Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T23:16:13.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of International Treaty Law by the Court of Justice of the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2015

Jed ODERMATT
Jed ODERMATT*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Leuven
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Court of Justice of the European Union has on numerous occasions employed the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to the extent that they represent principles of customary international law, in its judicial reasoning. At first glance, the Court’s use of the Vienna rules demonstrate fidelity towards international law; it can be seen as contributing to the ‘strict observance and the development of international law’. Upon closer examination, however, one finds that the Court applies these rules in a fashion that often deviates from the way in which other courts and bodies have applied the same principles. This article examines how the Court has used international treaty law, arguing that the Court often employs a novel, ‘European’ approach to certain principles. While the Court is free to apply treaty law in a manner it believes to be appropriate, the extent of this divergence risks undermining the integrity and uniform application of the Vienna rules.

Keywords

international treaty lawCourt of Justice of the European Uniontreaty interpretation
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 17 , December 2015 , pp. 121 - 144
Copyright
© Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 

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.)

Footnotes

*

PhD candidate in law, University of Leuven. This article was partly written during a research stay at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge. The author would like to thank those who gave comments and suggestions.

References

1 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (23 May 1969) 1155 UNTS 331, entered into force 27 January 1980 (‘VCLT’).

2 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations (21 March 1986) 25 ILM 543 (1986), not yet in force (‘VCLT-IO’).

3 Article 3(5) TEU.

4 See SP SpA et al v Commission, Joined Cases T-27/03, T-46/03, T-58/03, T-79/03, T-80/03, T-97/03 and T-98/03, EU:T:2007:317, para 58.

5 Brita v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Hafen, C-386/08, EU:C:2010:91, para 42. Crawford, J, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed (Oxford University Press, 2012), p 368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘The European Court of Justice has observed that the customary international law of treaties forms part of the European legal order, and it generally follows the VCLT (implicitly or explicitly).’

6 On the duty of the Court to respect international law, see Wouters, J et al, ‘Worlds Apart? Comparing the Approaches of the European Court of Justice and the EU Legislature to International Law’ in M Cremona and A Thies (eds), The European Court of Justice and External Relations Law (Hart Publishing, 2014)Google Scholar.

7 Article 218 TEU.

8 VCLT, see note 1 above.

9 Schmalenbach, K, ‘Article 2. Use of terms’ in O Dörr and K Schmalenbach (eds), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Springer, 2012) p 29 Google Scholar.

10 United Nations Treaty Handbook (United Nations, 2011) part 5.3.4.

11 Article 218 TFEU.

12 Opinion 1/75 (Local Cost Standard), EU:C:1975:145.

13 Ibid, p 1360. See also Verwey, D, The European Community, the European Union and the International Law of Treaties (TMC Asser Press, 2004), p 96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See note 12 above, p 1360.

15 France v Commission, C-327/91, EU:C:1994:305.

16 Agreement Between the Government of the USA and the Commission of the European Communities Regarding the Application of their Competition Laws (23 September 1991).

17 France v. Commission, EU:C:1994:305, para 2.

18 Ibid, para 23.

19 Ibid, para 25.

20 Opinion 1/13 (Hague Convention), EU:C:2014:2303.

21 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (25 October, 1980) 1343 UNTS 89.

22 See note 20 above, para 37.

23 Parliament v Council and Commission v Council, Joined Cases C-103/12 and C-165/12, EU:C:2014:2400.

24 Council Decision 2012/19/EU of 16 December 2011 on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Declaration on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana [2012] OJ L 6/8.

25 D Verwey, see note 13 above, p 93. Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v France) (Judgment) [1974] ICJ Rep 457, para 46.

26 Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Parliament v Council and Commission v Council, Joined Cases C‑103/12 and C‑165/12, EU:C:2014:334, para 107.

27 Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Parliament v Council and Commission v Council, EU:C:2014:334.

28 Ibid, para 78.

29 Ibid, para 78.

30 Ibid, para 81.

31 Ibid, para 96.

32 See note 23 above, para 83.

33 Ibid, para 68.

34 Ibid, para 71.

35 D Verwey, see note 13 above, p 96.

36 Ibid, p 100.

37 Opinion 1/75 (Local Cost Standard), EU:C:1975:145, p 1360 (emphasis added). D Verwey, see note 13 above, p 96.

38 Widdows, K ‘What Is an Agreement in International Law?’ (1979) 50 (1) British Yearbook of International Law 117, p 119 Google Scholar.

39 Article 18 VCLT, see above note 1 above.

40 Dörr, O, ‘Article 18. Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force’ in O Dörr and K Schmalenbach (eds), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Springer, 2012), p 220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Opel Austria v Council, T-115/94, EU:T:1997:3.

42 Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, (1925) PCIJ Ser A, No 7, para 5.

43 Opel Austria, EU:T:1997:3, para 86.

44 Aust, A, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 3rd ed (Cambridge University Press, 2013), p 107 Google Scholar.

45 O Dörr, see note 40 above, p 220.

46 See Fischer, P, ‘Case T-115/94, Opel Austria GmbH v. Council, Judgment of 22 January 1997, [1997] ECR II-39’ (1998) 35 (3) Common Market Law Review 765, p 779 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Klabbers, J, ‘Treaties, Conclusion and Entry into Force’ in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press)Google Scholar, para 13.

48 See O Dörr, note 40 above, p 222: ‘it becomes clear that the Court of First Instance was simply applying the good faith principle as such, and not the interim obligation as one of its concrete emanations.’

49 Danisco Sugar v Allmänna ombudet, C-27/96, EU:C:1997:563.

50 Ibid, para 20.

51 Ibid, para 31.

52 Klabbers, J, ‘How to Defeat a Treaty’s Object and Purpose Pending Entry into Force: Toward Manifest Intent’ (2001) 34 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 283, p 318 Google Scholar.

53 Greece v Commission, T-231/04, EU:T:2007:9.

54 Ibid, para 71.

55 Ibid, para 97.

56 Ibid, para 99.

57 J Klabbers, see note 52 above, p 330.

58 IATA and ELFA, C-344/04, EU:C:2006:10.

59 In general EU law the Court regularly refers to the preamble to determine the aim and content. See eg Klamert, M, ‘Conflict of Legal Basis: No Legality and No Basis but a Bright Future Under the Lisbon Treaty?’ (2010) 35 European Law Review 497, p 499 Google Scholar: arguing that ‘the Court, in recent cases, has perhaps relied too heavily on the preamble as expression of this aim thus risking the undermining of the rule of objectivity.’

60 See note 58 above, para 4.

61 Ibid, para 45.

62 Bradley, K St Clair, ‘Case C-344/04, The Queen ex parte International Air Transport Association, European Low Fares Airline Association v. Department for Transport, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 January 2006, nyr’ (2006) 43 (4) Common Market Law Review 1101, p 1111 Google Scholar.

63 Balfour, J, ‘Correspondence’ (2007) 44 (2) Common Market Law Review 555, p 558 Google Scholar.

64 Sidhu v British Airways [1997] AC 430.

65 Tseng v EL Al, 525 US 155, 119 S Ct 662 (1999), 26 Avi 16,141.

66 See Wegter, JJ, ‘The ECJ Decision of 10 January 2006 on the Validity of Regulation 261/2004: Ignoring the Exclusivity of the Montreal Convention’ (2006) 31 (2) Air and Space Law 133, p 135 Google Scholar.

67 Article 31 (2) VCLT, see note 1 above.

68 Walz v Clickair SA, C-63/09, EU:C:2010:251.

69 Ibid, paras 22–23.

70 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Volume II, Part I, Documents of the Fifty-Third Session (2001) (UN Doc A/56/10).

71 Walz v Clickair SA, EU:C:2010:251, para 28.

72 Jany and Others, C-268/99, EU:C:2001:616, para 35.

73 Ibid, para 36.

74 Ibid.

75 Hillion, C, ‘Cases C-63/99 Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Wiesław Głoszczuk and Elzbieta Głoszczuk; C-235/99 Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Eleanora Ivanova Kondova; C-257/99 Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Julius Barkoci and Marcel Malik; judgments of the Full Court of 27 September 2001; Case C-268/99 Aldona Małgorzata Jany e.a v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie, judgment of the Full Court of 20 November 2001; Case C-162/00 Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v. Beata Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer, judgment of the Full Court of 29 January 2002’ (2003) 40 (2) Common Market Law Review 468, p 448 Google Scholar (fn 90): ‘One does not really know whether the Community meaning is derived from the ‘ordinary meaning’ or whether it is the other way around.’

76 Pabst & Richarz KG v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg, C-17/81, EU:C:1982:129.

77 Ibid, para 27.

78 Administration des Douanes v Legros and Others, C-163/90, EU:C:1992:326.

79 Ibid, para 26.

80 Ibid, para 23.

81 Polydor and Others v Harlequin and Others, C-270/80, EU:C:1982:43.

82 Ibid, para 10.

83 Opinion 1/91 (EFTA Agreement), EU:C:1991:490, para 14.

84 Ibid, para 20.

85 Ibid, para 21.

86 Kuijper, PJ, ‘The Court and the Tribunal of the EC and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969’ (1998) 25 (1) Legal Issues of European Integration 1, p 3 Google Scholar.

87 Metalsa, C-312/91, EU:C:1993:279.

88 Ibid, para 11.

89 Eddline El-Yassini, C-416/96, EU:C:1999:107, para 47.

90 Ibid, para 58.

91 Ibid, para 61.

92 Gardiner, R, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford University Press, 2010), p 123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 PJ Kuijper, above note 86, p 3.

94 Ibid, p 4.

95 Aust, HP et al, ‘Unity or Uniformity? Domestic Courts and Treaty Interpretation’ (2014) 27 (1) Leiden Journal of International Law 75, p 102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Opinion 2/00 (Cartagena Protocol), EU:C:2001:664.

97 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (29 January 2000), 2226 UNTS 208, entered into force 11 September 2003.

98 See note 96 above, para 24.

99 Ibid, para 29.

100 Commission v Council, C-281/01, EU:C:2002:761.

101 Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Community on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling programs for office equipment, signed in Washington on 19 December 2000.

102 Commission v Council, EU:C:2002:761, para 38.

103 Daiichi Sankyo and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, C-414/11, EU:C:2013:520.

104 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

105 See note 103 above, para 58.

106 Academic commentary on these cases does not discuss the role of the VCLT in the Court’s reasoning. See Dashwood, A, ‘Opinion 2/00, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 6 December 2001, not yet reported’ (2002) 39 (2) Common Market Law Review 353 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. MacGregor, A and Brown, E, ‘ECJ Pronouncement on the Correct Legal Basis for the Conclusion by the European Community of the EU-US Energy Star Agreement’ (2003) 9 (2) International Trade Law & Regulation 63 Google Scholar.

107 Brölmann, C, ‘Specialized Rules of Treaty Interpretation: International Organizations’ in DB Hollis, Oxford Guide to Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2012) 517 Google Scholar. See PJ Kuijper, note 86 above, p 2.

108 PJ Kuijper, see note 86 above, p 7.

109 Article 31 (3)(a) VCLT, see note 1 above.

110 Article 31 (3)(b) VCLT, see note 1 above.

111 Article 32, VCLT, see note 1 above.

112 Reich, N, Goddard, C and Vasiljeva, K, Understanding EU Law: Objectives, Principles and Methods of Community Law (Intersentia, 2003) 26 Google Scholar.

113 CILFIT v Ministero della Sanità, C-283/81, EU:C:1982:335, para 20.

114 See Huscroft, G, and Miller, BW (eds), The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation (Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115 Pringle, C-370/12, EU:C:2012:756.

116 Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 2/91, pp. 24 and 54. See Pringle, C-370/12, EU:C:2012:756, para 135.

117 Pringle, EU:C:2012:756, para 135.

118 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami et al v. European Parliament and Council, C-583/11P, EU:C:2013:625, para 50.

119 Article 263, para 4, TFEU. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami et al v. European Parliament and Council, EU:C:2013:625, para 59.

120 See ‘From the Board: International Law in the Case Law of the Court of Justice: Recent Trends’ (2014) 41 (1) Legal Issues of Economic Integration 1, p 4.

121 See Schonberg, S and Fric, K, ‘Finishing, Refining, Polishing: On the Use of Travaux Preparatoires as an Aid to the Interpretation of Community Legislation’ (2003) 28 (2) EL Rev 149, pp 170–171 Google Scholar.

122 Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Bolbol, C-31/09, EU:C:2010:119, paras 41–47.

123 Bolbol, C-31/09, EU:C:2010:351, para 51.

124 C Brölmann, see note 107 above, p 517: ‘in its (sparse) references to the rules of interpretation as part of the general law of treaties, the CJEU can be seen to employ a large degree of teleological reasoning coupled with a reluctance to use the travaux preparatoires as a supplementary means of interpretation.’ See Kuijper, PJ, ‘The European Courts and the Law of Treaties: The Continuing Story’ in E Cannizzaro (ed), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (Oxford University Press, 2011) 256, p 260 Google Scholar.

125 Article 31(3) VCLT, see note 1 above.

126 France v Commission, EU:C:1994:305, para 36: ‘in any event, a mere practice cannot override the provisions of the Treaty.’ See Slynn, G, ‘The Use of Subsequent Practice as an Aid to Interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Communities’ in R Bieber and G Ress (eds), Die Dynamik des Europaischen Gemeinschaftsrechts (Nomos, 1987) 138 Google Scholar.

127 G Slynn, see note 126 above, p144.

128 See Cayrol v Rivoira, C-52/77, EU:C:1977:196; Anastasiou, C-432/92, EU:C:1994:277. See G Nolte, Report 2, Jurisprudence Under Special Regimes Relating to Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice – Second Report for the ILC Study Group on Treaties over Time.

129 Cayrol v Rivoira, EU:C:1977:196, para 18.

130 Anastasiou, C-432/92, EU:C:1994:277, para 43 (emphasis added).

131 See Hoffmeister, F, ‘The Contribution of EU Practice to International Law’ in M Cremona (ed) Developments in EU External Relations Law (Oxford University Press, 2008), p 61 Google Scholar.

132 Nolte, G, ‘Second Report of the ILC Study Group on Treaties over Time: Jurisprudence Under Special Regimes Relating to Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice’, in G Nolte (ed) Treaties and Subsequent Practice (Oxford University Press, 2013), p 301 Google Scholar: ‘Even in cases concerning agreements by the Union with third states the Court hardly ever refers to subsequent practice.’

133 Ibid, p 301.

134 Ibid, p 302. See also Fennelly, N, ‘Legal Interpretation at the European Court of Justice’ (1997) 20 (4) Fordham International Law Journal 656, p 664 Google Scholar.

135 Article 34, VCLT, see note 1 above.

136 Anklagemindigheden v Poulsen and Diva Navigation, C-286/90, EU:C:1992:453.

137 Brita v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Hafen, C-386/08, EU:C:2010:91.

138 Ibid, para 43.

139 Klabbers, J, The European Union in International Law (Pedone, 2012), p 72 Google Scholar.

140 Cannizzaro, E, ‘A Higher Law for Treaties?’ in E Cannizzaro (ed) The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (Oxford University Press, 2011) 425, p 432 Google Scholar.

141 See note 95 above, p 103.

142 Article 62(1) VCLT, see note 1 above.

143 Case concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) (Judgment) [1997] ICJ Rep 7, para 104.

144 Giegerich, T, ‘Article 62. Fundamental change of circumstances’, in O Dörr and K Schmalenbach (eds), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Springer, 2012), p 1068 Google Scholar.

145 Ibid, p 1069.

146 Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz, EU:C:1998:293.

147 As J Klabbers notes: ‘Taken to the extreme, it amounts to saying that treaties cease to be in force upon any outbreak of hostilities, a statement not easily reconcilable with what many hold to be prevailing customary law.’ Klabbers, J, ‘Taken to the extreme, it amounts to saying that treaties cease to be in force upon any outbreak of hostilities, a statement not easily reconcilable with what many hold to be prevailing customary law.’ (1999) 36 (1) Common Market Law Review 179, p 186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

148 See, International Law Commission, ‘Draft Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties 2011’, adopted at its sixty-third session, in 2011, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session (A/66/10, para 100).

149 Article 65 VCLT, see note 1 above.

150 See note 146 above, para 58 (emphasis added).

151 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, see note 143 above, para 109.

152 Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, para 336 comment f.

153 Higgins, R, ‘The ICJ, the ECJ, and the Integrity of International Law’ (2003) 52 (1) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1, p 9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

154 See Elias, O, ‘General International Law I the European Court of Justice: From Hypothesis to Reality’ 31 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 3 (2000) 17, p 21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

155 Article 3(5) TEU.

156 See note 95 above, p 110: ‘With this pick-and-choose attitude, the case law of the ECJ might also contribute to further fragmentation. As a powerful actor watched closely by other courts and tribunals, it could set a negative example for other courts.’

157 See D Verwey, see note 13 above, p 96.

158 See note 95 above, p 100 arguing that ‘[i]t has become more and more common, however, to regard the ECJ as being functionally equivalent to a municipal court.’