291
It is likewise worth underlining that, under Art. 267 TFEU, the ECJ has a monopoly on the interpretation of EU law. As already noted, this article allows the ECJ to
interpret EU law in preliminary ruling procedures,
40
whilst national judges are competent to enforce it.
41
This competence of the Luxembourg Court is of special
importance with regard to the provisions of UNCLOS. As noted, UNCLOS is part
of the EU legal order. Therefore, not only does the ECJ have jurisdiction over the
interpretation and application of this international treaty, but its interpretation of it
is binding on both the EU Member States and their respective domestic courts.
42
4 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
in European Court of Justice Case Law:
From the Commission v. United Kingdom Case (C-146/89,
July 1991) to the Parliament v. Council Case (C-263/14,
June 2016)
The following review of the selected cases will show that the ECJ’s judgments have
shed light on various key issues in many fields covered by UNCLOS.
43
They have
also proposed important solutions for interpreting its outcomes. So far, the ECJ has
issued several key judgments that mark a before and after in different fields, including: the Poulsen and Diva Navigation case, the Intertanko case, the MOX Plant
case, the Kik case, the Salemink case, the Council v. Commission case concerning
the presentation of opinions before ITLOS, the Front Polisario v. Council case, and
many others.
Before 1 June 2017, the ECJ has handed down 26 judgments on twelve major
issues. The ECJ delivered its first judgment on 9 July 1991 in the Commission v.
United Kingdom case (C-146/89), concerning the failure of a Member State to fulfil
its obligations in the field of fisheries.
44
On 14 June 2014, the Court published its
most recent judgment on UNCLOS provisions in the Parliament v. Council case
(C-263/14), concerning an action for annulment regarding maritime piracy.
45
40 For an analysis of this article, see Proelß (2010).
41 For a detailed analysis of the implications of Art. 267 TFEU, see Itzcovich (2009), pp. 545–546,
and Von Danwitz (2015).
42 On the legal value of the ECJ’s interpretation of international treaties and its effects for EU
Member States and their domestic courts, see Ammann (2015), p. 161.
43 For an overview of relevant decisions of international courts and tribunals in general regarding
the law of the sea, see: Treves (2015b).
44 ECJ, Commission v. United Kingdom, C-146/89, EU:C:1991:294, Judgment, 9 July 1991.
45 ECJ, Parliament v. Council, C-263/14, EU:C:2016:453, Judgment, 14 June 2016.
The European Court of Justice and the Interpretation of the United Nations Convention…
It is likewise worth underlining that, under Art. 267 TFEU, the ECJ has a monopoly on the interpretation of EU law. As already noted, this article allows the ECJ to
interpret EU law in preliminary ruling procedures,
40
whilst national judges are competent to enforce it.
41
This competence of the Luxembourg Court is of special
importance with regard to the provisions of UNCLOS. As noted, UNCLOS is part
of the EU legal order. Therefore, not only does the ECJ have jurisdiction over the
interpretation and application of this international treaty, but its interpretation of it
is binding on both the EU Member States and their respective domestic courts.
42
4 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
in European Court of Justice Case Law:
From the Commission v. United Kingdom Case (C-146/89,
July 1991) to the Parliament v. Council Case (C-263/14,
June 2016)
The following review of the selected cases will show that the ECJ’s judgments have
shed light on various key issues in many fields covered by UNCLOS.
43
They have
also proposed important solutions for interpreting its outcomes. So far, the ECJ has
issued several key judgments that mark a before and after in different fields, including: the Poulsen and Diva Navigation case, the Intertanko case, the MOX Plant
case, the Kik case, the Salemink case, the Council v. Commission case concerning
the presentation of opinions before ITLOS, the Front Polisario v. Council case, and
many others.
Before 1 June 2017, the ECJ has handed down 26 judgments on twelve major
issues. The ECJ delivered its first judgment on 9 July 1991 in the Commission v.
United Kingdom case (C-146/89), concerning the failure of a Member State to fulfil
its obligations in the field of fisheries.
44
On 14 June 2014, the Court published its
most recent judgment on UNCLOS provisions in the Parliament v. Council case
(C-263/14), concerning an action for annulment regarding maritime piracy.
45
40 For an analysis of this article, see Proelß (2010).
41 For a detailed analysis of the implications of Art. 267 TFEU, see Itzcovich (2009), pp. 545–546,
and Von Danwitz (2015).
42 On the legal value of the ECJ’s interpretation of international treaties and its effects for EU
Member States and their domestic courts, see Ammann (2015), p. 161.
43 For an overview of relevant decisions of international courts and tribunals in general regarding
the law of the sea, see: Treves (2015b).
44 ECJ, Commission v. United Kingdom, C-146/89, EU:C:1991:294, Judgment, 9 July 1991.
45 ECJ, Parliament v. Council, C-263/14, EU:C:2016:453, Judgment, 14 June 2016.
The European Court of Justice and the Interpretation of the United Nations Convention…