Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

The Court of Justice and Mixed Agreements

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
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

Abstract

Success of mixed agreements also due to the case-law of the Court of Justice basically allowing Member States when competence is shared between Union and Member States, a free option to exercise Union competence, national competence or both. The Court has however greatly contributed to discipline the concomitant exercise of Union and Member States’ competence by developing a number of fairly precise rules on the basis of the principle of sincere cooperation. It has at the same time claimed a far reaching jurisdiction to interpret mixed agreements and in so doing indirectly limited Member States’ freedom to act. Consequences of the Lisbon Treaty for mixity?

Pieter Sanders, former judge EU Court of Justice.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Case 22/70 AETR (1971)ECR 263, Joined Cases 3, 4 and 6/76 Kramer (1976) ECR 1279, Opinion 1/75 Understanding on a Local Cost Standard (1975) ECR 1355, Opinion 1/76 Inland Waterways (1976) ECR 741, Opinion 1/78 International Agreement on Natural Rubber (1979) ECR 2871, Ruling 1/78 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials (1978) ECR 2151.

  2. 2.

    See Declaration on Article 130r of the EEC Treaty annexed to the Single European Act (1986) confirming the relevance of the AETR judgment; see also Declaration No 10 annexed to the Maastricht Treaty.

  3. 3.

    See Opinion 1/09 Unified Patent Litigation System of 8 March 2011 n.y.r. para 53, Opinion 1/08 GATS Schedules (2009) ECR I-11129 paras 107–110.

  4. 4.

    For instance the commitment to amend the Luxemburg and Mannheim Convention in the Draft Agreement on the Laying -up Fund justifying the participation of the Member States concerned as Contracting Party to the Agreement, see Opinion 1/76 (fn. 1).

  5. 5.

    The question of whether Article 2(2) TFEU at all applies to external EU competences cannot be explored here. I think it does. Existing case-law in any event confirms that the exercise of external EU competence may have a pre-emptive effect, see Opinion 2/92 OECD national treatment (1995) ECR I-521 para 32.

  6. 6.

    For an example from the case-law, see Case C-316/91 EDF (1994) ECR I-625 para 26.

  7. 7.

    See Opinion 1/08 (fn. 3) paras 134–136.

  8. 8.

    Cp. Case C-459/03 Commission v. Ireland (MOX) (2006) ECR I-4635.

  9. 9.

    The Court used this qualification when referring to arguments from the Council in Opinion 1/78 (fn. 1) paras 2 and 29.

  10. 10.

    Case 12/86 Demirel (1987) ECR 3719 para 8. The quotation marks do not figure however in the French version.

  11. 11.

    See Ehlermann 1983, p. 6; see also Rosas 2000, pp. 201, 202.

  12. 12.

    See Case C-459/03 MOX (fn. 9); for another striking example see the Convention of Stockholm at issue in Case C-246/07 Commission v. Sweden (2010) ECR I-3317.

  13. 13.

    Opinion 1/75 (fn. 1).

  14. 14.

    Joined Cases 3, 4 and 6/76 Kramer (fn. 1).

  15. 15.

    Case 22/70 (fn. 1). See furthermore Case C-472/98 Commission v. Luxemburg (Open Skies) (2002) ECR I-9741, Opinion 1/03 Lugano Convention (2006) ECR I-1145. This case-law is now reflected in Article 3(2) TFEU.

  16. 16.

    Schütze 2010, p. 82.

  17. 17.

    See fn. 1.

  18. 18.

    Ibidem.

  19. 19.

    Paragraphs 32 and 33 of the Ruling.

  20. 20.

    See also para 18 of the Ruling.

  21. 21.

    Opinion 2/91 ILO (1993) ECR I-1061.

  22. 22.

    Opinion 1/94 WTO (1994) ECR I-5267.

  23. 23.

    See Editorial Comments 1995, p. 385.

  24. 24.

    Opinions 1/94 (fn. 22) para 107, 2/00 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2001) ECR I-9713 para 41, 1/08 GATS Schedules (fn. 3) para 127.

  25. 25.

    Timmermans 1981, pp. 23–24; 2000, pp. 239–240. See also Eeckhout 2011, p. 217 and more forceful yet p. 265: “Where an agreement falls wholly within the EU’s non-exclusive external competences, and the EU concludes the agreement, there is no legal justification for mixity. The requirement of unity in the international representation of the EU demands pure EU agreements in such cases.”

  26. 26.

    Case 22/70 AETR (fn. 1) para 18.

  27. 27.

    Cp. Case 40/69 Bollmann (1970) ECR 69 paras 4 and 5 with Case 113/00 Spain v. Commission (2002) ECR I-7601 paras 73 and 74, and Case C-283/03 Kuipers (2005) ECR I-4255 paras 41, 42 and 49.

  28. 28.

    See Opinion 1/94 WTO (fn. 22) para 95, Case 472/98 Commission v. Luxemburg (Open Skies) (fn. 16) para 89.

  29. 29.

    See Ehlermann 1983, p. 3ff; Rosas 2000, p. 211ff; Eeckhout 2011, p. 255ff.

  30. 30.

    E.g. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Annex IX Participation by international organisations, see Case C-459/03 MOX (fn. 9).

  31. 31.

    See Case C-25/94 Commission v. Council (FAO) (1996) ECR I-1469.

  32. 32.

    Case 181/73 (1974) ECR 449 para 5.

  33. 33.

    Case 12/86 Demirel (1987) ECR 3719 para 7, Case C-431/05 Merck (2007) ECR I-7001 para 31.

  34. 34.

    See Case C-431/05 Merck (fn. 33) para 33, Case C-240/09 Lesoochranarske zoskupenie judgment of 8 March 2011 n.y.r. para 31.

  35. 35.

    See Case C-13/00 Commission v; Ireland (Berne Convention) (2001) ECR I-2943 paras 16 and 17, Case C-239/03 Commission v. France (Etang de Berre) (2004) ECR I-9325 paras 27–30, Case C-459/03 MOX (fn. 9) in which the criterion was applied in connexion with the UNCLOS Declaration of Competences. For a negative outcome see Case C-431/05 Merck (fn. 33).

  36. 36.

    Case C-13/00 Commission v. Ireland (Berne Convention) (fn. 35) para 18.

  37. 37.

    See Case C-239/03 Commission v. France (Etang de Berre) (fn. 35) para 30.

  38. 38.

    See for a rather striking application of this approach Case C-240/09 Lesoochranarske zoskupenie (fn. 34) paras 34–40. The fact that the issue of substantive law was regulated by Union Law was deemed sufficient by the Court to accept jurisdiction for a question of procedural law not so regulated (access to an administrative procedure for an environmental association). See on this judgment Jans 2012.

  39. 39.

    Case C-472/98 Commission v. Luxemburg (Open Skies) (fn. 16) para 88.

  40. 40.

    Case C-53/96 Hermès (1998) ECR I-3603, Case C-392/98 Parfums Christian Dior (2000) ECR I-11307. See also Case C-89/90 Schieving Nijstadt (2001) ECR I-5851, Case C-245/02 Anheuser - Busch (2004) ECR I-10989.

  41. 41.

    Eeckhout 2011, pp. 279, 286.

  42. 42.

    See generally on this subject Hillion 2010.

  43. 43.

    Case 22/70 AETR (fn. 1) para 90. See now Article 2(1) TFEU. See on this issue Cremona 2011.

  44. 44.

    See with further references Case C-246/07 Commission v. Sweden (fn. 13) para 73.

  45. 45.

    Opinion 2/91 ILO (fn. 21) para 36.

  46. 46.

    Paragraphs 104 and 105 (fn. 13).

  47. 47.

    Ibidem para 104.

  48. 48.

    See for a possible obligation deriving for the Commission from the duty of co-operation Case C-45/07 Commission v. Greece (2009) ECR I-701 para 25.

  49. 49.

    See, also for the necessary legal base, Timmermans 2000, pp. 243–245.

  50. 50.

    Case C-266/03 Commission v. Luxemburg (2005) ECR I-4805, Case C-433/03 Commission v. Germany (2005) ECR I-6985.

  51. 51.

    Case C-246/07 Commission v. Sweden (fn. 13).

  52. 52.

    Case C-459/03 MOX (fn. 9) para 179.

  53. 53.

    See Case C-316/91 European Parliament v. Council (EDF) (1994) ECR I-625 para 29. See on the subject of liability Kuijper 2010.

  54. 54.

    See Opinion 1/76 (fn. 1), Opinion 1/91 (EEA) (1991) ECR I-6079, Opinion 1/92 EEA (1992) ECR I-2821, Opinion 1/00 ECAA (2002) ECR I-3493.

  55. 55.

    E.g. Ehlermann 1983; Rosas 2000.

  56. 56.

    Cp. Dashwood 2010 and Rosas 2010.

References

  • Cremona M (2011) Member States as trustees of the Union interest: participating in international agreements on behalf of the European Union. In: Arnull AO (ed) A constitutional order of States? Essays in EU Law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 435

    Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood A (2010) Mixity in the era of the Treaty of Lisbon. In: Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) Mixed agreements revisited. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 351

    Google Scholar 

  • Editorial Comments (1995) CMLRev:385–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhout P (2011) EU external relations law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ehlermann CD (1983) Mixed agreements: a list of problems. In: O’Keeffe D, Schermers HG (eds) Mixed agreements. Kluwer Deventer, Dordrecht, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Heliskoski J (2001) Mixed agreements as a technique for organizing the international relations of the European Community and its Member States. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillion C (2010) Mixity and coherence in EU external relations: the significance of the “duty of cooperation”. In: Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) Mixed agreements revisited. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 87

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) (2010) Mixed agreements revisited. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jans JH (2012) Who is the referee? Access to justice in a globalised legal order. Rev Eur Adm Law 4(1):87–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuijper PJ (2010) International responsibility for EU mixed agreements. In: Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) Mixed agreements revisited. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 208

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosas A (2000) The European Union and mixed agreements. In: Dashwood A, Hillion C (eds) The general law of E.C. external relations. Sweet & Maxwell, London, p 200

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosas (2010) The future of mixity. In: Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) Mixed agreements rivisited. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 367

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2010) Federalism and foreign affairs: mixity as a (inter)national phenomenon. In: Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) Mixed agreements rivisited. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 57

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans CWA (1981) Division of external powers between Community and Member States in the field of harmonization of National Law—a case study. In: Timmermans CWA, Völker ELM (eds) Division of powers between the European Communities and their Member States in the field of external relations. Kluwer Deventer, Dordrecht, p 15

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans CWA (2000) Organising joint participation of E.C. and Member States. In: Dashwood A, Hillion C (eds) The general law of E.C. external relations. Sweet and Maxwell, London, p 239

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 3080, Tervuren, Belgium

    Christiaan W. A. Timmermans

Authors
  1. Christiaan W. A. Timmermans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christiaan W. A. Timmermans .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2013 T.M.C. Asser Instituut

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Timmermans, C.W.A. (2013). The Court of Justice and Mixed Agreements. 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_35

    Download citation

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Societies and partnerships

    Search

    Navigation