Open AccessCase C-600/14 Germany v Council (OTIF)
Author(s) -
Monika Niedźwiedź
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
polish review of international and european law
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2544-7432
pISSN - 2299-2170
DOI - 10.21697/priel.2019.8.1.07
Subject(s) - judgement , competence (human resources) , convention , jurisprudence , political science , doctrine , member states , law , law and economics , psychology , sociology , business , social psychology , european union , international trade
The commented judgement is (back) in line with the reasoning emerging in the Court’s jurisprudence, as well as in the legal doctrine, according to which, expressing it short and to the point, “shared is not always mixed”. In other words, the existence of the EU external competence is a decisive factor for the conclusion and execution of an international agreement. If the EU shares competence with the Member States over the whole agreement, it may be concluded by the EU only. Moreover, as follows from the commented judgment, the EU may also be the only one empowered to make decisions at the stage of the implementation of an international agreement with shared competence. This is supposed to be the way to get rid of problematic mixity in EU external relations. A long time ago, the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail would have been perceived as a mixed agreement with concurrent competences. Nowadays, it is the EU’s international agreement with shared competence.