International Agreements
International Recommendations &
Ist Strand 1st Strand 2nd Strand
Agreements opinions
COJ also refused to give direct effect to Article 288 TFEU provides two further
agreement establishing WTO and other Does specific provison of the measures that can be adopted by the
Is it capable of having direct effect in international agreement satisfy Van
the first place? agreements annexed to it. EU institutions.
Gend en Loos criteria. (sufficiently
Recommendations
clear and precise, unconditional)
Entered into between EU and Non- & Opinions.
member states Demirel v stadt schwabisch Gmund
Held that these agreements were still (Case 12/86) 1987 Art. specifically states they have no
founded on a principle of negotiation binding foce.
and emphasised that some other non
Contracting parties are free to agree EU states considered them to be
what the effect of agreement is to be in inapplicable in their national courts
their legal systems.
COJ held in Grimaldi 1989) that
(parfums christian dior SA v TUK recommendations cannot, in
Consultancy BV (Joined cases C- If two strands are satisfied then it will themselves, have direct effect.
300/98 and c-392/98) 2000 be able to have vertical direct effect
(against the state)
May also be capable of having a direct Applying in relation to direct effect
the reasoning in a slightly different (International fruit company)
effect C.O.J in Hauptzollant Mainz v C.A context in Portugal v Council case c-
(International Fruit Company NV v Kupferburg & Cie KG a.A institutions 149-96 They may be taken into consideration
Produktschap Voor Groenten en of the EU are free to agree with non
by national courts where they cast
fruit.) member states concerned what effect
light on the interpretation of other
the provisions of the agreement are
2 strand approach legal measures.
to have in the internal legal order of
(not always been addressed the EU Same principle should also apply to
independantly of one & other by the Interanational agreements have been opinions and other non-binding acts of
This may be expressed in the
COJ) given horizontal direct effect against the EU.
agreement. if not the COJ with
determine it (Kupferburg) on the basis private REGULATORY bodies
of the purpose, spirit, general scheme (Deutscher Handballbund eV Kolpak
and terms of the agreement. (case 438/00)
(international fruit company) But COJ has found that other various
free trade, association and Not clear what extent they may be
capable of having horizontal direct
cooperation agreements that EU has
entered into with other states may be effect in other contexts as COJ have
capable of having direct effect (ex. avoided addressing this.
Kupferburg)
Worth noting that provisions in such
COJ in International Fruit Company agreements that are similar to those
Held the GATT treaty of 1947 was not in the EU treaty may be given a
capable of conferring rights on different effect insofar as the
individuals which could be invoked in agreement differs tfrom that of the
national courts. The treaty was treaties.
characterised by highly flexible Eg Polydor records. Aprovision of a FT
provisions based on a principle of agreement was given a different
negotiation, particularly in relation to interpretation from a similar one in
derogations, measures dealing with the EEC treaty because purpose of FT
exceptional difficulties and the agreement was to liberalise trade not
settlement of disputes. create a single market.
International Recommendations &
Ist Strand 1st Strand 2nd Strand
Agreements opinions
COJ also refused to give direct effect to Article 288 TFEU provides two further
agreement establishing WTO and other Does specific provison of the measures that can be adopted by the
Is it capable of having direct effect in international agreement satisfy Van
the first place? agreements annexed to it. EU institutions.
Gend en Loos criteria. (sufficiently
Recommendations
clear and precise, unconditional)
Entered into between EU and Non- & Opinions.
member states Demirel v stadt schwabisch Gmund
Held that these agreements were still (Case 12/86) 1987 Art. specifically states they have no
founded on a principle of negotiation binding foce.
and emphasised that some other non
Contracting parties are free to agree EU states considered them to be
what the effect of agreement is to be in inapplicable in their national courts
their legal systems.
COJ held in Grimaldi 1989) that
(parfums christian dior SA v TUK recommendations cannot, in
Consultancy BV (Joined cases C- If two strands are satisfied then it will themselves, have direct effect.
300/98 and c-392/98) 2000 be able to have vertical direct effect
(against the state)
May also be capable of having a direct Applying in relation to direct effect
the reasoning in a slightly different (International fruit company)
effect C.O.J in Hauptzollant Mainz v C.A context in Portugal v Council case c-
(International Fruit Company NV v Kupferburg & Cie KG a.A institutions 149-96 They may be taken into consideration
Produktschap Voor Groenten en of the EU are free to agree with non
by national courts where they cast
fruit.) member states concerned what effect
light on the interpretation of other
the provisions of the agreement are
2 strand approach legal measures.
to have in the internal legal order of
(not always been addressed the EU Same principle should also apply to
independantly of one & other by the Interanational agreements have been opinions and other non-binding acts of
This may be expressed in the
COJ) given horizontal direct effect against the EU.
agreement. if not the COJ with
determine it (Kupferburg) on the basis private REGULATORY bodies
of the purpose, spirit, general scheme (Deutscher Handballbund eV Kolpak
and terms of the agreement. (case 438/00)
(international fruit company) But COJ has found that other various
free trade, association and Not clear what extent they may be
capable of having horizontal direct
cooperation agreements that EU has
entered into with other states may be effect in other contexts as COJ have
capable of having direct effect (ex. avoided addressing this.
Kupferburg)
Worth noting that provisions in such
COJ in International Fruit Company agreements that are similar to those
Held the GATT treaty of 1947 was not in the EU treaty may be given a
capable of conferring rights on different effect insofar as the
individuals which could be invoked in agreement differs tfrom that of the
national courts. The treaty was treaties.
characterised by highly flexible Eg Polydor records. Aprovision of a FT
provisions based on a principle of agreement was given a different
negotiation, particularly in relation to interpretation from a similar one in
derogations, measures dealing with the EEC treaty because purpose of FT
exceptional difficulties and the agreement was to liberalise trade not
settlement of disputes. create a single market.
