МЕЂУНАРОДНИ ОБИЧАЈ У ЈУРИСПРУДЕНЦИЈИ СУДА ПРАВДЕ ЕУ
Sažetak
By analysing the highly heterogeneous practice of the Court of Justice, one can identify four roles of international customary law within the EU legal order. Fistly, it has relatively frequently and easily been invoked for its demarcation role in order to differentiate the competences of EC/EU from its Member States'. It is notable that the Court of Justice did not refrain from this type of role of international customаry law.
The interpretative role of international customary law is also not per se a contested one. However, it appears that the Court of Justice has only been keen to apply those customary provisions codified by the two Vienna conventions on the Law of Treaties, thus freeing itself from the burden of proving their existence or content.
International customary law serves as a means of filling in legal gaps within EU law, thus having a praeter legem function. Јurisprudence has clarified that the invoking of international customary law in this function is only allowed when complementary to all other rules and principles of EU law.
Finally, it has an important, yet not fully clarified derogatory role, when serving as a legal basis for challenging the validity of secondary legislation, which is in fact the most contested function. Throughout the years, by adding new requirements, the Court of Justice has defined a very high threshold. It is extremely cautious when granting the possibility of invoking international customary law in order to examine the validity of secondary legislation, thus (over)protecting the autonomy of EU law.
Therefore, although the Court of Justice has repeatedly emphasized that international law is an integral part of the EU, there are different levels of invoking and applying international customary law in accordance with its different functions.
Reference
• Casolari, F. (2012). Giving Indirect Effect to International Law within the EU Legal Order: The Doctrine of Consistent Interpretation. In: Cannizzaro, E., Palchetti, P., Wessel, R. (Ed.). International Law as Law of the European Union, Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 395-415;
• Croquet, AJ. N. (2013). The Import of International Customary Law into the EU Legal Order: The Adequacy of a Direct Effect Analysis, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, Vol. 15, 2013, pp. 47-81;
• De Baere, G, Ryngaert, C. (2013). The ECJ’s Judgment in Air Transport Association of America and the International Legal Context of the EU’s Climate Change Policy, European Foreign Affairs Review 18, no. 3, 2013, pp. 389–410;
• Eeckhout, P. (2004). External Relations of the European Union: Legal and Constitutional Foundations, Oxford: Oxford University Press;
• Gianelli, A. (2012). Customary International Law in the European Union. In: Cannizzaro, E., Palchetti, P., Wessel, R. (Ed.), International Law as Law of the European Union, Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 93-110;
• Klabbers, J. (2012). The vaidity of EU norms conflicting with international obligations. In: Cannizzaro, E., Palchetti, P., Wessel, R. (Ed.), International Law as Law of the European Union, Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 111-131;
• Кнежевић-Предић, В., Радивојевић, З. (2016). Правосудна контрола у Европској унији: процесна легитимација државе чланице, Зборник радова Правног факултета у Нишу, бр. 74, str. 95-116.
• Konstadinides, T. (2016). The Meso Level: Means of Interaction between EU and International Law - Customary International Law as a Source of EU Law: A Two-Way Fertilization Route?, Yearbook of European Law, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2016, pp. 513–532;
• Konstadinides, Т. (2012). When in Europe: Customary International Law and EU Competence in the Sphere of External Action, 13 German Law Journal, pp. 1177-1201;
• Kuijper, P.J. (2008). Customary International Law, Decisions of International Organizations and Other Techniques for Ensuring Respect for International Legal Rules in European Community Law. In: Wouters, J., Nollkaemper, A., Wet, E. (Ed.). The Europeanization of International Law, The Hague: TMC Asser Press, pp. 87-106;
• Rossem, J. W. (2013). The Autonomy of EU Law: More is Less?, In: Wessel, R., Blockmans, S. (Ed.). Between Autonomy and Dependence: The EU Legal Order Under the Influence of International Organisations, The Hague: TMC Asser Press, Springer, pp. 13-46;
• Timmermans, C. (1999). The EU and Public International Law, European Foreign Affairs Review, No 4, pp. 181-194;
• Wouters J., Van Eeckhoutte, D. (2002). Giving Effect to Customary International law Through European Community Law, Working Paper No 25, June 2002, Retrieved 20 August 2019 from: www.law.kuleuven.be/iir/nl/onderzoek/wp/WP25e.pdf
• Wouters, J., Nollkaemper, A., Wet, E. (2008). Introduction: The ‘Europeanisation’ of International Law. In: Wouters, J., Nollkaemper, A., Wet, E. (Ed.). The Europeanization of International Law, The Hague: TMC Asser Press, pp. 1-13.
• C-26/62, Van Gend & Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1,
• C-6/64, Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585,
• C-181/73, Haegeman v Belgian State [1974] ECR 449,
• C-41/74, Yvonne Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337,
• C-61/77, Commission v Ireland [1978] ECR 417,
• C-244/80, Pasquale Foglia v Mariella Novello [1981] ECR 3045,
• C-104/81, Hauptzollamt Mainz v C.A. Kupferberg & Cie KG a.A [1982] ECR 3641,
• C-286/86, Ministère public v Gérard Deserbais [1988] ECR 4907,
• C-142/88, Hoesch AG and Federal Republic of Germany v Bergrohr GmbH [1989] ECR 3413,
• C-69/89, Nakajima All Precision Co. Ltd v Council of the European Communities [1991] ECR I-2069,
• C-146/89, Commission v United Kingdom [1991] ECR I-3533,
• C-221/89, The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others (Factortame II), [1991] ECR I-03905,
• C-246/89, Commission v United Kingdom [1991] ECR I-4585,
• C-258/89, Commission v Spain [1991] ECR I-3977,
• C-286/90, Anklagemyndigheden v Peter Michael Poulsen and Diva Navigation Corp. [1992] ECR I-6019,
• C-369/90, Mario Vicente Micheletti and others v Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria [1992] I-4239,
• C-158/91, Ministère public et Direction du travail et de l’emploi v Jean—Claude Levy [1993] ECR I-4287,
• C-312/91, Metalsa Srl. v Gaetano, Lo Presti [1993] ECR I-3751,
• C-405/92, Établissements Armand Mondiet v Armement Islais [1993] ECR I-6133,
• C-432/92, The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Anastasiou [1994] ECR I-3087,
• C-324/93, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Evans Medical and Macfarlan Smith [1995] ECR I-563,
• C-25/94, Commission v Council [1996] ECR I-1469,
• C-124/95, The Queen, ex parte Centro-Com Srl v HM Treasury and Bank of England [1997] ECR I-81,
• C-62/96, Commission v Greece [1997] ECR I-6725,
• C-149/96, Portugal v Council [1999] ECR I-8395,
• C-162/96, A. Racke GmbH & Co. v Hauptzollamt Mainz [1998] ECR I-3655,
• C-171/96, Rui Alberto Pereira Roque ν His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey [1998] ECR I-4607,
• C-348/96, Donatella Calfa [1999] ECR I-11,
• C-416/96, Nour Eddline El-Yassini v Secretary of State for Home Department [1999] ECR I-1209,
• C-372/97, Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679,
• C-62/98, Commission v Portugal [2000] ECR I-5171,
• C-84/98, Commission v Portugal [2000] ECR I-5215,
• C-179/98, Belgian State v Fatna Mesbah [1999] ECR I-7955,
• C-63/99, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Wieslaw Gloszczuk et Elzbieta Gloszczuk [2001] ECR I 6369,
• C-192/99, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Manjit Kaur [2001] ECR I-1237,
• C-235/99, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Eleanora Ivanova Kondova [2001] ECR I-6427,
• C-257/99, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Julius Barkoci and Marcel Malik [2001] ECR I-6557,
• C-268/99, Aldona Malgorzata Jany and Others v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [2001] ECR I8615,
• C-37/00, Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd. [2002] ECR I-02013,
• C-344/04, The Queen, on the application of International Air Transport Association and European Low Fares Airline Association v Department for Transport (IATA and ELFAA) [2006] ECR I-403,
• C-118/07, Commission v Finland [2009] ECR I-10889,
• C-386/08, Brita GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen [2010] ECR I‐1289,
• C-364/10, Hungary v Slovak Republic [2012], ECLI:EU:C:2012:630,
• C-366/10, Air Transport Association of America (АТАА) and Others v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2011] ECR I-13755
• Joined Cases 3/76, 4/76, 6/76, Cornelis Kramer and others [1976] ECR 1279,
• Joined Cases 115/81, 116/81, Rezguia Adoui v Belgian State and City of Liège; Dominique Cornuaille v Belgian State [1982] ECR 1665,
• Joined Cases C-89/85, 104/85, 114/85, 116/85, 117/85, 125/85-129/85 Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v Commission of the European Communities [1988], ECLI:EU:C:1988:447
• Joined Cases 46/93, C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur v Germany and R (Factortame III) v SS for Transport [1996] ECR I-1029,
• Joined Cases C-65/95, C-111/95, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Mann Singh Shingara; The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Abbas Radiom [1997] ECR I-3343,
• Joined Cases C-364/95, C-365/95, T-Port v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1998] ECR I-1023,
• Joined Cases C-74/00 P, C- 75/00 P, Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission [2002] ECR I-7869,
• T-115/94, Opel Austria GmbH v Council of the European Union [1997] ECR II-39.
• T-2/99, T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Council of the European Union [2001] ECR II-2093,
• T-308/00, Salzgitter AG v European Commission [2004] ECR II-01933,
• T-338/08, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission [2012] ECLI:EU:T:2012:300,
• T-465/08, Czech Republic v Commission [2011] ECR I-1941,
• Оpinion of Advocate General Darmon, C-9/89 Spain v Council [1990] ECR I-1401,
• Оpinion of Advocate General Jacobs, C-162/96 A. Racke GmbH & Co. v Hauptzollamt Mainz [1998] ECR I-3677,
• Јoined opinion of Advocate General Mischo in Cases C-62/98, C-84/98, Commission v Portugal,
• Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, C-398/13 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Commission [2015] ECLI:EU:C2015:190,
• Opinion 1/91 EEA Agreement I [1991] ECR I-6079,
• International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (Advisory Opinion) [1971] ICJ Reports 1971,
• International Court of Justice, Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Iceland) (Judgment) [1973] ICJ Reports, 1973,
• International Court of Justice, Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, (Advisory opinion) [1980] ICJ Reports, 1980,
• International Court of Justice, Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), (Judgment) [1997] ICJ Reports, 1997,
• Agreement on the European Economic Area, OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3–522;
• Convention on the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean [1982] OJ 1982, L 378/25;
• Cooperation agreement between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, OJ L 41, 14.2.1983, p. 2–27;
• Council Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86, OJ 1986, L 288/1;
• Council Regulation (EC) No 3697/93 OJ L 343, L 343;
• Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, OJ 2009 L 8/3;
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organisations or between International Organisations, UN Doc. A/CONF.129/15;
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, (UN Doc. A/CONF.39/27) UNTS, vol. 1155.