International Relations Cases
Week 2
1. ERTA
Summary:
- Applicant: Commission
- Claims: Application for the annulment of the proceedings of the Council,
relating to the negotiation and conclusion, by the MS, of the European
Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in
international road transport.
ART 91 TFEU → Objectives of EU in area of transport
- Shared competence → ART 4 TFEU
The commission relied on a ART 3 Regulation No. 543/69
- The Community shall enter into any negotiation with third countries
- Defendant: Council
- Claims: The Court should: 'declare the Commission's application
inadmissible’
Facts:
- About the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles
engaged in international road transport (AETR)
- Concerns the legal capacity of the EU to enter into an agreement with third countries
- Exercise of internal powers with the wider world
- Emerged because of an absence of specific provision under own treaty that would enable
EU from entering IA
- About Doctrine of implied powers = principle of conferral
- Also about the primacy of EU law
- Ensures that the EU does not extend its powers beyond those conferred by the EU
Treaties
The EU Court in Luxembourg created the concept of "implied powers" to give the EU a
possibility to regulate without explicit competence in the treaties. The Lisbon Treaty
introduced "implied power" as a general rule by giving the EU legal personality.
, Questions:
1) Did the EU have the competence to enter such an agreement if there was no exclusive
provision that allowed them to?
2) If IA is incompatible with EU law which one prevails?
Answers:
- No, The Court disagreed entirely with the Council of the EU
- EU law will prevail because they have to respect their obligations ART 216 (2) (once
signed, its binding)
Reasoning:
- Even without Treaty revision, Court held that the EU could acquire new external
powers.
- Implied powers can also be inferred from secondary law as well
Requirements:
1) The enactment of common EU rules
- MS cannot adopt measures which influence
2) The expressed desire to conclude an IA on the same subject matter as the
common EU rules
3) A risk that the proposed IA would affect the common EU rules or alter their scope.
→ The Court did not make clear how precisely these requirements need to be interpreted.
Answer:
Court → You can infer legal basis
About implicit powers of EU to act externally
2. Commission v Council of the EU(Antarctique)
Summary:
- Applicant: Commission
- Claims: 1) Annul the decision of the Council of the EU, as contained in ‘the 2015
decision’, in so far as the conclusion approves the submission, on behalf
of the EU and its MS, to the Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) of a reflection paper
relating to a future proposal to create a marine protected area in the
Weddell Sea
2) To annul the Council “the 2016 decision’ in so far as it approves the
submission, on behalf of the EU and its MS, to the CCAMLR, of three
Week 2
1. ERTA
Summary:
- Applicant: Commission
- Claims: Application for the annulment of the proceedings of the Council,
relating to the negotiation and conclusion, by the MS, of the European
Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in
international road transport.
ART 91 TFEU → Objectives of EU in area of transport
- Shared competence → ART 4 TFEU
The commission relied on a ART 3 Regulation No. 543/69
- The Community shall enter into any negotiation with third countries
- Defendant: Council
- Claims: The Court should: 'declare the Commission's application
inadmissible’
Facts:
- About the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles
engaged in international road transport (AETR)
- Concerns the legal capacity of the EU to enter into an agreement with third countries
- Exercise of internal powers with the wider world
- Emerged because of an absence of specific provision under own treaty that would enable
EU from entering IA
- About Doctrine of implied powers = principle of conferral
- Also about the primacy of EU law
- Ensures that the EU does not extend its powers beyond those conferred by the EU
Treaties
The EU Court in Luxembourg created the concept of "implied powers" to give the EU a
possibility to regulate without explicit competence in the treaties. The Lisbon Treaty
introduced "implied power" as a general rule by giving the EU legal personality.
, Questions:
1) Did the EU have the competence to enter such an agreement if there was no exclusive
provision that allowed them to?
2) If IA is incompatible with EU law which one prevails?
Answers:
- No, The Court disagreed entirely with the Council of the EU
- EU law will prevail because they have to respect their obligations ART 216 (2) (once
signed, its binding)
Reasoning:
- Even without Treaty revision, Court held that the EU could acquire new external
powers.
- Implied powers can also be inferred from secondary law as well
Requirements:
1) The enactment of common EU rules
- MS cannot adopt measures which influence
2) The expressed desire to conclude an IA on the same subject matter as the
common EU rules
3) A risk that the proposed IA would affect the common EU rules or alter their scope.
→ The Court did not make clear how precisely these requirements need to be interpreted.
Answer:
Court → You can infer legal basis
About implicit powers of EU to act externally
2. Commission v Council of the EU(Antarctique)
Summary:
- Applicant: Commission
- Claims: 1) Annul the decision of the Council of the EU, as contained in ‘the 2015
decision’, in so far as the conclusion approves the submission, on behalf
of the EU and its MS, to the Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) of a reflection paper
relating to a future proposal to create a marine protected area in the
Weddell Sea
2) To annul the Council “the 2016 decision’ in so far as it approves the
submission, on behalf of the EU and its MS, to the CCAMLR, of three
