Exclusive External Competences: Constructing the EU as an International Actor

Eeckhout, Piet

doi:10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_33

Exclusive External Competences: Constructing the EU as an International Actor

Piet Eeckhout²

Chapter
First Online: 01 January 2012

2302 Accesses
2 Citations

Abstract

This contribution analyses the main heads of exclusive external competences—Treaty-based and implied powers—identified and articulated in the case-law of the Court of Justice. It explores the rationales for such exclusive powers, which are closely connected to the coherence of the EU’s internal competences and policies. The contribution argues that, even in areas of exclusive competence, EU and Member State competences are closely entwined. It further argues that exclusive implied powers are no more than a rule of pre-emption. The contribution also explores the dialogue between the case-law and the Treaty revisions, in particular the latest one, through the Treaty of Lisbon. Its conclusion is that the case-law played a remarkable role in constituting the EU as an international actor.

Professor of Law, University College London

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

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Case 8/73 Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven v Massey-Ferguson [1973] ECR 897.
2.
Opinion 1/75 re Understanding on a Local Cost Standard [1975] ECR 1355.
3.
Ibid, pp. 1363–1364.
4.
Case C-246/07 Commission v Sweden [2010] ECR I-3317.
5.
See the contribution by Timmermans to this volume; Hillion and Koutrakos 2011.
6.
Case 41/76 Donckerwolcke v Procureur de la République [1976] ECR 1921.
7.
Eeckhout 1994, Chap. 6.
8.
Joined Cases 21 to 24/72 International Fruit Company v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit [1972] ECR 1219.
9.
Opinion 1/94 re the WTO Agreement [1994] ECR I-5267.
10.
Ibid, paras 48–52.
11.
See the Open Skies cases, analysed below.
12.
Tridimas and Eeckhout 1994.
13.
Opinion 1/78 re International Agreement on Natural Rubber [1979] ECR 2871, para 60.
14.
Weiler 1999, p. 174.
15.
Cremona 1990.
16.
Above note 6.
17.
Case 174/84 Bulk Oil v Sun International [1986] 559.
18.
Case 59/84 Tezi v Commission [1986] ECR 887 and Case 242/84 Tezi v Minister for Economic Affairs [1986] ECR 933.
19.
See Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1061/2009 establishing common rules for exports [2009] OJ L 291/1.
20.
Opinion 1/94, above note 9, paras 42–46.
21.
Tridimas and Eeckhout 1994, pp. 161–162.
22.
Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market [2006] OJ L 376/36.
23.
Krajewski et al. 2009.
24.
Opinion 1/94, above n 9, p I-5306.
25.
Von Bogdandy and Bast 2010, p. 275; Weiler 2003, p. 8.
26.
Von Bogdandy and Bast 2010, p. 285; Schütze 2009, Chap. 3.
27.
Ibid.
28.
Schütze 2009, pp. 175–179.
29.
See e.g. Case C-70/94 Werner v Germany [1995] ECR I-3189 and Case C-83/94 Leifer and Others [1995] ECR I-3231.
30.
Case 104/81 Hauptzollamt Mainz v. Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641, para 12.
31.
Case C-13/07 Commission v. Council, para 142 of the Opinion; the case was later withdrawn, and there is therefore no judgment.
32.
Weiler 2003.
33.
Eeckhout 2011, pp. 39–57.
34.
Case C-94/03 Commission v Council [2006] ECR I-1 and Case C-178/03 Commission v European Parliament and Council [2006] ECR I-107.
35.
Case C-411/06 Commission v European Parliament and Council [2009] ECR I-7585.
36.
Ibid, para 13 of the Opinion.
37.
Ibid, para 12.
38.
See e.g. Kuijper 1993.
39.
Case C-124/95 The Queen, ex parte Centro-Com v HM Treasury and Bank of England [1997] ECR I-81, paras 23–30.
40.
Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 [2012] OJ L 88/1.
41.
The English term “empowered” is different from the term “authorization” in the case-law; however, the French versions of the case-law and of the Treaty employ the same term, “habilitation”.
42.
See e.g. Piris 2010, pp. 279–286; Craig 2010, pp. 389–391; Krajewski 2012.
43.
Cases on bilateral investment treaties have already started coming before the Court: Case C-205/06 Commission v Austria [2009] ECR I-1301; Case C-249/06 Commission v Sweden [2009] ECR I-1335; Case C-118/07 Commission v Finland [2009] ECR I-10889; and Case C-264/09 Commission v Slovakia, judgment of 15 September 2011, not yet reported.
44.
See the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries, COM/2010/0344 final.
45.
See the contribution by Timmermans.
46.
They are: Article 19(2) TFEU (incentive measures anti-discrimination policies); Article 79(4) TFEU (integration of immigrants); Article 84 TFEU (crime prevention); Article 153(2) TFEU (social policy cooperation); Articles 165(4) and 166(4) TFEU (education and vocational training); Article 167(5) TFEU (culture); Article 168(5) TFEU (health); Article 173(2) TFEU (industry); Article 189(2) TFEU (space policy); Article 195(2) TFEU (tourism); Article 196(2) TFEU (civil protection); Article 197(2) TFEU (administrative cooperation).
47.
Case C-13/07 Commission v. Council, para 142 of the Opinion.
48.
Opinion 2/91 re Convention No 170 of the ILO [1993] ECR I-1061, paras 7–9.
49.
Opinion 1/76 re Inland Waterways [1977] ECR 741.
50.
Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971] ECR 263.
51.
See, for this more appropriate use of the concept of implied powers, the seminal study by Nicolaysen 1966.
52.
But see Waelbroeck 1982; Cross 1992.
53.
Eeckhout 2011, Chap. 3. See also the contribution by Timmermans.
54.
Opinion 1/76, above note 49, paras 3–4.
55.
Case C-466/98 Commission v United Kingdom [2002] ECR I-9247, Opinion Tizzano AG.
56.
See also von Bogdandy and Bast 2010, pp. 278–280.
57.
Opinion 1/94, above note 9, paras 85–86.
58.
Case 22/70 Commission v Council, above note 50.
59.
Opinion 2/91, above note 48, paras 22–26.
60.
Opinion 1/94, above note 9, para 95.
61.
Case C-519/03 Commission v Luxemburg [2005] ECR I-3067 and Case C-433/03 Commission v Germany [2005] ECR I-6985.
62.
Opinion 1/94, above note 9, para 96.
63.
Case C-466/98 Commission v United Kingdom, above note 55, Opinion Tizzano AG, paras 71–74.
64.
Ibid, para 75.
65.
Ibid, para 77.
66.
Case C-476/98 Commission v Germany [2002] ECR I-9855, paras 108–112. See also Case C–467/98 Commission v. Denmark [2002] ECR I–9519; Case C–468/98 Commission v. Sweden [2002] ECR I–9575; Case C–469/98 Commission v. Finland [2002] ECR I–9627; Case C–471/98 Commission v. Belgium [2002] ECR I–9681; Case C–472/98 Commission v. Luxembourg [2002] ECR I–9741; Case C–475/98 Commission v. Austria [2002] ECR I–9797; and Case C-523/04 Commission v. Netherlands [2007] ECR I-3267.
67.
Opinion 1/03 re Lugano Convention [2006] ECR I-1145, paras 114–133.
68.
Opinion 2/91, above note 48, paras 25–26.
69.
Craig 2010, pp. 166–167; Cremona 2008, pp. 58–62.
70.
The French, German, Dutch, Italian and Spanish versions do not show a distinction between ‘may’ and ‘is likely’.
71.
Cremona 2008, p. 62.
72.
Final report of Working Group VII on External Action, CONV 459/02 at 4 and 15–16. See also Cremona 2003.

References

Craig P (2010) The Lisbon Treaty—law, politics, and treaty reform. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Cremona M (1990) The completion of the internal market and the incomplete commercial policy of the European Community. Eur Law Rev 15:283
Google Scholar
Cremona M (2003) The draft constitutional treaty: external relations and external action. Common Market Law Rev 40:1351
Google Scholar
Cremona M (2008) Defining competence in EU external relations: lessons from the treaty reform process. In: Maresceau M, Dashwood A (eds) Law and practice of EU external relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 34–69
Chapter Google Scholar
Cross ED (1992) Pre-emption of Member State Law in the European Economic Community: a framework for analysis. Common Market Law Rev 29:447
Google Scholar
Eeckhout P (1994) The European internal market and international trade—a legal analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Eeckhout P (2011) EU external relations law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) (2011) Mixed agreements revisited. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Google Scholar
Krajewski M (2012) The reform of the common commercial policy. In: Biondi A, Eeckhout P, Ripley S (eds) EU law after Lisbon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 290–309
Google Scholar
Krajewski M, Neergaard U, van de Gronden J (eds) (2009) The changing legal framework for services of general interest in Europe. TMC Asser Press, The Hague
Google Scholar
Kuijper PJ (1993) Trade sanctions, security and human rights and commercial policy. In: Maresceau M (ed) The European community’s commercial policy after 1992: the legal dimension. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 387–422
Google Scholar
Nicolaysen G (1966) Zur Theorie von den Implied Powers in den Europäischen Gemeinschaften. Europarecht 2:129
Google Scholar
Piris J-C (2010) The Lisbon Treaty—a legal and political analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Schütze R (2009) From dual to cooperative federalism—the changing structure of European Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Tridimas T, Eeckhout P (1994) The external competence of the community and the case-law of the Court of Justice: principle versus pragmatism. Yb Eur Law 14:143
Article Google Scholar
Von Bogdandy A, Bast J (2010) The federal order of competences. In: Von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Principles of European Constitutional Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 275–307
Google Scholar
Waelbroeck M (1982) The emergent doctrine of community pre-emption—consent and re-delegation. In: Sandalow T, Stein E (eds) Courts and free markets. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 548–580
Google Scholar
Weiler JHH (1999) The constitution of Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Weiler JHH (2003) In Defence of the status quo: Europe’s constitutional Sonderweg. In: Weiler JHH, Wind M (eds) European constitutionalism beyond the state. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 7–23
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University College London, London, UK
Piet Eeckhout

Authors

Piet Eeckhout
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piet Eeckhout .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eeckhout, P. (2013). Exclusive External Competences: Constructing the EU as an International Actor. In: The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l'Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_33

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_33
Published: 05 December 2012
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-896-5
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-897-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

TMC Asser Press (opens in a new tab)