Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T03:16:20.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Portuguese Republic v. Council

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Juliane Kokott
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf/Humboldt University Berlin
Frank Hoffmeister
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf/Humboldt University Berlin

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1998

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 Mar. 25, 1957, 298 UNTS 11, as amended by Treaty on European Union, Feb. 7, 1992, 1992 O.J. (C 224) 1.

2 Decision 94/578, 1994 OJ. (L 223) 23.

3 EU Bull., Dec. 1993, at 1.4.32. The Agreement entered into force on August 1, 1994, 1994 O.J. (L 223) 35.

4 See Case 45/86, Commission v. Council, 1987 ECR 1493, para. 13; and Case C-271/94, Parliament v. Council, 1996 ECR 1–1689, para. 13.

5 See Case C-300/89, Commission v. Council, 1991 ECR 1–2867, para. 10; and Case C-84/94, United Kingdom v. Council, 1996 ECR 1–5755, para. 25.

6 1996 ECR 1–6177, para. 24 [hereinafter Judgment].

7 Id., para. 26.

8 Id., para. 27.

9 Id., para. 28.

10 Id., paras. 37–39.

11 See 1974 OJ. (L 82) 1 (India); 1975 O.J. (L 247) 1 (Sri Lanka); 1976 O.J. (L 319) 1 (Bangladesh); 1976 O.J. (L 168) 1 (Pakistan).

12 The relevant clause in the Agreements cited supra note 11 reads: “The Contracting Parties shall, in their commercial relations, accord each other most-favoured-nation treatment in conformity with the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.”

13 See 1980 O.J. (L 144) 1 (ASEAN); 1981 O.J. (L 328) 5 (India); 1985 O.J. (L 250) 1 (China); 1986 O.J. (L 108) 1 (Pakistan).

14 Article 235 of the Treaty, supra note 1, reads:

If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community and this Treaty has not provided the necessary means, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after having consulted the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures.

15 See 1990 OJ. (L 296) 66 (Argentina); 1991 O.J. (L 79) 1 (Chile); 1991 O.J. (L 340) 1 (Mexico); 1992 O.J. (L 94) 1 (Uruguay); 1992 OJ. (L 313) 71 (Paraguay); 1993 O.J. (C 163) 11 (Brazil); 1993 O.J. (C 25) 32 (Cartagena Agreement and member states, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela); 1993 OJ. (C 77) 31 (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama).

16 See 1995 OJ. (L 85) 32 (Sri Lanka); 1996 OJ. (L 137) 14 (Nepal); 1996 OJ. (L 136) 28 (Vietnam); 1996 COM(141) final (South Korea).

17 Case C-70/94, Fritz Werner Industrieausrüstungen GmbH v. Fédéral Republic of Germany, 1995 ECR 1–3218, paras. 9–10; seejuliane Kokott & Beate Rudolf, Case note, 90 AJIL 286 (1996), and Inge Govaere, Case note, 34 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1019 (1997). See also Case C-124/95, Queen v. HM Treasury and Bank of England ex parte Centro-Com. SRL (ECJ Jan. 14, 1997); Juliane Kokott & Meike Conrads, Case note, 91 AJIL 722, 723 (1997) (commenting on the latter case).

18 See generally Sebastian, Bohr, Sanctions by the United Nations Security Council and the European Community , 4 Eur.J. Int’l L. 256 (1993)Google Scholar.

19 For Article 130 u (1) of the Treaty, see text preceding note 4 supra. See also Frank Hoffmeister, Menschenrechts-und Demokratieklauseln in Vertraglichen Auβenbeziehungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, ch. 9.V.1.b (forthcoming).

20 See the present authors’ report on ECJ Opinion 2/1994, 90 AJIL 664, 668 (1996).

21 Judgment, para. 28.

22 European Parliament Resolution on human rights, 1989 OJ. (C 47) 61, 67, paras. 8–9. The question is also dealt with by Pieter, Jan Kuyper, Trade Sanctions, Security and Human Rights , in The European Community’s Commercial Policy after 1992: The Legal Dimension 387, 40520 (Marc, Maresceau ed., 1993)Google Scholar.

23 Judgment, para. 24.

24 Id., para. 27.

25 See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, Art. 62, 1155 UNTS 331.

26 See id., Art. 60.

27 For a political analysis of the effect of development aid sanctions, see Katerina Tomasevski, Development Aid and Human Rights Revisited 95 (1993).

28 1995 COM(216) final.

29 EU Bull., May 1995, at 1.2.3. For more details, see Martine, Fouwels, The European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy and Human Rights , 15 Neth. Q. Hum. Rts. 291 (1997)Google Scholar.

30 Pierre, Celestin Ulimubenshi, La Problématique de la clause des droits de l’homme dans un accord de coopération économique: L’exemple de coopération économique de la Convention de Lomé , 3 Afr. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 253 (1994)Google Scholar.

31 Agreement modifying the Fourth EC-ACP Convention of Lome (Nov. 4, 1995), in Courier, Jan.-Feb. 1996, at 1.

32 See Declaration of the EU (Jan. 30, 1996), EU Bull., Jan.-Feb. 1996, at 1.4.15; and Declaration of the EU (May 13, 1996), EU Bull., May 1996, at 1.4.98. On the Community’s suspension of the Fourth Lomé Agreement vis-à-vis ACP states massively violating human rights or democratic principles in the years 1990–1995 (Sudan, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Zaire, Kenya, Malawi, Guinea, Togo, Gambia, Nigeria), under the old Article 5 of the Convention, see Hoffmeister, supra note 19, ch. 11.

33 1996 O.J. (C 14) 3 (MERCOSUR); 1996 COM(259) final (Chile).

34 1995 COM(740) 1 (Morocco).

35 1996 COM(135) final at 1 (Armenia); 1996 COM(136) 1 (Georgia); 1996 COM(137) 1 (Azerbaijan).