Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The EC Principle of Loyal Cooperation and the Obligations of the Kyoto Protocol

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Kyoto Protocol in the EU

  • 842 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, the obligations of the Community and the Member States under the international climate regime will be investigated exclusively in relation to primary Community law. In particular, Article 10 TEC and the principle of loyal cooperation will be considered in order to determine to what extent this general principle of EC law can be applied in relation to the compliance by the EC and the Member States with the obligations of the Kyoto Protocol. The term ‘primary Community law’ refers to the general principles of EC law in the founding Treaties as well as to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice which by applying these rules often fills the gaps in the Community law system. The Court’s primary role in developing Community law is generally recognised, and it is basically through preliminary rulings under Article 234 TEC that the Court has developed its most famous principles (supremacy, direct effect, loyal cooperation, etc.). As for Article 10 TEC, the applicability and enforceability of this fundamental principle is supported by the jurisprudence of the ECJ.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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.

    Craig and De Búrca (2007), pp. 460-462.

  2. 2.

    Tridimas (2000).

  3. 3.

    On the relationship between EC law and national law, see, inter alia, case 44/79 Hauer v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz [1979] ECR 3727, para 14; case 26/62 N.V. Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1; case 6/64 Flaminio Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 585, p. 593; case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR 1125; case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal SpA [1978] ECR 629; case C-213/89 R. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd. and Others [1990] ECR I-2433.

  4. 4.

    Craig and De Búrca (2007), pp. 344–346.

  5. 5.

    Case 6/64 Flaminio Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 585.

  6. 6.

    See, for instance, Lenaerts and Van Nuffel (1999) or von Bogdandy (2006).

  7. 7.

    Epiney (2006), p. 19.

  8. 8.

    The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, entered into force on 27 January 1980, Trb. 1975 No. 51.

  9. 9.

    General Assembly, Resolution 2625, 24 October 1970.

  10. 10.

    In this dissertation, this principle is referred to as the principle of loyalty, cooperation and loyal cooperation. On this matter see Temple Lang (1997).

  11. 11.

    Temple Lang (1986 and 2001) and Blanquet (1994).

  12. 12.

    Case 231/83 Centre Leclerc v. Au Blé Vert [1985] ECR 1; see also joined cases 6 and 11/69 Commission v. France [1969] ECR 523, para 16, and case 240/86 Commission v. Greece [1988] ECR 1835, p. 1849.

  13. 13.

    Notice on cooperation between national courts and the Commission in the State aid field, OJ C 312, Brussels, 23 November 1995, p. 8.

  14. 14.

    Notice on cooperation between national courts and the Commission in the State aid field, para 24.

  15. 15.

    ‘Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community’s tasks. They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty.’

  16. 16.

    Article 86: ‘The member States bind themselves to take all general and specific measures which will assure the execution of their obligations under the decisions and recommendations of the institutions of the Community, and facilitate the accomplishment of the Community’s purposes. The member States bind themselves to refrain from any measures which are incompatible with the existence of the common market referred to in Articles 1 and 4’.

  17. 17.

    Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, 18 July 2003, in OJ C 169/1. The Draft Constitution has not entered into force because it has not been ratified by all the Member States.

  18. 18.

    ‘Member States shall, in close cooperation with the institutions of the Community, coordinate their respective economic policies to the extent necessary to attain the objectives of this Treaty. The institutions of the Community shall take care not to prejudice the internal and external financial stability of the Member States’ (Article 6 Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Rome 1957).

  19. 19.

    Joined cases C-78/90, C-79/90, C-80/90, C-81/90, C-82/90 and C-83/90, judgment of the Court of 11 March 1992, Compagnie Commerciale de l’Ouest and others v. Receveur Principal des Douanes de La Pallice Port. References for a preliminary ruling: Cour d’appel de Poitiers—France [1992] ECR I-1847, para 19.

  20. 20.

    Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 11 January 2001 in case C-86/99 Freemans plc v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise [2001] ECR I-4167, para 32. See also the opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 20 September 2001 in case C-65/00 Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic [2002] ECR I-1795, para 21.

  21. 21.

    Temple Lang (2001), p. 91.

  22. 22.

    Case 190/87, judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 September 1988, Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises, Borken and Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses beim Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v. Handelsonderneming Moormann BV. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesverwaltungsgericht—Germany [1988] ECR 4689, paras 22 and 24.

  23. 23.

    Namely the judgments of the Court in the cases Ratti, Factortame, Francovich, Marleasing and Costanzo.

  24. 24.

    Case 141/78 France v. UK [1979] ECR 2923, p. 2942.

  25. 25.

    See supra n. 12.

  26. 26.

    Judgment of the Court of 11 December 1985 in case 192/84 Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic [1985] ECR 3967, para 19.

  27. 27.

    Ibid.

  28. 28.

    Judgment of the Court of 22 March 1994 in case C-375/92 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain [1994] ECR I-923, para 25.

  29. 29.

    Ibid.

  30. 30.

    Judgment of the Court of 6 March 2003 in case C-478/01 Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg [2003] ECR I-2351, paras 22 and 24.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    Along the same line, see also the judgment of the Court of 19 February 1991 in case C-374/89 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium [1991] ECR I-367, paras 12–17.

  33. 33.

    See also the judgment of the Court of 13 July 2004 in case C-82/03 Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic [2004] ECR I-6635, and the judgment of the Court of 26 April 2005 in case C-494/01 Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland [2005] ECR I-3331, paras 195–200.

  34. 34.

    Judgment of the Court of 8 July 1999, criminal proceedings against Maria Amélia Nunes and Evangelica de Matos. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de Círculo do Porto—Portugal, case C-186/98 [1999] ECR I-4883. On the same matter, see also the judgment of the Court of 21 September 1989 in case 68/88 Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic [1989] ECR 5965, para 23.

  35. 35.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 20 May 1999 (1) in case C-186/98 Ministério Público v. Maria Amélia Nunes and Evangelina de Matos [1999] ECR I-4883, paras 7–8.

  36. 36.

    See supra n. 34.

  37. 37.

    Craig and De Búrca (2003), p. 131.

  38. 38.

    See Article 300 TEC, and Neuwahl (1991).

  39. 39.

    Opinion of the Court of 15 November 1994, Competence of the Community to conclude international agreements concerning services and the protection of intellectual property—Article 228(6) of the EC Treaty, opinion 1/94 WTO [1994] ECR I-5267, para 108, and opinion 1/78 (Rubber Agreement) [1978] ECR 2151, paras 34–36.

  40. 40.

    [1978] ECR 2151.

  41. 41.

    Opinion of the Court of 19 March 1993 delivered pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 228(1) of the EEC Treaty, Convention No 170 of the International Labour Organisation concerning safety in the use of chemicals at work, opinion 2/91 [1993] ECR I-01061, para 36.

  42. 42.

    Judgment of the Court of 19 March 1996 in case C-25/94 Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European Union [1996] ECR I-1469.

  43. 43.

    Kiss (1996), p. 49.

  44. 44.

    Temple Lang (1990), p. 657.

  45. 45.

    ‘The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 4, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities, a high level of employment and of social protection, equality between men and women, sustainable and non-inflationary growth, a high degree of competitiveness and convergence of economic performance, a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States’ (Article 2 EC Treaty).

  46. 46.

    See the judgment of 7 February 1985 in case 240/83 Procureur de la République v. ADBHU [1985] ECR 531 and the judgment of 20 September 1988 in case 302/86 Commission v. Denmark [1988] ECR 4607.

  47. 47.

    Case 71/76 Thieffry v. Conseil de l’ordre des advocates à la cour de Paris [1977] ECR 765, pp. 777–778, paras 15–18 and 22.

  48. 48.

    Case 32/79 Commission v. UK [1980] ECR 2403, pp. 2437–2438 and 2460–2461.

  49. 49.

    Case C-165/91 Van Munster [1994] ECR I-4661, paras 32–33; case 71/76 Thieffry [1977] ECR 765, pp. 777–778.

  50. 50.

    Judgment of the Court of 13 September 2005 in case C-176/03 Commission v. Council [2005] ECR I-7879, para 41.

  51. 51.

    Judgment of the Court of 23 October 2007 in case C-440/05 Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European Union [2007] ECR I-09097, para 60.

  52. 52.

    EU Presidency Conclusions of 14 and 15 December 2006, welcoming the results of the Nairobi Climate Summit. At the Environment Council, there was unanimous support for long-term commitments regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (30% by 2020).

  53. 53.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament: An Energy Policy for Europe, COM(2007)1, Brussels, 10 January 2007.

  54. 54.

    Communication of the European Commission: Limiting Global Climate Change to 2°C. The way ahead for 2020 and beyond, COM(2007)2, Brussels, 10 January 2007.

  55. 55.

    According to the text of the EU Reform Treaty, in Article 174(1), the fourth indent shall be replaced by the following: ‘—promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change’.

  56. 56.

    The intention to include in the text of the TFEU a reference to the fight against climate change has already been expressed by EU leaders on several occasions, for instance, by the Luxembourg Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Nicolas Schmit on 28 February 2007 and by the Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen on 21 May 2007.

  57. 57.

    Judgment of the Court of 10 January 1985 in case 229/83 Leclerc v. Au Blé Vert [1985] ECR 17.

  58. 58.

    Temple Lang (2001), p. 91.

  59. 59.

    Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 in case C-61/07 Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, OJ C 95, 28 April 2007.

  60. 60.

    Case 104/81 Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641, para 11.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., para 13.

  62. 62.

    Electronic interview with John Temple Lang, 30 January 2008, on file with the author.

  63. 63.

    See Chap. 4.

  64. 64.

    Mortelmans (1998), p. 67.

  65. 65.

    See Temple Lang (2001).

  66. 66.

    Joined cases 205–215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor GmbH v. Germany [1983] ECR 2633 and case 54/81 Firma Wilhelm Fromme v. Bundesanhalt fur landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung [1982] ECR 1449.

  67. 67.

    Joined cases 314–316/81 and 83/82 Procureur de la Republique v. Waterkeyn [1982] ECR 4337, para 14.

  68. 68.

    Case 237/82 Jongeneel Kaas [1984] ECR 483, p. 520.

  69. 69.

    Temple Lang (2001), pp. 89–90.

  70. 70.

    Opinion 2/91 ILO Convention on the safe use of chemicals [1993] ECR I-1061.

  71. 71.

    Case 61/77R Commission v. Ireland [1977] ECR 937, para 28, and [1978] ECR 417, pp. 468–469 (Advocate General).

  72. 72.

    Joined cases 3, 4 and 6/76 Kramer [1976] ECR, 1311, paras 44, 45. Opinion 2/91, ILO Convention [1993] ECR I-1061.

  73. 73.

    Case C-25/94 Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European Union [1996] ECR I-1469, para 48.

  74. 74.

    Case C-324/93 Evans Medical [1995] ECR I-563, para 32.

  75. 75.

    See supra n. 60, para 13.

  76. 76.

    Opinion 2/00 of the Court of 6 December 2001 [2001] ECR I-09713, para 18.

  77. 77.

    See ruling 1/78 [1978] ECR 2151, paras 34, 35 and 36; opinion 2/91 of the Court of 19 March 1993 [1993] ECR I-01061, para 36, and opinion 1/94 of the Court of 15 November 1994 [1994] ECR I-05267, para 108.

  78. 78.

    Case C-246/07 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Sweden, OJ C 183/19, Brussels, 4 August 2007.

  79. 79.

    Dashwood and Hillion (2000), p. 181.

  80. 80.

    Case 22/70 Commission of the European Communities v. EC Council [1971] ECR 263.

  81. 81.

    Opinion 1/94 [1994] ECR I-5267.

  82. 82.

    ERTA case, para 22.

  83. 83.

    ERTA case, paras 19 and 21, ‘The Member States are required on the one hand to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions and, on the other hand, to abstain from any measure which might jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty’.

  84. 84.

    Opinion 1/94, para 96.

  85. 85.

    Pagh (2005), p. 5.

  86. 86.

    See supra n. 60, para 14.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., para 18.

  88. 88.

    Ibid., para 13.

  89. 89.

    Ibid., para 11.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., para 13.

  91. 91.

    Case 61/77 Commission v. Ireland [1977] ECR 937, para 28.

  92. 92.

    Case 32/79 Commission v. UK [1980] ECR 2403, para 58.

  93. 93.

    There is no equivalent wording in the EC Treaty either.

  94. 94.

    Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 11 November 2004, case C-105/03, Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285, para 25.

  95. 95.

    Ibid., paras 26 and 27.

  96. 96.

    Temple Lang (2001), pp. 91–93.

  97. 97.

    Temple Lang (2001), p. 91.

  98. 98.

    National authorities include government ministries, regulatory bodies, local or regional bodies, non-governmental bodies, state-owned enterprises, etc.

  99. 99.

    Joined cases 51–54/71 International Fruit Co. NV v. Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit [1971] ECR 1107, pp. 1115–1116; case 50/76 Amsterdam Bulb B.V. v. Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1977] ECR 137, para 32; see also Temple Lang 1990, p. 645.

  100. 100.

    Case 32/79 Commission v. UK (fisheries) [1980] ECR 2403, pp. 2434–2439.

  101. 101.

    These include case 65/75 Tasca [1976] ECR 291, pp. 305–306, case 83/79 Pigs Marketing Board v. Redmond [1978] ECR 2347, p. 2371, case 52/76 Beneditti v. Muanri [1977] ECR 163, pp. 181–183.

  102. 102.

    Temple Lang (1997a), p. 6.

  103. 103.

    The legal orders of Austria and Switzerland contain also a similar principle.

  104. 104.

    Furthermore, Article 2(2) of the Charter of the United Nations includes a provision which is very similar to Article 10 TEC, namely the obligation that all UN Member States, ‘to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter’.

  105. 105.

    Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Belgian Constitution.

  106. 106.

    ‘Dans l’exercice de leurs compétences respectives, l’État fédéral, les communautés, les régions et la Commission communautaire commune agissent dans le respect de la loyauté fédérale, en vue d’éviter des conflits d’intérêts’ (Article 143(1) of the Belgian Constitution).

  107. 107.

    Verhoeven (2000), p. 329.

  108. 108.

    Council of State, opinions no. L 24040/8 and 24041/8 of 17 February 1995, Gedrukte Stukken, Vlaamse Raad, 1993–1994, no. 577/2 and 1994–1995, no. 633/2.

  109. 109.

    Arbitragehof/Cour d’arbitrage, judgment no. 102/99 of 30 September 1999.

  110. 110.

    Decision of 28 January 1982, Official Journal of Spain of 26 February 1982, supplement to N. 49, p. 1. For the jurisprudence of the Spanish Constitutional Court, see http://www.boe.es/g/es/bases_datos/tc.php.

  111. 111.

    ‘La Constitución se fundamenta en la indisoluble unidad de la Nación española, patria común e indivisible de todos los españoles, y reconoce y garantiza el derecho a la autonomía de las nacionalidades y regiones que la integran y la solidaridad entre todas ellas’ (Article 2 Spanish Constitution) and ‘El Estado garantiza la realización efectiva del principio de solidaridad consagrado en el artículo 2 de la Constitución, velando por el establecimiento de un equilibrio económico, adecuado y justo entre las diversas partes del territorio español, y atendiendo en particular a las circunstancias del hecho insular. Las diferencias entre los Estatutos de las distintas Comunidades Autónomas no podrán implicar, en ningún caso, privilegios económicos o sociales’ (Article 138 of the Spanish Constitution).

  112. 112.

    ‘Las Comunidades Autónomas gozarán de autonomía financiera para el desarrollo y ejecución de sus competencias con arreglo a los principios de coordinación con la Hacienda estatal y de solidaridad entre todos los españoles. Las Comunidades Autónomas podrán actuar como delegados o colaboradores del Estado para la recaudación, la gestión y la liquidación de los recursos tributarios de aquél, de acuerdo con las Leyes y los Estatutos’ (Article 156 of the Spanish Constitution).

  113. 113.

    Blanquet (1994), p. 406.

  114. 114.

    Decision of 5 August 1983, p. 11.

  115. 115.

    Decision of 4 May 1982.

  116. 116.

    Quesada (2006), p. 349.

  117. 117.

    Decision of 28 April 1983, p. 2.

  118. 118.

    Decision 42/1983 of 20 May 1983, p. 3.

  119. 119.

    Decision 42/1981 of 22 December 1981, OJ of 14 January 1982, supplement to N. 14, p. 12.

  120. 120.

    Articles 20, 32, 35, 71, 72 and 93 of the German constitution. See Sachs (2003).

  121. 121.

    On the principle of Bundestreue see Bauer (1992) and Egli (2010).

  122. 122.

    Decision of the German Constitutional Court (BVerfGE) 1 at 299 and 315 (1952) ‘Alle an dem verfassungsrechtlichen Bündnis Beteiligten sind gehalten, dem Wesen dieses Bündnisses entsprechend zusammenzuwirken und zu einer Festigung und zur Wahrung seiner und der wohlverstandenen Belangen seiner Glieder beizutragen’.

  123. 123.

    Sachs (2003), p. 828.

  124. 124.

    BVerfGE 12 at 205, 254–59 (1961).

  125. 125.

    BVerfGE 86 at 148, 258–70 (1992), see also Sachs (2003) p. 828.

  126. 126.

    Einheitliche Europäische Akte EEA Gesetz (EinhEuA), Bundesgesetzblatt 1986 II (BGBl II), 1104.

  127. 127.

    BVerfGE 92 at 203 (1995).

  128. 128.

    Herdegen (1995), p. 1376.

  129. 129.

    Bauer (1992).

  130. 130.

    Lück (1992), pp. 100–102.

  131. 131.

    Ibid.

  132. 132.

    Ibid., pp. 97–100.

  133. 133.

    Van der Esch (1970), p. 309, and Pescatore (1975), p. 51.

  134. 134.

    Blanquet (1994), p. 372.

  135. 135.

    Ibid., p. 383.

  136. 136.

    See Lück (1992), pp. 103–164.

  137. 137.

    Ibid., p. 131.

  138. 138.

    See supra n. 60, para 13.

  139. 139.

    Ibid., paras 2 and 4.

  140. 140.

    The Commission claimed that Sweden’s unilateral proposal of PFOS meant that the EC’s international representation was divided. Sweden acted unilaterally with regard to PFOS despite the fact that it was aware that the Community was engaged in drafting legislation which included that substance. Sweden’s action meant that the Community and Member States could not jointly present proposals for additions to the Stockholm Convention. Thus Sweden failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10 EC and 300(1) EC.

  141. 141.

    Advocate General Darmon, case C-229/89 Commission v. Belgium [1991] ECR I-2205, p. 2222.

  142. 142.

    International Center for Climate Governance, Climate Policy News, 27 April–1 May 2009.

  143. 143.

    Advocate General Darmon, case C-229/89 Commission v. Belgium [1991] ECR I-2205, p. 2222.

  144. 144.

    Judgment of the Court of 5 November 2002 in case C-471/98 Commission v. Kingdom of Belgium supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands [2002] ECR I-9681.

  145. 145.

    Case C-471/98 Commission v. Kingdom of Belgium [2002] ECR I-9681, para 124.

  146. 146.

    Ibid., para 1.

  147. 147.

    Ibid., para 125.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Leonardo Massai

  2. Via di Galceti 111, 59100, Prato, Italy

    Leonardo Massai

Authors
  1. Leonardo Massai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonardo Massai .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Massai, L. (2011). The EC Principle of Loyal Cooperation and the Obligations of the Kyoto Protocol. In: The Kyoto Protocol in the EU. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-571-1_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation