought an action for annulment. See Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04 Parliament v Council (C-317/04) and Commission (C-318/04) EU:C:2006:346, [2006] ECR I-4721, paras 39–45.

  6. 6.

    Opinion 1/75 (Local Cost Standard) EU:C:1975:145, [1975] ECR 1355.

  7. 7.

    See Opinion 1/75 (Local Cost Standard) EU:C:1975:145, [1975] ECR 1355.

  8. 8.

    See also Mario Mendez, The Legal Effects of EU Agreements. Maximalist Treaty Enforcement and Judicial Avoidance Techniques. (Oxford Studies in European Law, OUP, Oxford 2013), at 78, 79, 81–93 and 289–290 (annulment actions), 290 (ex ante review procedure) and 79, 288 (preliminary rulings).

  9. 9.

    Case C-61/94 Commission v Germany (International Dairy Arrangement) EU:C:1996:313,[1996] ECR I-3989.

  10. 10.

    See Panos Koutrakos (n 3) 263–4. The German government did not seek to reverse the thrust of the Court’s approach to the GATT as articulated in Germany v Council (two years earlier). See also Mario Mendez (n 8) 200–202.

  11. 11.

    Case C-61/94 Commission v Germany (International Dairy Arrangement) EU:C:1996:313, [1996] ECR I-3989, para 15.

  12. 12.

    Case C-13/00 Commission v Ireland (Berne Convention) EU:C:2002:184, [2002] ECR I-2943. For comments see Pieter-Jan Kuijper, ‘Case C-239/03, Commission v. French Republic’ (2005) 42 CMLR 1491–1500.

  13. 13.

    Case C-13/00 Commission v Ireland (Berne Convention) EU:C:2002:184, [2002] ECR I-2943, para 14.

  14. 14.

    Case C-13/00 Commission v Ireland (Berne Convention) EU:C:2002:184, [2002] ECR I-2943, para 15.

  15. 15.

    Case C-13/00 Commission v Ireland (Berne Convention) EU:C:2002:184, [2002] ECR I-2943, para 20.

  16. 16.

    Case C-239/03 Commission v France (Étang de Berre) EU:C:2004:598, [2004] ECR I-9325.

  17. 17.

    Case C-239/03 Commission v France (Étang de Berre) EU:C:2004:598, [2004] ECR I-9325, para 25. In Case C-431/05 Merck Genéricos – Produtos Farmacêuticos Ldª v Merck & Co. Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Ldª EU:C:2007:496, [2007] ECR I-7001, para 31 the Court removed this qualification. For an overview and critical analysis of this case see Rass Holdgaard, ‘Case C–431/05, Merck Genéricos — Produtos Farmacêuticos Lda v. Merck & Co. Inc. (M & Co.) and Merck Sharp & Dohme Lda (MSL), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2007, [2007] ECR I–7001’ (2008) 45 CMLR 1233–1250. See further Case C-240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky EU:C:2011:125, [2011] ECR I-1255, paras 29–35.

  18. 18.

    Case C-239/03 Commission v France (Étang de Berre) EU:C:2004:598, [2004] ECR I-9325, para 29.

  19. 19.

    Case C-239/03 Commission v France (Étang de Berre) EU:C:2004:598, [2004] ECR I-9325, paras 46–70 and 78–85.

  20. 20.

    Case C-327/91 France v Commission EU:C:1994:305, [1994] ECR I-3641.

  21. 21.

    Case C-327/91 France v Commission EU:C:1994:305, [1994] ECR I-3641, para 41. Advocate General Tesauro’s Opinion supported this reading: See Case C-327/91 France v Commission EU:C:1993:941, [1994] ECR I-3641, Opinion of AG Tesauro, para 26.

  22. 22.

    Panos Koutrakos (n 3) 143.

  23. 23.

    Case C-360/93 Parliament v Council EU:C:1996:84, [1996] ECR I-1195.

  24. 24.

    [1993] OJ L125/1.

  25. 25.

    Case C-360/93 Parliament v Council EU:C:1996:84, [1996] ECR I-1195, para 10. The Commission intervened in support of the Council.

  26. 26.

    See Marise Cremona, ‘Case C-360/93, European Parliament v. Council of the European Union, Judgment of 7 March 1996, [1996] ECR I-1195’ (1997) 34 CMLR 389, 394. The Court rejected the view put forward by the Council.

  27. 27.

    Ibid, at 397–398. As indicated by Cremona, both Case C-360/93 and Case C-327/91 illustrated the use of ex-Article 173 of the Treaty in order to challenge the conclusion of an international agreement ex post facto (at 398).

  28. 28.

    Case C-268/94 Portugal v Council EU:C:1996:461, [1996] ECR I-6177.

  29. 29.

    [1994] OJ L223/23.

  30. 30.

    Case C-268/94 Portugal v Council EU:C:1996:461, [1996] ECR I-6177, paras 14 et seq.

  31. 31.

    As indicated by Peers, as these matters fell within the competence of the Member States, or (in the case of energy) formed an EC objective but were not subject of a separate Title of the Treaty. See Steve Peers, ‘Case C-268/94, Portugal v. Council, (development policy), [1996] ECR I-6177 (Full Court)’ (1998) 35 CMLR 539, 545.

