Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The EU Accession to the ECHR pp 71–85Cite as

EU Law Autonomy: Where Does the Viewpoint for ‘Competition’ of Luxembourg Start From?

  • Chapter

  • 1028 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses and examines some core issues relating to EU law autonomy, with a special focus on its external autonomy benchmarks which will become especially significant in light of the new relationship between the Luxembourg and Strasbourg courts post-accession. The chapter provides an examination of the research question: ‘Which are the landmark legal principles that prescribe EU law external autonomy, especially with regard to an external tribunal such as the Strasbourg Court?’ By addressing this question, the chapter construes the Luxembourg’s external borders of jurisdiction and influence, portraying the image that it likely will try to see even with regard to the Strasbourg regime of law post-accession.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Sellers (2007), p. 1.

  2. 2.

    Cf: Gragl in this regard argues that EU is neither a pure international organization nor a federation. EU being a rather special entity, Gragl argues, it needs be treated through a special consideration by international law. This tension, in Gragl’s words, will likely produce tensions with regard to the EU law autonomy when contrasted with the process of accession to the ECHR. See: Gragl (2013), p. 25.

  3. 3.

    See an excellent contribution on this issue, at: Barents (2004).

  4. 4.

    See on this: Schilling (1996), pp. 389 et seq. See the academic debate on EU legal order autonomy: Weiler and Haltern (1996).

  5. 5.

    Gragl (2013), p. 23.

  6. 6.

    Court of Justice of EU (ECJ), Costa v ENEL, Case 6/64 [1964] ECR 585; See also: Defeis (2000–2001), p. 309.

  7. 7.

    Court of Justice of EU, Van Gend en Loos v. the Netherlands, case 26/62 Judgment (CJEC).

  8. 8.

    Court of Justice of EU (ECJ), Costa v ENEL, Case 6/64 [1964] ECR 585, note 6.

  9. 9.

    Court of Justice of EU, Opinion 1/91, ECR 191 I-06079, para. 35; See also: van den Berghe (2010), pp. 148 et seq; Lock (2010), p. 781.

  10. 10.

    Court of Justice of EU, Opinion 1/91, ECR 191 I-06079, note 9, para. 21.

  11. 11.

    Court of Justice of EU, Opinion 1/91, ECR 191 I-06079, note 9, para. 22.

  12. 12.

    See also: Eckes (2013), p. 259; See also: Gragl (2013), p. 83.

  13. 13.

    See also two other important and authoritative cases on the autonomy of EU legal order which due to lack of space will be omitted from consideration: Court of Justice of EU, Opinion 1/00 ECAA Agreement [2002] ECR I-349, and Court of Justice of EU, Opinion 1/09 (Agreement on the European and Community Patents Court).

  14. 14.

    See e.g. on Intertanko, at: Mendez (2010), p. 1751.

  15. 15.

    Court of Justice of EU, Commission v. Ireland (Mox Plant case), Case C-459/03 [2006] ECR I-4635.

  16. 16.

    United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was signed at Montego Bay in Jamaica, on 10 December 1982; See also: Lavranos (2006), pp. 224/5 et seq.

  17. 17.

    See: Council Decision 98/392/EC. OJ 1998 L 179, p. 1.

  18. 18.

    Court of Justice of EU, Mox Plant Case C-459/03 [2006] ECR I-4635, note 15.

  19. 19.

    Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Case C-459/03 Commission v Ireland (Mox Plant), delivered on 18 January 2006.

  20. 20.

    Court of Justice of EU, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, Case 22/70, [1971] ECR 263.

  21. 21.

    Opinion of AG Maduro in Case C-459/03 Commission v Ireland (Mox Plant), delivered on 18 January 2006, note 19, para. 23.

  22. 22.

    Neframi (2010), p. 335.

  23. 23.

    Court of Justice of EU, Mox Plant Case C-459/03 [2006] ECR I-4635, note 15, para. 154; See also: Gragl (2013), p. 83.

  24. 24.

    Court of Justice of EU, Mox Plant Case C-459/03 [2006] ECR I-4635, note 15, para. 81.

  25. 25.

    Court of Justice of EU, Mox Plant Case C-459/03 [2006] ECR I-4635, note 15, para. 132.

  26. 26.

    Biehler (2008), p. 328.

  27. 27.

    Klabbers (2009), p. 148.

  28. 28.

    Court of Justice of EU, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P [2008] ECR I-6351; See also: Miiller (2007), p. 36; Cf.: De Londras and Kingston (2010), p. 406, who compares Kadi to US Medellin v Texas seminal case.

  29. 29.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002.

  30. 30.

    De Londras and Kingston (2010), p. 366; For sanctions at the EU level see: Koutrakos (2001), pp. 49–90; Generally on the UN sanctions regime see: Farrall (2007).

  31. 31.

    Court of Justice of EU (CFI), Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council of the European Union & Commission of the European Communities, Case T-315/01, 21 September 2005, para. 226; For an account of jus cogens, see this excellent contribution: Orakhelashvilli (2009).

  32. 32.

    De Londras and Kingston (2010), p. 391/2.

  33. 33.

    Tridimas and Gutierrez-Fons (2008), p. 661.

  34. 34.

    Court of Justice of EU, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P [2008] ECR I-6351, note 28, para. 291. See also to this effect: Opinion of AG Maduro in Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, delivered on 16 January 2008, para. 22 (emphasis added).

  35. 35.

    Court of Justice of EU, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P [2008] ECR I-6351, note 28, para. 281.

  36. 36.

    Court of Justice of EU, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P [2008] ECR I-6351, note 28, para 282; See also: Lock (2010), p. 782.

  37. 37.

    On how the EU Court views EU’s responsibility under dualistic lens, see e.g.: Kokott and Sobotta (2012), p. 1017/18.

  38. 38.

    Fassbender (1998), p. 617.

  39. 39.

    de Búrca (2010), p. 4.

  40. 40.

    de Búrca (2010), p. 49.

  41. 41.

    Court of Justice of EU, International Fruit Company NV and others v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit, Joined cases 21-24/72, [1972] ECR 1219.

  42. 42.

    Court of Justice of EU (CFI), Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council of the European Union & Commission of the European Communities, Case T-315/01, 21 September 2005, note 31, para. 200; Accession of the EU to the ECHR would therefore further enhance its autonomous nature of law compared to the current scenario wherein EU is bound by ECHR on basis of the doctrine of functional succession of its Member States. Cf.: Odermatt (2014), p. 12 (‘The succession doctrine imagines the EU as a sum of the legal obligations of its Member States, rather than as a legally separate and autonomous legal order.’).

  43. 43.

    Uerpmann (2003); On functional succession with regard to EU obligations under ECHR, see also: Odermatt (2014), p. 11.

  44. 44.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Signed at Vienna, on 23 May 1969 (UN Doc. No. 18232). Entered into force on 27 January 1980. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf.

  45. 45.

    Two international-law allergic cases that may be taken as an example are also: Court of Justice of EU, France v. Commission, Case C-327/91 [1994] ECR I-3641 & CJEU, and, Court of Justice of EU, Germany v. Council, Case C-122/95 [1998] ECR I-973; One needs to consider carefully how the EU Court ‘devised’ its competence to annul two international obligations which EU had already taken in face of third parties.

  46. 46.

    Weiler (2008); On Medellin case, see: the US Supreme Court, Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008).

  47. 47.

    de Búrca (2009), pp. 4 et seq.

  48. 48.

    Halberstam and Stein (2009), pp. 13 et seq.

  49. 49.

    Although Kadi may be described as a strong self-referential concept developed by the EU Court, one should also remind that the EU Court itself noted that it is possible to apply a solange II approach to the UN law. It had ruled specifically in this regard that: ‘It has in addition been maintained that, having regard to the deference required of the Community institutions vis-à-vis the institutions of the United Nations, the Court must forgo the exercise of any review of the lawfulness of the contested regulation in the light of fundamental rights, even if such review were possible, given that, under the system of sanctions set up by the United Nations, having particular regard to the re-examination procedure which has recently been significantly improved by various resolutions of the Security Council, fundamental rights are adequately protected.’ (Court of Justice of EU, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P [2008] ECR I-6351, note 28, p. 318 [emphasis added]). By noting this possibility, still, the Court did nothing else than showing a note of courtesy which, practically, was turned down in the dictum of this decision.

  50. 50.

    Gragl (2013), p. 24.

  51. 51.

    Gragl (2013), p. 84.

References

  • Barents R (2004) The autonomy of community law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Biehler G (2008) Procedures in international law. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • de Búrca G (2009) The European Court of Justice and the international legal order after Kadi. Jean Monnet Working Paper 1/09. Available at: http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/09/090101.pdf

  • de Búrca G (2010) The European Court of Justice and the international legal order after Kadi. Harvard Int Law Rev 51(1):1–49

    Google Scholar 

  • De Londras F, Kingston S (2010) Rights, security, and conflicting international obligations: exploring inter-jurisdictional judicial dialogues in Europe. Am J Comp Law 58:359–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defeis EF (2000–2001) Human Rights and the European Union: who decides? Possible conflicts between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Dickinson J Int Law 19(2):301–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckes C (2013) EU accession to the ECHR: between autonomy and adaptation. Mod Law Rev 76(2):254–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrall JM (2007) United Nations sanctions and the rule of law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender B (1998) The United Nations Charter as constitution of the international community. Columbia J Transnat Law 36:529–619

    Google Scholar 

  • Gragl P (2013) The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam D, Stein E (2009) The United Nations, the European Union, and the King of Sweden: economic sanctions and individual rights in a plural world order. Common Market Law Rev 46(1):13–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2009) Treaty conflict and the European Union. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokott J, Sobotta C (2012) The Kadi case – constitutional core values and international law – finding the balance? Eur J Int Law 23(4):1015–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koutrakos P (2001) Trade, foreign policy and defence in EU constitutional law: the legal regulation of sanctions, exports of dual-use goods and armaments. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavranos N (2006) The MOX plant and IJzeren Rijn disputes: which court is the supreme arbiter? Leiden J Int Law 19(1):223–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lock T (2010) EU accession to the ECHR: implications for judicial review in Strasbourg. Eur Law Rev 35(6):777–798

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendez M (2010) The enforcement of EU agreements: bolstering the effectiveness of treaty law? Common Market Law Rev 47(6):1719–1756

    Google Scholar 

  • Miiller CA (2007) Fundamental rights in multi-level legal systems: recent developments in European human rights practice. Interdiscip J Hum Rights Law 2(1):33–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Neframi E (2010) The duty of loyalty: rethinking its scope through its application in the field of EU external relations. Common Market Law Rev 47(2):323–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Odermatt J (2014) The EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights: an international law perspective. Leuven Center for Global Governance Studies. Working Paper No. 136

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvilli A (2009) Peremptory norms in international law. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling T (1996) The autonomy of the community legal order: an analysis of possible legal foundations. Harvard Int Law J 37:389–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellers M (2007) Autonomy in the law. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T, Gutierrez-Fons JA (2008) EU law, international law and economic sanctions against terrorism: the judiciary in distress? Fordham Int Law J 32(2):660–730

    Google Scholar 

  • Uerpmann R (2003) International Law as an Element of European Constitutional Law: International Supplementary Constitutions. Jean Monnet Working Paper 9/03. Available at <http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/03/030901-02.pdf>

  • van den Berghe F (2010) The EU and issues of human rights protection: same solutions to more acute problems? Eur Law J 16(2):112–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiler J (2008) Editorial: Kadi – Europe’s Medellin? EJIL Talk, Blog of the European Journal of International Law. Available at: http://www.ejiltalk.org/letters-to-the-editor-respond-to-ejil-editorials-vol-195/

  • Weiler JHH, Haltern U (1996) The autonomy of the community legal order through the looking glass. Harvard Int Law J 37:411–448

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law and Criminology JURI Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium

    Fisnik Korenica

Authors
  1. Fisnik Korenica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Korenica, F. (2015). EU Law Autonomy: Where Does the Viewpoint for ‘Competition’ of Luxembourg Start From?. In: The EU Accession to the ECHR. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21759-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation