Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T13:23:01.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE TERRITORIAL REACH OF EUROPEAN UNION LAW: A PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW ENQUIRY INTO THE EUROPEAN UNION'S SPATIAL IDENTITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2023

Toni Marzal Open the ORCID record for Toni Marzal [Opens in a new window]
Toni Marzal*
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
*
Email: antonio.marzal@glasgow.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article offers a reconstruction of how the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) justifies the territorial scope of application of EU law. Scholarship on this issue tends to advocate for an expansive projection of EU norms in the pursuit of global values, subject to the external limits of public international law. This article will develop a critique of this approach by pointing to its underlying assumptions as to the territorial dimension of the EU's rule, the insoluble practical issues that it leads to, and the need to consider differently the EU's spatial identity and relation to the wider world. It will also be argued that, in fact, other case law sometimes already reflects an alternative vision, by imagining the EU implicitly, not as a ‘global actor’ promoting universal values, but as a concretely situated and spatially bounded community. It will be shown that this is so with the methodological help of private international law, and in particular three doctrines that are traditional to this discipline—the localisation of cross-border relations, international imperativeness, and the public policy exception. This will ultimately allow for a more sophisticated understanding of the EU's territory to emerge—irreducible to the physical coordinates of its acts of intervention, or the mere sum of the physical spaces under Member State sovereignty, but as a distinct space of social relations, informed and delineated by the particular axiology and structure of the EU legal system.

Keywords

private international lawEuropean Union lawpublic international lawterritorialityexternal relationsEuropean Union constitutional identityTerritory of European UnionextraterritorialityEuropean Union as global actor
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , January 2024 , pp. 29 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Gömann, M, ‘The New Territorial Scope of EU Data Protection Law: Deconstructing a Revolutionary Achievement’ (2017) 54 CMLRev 567Google Scholar.

2 Fox, EM, ‘Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Antitrust, and the EU Intel Case: Implementation, Qualified Effects, and the Third Kind’ (2019) 42 FordhamIntlLJ 981Google Scholar.

3 Hadjiyianni, I, ‘The Court of Justice of the European Union as a Transnational Actor through Judicial Review of the Territorial Scope of EU Environmental Law’ (2019) 21 CYELS 128Google Scholar.

4 Moreno-Lax, V and Costello, C, ‘The Extraterritorial Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: From Territoriality to Facticity, the Effectiveness Model’ in S Peers et al (eds), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Hart 2014) 1657Google Scholar.

5 Hindelang, S, The Free Movement of Capital and Foreign Direct Investment: The Scope of Protection in EU Law (OUP 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Francq, S, L'applicabilité du droit communautaire dérivé au regard des méthodes du droit international privé (Bruylant 2005)Google Scholar; Mathieu, B, Directives européennes et conflits de lois (LGDJ 2015)Google Scholar.

7 Ryngaert, C, ‘Whither Territoriality? The European Union's Use of Territoriality to Set Norms with Universal Effects’ in C Ryngaert, EJ Molenaar and S Nouwen (eds), What's Wrong with International Law? Liber Amicorum A.H.A. Soons (Brill-Nijhoff 2015) 434CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Scott, J, ‘The New EU “Extraterritoriality”’ (2014) 51 CMLRev 1343Google Scholar.

9 Scott, J, ‘Extraterritoriality and Territorial Extension in EU Law’ (2014) 62 AmJCompL 87Google Scholar.

10 Búrca, G de, ‘Europe's Raison d’être’ in D Kochenov and F Amtenbrink (eds), The European Union's Shaping of the International Legal Order (CUP 2013) 21Google Scholar.

11 Mills, A, ‘Private International Law and EU External Relations: Think Local Act Global, or Think Global Act Local?’ (2016) 65 ICLQ 541, 561CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Scott (n 8).

13 Lindahl, H, ‘Finding a Place for Freedom, Security and Justice: The European Union's Claim to Territorial Unity’ (2004) 29 ELR 461Google Scholar. See also de Witte, F, ‘Here be Dragons: Legal Geography and EU Law’ (2022) 1 EurLOpen 113Google Scholar.

14 Lythgoe, GC, ‘Distinct Persons; Distinct Territories: Rethinking the Spaces of International Organizations’ (2022) 19 IOLR 365Google Scholar.

15 Weinzierl, J, ‘Territoriality Beyond the State: The EU's Territorial Claims and the Search for Their Legitimacy’ (2021) 22 GermLJ 650Google Scholar.

16 Francq, S, ‘The Scope of Secondary Community Law in the Light of the Methods of Private International Law – Or the Other Way Around?’ (2006) 8 YrbkPrivIntl L 333, 338Google Scholar. A classic example of the private international law critique of territoriality is Cook, WW, ‘The Jurisdiction of Sovereign States and the Conflict of Laws’ (1931) 31 ColumLRev 368Google Scholar.

17 Banu, R, Nineteenth-Century Perspectives on Private International Law (OUP 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 The so-called Brussels Regulations enact unified rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments across a number of domains, while the Rome Regulations do the same with respect to choice-of-law rules. It is of course the case that the territorial scope of application of those EU instruments must also be defined: Mills (n 11). This particular example, which presents an additional layer of technical complexity, will not be addressed in this article.

19 Knop, K, Michaels, R and Riles, A, ‘From Multiculturalism to Technique: Feminism, Culture and the Conflict of Laws Style’ (2012) 64 StanLRev 589Google Scholar.

20 Azoulai, L, ‘“Integration through Law” and Us’ (2016) 14 ICON 449Google Scholar.

21 ibid. See also, Williams, A, The Ethos of Europe:Values, Law and Justice in the EU (CUP 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 See, eg, Hopkins, N and Dixon, J, ‘Space, Place, and Identity: Issues for Political Psychology’ (2006) 27 PolPsych 173Google Scholar.

23 Lythgoe (n 14).

24 Arcuri, A and Violi, F, ‘Reconfiguring Territoriality in International Economic Law’ (2016) 47 NYIL 175Google Scholar.

25 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/47, art 153.1(g).

26 Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l'emploi (ONEm) ECLI:EU:C:2011:124, para 44.

27 Azoulai, L, ‘Transfiguring European Citizenship: From Member State Territory to Union Territory’ in D Kochenov (ed), EU Citizenship and Federalism: The Role of Rights (CUP 2017) 178Google Scholar.

28 A Ben Mansour, ‘Le territoire de l'Union’ in M Benlolo-Carabot, U Candaş and E Cujo (eds), Union européenne et droit international : En l'honneur de Patrick Daillier (Editions A. Pedone 2013) 209.

29 Azoulai (n 27).

30 Balibar, E, ‘Europe as Borderland’ (2009) 27 Envt&PlanD:Soc&Space 190Google Scholar.

31 See, eg, T Pullano, ‘The Evolving Category of Territory: From the Modern State to the European Union’ (2009) GARNET Working Paper No 64/09.

32 Agnew, J, ‘The Territorial Trap: The Geographical Assumption of International Relations Theory’ (1994) 1 RevIntlPolEcon 53Google Scholar; Ruggie, JG, ‘Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations’ (1993) 47 IntlOrg 139Google Scholar; J Painter, ‘Rethinking Territory’ (2010) 42 Antipode 1090.

33 S Sassen, ‘When Territory Deborders Territoriality’ (2013) 1 TerrPolGov 21.

34 Arcuri and Violi (n 24); Lythgoe (n 14).

35 See the classic article, B Currie, ‘Married Women's Contracts: A Study In Conflict-of-Laws Method’ (1958) 25 UChiLRev 227.

36 See, eg, S Francq, ‘Unilatéralisme versus bilatéralisme : une opposition ontologique ou un débat dépassé ? Quelques considérations de droit européen sur un couple en crise perpétuelle’ in T Azzi and O Boskovic (eds), Quel avenir pour la théorie générale des conflits de lois ? (Bruylant 2015) 49.

37 Case C-131/12 Google Spain SL and Google Inc v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González ECLI:EU:C:2014:317.

38 ibid, para 53.

39 ibid, para 34.

40 ibid, para 54.

41 Case C-366/10 Air Transport Association of America (AATA) and Others v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change ECLI:EU:C:2011:864, para 128.

42 Case C-561/20 Q, R, S v United Airlines Inc ECLI:EU:C:2022:266, para 58.

43 Case C-424/13 Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v Stadt Kempten ECLI:EU:C:2015:259, paras 35–36.

44 Case C-592/14 European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Attorney General ECLI:EU:C:2016:703, para 41.

45 Case C-18/18 Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited ECLI:EU:C:2019:821, paras 48–52.

46 See, eg, Case C-286/90 Anklagemyndigheden v Peter Michael Poulsen and Diva Navigation Corp ECLI:EU:C:1992:453, para 11.

47 WS Dodge, ‘Extraterritoriality of Statutes and Regulations’ in A Parrish and C Ryngaert (eds), Research Handbook on Extraterritoriality in International Law (Elgar Publishing 2023).

48 AATA (n 41) para 125.

49 Mills (n 11).

50 Scott (n 9).

51 Cremona, M and Scott, J, EU Law Beyond EU Borders: The Extraterritorial Reach of EU Law (OUP 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fahey, E, The Global Reach of EU Law (Routledge 2019)Google Scholar.

52 Scott (n 9) 114.

53 ibid 89.

54 Ryngaert (n 7) 435.

55 A Bradford, ‘The Brussels Effect’ (2012) 107 NWULRev 1.

56 ibid 37.

57 Chalmers, D, ‘The Unconfined Power of European Union Law’ (2016) 1 EurPap 405Google Scholar.

58 Case C-507/17 Google v CNIL ECLI:EU:C:2019:772.

59 ibid, paras 54–55.

60 ibid, para 58.

61 ibid, para 61.

62 Lindahl (n 13).

63 Sassen (n 33).

64 Lythgoe (n 14).

65 Weinzierl (n 15).

66 Sassen (n 33).

67 PS Berman, ‘The Globalization of Jurisdiction’ (2002) 151 UPaLRev 311, 432–5.

68 The Court notes the ‘advertising space offered by the search engine which serves to make the service offered by that engine profitable’, and thus constitutes ‘the means enabling those activities to be performed’: Google Spain (n 37) paras 55–56.

69 ibid, paras 97–98.

70 PS Berman, ‘Yahoo! v. LICRA, Private International Law, and the Deterritorialisation of Data’ in H Muir Watt et al (eds), Global Private International Law: Adjudication without Frontiers (Edward Elgar 2019) 393.

71 On the exclusionary dimension of the EU project, see Hans Kundnani's recent book: H Kundnani, Eurowhiteness: Culture, Empire and Race in the European Project (Hurst 2023).

72 Case C-638/16 PPU X and X v État belge ECLI:EU:C:2017:173.

73 ibid, para 49.

74 ibid, para 48.

75 ibid, Opinion of AG Mengozzi, ECLI:EU:C:2017:93. On the idea of responsibility to address questions of applicable law, see J Bomhoff, ‘The Reach of Rights: “The Foreign” and “The Private” in Conflict-of-Laws, State-Action, and Fundamental-Rights Cases with Foreign Elements’ (2008) 71 Law&ContempProbs 39, 69.

76 See also the more recent Case T-600/21 WS and Others v Frontex ECLI:EU:T:2023:492 (considering Frontex not accountable for violations of human rights in return operations that it assisted, which are left to the responsibility of individual Member States).

77 See, eg, M Reimann, ‘Savigny's Triumph? Choice of Law in Contracts Cases at the Close of the Twentieth Century’ (1999) 39 VaJIntlL 571. As an aside, it should nevertheless be said that mainstream private international law practice does not usually link the localisation approach to the construction of a situated community, but rather to the protection of the individual expectations of private parties—see the critique in T Marzal and G Pavlakos, ‘A Relations-First Approach to Choice of Law’ in R Banu, M Green and R Michaels (eds), Philosophical Foundations of Private International Law (OUP 2024, forthcoming).

78 Joined cases 89, 104, 114, 116, 117 and 125 to 129/85 A Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v Commission (Wood Pulp) ECLI:EU:C:1988:447, para 16.

79 Case T-102/96 Gencor Ltd v Commission ECLI:EU:T:1999:65, para 90.

80 Case C-413/14 P Intel Corporation Inc v European Commission ECLI:EU:C:2017:632, para 40.

81 G Monti, ‘The Global Reach of EU Competition Law’ in Cremona and Scott (n 51) 174.

82 Wood Pulp (n 78) para 16.

83 Case 237/83 SARL Prodest v Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladie de Paris ECLI:EU:C:1984:277.

84 ibid, Opinion of AG Lenz, ECLI:EU:C:1984:239, paras B.1, B.4.

85 Prodest (n 83) para 6, relying on Case 36-74 BNO Walrave and LJN Koch v Association Union cycliste internationale et al ECLI:EU:C:1974:140, para 28.

86 To borrow from Painter (n 32).

87 This critique of territoriality is a classic locus of private international law. See, eg, E Pataut, ‘Territorialité et coordination en droit international privé. L'exemple de la sécurité sociale’ in Mélanges en l'honneur du Professeur Pierre Mayer (LGDJ 2015) 663.

88 Lythgoe (n 14).

89 Prodest (n 83) para 6.

90 See, eg, P Lagarde, Le principe de proximité dans le droit international privé contemporain; cours général de droit international privé ( Nijhoff 1987) 25.

91 Case C-70/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain ECLI:EU:C:2004:505, para 32.

92 This is particularly so in the economic domain: see, eg, Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II) [2007] OJ L199/40, art 6(1): ‘1. The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of an act of unfair competition shall be the law of the country where competitive relations or the collective interests of consumers are, or are likely to be, affected.’

93 Watt, H Muir, ‘Private International Law Beyond the Schism’ (2011) 2 TLT 347CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 See, eg, Rome II Regulation (n 92) art 4(2). Habitual residence is particularly widespread in the domain of family law, where it has been interpreted by the CJEU, in relation to children in disputes about parental responsibility, as meaning that ‘it corresponds to the place which reflects some degree of integration by the child in a social and family environment’: Case C-523/07 A ECLI:EU:C:2009:225, para 44.

95 L Azoulai, ‘La Citoyenneté Européenne, un Statut d'Intégration Sociale’ in Chemins d'Europe: Mélanges en l'honneur de Jean Paul Jacqué (Dalloz 2010) 1.

96 Case C-544/11 Helga Petersen and Peter Petersen v Finanzamt Ludwigshafen ECLI:EU:C:2013:124, para 40.

97 ibid, para 42.

98 Case 300/84 AJM van Roosmalen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Gezondheid, Geestelijke en Maatschappelijke Belangen ECLI:EU:C:1986:402, para 29.

99 Case 9/88 Mário Lopes da Veiga v Staatssecretaris van Justitie ECLI:EU:C:1989:346, para 17.

100 ibid.

101 ibid.

102 Case C-214/94 Ingrid Boukhalfa v Bundesrepublik Deutschland ECLI:EU:C:1996:174, para 16.

103 Case C-266/13 L Kik v Staatssecretaris van Financiën ECLI:EU:C:2015:188, para 43.

104 Case C-60/93 RL Aldewereld v Staatssecretaris van Financiën ECLI:EU:C:1994:271, para 14.

105 Case C-385/00 FWL de Groot v Staatssecretaris van Financiën ECLI:EU:C:2002:750, para 76.

106 Petersen (n 96) para 38.

107 ibid, para 42.

108 ibid, para 12.

109 Case C-135/08 Janko Rottman v Freistaat Bayern ECLI:EU:C:2010:104.

110 Case C-221/17 MG Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken ECLI:EU:C:2019:189.

111 ibid, para 35.

112 ibid, para 36.

113 See generally, A Mills, Party Autonomy in Private International Law (CUP 2018).

114 See generally, H Muir Watt, ‘“Party Autonomy” in International Contracts: From the Makings of a Myth to the Requirements of Global Governance’ (2010) 6 ERCL 250.

115 G Radicati di Brozolo, ‘Mondialisation, juridiction, arbitrage : vers des règles d'application sémi-nécessaire ?’ (2003) RCDIP 1.

116 See, eg, Marzal, T, ‘The Constitutionalisation of Party Autonomy in European Family Law’ (2010) 6 JPrivIntlL 155Google Scholar.

117 Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I) [2008] OJ L177/6, art 3(1).

118 ibid, art 3(4): ‘Where all other elements relevant to the situation at the time of the choice are located in one or more Member States, the parties’ choice of applicable law other than that of a Member State shall not prejudice the application of provisions of Community law, where appropriate as implemented in the Member State of the forum, which cannot be derogated from by agreement.’

119 Francq (n 16) 348.

120 A Supiot, ‘L'inscription territoriale des lois’ (2008) Esprit 151.

121 Walrave (n 85) para 28.

122 Case C-381/98 Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc ECLI:EU:C:2000:605.

123 Francq (n 16) 343.

124 Ingmar (n 122) para 25.

125 ibid.

126 D Bureau and H Muir Watt, Droit international privé, vol I (5th edn, Presses Universitaires de France 2021) 62.

127 Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v Benetton International NV ECLI:EU:C:1999:269; Case C-168/05 Elisa María Mostaza Claro v Centro Móvil Milenium SL ECLI:EU:C:2006:675.

128 Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts [1993] OJ L95/29, art 6.

129 Commission v Spain (n 91) paras 32–33.

130 ibid. Opinion of AG Geelhoed, ECLI:EU:C:2004:279, para 26.

131 Case C-184/12 United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (Unamar) NV v Navigation Maritime Bulgare ECLI:EU:C:2013:663.

132 Francq (n 36).

133 Mills, A, ‘The Dimensions of Public Policy in Private International Law’ (2008) 4 JPrivIntlL 201Google Scholar.

134 Hague Conference on Private International Law, Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts (Hague Conference on Private International Law 2015) 72 <https://assets.hcch.net/upload/conventions/txt40en.pdf >.

135 Joubert, N, La notion de liens suffisants avec l'ordre juridique (Inlandsbeziehung) en droit international privé (Lexis Nexis 2008)Google Scholar.

136 Watt, H Muir, Discours sur les méthodes du droit international privé (des formes juridiques de l'inter-altérité) (Brill 2019) para 180Google Scholar.

137 Eckes, C, ‘The Autonomy of the EU Legal Order’ (2020) 4 Eur&Wld 2Google Scholar.

138 Case 6-64 Flaminio Costa v ENEL ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.

139 Joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities ECLI:EU:C:2008:461.

140 Opinion 2/13 re EU Accession to the ECHR EU:C:2014:2454.

141 See, eg, Opinion 1/17 re CETA ECLI:EU:C:2019:341, para 109.

142 J van de Beeten, ‘On Metaphor and Meaning: The Autonomy of EU Legal Order Through the Lens of Project and System’ (3 April 2023). Forthcoming in European Papers, LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No 10/2023 <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4408114>.

143 As argued by Mills (n 11) 572.

144 Case C-284/16 Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV ECLI:EU:C:2018:158.

145 ibid, para 59.

146 Case C-741/19 République de Moldavie v Komstroy LLC ECLI:EU:C:2021:655.

147 Case C-109/20 Republiken Polen v PL Holdings Sàrl ECLI:EU:C:2021:875.

148 Komstroy (n 146) para 47.

149 Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (Schrems I) ECLI:EU:C:2015:650; Opinion 1/15 on the draft agreement between Canada and the European Union (Passenger Name Records) ECLI:EU:C:2016:656; Case C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd, Maximillian Schrems (Schrems II) ECLI:EU:C:2020:559.

150 See, eg, C Kuner, ‘The Internet and the Global Reach of EU Law’ in Cremona and Scott (n 51) 112.

151 Schrems I (n 149) para 60.

152 Lindahl (n 13) 468.

153 ibid.

154 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/02.

155 Case C-182/15 Aleksei Petruhhin v Latvijas Republikas Ģenerālprokuratūra ECLI:EU:C:2016:630, para 58.

156 See, eg, Case C-473/15 Peter Schotthöfer & Florian Steiner GbR v Eugen Adelsmayr ECLI:EU:C:2017:633.

157 Petruhhin (n 155) para 44.

158 See, eg, Bomhoff (n 75) 47. The most famous case that is commonly seen as being based on extraterritoriality is Soering v the United Kingdom App No 14038/88 (European Court of Human Rights, 7 July 1989).

159 Coutts, S, ‘From Union Citizens to National Subjects’ (2019) 56 CMLRev 521Google Scholar.

160 Case C-191/16 Romano Pisciotti v Bundesrepublik Deutschland ECLI:EU:C:2018:222.

161 Case C-398/19 Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Extradition vers l'Ukraine) ECLI:EU:C:2020:1032.

162 Coutts (n 159) 527.

163 ibid 536.

164 Ruiz Zambrano (n 26) para 42.

165 ibid, para 43.

166 See, eg, Barnard, C and Peers, S, European Union Law (2nd edn, OUP 2017) 374CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

167 Azoulai (n 27) 181.