The commented judgement is (back) in line with the reasoning emerging in the Court’s jurisprudence, as well as in the legal doctrine, according to which, expressing it short and to the point, “shared is not always mixed”. In other words, the existence of the EU external competence is a decisive factor for the conclusion and execution of an international agreement. If the EU shares competence with the Member States over the whole agreement, it may be concluded by the EU only. Moreover, as follows from the commented judgment, the EU may also be the only one empowered to make decisions at the stage of the implementation of an international agreement with shared competence. This is supposed to be the way to get rid of problematic mixity in EU external relations. A long time ago, the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail would have been perceived as a mixed agreement with concurrent competences. Nowadays, it is the EU’s international agreement with shared competence.
existence of the EU external competence ; shared competences ; implementation of an international agreement ; external relations of the EU
Dolmans J.F.M., Problems of mixed agreements, The Hague 1985
Erlbacher F., Recent Case Law on External Competences How Member States can embrace their own Treaty, ‘EPIN Paper’, January 2017
de la Torre F.C., The Court of Justice and External Competences After Lisbon: Some Reflections on the Latest Case Law, [in:] Eeckhout P., Lopez-Escudero M., ‘The European Union’s external action in times of crisis’, Oxford-Portland 2016
AffiliationJagiellonian University Poland
Bio Statement (e.g., department and rank)
Dr hab., Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University in Kraków