Redefining the boundaries of the Common Commercial Policy and the ERTA doctrine: Opinion 3/15, Marrakesh Treaty
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Standard
In: Common Market Law Review, Vol. 55, No. 3, 2018, p. 883-899.
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Redefining the boundaries of the Common Commercial Policy and the ERTA doctrine: Opinion 3/15, Marrakesh Treaty
AU - Kübek, Gesa
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - What is the precise scope of the Common Commercial Policy (CCP) and the EU’s otherwise implied exclusive treaty-making powers?The European Court of Justice was asked to clarify this very question in a series of cases and Opinions which were decided in 2017, the first of which to appear was Opinion 3/15 on the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. The high point was reached in Opinion 2/15 on the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, and the question was subsequently revisited in Case C-389/15 on a revised Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications. 1 At the heart of the Court’s latest CCP-related decisions is the procedural clash between “EU-only” and “mixity”: the question whether an international agreement is to be concluded by the EU alone, or alternatively, may or must include the Member States as contracting parties in their individual capacity. 2
AB - What is the precise scope of the Common Commercial Policy (CCP) and the EU’s otherwise implied exclusive treaty-making powers?The European Court of Justice was asked to clarify this very question in a series of cases and Opinions which were decided in 2017, the first of which to appear was Opinion 3/15 on the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. The high point was reached in Opinion 2/15 on the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, and the question was subsequently revisited in Case C-389/15 on a revised Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications. 1 At the heart of the Court’s latest CCP-related decisions is the procedural clash between “EU-only” and “mixity”: the question whether an international agreement is to be concluded by the EU alone, or alternatively, may or must include the Member States as contracting parties in their individual capacity. 2
KW - Law
UR - https://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=COLA2018073
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062921356&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.54648/COLA2018073
DO - 10.54648/COLA2018073
M3 - Journal articles
VL - 55
SP - 883
EP - 899
JO - Common Market Law Review
JF - Common Market Law Review
SN - 0165-0750
IS - 3
ER -