Made in Luxembourg: The fabrication of the law on jurisdiction of the court of justice of the European Union in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy

The article provides an analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of Articles 24 TEU, first paragraph, second subparagraph, and 275 TFEU governing the question of the Court’s jurisdiction in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The article first describes the background of those provisions as they resulted from the Convention on the Future of Europe and the 2003-4 and 2007 Intergovernmental Conferences and then compares the Court’s understanding of its jurisdiction to the drafting history of the provisions concerned. The... Mehr ...

Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2018
Reihe/Periodikum: Europe and the World, Vol 2, Iss 1 (2018)
Verlag/Hrsg.: UCL Press
Schlagwörter: Court of Justice / Common Foreign and Security Policy / Jurisdiction / Review of Legality / Restrictive measures / Convention on the Future of Europe / Law of Europe / KJ-KKZ / Comparative law. International uniform law / K520-5582
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-29104296
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ewlj.2018.03

The article provides an analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of Articles 24 TEU, first paragraph, second subparagraph, and 275 TFEU governing the question of the Court’s jurisdiction in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The article first describes the background of those provisions as they resulted from the Convention on the Future of Europe and the 2003-4 and 2007 Intergovernmental Conferences and then compares the Court’s understanding of its jurisdiction to the drafting history of the provisions concerned. The main conclusion of the study of the case law suggests that the Court views its jurisdiction over the CFSP more broadly than the jurisdiction envisaged by the drafters of the Treaties. In particular, the Court both interprets the exclusion from its jurisdiction of acts based on the Treaty’s CFSP provisions in a narrow fashion and is prepared to review the legality of CFSP acts not only through direct actions but also through references for a preliminary ruling. However, the article argues that the provision of adequate legal protection in the field of the CFSP necessarily requires both the Court of Justice and domestic courts of the Member States to play their respective roles.