EU-lidstaten in de internationale relaties van de EU – heer en meester?

Paulien
Van de Velde-Van Rumst

Herinnert u zich de ‘CETA-saga’ nog? Het moment waarop Waals minister-president Paul Magnette de ondertekening van het handelsakkoord tussen de Europese Unie en Canada op het laatste nippertje kon blokkeren na jarenlange onderhandelingen? Deze situatie is tekenend voor het getouwtrek tussen de EU-lidstaten en de Europese Unie zelf op het internationale toneel. De EU-lidstaten willen graag hun zichtbaarheid behouden en proberen dit af te dwingen voor het Europees Hof van Justitie.

 

De Europese Unie en haar lidstaten voeren een gezamenlijk buitenlands beleid. Dit wil zeggen dat er contacten gelegd worden met landen die geen lid zijn van de Europese Unie om, bijvoorbeeld, handel te vergemakkelijken, terrorisme te bestrijden en klimaatopwarming tegen te gaan. Hoe worden deze taken verdeeld?

 

HET PRINCIPE VAN DE TOEGEKENDE BEVOEGDHEDEN

De verdeling van de internationale taken van de Europese Unie en haar lidstaten gebeurt op basis van het principe van de ‘toegekende bevoegdheden’. De lidstaten van de EU hebben samen een vaste lijst van internationale taken voor de EU bepaald. Sommige van deze taken mag de EU alleen uitvoeren, voor anderen is er samenwerking met de lidstaten nodig. Alleszins, als een internationale taak niet aan de EU wordt toegekend, blijft deze tot het actiegebied van de lidstaten behoren. Het omgekeerde geldt echter ook: van zodra een internationale taak op de lijst voor de EU alleen staat, mogen de lidstaten zich hier niet meer in mengen. Het is hier dat het schoentje wringt: een vaste lijst van taken voor de EU zoals, bijvoorbeeld, ‘de gemeenschappelijke handelspolitiek regelen’, houdt geen rekening met de evolutie van het Europese project en de wereld in het algemeen. Een bevoegdheid als ‘de gemeenschappelijke handelspolitiek’ enkel en alleen toekennen aan de EU, kan op termijn een zeer ruime taak voor de EU impliceren. Het gevolg is dat lidstaten hun vat verliezen op deze internationale relaties en niet meer zichtbaar zijn op het internationale toneel. De EU spreekt voor hen.

 

DE (MISLUKTE) POGINGEN VAN DE EU-LIDSTATEN OM DE CONTROLE TERUG TE WINNEN VOOR HET HOF VAN JUSTITIE

De evolutie van die vaste lijst van internationale taken van de EU was niet voorzien door de lidstaten. Dit leidt tot allerlei discussies voor het Hof van Justitie van de EU. Lidstaten proberen op allerlei manieren de controle over de internationale relaties van de EU terug te winnen. Zo argumenteren ze bijvoorbeeld dat ‘de gemeenschappelijke handelspolitiek’ als exclusieve taak voor de EU minder ruim moet geïnterpreteerd worden. Daarnaast proberen de EU-lidstaten via hun argumentatie voor het Hof van Justitie de rol van de Europese Commissie en van het Europees Parlement in de internationale relaties van de EU te beperken. Zo willen ze bijvoorbeeld de Europese Commissie kunnen sturen bij onderhandelingen met niet-EU landen en vermijden dat het Europees Parlement haar goedkeuring moet geven voor bepaalde internationale acties. De Raad van Ministers, het orgaan waarin de vertegenwoordigers van de EU-lidstaten zetelen, proberen ze dan weer meer macht te geven. Het Hof van Justitie blijkt in het algemeen echter weinig gehoor te geven aan de argumentaties van de lidstaten. Het Hof blijft de internationale bevoegdheid van de EU breed interpreteren in overeenstemming met de tekst van de vaste lijst van internationale taken. Daardoor worden de pogingen van de lidstaten om de controle erover terug te winnen teniet gedaan.  

