298
resulting from the submission by the European Commission of a written statement on behalf of the EU before the ITLOS in the framework of Case No 21.
89
Therefore, the ECJ has interpreted many aspects of different UNCLOS provisions to date. The following pages will pay special attention to the Court’s three
most recent judgments, delivered since December 2015, namely: Front Polisario v.
Council (case T-512/12) in the field of agriculture and fisheries; Stroumpoulis and
others (case C-292/14) regarding the EU’s social policy; and Parliament v. Council
(case C-263/14) on maritime piracy.
With regard to the Front Polisario v. Council case (T-512/12),
90
on 10 December
2015, the General Court published its judgment regarding an action of annulment of
Council Decision 2012/497/EU of 8 March 2012 on the conclusion of an Agreement
in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the EU and Morocco concerning
reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural
products, fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1, 2 and 3 and their
Annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an
association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the
one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part,
91
and of Commission
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 812/2012 of 12 September 2012 amending
Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards tariff quotas of the Union for
certain agricultural and processed agricultural products.
92
In support of its action for annulment, the Front Polisario put forward eleven
pleas in law, the ninth of which was the most important for the purposes of the interpretation of UNCLOS.
93
Specifically, the Front Polisario sustained that the contested Decision was incompatible with various agreements concluded by the EU,
including UNCLOS.
94
The Front Polisario affirmed that, under the provisions of this
treaty, the people of Western Sahara had sovereign rights over the waters adjacent to
the coast of Western Sahara.
95
The Front Polisario further considered that Morocco,
89 Council v. Commission. For a study of this judgment, see: Oanta (2016), pp. 218–226, and Treves
(2016).
90 Front Polisario v. Council. For a general overview of this case, see: Gosalbo Bono (2016), Graff
(2016), Hummelbrunner and Prickartz (2016), Poisonnier and Dubuisson (2016), Soroeta Liceras
(2016) and Oanta (2017).
91 Official Journal, L 241/2, 7.09.2012.
92 Official Journal, L 247/7, 13.9.2012.
93 The other ten pleas in law were as follows: failure to state adequate reasons in the contested decision; failure to comply with the ‘principle of consultation’; infringement of fundamental rights;
breach of the principle of consistency of the policy of the EU, by failing to observe the principle of
sovereignty; breach of the fundamental values of the EU and the principles governing its external
action; failure to achieve the objective of sustainable development; incompatibility of the contested
decision with the principles and objectives of the EU’s external action in the area of development
cooperation; breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations; the incompatibility of
the contested decision with general international law; and the law of international liability in EU
law.
94 Front Polisario v. Council, para. 187.
95 For an overview of Western Sahara under international law, see: Ponce de Leon et al. (2012).
G. A. Oanta
resulting from the submission by the European Commission of a written statement on behalf of the EU before the ITLOS in the framework of Case No 21.
89
Therefore, the ECJ has interpreted many aspects of different UNCLOS provisions to date. The following pages will pay special attention to the Court’s three
most recent judgments, delivered since December 2015, namely: Front Polisario v.
Council (case T-512/12) in the field of agriculture and fisheries; Stroumpoulis and
others (case C-292/14) regarding the EU’s social policy; and Parliament v. Council
(case C-263/14) on maritime piracy.
With regard to the Front Polisario v. Council case (T-512/12),
90
on 10 December
2015, the General Court published its judgment regarding an action of annulment of
Council Decision 2012/497/EU of 8 March 2012 on the conclusion of an Agreement
in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the EU and Morocco concerning
reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural
products, fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1, 2 and 3 and their
Annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an
association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the
one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part,
91
and of Commission
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 812/2012 of 12 September 2012 amending
Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards tariff quotas of the Union for
certain agricultural and processed agricultural products.
92
In support of its action for annulment, the Front Polisario put forward eleven
pleas in law, the ninth of which was the most important for the purposes of the interpretation of UNCLOS.
93
Specifically, the Front Polisario sustained that the contested Decision was incompatible with various agreements concluded by the EU,
including UNCLOS.
94
The Front Polisario affirmed that, under the provisions of this
treaty, the people of Western Sahara had sovereign rights over the waters adjacent to
the coast of Western Sahara.
95
The Front Polisario further considered that Morocco,
89 Council v. Commission. For a study of this judgment, see: Oanta (2016), pp. 218–226, and Treves
(2016).
90 Front Polisario v. Council. For a general overview of this case, see: Gosalbo Bono (2016), Graff
(2016), Hummelbrunner and Prickartz (2016), Poisonnier and Dubuisson (2016), Soroeta Liceras
(2016) and Oanta (2017).
91 Official Journal, L 241/2, 7.09.2012.
92 Official Journal, L 247/7, 13.9.2012.
93 The other ten pleas in law were as follows: failure to state adequate reasons in the contested decision; failure to comply with the ‘principle of consultation’; infringement of fundamental rights;
breach of the principle of consistency of the policy of the EU, by failing to observe the principle of
sovereignty; breach of the fundamental values of the EU and the principles governing its external
action; failure to achieve the objective of sustainable development; incompatibility of the contested
decision with the principles and objectives of the EU’s external action in the area of development
cooperation; breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations; the incompatibility of
the contested decision with general international law; and the law of international liability in EU
law.
94 Front Polisario v. Council, para. 187.
95 For an overview of Western Sahara under international law, see: Ponce de Leon et al. (2012).
G. A. Oanta