The Eu As A Party To International Agreements Shared Competence Mixed Responsibilities

Gepostet von am Apr 13, 2021 in Allgemein | Keine Kommentare

The distinction was established in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and is based on the principle of implied powers, with external jurisdiction based on the existence of explicit internal jurisdiction. This case law is defined by Article 216 of the TFUE, which stipulates that the Union has jurisdiction over an agreement, in cases where this could make the jurisdictional situation more complex after the conclusion of a joint agreement than before such an agreement was reached by the Union and the Member States. In addition to the question of whether the Union or the Member States have exercised their respective powers to conclude parts of a joint agreement which can only be resolved by a full declaration of powers, the Union sometimes explicitly chooses not to exercise its shared powers. It was argued that, in this case, the issues in question automatically fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Member States31. 32 Take the PFOS case: Sweden`s assertion that the competence of the proposal was shared was not considered by the Court of Justice, which seemed to be satisfied with the Commission`s agreement.33 If we accept this assumption.33 If we accept this assumption,33 it means that, although it has had a common jurisdiction in this area.33 , the EU has not transferred to the Union the right to an act on sulfluoroctan sulfonates (PFOS) despite the conclusion of an agreement covering persistent organic pollutants (POPs), i.e. the higher category of substances. However, we also cannot expect that the Member States have been exclusively competent after that date. If this had been the case, there would have been no debate as to whether Sweden or the Union would have the right to submit a proposal on PFOS as part of the agreement. The abstention obligations imposed on the Court with respect to Sweden only make sense if one assumes that jurisdiction is still pending. One of the reasons for this confusion is that Member States, in their external relations, often refuse to be marginalised by the Union.

The Union therefore continues to conclude international agreements with the Member States that it could assume on its own.9 These are trade and cooperation agreements, such as the 2008 Economic Partnership Agreement.10 with the Cariforum States The so-called political dialogue and cooperation agreements with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama , as well as with the Andean Community of 2003, is probably also the wish of the Member States At the same time, the mixture has also served as a convenient political fugue from the „jungle“ of (external) skills.12 This was reinforced by the fact that the Court never required a full clarification of the division of powers under joint agreements13. The fact that the Court never required a full clarification of the division of powers under joint agreements13 was ultimately reinforced by the fact that the Court never required a full clarification of the division of powers under joint agreements13. The fact that the Court never required a full clarification of the division of powers under joint agreements13 was ultimately reinforced by the fact that the Court never required a full clarification of the division of powers under joint agreements13. that the Court has never demanded a complete clarification of the division of powers under joint agreements, Member States consider the mixture both from the point of view of the development of EU law