 

HET PRINCIPE VAN LOYALE SAMENWERKING

Een andere belangrijke factor in deze context is de verplichting voor de EU-lidstaten om ‘loyaal samen te werken’ met de EU. Dit impliceert dat van de lidstaten verwacht wordt dat ze enerzijds de EU helpen bij het uitvoeren van haar internationale taken en anderzijds niets doen wat deze taken in de weg kan staan. Dit principe blijkt via de rechtspraak van het Hof van Justitie van de EU eerder verregaande gevolgen te krijgen. Indien lidstaten en EU volgens de vaste lijst van internationale taken voor de EU samen moeten optreden om een bepaalde taak uit te voeren, kan de verplichting om loyaal samen te werken ertoe leiden dat een lidstaat internationaal haar stem niet meer kan laten horen. Zweden kon bijvoorbeeld een bepaalde schadelijke stof niet laten toevoegen aan de zwarte lijst bij het Verdrag van Stockholm, dat gericht is op het tegengaan van de klimaatopwarming, omdat de EU nog aan het beslissen was of ze die stof wel toegevoegd wou zien.

 

OP NAAR EEN VERENIGING VAN BELANGEN?

Dit getouwtrek tussen de EU-lidstaten en de instellingen van de EU zelf is niet bevorderlijk voor de efficiëntie van het gezamenlijk buitenlands beleid. Er mag echter vanuit gegaan worden dat een goede internationale reputatie voor de EU en haar lidstaten in ieders belang is. Bovendien mag men niet vergeten dat de EU juist is opgericht door de lidstaten om meer invloed te kunnen uitoefenen op het internationale toneel. Er kan daarom besloten worden dat het belangrijk is om pragmatische oplossingen te zoeken voor deze conflicten en sages zoals te ‘CETA-sage’ in de toekomst te vermijden.

 

Bibliografie

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  1. Legislation (in chronological order)
  1. European legislation

Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, OJ C 326, 26 October 2012, p. 13.

 

Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26 October 2012, p. 47.

 

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 22 June 2001, p. 10.

 

  1. International legislation

Multilateral Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969, No. 18232.

 

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organisation, concluded at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.

 

  1. Case-law (in chronological order)
  1. Case-law of the Court of Justice
  1. Judgments and Opinions

 

Judgment of 15 July 1964, Costa v E.N.E.L., 6/64, EU:C:1964:66.

 

Judgment of 31 March 1971, Commission v Council (ERTA), 22/70, EU:C:1971:32.

 

Opinion of 11 November 1975, OECD Understanding on a Local Cost Standard, 1/75, EU:C:1975:145.

 

Ruling of 14 November 1978, Draft Convention of the International Atomic Energy Agency on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, Facilities and Transports, 1/78, EU:C:1978:202.

 

Judgment of 29 October 1980, Roquette Frères v Council, 138/79, EU:C:1980:249.

 

Judgment of 26 March 1987, Commission v Council, 45/86, EU:C:1987:163.

 

Judgment of 11 June 1991, Commission v Council (Titanium Dioxide), C-300/89, EU:C:1991:244.

 

Opinion of 19 March 1993, Convention Nº 170 of the International Labour Organization concerning safety in the use of chemicals at work, 2/91, EU:C:1993:106.

 

Opinion of 15 November 1994, Competence of the Community to conclude international agreements concerning services and the protection of intellectual property, 1/94, EU:C:1994:384.

 

Judgment of 19 March 1996, Commission v Council (FAO fisheries agreement case), C-25/94, EU:C:1996:114.

 

Judgment of 3 December 1996, Portugal v Council, C‑268/94, EU:C:1996:461.

 

Judgment of 23 February 1999, Parliament v Council, C-42/97, EU:C:1999:81.

 

Judgment of 4 April 2000, Commission v Council (Beef Products Regulation), C-269/97, EU:C:2000:183.

 

Judgment of 14 December 2000, Christian Dior, Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98, EU:C:2000:688.

 

Judgment of 30 January 2001, Spain v Council, C-36/98, EU:C:2001:64.

 

Opinion of 6 December 2001, Cartagena Protocol, 2/00, EU:C:2001:664.

 

Judgment of 23 March 2004, France v Commission, C-233/02, EU:C:2004:173.

 

Judgment of 29 April 2004, Commission v Council, C-338/01, EU:C:2004:253.

 

Judgment of 2 June 2005, Commission v Luxembourg, C-266/03, EU:C:2005:341.

 

Judgment of 14 July 2005, Commission v Germany, C-433/03, EU:C:2005:462.

 

Judgment of 10 January 2006, Commission v Council, C-94/03, EU:C:2006:2.

 

Judgment of 10 January 2006, Commission v Parliament and Council, C-178/03, EU:C:2006:4.

 

Opinion of 7 February 2006, Competence of the Community to conclude the new Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, 1/03, EU:C:2006:81.

 

Judgment of 30 May 2006, Commission v Ireland (MOX Plant), C-459/03, EU:C:2006:345.

 

Judgment of 12 September 2006, Reynolds Tobacco and Others v Commission, C-131/03 P, EU:C:2006:541.

 

Judgment of 20 May 2008, Commission v Council (ECOWAS), C‑91/05, EU:C:2008:288.

 

Judgment of 12 February 2009, Commission v Greece, C-45/07, EU:C:2009:81.

 

Judgment of 1 October 2009, Commission v Council (CITES), C‑370/07, EU:C:2009:590.

 

Opinion of 30 November 2009, Agreements modifying the Schedules of Specific Commitments under the GATS, 1/08, EU:C:2009:739.

 

Judgment of 10 April 2010, Commission v Sweden (PFOS), C‑246/07, EU:C:2010:203.

 

Judgment of 8 March 2011, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK (VLK), C‑240/09, EU:C:2011:125.

 

Judgment of 19 July 2012, Parliament v Council (Financial Sanctions), C-130/10, EU:C:2012:472.

 

Judgment of 18 July 2013, Daiichi Sankyo, C‑414/11, EU:C:2013:520.

 

Judgment of 26 September 2013, United Kingdom v Council (EEA Agreement), C‑431/11, EU:C:2013:589.

 

Judgment of 22 October 2013, Commission v Council (Conditional Access Services), C‑137/12, EU:C:2013:675.

 

Judgment of 27 February 2014, United Kingdom v Council (Swiss Agreement), C‑656/11, EU:C:2014:97.

 

Judgment of 11 June 2014, Commission v Council (Philippines Agreement), C‑377/12, EU:C:2014:1903.

 

Judgment of 24 June 2014, Parliament v Council (Mauritius Agreement), C‑658/11, EU:C:2014:2025.

 

Judgment of 4 September 2014, Commission v Council (Broadcasting Organisations), C-114/12, EU:C:2014:2151.

 

Judgment of 7 October 2014, Germany v Council (OIV recommendations), C-399/12, EU:C:2014:2258.

 

Opinion of 14 October 2014, Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, 1/13, EU:C:2014:2303.

 

Judgment of 26 November 2014, Parliament and Commission v Council, Joined Cases C-103/12 and C-165/12, EU:C:2014:2400.

 

Judgment of 26 November 2014, Green Network SpA, C-66/13, EU:C:2014:2399.

 

Opinion of 18 December 2014, Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 2/13, EU:C:2014:2454.

 

Judgment of 18 December 2014, United Kingdom v Council (Turkey Agreement), C‑81/13, EU:C:2014:2449.

 

Judgment of 28 April 2015, Commission v Council (Mixed International Agreements), C-28/12, EU:C:2015:282.

 

Judgment of 16 July 2015, Commission v Council (Negotiating Directives), C-425/13, EU:C:2015:483.

 

Judgment of 6 October 2015, Council v Commission (ITLOS), C-73/14, EU:C:2015:663.

 

Judgment of 15 October 2015, Grupo Itevelesa and Others, C-168/14, EU:C:2015:685.

 

Judgment of 14 June 2016, Parliament v Council (Tanzania Agreement), C‑263/14, EU:C:2016:435.

 

Judgment of 14 June 2016, Commission v McBride and Others, C-361/14 P, EU:C:2016:434.

 

Judgment of 28 July 2016, Council v Commission, C‑660/13, EU:C:2016:616.

 

Judgment of 21 December 2016, Swiss International Air Lines, C-272/15, EU:C:2016:993.

 

Opinion of 14 February 2017, Marrakesh Treaty, 3/15, EU:C:2017:114.

 

Opinion of 16 May 2017, EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, 2/15, EU:C:2017:376.

 

Opinion of 26 July 2017, EU-Canada PNR Agreement, 1/15, EU:C:2017:592.

 

Judgment of 25 October 2017, Commission v Council (Lisbon Appellations), C‑389/15, EU:C:2017:798.

 

Judgment of 25 October 2017, Commission v Council (WRC-15), C-687/15, EU:C:2017:803.

 

Judgment of 5 December 2017, Germany v Council (OTIF), C-600/14, EU:C:2017:935.

 

  1. Pending

 

Action brought on 23 November 2015, Commission v Council, C-626/15.

 

Action brought on 20 December 2016, Commission v Council, C-659/16.

 

  1. Opinions of Advocate Generals

 

Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón delivered on 31 January 2013, Daiichi Sankyo, C‑414/11, EU:C:2013:49.

 

Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 30 January 2014, Parliament v Council (Mauritius Agreement), C‑658/11, EU:C:2014:41.

 

Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 3 April 2014, Commission v Council (Broadcasting Organisations), C-114/12, EU:C:2014:224.

 

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 17 July 2014, United Kingdom v Council (Turkey Agreement), C‑81/13, EU:C:2014:2114.

 

Opinion of Advocate General Wahl delivered on 8 September 2016, Marrakesh Treaty, 3/15, EU:C:2016:657.

 

Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 21 December 2016, EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Opinion 2/15, EU:C:2016:992.

 

  1. National jurisprudence

Kloppenburg-Beschluß, BVerfGE 75, 223, http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv075223.html.

Maastricht, BVerfGE 89, 155, http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv089155.html.

Lissabon, BVerfGE 123, 267, http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv123267.html.

 

  1. Legal writings (in alphabetical order)
  • Acquah Daniel, ‘CJEU invokes ERTA principle to assert EU competence to ratify Marrakesh Treaty’ (2017) 12 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 548.
  • Adam Stanislas, Purdey Devisscher and Peter Van Elsuwege, ‘Chronique de jurisprudence communautaire – Les relations extérieures (1er janvier 2006 – 31 décembre 2008)’ (2009) 3-4 Cahiers de droit européen 465
  • Adam Stanislas, Said Hammamoun, Erwan Lannon, Jean-Victor Louis, Nanette Neuwahl and Eric White, L’Union européenne comme acteur international (Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles 2015).
  • Ankersmit Laurens, ‘The Scope of the Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon: The Daiichi Sankyo and Conditional Access Services Grand Chamber Judgments’ (2014) 41 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 193.
  • Banks Karen, ‘The Lisbon Treaty’s Competence Arrangement viewed from European Commission Practice’ in Sacha Garben and Inge Govaere (eds), The Division of Competences between the EU and the Member States: Reflections on the Past, the Present and the Future (Hart Publishing, Portland – Oregon 2017).
  • Beck Gunnar, ‘The Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court, the Primacy of EU Law and the Problem of Kompetenz-Kompetenz: A Conflict between Right and Right in Which There is No Praetor’ (2011) 17 European Law Journal 470.
  • Broberg Morten and Rass Holdgaard, ‘Demarcating the Union’s Development Cooperation Policy after Lisbon: Commission V. Council (Philippines PCFA)’ (2015) 52 Common Market Law Review 547.
  • Castillo de la Torre Fernando, ‘The Court of Justice and External Competences After Lisbon: Some Reflections on the Latest Case Law’ in Piet Eeckhout and Manuel Lopez-Escudero (eds), The European Union’s External Action in Times of Crisis (Hart Publishing, Portland – Oregon 2016).
  • Chamon Merijn, ‘Constitutional Limits to the Political Choice for Mixity’ in Eleftheria Neframi and Mauro Gatti (eds), Constitutional Issues of EU External Relations (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2018) (forthcoming).
  • Chiti Mario P., ‘Judicial and Political Power: Where is the Dividing Line?: A Praise for Judicialization and for Judicial Restraint’ (2015) 21 European Public Law 705.
  • Craig Paul and Gráinne De Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials (6th edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 2015).
  • Cremona Marise, ‘Defending the Community Interest: the Duties of Cooperation and Compliance’ in Marise Cremona and Bruno de Witte (eds), EU foreign relations law: Constitutional fundamentals: Essays in European Law (Hart Publishing, Portland – Oregon 2008).
  • Cremona Marise, ‘C-246/07 Case Law’ (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review 1639.
  • Cremona Marise, ‘EU External Relations: Unity and Conferral of Powers’ in Loïc Azoulai (ed), The Question of Competence in the European Union (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2014).
  • Cremona Marise, ‘EU External Competence-Rationales for Exclusivity’ in Sacha Garben and Inge Govaere (eds), The Division of Competences between the EU and the Member States: Reflections on the Past, the Present and the Future (Hart Publishing, Portland – Oregon 2017).
  • Delgado Casteleiro Andrés and Joris Larik, ‘The Duty to Remain Silent: Limitless Loyalty in EU External Relations?’ (2011) 36 European Law Review 522.
  • Delgado Casteleiro Andrés, ‘United We Stand: The EU and its Member States in the Strasbourg Court’ in Vasiliki Kosta, Nikos Skoutaris and Vassilis P Tzevelekos (eds), The EU Accession to the ECHR (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2014).
  • Demedts Valerie and Merijn Chamon, ‘The Commission back on the leash: No autonomy to sign non-binding agreements on behalf of the EU: Council v. Commission’ (2017) 54 Common Market Law Review 245.
  • Dimopoulos Angelos, ‘The Effects of the Lisbon Treaty on the Principles and Objectives of the Common Commercial Policy’ (2010) 15 European Foreign Affairs Review 153.
  • Eckes Christina, ‘The CFSP and Other EU Policies: A Difference in Nature?’ (2015) 20 European Foreign Affairs Review 535.
  • Eeckhout Piet, EU External Relations Law (2nd edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 2011).
  • Flaesch-Mougin Catherine, ‘Chronique L'action extérieure de l'Union européenne - Dans un arrêt d'importance constitutionnelle, la Cour annule une décision hybride relative à la signature et à l'application provisoire de deux accords mixtes dans le domaine du transport aérien’ (2015) Revue Trimestrelle De Droit Européen 617.
  • Flavier Hugo, La contribution des relations extérieures à la construction de l’ordre constitutionnel de l’Union européenne (Bruylant, Brussels 2012).
  • Garben Sacha and Inge Govaere, ‘The Division of Competences between the EU and the Member States: Reflections on the Past, the Present and the Future’ in Sacha Garben and Inge Govaere (eds), The Division of Competences between the EU and the Member States: Reflections on the Past, the Present and the Future (Hart Publishing, Portland – Oregon 2017).
  • Garben Sacha, ‘Restating the Problem of Competence Creep, Tackling Harmonisation by Stealth and Reinstating the Legislator’ in Sacha Garben and Inge Govaere (eds), The Division of Competences between the EU and the Member States: Reflections on the Past, the Present and the Future (Hart Publishing, Portland – Oregon 2017).
  • Gatti Mauro and Pietro Manzini, ‘External representation of the European Union in the conclusion of international agreements’ (2012) 49 Common Market Law Review 1703.
  • Gosalbo-Bono Ricardo and Frederik Naert, ‘The reluctant (Lisbon) Treaty and Its Implementation in the Practice of the Council’ in Piet Eeckhout and Manuel Lopez-Escudero (eds), The European Union’s External Action in Times of Crisis (Hart Publishing, Portland – Oregon 2016).
  • Govaere Inge, ‘Setting the international scene: EU external competence and procedures post-Lisbon revisited in the light of ECJ Opinion 1/13’ (2015) 52 Common Market Law Review 1277.
  • Govaere Inge, ‘To Give or To Grab: The Principle of Full, Crippled and Split Conferral of Powers Post-Lisbon’ in Marise Cremona (ed), Structural Principles in EU External Relations Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2018).
  • Hillion Christophe, ‘Mixity and Coherence in EU External Relations: the Significance of the ‘Duty of Cooperation’’ in Christophe Hillion and Panos Koutrakos (eds), Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and its Member States in the World (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2010).   
  • Hillion Christophe, ‘Conferral, cooperation and balance in the institutional framework of the EU external action’ in Marise Cremona (ed), Structural Principles in EU External Relations Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2018).
  • Huber Peter M., ‘The Federal Constitutional Court and European Integration’ (2015) 21 European Public Law 83.
  • Jacobs Francis G, Foreword in Sacha Garben and Inge Govaere (eds), The Division of Competences between the EU and the Member States: Reflections on the Past, the Present and the Future (Hart Publishing, Portland – Oregon 2017) v.
  • Klamert Marcus, The principle of loyalty in EU Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2014).
  • Kleimann David, ‘Reading Opinion 2/15: Standards of Analysis, the Court’s Discretion, and the Legal View of the Advocate General’ (2017) 23 EUI Working Papers, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies 1.
  • Koutrakos Panos, EU International Relations Law (2nd edn Hart Publishing, Oxford 2015).
  • Krämer Ludwig, ‘The Single European Act and Environment Protection: Reflections on several new

    provisions in Community law’ (1987) 24 Common Market Law Review 659.
  • Kuijper Pieter Jan and others, The law of EU External Relations: Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the EU as an International Legal Actor (Oxford University Press, New-York 2013).
  • Larik Joris, ‘No mixed feelings: The post-Lisbon Common Commercial Policy in

    Daiichi Sankyo and Commission v. Council (Conditional Access

    Convention)’ (2015) 52 Common Market Law Review 779.
  • Larik Joris, ‘Pars Pro Toto: The Member States’ Obligations of Sincere Cooperation, Solidarity and Unity’ in Marise Cremona (ed), Structural Principles in EU External Relations Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2018).
  • Lock Tobias, ‘The Not So Free Choice of EU Member States in International Dispute Settlement’ (2017) 5 University of Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper Series 1.
  • Maresceau Marc, ‘A typology of mixed bilateral agreements’ in Christophe Hillion and Panos Koutrakos (eds), Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and its Member States in the World (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2010).
  • Martínez Iglesias María José, ‘The Lisbon Treaty’s Competence Arrangement Viewed by the European Parliament’ in Sacha Garben and Inge Govaere (eds), The Division of Competences between the EU and the Member States: Reflections on the Past, the Present and the Future (Hart Publishing, Portland – Oregon 2017).
  • Moorhead Timothy, The Legal Order of the European Union – The Institutional Role of the Court of Justice (Routledge, London 2014).
  • Neframi Eleftheria, Les accords mixtes de la Communauté européenne: aspects communautaires et internationaux (Bruylant, Brussels 2007).
  • Neframi Eleftheria, ‘The Duty of Loyalty: Rethinking its Scope through its Application in the Field of EU External Relations’ (2010) 47 Common Market Law Review 323.
  • Neframi Eleftheria, ‘Vertical Division of Competences and the Objectives of the European Union's External Action’ in Marise Cremona and Anne Thies (eds), The European Court of Justice and External Relations Law: constitutional challenges (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2014).
  • Olson Peter, ‘Mixity from the outside: the Perspective of a Treaty Partner’ in Christophe Hillion and Panos Koutrakos (eds), Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and its Member States in the World (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2010).
  • Passos Ricardo, ‘The External Powers of the European Parliament’ in Piet Eeckhout and Manuel Lopez-Escudero (eds), The European Union’s External Action in Times of Crisis (Hart Publishing, Portland – Oregon 2016).
  • Piris Jean-Claude, The Lisbon Treaty: A Legal and Political analysis (Cambridge University Press, New-York 2010).
  • Ramalho Ana, ‘Signed, Sealed, but Not Delivered: The EU and the Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty’ (2015) 6 European Journal of Risk Regulation 629.
  • Sánchez-Tabernero Soledad R., ‘The choice of legal basis and the principle of consistency in the procedure for conclusion of international agreements in CFSP contexts: Parliament v. Council (Pirate-Transfer Agreement with Tanzania)’ (2017) 54 Common Market Law Review 899.
  • Schütze Robert, ‘Lisbon and the federal order of competences: a prospective analysis’ (2008) 33 European Law Review 709.
  • Schütze Robert, Foreign Affairs and the EU Constitution: Selected Essays (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2014).
  • Van der Loo Guillaume, ‘The Court’s Opinion on the EU-Singapore FTA: Throwing off the shackles of mixity?’ (2017) 17 CEPS Policy Insights 1.
  • Van Elsuwege Peter, ‘On the Boundaries between the European Union's First Pillar and Second Pillar: A Comment on the Ecowas Judgment of the European Court of Justice’ (2009) 15 Columbia Journal of European Law 531.
  • Van Elsuwege Peter and Jan Orbie, ‘The EU’s Humanitarian Aid Policy after Lisbon: Implications of a New Treaty Basis’ in Inge Govaere and Sara Poli (eds), EU Management of Global Emergencies Legal Framework for Combating Threats and Crises (Koninklijke Brill, Leiden 2014).
  • Van Elsuwege Peter, ‘The Potential For Inter-Institutional Conflicts before the Court of Justice: Impact of the Lisbon Treaty’ in Marise Cremona and Anne Thies (eds), The European Court of Justice and External Relations Law: constitutional challenges (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2014).
  • Van Elsuwege Peter, ‘Securing the Institutional Balance in the Procedure for Concluding International Agreements: European Parliament v. Council (Pirate Transfer Agreement with Mauritius)’ (2015) 52 Common Market Law Review 1379.
  • Van Elsuwege Peter, ‘Legal Creativity in EU External Relations: The Stabilization and Association Agreement between the EU and Kosovo’ (2017) 22 European Foreign Affairs Review 393.
  • Verellen Thomas, ‘On hybrid decisions, mixed agreements and the limits of the new legal order: Commission v. Council (“US Air Transport Agreement”)’(2016) 53 Common Market Law Review 741.
  • Verellen Thomas, ‘Opinion 3/15 on the Marrakesh Treaty: The ECJ Reaffirms ‘Minimum Harmonisation’ Exception to ERTA Principle. Note under Opinion 3/15 (‘Marrakesh Treaty’)’ (2017) 42 Revista General de Derecho Europeo 160.
  • Von Bogdandy Armin and Jürgen Bast, ‘The Federal Order of Competences’ in Armin von Bogdandy and Jürgen Bast (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law (Hart Publishing/CH Beck, Oxford 2010).
  • Zwingmann Beke, ‘The Continuing Myth of Euro-Scepticism? The German Federal Constitutional Court Two Years After Lisbon’ (2012) 61 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 665.

 

  1. Others (in alphabetical order)

 

 

 

Download scriptie (1.19 MB)
Universiteit of Hogeschool
Universiteit Gent
Thesis jaar
2018
Promotor(en)
Professor Dr. Inge Govaere
Thema('s)
Rechten, notariaat en criminologische wetenschappen
Kernwoorden
Europees recht,
internationale relaties van de EU,
het principe van toegekende bevoegdheden,
het principe van loyale samenwerking,
Europees Hof van Justitie