302
The ECJ ruled that the contested decision had been adopted by the EU with a
view to cooperating in the repression of piracy on the high seas, an element of the
international policy of combating acts of piracy and, in particular, of ensuring that
the perpetrators of such acts do not go unpunished.
114
Finally, the ECJ found that the
contested decision regarding the agreement between the EU and Tanzania in relation to the fight against maritime piracy had to be annulled and ordered that the legal
effects of the affected decision be maintained until a new normative act could be
adopted in this field, in accordance with the correct TFEU provisions.
5 Final Considerations
The EU is an increasingly active participant in international conventional traffic, as
witnessed by the huge number of international agreements it has concluded in different areas. Once these agreements enter into force, they become sources of rights
and obligations for the EU not only at the international level but also at the domestic
level. This second aspect explains the relevance of the ECJ’s judicial activity as it is
the Court that determines whether a particular agreement conforms to the EU legal
order and interprets its provisions as an integral part of the EU legal order.
UNCLOS is a very good example of this scenario. Since it began to produce
legal effect in the EU, UNCLOS has had a relevant presence on the ECJ’s judicial
agenda. Over the last 20 years or so, the Court’s judicial activity has focused on the
interpretation and application of this international treaty as an integral part of the
EU legal order. As shown in this chapter, the UNCLOS provisions rank below the
primary sources of EU law but above secondary legislation, and they have primacy
over the domestic law of the EU Member States. Moreover, UNCLOS has become
a significant source of rights and duties for the Union in the field of the law of the
sea, which could explain the extensive case law on several of its provisions.
The ECJ delivered its first judgment on 9 July 1991, in relation to the failure of
the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations in the field of fisheries. Since then, the
Court has analysed many other issues in relation to several UNCLOS provisions,
such as the rights of coastal states in certain marine areas or the rights of states in
the high seas or in straits, the right of innocent passage and the freedom of navigation, the obligation for all members of the international community to cooperate, the
authorisation for access to EU waters by fishing vessels flying the flag of a third
state, the UNCLOS provisions regarding ITLOS, various aspects regarding the
EU’s participation in the global fisheries scenario, etc. The ECJ has studied these
legal problems within the framework of various types of actions, namely: fourteen
references for a preliminary ruling, seven actions for annulment, four failures of a
Member State to fulfil its obligations, and one action for damages. Throughout its
case law in this field, the ECJ has tried, tries, and will continue to try to protect its
114 Parliament v. Council, C-263/14, para. 50.
G. A. Oanta
The ECJ ruled that the contested decision had been adopted by the EU with a
view to cooperating in the repression of piracy on the high seas, an element of the
international policy of combating acts of piracy and, in particular, of ensuring that
the perpetrators of such acts do not go unpunished.
114
Finally, the ECJ found that the
contested decision regarding the agreement between the EU and Tanzania in relation to the fight against maritime piracy had to be annulled and ordered that the legal
effects of the affected decision be maintained until a new normative act could be
adopted in this field, in accordance with the correct TFEU provisions.
5 Final Considerations
The EU is an increasingly active participant in international conventional traffic, as
witnessed by the huge number of international agreements it has concluded in different areas. Once these agreements enter into force, they become sources of rights
and obligations for the EU not only at the international level but also at the domestic
level. This second aspect explains the relevance of the ECJ’s judicial activity as it is
the Court that determines whether a particular agreement conforms to the EU legal
order and interprets its provisions as an integral part of the EU legal order.
UNCLOS is a very good example of this scenario. Since it began to produce
legal effect in the EU, UNCLOS has had a relevant presence on the ECJ’s judicial
agenda. Over the last 20 years or so, the Court’s judicial activity has focused on the
interpretation and application of this international treaty as an integral part of the
EU legal order. As shown in this chapter, the UNCLOS provisions rank below the
primary sources of EU law but above secondary legislation, and they have primacy
over the domestic law of the EU Member States. Moreover, UNCLOS has become
a significant source of rights and duties for the Union in the field of the law of the
sea, which could explain the extensive case law on several of its provisions.
The ECJ delivered its first judgment on 9 July 1991, in relation to the failure of
the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations in the field of fisheries. Since then, the
Court has analysed many other issues in relation to several UNCLOS provisions,
such as the rights of coastal states in certain marine areas or the rights of states in
the high seas or in straits, the right of innocent passage and the freedom of navigation, the obligation for all members of the international community to cooperate, the
authorisation for access to EU waters by fishing vessels flying the flag of a third
state, the UNCLOS provisions regarding ITLOS, various aspects regarding the
EU’s participation in the global fisheries scenario, etc. The ECJ has studied these
legal problems within the framework of various types of actions, namely: fourteen
references for a preliminary ruling, seven actions for annulment, four failures of a
Member State to fulfil its obligations, and one action for damages. Throughout its
case law in this field, the ECJ has tried, tries, and will continue to try to protect its
114 Parliament v. Council, C-263/14, para. 50.
G. A. Oanta