  32. 32.

    Case C-268/94 Portugal v Council EU:C:1996:461, [1996] ECR I-6177, para 31.

  33. 33.

    Case C-268/94 Portugal v Council EU:C:1996:461, [1996] ECR I-6177, paras 13, 14 et seq.

  34. 34.

    Case C-268/94 Portugal v Council EU:C:1996:461, [1996] ECR I-6177, para 35.

  35. 35.

    Steve Peers (n 31) 541 and 547.

  36. 36.

    See Juliane Kokott and Frank Hoffmeister, ‘Portuguese Republic v. Council. Case C-268/94. 1996 ECR I-6177. Court of Justice of the European Communities, December 3, 1996.’ (1998) 92 AJIL 292–296, in particular at 293–294.

  37. 37.

    See Juliane Kokott and Frank Hoffmeister, above (n 36).

  38. 38.

    Case C-189/97 Parliament v Council EU:C:1999:366, [1999] ECR I-4741.

  39. 39.

    Case C-189/97 Parliament v Council EU:C:1999:366, [1999] ECR I-4741, para 34.

  40. 40.

    Case C-36/98 Spain v Council EU:C:2001:64, [2001] ECR I-779.

  41. 41.

    [1997] OJ L342/18.

  42. 42.

    Case C-36/98 Spain v Council EU:C:2001:64, [2001] ECR I-779, para 8.

  43. 43.

    Case C-36/98 Spain v Council EU:C:2001:64, [2001] ECR I-779, para 16.

  44. 44.

    Case C-36/98 Spain v Council EU:C:2001:64, [2001] ECR I-779 para 58. See D. Gadbin, ‘Environnement et aménagement du territoire: face à face entre la jurisprudence et le traité de Nice (CJCE 30 janv. 2001, Royaume d’Espagne c/Conseil de l’Union européenne, aff. C-36/98)’ (2001) 37 RTD eur. 687–696.

  45. 45.

    Case C-36/98 Spain v Council EU:C:2001:64, [2001] ECR I-779, para 74.

  46. 46.

    Case C-36/98 Spain v Council EU:C:2001:64, [2001] ECR I-779, paras 74 and 75.

  47. 47.

    Case C-281/01 Commission v Council EU:C:2002:761, [2002] ECR I-12049.

  48. 48.

    [2001] OJ L172/1.

  49. 49.

    Case C-281/01 Commission v Council EU:C:2002:761, [2002] ECR I-12049, para 20.

  50. 50.

    Case C-281/01 Commission v Council EU:C:2002:761, [2002] ECR I-12049, para 32.

  51. 51.

    Case C-281/01 Commission v Council EU:C:2002:761, [2002] ECR I-12049, paras 37 and 38.

  52. 52.

    Case C-281/01 Commission v Council EU:C:2002:761, [2002] ECR I-12049, para 39.

  53. 53.

    Case C-281/01 Commission v Council EU:C:2002:761, [2002] ECR I-12049, para 41. See Panos Koutrakos (n 3) 56–58.

  54. 54.

    Case C-281/01 Commission v Council EU:C:2002:761, [2002] ECR I-12049, para 43.

  55. 55.

    Case C-281/01 Commission v Council EU:C:2002:761, [2002] ECR I-12049, para 44.

  56. 56.

    Case C-211/01 Commission v Council EU:C:2003:452, [2003] ECR I-8913.

  57. 57.

    [2001] OJ L108/4.

  58. 58.

    [2001] OJ L108/27.

  59. 59.

    Case C-94/03 Commission v Council EU:C:2006:2, [2006] ECR I-1.

  60. 60.

    [2003] OJ L63/27.

  61. 61.

    Case C-94/03 Commission v Council EU:C:2006:2, [2006] ECR I-1. It is the legal basis for the conclusion of this Convention on behalf of the EC and its incorporation into the EC legal order which is the subject matter of the two judgments analysed in: Panos Koutrakos, ‘Case C-94/03, Commission v Council, judgment of the Second Chamber of 10 January 2006, [2006] ECR I-1; Case C-178/03, Commission v Parliament and Council, judgment of the Second Chamber of 10 January 2006, [2006] ECR I-107’ (2007) 44 CMLR 171–194.

  62. 62.

    Case C-94/03 Commission v Council EU:C:2006:2, [2006] ECR I-1, para 51.

  63. 63.

    See Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04 Parliament v Council and Commission (PNR) EU:C:2006:346, [2006] ECR I-4721.

  64. 64.

    See the discussion in Mario Mendez, ‘Passenger Name Record Agreement – European Court of Justice’ (2007) 3 EuConst 127–147.

  65. 65.

    Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04 Parliament v Council and Commission (PNR) EU:C:2006:346, [2006] ECR I-4721, para 50.

  66. 66.

    Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04 Parliament v Council and Commission (PNR) EU:C:2006:346, [2006] ECR I-4721, para 60. See Gráinne Gilmore and Jorrit Rijpma, ‘Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04, European Parliament v Council and Commission, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of 30 May 2006, [2006] ECR I-4721’ (2007) 44 CMLR 1081–1099. This annotation positions Parliament v Council and Commission (PNR) within the context of the Court’s case law on legal basis in general.

  67. 67.

    Council Decision 2004/496/EC of 17 May 2004 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection [2004] OJ L183/83.

  68. 68.

    Commission Decision 2004/535/EC of 14 May 2004 on the adequate protection of personal data contained in the Passenger Name Record of air passengers transferred to the United States’ Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Adequacy Decision) [2004] OJ L235/11.

  69. 69.

    See Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04 Parliament v Council and Commission (PNR) EU:C:2006:346, [2006] ECR I-4721, paras 55–61 and 67–69.

  70. 70.

    Mario Mendez (n 8) 78.

  71. 71.

    For instance Case C-360/93 Parliament v Council EU:C:1996:84, [1996] ECR I-1195, para 23.

  72. 72.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973.

  73. 73.

    Those principles (the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or business) form part of the general principles of Community law but had to be seen in relation to their social function. See Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 78. Consequently, the exercise of the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession could be restricted, particularly in the context of a common organization of a market.

  74. 74.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, paras 28–30.

  75. 75.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 31.

  76. 76.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 35.

  77. 77.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, paras 42–43.

  78. 78.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, paras 52 and 57.

  79. 79.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 58.

  80. 80.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, paras 59–62.

  81. 81.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, paras 64 et seq.

  82. 82.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 65.

  83. 83.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 75.

  84. 84.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, paras 73–74.

  85. 85.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, paras 79 and 80.

  86. 86.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 78.

  87. 87.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 81.

  88. 88.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 87.

  89. 89.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 88.

  90. 90.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, paras 94–97.

  91. 91.

    While alternative measures for achieving the objective of the integration of markets, which is the basis of any common organization of a market, were indeed conceivable, the Court cannot substitute its assessment for that of the Council (at para 94).

  92. 92.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, paras 98–99.

  93. 93.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 100.

  94. 94.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 103.

  95. 95.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 104.

  96. 96.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 109. Advocate General Gulmann’s Opinion supported this reading. See Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:235, [1994] ECR I-4973, Opinion of AG Gulmann, para 137; see also Jan Klabbers, ‘International Law in Community Law: The Law and Politics of Direct Effect’ (2002) 21 YEL 263–298, in particular at 267. As indicated by Eeckhout, the ruling in Germany v Council clarified that there is no dichotomy between preliminary rulings-cases on validity and direct actions for annulment, nor between the position of private parties and that of EU Member States (Piet Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union: Legal and Constitutional Foundations (OUP, Oxford 2005) 249. See also the discussion at 382–386). As indicated by Koutrakos, despite the express reference to the legal position of private parties, it is not accurate to say that the ruling in the Bananas case made the direct effect of GATT 1947, or rather the absence thereof, a condition for reliance upon it by a Member State in annulment proceedings (Panos Koutrakos (n 3) 255).

  97. 97.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, para 113.

  98. 98.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973, paras 117–118.

  99. 99.

    Joined Cases 21 to 24/72 International Fruit Company NV and others v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit EU:C:1972:115, [1972] ECR 1219.

  100. 100.

    Regarding Commission Regulations Nos 459/70 [1970] OJ L57/20, 565/70 [1970] OJ L69/33 and 686/70 [1970] OJ L84/21, respectively.

  101. 101.

    Joined Cases 21 to 24/72 International Fruit Company NV and others v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit EU:C:1972:115, [1972] ECR 1219, paras 4 and 5.

  102. 102.

    Joined Cases 21 to 24/72 International Fruit Company NV and others v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit EU:C:1972:115, [1972] ECR 1219, paras 7 and 8.

  103. 103.

    Paul P. Craig and Gráinne de Búrca, EU law, Text, Cases, and Materials (5th edn OUP, Oxford 2011) 82.

  104. 104.

    Opinion 2/91 (ILO Convention 170) EU:C:1993:106, [1993] ECR I-1061, paras 16–21.

  105. 105.

    Opinion 2/00 (Cartagena Protocol) EU:C:2001:664, [2001] ECR I-9713, paras 45–46.

  106. 106.

    Opinion 1/94 (WTO Agreement) EU:C:1994:384, [1994] ECR I-5267, paras 99–105. See the discussion in Panos Koutrakos, ‘Interpretation of mixed agreements’ in C. Hillion and P. Koutrakos (eds), Mixed Agreements Revisited – The EU and its Member States in the World (Hart, Oxford 2010) 116–137 (Interpretation of mixed international agreements). The broad construction of the duty of cooperation (Case C-53/96 Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice BV EU:C:1998:292, [1998] ECR I-3603, para 32) and its application has as a corollary the broad construction of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union to interpret mixed international agreements. The position of the Court is dispelled by paragraphs 108 and 109. Paragraphs 108–109 should be regarded as particularly significant to understanding of the position of the Community and its Member States under mixed international agreements in general and the WTO agreement in particular. See Joni Heliskoski, Mixed agreements as a technique for organizing the international relations of the European Community and its Member States (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2001) 228. See further Robert Schütze, From dual to cooperative federalism: the changing structure of European Law (OUP, Oxford 2009) 308–11.

  107. 107.

    Case 181/73 Haegeman v Belgian State EU:C:1974:41, [1974] ECR 449.

  108. 108.

    Case 181/73 Haegeman v Belgian State EU:C:1974:41, [1974] ECR 449, paras 4–6.

