Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
The European Union (EU) acts in the area of international trade through the community's commercial policy regulated by the European Community (EC) Treaty. The position of the Union in external trade relations is dependant on the unique legal character of this entity. By developing a legal order which is supreme to the law of its Member States, and creating a complex system of institutions and modes of decision-making, the Community has ceased to be a mere representative of the countries it comprises. The increasing transfer of competences from the Member States onto the community allowed it to aim at the realization of common objectives as opposed to merely collective ones. As a result, tensions between the EC and dissatisfied Member States occur and the delineation of competences may turn out to be crucial when interests of an individual Member State are involved. Therefore, the paper which considers the situation of the “new” European Union in the area of international trade, in light of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe (Constitutional Treaty), should necessarily investigate how the position of the EU will be strengthened vis-à-vis its Member States.
1 Case 1/75, Low Cost Standard, 1975 E.C.R. 1355; Case 41/76, Suzanne Criel, nee Donckerwolcke and Henru Schou v. Procureur de la Republique, 1976 E.C.R. 1921.Google Scholar
2 Case 1/78, Natural Rubber, 1979 E.C.R. 2871. Stating that the CCP covered general economic policy measures, like the international agreement on natural rubber.Google Scholar
3 Case 1/75, Low Cost Standard, 1975 E.C.R. 1355, 1362. The Court ruled that the CCP covered systems of aid for exports and credits for financing local costs linked to export operations.Google Scholar
4 Case 1/94, WTO, 1994 E.C.R I-5267.Google Scholar
5 Case 1/94, WTO, 1994 E.C.R. I-5267, para. 47. Consumption abroad, commercial presence and the presence of natural persons as modes of supply of services covered by GATT Agreement were not recognized to fall under the scope of the CCP. The Court pointed out that regarding the movement of natural persons, it was clear from Article 3 EC Treaty, which distinguished between a common commercial policy and measures concerning the entry and movement of persons, that the treatment of nationals of non-member countries on crossing the external frontiers of Member States could not be regarded as falling within the common commercial policy.Google Scholar
6 According to Article I-13(2) of the Constitutional Treaty, the exclusive competence would also include the conclusion of an international agreement “when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or insofar as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.” This provision is an attempt to codify the case law of the ECJ on implied external powers, in particular in the ERTA judgment and Cases 1/76, Inland Waterways and 1/94, WTO.Google Scholar
7 Arts. 94, 95 and 308 of Treaty Establishing the European Community, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 340) [hereinafter EC Treaty].Google Scholar
8 Art. 133(5) EC Treaty.Google Scholar
9 Krajewski, Markus, External Trade Law and The Constitution Treaty: Towards a Federal and More Democratic Common Commercial Policy?, 42 Common Market Law Review 91, 111 (2005).Google Scholar
10 Art. III-315(4) of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, Dec. 16, 2004, 2004 O.J. (C310) [hereinafter CT].Google Scholar
11 Krajewski, , supra note 9.Google Scholar
12 Mitsuo matsushita, ET AL., The World Trade Organization – Law, Practice and Policy 522 (2004).Google Scholar
13 Piet Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union: Legal and Constitutional Foundations 55 (2004).Google Scholar
14 Case C-70/94, Werner v. Germany, 1995 E.C.R. I-3189; Case C-83/94, Leifer and Others, 1995 E.C.R. I-3231.Google Scholar
15 See, Case C-62/88, Greece v. Council, 1990 E.C.R. I-1527 (Chernobyl I Case) and Case C-281/01, Commission v. Council, 2002 E.C.R. I-12049 where the Court adopted the approach that trade measures are trade measures whatever the objective pursued, when a Member State tried to limit the Community's exclusive competence by arguing that the measure fell within environmental protection rather, which is an area of shared competence (Article 174 EC Treaty and also I-14 of the Constitution). The situation is even clearer when an instrument had direct and immediate impact on trade and only possible positive environmental effect.Google Scholar
16 Case C-124/92, The Queen, ex parte Centro-Com v. HM Treasury and Bank of England, 1997 E.C.R. I-81.Google Scholar
17 Art. 301 EC Treaty.Google Scholar
18 Art. III-300(1) CT.Google Scholar
19 Art. 134 EC Treaty, removed from the draft Constitution, situations such as those arising in it would now be dealt with under the Import Regulation.Google Scholar
20 Case 1/78, Natural Rubber, 1979 E.C.R. 2871.Google Scholar
21 Case C-281/01, Commission v. Council, 2002 E.C.R. I-12049.Google Scholar
22 The system of voting may primarily depend on the legal basis. It is obvious that the Commission will look for the legal basis allowing qualified majority as opposed to unanimity. In the case on the correct legal basis for the adoption of generalized tariff preferences (GSP) (Case 45/86, Commission v. Council, 1987 E.C.R. 1493) the Commission advanced an argument that Article 133 requiring qualified majority should be used and the Council was of the opinion that GSP regulations were in fact based on Article 133 EC Treaty and Article 308 EC Treaty, the latter requiring unanimity. The Court noted that the contested regulations not only had commercial-policy aims, but also major-development policy aims. In the context of the organization of the powers of the Community, the choice of legal basis for a measure could not depend simply on an institution's conviction as to the objective pursued, but had to be based on objective factors which were amenable to judicial review (paras. 10-11). Moreover, it concluded that Article 133 EC Treaty is the proper legal basis and, therefore, there is no need to justify the Community's competence on the basis of Article 308 EC Treaty if it is only used where no other Treaty provision conferred the competence (paras. 14-21).Google Scholar
23 Art. III-315(4) CT.Google Scholar
You have
Access
