Review of the Opinion 2/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Year 2017, Volume: 16 Issue: 1, 107 - 142, 01.05.2017

Emriye Özlem Şeker

https://doi.org/10.1501/Avraras_0000000244

Abstract

Opinion 2/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union on EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement is important since it determines the EU competence and conclusion procedure of similar new generation trade agreements. This paper aims to analyse the effects of the Opinion 2/15 on EU’s competence to conclude international agreements, conclusion of similar agreements and Modernisation of the Customs Union between Turkey and the EU. It is concluded that Court’s broad interpretation of the EU’s exclusive competence strengthens EU’s external power legally, through providing the opportunity to ratify international agreements alone; but it creates new ambiguities about the EU’s competence on investments. Regarding to the Customs Union, inclusion of the subjects of the revision negotiations to the EU’s exclusive competences, is evaluated as a positive development in terms of legal certainty

Keywords

Court of Justice of the European Union, Opinion 2/15, new generation trade agreements, Turkey-European Union Relations, Modernisation of Customs Union

Dava İncelemesi: Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanının 2/15 Sayılı Görüşünün İncelemesi

Abstract

Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanının, Avrupa Birliği “AB” ile Singapur arasındaki Serbest Ticaret Anlaşması hakkındaki 2/15 sayılı Görüşü, AB’nin yeni nesil ticaret anlaşmalarına ilişkin yetkisini ve bu anlaşmaların akdedilme usulünü belirlemesi sebebiyle önemlidir. Bu çalışma Görüşün, Birliğin uluslararası anlaşma akdetme yetkisine, benzer anlaşmaların akdedilme sürecine ve Türkiye ile AB arasındaki Gümrük Birliğinin güncellenmesine etkilerini incelemektedir. Görüşte tanımlanan geniş münhasır yetkinin, benzer uluslararası anlaşmaların sadece AB tarafından onaylanabilmesini mümkün kılarak AB’nin dış yetkisini hukuken güçlendirdiği; fakat yatırımlara ilişkin AB yetkisi ile ilgili yeni belirsizlikleri doğurduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Gümrük Birliği açısından ise güncelleme çalışmaları kapsamındaki konuların AB’nin münhasır yetkisi kapsamında sayılması bu alanlarda hukuki belirlilik sağlaması nedeniyle olumlu bir gelişme olarak değerlendirilmiştir

Keywords

Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı, 2/15 sayılı Görüş, yeni nesil ticaret anlaşmaları, Türkiye – Avrupa Birliği İlişkileri, Gümrük Birliğinin Güncellenmesi

References

• CRAIG Paul / DE BURCA Grainne: EU LAW – Text, Cases and Materials, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2015
• EECKHOUT Piet: EU External Relations Law, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2011
• KOUTRAKOS Panos: EU International Relations Law, Second Edition, Hart Publishing, 2015
• MACLEOD I. / HENDRY I. D. / HYETT Stephen: The External Relations of the European Communities, Oxford University Press, 1996
• SCHÜTZE Robert: European Union Law, Cambridge University Press, 2015
• VAN VOOREN Bart / WESSEL Ramses A.: EU External Relations Law – Texts, Cases and Materials, Cambridge University Press, 2014
• CREMONA Marise: “Negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)”, Common Market Law Review 52, 2015, s. 351–362
• GÖÇMEN İlke: “Avrupa Bı̇rlı̇ği ile Türkı̇ye Arasındakı̇ Gümrük Bı̇rlı̇ğinin Güncellenmesı̇nin Yöntemı̇ ve Usulü: Avrupa Birliği Açısından Bir Bakış”, Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, Cilt:15, No:1 (Yıl: 2016), s. 85-115
• KLEIMAN David: “Reading Opinion 2/15: Standards of Analysis, the Court’s Discretion, and the Legal View of the Advocate General”, EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2017/23, April 2017
• KLEIMANN David / KÜBEK Gesa: “The Signing, Provisional Application, and Conclusion of Trade and Investment Agreements in the EU - The Case of CETA and Opinion 2/15”, EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2016/58, November 2016
• MÜLLER-GRAFF Peter Christian: “The Common Commercial Policy enhanced by the Reform Treaty of Lisbon?”, DASHWOOD Alan / MARESCEAU Marc (Ed.s): Law and Practice of EU External Relations – Salient Features of A Changing Landscape, Cambridge University Press, 2009, s. 188-201
• OSAS Allan: “The European Union and Mixed Agreements”, DASHWOOD Alan /
• HILLION Christophe (Ed.s): The General Law of E.C. External Relations, Sweet & Maxell, London, 2000, s. 200-220
• ŞEKER Emriye Özlem, “Avrupa Birliği Üyeliği Öncesindeki Uluslararası Anlaşmalar: Üye Devletler ve Aday Devletlere Yönelı̇k Bir İnceleme”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 64 (4) 2015, s. 1189-1232 Blog Yazıları
• ANKERSMIT Laurens: “Opinion 2/15 and The Future of Mixity and ISDS”, http://europeanlawblog.eu/2017/05/18/opinion-215-and-the-future-of-mixity- and-isds/ 18 Mayıs 2017 (Erişim tarihi: 06.06.2017)
• KLEIMANN, David / KÜBEK, Gesa: “The Singapore Opinion or the End of Mixity as We Know It”, VerfBlog, 2017/5/23, http://verfassungsblog.de/the- singapore-opinion-or-the-end-of-mixity-as-we-know-it/, https://dx.doi.org/10.17176/20170523-074409, s. 2 (Erişim tarihi: 06.06.2017) DOI
• THYM Daniel: Mixity after Opinion 2/15: Judicial Confusion over Shared Competences, VerfBlog, 2017/5/31, http://verfassungsblog.de/mixity-after- opinion-215-judicial-confusion-over-shared- https://dx.doi.org/10.17176/20170531-090845 (Erişim tarihi: 06.06.2017) competences/, DOI: Mahkeme Kararları
• Opinion 2/15, EU:C:2017:376
• Hukuk Sözcüsü Saugmandsgaard Øe’nin Görüşü, C‑65/16 Istanbul Lojistik Ltd v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság, EU:C:2017:282
• Opinion 3/15, Marrakesh Treaty on access to published works, EU:C:2017:114
• Hukuk Sözcüsü Sharpston’un Görüşü, Opinion 2/15, EU:C:2016:992
• C-464/14, SECIL, EU:C:2016:896
• Opinion 1/13, Accession of third States to the Hague Convention, EU:C:2014:2303
• C-114/12, Commission v Council, EU:C:2014:2151
• C-414/11, Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon, EU:C:2013:520
• Opinion 1/08, Agreements modifying the Schedules of Specific Commitments under the GATS, EU:C:2009:739
• C-411/06, Commission vs Parliament and Council, EU:C:2009:518
• C-326/07, Commission v Italy, EU:C:2009:193
• C-446/04, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, EU:C:2006:774
• Opinion 1/03, New Lugano Convention, EU:C:2006:81
• C-347/03, Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia and ERSA, EU:C:2005:285
• C-467/98, Commission v Denmark, EU:C:2002:625
• Opinion 1/94, Competence of the Community to conclude international agreements concerning services and the protection of intellectual property, EU:C:1994:384 Opinion 1/92, EU:C:1992:189
• Case 181/80, Procureur General v. Jose Arbelaiz-Emazabel, EU:C:1981:295
• Case 812/79, Attorney General v Juan C. Burgoa, EU:C:1980:231Opinion 1/78, International Agreement on Natural Rubber, EU:C:1979:224
• Opinion 1/76, Agreement on the establishment of a European Laying-up Fund for Inland Waterway Vessels, EU:C:1977:63
• Joined Cases 3, 4 ve 6/76, Cornelis Kramer and Others, EU:C:1976:114
• Joined Cases 21/72 to 24/72 International Fruit Company and Others, EU:C:1972:115
• Case 22/70, Commission v Council, EU:C:1971:32
• Case 10/61, Commission v. Italy, EU:C:1962:2
• BVerfG, Urteil des Zweiten Senats vom 13. Oktober 2016 - 2 BvR 1368/ 16, 2 BvE 3/16, 2 BvR 1823/16, 2 BvR 1482/16, 2 BvR 1444/16 - Rn. (1 - 73), http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20161013_2bvr136816.html 06.06.2017) (Erişim tarihi