Limits of Jurisdiction of International Courts and Tribunals Vis-à-vis the CJEU under EU Law

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1

Mustafa Tayyar Karayiğit

https://doi.org/10.32450/aacd.1535387

Öz

The article examines, within the context of compatibility with the autonomy of the EU legal order of dispute settlement mechanisms established or designated by agreements, the boundaries of jurisdiction of international courts/tribunals drawn by the CJEU under EU law with their grounds in the preservation of external autonomy of the EU legal order against the international legal system and international courts. It draws attention to the balance to be struck between the objectives of protection of specific characteristics of EU law and the autonomy of the EU legal order, and giving the EU, within the context of international law requirements, more leeway to interact with other international law subjects with the purpose of making international agreements establishing or designating dispute settlement mechanisms. It is emphasised that the excessively broad scope of the exclusive jurisdiction of the CJEU and so correlatively the narrower scope of jurisdiction of international courts/tribunals would make the EU prisoner of its autonomy with the consequence of while being an isolated judicial monster in its ivory tower, a rather modest international actor in the construction of a more rule-oriented international legal system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Exclusive Jurisdiction of the CJEU, Jurisdiction of International Courts, Compatibility Review, EU Judicial System, Autonomy

AB Hukuku Çerçevesinde ABAD'a Karşı Uluslararası Mahkemelerin Yargısal Yetkisi

Öz

Makale uluslararası anlaşmalar tarafından kurulan uyuşmazlık çözüm mekanizmalarının AB hukuk düzeninin özerkliğine uygunluğu çerçevesinde, ABAD tarafından uluslararası mahkemelerin yargısal yetkilerinin AB hukukuna göre çizilen sınırlarını, AB hukuku düzeninin dışsal özerkliğini koruma bağlamındaki gerekçeleriyle analiz etmektedir. Makale, AB hukukunun kendine özgü karakteristiklerini ve AB hukuku düzeninin özerkliğini koruma amaçları ile uluslararası hukukun gereklerinin kapsamı dahilinde AB’ye diğer uluslararası hukuk süjeleriyle birlikte uyuşmazlık çözüm mekanizmaları kuracak uluslararası anlaşmalar yapma amacıyla ilişki kurmak adına daha fazla özgürlük alanı bırakma amacı arasında denge kurulması gerekliliğine dikkati çekmektedir. Makalede, ABAD’a tanınan aşırı geniş yargı yetkisi ve dolayısıyla da uluslararası mahkemelere tanınan daha dar bir yargı yetkisinin, AB’nin bir yandan kendi fildişi kulesinde izole bir yargısal dev olarak kalmasına, diğer yandan ise daha kural egemen bir uluslararası hukuk sisteminin inşasında da oldukça mütevazı bir uluslararası aktör olarak kalmasına sebebiyet vererek AB’nin kendi özerkliğinin tutsağı haline gelmesine yol açacağına vurgu yapılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Özerklik, ABAD’ın Münhasır Yargı Yetkisi, Uluslararası Mahkemelerin Yargı Yetkisi, Uygunluk Denetimi, AB Yargısal Sistemi

Kaynakça

• Barents, René, The Autonomy of Community Law (The Hague: Kluwer, 2004).
• Bungenberg, Marc & August Reinisch, From Bilateral Arbitral Tribunals and Investment Courts to A Multilateral Investment Court: Options Regarding the Institutionalization of Investor-State Dispute Settlement, European Yearbook of International Economic Law (Berlin: Springer Open 2020).
• Contartese, Cristina, “The Autonomy of the EU Legal Order in the ECJ’s External Relations Case Law: From the “Essential” to the “Specific Characteristics” of the Union and Back Again” Common Market Law Review 54, (2017): 1627.
• Delile, Jean-Félix, “L’avis 1/17 ou le retour en grâce des juridictions internationales auprès de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne” R.A.E. – L.E.A. (2019): 347.
• de Witte, Bruno, “A Selfish Court? The Court of Justice and the Design of International Dispute Settlement beyond the European Union” in The European Court of Justice and External Relations Law: Constitutional Challenges Marise Cremona and Anne Thies (eds), (Oxford: Hart 2014).
• Eckes, Cristina, “International Rulings and the EU Legal Order: Autonomy as Legitimacy?” CLEER PAPERS 2-2016.
• Eckes, Cristina, “The autonomy of the EU legal order” Europe and the World: A law review 4, (2020): 1.
• Eckes, Cristina, “The Autonomy of the EU Legal Order: The Case of the Energy Charter Treaty” Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper 10-2023.
• Eeckhout, Piet, “Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR and Judicial Dialogue: Autonomy or Autarky?” Fordham Int'l L.J. 38, (2015): 955.
• Govaere, Inge, “Dispute Settlement under Mixed Agreements and the Autonomy of the EC Legal Order” in Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and its Member States in the World C Hillion and P Koutrakos (eds), (Oxford: Hart 2010).
• Gragl, Paul, “The Reasonableness of Jealousy: Opinion 2/13 and EU Accession to the ECHR” European Yearbook on Human Rights 15, (2015): 27.
• Kübek, Gesa, “Autonomy and international investment agreements after Opinion 1/17” Europe and the World: A law review 4, (2020).
• Lopez-Rodriguez, Ana M, “Investor-State Dispute Settlement in the EU: Certainties and Uncertainties” Hous J Int'l L 40, (2017): 139.
• Odermatt, Jed, “The Principle of Autonomy: An Adolescent Disease of EU External Relations Law?” in Structural Principles in EU External Relations Law Marise Cremona (ed.) (Oxford: Hart, 2018).
• Pantaleo, Luca, “The Autonomy of the EU Legal Order and International Dispute Settlement in the Wake of Opinion 1/17” Studi sull’integrazione europea 14, (2019): 775.
• Pescatore, Pierre, “The Doctrine of Direct Effect: An Infant Disease of Community Law” ELRev. 8, (1983): 155.
• Petit, Nicolas & Joëlle Pilorge-Vrancken, “Avis ¬2/13 de la CJUE¬: l’obsession du contrôle?” R.A.E. – L.E.A. (2014): 815.
• Schill, Stephan W, “The European Commission’s Proposal of an “Investment Court System” for TTIP: Stepping Stone or Stumbling Block for Multilateralizing International Investment Law?” (2016) <https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/20/issue/9/european-commissions-proposal-investment-court-system-ttip-stepping>.
• Spaventa, Eleanor, “A Very Fearful Court? The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the European Union after Opinion 2/13” MJ 22, (2015): 35.
• Case C-181/73 R. & V. Haegeman v Belgian State EU:C:1974:41
• Opinion 1/76 EU:C:1977:63
• Case 314/85 Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost EU:C:1987:452.
• Case 12/86 Meryem Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd EU:C:1987:400
• Case C-192/89 Sevince v Staatssecretaris van Justitie EU:C:1990:322
• Opinion 1/91 EU:C:1991:490,
• Opinion 1/92 EU:C:1992:189
• Opinion 1/00 EU:C:2002:231
• Case C-213/03 Syndicat professionnel coordination des pêcheurs de l'étang de Berre et de la region v Électricité de France (EDF) EU:C:2004:464
• Case C-459/03 Commission v Ireland EU:C:2006:345
• Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi EU:C:2008:461
• Joined Cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P FIAMM EU:C:2008:476
• Opinion 1/09 EU:C:2011:123
• Case C 399/11 Melloni EU:C:2013:107
• Opinion 2/13 EU:C:2014:2454
• Case C 284/16 Achmea EU:C:2018:158
• Opinion of AG Bot, Opinion 1/17 EU:C:2019:72.
• Opinion 1/17 EU:C:2019:341.
• Case C-638/19 P Micula EU:C:2022:50
• Case C 741/19 Moldova v Komstroy EU:C:2021:655
• Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1, Award, (16 May 2018) para. 679;
• Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Decision on Termination Request and Intra-EU Objection, (7 May 2019) para. 177;
• BayWa r.e. Renewable Energy GmbH and BayWa r.e. Asset Holding GmbH v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/16, Award (25 Jan 2021) para. 568.