  109. 109.

    Case 12/86 Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd EU:C:1987:400, [1987] ECR 3719.

  110. 110.

    The jurisdiction of the Court was directly challenged (objections to its jurisdiction raised by the German and British governments). The Court addressed the specific objections.

  111. 111.

    Case 12/86 Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd EU:C:1987:232, [1987] ECR 3719, Opinion of AG Darmon.

  112. 112.

    Case 12/86 Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd EU:C:1987:232, [1987] ECR 3719, Opinion of AG Darmon, para 15.

  113. 113.

    Case C-162/96 Racke GmbH & Co. v Hauptzollamt Mainz EU:C:1998:293, [1998] ECR I-3655.

  114. 114.

    Case C-162/96 Racke GmbH & Co. v Hauptzollamt Mainz EU:C:1998:293, [1998] ECR I-3655, paras 26 and 27. The jurisdiction of the Court was directly challenged. In this case, the Commission raised the objection that the Court does not have jurisdiction in cases where individuals are relying on rules of customary international law to challenge the validity of acts of the EC institutions. Ibid, para 25.

  115. 115.

    Case C-53/96 Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice BV EU:C:1998:292, [1998] ECR I-3603.

  116. 116.

    See Case C-53/96 Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice BV EU:C:1998:292, [1998] ECR I-3603. Again, the Court’s jurisdiction was directly challenged (objections to its jurisdiction raised by the British, French and Dutch governments). The British, French and Dutch governments raised the objection that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the rules of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (“TRIPs)” concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights. These rules fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States. They refer in that regard to para 104 of Opinion 1/94 EU:C:1994:384, [1994] ECR I-5267. Ibid, para 23. See further the discussion in Andrea Filippo Gagliardi, ‘The right of individuals to invoke the provisions of mixed agreements before the national courts: a new message from Luxembourg?’ (1999) 24 ELRev. 276–292. This note provides an analysis of Case C-162/96 Racke GmbH & Co. v Hauptzollamt Mainz EU:C:1998:293, [1998] ECR I-3655 and Case C-53/96 Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice BV EU:C:1998:292, [1998] ECR I-3603. The two mixed international agreements before the Court were the Cooperation Agreement concluded between Yugoslavia, the Community and the Member States and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (“TRIPs”).

  117. 117.

    Case C-53/96 Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice BV EU:C:1997:539, [1998] ECR I-3603, Opinion of AG Tesauro, para 18.

  118. 118.

    Case C-53/96 Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice BV EU:C:1998:292, [1998] ECR I-3603.

  119. 119.

    Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 Parfums Christian Dior SA v TUK Consultancy BV and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV EU:C:2000:688, [2000] ECR I-11307.

  120. 120.

    Case C-53/96 Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice BV EU:C:1998:292, [1998] ECR I-3603.

  121. 121.

    Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 Parfums Christian Dior SA v TUK Consultancy BV and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV EU:C:2000:378, [2000] ECR I-11307, Opinion of AG Cosmas, para 51.

  122. 122.

    Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 Parfums Christian Dior SA v TUK Consultancy BV and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV EU:C:2000:688, [2000] ECR I-11307, paras 33–39.

  123. 123.

    Joined Cases 21 to 24/72 International Fruit Company NV and others v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit EU:C:1972:115, [1972] ECR 1219.

  124. 124.

    Case C-53/96 Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice BV EU:C:1998:292, [1998] ECR I-3603.

  125. 125.

    Case 181/73 Haegeman v Belgian State EU:C:1974:41, [1974] ECR 449.

  126. 126.

    Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 Parfums Christian Dior SA v TUK Consultancy BV and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV EU:C:2000:688, [2000] ECR I-11307.

  127. 127.

    See the discussion in Panos Koutrakos (n 3) 193–202. In Case 12/86 Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd EU:C:1987:400, [1987] ECR 3719 and Case C-53/96 Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice BV EU:C:1998:292, [1998] ECR I-3603 the Court did not offer answers regarding the scope of its jurisdiction over the provisions of mixed international agreements. The absence of a clearer line of reasoning is regrettable. However, and, as mentioned earlier, the Advocates-General provided a broad reading of the Court’s position (Case 12/86 Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd EU:C:1987:232, [1987] ECR 3719, Opinion of AG Darmon, para 15 and Case C-53/96 Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice BV EU:C:1997:539, [1998] ECR I-3603, Opinion of AG Tesauro, para 18).

  128. 128.

    Ex-Article 35 (1) TEU read as follows: ‘The Court of Justice of the European Communities shall have jurisdiction, subject to the conditions laid down in this article, to give preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of framework decisions and decisions, on the interpretation of conventions established under this Title [Title VI] and on the validity and interpretation of the measures implementing them.’

  129. 129.

    Ex-Article 35 (3) TEU read as follows: ‘A Member State making a declaration pursuant to paragraph 2 shall specify that either: (a) any court or tribunal of that State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law may request the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on a question raised in a case pending before it and concerning the validity or interpretation of an act referred to in paragraph 1 if that court or tribunal considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment; or (b) any court or tribunal of that State may request the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on a question raised in a case pending before it and concerning the validity or interpretation of an act referred to in paragraph 1 if that court or tribunal considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment.’ As indicated by Hatzopoulos, as of December 2006 only 16 Member States had made a declaration under ex-Article 35 (3) TEU. These include Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Portugal. Of these 16, only Spain and Hungary have restricted the right to refer to the Court to national jurisdictions judging without appeal. Vassilis Hatzopoulos, ‘With or without you ... judging politically in the field of Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (2008) 33 ELRev. 44–65, 47.

  130. 130.

    Ex-Article 35 (6) TEU read as follows: ‘The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to review the legality of framework decisions and decisions in actions brought by a Member State or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of this Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers. The proceedings provided for in this paragraph shall be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure.’

  131. 131.

    Ex-Article 35 (7) TEU read as follows: ‘The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to rule on any dispute between Member States regarding the interpretation or the application of acts adopted under Article 34(2) whenever such dispute cannot be settled by the Council within six months of its being referred to the Council by one of its members. The Court shall also have jurisdiction to rule on any dispute between Member States and the Commission regarding the interpretation or the application of conventions established under Article 34(2)(d).’

  132. 132.

    Eileen Denza, The Intergovernmental Pillars of the European Union (OUP, Oxford 2002) 266. See also Jörg Monar, ‘Justice and home affairs in the Treaty of Amsterdam: reform at the price of fragmentation’ (1998) 23 ELRev. 320, at 330–332.

  133. 133.

    Albertina Albors-Llorens, ‘Changes in the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice under the Treaty of Amsterdam’ (1998) 35 CMLR 1273, 1292.

  134. 134.

    Case C-355/04 P Segi and Others v Council EU:C:2007:116, [2007] ECR I-1657; and Case C-354/04 P Gestoras Pro Amnistía et al. v Council EU:C:2007:115, [2007] ECR I-1579. For an analysis of the case see Steve Peers, ‘Salvation outside the Church: Judicial protection in the third Pillar after the Pupino and Segi judgments’ (2007) 44 CMLR 883, 892–902.

  135. 135.

    In this case a common position (adopted jointly within the Union’s former second and third pillars) an instrument not reviewable in the Community courts, with an annexed list of terrorist organisations had been at issue. The claimants – both organisations, with the aim of supporting the claim of Basque independence, identity, culture and language, part of the Basque separatist organisation Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (E.T.A. – an alleged “internal” EU terrorist group) – sought damages for the disadvantages they had faced as a consequence of being listed.

  136. 136.

    Jurisdiction applied, pursuant to ex-Article 46 TEU, under the conditions listed in ex-Article 35 TEU.

  137. 137.

    Case T-338/02 Segi and Others v Council EU:T:2004:171, [2004] ECR II-1647, para 38.

  138. 138.

    Case C-354/04 P Gestoras Pro Amnistía et al. v Council EU:C:2006:667, [2007] ECR I-1579, Opinion of AG Mengozzi, paras 77 and 79.

  139. 139.

    Case 314/85 Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost EU:C:1987:452, [1987] ECR 4199, para 17; that is, national courts are not authorised to declare Community acts void.

  140. 140.

    Case C-354/04 P Gestoras Pro Amnistía et al. v Council EU:C:2006:667, [2007] ECR I-1579, Opinion of AG Mengozzi, paras 105–6 and 138. The arguments put forward by the Advocate General – the fact that the European courts’ jurisdiction is excluded has no bearing on the jurisdiction of national courts – are compelling. See Eleanor Spaventa, ‘Opening Pandora’s Box: Some Reflections on the Constitutional Effects of the Decision in Pupino’ (2007) 3 EuConst 5, 23–24. If the Union system were to be perceived as fragmented, then judicial protection would be dependent on purely executive choices.

  141. 141.

    Case C-354/04 P Gestoras Pro Amnistía et al. v Council EU:C:2006:667, [2007] ECR I-1579, Opinion of AG Mengozzi, para 121. The same rationale is also reflected in literature – in the absence of a preliminary ruling mechanism Foto-Frost is particularly inapplicable. See, for instance, Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union Law (6nd edn Hart, Oxford 2011) 227; Trevor C Hartley, Constitutional problems of the European Union (Hart, Oxford 1999) 34–5; and A Arnull, The European Union and its Court of Justice (2nd edn OUP, Oxford 2006) 134–5.

  142. 142.

    Case C-354/04 P Gestoras Pro Amnistía et al. v Council EU:C:2006:667, [2007] ECR I-1579, Opinion of AG Mengozzi, para 99.

  143. 143.

    For critical perspectives Ulrich Haltern, ‘Rechtsschutz in der dritten Säule der EU’ (2007) JZ 772–778; or Alicia Hinarejos, ‘Recent human rights development in the EU courts: the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Arrest warrant and terror lists’ (2007) 7 EHRLR 793, 809–811. Although Hinarejos does recognise that the Court was at pains to extend its jurisdiction – so as to allow for more much-needed judicial control in the intergovernmental pillars – she contends that the balance in Gestoras Pro Amnistía and Segi et al. is a positive one; ‘[a] multitude of anti-terrorism measures that are bound to affect the rights of individuals are being adopted in these areas, where the pattern of judicial control foreseen by the Treaty is insufficient. The evolution in the type of action that the Union has undertaken in these pillars must be coupled with an evolution in the pattern of judicial control. The [CJ] has shown that it is aware of this, and that it is willing to push the boundaries to some extent until the Treaty undergoes these needed reforms’ (810–11).

  144. 144.

    Case C-355/04 P Segi and Others v Council EU:C:2007:116, [2007] ECR I-1657, paras 50 and 53 [emphasis added].

  145. 145.

    Steve Peers (n 134) 897.

  146. 146.

    The Court referred to ‘all measures adopted by the Council, whatever their nature or form’: ‘(...) The right to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling must therefore exist in respect of all measures adopted by the Council, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have legal effects in relation to third parties (see, by analogy, Case 22/70 Commission v Council (ERTA) [1971] ECR 263, paragraphs 38 to 42, and Case C-57/95 France v Commission [1997] ECR I-1627, paragraph 7 et seq.).’ See Case C-355/04 P Segi and Others v Council EU:C:2007:116, [2007] ECR I-1657, para 53.

  147. 147.

    By analogy. Case C-355/04 P Segi and Others v Council EU:C:2007:116, [2007] ECR I-1657, para 53, see, Christophe Hillion and Ramses Wessel, ‘Restraining External Competences of EU Member States under CFSP’ in Marise Cremona and Bruno de Witte (eds), EU Foreign Relations Law: Constitutional Fundamentals (Essays in European law, Hart, Oxford 2008) 113.

  148. 148.

    In this respect cf. Case C-355/04 P Segi and Others v Council EU:C:2007:116, [2007] ECR I-1657; and Case C-354/04 P Gestoras Pro Amnistía et al. v Council EU:C:2007:115, [2007] ECR I-1579; also reflected in literature. See Eleanor Spaventa, ‘Counter-terrorism and Fundamental Rights: judicial challenges and legislative changes after the rulings in Kadi and PMOI’ in A Antoniadis, R Schütze & E Spaventa (eds), The European Union and Global Emergencies: A Law and Policy Analysis (Hart, Oxford/Portland 2011) 115.

  149. 149.

    See Christophe Hillion and Ramses Wessel, ‘Restraining External Competences of EU Member States under CFSP’ in Marise Cremona and Bruno de Witte (eds), EU Foreign Relations Law: Constitutional Fundamentals (Essays in European law, Hart, Oxford 2008) 90–91. See further Alicia Hinarejos, Judicial Control in the European Union: Reforming Jurisdiction in the Intergovernmental Pillars (OUP, Oxford 2009) 149. In the same vein, Vincent Kronenberger, ‘Coherence and consistency of the EU’s action in international crisis management: the role of the European Court of Justice’ in Steven Blockmans (ed), The European Union and crisis management: policy and legal aspects (TMC Asser Press, 2008 The Hague) 201.

  150. 150.

    As indicated by Cremona, Article 218 (11) TFEU (ex-Article 300 (6) TEC) implies that, in the absence of such amendments, institutional decisions concluding incompatible agreements are invalid. See Marise Cremona, ‘Coherence in European Union foreign relations law’ in P Koutrakos (ed), European Foreign Policy: Legal and Political Perspectives (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 2011) 79, citing Case C-122/95 Germany v Council EU:C:1998:94, [1998] ECR I-973. In Germany v Council the Court declared the Council decision concluding the Framework Agreement on Bananas invalid in so far as certain aspects of the Agreement were contrary to the principle of non-discrimination.

  151. 151.

    Alicia Hinarejos (n 149) 164; Geert de Baere (n 4) 190. Apparently dissenting on this point, Jan Wouters, Dominic Coppens and Bart De Meester, ‘The European Union’s External Relations after the Lisbon Treaty’ in Stefan Griller and Jacques Ziller (eds), The Lisbon Treaty: EU Constitutionalism without a Constitutional Treaty? (Springer, Vienna 2008) 165: ‘Under the formulation of the Constitution (Article III-376), the grounds for exclusion of jurisdiction were explicitly spelled out. Because this list did not refer, for example, to Article III-325(11) (concerning [CJ] opinions on envisaged international agreements), it was open for interpretation whether the [CJ] could provide opinions on international agreements in the CFSP field. The Lisbon Treaty, however, answers this question in the negative because the exclusion of jurisdiction in the field of CFSP is formulated more broadly: in general, the [CJ] shall have no jurisdiction with respect to the provisions relating to CFSP nor with respect to acts adopted on the basis of those provisions” (…).’

  152. 152.

    Opinion 1/09 EU:C:2011:123, [2011] ECR I-1137.

  153. 153.

    Opinion 1/09 EU:C:2011:123, [2011] ECR I-1137, paras 60–89. Steve Peers, ‘The constitutional implications of the EU patent’ (2011) 7 EuConst 229–266 examines the options, in light of Opinion 1/09, for establishing a patent litigation system which is both workable in practice from the point of view of users of the patent system, and realistic in light of the political constraints on possible developments. See the section on the ‘Proposed Litigation Agreement’ (at 245–247) and the section on the ‘Future of the EU Patent’ (at 256).

  154. 154.

    Alicia Hinarejos, ‘The Lisbon Treaty versus standing still: a view from the third pillar’ (2009) 5 EuConst 99; Bruno Nascimbene, ‘European judicial cooperation in criminal matters: what protection for individuals under the Lisbon Treaty?’ (2009) 10 ERA 397.

  155. 155.

    Case 22/70 Commission v Council EU:C:1971:32, [1971] ECR 263, para 39; Case C-327/91 French Republic v Commission EU:C:1994:305, [1994] ECR I-3641, para 14; Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04 Parliament v Council and Commission (PNR) EU:C:2006:346, [2006] ECR I-4721 (pleas for annulment of a Council Decision on the conclusion of an agreement (PNR)).

  156. 156.

    See Article 10 (1) of Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon [2008] OJ C115/322.

  157. 157.

    See generally, Maria-Gisella Garbagnati Ketvel, ‘The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in respect of the common foreign and security policy’ (2006) 55 ICLQ 77, 106.

  158. 158.

    There is the possibility of subjecting Common Foreign and Security Policy measures to an indirect judicial review, in cases where CFSP measures are implemented. See Case T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council EU:T:2006:384, [2006] ECR II-4665. In cases where there is no effective judicial review, neither at national or at Union level, the European Court on Human Rights provides the only remedy to review the compatibility of CFSP acts with ECHR standards.

  159. 159.

    See Laurent Pech, ‘“A Union Founded on the Rule of Law”: Meaning and Reality of the Rule of Law as a Constitutional Principle of EU Law’ (2010) 6 EuConst 359, 393–94.

  160. 160.

    See on the scope of Article 40 TEU, Peter van Elsuwege, ‘EU External Action after the Collapse of the Pillar Structure: In search of a New Balance between Delimitation and Consistency’ (2010) 47 CMLR 987, 1002 et seq. Pre-Lisbon Article 47 TEU read as follows: ‘Subject to the provisions amending the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community with a view to establishing the European Community, the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and to these final provisions, nothing in this Treaty shall affect the Treaties establishing the European Communities or the subsequent Treaties and Acts modifying or supplementing them.’ The Court held in relation to pre-Lisbon Article 47 TEU: ‘It is the task of the Court to ensure that acts which, according to the Council, fall within the scope of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union do not encroach upon the powers conferred by the EC Treaty on the Community.’ See for example, Case C-91/05 Commission v Council (ECOWAS) EU:C:2008:288, [2008] ECR I-3651, in particular para 56; Case C-176/03 Commission v Council EU:C:2005:542, [2005] ECR I-7879, para 39 and Case C-170/96 Commission v Council EU:C:1998:219, [1998] ECR I-2763, para 16.

  161. 161.

    Case C-170/96 Commission v Council EU:C:1998:219, [1998] ECR I-2763, para 16; Case C-176/03 Commission v Council EU:C:2005:542, [2005] ECR I-7879, para 39.

  162. 162.

    Case C-170/96 Commission v Council EU:C:1998:219, [1998] ECR I-2763 (Joint Action, airport transit visas); Case C-176/03 Commission v Council EU:C:2005:542, [2005] ECR I-7879 (Framework Decision, protection of the environment through criminal law); and Case C-440/05 Commission v Council EU:C:2007:625, [2007] ECR I-9097 (Framework Decision, enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution), related to acts adopted pursuant to ex-Title VI TEU. Case C-91/05 Commission v Council EU:C:2008:288, [2008] ECR I-3651 was the first occasion when the Court was requested to draw the line between the EC Treaty and Title V of the TEU on the CFSP on the basis of ex-Article 47 TEU. The Commission brought an action seeking to have the Decision annulled and the Joint Action to be declared inapplicable. Taking the view that the Council Decision had not been adopted on the correct legal basis and that by virtue of that fact ex-Article 47 TEU had been infringed (the adoption of such a measure fell within the competence conferred upon the EC in the area of development cooperation). The Small Arms case concerned first, the meaning of ex-Article 47; secondly, nature of the EC competence in the assessment as to whether or not ex-Article 47 has been infringed by a measure that has been adopted pursuant to the TEU; and, thirdly, the application of ex-Article 47 TEU to situations where a measure has multiple objectives; that is, some of which fall within Community competence and others within the competence of the Union. The Court drew a demarcation between the areas of Community development co-operation and CFSP respectively (at paras 76–77). Joni Heliskoski, ‘Small arms and light weapons within the Union’s pillar structure: an analysis of Article 47 of the EU Treaty’ (2008) 33 ELRev. 898–912 provides a general analysis of purpose and meaning of ex-Article 47 on the basis of the Small Arms case considered in the light of the Court’s earlier case law on the subject.

  163. 163.

    Alicia Hinarejos (n 149) 152 and 153.

  164. 164.

    Peter van Elsuwege (n 160) 987, 1002.

  165. 165.

    Geert de Baere (n 4) 190–91.

  166. 166.

    Article 215 TFEU reads as follows: ‘1. Where a decision, adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union, provides for the interruption or reduction, in part or completely, of economic and financial relations with one or more third countries, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission, shall adopt the necessary measures. It shall inform the European Parliament thereof. 2. Where a decision adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union so provides, the Council may adopt restrictive measures under the procedure referred to in paragraph 1 against natural or legal persons and groups or non-State entities. 3. The acts referred to in this Article shall include necessary provisions on legal safeguards.’ The practical significance of Article 275 TFEU is limited, as restrictive measures are likely to be normally adopted through Article 75 TFEU (Area of Freedom Security and Justice as regards preventing and combating terrorism and related activities). See Tarcisio Gazzini and Ester Herlin-Karnell, ‘Restrictive measures adopted by the EU from the standpoint of international and EU law’ (2011) 36 ELRev. 798, 815.

  167. 167.

    See Marise Cremona, ‘Who can make treaties? The European Union’ in Duncan B. Hollis (ed), The Oxford Guide to Treaties (OUP, 2012 Oxford) 111.

  168. 168.

    Case C-354/04 P Gestoras Pro Amnistía et al. v Council EU:C:2006:667, [2007] ECR I-1579, Opinion of AG Mengozzi, para 138. This view is also reflected in literature. See Eleanor Spaventa, ‘Fundamental What? The Difficult Relationship between Foreign Policy and Fundamental Rights’ in Marise Cremona and Bruno de Witte (eds), EU Foreign Relations Law: Constitutional Fundamentals (Essays in European law, Hart, Oxford 2008) 250 and Monica Claes, The National Court’s Mandate in the European Constitution (Modern Studies in European Law, Hart, Oxford 2006) 560.

  169. 169.

    Case C-354/04 P Gestoras Pro Amnistía et al. v Council EU:C:2006:667, [2007] ECR I-1579, Opinion of AG Mengozzi, para 139.

  170. 170.

    Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission EU:C:2008:461, [2008] ECR I-6351.

  171. 171.

    Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission EU:C:2008:461, [2008] ECR I-6351, para 285.

  172. 172.

    Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission EU:C:2008:461, [2008] ECR I-6351, para 326.

  173. 173.

    The General Court confined judicial review to jus cogens (review on the basis of jus cogens norms), an international – in contrast to a European – standard. See Case T-315/01 Kadi v Council and Commission EU:T:2005:332, [2005] ECR II-3649.

  174. 174.

    Piet Eeckhout, ‘Community terrorism listings, fundamental rights and the UN Security council resolutions. In search of the right fit’ (2007) 3 EuConst 183, 202 and Sara Poli and Maria Tzanou, ‘The Kadi Rulings: A Survey of the Literature’ (2009) 28 YEL 533, 543.

  175. 175.

    Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Commission, Council and United Kingdom v Kadi EU:C:2013:518.

  176. 176.

    Case T-85/09 Kadi v Commission EU:T:2010:418, [2010] ECR II-5177, para 115.

  177. 177.

    Case T-85/09 Kadi v Commission EU:T:2010:418, [2010] ECR II-5177, para 121.

  178. 178.

    See Armin Cuyvers, ‘The Kadi II judgment of the General Court: the ECJ’s predicament and the consequences for Member States’ (2011) 7 EuConst 481, 491.

  179. 179.

    Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Commission, Council and United Kingdom v Kadi EU:C:2013:176, Opinion of AG Bot.

  180. 180.

    Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Commission, Council and United Kingdom v Kadi EU:C:2013:176, Opinion of AG Bot, para 67.

  181. 181.

    Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Commission, Council and United Kingdom v Kadi EU:C:2013:176, Opinion of AG Bot, para 85.

  182. 182.

    Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Commission, Council and United Kingdom v Kadi EU:C:2013:176, Opinion of AG Bot, para 86.

  183. 183.

    Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Commission, Council and United Kingdom v Kadi EU:C:2013:518.

  184. 184.

    See especially Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Commission, Council and United Kingdom v Kadi EU:C:2013:518, para 120. See in this regard also Niamh Nic Shuibhne, ‘Being bound (Editorial Comment)’ (2013) 38 EuConst 435–436.

  185. 185.

    Opinion 1/75 (Local Cost Standard) EU:C:1975:145, [1975] ECR 1355.

  186. 186.

    Case C-61/94 Commission v Germany EU:C:1996:313, [1996] ECR I-3989.

  187. 187.

    Case C-280/93 Germany v Council EU:C:1994:367, [1994] ECR I-4973.

  188. 188.

    Joined Cases 21 to 24/72 International Fruit Company NV and others v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit EU:C:1972:115, [1972] ECR 1219.

  189. 189.

    Case 181/73 Haegeman v Belgian State EU:C:1974:41, [1974] ECR 449.

  190. 190.

    Case 12/86 Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd EU:C:1987:400, [1987] ECR 3719.

  191. 191.

    Case C-162/96 Racke GmbH & Co. v Hauptzollamt Mainz EU:C:1998:293, [1998] ECR I-3655.

  192. 192.

    Case C-53/96 Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice BV EU:C:1998:292, [1998] ECR I-3603.

  193. 193.

    Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 Parfums Christian Dior SA v TUK Consultancy BV and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV EU:C:2000:688, [2000] ECR I-11307.

  194. 194.

    Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission EU:C:2008:461, [2008] ECR I-6351; Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Commission, Council and United Kingdom v Kadi EU:C:2013:518.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Durham Law School, Durham University, Durham, UK

    Nadine Zipperle

Authors
  1. Nadine Zipperle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zipperle, N. (2017). Jurisdiction of the Court on EU International Agreements. In: EU International Agreements. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64078-5_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64078-5_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64077-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64078-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation