Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

EU Legal Obstacles to the Belt and Road Initiative: Towards a China-EU Framework on the Belt and Road Initiative

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Belt and Road Initiative

Abstract

The Belt and Road Initiative aims to connect China with the rest of Asia and Europe, thereby creating a Eurasian continent. Since the European Union is the terminal point of both the overland and maritime routes of the Belt and Road Initiative, the European Union is an essential partner for the success of the Initiative. Nonetheless, the EU has not yet adopted any common position on the Belt and Road Initiative. Whereas southern and eastern EU Member States are generally enthusiastic, northern and western EU Member States are more hesitant. China for its part focuses on the 16+1 framework, which includes EU and non-EU Member States, but has not yet comprehensively engaged with the EU. However, such engagement is needed, due to significant legal obstacles that may arise when the Belt and Road Initiative is implemented within the EU legal order. Although China may prefer to engage with individual EU Member States, due to the pooling of sovereignty at the EU level, EU Member States do no longer have sole decision-making powers in the areas of internal market, international investment, public procurement, etc. Consequently, projects under the Belt and Road Initiative may conflict with EU rules, as is evidenced by the EU Commission’s investigation into the Budapest-Belgrade Railway for possible violation of EU public procurement rules. The contribution looks into the potential legal obstacles posed by EU law for the successful implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative and proposes that China and the EU should set up a comprehensive international framework through which the European part of the Belt and Road Initiative may be realized.

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 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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.

    ECJ, Joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [EU:C:2008:461], paras. 282–285; ECJ, C-284/16, Slowakische Republic v. Achmea [EU:C:2018:158], para. 32; ECJ, Opinion 1/17, Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Between Canada, of the One Part, and the EU and Its Member States, of the Other Part [EU:C:2019:341], paras. 107 and 109–110.

  2. 2.

    ECJ, Case 6/64, Flaminio Costa v. ENEL [EU:C:1964:66]; ECJ, C-399/11, Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal [EU:C:2013:107], para. 59. Primacy of EU law requires Member States to set aside national law that conflicts with EU law that has direct effect; if EU law does not have direct effect, Member States must as far as possible interpret national law in line with EU law: ECJ, C-573/17, Criminal Proceedings Against Daniel Adam Popławski [EU:C:2019:530], paras. 53–68.

  3. 3.

    Article 4(3) TEU.

  4. 4.

    Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union, O.J. 21 March 2019, L79I/1.

  5. 5.

    M. Ferchen, “Hungaria-Serbia Railway Case Study and International Comparisons”, in M. Ferchen et al. (eds.), Assessing China’s Influence in Europe Through Investments in Technology and Infrastructure, Four Cases, Leiden Asia Center, 2018, 6, available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/Report_Assessing_China_Influence-in-Europe.pdf.

  6. 6.

    During a visit to Kazakhstan, on 7 September 2013, President Xi proposed that China and Central Asia cooperate to build a Silk Road economic belt; on 3 October 2013, in Indonesia President Xi introduced the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road as a new maritime silk road connecting China with the members of ASEAN, South Asian countries, Africa and Europe: D. Mitrović, “The Belt and Road: China’s Ambitious Initiative”, 59 China International Studies 2016, 76.

  7. 7.

    European Parliamentary Research Service, “One Belt One Road (OBOR), China’s Regional Integration Initiative”, July 2016, 2, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/586608/EPRS_BRI(2016)586608_EN.pdf.

  8. 8.

    Ibid.; see also European Council of Foreign Relation, “Explaining China’s Foreign Policy Reset”, April 2015, available at: https://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/ChinaAnalysisEng_Special_issue_1503_Final_v3_(2).pdf; Y. Sun, “March West: China’s Response to the U.S. Rebalancing”, Brookings, 31 January 2013, available at: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2013/01/31/march-west-chinas-response-to-the-u-s-rebalancing/.

  9. 9.

    R. Aoyama, “‘One Belt, One Road’: China’s New Global Strategy”, 5 Journal of Contemporary China Studies 2016, 3–4.

  10. 10.

    S. D. Gleave, “Research for TRAN Committee: The New Silk Route—Opportunities and Challenges for EU Transport”, European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels, 2018, 15 and 28–29, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/585907/IPOL_STU(2018)585907_EN.pdf; D. Mitrović, “The Belt and Road: China’s Ambitious Initiative”, 59 China International Studies 2016, 77–79.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., 23.

  12. 12.

    F.-P. Van der Putten, J. Seaman, M. Huotari, A. Ekman, & M. Otero-Iglesias (eds.), Europe and China’s New Silk Roads, European Think-tank Network on China, December 2016, 3, available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Europe_and_Chinas_New_Silk_Roads_0.pdf.

  13. 13.

    At the time of writing, 31 October 2019, the EU Member States are: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, The UK: https://www.aiib.org/en/about-aiib/governance/members-of-bank/index.html.

  14. 14.

    National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, “Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road”, 28 March 2015, available at: http://en.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease/201503/t20150330_669367.html.

  15. 15.

    F.-P. Van der Putten, J. Seaman, M. Huotari, A. Ekman, & M. Otero-Iglesias (eds.), Europe and China’s New Silk Roads, European Think-tank Network on China, December 2016, 4, available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Europe_and_Chinas_New_Silk_Roads_0.pdf.

  16. 16.

    M. N. Shaw, International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014, 656–657. For instance, the Italian-Chinese Memorandum of Understanding specifically stipulates that it does not create legally binding rights and obligations: Paragraph VI Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Italian Republic and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Cooperation within the Framework of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative, available at: http://www.governo.it/sites/governo.it/files/Memorandum_Italia-Cina_EN.pdf.

  17. 17.

    European Parliament, “China, the 16+1 Cooperation Format and the EU”, 2017, 3, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/625173/EPRS_BRI(2018)625173_EN.pdf.

  18. 18.

    Regulation (EU) No. 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No. 661/2010/EU, O.J. 20 December 2013, L348/1.

  19. 19.

    See Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/254 of 9 November 2018 on the adaptation of Annex III to Regulation (EU) No. 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, O.J. 14 February 2019, L43/1.

  20. 20.

    G. van Pinxteren, “China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Nice for China, Not for Europe”, 2017, 2–3, available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/Opinie_One_Belt_China_GvP_CAF.pdf; M. Okano-Heijmans & T. Kamo, “Engaging but Not Endorsing China’s Belt and Road Initiative”, 2019, 2, available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/PB_China_Belt_and_Road_Initiative_May_2019.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1RFGcH8QsGdFCFcmcR_iDYa38RC6jJ_aCmIEOhfGGKsi-ls93sQN9UN74; M. Ferchen, “Hungaria-Serbia Railway Case Study and International Comparisons”, in M. Ferchen et al. (eds.), Assessing China’s Influence in Europe Through Investments in Technology and Infrastructure, Four Cases, Leiden Asia Center, 2018, 5–8, available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/Report_Assessing_China_Influence-in-Europe.pdf; more specifically: World Bank, Belt and Road Economics: Opportunities and Risks of Transport Corridors, Washington, DC, World Bank, 2019, 39–42.

  21. 21.

    D. Pavlićević, “China in Central and Eastern Europe: 4 Myths”, The Diplomat, 16 June 2016, available at: https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/china-in-central-and-easterneurope-4-myths.

  22. 22.

    See, for instance, Spain: M. Esteban & M Otero-Iglesias, “Spain: Looking for Opportunities in OBOR”, in F.-P. Van der Putten, J. Seaman, M. Huotari, A. Ekman, & M. Otero-Iglesias (eds.), Europe and China’s New Silk Roads, European Think-tank Network on China, December 2016, 56–57, available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Europe_and_Chinas_New_Silk_Roads_0.pdf.

  23. 23.

    S. D. Gleave, “Research for TRAN Committee: The New Silk Route—Opportunities and Challenges for EU Transport”, European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels, 2018, 56–58, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/585907/IPOL_STU(2018)585907_EN.pdf.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., 68.

  25. 25.

    H. Lu, C. Rohr, M. Hafner, & A. Knack, China Belt and Road Initiative, Measuring the Impact of Improving Transport Connectivity on International Trade in the Region—A Proof-of-Concept Study, Rand, 2018, available at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2600/RR2625/RAND_RR2625.pdf; A. Garcia Herrero & J. Xu, China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Can Europe Expect Trade Gains?, Bruegel, 2016, available at: https://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/WP-05-2016.pdf. See also World Bank, Belt and Road Economics: Opportunities and Risks of Transport Corridors, Washington, DC, World Bank, 2019, 43–64.

  26. 26.

    J. Zheng, “Does Europe Matter? The Role of Europe in Chinese Narratives of ‘One Belt, One Road’ and ‘New Type of Great Power Relations’”, 55(5) Journal of Common Market Studies 2017, 1170.

  27. 27.

    Z. Liu, “Europe’s Protectionist Position on the Belt and Road and Its Influence”, 72 China International Studies 2018, 146.

  28. 28.

    F.-P. Van der Putten, J. Seaman, M. Huotari, A. Ekman, & M. Otero-Iglesias (eds.), Europe and China’s New Silk Roads, European Think-tank Network on China, December 2016, 5, available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Europe_and_Chinas_New_Silk_Roads_0.pdf.

  29. 29.

    https://www.eif.org/what_we_do/equity/news/2017/eib_silk_road_fund_initiative.htm.

  30. 30.

    M. Okano-Heijmans & T. Kamo, “Engaging but Not Endorsing China’s Belt and Road Initiative”, 2019, 2, available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/PB_China_Belt_and_Road_Initiative_May_2019.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1RFGcH8QsGdFCFcmcR_iDYa38RC6jJ_aCmIEOhfGGKsi-ls93sQN9UN74.

  31. 31.

    Handelsblatt, “EU Ambassadors Band Together Against Silk Road”, available at: https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/politics/china-first-eu-ambassadors-band-together-against-silk-road/23581860.html.

  32. 32.

    European Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, “Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank, Connecting Europe and Asia—Building Blocks for an EU Strategy”, 19 September 2018, 2–3, available at: https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/joint_communication_-_connecting_europe_and_asia_-_building_blocks_for_an_eu_strategy_2018-09-19.pdf.

  33. 33.

    Available at: https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/68018/partnership-sustainable-connectivity-and-quality-infrastructure-between-european-union-and_en.

  34. 34.

    European Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, “Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council, EU-China—A Strategic Outlook”, 12 March 2019, 1, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/communication-eu-china-a-strategic-outlook.pdf.

  35. 35.

    Joint Statement of the 21st EU-China Summit, 10 April 2019, para. 4, available at: https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china_en/60836/Joint%20statement%20of%20the%2021st%20EU-China%20summit.

  36. 36.

    Vice-President of the European Commission Maroš Šefčovič, “Connecting Europe and Asia: Seeking Synergies with China and the Belt and Road”, 25 April 2019, available at: https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china/61412/connecting-europe-and-asia-seeking-synergies-china%E2%80%99s-belt-and-road_en?fbclid=IwAR23aj_yzA85A_SVXclTe3z1BBYpL3QHMtmClL5r-xEwaHezieZCGl9fmEU.

  37. 37.

    Paragraph VI Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Italian Republic and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Cooperation within the Framework of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative, available at: http://www.governo.it/sites/governo.it/files/Memorandum_Italia-Cina_EN.pdf.

  38. 38.

    Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, O.J. 26 October 2012, C326/1; Consolidated Version of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, O.J. 26 October 2012, C326/47.

  39. 39.

    Article 5(2) TEU.

  40. 40.

    Article 3(1)(e) TFEU.

  41. 41.

    Article 21(2)–(3) TEU; Article 205 TFEU; Article 207(1) TFEU.

  42. 42.

    European Commission, “Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Social and Economic Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Trade, Growth and World Affairs: Trade Policy as a Core Component of the EU’s 2020 Strategy”, 2010, 15, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0612&from=en.

  43. 43.

    S. Gstöhl & D. Hanf, “The EU’s Post-Lisbon Free Trade Agreements: Commercial Interests in a Changing Constitutional Context”, 20(6) European Law Journal 2014, 736; A. Dimopoulos, “The Effects of the Lisbon Treaty on the Principles and Objectives of the Common Commercial Policy”, 15(2) European Foreign Affairs Review 2010, 161.

  44. 44.

    ECJ, C-414/11, Daiichi Sankyo and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland [EU:C:2013:520], para. 50; ECJ, C-137/12, Commission v. Council [EU:C:2013:675], para. 56; ECJ, Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore [EU:C:2017:376], para. 35.

  45. 45.

    ECJ, C-414/11, Daiichi Sankyo and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland [EU:C:2013:520], para. 51; ECJ, C-137/12, Commission v. Council [EU:C:2013:675], para. 57; ECJ, Opinion 3/15, Marrakesh Treaty on Access to Published Works [EU:C:2017:114], para. 61; ECJ, Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore [EU:C:2017:376], para. 36.

  46. 46.

    ECJ, Opinion 1/08, Agreements Modifying the Schedules of Specific Commitments Under the GATS [EU:C:2009:739], paras. 4 and 118–119.

  47. 47.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore [EU:C:2017:376].

  48. 48.

    ECJ, C-446/04, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, [EU:C:2006:774], paras. 181–182; ECJ, C-326/07, Commission v. Italy [EU:C:2009:193], para. 35; ECJ, Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore [EU:C:2017:376], para. 80.

  49. 49.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore [EU:C:2017:376], paras. 225–244 and 285–293.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., paras. 142–148.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., para. 166.

  52. 52.

    State Council of the People’s Republic of China, “Action Plan on the Belt and Road Initiative”, 2015, available at: http://english.www.gov.cn/archive/publications/2015/03/30/content_281475080249035.htm; G. Grieger, “European Parliament Research Service Briefing, One Belt, One Road (OBOR): China’s Regional Integration Initiative”, 2016, 4, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/586608/EPRS_BRI(2016)586608_EN.pdf.

  53. 53.

    Supra, note 25.

  54. 54.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore [EU:C:2017:376], paras. 157 and ff. More specifically, if an area falls within the scope of the WTO, this is a strong indication that the area concerned has a direct and immediate effect on trade: ECJ, C-414/11, Daiichi Sankyo and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland [EU:C:2013:520], paras. 52 and ff.

  55. 55.

    ECJ, Opinion 3/15, Marrakesh Treaty on Access to Published Works [EU:C:2017:114], paras. 62 and ff.

  56. 56.

    Article 207(5) TFEU juncto Article 4(2)(g) TFEU.

  57. 57.

    ECJ, C-168/14, Grupo Itevelesa and Others [EU:C:2015:685], paras. 45–46.

  58. 58.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore [EU:C:2017:376], paras. 62–68.

  59. 59.

    Article 2(2) TFEU; ECJ, Case 22/70, Commission v. Council [EU:C:1971:32], para. 31.

  60. 60.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/91, Convention Nº 170 of the International Labour Organization Concerning Safety in the use of Chemicals at Work [EU:C:1993:106], para. 9. See also ECJ, Opinion 1/94, Competence of the Community to Conclude International Agreements Concerning Services and the Protection of Intellectual Property [EU:C:1994:384], paras. 72–105.

  61. 61.

    M. Chamon, “Implied Exclusive Powers in the ECJ Post-Lisbon Jurisprudence: The Continued Development of the ERTA Doctrine”, 55 Common Market Law Review 2018, 1105.

  62. 62.

    ECJ, Opinion 1/03, Competence of the Community to Conclude the New Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters [EU:C:2006:81], para. 126.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., para. 128; ECJ, C-467/98, Commission v. Denmark (“Open Skies”) [EU:C:2002:625], paras. 85–92.

  64. 64.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/91, Convention Nº 170 of the International Labour Organization Concerning Safety in the Use of Chemicals at Work [EU:C:1993:106], paras. 25–26.

  65. 65.

    M. Chamon, “Implied Exclusive Powers in the ECJ Post-Lisbon Jurisprudence: The Continued Development of the ERTA Doctrine”, 55 Common Market Law Review 2018, 1120–1121.

  66. 66.

    ECJ, Opinion 1/13, Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction [EU:C:2014:2303], para. 74. Similarly, see ECJ, C-114/12, Commission v. Council (Protection of Neighbouring Rights of Broadcasting Organisations) [EU:C:2014:2151], para. 74; ECJ, C-66/13, Green Network SpA v. Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas [EU:C:2014:2399], para. 33; ECJ, Opinion 3/15, Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled [EU:C:2017:114], para. 108.

  67. 67.

    ECJ, Opinion 1/13, Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction [EU:C:2014:2303], para. 108.

  68. 68.

    ECJ, Opinion 3/15, Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled [EU:C:2017:114], para. 124.

  69. 69.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore [EU:C:2017:376], paras. 195–212.

  70. 70.

    Opinion Advocate General Sharpston, Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore [EU:C:2016:992], paras. 239–241.

  71. 71.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore [EU:C:2017:376], paras. 175–195.

  72. 72.

    M. Chamon, “Implied Exclusive Powers in the ECJ Post-Lisbon Jurisprudence: The Continued Development of the ERTA Doctrine”, 55 Common Market Law Review 2018, 1120–1121.

  73. 73.

    See, e.g., ECJ, Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore [EU:C:2017:376], paras. 240–243.

  74. 74.

    ECJ, C-370/12, Thomas Pringle v. Government of Ireland and Others [EU:C:2012:756], paras. 68–69; C. Hillion, “Mixity and Coherence in EU External Relations: The Significance of the Duty of Cooperation”, CLEER Working Papers 2009/2, 21.

  75. 75.

    Article 4(3) TEU; ECJ, Case 22/70, Commission v. Council [EU:C:1971:32], paras. 17–22; ECJ, Opinion 1/03, Competence of the Community to Conclude the New Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters [EU:C:2006:81], para. 119; ECJ, C-55/00, Elide Gottardo v. Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) [EU:C:2002:16], para. 32.

  76. 76.

    ECJ, C-266/03, Commission v. Luxembourg [EU:C:2005:341], para. 58; ECJ, C-433/03, Commission v. Germany [EU:C:2005:462], para. 64; ECJ, C-124/95, The Queen, ex parte Centro-Com Srl v. HM Treasury and Bank of England [EU:C:1997:8], paras. 25 and 27.

  77. 77.

    ECJ, C-266/03, Commission v. Luxembourg [EU:C:2005:341], para. 60.

  78. 78.

    E. Neframi, “The Duty of Loyalty: Rethinking Its Scope Through It Application in the Field of EU External Relations”, 47 Common Market Law Review 2010, 352–353.

  79. 79.

    ECJ, Opinion 1/76, Draft Agreement Establishing a European Laying-Up Fund for Inland Waterway Vessels [EU:C:1977:63], paras. 10–12.

  80. 80.

    ECJ, C-266/03, Commission v. Luxembourg [EU:C:2005:341], para. 60; ECJ, C-433/03, Commission v. Germany [EU:C:2005:462], para. 66.

  81. 81.

    ECJ, C-246/07, Commission v. Sweden [EU:C:2010:203], paras. 103–104.

  82. 82.

    European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, “Report of the 23rd Round of Negotiations for the EU-China Investment Agreement”, 25 September 2019, available at: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2019/september/tradoc_158373.pdf.

  83. 83.

    ECJ, Joined Cases 21/72 to 24/72, International Fruit Company NV and Others v. Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit [EU:C:1972:115], paras. 10–18.

  84. 84.

    ECJ, Case 812/79, Attorney General v. Juan C. Burgoa [EU:C:1980:231], para. 8; ECJ, C-84/98, Commission v. Portugal [EU:C:2000:359], para. 53; ECJ, C-205/06, Commission v. Austria [EU:C:2009:118], para. 33; ECJ, Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore [EU:C:2017:376], para. 254.

  85. 85.

    ECJ, C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakaat Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [EU:C:2008:461], paras. 301–304.

  86. 86.

    ECJ, C-158/91, Criminal Proceedings Against Jean-Claude Levy [EU:C:1993:332], para. 13.

  87. 87.

    ECJ, C-124/95, The Queen, ex parte Centro-Com Srl v. HM Treasury and Bank of England [EU:C:1997:8], para. 60; ECJ, C-324/93, The Queen v. Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Evans Medical Ltd and Macfarlan Smith Ltd [EU:C:1995:84], para. 32.

  88. 88.

    ECJ, C-62/98, Commission v. Portugal [EU:C:2000:358], paras. 46–49.

  89. 89.

    ECJ, C-264/09, Commission v. Slovak Republic [EU:C:2011:580], paras. 47–52.

  90. 90.

    UNCTAD, “International Investment Agreements Navigator”, available at: https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/countries/94/hungary?type=bits.

  91. 91.

    Regulation No. 1219/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries, O.J. 20 December 2012, L351/40.

  92. 92.

    Articles 2 and 5 Regulation No. 1219/2012.

  93. 93.

    Article 6 Regulation No. 1219/2012.

  94. 94.

    Article 9 Regulation No. 1219/2012.

  95. 95.

    Article 10 Regulation No. 1219/2012.

  96. 96.

    Article 11 Regulation No. 1219/2012.

  97. 97.

    Article 12 Regulation No. 1219/2012.

  98. 98.

    On the Chinese investment in Piraeus, see F.-P. Van der Putten et al., “The Motives Behind COSCO’s Investment in the Port of Piraeus”, in M. Ferchen et al. (eds.), Assessing China’s Influence in Europe Through Investments in Technology and Infrastructure, Four Cases, Leiden Asia Center, 2018, 14 and ff., available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/Report_Assessing_China_Influence-in-Europe.pdf.

  99. 99.

    J. de Kok, “Towards a European Framework for Foreign Investment Reviews”, 44(1) European Law Review 2019, 25 and 35–38.

  100. 100.

    European Commission, “Staff Working Document on the Movement of Capital and the Freedom of Payments”, SWD(2019) 94 final, 53–54, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/2019-capital-market-monitoring-analysis_en.pdf.

  101. 101.

    Recital (4) Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union; J. de Kok, “Towards a European Framework for Foreign Investment Reviews”, 44(1) European Law Review 2019, 30–31.

  102. 102.

    ECJ, C-212/09, Commission v. Portugal [EU:C:2011:717], para. 47; ECJ, C-182/08, Glaxo Wellcome v. Finanzamt München II [EU:C:2009:559], para. 40.

  103. 103.

    Articles 65(1)(b) and 65(3) TFEU. See also Article 346 TFEU.

  104. 104.

    ECJ, C-54/99, Association Eglise de scientologie de Paris et Scientology International Reserves Trust contre Premier ministre [EU:C:2000:124], para. 17.

  105. 105.

    Ibid., para. 18.

  106. 106.

    Case C-112/05, Commission v. Germany [EU:C:2007:623], paras, 72–73.

  107. 107.

    Recitals (3)–(7) Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union.

  108. 108.

    Article 2(1)–(2) Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union.

  109. 109.

    Article 6(1)–(2) Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union.

  110. 110.

    Article 7(1) Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union.

  111. 111.

    Article 6(3) Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union.

  112. 112.

    Article 7(2) Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union.

  113. 113.

    Article 4 Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union.

  114. 114.

    Recital 19 Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union.

  115. 115.

    Article 8 Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union.

  116. 116.

    J. de Kok, “Towards a European Framework for Foreign Investment Reviews”, 44(1) European Law Review 2019, 43–44.

  117. 117.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, “Five Year Outcome List of Cooperation Between China and Central and Eastern-European Countries”, 28 November 2017 (32), available at: https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjdt_665385/2649_665393/t1514538.shtml.

  118. 118.

    T. Ghossein et al., “Public Procurement in the Belt and Road Initiative”, MTI Discussion Paper, No. 10, December 2018, 5–6, available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/143241544213097139/pdf/132786-MTI-Discussion-Paper-10-Final.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3ou_7eEcaG4rsDmlwlKyjqRpHxAFJq34YKdop75GUMSfE3kGgKHOFZkLg.

  119. 119.

