Vorlesung im Schwerpunktbereich Nr. 7 „Internationales und Europäisches Recht“

Sommersemester 2023; 2 SWS.

Mittwoch 10.00-11.45 Uhr, Raum C425.

Beschreibung

Die Vorlesung in englischer Sprache richtet sich an Studierende des Schwerpunktbereichs Nr. 7 sowie der Austauschprogramme Erasmus/LL.M. des Fachbereichs Rechtswissenschaft. Bei vorhandenen Vorkenntnissen im Europarecht sowie regelmäßig auch Grundkenntnissen des Völkerrechts können zusätzlich auch Studierende des Fachbereichs Politik & Verwaltung mitwirken; ohne Vorkenntnisse im Europarecht ist das nicht möglich, weil es sich um eine fortgeschrittene Vorlesung handelt, die auf Anfängervorlesungen aufbaut. Vermittelt werden die rechtlichen Grundlagen der EU-Außenpolitik von der rechtlich-institutionellen Infrastruktur bis hin zur Ausgestaltung einzelner Politiken. Zugleich bezweckt die Vorlesung fachspezifische Erfahrungen mit der englischen Sprache, die eine jede Diskussionen über internationale Themen prägt.

Im ersten Abschnitt vertieft die Vorlesung bereichsspezifische Grundfragen des Europa- und Völkerrechts. In Fortführung der Pflichtvorlesungen geht es um Kompetenzen, Institutionen, Rechtsquellen sowie die Rechtswirkungen des Völkerrechts im Unionsrecht. Es folgt im zweiten und dritten Abschnitt der Blick auf ausgewählte Sachpolitiken unter Einschluss der Außenhandelspolitik sowie der Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik. Diese verdeutlichen die Bandbreite des auswärtigen EU-Handelns, das für die Rechts- und Politikpraxis inzwischen viel wichtiger ist als die Vertragsschlusstätigkeit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland aufgrund von Art. 59 GG. Zur Vermittlung fachspezifischer Englischkenntnisse beteiligen sich alle Studierende mit einem max. 8-minütigen Kurzvortrag zu einem selbst gewählten Sachthema als Training für die rhetorischen und sprachlichen Fertigkeiten. Hierfür gibt es bei Bedarf einen Fremdsprachenschein. Der freie mündliche Vortrag trainiert die rhetorischen und sprachlichen Fertigkeiten.

Separate Noten werden für Studierende des Schwerpunkts Nr. 7 – wie bei allen anderen Vorlesungen – nicht vergeben; die mündliche Prüfung am Ende betrifft den ganzen Schwerpunkt. Darüber hinaus geht es um Erfahrungen und Selbstbewusstsein im Umgang mit englischer Fachsprache als internationales Schlüsselwissen. Die mündliche Prüfungsleistung für die Teilnehmenden anderer Studiengänge umfasst den bereits erwähnen mündlichen Vortrag sowie eine mündliche Prüfung; eine schriftliche Prüfungsoption als Klausur oder Hausarbeit besteht nicht. Für die mündlichen Prüfungen ist eine Anmeldung erforderlich: Mit dem Professor muss bis Mitte Mai in der Vorlesung mündlich ein Thema vereinbart sein. Zusätzlich muss man sich bei ZEUS die Prüfungsleistung anmelden, was jedoch die Vereinbarung des Themas mit dem Professor in der Vorlesung nicht ersetzt.

Course Outline: Download.

Presentations – Rules and Themes: Download.

English Vocabulary: Download.

Power Point Presentation – Introduction/Evolution: Download.

Presentations – Names: Download.

Course Materials

Legal Texts

Each participant should have a German or English language edition of the EU Treaties and basic public international law instruments. My recommendations are:

Völker- und Europarecht, edited by Rolf Schwartmann, 12. Auflage (C.F. Müller, 2022).

A consolidated English language version of the EU Treaty, the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights can be found on the Europa website. All legislation may be downloaded electronically from the EUR-Lex-Homepage. The European External Action Service (EEAS) provides the general public with a database of international agreements concluded by the European Union. 

Textbooks (EU External Relations)

Note: MANY of these textbooks are too specific for the purposes of our course or do not sufficiently cover legal issues. I recommend the materials referred to in the general sections for each week in the course outline below instead (these course-specific recommendations include chapters from some of the textbooks mentioned below).

Jan Wouters/Frank Hoffmeister/Geert De Baere/Thomas Ramopoulos, The Law of EU External Relations. Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the EU as an International Legal Actor, 3rd edition (OUP, 2021): 65.00 £ (available online within the university network).

Ramses A. Wessel/Joris Larik (eds), EU External Relations Law. Text, Cases and Materials, 2nd edn (Hart, 2020): 44.99 £.

Christopher Hill/Michael Smith/Sophie Vanhoonacker (eds), International Relations and the European Union, 3rd edn (OUP, 2017): 40.00 £.

Panos Koutrakos, EU International Relations Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2015): 43.99 £.

Piet Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union, 2nd edn (OUP, 2011): 47.49 £.

Textbooks (General EU Law)

Craig, Paul/de Búrca, Gráinne: EU Law. Text, Cases and Materials, 7th edn (OUP, 2020): 44.99 £.

Chalmers, Damian/Davies, Gareth/Monti, Giorgio: European Union Law. Text and Materials, 4th edn (CUP, 2019): 43.99 £.

Textbooks (General Articles)

Till Müller-Ibold, ‘Das Recht der Außenbeziehungen’, in: Armin Hatje/Peter-Christian Müller-Graff (eds), Enzyklopädie Europarecht. Europäisches Organisations- und Verfassungsrecht, 2nd edn (Nomos, 2022), § 12.

Marise Cremona, ‘External Relations of the European Union’, in: Paul Craig/Gráinne de Búrca (eds), The Evolution of EU Law, 3rd edn (OUP, 2021), p. 431-479.

Daniel Thym, ‘Foreign Affairs’, in: Armin von Bogdandy/Jürgen Bast (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2009), pp. 309–343.

Daniel Thym, ‘Auswärtige Gewalt’, in: Armin von Bogdandy/Jürgen Bast (eds), Europäisches Verfassungsrecht, 2nd edn (Springer, 2009), pp. 441–488 (= German version).

Essential Internet Resources

European External Action Service.

Common Commercial Policy.

Neighbourhood Policy & Enlargement; International Partnership (Development).

Auswärtiges Amt; Quai d’Orsay; Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

Express and Implied Competences

General Reading

P. Craig/G. de Búrca, EU Law. Text, Cases and Materials, 7th edn (OUP, 2020), § 10.1-3.

A. Ott, ‘EU External Competence’, in: R. Wessel/J. Larik (eds), EU External Relations Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2020), p. 61-100.

T. Oppermann/C.D. Classen/M. Nettesheim, Europarecht, 9th edn (C.H. Beck, 2021), § 38.

T. Müller-Ibold, ‘Das Recht der Außenbeziehungen’, in: Armin Hatje/Peter-Christian Müller-Graff (eds), Enzyklopädie Europarecht. Europäisches Organisations- und Verfassungsrecht, 2nd edn (Nomos, 2022), § 12 paras 145-171.

M. Cremona, ‘External Relations of the European Union’, in: Paul Craig/Gráinne de Búrca (eds), The Evolution of EU Law, 3rd edn (OUP, 2021), p. 431 at 433-445 & 453-466: extensive description; participants are NOT expected to know all the details.

D. Thym, ‘Foreign Affairs’, in: Armin von Bogdandy/Jürgen Bast (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2009), p. 309 at 316-320.

Judgments

ECJ, AETR, 22/70, EU:C:1971:32: established the implied powers doctrine (paras 13-32; English abbreviation often ERTA instead of AETR).

ECJ, ILO-Convention No. 170, Opinion 2/91, EU:C:1993:106: application of the AETR/ERTA formula to minimum harmonisation at European and national level.

ECJ, Lugano Convention, Opinion 1/03, EU:C:2006:81: scope of the AETR/ERTA doctrine in areas with extensive (but not exclusive) EU action; separation clauses in international agreements.

ECJ, Commission vs. Council, C-114/12, EU:C:2014:2151, paras 64 et seq. confirm that Article 3(2) TFEU codifies earlier case law, including situations in which an area ‘is already largely covered’ by EU rules; in such scenarios, the EU has an exclusive competence without internal and external rules ‘coincid[ing] fully’ (paras 69-70).

ECJ, Marrakesh Treaty, Opinion 3/15, EU:C:2017:114: reiterates the significance of the AETR/ERTA doctrine for multilateral agreements (paras 102-130).

EuGH, Germany vs. Council, C-600/14, EU:C:2017:935: shared competences can be exercised, as a non-exclusive competence, during the ratification procedure for an international treaty without the prior adoption on secondary legislation (paras 45-52).

