Who decides? The ECJ's judgment on jurisdiction in the MOX plant dispute

Journal of Environmental Law

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 121-129

  Cardwell, Paul James ^a   French, Duncan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; INTERNATIONAL LAW;

EID: 33847784621     PISSN: 09528873     EISSN: 1464374X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jel/eqm001     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, delivered on 18 January 2006, para 13.
2. Article 292 EC.
3. R & V Haegeman v Belgian State [1974] ECR 449.
4. P Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union (OUP, Oxford 2004) 190.
5. The ECJ first considered issues surrounding mixity in the AETR judgment of 1971: Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971] ECR 263
6. and with even greater focus some years later in Opinion 1/76 re draft Agreement establishing a European laying-up fund for inland waterway vessels [1977] ECR 741.
7. P Koutrakos, EU International Relations Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2006) 152.
8. Council Decision 98/392/EC of 23 March 1998.
9. Para 62.
10. In particular, Case C-53/96 Hermès International [1998] ECR I-3603
11. and Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 Parfums Christian Dior [2000] ECR I-11307.
12. Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971] ECR 263.
13. Ibid., para 17.
14. Case C-13/00 [2001] ECR I-2943.
15. Koutrakos (n 6) 204.
16. Para 110.
17. Para 120.
18. Paras 127-8.
19. Para 135.
20. The Article was formerly Article 5 EC before the Treaty of Amsterdam.
21. J Shaw, Law of the European Union (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke 2000) 298.
22. Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, para 55.
23. Para 171.
24. Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 Dior and Others [2000] ECR I-11307.
25. ITLOS Order of 3 December 2001, 41 ILM 405, para 42.
26. Ibid., para 50.
27. Ibid., para 51.
28. Ibid., para 49.
29. In fact, in another dispute between the same two Parties brought under the OSPAR Convention (Dispute Concerning Access to Information under Article 9 of the OSPAR Convention, Award of 2 July 2003), the arbitral tribunal in this instance not only endorsed the approach of ITLOS in this regard, but went further by noting that in this dispute, neither similar language between EC law and the OSPAR Treaty nor the fact that the same regulations under review were the implementing instrument for both 'does not limit a Contracting Party's choice of a legal forum to only one of the two available, ie either the ECJ or an OSPAR tribunal', para 143.
30. Of course, ITLOS was only concerned with finding prima facie jurisdiction. Had it been required to determine the issue definitively, it will have certainly had to address the issues in much more detail.
31. MOX Plant, Annex VII arbitral tribunal Order No. 3 (2003), para 21, emphasis added.
32. 'If the States Parties which are parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention have agreed, through a general, regional or bilateral agreement or otherwise, that such dispute shall, at the request of any party to the dispute, be submitted to a procedure that entails a binding decision, that procedure shall apply in lieu of the procedures provided for in this Part, unless the parties to the dispute otherwise agree'.
33. Order No. 3 (2003), para 21.
34. Ibid., para 28.
35. Ibid., para 26.
36. Ibid., para 20.
37. Award of 24 May 2005, para 101.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid., para 103.
40. Ibid., para 106.
41. Ibid., para 103.
42. Ibid., para 145.
43. Award of 2 July 2003, para 139, emphasis added.
44. Award of 24 May 2005, para 104.
45. Case C-213/03, judgment of 15 July 2004.
46. Para 45, emphasis added.