    M. Ferchen, “Hungaria-Serbia Railway Case Study and International Comparisons”, in M. Ferchen et al. (eds.), Assessing China’s Influence in Europe Through Investments in Technology and Infrastructure, Four Cases, Leiden Asia Center, 2018, 4–5, available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/Report_Assessing_China_Influence-in-Europe.pdf; Delegation of the EU to China, “Reply by the EU Delegation to China on Recent Media Reports Related to the Belgrade-Budapest Railway Project”, 28 February 2017, available at: https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china/21594/reply-eu-delegation-china-recent-media-reports-related-belgrade-budapest-railway-project_en.

  120. 120.

    J. Suokas, “Hungary Opens Public Tender for Landmark Chinese Rail Project”, Global Times, 27 November 2017, available at: https://gbtimes.com/hungary-opens-public-tender-for-landmark-chinese-rail-project.

  121. 121.

    Reuters, “Hungary PM Orban’s Ally to Co-build Chinese Railway for $2.1 Billion”, 12 June 2019, available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hungary-china-railways-opus-global-idUSKCN1TD1JG.

  122. 122.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore [EU:C:2017:376], paras. 76–77.

  123. 123.

    Article IV Agreement on Government Procurement (Revised), available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/rev-gpr-94_01_e.htm.

  124. 124.

    Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/memobs_e.htm.

  125. 125.

    European Commission, “Guidance on the Participation of Third Country Bidders and Goods in the EU Procurement Market”, C(2019) 5494 final, 24 July 2019, 5–6, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/new-guidance-participation-third-country-bidders-eu-procurement-market_en.

  126. 126.

    Ibid., 8.

  127. 127.

    Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, O.J. 28 March 2014, L94/1; Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, O.J. 28 March 2014, L94/65; Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC, O.J. 28 March 2014, L94/243.

  128. 128.

    Article 6 Directive 2014/23/EU; Article 2(1) Directive 2014/24/EU; Article 3 Directive 2014/25/EU.

  129. 129.

    Article 8 Directive 2014/23/EU; Article 4 Directive 2014/24/EU; Article 15 Directive 2014/25/EU.

  130. 130.

    Article 3 Directive 2014/23/EU; Article 18 Directive 2014/24/EU; Article 36 Directive 2014/25/EU.

  131. 131.

    ECJ, C-408/16, Compania Naţională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA v. Ministerul Fondurilor Europene — Direcția Generală Managementul Fondurilor Externe [EU:C:2017:940], para. 45.

  132. 132.

    Ibid., para. 46; European Commission, “Guidance on the Participation of Third Country Bidders and Goods in the EU Procurement Market”, C(2019) 5494 final, 24 July 2019, 8.

  133. 133.

    B. Heuninckx, “Applicable Law to the Procurement of International Organisations in the European Union”, 4 Public Procurement Law Review 2011, 113.

  134. 134.

    ECJ, Joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [EU:C:2008:461], para. 292; ECJ, C-91/05, Commission v. Council, para. 65; ECJ, Opinion 1/94, Competence of the Community to Conclude International Agreements Concerning Services and the Protection of Intellectual Property [EU:C:1994:384], para. 21.

  135. 135.

    ECJ, C-59/00, Bent Mousten Vestergaard v. Spøttrup Boligselskab [EU:C:2001:654], para. 20; C-324/98, Telaustria Verlags GmbH and Telefonadress GmbH v. Telekom Austria AG [EU:C:2000:669], paras. 60–62.

  136. 136.

    European Commission, “Guidance on the Participation of Third Country Bidders and Goods in the EU Procurement Market”, C(2019) 5494 final, 24 July 2019, 8.

  137. 137.

    Xinhua, “Full Text of the Dubrovnik Guidelines for Cooperation Between China and the Central and Eastern European Countries”, 13 April 2019, available at: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-04/13/c_137973910.htm.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Macau, Macau SAR, China

    Sten Idris Verhoeven

Authors
  1. Sten Idris Verhoeven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sten Idris Verhoeven .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. City University of Macau, Macau SAR, China

    Francisco José B. S. Leandro

  2. Research Centre in Political Science, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Paulo Afonso B. Duarte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Verhoeven, S.I. (2020). EU Legal Obstacles to the Belt and Road Initiative: Towards a China-EU Framework on the Belt and Road Initiative. In: Leandro, F., Duarte, P. (eds) The Belt and Road Initiative. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2564-3_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation