Demystifying Autonomy: Tracing the International Law Origins of the EU Principle of Autonomy

KONSTANTINIDIS, Markos

doi:10.1017/glj.2023.95

Download

Article (Scientific journals)

Demystifying Autonomy: Tracing the International Law Origins of the EU Principle of Autonomy

KONSTANTINIDIS, Markos

2024 • In German Law Journal, 25 (1), p. 94 - 110

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10993/64404

DOI
10.1017/glj.2023.95

Files (1)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

M Konstantinidis - demystifying-autonomy-tracing-the-international-law-origins-of-the-eu-principle-of-autonomy.pdf

Publisher postprint (187.08 kB)

Download

All documents in ORBilu are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Keywords :

Autonomy; Constitutionalization; EU external relations law; European Union; International organizations; Law

Abstract :

[en] CJEU case law has long emphasized the autonomy of the EU legal order, recently triggering the foreclosure of intra-EU investment arbitration. Though academic discourse has treated this as a European peculiarity, autonomy is not unfamiliar to international law as an inherent attribute of all international organizations (IOs). This Article traces how the CJEU employed this as the basis for the development of a legal principle of significant constitutional role in safeguarding the EU's jurisdictional integrity. First, It considers the EU conception of autonomy on the basis of two identified dimensions of IOs' autonomy under international law. Political autonomy characterizes the scope of an IO's powers and its independent legal personality. Institutional autonomy denotes its (im)permeability to external norms. Second, the Article examines autonomy's different normative status under international and EU law as a legal notion and a constitutional principle, respectively. Rather than viewing the latter as an EU invention, it amounts to a Pygmalian judicial creation-the CJEU drew inspiration from a notion of international law and adapted it within the Union framework. The Article justifies these adaptations by reference to international law in light of the EU's institutional-judicial architecture and the intertwining of autonomy with, inter alia, Article 2 TEU values.

Disciplines :

European & international law

Author, co-author :

KONSTANTINIDIS, Markos ; University of Luxembourg > Luxembourg Centre for European Law (LCEL) > LCEL Research ; King's College London, London, United Kingdom

External co-authors :

Language :

English

Title :

Demystifying Autonomy: Tracing the International Law Origins of the EU Principle of Autonomy

Publication date :

12 February 2024

Journal title :

German Law Journal

eISSN :

2071-8322

Publisher :

Cambridge University Press

Volume :

Issue :

Pages :

94 - 110

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Additional URL :

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S2071832223000950

Available on ORBilu :

since 03 March 2025

Statistics

Number of views

76 (5 by Unilu)

Number of downloads

20 (2 by Unilu)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

OpenAlex citations

WoS citations^™

Bibliography

1Case C-284/16, Slovak Republic v Achmea BV (March 6, 2018), http://curia.europa.eu/;
Case C-109/20, Poland v PL Holdings (April 22, 2021), http://curia.europa.eu/.
2Case C-741/19, Republic of Moldova v Komstroy LLC (September 2, 2021), http://curia.europa.eu/.
3For instance, see Michael W Bauer and Jörn Ege, Bureaucratic Autonomy of International Organizations’ Secretariats, 23 JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY 1019 (2016);
Eva-Karin Olssona & Bertjan Verbeek, Do Crises Enable or Constrain IO Autonomy?, 21 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT 275 (2021);
Andrew P Cortell and Susan Peterson, Autonomy and International Organisations, 25 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT 399 (2022).
4Jean d’Aspremont, The Multifaceted Concept of the Autonomy of International Organizations and International Legal Discourse, in INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THE IDEA OF AUTONOMY: INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER 63 (Richard Collins and Nigel D. White eds., Routledge, 2011).
5For such reviews, see Ingolf Pernice, The Autonomy of the EU Legal Order – Fifty Years After Van Gend, in 50th ANNIVERSARY OF THE JUDGMENT IN VAN GEND EN LOOS 1963-2013 (2013), https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/ publication/de3db697-1f5c-4f83-8424-1663b43ac2d3/language-en/format-PDF/source-279417390?pk_campaign=VanGenden Loos&pk_source=li;
Cristina Contartese, 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, 54 COMMON MARKET LAW REVIEW 1627 (2017); Niamh Nic Shuibhne, What is the Autonomy of EU Law, and Why Does that Matter?, NORDIC JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 9 (2019);
Damjan Kukovec, The Court of Justice of the European Union for Hedgehogs, THE JEAN MONNET CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL ECONOMIC LAW AND JUSTICE, JEAN MONNET WORKING PAPER 1/21 (2021), https:// jeanmonnetprogram.org/paper/the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-for-hedgehogs>.
6Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, 26 October 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 13.
7Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, May 9, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 47.
8Eleanor Spaventa, A Very Fearful Court? The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the European Union after Opinion 2/13, 22 MAASTRICHT JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN AND COMPARATIVE LAW 35 (2015).
9Bruno de Witte, 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 33 (Marise Cremona and Annie Thies, eds., Hart, 2014).
10Piet Eeckhout, Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR and Judicial Dialogue: Autonomy or Autarky, 38 FORDHAM INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 955 (2015).
11For instance, see Dimitry Kochenov and Nikos Lavranos, Achmea versus the Rule of Law: CJEU’s Dogmatic Dismissal of Investors’ Rights in Backsliding Member States of the European Union, 14 HAGUE JOURNAL ON THE RULE OF LAW 195 (2021).
12Max Sørensen, Autonomous Legal Orders: Some Considerations Relating to a Systems Analysis of International Organisations in the World Legal Order, 32 INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 559, 560 (1983).
13See Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, 1963 E.C.R. 1, 12; and Case 6/64, Flaminio Costa v ENEL, 1964 E.C.R. 585, 594; cf. Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar at paras. 57–63, Case C-161/20, Commission v Council (November 25, 2021).
14d’Aspremont, supra note 4, at 65–70.
15Hurst Hannum and Richard B Lillich, The Concept of Autonomy in International Law, 74 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 858, 860 (1980).
16d’Aspremont, supra note 4, at 63.
17Niels Blokker, International Organizations and their Members: “International Organizations Belong to All Members and to None” – Variations on a Theme, 1 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS LAW REVIEW 139, 152 (2004).
18Id., at 153–54.
19This is notwithstanding any larger aspirations which may have conceived intergovernmentalism as a first step towards the eventual formation of a quasi-federated entity.
20For a brief historical account, see Paul Pierson, The Path to European Integration: A Historical-Institutionalist Analysis, in EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND SUPRANATIONAL GOVERNANCE 27 (Wayne Sandholtz and Alec Stone Sweet, eds., Oxford University Press, 1998).
21For the sake of simplicity, the term “European Union” will be used to refer to all stages of European integration, unless historically significant.
22Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi at para. 30, Case C-28/12, Commission v Council (January 29, 2015), where the Advocate General discussed “the principle of autonomy of the [EU] institutions” in the context of the procedure of communicating the authorisation of the Council for the signing of an international agreement under TFEU art. 218(5).
23Van Gend en Loos, supra note 13, at 12.
24Costa v ENEL, supra note 13, at 594.
25Case 11/ 70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle fur Getreide, 1970 E.C.R. 1125, para. 3.
26Case 283/ 81, Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health, 1982 E.C.R. 3415, para. 19.
27Jan W van Rossem, Autonomy: More is Less?, in BETWEEN AUTONOMY AND DEPENDENCE: THE EU LEGAL ORDER UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS 13, 19 (Ramses A Wessel and Steven Blockmans, eds., TMC Asser, 2013).
28Opinion 1/91, 1991 E.C.R. I-6079, para. 2.
29Francisco de Abreu Duarte, “But the Last Word Is Ours”: The Monopoly of Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Light of the Investment Court System, 30 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1187 (2019).
30Reparations for injuries suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1949, I.C.J. Rep. 174. For more on the international legal personality of international organisations, see Eric C. Ip, The Power of International Legal Personality in Regional Integration, UNU-CRIS WORKING PAPER W-2010/4 (2010), https://cris.unu.edu/sites/cris.unu.edu/files/W-20104.pdf; and Nicolae Purdă, ‘Aspects on the International legal Personality of International Organizations’, 2 CHALLENGES OF THE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY 891 (2012).
31C-22/70, Commission v Council (European Agreement on Road Transport), 1971 E.C.R. 263, para. 14.
32For more, see Jan Wouters, Frank Hoffmeister, Geert De Baere & Thomas Ramopoulos, Personality and Powers of the EU in THE LAW OF EU EXTERNAL RELATIONS: CASES, MATERIALS, AND COMMENTARY ON THE EU AS AN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ACTOR 1 et seq (Oxford University Press, 2021).
33Ricardo da Silva Passos, The Scope of the Principle of the Autonomy of the European Union Legal Order: Recent Developments, in BUILDING THE EUROPEAN UNION: THE JURIST’S VIEW OF THE UNION’S EVOLUTION 19, 20-22 (Koen Lenaerts, Nuno Piçarra, Carla Farinhas, Alessandro Marciano and Frédérique Rolin, eds., Hart, 2021).
34Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, 1996, I.C.J. Rep. 66, para. 19, referring to “a certain autonomy” of international organisations
35Tarcisio Gazzini, The Relationship Between International Legal Personality and the Autonomy of International Organisations, in INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THE IDEA OF AUTONOMY: INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER 196, 200 (Richard Collins and Nigel D. White eds., Routledge, 2011).
36Daniel Halberstam, “It’s the Autonomy, Stupid!” A Modest Defense of Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR, and the Way Forward, 16 GERMAN LAW JOURNAL 106, 145 (2015).
37Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube between Galata and Braila, Advisory Opinion, 1927, P.C.I.J. Rep. (ser. B) No. 14, at 64. For more on the relationship between the autonomy and powers of international organisations, see Violeta Moreno-Lax and Katja S Ziegler, Autonomy of the EU Legal Order – A General Principle? On the Risks of Normative Functionalism and Selective Constitutionalisation, EUI WORKING PAPER LAW 2021/15, 11-13 (2021), https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/73306.
38Costa v ENEL, supra note 13, at 593.
39Also see Bob Reinalda and Bertjan Verbeek, Policy Autonomy of Intergovernmental Organizations, in INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THE IDEA OF AUTONOMY: INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER 87 (Richard Collins and Nigel D. White, eds., Routledge, 2011).
40d’Aspremont, supra note 4, at 63.
41Opinion 1/91, supra note 28.
42d’Aspremont, supra note 4, at 63–64.
43For an overview of the ways in which globalisation, including the formation of international organisations, has challenged the traditional Westphalian understanding of state sovereignty, see Julian Ku and John Yoo, Globalization and Sovereignty, 31 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 210 (2013).
44d’Aspremont, supra note 4, at 70–73 and 78.
45Van Gend en Loos, supra note 13, at 12.
46Opinion of Advocate General Roemer at 20, Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, 1963 E.C.R. 1. Emphasis in original.
47Joined Cases 90/63 and 91/63, Commission v Luxembourg and Belgium, 1964 E.C.R. 625, at 631.
48Costa v ENEL, supra note 13, at 594.
49Opinion 2/13, para. 158 (December 18, 2015), http://curia.europa.eu/.
50Opinion 1/17, para. 110 (April 30, 2019), http://curia.europa.eu/.
51d’Aspremont, supra note 4, at 63–64.
52Christina Eckes, EU Autonomy: Jurisdictional Sovereignty by a Different Name?, 5 EUROPEAN PAPERS 319, 322 (2020).
53Opinion 1/00, 2002 E.C.R. I-3493, paras. 21, 23, and 26.
54Opinion 2/13, supra note 49, at para. 183.
55Joined Cases C-402/05 P and 415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al-Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, 2008 E.C.R. I-6351, para. 282.
56Koen Lenaerts and José A Gutiérrez-Fons, A Constitutional Perspective, in PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN UNION LAW - VOLUME 1: THE EUROPEAN UNION LEGAL ORDER 103, 107 (Robert Schütze and Takis Tridimas, eds., Oxford University Press, 2018).
57d’Aspremont, supra note 4, at 64. This does not necessarily refer to, for instance, a lex specialis regime.
58See, for instance, Jed Odermatt, in STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES IN EU EXTERNAL RELATIONS LAW 291 (Marise Cremona, ed., Hart, 2018).
59The internal dimension of autonomy, as conceived by the CJEU, “emphasises the distinct nature of the EU legal order visà-vis the EU Member States”; Odermatt, supra note 58, at 313.
Ramses A Wessel and Steven Blockmans, Between Autonomy and Dependence: The EU Legal Order Under the Influence of International Organisations – An Introduction, in BETWEEN AUTONOMY AND DEPENDENCE: THE EU LEGAL ORDER UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS 1, 2-3 (Ramses A Wessel and Steven Blockmans, eds., TMC Asser, 2013).
60d’Aspremont, supra note 4, at 78.
61Lenaerts and Gutiérrez-Fons, supra note 56, at 106.
62Eckes, supra note 52.
63See TEU arts. 1 and 3. These will be further discussed in subsequent sections.
64d’Aspremont, supra note 4, at 64.
65This term was famously analysed in Bruno Simma, Self-contained regimes, NETHERLANDS YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 111 (2009). For the way in which the term “self-contained” should be understood under international law, see Martti Koskenniemi, Study on the Function and Scope of the Lex Specialis Rule and the Question of ‘Self-Contained Regimes’, UN Doc. ILC(LVI)/SG/FIL/CRD.1/Add.1 (2004); cf. Anja Lindroos and Michael Mehling, Dispelling the Chimera of “Self-Contained
Regimes” International Law and the WTO, 16 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 857 (2005).
For examples of which international organisations may be said to comprise self-contained regimes, see Joseph H.H. Weiler, The Transformation of Europe, 100 YALE LAW JOURNAL 2403, 2422 (1991);
Math Noortmann, ENFORCING INTERNATIONAL LAW: FROM SELF-HELP TO SELF-CONTAINED REGIMES (Ashgate, 2005).
66Jan Klabbers, Interminable Disagreement: Reflections on the Autonomy of International Organisations, 88 NORDIC JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 111, 115 (2019).
67See generally Jan Klabbers, The Paradox of International Institutional Law, 5 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS LAW REVIEW 151 (2008).
68Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, 1980, I.C.J. Rep. 73, para. 37.
69Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, supra note 34, at para. 19.
70Takis Tridimas, THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EU LAW (Oxford University Press, 2007), at 1. Notwithstanding its derivation from a work on EU law, such a definition is not in principle restricted to the Union context.
71Id.
72Id.
73Moreno-Lax and Ziegler, supra note 37, at 14.
74Marise Cremona, Structural Principles and their Role in EU External Relations Law, in STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES IN EU EXTERNAL RELATIONS LAW 3, 13 (Marise Cremona, ed., Hart, 2018).
75Moreno-Lax and Ziegler, supra note 37, at 14.
76International Law Commission, Second report on general principles of law by Marcelo Vázquez-Bermúdez, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/741, 53 (April 9, 2020).
77Id., at 47–51.
78INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THE IDEA OF AUTONOMY: INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER 63 (Richard Collins and Nigel D. White eds., Routledge, 2011).
79Moreno-Lax and Ziegler, supra note 37, at 20.
80Klabbers, supra note 66, at 131.
81Van Gend en Loos, supra note 13.
82Costa v ENEL, supra note 13.
83See Case 149/79, Commission v Belgium, 1980 E.C.R. 3881, para. 19 to that effect.
84Commission v Council (European Agreement on Road Transport), supra note 31.
85For more on this “implicit” operation of autonomy, and its role in the Court’s development of EU law principles, see Kukovec supra note 5.
86Reparations for injuries suffered in the Service of the United Nations, supra note 30; also see note 30 more generally.
87Opinion 1/91, supra note 28.
88Theodor Schilling, The Autonomy of the Community Legal Order: An Analysis of Possible Foundations, 37 HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 389 (1996).
89Cremona, supra note 74, at 15.
90Id.
91Id., at 27.
92For instance, see Odermatt, supra note 58, at 293.
93Opinion 1/17, supra note 50, at paras 109–10. This has also been referenced in Komstroy, supra note 2, at paras 43–44.
94Opinion 2/13, supra note 49.
95See generally Adam Łazowski and Ramses A Wessel, When Caveats Turn into Locks: Opinion 2/13 on Accession of the European Union to the ECHR, 16 GERMAN LAW JOURNAL 179 (2015); and Violeta Moreno-Lax, The Axiological Emancipation of a (Non-)Principle: Autonomy, International Law and the EU Legal Order, in THE INTERFACE BETWEEN EU AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: CONTEMPORARY REFLECTIONS 46 (Inge Govaere and Sacha Garben, eds., Hart, 2019).
96Moreno-Lax and Ziegler, supra note 37, at 23.
97For instance, see Kadi, supra note 55; Achmea, supra note 1; and Opinion 1/17, supra note 50.
98Kukovec, supra note 5, at 30.
99Moreno-Lax and Ziegler, supra note 37, at 4.
100Indeed, autonomy is often considered in those terms in academic discourse: Odermatt, supra note 58; Steffen Hindelang, Conceptualisation and application of the principle of autonomy of EU law – the CJEU’s judgment in Achmea put in perspective, 44 EUROPEAN LAW REVIEW 383 (2019);
Jan Willem van Rossem, Pushing limits: The principle of autonomy in the external relations case law of the European Court of Justice, in THE EUROPEAN UNION AS AN ACTOR IN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 35 (Mads Andenas, Luca Pantaleo, Matthew Happold & Cristina Contartese, eds., Asser/Springer 2020).
101Tridimas, supra note 70, at 2.
102Cremona, supra note 74, at 13.
103Id., at 14.
104Opinion 1/17, supra note 50, at para. 109.
105Id., at para. 110.
106Jens Hillebrand Pohl, Intra-EU Investment Arbitration after the Achmea Case: Legal Autonomy Bounded by Mutual Trust?, 14 EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW 774 (2018); Achmea, supra note 1.
107Amedeo Arena, The twin doctrines of primacy and pre-emption, in PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN UNION LAW - VOLUME 1: THE EUROPEAN UNION LEGAL ORDER 300, 311 (Robert Schütze and Takis Tridimas, eds., Oxford University Press, 2018).
108Ovid, METAMORPHOSES, Book X (A D Melville tr, Oxford University Press, 1986).
109See, for instance, REFLECTIONS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALISATION OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW: LIBER AMICORUM FOR ERNST-ULRICH PETERSMANN (Marise Cremona, Peter Hilpold, Nikolaos Lavranos, Stefan Staiger Schneider & Andreas Ziegler, eds., Brill, 2013).
110Richard Collins, Modernist-positivism and the problem of institutional autonomy in international law, in INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THE IDEA OF AUTONOMY: INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER 22 (Richard Collins and Nigel D. White eds., Routledge, 2011).
111Id., at 22–23.
112Gabriella Blum, Bilateralism, Multilateralism, and the Architecture of International Law, 49 HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 323, 331–32 (2008) (as cited in Collins, supra note 110, at 22).
113Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, supra note 34, at para. 19.
114Jan Klabbers, Two Concepts of International Organization, 2 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS LAW REVIEW 277 (2005).
115Catherine Brölmann, THE INSTITUTIONAL VEIL IN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW: INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND THE LAW OF TREATIES 30 (Hart, 2007).
116Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) (1945) Art. 1.
117For more, see Vanda Lamm, COMPULSORY JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (Elgar, 2014).
118UN Charter art. 94(2).
119As seen in Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v USA) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, at paras 158–60.
120See, for instance, David Schweigman, THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER VII OF THE UN CHARTER: LEGAL LIMITS AND THE ROLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE 205–285 (Brill, 2001);
Marko Divac Öberg, The Legal Effects of Resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ, 16 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 879 (2006).
121Statute of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 001) art. 1.
122Id.
123European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) (1950) art. 19.
124See, for instance, Eirik Bjorge, DOMESTIC APPLICATION OF THE ECHR: COURTS AS FAITHFUL TRUSTEES (Oxford University Press, 2015).
125The interaction between the ECHR, EU law, and Europe’s national legal orders is discussed in Giuseppe Martinico and Oreste Pollicino, THE INTERACTION BETWEEN EUROPE’S LEGAL SYSTEMS: JUDICIAL DIALOGUE AND THE CREATION OF SUPRANATIONAL LAWS (Elgar, 2012). More broadly on the relationship between the CJEU and the ECtHR, see Elisa Ravasi, HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION BY THE ECTHR AND THE ECJ: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN LIGHT OF THE EQUIVALENCY DOCTRINE (Brill, 2017).
126ECHR art. 32.
127ECHR art. 35.
128Élisabeth Lambert Abdelgawad, The Enforcement of ECtHR Judgments, in THE ENFORCEMENT OF EU LAW AND VALUES: ENSURING MEMBER STATES’ COMPLIANCE (András Jakab and Dimitry Kochenov, eds., Oxford University Press, 2017).
129Nial Fennelly, The European Court of Justice and the Doctrine of Supremacy: Van Gend en Loos; Costa v ENEL; Simmenthal, in THE PAST AND FUTURE OF EU LAW: THE CLASSICS OF EU LAW REVISITED ON THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ROME TREATY 39 (Miguel Poiares Maduro and Loïc Azoulai, eds., Hart, 2010); Monica Claes, The Primacy of EU Law in European and National Law, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF EUROPEAN UNION LAW 178 (Damian Chalmers and Anthony Arnull, eds., Oxford University Press, 2015).
130Opinion 2/13, supra note 49, at para. 176. For more on preliminary references, see Morten Broberg and Niels Fenger, Preliminary Reference, in PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN UNION LAW - VOLUME 1: THE EUROPEAN UNION LEGAL ORDER 981 (Robert Schütze and Takis Tridimas, eds., Oxford University Press, 2018).
131Roberto Baratta, ‘National Courts as “Guardians” and “Ordinary Courts” of EU Law: Opinion 1/09 of the ECJ’, 38 Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2011) 297.
132Takis Tridimas, The Court of Justice of the European Union, in PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN UNION LAW - VOLUME 1: THE EUROPEAN UNION LEGAL ORDER 581, 582 (Robert Schütze and Takis Tridimas, eds., Oxford University Press, 2018).
133Sara Iglesias Sánchez, The Court and the Charter: The impact of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on the ECJ’s approach to fundamental rights, 49 COMMON MARKET LAW REVIEW 1565 (2012).
134THE ENFORCEMENT OF EU LAW AND VALUES: ENSURING MEMBER STATES’ COMPLIANCE (András Jakab and Dimitry Kochenov, eds., Oxford University Press, 2017).
135TEU first recital.
136TEU art. 1.
137This was explicitly acknowledged in Van Gend en Loos, supra note 13, at 12.
138Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, supra note 25, at para. 3.
139Collins, supra note 110, at 23.
140Schilling, supra note 88.
141Matteo Fermeglia and Alessandra Mistura, Killing All Birds with One Stone: Is this the End of Intra-EU BITs (as we know them), EJIL:TALK! (May 26, 2020), https://www.ejiltalk.org/killing-all-birds-with-one-stone-is-this-the-end-of-intra-eu-bitsas-we-know-them; Alan Dashwood, Republic of Moldova v Komstroy LCC: arbitration under Article 26 ECT outlawed in intra-EU disputes by obiter dictum, 47 EUROPEAN LAW REVIEW 127-140 (2022).
142Spaventa, supra note 8.
143de Witte, supra note 9.