Selected Legal and Policy Implications Arising from the EU–ICC Agreement of 2006

  • Gerhard HafnerEmail author


The cooperation between the EU and the ICC is regulated by the EU–ICC Agreement (2006) and deals with matters of mutual interest. It regulates cooperation and assistance, attendance to meetings, exchange of information, testimony, cooperation between the EU and the prosecutor and privileges and immunities. The Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) covers all ICC-related acts. With regard to sharing information, the ICC is held to ensure the regular exchange of information and documents. The central problem in this aspect, according to the author, is the delivery of sensitive information. The Agreement mentions two types of information. First, the type that could endanger the safety or security of former EU staff, proper conducts or any EU activity;. the second type is classified information that requires protection from unauthorized disclosure. The ICC decides on the retention of this information. The author questions whether this is appropriate, as the ICC decides if a transfer of information could endanger the EU. He claims that the EU should at least be involved in making this decision. The author concludes that since the Agreement is one-sided, uncertainty is created for the EU about how sensitive information would be treated by the ICC.


Member State International Criminal Court International Criminal Rome Statute Trial Chamber 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Craig P, de Búrca G (2011) EU law: text, cases, and materials, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ford S (2011) How leadership in international criminal law is shifting from the U.S. to Europe and Asia: an analysis of spending on and contributions to international criminal courts. Saint Louis Univ Law J 55:953–999Google Scholar
  3. Groenleer M, Rijks D (2009) The European Union and the International Criminal Court: the politics of international criminal justice. In: Jorgensen KE (ed) The European Union and international organizations. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 167–188Google Scholar
  4. Kielsgard MD (2010) Reluctant engagement: U.S. policy and the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  5. Kirsch P, Holmes JT (1998) The birth of the International Criminal Court: the 1998 Rome conference. Can Yearb Int Law 36:3–39Google Scholar
  6. Koutrakos P (2013) The EU common security and defence policy. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lachowska A (2009) The support work of the court’s registry. In: Doria J et al (eds) The legal regime of the International Criminal Court: essays in honour of professor Igor Blishchenko. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 387–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee RSK (1999) The International Criminal Court: the making of the Rome Statute: issues, negotiations, results. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  9. Sari A (2008) Status of forces and status of mission agreements under the ESDP: the EU’s evolving practice. Eur J Int Law 19:67–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Schabas WA (2011) An introduction to the International Criminal Court, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schiff BN (2008) Building the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Strapatsas N (2002) The European Union and its contribution to the development. Revue de Droit Universite de Sherbrooke 33:399–424Google Scholar
  13. Washburn J (1999) The negotiation of the Rome Statute and international lawmaking in the 21st century. Pace Int Law Rev 11:361–377Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations