Suchergebnisse

This article looks at a less discussed topic in European legal scholarship: the horizontal direct effect of EU international agreements and the Court of Justice's apparent reluctance to expressly confirm it. It is argued that the direct effect of EU international agreements has been confirmed in proceedings involving private individuals/professionals against the private regulatory bodies of a profession or a State-owned and controlled entity. However, direct effect has not yet been expressly confirmed in cases involving veritable horizontal relationships, between private parties of equal positions and with equal functions. Whilst, the choice for this reluctance was understandable three decades ago, the time feels right to expressly acknowledge it and keep up with international trends.

Article 344 TFEU forbids Member States to pursue any other means of dispute settlement, when issues regarding the application and interpretation of the Treaties are concerned. The Court of Justice extended this principle to include disputes arising under international agreements, where the subject matter falls under European Union (EU) competence. At the same time, the number of international agreements to which direct effect is not granted is slowly rising. Consequently, the question arises whether Member States still have proper access to justice under these international regimes vis-à-vis other Member States or the EU, given that: first, they cannot pursue litigation under the agreements' dispute resolution system if the foreign body risks interpreting the agreement, which also forms part of EU law; second, they cannot rely on these agreements before the Court. This article argues that a rethinking of the direct effect doctrine of international agreements is necessary. Member States should not be equated with individuals, when invoking international agreements before the Court to challenge the validity of EU acts.