Power Point Presentation – Competences: Download.

Institutional Prerogatives & International Agreements

General Reading

P. Craig/G. de Búrca, EU Law. Text, Cases and Materials, 7th edn (OUP, 2020), § 10.6.

T. Oppermann/C.D. Classen/M. Nettesheim, Europarecht, 9th edn (C.H. Beck, 2021), § 38.

T. Müller-Ibold, ‘Das Recht der Außenbeziehungen’, in: Armin Hatje/Peter-Christian Müller-Graff (eds), Enzyklopädie Europarecht. Europäisches Organisations- und Verfassungsrecht, 2nd edn (Nomos, 2022), § 12 paras 197-245.

J. Wouters/T. Ramopoulos, ‘The Institutional Structure’, in: Takis Tridimas/Robert Schütze (eds), The Oxford Principles of European Union Law, Vol. I (OUP, 2018), p. 1067-1109.

D. Thym, ‘Foreign Affairs’, in: Armin von Bogdandy/Jürgen Bast (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2009), p. 309 at 323-326.

Further Reading

P. Koutrakos, ‘Decision Making Procedures’, in: Takis Tridimas/Robert Schütze (eds), The Oxford Principles of European Union Law, Vol. I (OUP, 2018), p. 1141-1173.

M. Krajewski, ‘Binnenorganisationen der EU-Außenpolitik’, in: Andreas von Arnauld (ed), Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Vol. XII, 2nd edn (Nomos, 2022), § 4.

P. Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union, 2nd edn (OUP, 2011), p. 193-211.

J. Wouters/F. Hoffmeister/G. De Baere/T. Ramopoulos, The Law of EU External Relations. Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the EU as an International Legal Actor, 3rd edition (OUP, 2021), ch. 3.

Materials

Consult the Treaties Office Database for an overview of the scope and breadth of bilateral agreements concluded with third states.

European Parliament newsroom about recent developments in the field of external relations.

Judgments

ECJ, Commission vs. Ireland (Mox Plant), C-459/03, EU:C:2006:345: exclusive ECJ competence for the interpretation of Union law; Member States are prohibited from bringing such claims to international courts or conflict resolution bodies.

ECJ, Council vs. Commission, C-73/14, EU:C:2015:663 & ECJ, Council vs. Commission, C-660/13, EU:C:2016:616: scope of the executive power of the Commission to represent the EU position independently without prior authorisation by the Council under Art. 16(1)(2), 17(1)(6) TEU: yes for standing in the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea in situations with a pre-defined EU position (C-73/14); no for non-binding political statements with Switzerland concerning ‘essential aspects’ of bilateral relations on which no common position exists so far (C-660/13).

ECJ, European Parliament vs. Council, C-263/14, EU:C:2016:435: EP has to be informed about all stages of the negotiating procedure under Art. 218(10) TFEU, not only before the final conclusion.

General Court, Efler et al. vs. Commission, T-754/14, EU:T:2017:323: Commission is obliged to allow the citizens’ initiative ‘Stop TTIP’ to proceed under Art. 11(4) TFEU.

Power Point Presentation: Download.

Status of International Law

General Reading

P. Craig/G. de Búrca, EU Law. Text, Cases and Materials, 7th edn (OUP, 2020), § 10.7-9.

R. Wessel, ‘The EU and International Law’, in: R. Wessel/J. Larik (eds), EU External Relations Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2020), p. 139-174.

J. Wouters/F. Hoffmeister/G. De Baere/T. Ramopoulos, The Law of EU External Relations. Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the EU as an International Legal Actor, 3rd edition (OUP, 2021), ch. 11.

Marise Cremona, ‘External Relations of the European Union’, in: Paul Craig/Gráinne de Búrca (eds), The Evolution of EU Law, 3rd edn (OUP, 2021), p. 431 at 445-452.

D. Thym, ‘Foreign Affairs’, in: Armin von Bogdandy/Jürgen Bast (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2009), p. 309 at 320-323.

Judgments

ECJ, Kupferberg, 104/81, EU:C:1982:362: direct effect of international agreements in the EU legal order (paras 13-27).

ECJ, Polydor, 270/80, EU:C:1982:43: identical provisions of EU law and international agreements cannot always be interpreted similarly due to the different context (paras 14-22).

ECJ, Kadi & Al Barakaat vs. Council & Commission, C-402/05 & C-415/05 P, EU:C:2008:461: primacy of the EU Treaty over international obligations (here: UNSC Resolutions) within the EU legal order; EU human rights standards supersede the enforcement of UN sanctions (paras 278-330).

ECJ, The Air Transport Association of America et al., C-366/10, EU:C:2011:864: are unilateral European measures extending the CO2 emissions trading scheme to air transport compatible with the EU’s international legal obligations? Excellent case to study the conditions for direct effect (paras 49-56) and the status of international custom (paras 101-110).

ECJ, Z., C-363/12, EU:C:2014:159: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was ratified by the EU and must be considered when interpreting Union law, but it cannot be relied on to challenge the validity secondary law, since its provisions are not precise and unconditional (paras 84-90).

ECJ, Draft Agreement between Canada and the EU (Passenger Name Record), Opinion 1/15, EU:C:2017:592: reaffirms that international agreements must be compatible with EU fundamental rights (paras 125 et seq.).

ECJ, Western Sahara Campaign UK, C-266/16, EU:C:2018:118: general statements on the status of international law in the EU legal order and the binding effect of international custom (paras 46-48).

Power Point Presentation: Download.

Case Study: EEC – Turkey Association Agreement

General Reading

See the reading list on the status of international law.

Materials

Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey of 12 Sept. 1963 (OJ 1977 L 361/29); Additional Protocol of 23 Nov. 1970 (OJ 1977 L 361/60).

EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision No. 1/80 of 19 Sept 1980.

Judgments

ECJ, Bozkurt, C-434/93, EU:C:1995:168: having regard to the objective and wording of the EEC-Turkey association agreement, the interpretation of the Association Council Decision 1/80 shall ‘so far as possible’ follow EU legal principles (paras 18-20).

ECJ, Hengartner & Gasser, C-70/09, EU:C:2010:430: does the agreement between the EC and Switzerland on the free movement of persons cover passive service recipients, e.g. German students buying sky passes or visiting operas (paras 36-42)?

ECJ, Demirkan, C-221/11, EU:C:2013:583: Article 41(1) Additional Protocol 1970 to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement does not cover service recipients – in contrast to the fundamental freedom within the single market – in the light of divergent objectives (paras 44-61).

Power Point Presentation: see previous section.

Mixed Agreements, Membership in International Organisations

General Reading

P. Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union, 2nd edn (OUP, 2011), p. 212-266 (overview).

K. von der Decken, ‘Beziehungen zu Drittstaaten und internationalen Organisationen’, in: Andreas von Arnauld (ed), Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Vol. XII, 2nd edn (Nomos, 2022), § 8 (overview).

Further Reading

J. Heliskoski, ‘Mixed Agreements’, in: Takis Tridimas/Robert Schütze (eds), The Oxford Principles of European Union Law, Vol. I (OUP, 2018), p. 1174-1207.

G. de Baere, ‘Union Membership in International Organizations’, in: Takis Tridimas/Robert Schütze (eds), The Oxford Principles of European Union Law, Vol. I (OUP, 2018), p. 1234-1282.

Materials

European Union@United Nations.

UN General Assembly: Participation of the European Union in the work of the United Nations, Res. A/65/276 of 10 May 2011.

Judgments

ECJ, European Economic Area I, Opinion 1/91, EU:C:1991:490: constitutional limits for EU participation in international agreements whenever the autonomy of Union law and its institutional system is at stake.

ECJ, Commission vs. Germany, C-433/03, EU:C:2005:462: duty of loyal cooperation of the Member States once the Commission has initiated treaty negotiations.

ECJ, Accession to the ECHR, Opinion 2/13, EU:C:2014:2454: the EU cannot accede to the ECHR under the draft accession agreement.

ECJ, Achmea, C-284/16, EU:C:2018:158: investment protection tribunals (in bilateral investment treaties among the Member States) are incompatible with the autonomy of the EU legal order the EU’s system of judicial protection (paras 32-58).

ECJ, Commission vs. Council, C-161/20, EU:C:2022:260: when international organisations without EU participation (here: IMO) discuss matters of exclusive Union competence, the EU may coordinate the activities and adopt common positions on the basis of Article 218(9) TFEU, even though the representation of that position need to be entrusted to the Commission in accordance with Article 17 TEU in light of the rules of the organisation in question and the principle of loyal cooperation.

Power Point Presentation: Download.

Common Foreign, Security & Defence Policy

General Reading

R. Wessel, ‘Common Foreign, Security and Defence Policy’, in: R. Wessel/J. Larik (eds), EU External Relations Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2020), p. 283-326.

T. Oppermann/C.D. Classen/M. Nettesheim, Europarecht, 9th edn (C.H. Beck, 2021), § 39.

D. Thym, ‘Foreign Affairs’, in: Armin von Bogdandy/Jürgen Bast (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2009), p. 309 at 330-338.

J. Howorth, ‘The EU’s Security and Defence Policy: The Quest for Purpose’, in: Christopher Hill/Michael Smith/Sophie Vanhoonacker (eds), International Relations and the European Union, 3rd edn (OUP, 2017), p. 341-364.

Further Reading

G. Butler, ‘The Coming of Age of the Court’s Jurisdiction in the Common Foreign and Security Policy’, European Constitutional Law Review 13 (2017), p. 673-703.

P. Koutrakos, EU International Relations Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2015), ch. 12-13.

D. Thym, ‘GASP und äußere Sicherheit’, in: Andreas von Arnauld/Marc Bungenberg (ed), Enzyklopädie Europarecht, 2nd edn (Nomos, 2022), § 16.

Materials (CFSP)

European External Action Service.

‘Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy’, June 2016.

‘A Secure Europe in a Better World – The European Security Strategy’, Council doc. 15895/03 of 8 Dec 2003.

Materials (CSDP)

Ongoing and former military and civil CSDP operations.

A Strategic Compass for Security and Defence, Council doc. 7371/22 of 21 March 2022.

European Defence Agency; Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD); Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2315 establishing Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) (OJ 2017 L 331/57); Regulation (EU) 2021/697 establishing the European Defence Fund (OJ 2021 L 170/149); Decision (CFSP) 2021/509 establishing a European Peace Facility (OJ 2021 L 102/14).

Auslandseinsätze der Bundeswehr.

Judgments

BVerfGE 123, 267 – Lissabon: intergovernmental character of the Common Security and Defence Policy as a mandatory requirement of German constitutional law (paras 381-391).

ECJ, European Parliament vs. Council, C-263/14, EU:C:2016:435: delimitation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and supranational policies.

ECJ, Rosneft, C-72/15 P, EU:C:2017:236: indirect judicial control of CSDP missions, here: smart sanctions against individuals, in cases of alleged human rights violations (paras 48 et seq.).

ECJ, Bank Refah Kargaran v. Council, C-134/19 P, EU:C:2020:793: action for damages (Staatshaftung) under Art. 340 TFEU apply to the CSDP (paras 23-52).

ECJ, Venezuela v. Council, C-872/19 P, EU:C:2021:507: a third state may challenge export restrictions for European companies before the supranational judiciary.

Power Point Presentation: CFSP – Download (forthcoming).

Power Point Presentation: CSDP – Download (forthcoming).

Association & Neighbourhood

General Reading

P. Van Elsuwege, ‘The EU and its Neighbours’, in: R. Wessel/J. Larik (eds), EU External Relations Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2020), p. 437-460.

T. Oppermann/C.D. Classen/M. Nettesheim, Europarecht, 9th edn (C.H. Beck, 2021), § 41.

K. Smith, ‘Enlargement, the Neighbourhood, and European Order’, in: Christopher Hill/Michael Smith/Sophie Vanhoonacker (eds), International Relations and the European Union, 3rd edn (OUP, 2017), p. 316-340.

Further Reading

L. Larik/B. Van Vooren, ‘The External Dimension of Joining and Leaving the EU’, in: R. Wessel/J. Larik (eds), EU External Relations Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2020), p. 461-490.

M. Kotzur, ‘Europäische Nachbarschaftspolitik’, in: Andreas von Arnauld (ed), Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Vol. XII, 2nd edn (Nomos, 2022), § 7.

Materials

Further information on the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean and the European Neighbourhood Policy: Eastern Partnership.

Power Point Presentation: Download (forthcoming).

Common Commercial Policy

General Reading

J. Larik, ‘Common Commercial Policy’, in: R. Wessel/J. Larik (eds), EU External Relations Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2020), p. 209-246.

T. Oppermann/C.D. Classen/M. Nettesheim, Europarecht, 9th edn (C.H. Beck, 2021), § 40.I-III.

T. Müller-Ibold, ‘Das Recht der Außenbeziehungen’, in: Armin Hatje/Peter-Christian Müller-Graff (eds), Enzyklopädie Europarecht. Europäisches Organisations- und Verfassungsrecht, 2nd edn (Nomos, 2022), § 12 paras 44-71.

P. Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union, 2nd edn (OUP, 2011), p. 447-460 (instruments & actors).

S. Meunier/K. Nicolaïdes, ‘The European Union as a Trade Power’, in: Christopher Hill/Michael Smith/Sophie Vanhoonacker (eds), International Relations and the European Union, 3rd edn (OUP, 2017), p. 209-234.

Further Reading

C. Herrmann/T. Müller-Ibold, ‘Die Entwicklung des europäischen Außenwirtschaftsrechts’, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2018, 749-757.

Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestags: Infobrief: Das Gutachten des EuGH zum EU-Freihandelsabkommen mit Singapur (EUSFTA), PE 6 – 3000 – 044/17 v. 10.7.2017.

M. Krajewski, ‘Normative Grundlagen der EU-Außenwirtschaftsbeziehungen: Verbindlich, umsetzbar und angewandt?‘, Europarecht 2016, 235-255.

S. Boysen, ‘Das System des Europäischen Außenwirtschaftsrechts’, in: Andreas von Arnauld (ed), Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Vol. XII, 2nd edn (Nomos, 2022), § 10.

W. Weiß, ‘Vertragliche Handelspolitik der EU’, in: Andreas von Arnauld (ed), Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Vol. XII, 2nd edn (Nomos, 2022), § 12.

Materials

Commission Website with recent developments and background information, incl. an overview of existing agreements and ongoing negotiations. Information on CETA and on TTIP, incl. the EU’s negotiation position.

Agreement between the European Union and Japan for an Economic Partnership of 17.7.2018 (OJ 2018 L 330/3), in force since 1 Feb 2019: first ‘EUonly’ trade agreement following the ECJ’s Opinion 2/15.

Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 ... laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269/1), with later amendments; Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 … applying a Scheme of Generalised Tariff Preferences (OJ 2012 L 303/1), with later amendments; Regulation (EU) 2015/478 … on Common Rules for Imports (OJ 2015 L 83/16), with later amendments; Regulation (EU) 2018/825 ... on protection against dumped imports ... and ... on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2018 L 143/1); Regulation (EU) 2019/452 ... establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments (OJ 2019 L 79I/1)...

Außenwirtschaftsgesetz (AWG); Außenwirtschaftsverordnung (AWV).

Judgments

Scope of EU Competences

ECJ, International Fruit Company, 21-24/72, EU:C:1972:115: EEC as a member of the GATT 1947 by means of functional succession before the conclusion of the Uruguay round when the EC officially become a state party (WTO Agreement).

ECJ, International Agreement on Natural Rubber, Opinion 1/78, EU:C:1979:224: instrumental view of trade policy (not exclusively aimed at liberalisation).

ECJ, WTO, Opinion 1/94, EU:C:1994:384: CCP as defined by the Rome Treaty covers the GATT – not the GATS and TRIPs which are subject to shared, implied AETR competences by the EC and the Member States and therefore require a mixed agreement (note: CCP was amended by the Treaties of Nice and Lisbon to cover GATS and TRIPs).

ECJ, EU-Singapore FTA, Opinion 2/15, EU:C:2017:376: CCP as defined by the Treaty of Lisbon includes most aspects of trade in goods and services as well as foreign direct investment, but Member States have to participate through a mixed agreement insofar as investment protection beyond the sphere of foreign direct investment and investor-state dispute settlement are concerned (while all other areas can be the subject of an EU only agreement).

Direct Applicability of WTO Law

ECJ, Portugal vs. Council, C-149/96, EU:C:1999:574: WTO law is not directly applicable (paras 25 et seq.).­

ECJ, Léon Van Parys, C-377/02, EU:C:2005:121: Appellate Body decisions within the DSU confirming that the EU have violated WTO law do not change our conclusion that WTO law is, as a matter of principle, not directly effective.

ECJ, FIAMM & FIAMM Technologies, C-120/06 P and 121/06 P, EU:C:2008:476: companies cannot claim non-contractual liability for violations of WTO law by the EU.

ECJ, EU-Canada CETA-Agreement, Opinion 1/17, EU:C:2019:341: compatibility of the investment dispute resolution mechanism in CETA with Canada with the EU Treaties (paras 16 et seq. with a highly complex and detailed analysis).

Power Point Presentation: Download (forthcoming).