The European Court of Justice and the EC External Trade Relations: A Legal Analysis of the Court's Problems with Regard to International Agreements

2003 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Leal-Arcas
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
External Trade ◽  
Intergovernmental Organization ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
European Court ◽  
Article 50

AbstractThis article explains why the WTOand the various agreements that form an integral part of the Agreement establishing the WTO raise problems and challenges for the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ). It focuses on the role of the ECJ in relation to exclusive and shared competence. The European Community's (EC) specific problems and challenges for the ECJ are partly related to the EC's position in the WTO. In this sense, the opinion of Advocate General Tesauro in Hermès International v. FHT Marketing Choice is helpful for understanding the unitary character of the EC's external trade relations. This article includes a discussion of Hermès v. FHT Marketing concerning the interpretation of Article 50 of the Agreement on TRIPS, annexed to the 1994 Agreement establishing the WTO. The new mechanisms introduced by the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding are perhaps not comparable to the full judicial system within the EU, but they have changed both the rules and the legal culture concerning the adjudication and enforcement obligations. Although the WTO is still an intergovernmental organization, powerful private actors have already learned to manipulate the system to reach legal adjudication under the guise of intergovernmental disputes. This paper concludes that the EC wants to deny 'direct effect' to the WTO. This article offers the conclusion that we must aim at the creation of new standards to judge the applicability of international agreements. Otherwise, by allowing policy makers to decide rather than ECJ, the EC legal order may be at risk.

The Effect of WTO Dispute Settlement Rulings in the EC Legal Order: Reviewing Van Parys v Belgische Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (C-377/02)

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 1025-1032
Author(s):  
Delphine De Mey
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
National Court ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Community Legal Order

On 1 March 2005, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter ‘ECJ’ or ‘the Court’) got another opportunity to rule on the effect of recommendations and decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (hereinafter ‘DSB’) in the Community legal order. The ECJ concluded that an individual does not have the right to challenge, before a national court, the incompatibility of Community measures with WTO rules, even if the DSB had previously declared the Community legislation to be incompatible with those rules.

The CETA Opinion of the European Court of Justice and its Implications—Not that Selfish After All

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Riffel
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In Opinion 1/17, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found the investment court system compatible with European Union (EU) law. The ruling concerned the mechanism in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) but the Court’s reasoning is equally applicable to other investment courts as established, for example, in the EU’s investment protection agreements with Singapore and Vietnam. This outcome was far from clear, given that in the past the accession to international dispute settlement bodies regularly foundered on the autonomy of the EU legal order. The present article parses the CETA Opinion and explores its implications. It particularly focuses on autonomy as a constitutional principle and its advancement in Opinion 1/17. Importantly, the ECJ accepted the superiority of a court created by international agreement in relation to the said agreement. Furthermore, it clarified that it is not prerequisite for the Court to rule first on the meaning to be given to an act of EU law before that act can be the subject matter of an investment dispute. Finally, the pdrerogative of the EU to autonomously set the level of protection of a public welfare goal must be secured in a treaty for the EU to join it.

Legal Issues of EC–Cyprus Trade Relations

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 489-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panos Koutrakos
Keyword(s):  
Point Of View ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The Political ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
The Third ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

Whilst the political aspects of Cyprus's membership to the European Union have become the main focus of academic analysis over the years, its trade relations with the Member States have raised issues just as interesting from a legal point of view. This has been illustrated quite recently by the Anastasiou II judgment delivered by the European Court of Justice in 2000. The article aims at highlighting some of these issues. It is structured in three parts: the first part outlines the provisions of the EC–Cyprus Association Agreement governing trade between the parties; the second part analyses the Court's first ruling on imports of certain produce from the northern part of Cyprus;1 the third part examines the recent judgment of the Court on imports of produce which, whilst originating in the northern part of Cyprus, are being accompanied by phytosanitary certificates issued by the Turkish authorities.

The European Community, the European Court of Justice and the Law of the Sea

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Boelaert-Suominen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
European Community ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Fishery Policy ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law

AbstractThe European Community has gradually increased its focus on marine and maritime affairs, starting with the Community's Fishery Policy in the 1970s and culminating recently in the 2007 Blue Book on an Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union. The Community's increased clout over marine and maritime matters has been reflected also in the case law of the European Court of Justice. From the outset the Court has given great impetus to the Community's efforts to assert its external competence in matters related to fisheries and conservation of biological resources of the sea. Even so, the Court has thus far only occasionally been confronted with public international law questions pertaining to the law of the sea. However, the few cases in which the Court has addressed such issues are worthy of note. For example, the Court has ruled on whether Member States should be allowed to rely on the international law of the sea in order to derogate from obligations under Community law; whether Member States should be allowed to prefer the dispute settlement provisions set out in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over the Community's own dispute settlement system; and on whether private parties may invoke arguments derived from the customary or conventional international law of the sea to challenge the validity of Community legislation pertaining to marine and maritime matters. The resulting judgments of the European Court of Justice have often turned out to be landmark cases, although some of them have tended to divide academic opinion.

Supranational public reason: On legitimacy of supranational norm-producing authorities

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 396-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
WOJCIECH SADURSKI
Keyword(s):  
Public Reason ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
State Level ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
European Court ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Zero Sum ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThe emergence of strong authorities beyond the nation state has raised questions about the absence of democratic legitimacy at the supranational level. The usual response to this dilemma has been an attempt to uncouple the strict link between national statehood and democracy, and in the process, to confer a degree of legitimacy on supranational authorities. This article argues that such an uncoupling is unconvincing, and that within the legitimacy-democracy-statehood triangle, the uncoupling of legitimacy and democracy is a more promising strategy. The legitimacy of supranational authorities is grounded in their appeal to ‘public reason’ – a legitimacy-conferring device well-suited to supranational authorities, as illustrated in this article by the examples of the European Court of Human Rights and the WTO dispute settlement system. On this basis, the article argues that we should not see the relationship between statehood legitimacy (based optimally on electoral democracy) and supranational legitimacy (based on public reason) as mutually antagonistic and engaged in zero-sum competition. Rather, this relationship allows scope for synergy, with supranational authorities often playing an important role in supporting democracy at the nation-state level.

The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2018

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Original Research ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Global Community ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Global Law

The 2018 edition of The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence both updates readers on the important work of long-standing international tribunals and introduces readers to more novel topics in international law. The Yearbook continues to provide expert coverage of the Court of Justice of the European Union and diverse tribunals from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to criminal tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to economically based tribunals such as ICSID and the WTO Dispute settlement procedures. The contents of this part have been enriched with the inclusion of a new section devoted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), the oldest global institution for the settlement of international disputes. This edition contains original research articles on the development and analysis of the concept of global law and the views of the global law theorists such as: whether the Paris Declaration of 2017 and the Oslo Recommendation of 2018 deals with enhancing their institutions’ legitimacy; how to reconcile human rights, trade law, intellectual property, investment and health law with the WTO dispute settlement panel upholding Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measure; Israel’s acceptance of Palestinian statehood contingent upon prior Palestinian “demilitarization” is potentially contrary to pertinent international law; and a proposal to strengthen cooperation between the ECJ and National Courts in light of the failure of the dialogue between the ECJ and the Italian Constitutional Court on the interpretation of Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European union. The Yearbook provides students, scholars, and practitioners alike a valuable combination of expert discussion and direct quotes from the court opinions to which that discussion relates, as well as an annual overview of the process of cross-fertilization between international courts and tribunals.

Regionalism in the WTO and the Legal Status of a Development Agenda in the EU/ACP Economic Partnership Agreement

2009 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-248
Author(s):  
Yenkong Ngangjoh Hodu
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
African Caribbean ◽  
Economic Partnership ◽  
Partnership Agreement ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe proliferation of regional trade agreements (RTAs) which share similar ideals with the World Trade Organization (WTO) has added to claims of disintegration within international trade law. Notwithstanding the ambiguity surrounding the reading of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article XXIV on RTAs, WTO members are continuously negotiating RTAs with objectives which have so far not received universal acceptance under the WTO treaty system. In the context of European Union (EU)-Africa trade relations, the December 2007 EU-Africa summit was expected to be an appropriate venue for leaders from both sides to resolve the controversy surrounding the idea of development-friendly free trade agreements between the contracting parties. But, the summit was wrapped up without achieving any clear answer to this issue. Similarly, at the multilateral level, i.e. the WTO Doha Development Round negotiations, which the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States have sponsored, numerous development-friendly proposals on RTAs stalled since July 2006. Consequently, in view of this controversy, if development concerns can be factored into economic partnership agreements (EPAs), what would be an acceptable threshold for such RTAs to conform to GATT Article XXIV requirements of “substantially all trade” and “reasonable period of time”? This paper discusses the idea of development and WTO compatibility in the context of the EU-Africa Economic Partnership negotiations. In view of the flawed dispute settlement provisions under the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA), the paper further tries to answer the question of whether the CPA contains rights and obligations that need protection by individual EU member courts and may necessarily be enforced before the European Court of Justice. The paper ends with some thoughts on the post-EPAs adjustment programme.

The Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to Give Preliminary Rulings on the Interpretation of Mixed Agreements

2000 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
First Case ◽  
European Court ◽  
The World ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
Mixed Agreements

AbstractThis article is about the scope of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to interpret, under Article 234 of the EC Treaty, international agreements which include among their contracting parties the European Community, all or some of its Member States and one or more other subjects of international law and which fall partly within the competence of the Community and partly within the competence of the Member States (so-called ‘mixed agreements’). In particular, the article addresses the question of whether, and if so to what extent, the Court's jurisdiction covers those provisions of mixed agreements which have been concluded under Member State powers. New light has been shed upon the question of jurisdiction by the Court's judgment in Case C-53/96 Hermès v. FHT concerning the interpretation of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) annexed to the 1994 Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) – the first case where the jurisdiction issue is addressed by the Court outside the context of association agreements. The article analyses the judgment and its implications in the light of both the Court's earlier case law and the legal and policy considerations at stake when the scope of the Court's jurisdiction is determined.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document