Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T13:41:39.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Again: No Direct Effect of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sven Simon
Sven Simon*
Affiliation:
Chair for Public Law, International Law and European Union Law of Thilo Marauhn, Justus-Liebig-University of Giessen, Faculty of Law Germany, sven.simon@unigiessen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Case C-160/09 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v. Ipourgos Ikonomikon

Article 4 of the Cooperation Agreement concluded between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof – Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela – of the other part, approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 of 4 June 1984, is not such as to confer on individuals rights upon which they might rely before the courts of a Member State (official headnote).

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 459 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

References

1 Judgment of 20 May 2010.

2 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 of 4 June 1984 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof – Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela – of the other part, OJ 1984 L 153, p. 1.

3 Case C-160/09, Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon, at para. 33; see, in particular, Case C469/93, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Chiquita Italia SpA, [1995] ECR I-4533, para. 25 and the judgment in Joined Cases 21 to 24/72 International Fruit Company NV and others v. Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit, [1972] ECR 1219, para. 20.

4 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v. Ipourgos Ikonomikon, supra note 3, at para. 34; see also Case 12/86, Demirel, [1987] ECR 3719, para. 25.

5 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v. Ipourgos Ikonomikon, supra note 3, at para. 35.

6 Case C-377/02, Van Parys, [2005] ECR I-1465, 1 March 2005.

7 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v. Ipourgos Ikonomikon, supra note 3, at para. 36.

8 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v. Ipourgos Ikonomikon, supra note 3, at para. 39.

9 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v. Ipourgos Ikonomikon, supra note 3, at para. 43.

10 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v. Ipourgos Ikonomikon, supra note 3, at para. 43.

11 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon, supra note 3, at para. 44.

12 See, e.g., Jackson, John H., “Status of Treaties in Domestic Legal Systems: A Policy Analysis”, 86 American Journal of International Law (1992), pp. 310, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Case C-377/02, Van Parys [2005] ECR I-1465, 1 March 2005.

14 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon, supra note 3, at para. 36.

15 See, in particular, Case C-469/93, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Chiquita Italia SpA, [1995] ECR I-4533, 12 December 1995, para. 25 and the judgment in Joined Cases 21 to 24/72 International Fruit Company NV and others v. Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit, [1972] ECR 1219, 12 December 1972, at para. 20.

16 Joined Cases 21-24/72, International Fruit Company NV and Others v. Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit, [1972] ECR 1219, 12 December 1972, at para. 20, Case C-280/93, Federal Republic of Germany v. Council of the European Union, [1994] ECR I-4973.

17 Trachtman, Joel P., “Bananas, Direct Effect and Compliance”, 10(4) EJIL (1999), pp. 655, 657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 The US implementing legislation, 19 U.S.C. §102(c). provides the following: “No person other than the United States (A) shall have any cause of action or defense under any of the Uruguay Round Agreements or by virtue of congressional approval of such an agreement or (B) may challenge. In any action brought under any provision of law, any action or Inaction by any department agency, or other instrumentality of the United States, any State or any political subdivision of a State on the ground that such action or Inaction is inconsistent with such agreement.”

19 In the Community legal setting, the ECJ has held that a Member State cannot escape a breach of its Treaty obligations by claiming that either another Member State or a Community institution has breached its Treaty obligations. See, e.g., Case 232/78, Commission v. France, [1979] ECR 2729 and Cases 90-91/63, Commission v. Luxembourg and Belgium, [1964] ECR 625. The Court dealt explicitly with the issue of reciprocity of enforcement in regard to the other international agreements only in Kupferberg. The reciprocity issue arose in this case because a Swiss court had denied direct effect to a free trade area agreement similar to the EC-Portugal one. The Court concluded that the structure of the EC-Portugal free trade area agreement in which a Joint Committee engaged in political resolution of all disputes, did not contain a lack of reciprocity, Case 104/81, Hauptzollamt Mainz v. CA. Kupferberg & Cie. Kga.A., [1982] ECR, 3641, para. 26.

20 Joel P. Trachtman, “Bananas, Direct Effect and Compliance”, supra note 17, pp. 655, 657.

21 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 of 4 June 1984, OJ 1984 L 153, p. 1.

22 Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994, OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1.

23 Council Decision 98/278/EC of 7 April 1998, OJ 1998 L 127, p. 10.

24 Case 12/86, Demirel [1987] ECR 3719, 18 June 1991, para. 25.

25 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon, supra note 3, at para. 34.

26 See, by analogy, Case 87/75 Conceria Daniele Bresciani v. Amministrazione Italiana delle Finanze, [1976] ECR 129, 5 February 1976, para. 23; Case 104/81, Hauptzollamt Mainz v C.A. Kupferberg & Cie KG a.A., 26 October 1982, para. 22; and Case C-18/90, Office national de l’emploi v. Bahia Kziber, [1991] ECR I-199, 31 January 1991, para. 21.

27 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v. Ipourgos Ikonomikon, supra note 3, at para. 38.

28 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v. Ipourgos Ikonomikon, supra note 3, at para. 39.

29 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v. Ipourgos Ikonomikon, supra note 3, at para. 43.

30 Ioannis Katsivardas – Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v. Ipourgos Ikonomikon, supra note 3, at para. 43.

31 Case C-149/96, Portugal v. Council, [1999] ECR I-8395, 23 November 1999.

32 Portugal v. Council, supra note 31, at paras. 36–40.

33 Trachtman, Joel P., “Bananas, Direct Effect and Compliance, supra note 17, pp. 655, 677.Google Scholar