Advertisement

The Acknowledgment of the Direct Effect of EU International Agreements: Does Legal Equality Still Matter?

  • Federico Casolari
Chapter

Abstract

The founding Treaties of the European Union do not explicitly regulate the legal status or the internal effect of the international agreements concluded by the Union itself. Moreover, the diplomatic practice of the EU legislature has long shown significant resistance to expressly regulating in the text of such agreements the issue of their effectiveness in the legal systems of the respective contracting parties. As a consequence, it is the case law of the European Court of Justice that has tried to shed light on the issue as far as the EU legal order is concerned. In keeping with the common thread of this volume, this chapter carries out an analysis of the ECJ’s rulings on the direct effect of EU agreements through the prism of the EU twin principles of legal equality and non-discrimination, so as to point out the role that direct effect—and the relative ECJ case law—may play in contributing to strengthening the concrete implementation of those principles. Generally speaking, this chapter argues that a Janus-faced attitude towards the principles of equality and non-discrimination comes through in the case law of the ECJ applying the doctrine of direct effect to international agreements. More precisely, the chapter distinguishes two opposite approaches labelled ‘functionalist’ and ‘protective’. The former, it is argued, establishes a functional relationship between direct effect and the equality and non-discrimination principles . From this perspective, the Court’s affirmative finding of a direct effect may be conceived—to some extent—as one of the tools available at the EU level to strengthen a proper implementation of those principles. On the second approach, by contrast, the lack of direct effect of some international agreements entered into by the Union is justified with the need to prevent those principles from being jeopardized and, more generally, to protect EU law. The chapter also looks at the most recent practice of EU political institutions on the signing and conclusion of international agreements. By leading to the express denial of the direct effect of those agreements, that practice marks a significant shift away from the previous trend, a trend that, as mentioned, has so far been characterised by self-restraint of those EU institutions on the agreements’ internal legal effects. This new trend is illustrated in light of the two aforementioned judicial approaches, and its possible consequences on the effective implementation of the equality and non-discrimination principles are weighed.

Keywords

Direct effect International agreements WTO European Court of Justice Equality principle Non-discrimination principle 

References

  1. Berkey JO (1998) The European Court of Justice and direct effect for the GATT: a question worth revisiting. Eur J Int Law 9:626–657Google Scholar
  2. Biondi Dal Monte F (2014) Dhahbi c. Italia: chi ha diritto di accedere al Sistema di welfare? Quaderni costituzionali 33:743–746Google Scholar
  3. Bonafé BI (2012) Direct effect of international agreements in the EU legal order: does it depend on the existence of an international dispute settlement mechanism? In: Cannizzaro E et al (eds) International law as law of the European Union. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston, pp 229–248Google Scholar
  4. Bronckers M (2015) Is investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) superior to litigation before domestic courts? An EU view on bilateral trade agreements. J Int Econ Law 18:655–677Google Scholar
  5. Cannizzaro E (2012) The neo-monism of the European legal order. In: Cannizzaro E et al (eds) International law as law of the European Union. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston, pp 35–58Google Scholar
  6. Casolari F (2008) L’incorporazione del diritto internazionale nell’ordinamento dell’Unione europea. Giuffrè Editore, MilanGoogle Scholar
  7. Casolari F (2012) Giving indirect effect to international law within the EU legal order: the doctrine of consistent interpretation. In: Cannizzaro E et al (eds) International law as law of the European Union. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston, pp 395–415Google Scholar
  8. Casolari F (2014) EU loyalty after Lisbon: an expectation gap to be filled? In: Rossi LS, Casolari F (eds) The EU after Lisbon: amending or coping with the existing treaties? Springer, Heidelberg, pp 93–133Google Scholar
  9. Davies G (2016) The European Union legislature as an agent of the European Court of Justice. J Common Mark Stud 54:846–861Google Scholar
  10. den Hertog L, Stroß S (2013) Coherence in EU external relations. Concepts and legal rooting of an ambiguous term. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 18:373–388Google Scholar
  11. Díez-Hochleitner J (1998) La posición del Derecho Internacional en el ordenamiento comunitario. McGraw-Hill, MadridGoogle Scholar
  12. Duke S (2011) Consistency, coherence and European external action: the path to Lisbon and beyond. In: Koutrakos P (ed) European foreign policy—legal and political perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northampton, pp 15–54Google Scholar
  13. Dutheil de la Rochère J (2013) L’effet direct des accords internationaux. In: Rosas A et al (eds) The Court of Justice and the construction of Europe: analyses and perspectives on sixty years of case-law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 637–657Google Scholar
  14. Eckes C (2016) International Rulings and the EU Legal Order: Autonomy as Legitimacy? CLEER Papers 2016/2. http://www.asser.nl/media/3002/cleer16-2_complete_web.pdf. Accessed 31 Dec 2016
  15. Fahey E (2016) The TTIP negotiations innovations: on legal reasons for Cheer, Verfassungsblog. http://verfassungsblog.de/the-ttip-negotiations-innovations-on-legal-reasons-for-cheer/. Accessed 31 Dec 2016)
  16. Flaesch-Mougin C, Bosse-Platière I (2014) L’application provisoire des accords de l’Union européenne. In: Govaere I et al (eds) The European Union in the world—essays in honour of Marc Maresceau. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston, pp 293–323Google Scholar
  17. Gáspár-Szilágyi S (2015a) The ‘primacy’ and ‘direct effect’ of EU international agreements. Eur Public Law 21:343–370Google Scholar
  18. Gáspár-Szilágyi S (2015b) The ‘horizontal direct effect’ of EU international agreements: is the Court avoiding a clear answer? Leg Issues of Econ Integr 42:93–118Google Scholar
  19. Gallo D, Fernanda GN (2016) The external dimension of EU investment law: Jurisdictional clashes and trasfromative adjudication. Fordham International Law Journal 39:1081–1152Google Scholar
  20. Gatti M, Manzini P (2012) External representation of the European Union in the conclusion of international agreements. Common Mark Law Rev 49:1703–1734Google Scholar
  21. Gattinara G (2012) Consistent interpretation of WTO rulings in the EU legal order? In: Cannizzaro E et al (eds) International law as law of the European Union. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston, pp 269–287Google Scholar
  22. Govaere I (2016) TTIP and dispute settlement: potential consequences for the autonomous EU legal order. College of Europe. Research Papers in Law 1/2016. https://www.coleurope.eu/study/european-legal-studies/research-activities/research-papers-law. Accessed 31 Dec 2016)
  23. Groenendijk K (2015) The Court of Justice and the development of EEC-Turkey association law. In: Thym D, Zoeteweij-Turhan M (eds) Rights of third-country national under EU association agreements—degrees of free movement and citizenship. Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, pp 39–61Google Scholar
  24. Henrard K (2008) Equality of individuals. Max Planck Encyclopedia of public international law (online edition)Google Scholar
  25. Hillion C (2013) Cohérence et action extérieure de l’Union. In: Neframi E (ed) Objectifs et compétences dans l’Union européenne. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 229–261Google Scholar
  26. Hindenlang S (2015) The investment chapters of the EU’s international trade and investment agreements in a comparative perspective. European Parliament study, Directorate-General for external policies, policy department. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/534998/EXPO_STU(2015)534998_EN.pdf. Accessed 31 Dec 2016
  27. Jacobs FG (2008) Direct effect and interpretation of international agreements in the recent case-law of the European Court of Justice. In: Dashwood A, Maresceau M (eds) Law and practice of EU external relations—salient features of a changing landscape. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 13–33Google Scholar
  28. Jacqué J-P (2014) The principle of institutional balance. Common Mark Law Rev 41:383–391Google Scholar
  29. Jardim de Santa Cruz Oliveira MA (2015) International trade agreements before domestic courts lessons from the EU and Brazilian experiences. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaddous C (2008) Effects of international agreements in the EU legal order. In: Cremona M, de Witte B (eds) EU foreign relations law—constitutional fundamentals. Hart, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, pp 291–312Google Scholar
  31. Klabbers J (2001) International law in Community law: the law and politics of direct effect. Yearb Eur Law 21(1):263–298Google Scholar
  32. Klamert M (2014) The principle of loyalty in EU law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuilwijk KJ (1996) The European Court of Justice and the GATT dilemma: public interest versus individual rights? Nexed Edition, BeuningenGoogle Scholar
  34. Lenaerts K (2014) Direct applicability and direct effect of international law in the EU legal order. In: Govaere I et al (eds) The European Union in the world—essays in honour of Marc Maresceau. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston, pp 45–64Google Scholar
  35. Lenk H (2016) An investment court system for the new generation of EU trade and investment agreements: a discussion of the free trade agreement with Vietnam and the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada. European Papers. European Forum, 14 August 2016, pp 1–13. http://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/europeanforum/investment-court-system-new-generation-eu-trade-and-investment-agreements. Accessed 31 Dec 2016
  36. Maresceau M (2006) Bilateral agreements concluded by the European Community. Recueil des cours de l’Académie de droit international—Collect Courses Acad Int Law 309:125–451Google Scholar
  37. Maresceau M (2013) The Court of Justice and bilateral agreements. In: Rosas A et al (eds) The Court of Justice and the construction of Europe: analyses and perspectives on sixty years of case-law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 693–717Google Scholar
  38. Martines F (2014) Direct effect of international agreements of the European Union. Eur J Int Law 25:129–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mendez M (2013) The legal effects of EU agreements—maximalist treaty enforcement and judicial avoidance techniques. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Nollkaemper A (2014) The duality of direct effect of international law. Eur J Int Law 25:105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pavoni R (2012) Controversial aspects of the interaction between international and EU law in environmental matters: direct effect and Member States’ unilateral measures. In: Morgera E (ed) The external environmental policy of the European Union—EU and international law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 347–377Google Scholar
  42. Peers S (2001) Fundamental right or political whim? WTO law and the European Court of Justice. In: de Búrca G, Scott J (eds) The EU and the WTO—legal and constitutional issues. Hart, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, pp 111–130Google Scholar
  43. Pescatore P (2015) The doctrine of “direct effect”: an infant disease of Community law. Eur Law Rev 40:135–153. The piece was originally published in 1983 (Eur Law Rev 8:155–177)Google Scholar
  44. Petersmann E-U (2015) Transformative transatlantic free trade agreements without rights and remedies of citizens? J Int Econ Law 18:579–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pigeon N (2016) L’Accord de libre-échange UE-Viêt Nam: une hiérarchisation des objectifs de l’action extérieure au détriment de sa cohérence? European Papers. European Forum, 14 August 2016, pp 1–14. http://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/europeanforum/accord-de-libre-echange-ue-vietnam-hierarchisation-objectifs-action-exterieure. Accessed 31 Dec 2016
  46. Prechal S (2000) Does direct effect still matter? Common Mark Law Rev 37:1047–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ruiz-Fabri H (2014) Is there a case—legally and politically—for direct effect of WTO obligations? Eur J Int Law 25:151–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Semertzi A (2014) The preclusion of direct effect in the recently concluded EU free trade agreements. Common Mark Law Rev 51:1125–1158Google Scholar
  49. Tancredi A (2012) On the absence of direct effect of the WTO dispute settlement Body’s decisions in the EU legal order. In: Cannizzaro E et al (eds) International law as law of the European Union. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston, pp 249–268Google Scholar
  50. Thym D (2015) The missing link: direct effect. CETA/TTIP and Investor-State Dispute Settlement EU Law Analysis—Expert Insight into EU Law Developments. http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.it/2015/01/the-missing-link-direct-effect-cetattip.html. Accessed 31 Dec 2016
  51. Tietje C (2008) The status of international law in the European legal order: the case of international treaties and non-binding international instruments. In: Wouters J et al (eds) The Europeanisation of international law—The status of international law in the EU and its Member States. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 55–85Google Scholar
  52. Uwea G (2016) Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in future EU investment-related agreements: is the autonomy of the EU legal order an obstacle? Law Pract Int Courts Trib 15:102–151Google Scholar
  53. Van der Loo G (2016) The EU-Ukraine association agreement and deep and comprehensive free trade area—a new legal instrument for EU integration without membership. Brill, Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Elsuwege P (2016) Legal implications of the Duch “No” vote for the future of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, SIDIBlog. http://www.sidiblog.org/2016/05/23/legal-implications-of-the-dutch-no-vote-for-the-future-of-the-eu-ukraine-association-agreement/. Accessed 31 Dec 2016
  55. van Rossem JW (2012) A constitutional inquiry into the way international law is received within the EU legal order. In: Cannizzaro E et al (eds) International law as law of the European Union. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston, pp 59–89Google Scholar
  56. Venzke I (2016) Investor-State Dispute Settlement in TTIP from the perspective of a public law theory of international adjudication. Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-11. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2742173. Accessed 31 Dec 2016
  57. von Bogdandy A (2008) Pluralism, direct effect, and the ultimate say: on the relationship between international and domestic constitutional law. Int J Const Law 6:397–413Google Scholar
  58. Winter JA (1972) Direct applicability and direct effect: two distinct and different concepts in Community law. Common Mark Law Rev 9:425–438Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alma Mater Studiorum – Università degli Studi di BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations