Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of the European Court of Justice in the Field of Common Foreign and Security Policy After the Treaty of Lisbon: New Challenges for the Future

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU External Relations Law and Policy in the Post-Lisbon Era

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to show the increasing importance of the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the field of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Although the Treaties expressly exclude the jurisdiction of the ECJ in this area, certain changes brought about by the Treaty in this field could significantly enhance its role in shaping the European foreign policy.The chapter is divided in three substantive parts. The first part will briefly analyse the general rule in the Treaty of the lack of the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the field of CFSP and the reasons for this. Whereas the sensitivity of the area and the willingness of the Member States to keep their sovereignty in this field is a legitimate reason for the lack of jurisdiction, it is less clear why the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on actions for annulment for the breach of essential procedural requirements in the adoption of CFSP acts as well on questions of compatibility of CFSP acts with human rights. The second part will deal with the questions of delimitation between pillars/areas. Pre-Lisbon, the first pillar had absolute preference over the second and third pillar. Lisbon changes this approach: not only shall the implementation of the CFSP not affect the exercise of the Union competences under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), but the implementation of these policies shall not affect the exercise of the Union competences under CFSP. The third part will discuss restrictive measures. In this field, the Treaty now distinguishes between three types of restrictive measures: measures intended to prevent and combat terrorism, measures against third countries and restrictive measures against natural or legal persons. The review of the latter is subjected to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, which is a novelty under the Treaty. It will be analysed how this new exception to the non-jurisdiction rule could influence cases such as Kadi and Al Barakaat.

Dr Maja Brkan---Référéndaire, European Court of Justice. The views expressed in this chapter are the personal views of the author and do not represent the views of the institution where the author is employed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bickel 1962.

  2. 2.

    ECJ, Case C-167/94 Grau Gomis and Others [1995] ECR I-1023. For comments on this case in the literature see, for example, Chavrier et al. 1995; Simon 2010.

  3. 3.

    For example, by virtue of an action for non-fulfilment of obligations (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 258). See, in this sense, Garbagnati Ketvel 2006, 80 and cf. Cremona 2004, 571.

  4. 4.

    Garbagnati Ketvel 2006, 80.

  5. 5.

    There is a conceptual difference between nonjusticiability (USA) and the lack of jurisdiction (EU). On this issue, see the judgment of the US Supreme Court in the case Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), For further theoretical discussion see Brkan 2009, 174 et seq.

  6. 6.

    In this regard, a theoretical example can be given: if unanimity was not respected for the adoption of a CFSP act, whereas it should have been respected, it is unclear why a Member State that has voted against the act does not have a possibility to file an action against such an act. Cf. Canor 1998, 94.

  7. 7.

    De Zwaan 1998, 188.

  8. 8.

    Weatherill 1998, 160.

  9. 9.

    Garbagnati Ketvel 2006, 86.

  10. 10.

    It is to be added that for the purposes of delimitation between the second and third pillar, the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali is to be applied; see Wessel 2000, 1148.

  11. 11.

    Eeckhout 2004, 150.

  12. 12.

    Conversely, the Court has ruled several times on delimitation between the first and third pillar—for example, in ECJ, Case C-170/96 Commission v. Council (Airport Transit Visas) [1998] ECR I-2763, ECJ, Case C-176/03, Commission v. Council (Criminal penalties for environment protection) [2005] ECR I-7879 and ECJ, Case C-440/05 Commission v. Council (Criminal penalties against ship-source pollution) [2007] ECR I-9097.

  13. 13.

    ECJ, Case C-91/05 Commission v. Council [2008] ECR I-3651. For the comments on the case see, for example, Karmali 2008; Broussy et al. 2008; Heliskoski 2008; Herlin-Karnell 2008; Wessel R 2008; Martínez Capdevila 2008.

  14. 14.

    Council Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP of 12 July 2002 on the European Union’s contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons and repealing Joint Action 1999/34/CFSP, OJ 2002 L 191, 1.

  15. 15.

    Council Decision 2004/833/CFSP of 2 December 2004 implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to ECOWAS in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons, OJ 2004 L 359, 65.

  16. 16.

    The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is a regional group of West African countries whose mission is to foster economic integration of these countries.

  17. 17.

    ECJ, Commission v. Council (ECOWAS) [2008], paras 2–24.

  18. 18.

    ECJ, Commission v. Council (ECOWAS) [2008], para 25.

  19. 19.

    ECJ, Commission v. Council (ECOWAS) [2008], para 75.

  20. 20.

    ECJ, Commission v. Council (ECOWAS) [2008], para 76.

  21. 21.

    ECJ, Commission v. Council (ECOWAS) [2008], para 77.

  22. 22.

    ECJ, Commission v. Council (ECOWAS) [2008], paras 61–62.

  23. 23.

    ECJ, Commission v. Council (ECOWAS) [2008], para 109.

  24. 24.

    ECJ, Commission v. Council (ECOWAS) [2008], para 110.

  25. 25.

    ECJ, Commission v. Council (ECOWAS) [2008], para 111.

  26. 26.

    ECJ, Commission v. Council (ECOWAS) [2008], para 33.

  27. 27.

    More on economic sanctions see Eeckhout 2004, 424 et seq.

  28. 28.

    It is to be stressed that the EU can adopt a regulation that sanctions more than a Security Council Resolution. An example of such a regulation was sanctions against Iraq (Regulation 2340/90) where the SC resolutions regulated a general embargo (on imports, selling and supply on products from Iraq—with the exception for humanitarian and medical reasons) as well as the flights to Iraq (Resolutions 661 (1990), 666 (1990), 670 (1990)). The EU Regulation contained also the prohibition of any other services that could enhance economic development in Iraq.

  29. 29.

    ECJ, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakaat v. Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351.

  30. 30.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, OJ 2002 L 139, 9.

  31. 31.

    There is abundant literature in this regard. See, for example, Graf Vitzthum 2008, 375–429; Sauer 2008, 25–27; Heun-Rehn 2008, 322–338; Ohler 2008, 630–633; Cassia and Donnat 2008, 1204–1217; Komárek 2008, 428–430; Do 2008, 867–873; Ferrari 2009, 187–192; Rijken 2009, 140–146; Kämmerer 2009, 114–130.

  32. 32.

    ECJ, Kadi and Al Barakaat [2008], para 317.

  33. 33.

    The Court breaks away from public international law which is the continuation of the idea, developed already in ECJ, Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1. The principle that the Community legal order is an autonomous legal order was repeated by the CFI (now the General Court (GC)) for example in the case T-85/09, Kadi v Commission (Kadi II), 30 September 2010, not yet reported, para 119.

  34. 34.

    ECJ, Case C-84/95, Bosphorus v. Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General [1996] ECR I-3953.

  35. 35.

    Cf. Eeckhout 2005, 26.

  36. 36.

    On the analysis of Kadi from the point of view of the relationship between EU law and public international law cf. Cardwell et al. 2009.

  37. 37.

    Beschluss vom 22. Oktober 1986, Az: 2 BvR 197/1983.

  38. 38.

    Cf, in this regard, Sandulli 2008, 513 et seq.

  39. 39.

    ECJ, Kadi and Al Barakaat [2008], paras 321–323.

  40. 40.

    CFI, Case T-315/01, Kadi v. Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3649, paras 121–130.

  41. 41.

    ECJ, Kadi and Al Barakaat [2008], paras 198–199. The ECJ stressed (point 199) that the position of the CFI -runs counter to the very wording of Article 308 EC.

  42. 42.

    ECJ, Kadi and Al Barakaat [2008], para 226.

  43. 43.

    There have been three Mojahedin cases before the CFI: CFI, T-228/02, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v. Council (Modjahedines I) [2006] ECR II-4665; CFI, T-256/07, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v. Council (Modjahedines II) [2008] ECR II-2312 and CFI, T-284/08, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v. Council (Modjahedines III) [2006] ECR II-3487. The latter two cases have been subject to appeal, ECJ, C-576/08 P, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v. Council and ECJ, C-27/09 P, France v Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran.

  44. 44.

    ECJ, Case C-105/03 Criminal Proceedings against Maria Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285.

  45. 45.

    It also has to be taken into account that the ECJ later—in ECJ, Case C-354/04 P, Gestoras Pro Amnistia and Others v. Council [2007] (not published in the ECR), para 52 and ECJ, Case C-355/04 P, Segi and Others v. Council [2007] ECR I-1657, para 52—applied this principle for a common position that was adopted on the legal basis of the second and third pillar.

  46. 46.

    ECJ, Case C-340/08, M and Others v. Her Majesty's Treasury [2010], 29 April 2010, not yet reported.

  47. 47.

    For preliminary question see the judgment C-340/08, M (point 32).

  48. 48.

    ECJ, M and Others [2010], 29 April 2010, para 74.

  49. 49.

    ECJ, M and Others [2010], 29 April 2010, paras 34–44.

  50. 50.

    ECJ, M and Others [2010], 29 April 2010, paras 53, 56.

  51. 51.

    For the comments on the judgment, see, for example, Simon 2010; Mok 2010; Murphy 2011.

  52. 52.

    For the facts of the case see judgment ECJ, Case C-117/06, Möllendorf [2007] ECR I-08361, paras 22-39.

  53. 53.

    ECJ, Möllendorf [2007], para 40.

  54. 54.

    ECJ, Möllendorf [2007], para 80.

  55. 55.

    For the comments on the judgment, see, for example, Bernard 2007; Donnat 2007–2008; Lavranos 2008; Schmucker 2008; Murphy 2011.

  56. 56.

    More precisely, Chapter I (General provisions) of Title V (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  57. 57.

    Provided that the measure was adopted in the framework of the to two-step system under Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 215. If the measure was adopted according to Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 75, the applicants would, in any event, be able to challenge it.

  58. 58.

    According to Article 6(1) of the post-Lisbon Treaty on the European Union, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.

  59. 59.

    ECJ, Kadi and Al Barakaat [2008], para 335.

  60. 60.

    GC, Kadi v. Council and Commission [2010].

  61. 61.

    Commission Regulation (EC) No 1190/2008 of 28 November 2008 amending for the 101st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, OJ L 322, 2.12.2008, 25.

  62. 62.

    GC, Kadi v. Council and Commission [2010], para 179.

  63. 63.

    GC, Kadi v. Council and Commission [2010], para 171.

  64. 64.

    GC, Kadi v. Council and Commission [2010], para 172.

  65. 65.

    GC, Kadi v. Council and Commission [2010], para 173.

  66. 66.

    The following appeals have been filed against the judgment of the General Court in the Case T-85/09, Kadi v. Commission: ECJ, C-584/10 P, Commission v. Kadi (appeal of 10 December 2010); ECJ, C-593/10 P, Council v. Kadi (appeal of 10 December 2010); ECJ, C-595/10 P, United Kingdom v. Kadi (appeal of 10 December 2010).

  67. 67.

    The first issue (direct challenge of the CFSP measure) was not relevant in this case because Kadi challenged the regulation on the basis of which his funds were frozen. The General Court also did not refer itself to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The third potential change is not yet relevant because the EU did not yet accede to the ECHR.

  68. 68.

    For example the adoption of legislative acts is excluded and the unanimous adoption of the acts is a rule except when the Treaties provide otherwise. See Treaty on the European Union, Article 31(1).

  69. 69.

    An exception is the creation of a new post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy that merges the former post of the former Commissioner responsible for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy and the former post of High Representative with the goal of a greater coherence of the external action of the Union.

  70. 70.

    Koopmans 2003, 271.

References

  • Bernard E (2007) Sanctions économiques dans le cadre de la lutte contre le terrorisme, Europe nº 332, p 18–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickel A (1962) The least dangerous branch: the Supreme Court at the bar of politics, Bobbs‐Merrill, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Brkan M (2008) Presekani (in spet zavezani) gordijski vozel. Pravna praksa 36:25–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Brkan M (2009) Pravne razsežnosti zunanje politike EU. GV Založba, Ljubljana

    Google Scholar 

  • Broussy E, Donnat F, Lambert C (2008) Chronique de jurisprudence communautaire. Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune, L’actualité juridique; droit administratif, 1534–1535

    Google Scholar 

  • Canor I (1998) The recommended limitations on the exercise of Judicial Discretion by the European Court of Justice, Security and Foreign Affairs Issues. Nomos Verlagsgeselschaft. Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardwell PJ, French D, White N (2009) Kadi: the Interplay between EU and International Law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 58:229–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassia P, Donnat F (2008) Terrorisme international et droits fondamentaux: les leçons du droit communautaire. Revue française de droit administratif, 1204–1217

    Google Scholar 

  • Chavrier H, Honorat E, Pouzoulet P (1995) Le contentieux communautaire. La recevabilité des questions préjudicielles et la compétence de la Cour pour y répondre. L’actualité juridique: droit administratif, 708–711

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona M (2004) The Union as a global actor. Roles, models and identity. Common Market Law Review 41:571

    Google Scholar 

  • De Zwaan JW (1998) Community dimensions of the second pillar. In: Heukels T, Blokker N, Brus M (eds) The European Union after Amsterdam a legal analysis. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 179–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnat F (2007–2008) CJCE, Möllendorf et Möllendorf-Niehuus, aff. C-117/06, Rec. p. I-8361, Revue des affaires européennes, 11 october 2007, p 453–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Do TU (2008) La jurisprudence de la Cour de justice et du Tribunal de première instance. Chronique des arrêts. Arrêt ‘Yassin Abdullah Kadi et al Barakaat International Foundation c. Conseil et Commission’. Revue du droit de l’Union Européenne 4:867–873

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhout P (2004) External relations of the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhout P (2005) Does Europe’s constitution stop at the water’s edge? Law and policy in the EU’s external relations (Walter van Gerven Lecture). Europa Law Publishing, Leuven

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari GF (2009) Kadi: verso una Corte di giustizia costituzionale? Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 187–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Garbagnati Ketvel M-G (2006) The jurisdiction of the European Court of justice in respect of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 55(1):80

    Google Scholar 

  • Graf Vitzthum N (2008) Les compétences législatives et juridictionnelles de la Communauté européenne dans la lutte contre le terrorisme—l’affaire ‘Kadi’ 3: Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien—ZeuS. 375–429

    Google Scholar 

  • Heliskoski J (2008) Small arms and light weapons within the Union’s pillar structure: an analysis of Article 47 of the EU Treaty. European Law Review 898–912

    Google Scholar 

  • Herlin-Karnell E (2008) Light weapons’ and the dynamics of Art 47 EU—The EC’s armoury of ever expanding competences. The Modern Law Review 71:998–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heun-Rehn SL-T (2008) Kadi und Al Barakaat—Der EuGH, die Gemeinschaft und das Völkerrecht. European Law Reporter, 322–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Kämmerer JA (2009) Das Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs im Fall ‘Kadi’: Ein Triumph der Rechtsstaatlichkeit? Europarecht, 114–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmali A (2008) Annulment of Council decision supporting moratorium on arms and weapons in West Africa—Case C-91/05, Commission v Council. Bulletin of International Legal Development 14. 159–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Komárek J (2008) Boj proti terorismu, ochrana základních práv a vztah mezinárodního a unijního, Soudní rozhledy: mesícník ceské, zahranicní a evropské judikatury: nová soudní rozhodnutí vydávaná redakcí casopisu Právní rozhledy ve spoluprác jednotlivymi soudci 428–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans T (2003) Courts and Political Institutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lavranos N (2008) The effect of UN sanctions on private party transactions, European Law Reporter, p 137–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez Capdevila C (2008) Sobre el reparto horizontal de competencias entre la CE y la UE (Comentario a la Sentencia del TJCE, de 20 de mayo de 2008, as. Comisión c. Consejo—Lucha contra la proliferación de armas ligeras —C-91/05). Revista española de Derecho Europeo 29:101–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Mok MR (2010) Casenote: Hof van justitie van de Europese unie (vierde kamer), 29 April 2010, nr. Case C-340/08, Nederlandse jurisprudentie. Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 414:4101–4110

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy CC (2011) Comments on ECJ Case C-117/06, Proceedings brought by Gerda Möllendorf and Christiane Möllendorf-Niehuus; ECJ Case C-340/08, M and Others v. Her Majesty’s Treasury; ECJ Case C-550/09, Criminal Proceedings Against E and F. Common Market Law Review 48:243–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohler C (2008) Gemeinschaftsrechtlicher Rechtsschutz gegen personengerichtete Sanktionen des UN-Sicherheitsrats. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 630–633

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijken CRJJ (2009) Het Hof als hoeder van de fundamentele rechten in de zaak Kadi en Al Barakaat, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht, 140–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandulli A (2008) I rapporti tra diritto europeo ed internazionale. Il caso Kadi: un nuovo caso Solange?, Giornale di diritto amministrativo, 513 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer H (2008) Rechtsschutz gegen völkerrechtsdeterminiertes Gemeinschaftsrecht? Neue juristische Wochenschrift, 3685–3688

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmucker A (2008) Verordnung (EG) Nr. 881/2002 Article 2 Abs. 3 (Keine Eigentumsumschreibung auf gelistete Person), Deutsche Notar-Zeitschrift: Verkündungsblatt der Bundesnotarkammer, nº 09, p 695–703

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon D (2010) Contentieux des mesures anti-terroristes, Europe, June 2010, nº 191 p 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (1998) Safeguarding the acquis communautaire. In: Heukels T, Blokker N, Brus M (eds) The European Union after Amsterdam: a legal analysis. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel RA (2000) The inside looking out: consistency and delimitation in EU external relations. Common Market Law Review 37:1135–1171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessel RA (2008) Veiligheidsbeleid of toch ontwikkelingssamenwerking? De afbakening van de externe bevoegdheden tussen de EU, de EG en de lidstaten. Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 10:292–299

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Court of Justice, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Maja Brkan

Authors
  1. Maja Brkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maja Brkan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Law, University of Sheffield, Bartolomé House, Winter Street, Sheffield, S3 7ND, United Kingdom

    Paul James Cardwell

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brkan, M. (2011). The Role of the European Court of Justice in the Field of Common Foreign and Security Policy After the Treaty of Lisbon: New Challenges for the Future. In: Cardwell, P. (eds) EU External Relations Law and Policy in the Post-Lisbon Era. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-823-1_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation