The ECJ and the ECtHR: The future relationship between the two European Courts

Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 375-398

  Lock, Tobias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bosphorus case; ECHR accession; ECJ; ECtHR; EU charter of fundamental rights; Exclusive jurisdiction; Jurisdictional conflict

Indexed keywords

EID: 72549092291     PISSN: 15691853     EISSN: 15718034     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/156918509X12537882648426     Document Type: Article

References (159)

1. On this discussion see for instance: Tullio Treves, " Conflicts Between the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice", 31 New York University Journal of International Law & Politics (1999) 809
2. Hugh Thirlway, "The Proliferation of International Judicial Organs and the Formation of International Law" in W.P. Heere (ed.), International Law and The Hague's 750th Anniversary (Springer, The Hague 1999), 433
3. Shane Spelliscy, "The Proliferation of International Tribunals: A Chink in the Armor", 40 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (2001) 143
4. Gilbert Guillaume, "The proliferation of international judicial bodies: The outlook for the international legal order", Speech to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 27 October 2000 , 23 April 2009.
5. Jean-Marie Dupuy, "The Danger of Fragmentation or Unification of the International Legal System and the International Court of Justice", 31 New York University Journal of International Law & Politics (1999) 791
6. Yuval Shany, The Competing Jurisdictions Between International Courts and Tribunals (OUP, Oxford 2004), pp. 1-11.
7. The EC is presently not competent to accede to the ECHR: Opinion 2/94 Accession to the ECHR [1996] ECR 1-1759
8. analyses of that opinion can be found in: Panos Koutrakos, EU International Relations Law (Hart, Oxford 2006), pp. 128-132
9. Piet Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Community (OUP, Oxford 2004), pp. 82-87
10. Anthony Arnull, " Left To Its Own Devices? Opinion 2/94 and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in the European Union" in A. Dashwood and C. Hillion (eds.), The General Law ofE.C External Relations (Sweet & Maxwell, London 2000), p. 774
11. Matthias Ruffert, Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift [1996] 197. In addition, the ECHR is presently only open to states.
12. Paul Craig and Grainne De Búrca, EU Law (4th edn., OUP, Oxford, 2007), pp. 385-386
13. Christoph Grabenwarter, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention (3rd edn., C.H. Beck, München 2008), 27.
14. CFTD v European Communities, (App no 8030/77) (1978) D.R. 13, 213
15. Dufay v European Communities, (App no 13539/88) (ECommHR 19 Jan 1989).
16. The ECommHR was abolished by the 11th protocol to the ECHR, which entered into force on 1 Nov 1998.
17. M & Co. v Germany (App no 13258/87) (1990) D.R. 64, 146
18. Procola v Luxembourg (App no 14570/89) (1993) D.R. 75, 5
19. Cantoni v France (App no 17862/91) (1996) ECHR 1996-V
20. Senator Lines v 15 Member States of the EC (App no 56672/00) (2004) ECHR 2004-IV
21. Emesa Sugar v Netherlands (App no 62023/00) (ECHR 13 Jan 2005).
22. Matthews v United Kingdom (App no 24833/94) (1999) ECHR 1999-2001
23. Cf. case-notes by: Iris Canor, "Primus inter pares. Who is the ultimate guardian of fundamental rights in Europe?", 25 European Law Review (2000), 3
24. Toby King, "Ensuring human rights review of intergovernmental acts in Europe", 25 European Law Review (2000), 79
25. Sebastian Winkler, "Der Europaische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, das Europäische Parlament und der Schutz der Konventionsgrundrechte im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht", Europäische Grundrechte Zeit-schrift[2001] 18.
26. Matthews (n 7) para. 32.
27. Matthews (n 7) para. 33.
28. Bosphorus v Ireland (App no 45036/98) 2005 ECHR 2005-VI
29. confirmed by Coopérative des agriculteurs de mayenne v France (App no 16931/04) (2006)
30. cf. case notes on Bosphorus by: Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, "A Tale of Two Courts: Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the Growing European Human Rights Acquis", 43 Common Market Law Review (2006) 243
31. Alicia Hinarejos Parga, "Bosphorus v Ireland and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe", 31 European Law Review (2006), 250
32. Cathryn Costello, "The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe", 6 Human Rights Law Review (2006) 87
33. Jean Paul Jacqué, 41 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Europeen (2005) 749
34. Sebastian Winkler, " Die Vermutung des 'aquivalenten Grundrechtsschutzes' im Gemeinschaftsrecht nach dem Bosphorus-Urteil des EGMR", Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift [2007] 641
35. Jürgen Bröhmer, " Die Bosphorus-Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte - Der Schutz der Grund - und Menschenrechte in der EU und das Verhaltnis zur EMRK", Europäische Zeitung für Wirtschaftsrecht (2006) 71
36. Stefan Lorenzmeier, "Das Verhältnis von europäischem Gemeinschaftsrecht und Europäischer Menschenrechtskonvention", Jura [2007] 370
37. Gerrit Schohe, "Das Urteil Bosphorus: zum Unbehagen gegenüber dem Grundrechtsschutz durch die Gemeinschaft", Europaische Zeitung für Wirtschaftsrecht [2006] p. 33
38. Nikolaos Lavra-nos, "Das So-Lange-Prinzip im Verhaltnis von EGMR und EuGH",Europarecht [2006)]79.
39. Bosphorus (n 10) paras. 152-153.
40. Bosphorus (n 10) para. 155.
41. Bosphorus (n 10) para. 156.
42. Bosphorus (n 10) paras. 159-166.
43. The Bosphorus decision is reminiscent of the ECommHR's decision in M & Co. v Germany (App no 13258/87) (1990) D.R. 64, 146 where the ECommHR held that such complaints were inadmissible. A similar line of reasoning, albeit different in detail, can be found in the Solange Il-decision by the German Federal Constitutional Court; cf. Alicia Hinarejos Parga, " Bosphorus v Ireland and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe", 31 European Law Review (2006), 250, 257-258
44. Cathryn Costello, "The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe", 6 Human Rights Law Review (2006) 87, 104-105
45. Jean-Paul Jacque, 41 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Europeen (2005), 749, 763
46. Stefan Lorenzmeier, "Das Verhaltnis von europäischem Gemeinschaftsrecht und Europäischer Menschenrechtskonvention", Jura [2007] 370, 373
47. Gerrit Schohe, "Das Urteil Bosphorus: zum Unbehagen gegeniiber dem Grundrechtsschutz durch die Gemeinschaft", Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht [2006], 33
48. Nikolaos Lavranos, "Das So-Lange-Prinzip im Verhältnis von EGMR und EuGH", Europarecht [2006], 79, 86.
49. The ECtHR therefore did not deviate from its previous Cantoni decision, Cantoni v France (App no 17862/91) ECHR 1996-V, where it held France responsible for the implementation of an EC directive.
50. Jean-Paul Jacqué, 41 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen (2005), 749, 766
51. Alicia Hinarejos Parga, " Bosphorus v Ireland and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe", 31 European Law Review (2006) 250, 257.
52. This view is shared by: Nikolaus Marsch and Anna-Catharina Sanders, " Gibt es ein Recht der Parteien auf Stellungnahme zu den Schlussanträgen des Generalanwalts? Zur Vereinbarkeit des Verfahrens vor dem EuGH mit Art. 6 EMRK", Europarecht [2008] 345, 361-362
53. Sebastian Winkler, "Die Vermutung des 'äquivalenten' Grundrechtsschutzes um Gemeinschaftsrecht nach dem Bosphorus-Urteil des EGMR", Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrifi [2007] 641, 643
54. a more cautious approach is adopted by: C. Eckes, "Does the European Court of Human Rights Provide Protection from the European Community? - The Case of Bosphorus Airways", 13 European Public Law (2007) 47, 54.
55. The first reference to the ECHR is contained in: Case 4/73 Nold KG v Commission [1974] ECR 491, para. 12
56. the first reference to the ECtHR's case law can be found in: Case C-13/94 P v S and Cornwall County Council [1996] ECR 1-2143, para. 16
57. on (alleged) inconsistencies in the case law of the two courts cf. Dean Spielmann, " Human Rights Case Law in the Strasbourg and Luxembourg Courts: Conflicts, Inconsistencies and Complementarities" in P. Alston (ed.), The EU and Human Rights (OUP, Oxford 1999) p. 757
58. Nina Philippi, "Divergenzen im Grun-drechtsschutz zwischen EuGH und EGMR", Zeitschrifi für europarechtliche Studien [2000] 97.
59. For the reasons why the ECJ relies on the ECtHR's case law cf. Guy Harpaz, "The European Court of Justice and its relations with the European Court of Human Rights: The quest for enhanced reliance, coherence and legitimacy", 46 Common Market Law Review [2009], 105, 109.
60. In addition, Harpaz argues for a "very strong albeit rebuttable presumption of deferral to the case law" of the ECtHR, 46 Common Market Law Review, [2009], ibid, at p. 115.
61. E.g. Case C-7/98 Krombach v Bamberski [2000] ECR 1-1935
62. Case C-l 12/00 Schmidberger v Austria [2003] ECR 1-5659
63. Case C-60/00 Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR 1-6279
64. cf. Anne Peters, Europdische Menschenrechtskonvention (C.H. Beck, Miinchen 2003) pp. 28-29
65. Hans Christian Krüger;, Jorg Pölakiewicz, "Proposals for a Coherent Human Rights Protection System in Europe", 22 Human Rights Law Journal (2001) 1, 6.
66. Cathryn Costello, "The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Funda mental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe", 6 Human Rights Law Review (2006) 87, 129.
67. E.g., in Pellegrin v France (App no 28541/95) ECHR 1999-VIII 207, para. 66
68. and Goodwin v United Kingdom (App no 28957/95) ECHR 2002-VI.
69. The ECtHR also helped to enforce Community law, e.g. Hornsby v Greece (App no 18357/91) ECHR 1997-11
70. S. A. Dangeville v France (App no 36677/97) ECHR 2002-III
71. cf. Dean Spielmann " La constitution économique de l'union européenne et les droits de l'homme" in O. Debarge et al. (eds.), La constitution economique de I'union europeenne' (Bruylant, Bruxelles 2008) pp. 297, 311-316
72. Dean Spielmann, " La prise en compte et la promotion du droit communautaire par la Cour de Strasbourg", in Les droits de l'homme en evolution: Mélanges en l'honneur du professeur Petros J. Pararas (Bruylant, Brussels, 2009) pp. 455-472.
73. Nico Krisch, "The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law", 71 Modem Law Review (2008) 183,201.
74. 2000 OJ, C364/1; the amended version of the Charter to become binding according to the Lisbon Treaty can be found at: 2007 OJ, C303/1.
75. For instance: Case C-540/03 Parliament/Council [2006] ECR 1-5769, para. 38
76. Case C-305/05 Advocaaten Van de Wereld v Leden Van de Ministerraad [2007] ECR 1-3633, para. 46
77. Case C-432/05 Unibet v Justitiekanslem [2007] ECR 1-2271, para. 37
78. Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers' Federation and Finnish Seamen's Union v Viking Line ABP OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR 1-10779, para. 44
79. Case T-242/02 Sunrider v OHIM [2005] ECR II-2793, para. 51.
80. Kolja Naumann, "Art. 52 Abs. 3 GrCh zwischen Koharenz des europäischen Grundrechts-schutzes und Autonomic des Unionsrechts", Europarecht [2008] 424, 426
81. Julia Molthagen Das Verhältnis der EU-Grundrechte zur EMRK, PhD thesis Hamburg, 2003, , 23 April 2009, at p. 89
82. Marc Fischbach, " Grundrechte-Charta und Menschenrechtskonvention" in W. Heusel (ed.), Grundrechtecharta und Ver-fassungsentwicklung in der EU (Bundesanzeiger-Verlag, Köln, 2002), 125, 126.
83. Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, OJ 2007, C 302/33-34; that list, however, is not exhaustive: Yvonne Dorf, "Zur Interpretation der Grundrechtecharta", Juristenzeitung [2005], 126, 129
84. Molthagen (n 25)
85. Nina Philippi, Die Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2002), 44-45
86. Thomas von Danwitz, "Art 52 Grundrechtecharta" in P. J. Tettinger and K. Stern (eds.), Kölner Gemeinschaftskommentar zur Europdischen Grundrechte-Charta (C.H. Beck, Miinchen 2006) para. 55.
87. Koen Lenaerts and Eddy de Smijter, "The Charter and the Role of the European Courts", 8 Maastricht Journal of European Law (2001) 90, 99
88. a similar argument is put forward by Christian Busse, " Das Projekt der europaischen Grundrechtscharta vor dem Hintergrund der EMRK", Thüringisches Verwaltungsblatt [2001], 73, 79
89. similar but without giving reasons: Lord Goldsmith, "The Charter of Rights - a brake not an accelerator", European Human Rights Law Review [2004], 473, 476
90. Nikolaos Lavranos, "Das So-Lange-Prinzip im Verhaltnis von EGMR und EuGH", Europarecht [2006] 79, 80.
91. Naumann (n 25) p. 425
92. Johan Callewaert, "Die EMRK und die EU-Grundrechtecharta", Europäische Grundrechtezeitung [2003], 198, 199
93. Johan Callewaert, "Les rapports entre la Charte et la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme" in W. Heusel (ed.), Grundrechtecharta und Verfassungsentwicklung in der EU (Bundesanzeiger-Verlag, Köln, 2002) pp. 129, 132
94. Martin Borowsky, "Art. 52" in J. Meyer (ed.), Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union (2nd edn., Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden. 2006) para. 37
95. Philippi (n 26), 45
96. Dorf (n 26), 128.
97. Borowsky (n 28) para. 37
98. Gerhard Ress, "Die Europäische Grundrechtscharta und das Verhältnis zwischen EGMR, EuGH und den nationalen Verfassungsgerichten" in A. Duschanek and S. Griller (eds.), Grundrechte für Europa (Springer, Vienna, 2002), 183, 206.
99. OJ 2007, C 302/33 [emphasis added].
100. CHARTE 4372/00 (CONVENT 39) containing proposals by the following members of the Convention: J. Meyer (p. 282)
101. J.-P. Bonde (p. 487)
102. J. Voggenhuber and K. Buitenweg (p. 560)
103. D. Tarschys (p. 562)
104. in addition, one of the observers of the Council of Europe argued in favour of such a reference: Marc Fischbach, " Le Conseil de l'Europe et la Charte des droits fondamen-taux de l'union europeenne", Revue Universelle des Droits de I'Homme [2000] 7, 8.
105. Regarding the discussions in the Convention: Jonas Bering Liisberg, " Does the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Threaten the Supremacy of Community Law?", 38 Common Market Law Review (2001), 1171, 1172
106. Molthagen (n 25)
107. Margit Bühler, Einschrankung von Grundrechten nach der Europäischen Grundrechtecharta (Duncker & Humblodt, Berlin, 2005) pp. 320-321.
108. Stefan Lorenzmeier, "Das Verhältnis von Europäischem Gerichtshof und Europäischem Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte - Konflikt oder Kooperation?" in J. Bast et al. (eds.), Die Europäische Verfassung-Verfassungen in Europa (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2005), 209, 223.
109. Molthagen (n 25) p. 126.
110. OJ 2007, C 302/33.
111. Art. 1-9 of the failed European Constitution contained an identically worded provision.
112. Opinion 2/94 Accession to the ECHR [1996] ECR 1-1759; this opinion had been requested following a long academic and political discussion; see e.g. Brid Moriarty, " EC Accession to the ECHR"', Hibernian Law Journal (2001) 13, 15.
113. Art. 17 of Protocol No.14 to the ECHR, CETS No 194; that Protocol has so far been ratified by all members of the Council of Europe save Russia.
114. For the purpose of this Section, I will refer to the 'EU' as a future party considering that the 'Community' as a separate organization will cease to exist with the Treaty of Lisbon. For the readers' convenience I will refer to the provisions of the EC Treaty as they presently stand.
115. Case 181/73 Haegeman v Belgian State [1974] ECR 449, para. 5.
116. Case 12/86 Demirel v Stadt Schwabisch Gmünd[1987] ECR 3719 para. 9; a detailed analysis of the ECJ's case law can be found in: Koutrakos (n 2) pp. 192-205.
117. Panos Koutrakos, "The Interpretation of Mixed Agreements under the Preliminary Reference Procedure" (2002) 7 European Foreign Affairs Review, 25, 30-34
118. Opinion of AG Tesauro, Case 53/96 Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice [1998] ECR 1-3606 para. 18
119. this interpretation of Demirel is criticized by Alan Dashwood, " Preliminary Rulings on the Interpretation of Mixed Agreements" in D. O'Keeffe and A. Bavasso (eds.), Judicial Review in European Law, Liber Amicorum in Honour of Lord Slynn ofHedley (Kluwer, The Hague. 2000) pp. 167, 170.
120. Case C-13/00 Commission/Ireland [2002] ECR 1-2943 para. 14
121. Case C-239/03 Commission/France [2004] ECR 1-9325 para. 25
122. Case C-459/03 Commission/Ireland [2006] ECR I-4635, para. 84
123. cf. Erich Vranes, "Gemischte Abkommen und die Zuständigkeit des EuGH - Grundfragen und neuere Entwicklungen in den Aufenbeziehungen" [2009] EuR p. 44 at p. 59.
124. Art. 193 of the Euratom Treaty is worded in a similar manner.
125. Jonkheer H.F. Van Panhuys, "Conflicts Between the Law of the European Communities and Other Rules of International Law", 3 Common Market Law Review (1965-1966) 420, 443
126. Bernhard Wegener, "Art. 292" in Christian Calliess and Matthias Ruflert (eds.), EUV/EGV(3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munchen 2007)
127. Christoph Herrmann, "Art. 292" in R. Streinz (ed.), EUV/ EGV(C.H. Beck, Munchen 2003).
128. Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR1-6079.
129. Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR 1-6079 para. 34.
130. Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR 1-6079 para. 35.
131. Case C-459/03 Commission v Ireland [2006] ECR1-4635.
132. Case C-459/03 Commission v Ireland [2006] ECR1-4635.
133. for detailed analyses of that judgment see: Nikolaos Lavranos, "The MOX Plant Judgment of the ECJ: How Exclusive is the Jurisdiction of the ECJ?", European Environmental Law Review (2006) 291
134. Nikolaos Lavranos, "The MOX Plant and Ijzeren Rijn Disputes: Which Court Is the Supreme Arbiter?" 19 Leiden Journal of International Law (2006) 223
135. Nikolaos Lavranos, "Protecting its Exclusive Jurisdiction: The Mox Plant-judgment of the ECJ", 5 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (2006) 479
136. Nikolaos Lavranos, "The scope of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice", 32 E.L.Rev. (2007) 83
137. Cesare P. Romano, 101 American Journal of InternationalLaw (2007) 171
138. Bernhard Wegener, " Familienstreitigkeiten nicht nach aufien tragen?¡", Zeitschrifi für Umweltrecht [2006] 582
139. Karen Kaiser, "Ausschließliche Zuständigkeit des EuGH bei Auslegung und Anwendung von zum Gemeinschaftsrecht gehorenden Bestimmungen", Europäische Zeitschrifi für Wirtschafisrecht [2006] 464
140. Raphael Oen, " Streitschlichtung zwischen EG-Mitgliedstaaten im Rahmen gemischter Verträge", 45 Archiv des Völkerrechts (2007) 136.
141. In contrast to this, A.G. Toth, "The European Union and Human Rights: The Way Forward", 34 Common Market Law Review (1997) 491, 509, argues that the ECJ would have jurisdiction over any provision of the ECHR irrespective of whether the matter falls within the competence of the EC or the Member States.
142. Some commentators contend that the agreement has to be concluded between all the parties to the ECHR: Joachim A. Frowein and Wolfgang Peukert, EMRK-Kommentar Art. 62 (2nd edn., N.R Engel Verlag, Kehl, 1996)
143. Wilhelm H. Wilting, Vertragskonkurrenz im Völkerrecht (Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln, 1996) p. 223.
144. Cyprus v Turkey (App No 25781/94) ECommHR 28 June 1996.
145. Collected Edition of the "Travaux Preparatoires" of the European Convention on Human Rights, Volume 5 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1979) p. 58; the proposal was phrased: "The Commission and the European Court having been created to settle disputes relat ing to the interpretation and the application of this Convention, such disputes shall not be submitted to other judicial or arbitral tribunals established by treaties or declarations in force unless the Parties concerned shall so decide by an agreement expressly relating to the dispute in question".
146. Shany(n 1), 191.
147. Ex Art. 48ECHR.
148. The ECJ recently confirmed that autonomy in its Kadi judgment, cf. Joined Cases 402/05 P and 415/05 P Kadi and al Barakaat v Council, Judgment of 3 September 2008, [2008] ECR I-6351.
149. Others have argued that it would become necessary to make a reservation (Art. 57 ECHR) or even to completely exclude the possibility of an inter-state dispute for all Member States and the EU: European Commission, Memorandum on the accession of the European Communities to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Bulletin of the European Commission, Supplement 2/79, para. 27; pleadings by the Spanish government regarding Opinion 2/94 Accession to the ECHR [1996] ECR 1-1759; Molthagen (n 25) p. 195
150. Gerhard Baumgartner, "EMKR und Gemeinschaftsrecht", Zeitschrift fur Verwaltung [1996], 319, 330; Steering Committee on Human Rights, CDDH(2002)010 Addendum 2, para. 63.
151. Even regarding the present relationship between the two courts an alleged double-standard has been criticized, cf. the joint concurring opinion by Judges Rozakis, Tulkens, Traja, Botoucha-rova, Zagrebelsky and Garlicki in the Bosphorus case, para. 4; Eckes (n 17), 65.
152. After an accession, the proceedings before the ECJ will no longer be regarded as "another procedure of international investigation or settlement" according to Art. 35 ECHR as the ECJ will have to be treated like any highest court of a party to the Convention: Steering Committee for Human Rights CDDH (2002)010 Addendum 2, para. 48-49
153. Leo Zwaak in P. Van Dijk et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (4th edn., Intersentia, Antwerp 2006), 183.
154. Laurent Scheeck, "The Relationship between the European Courts and Integration through Human Rights", 65 Zeitschrift fur auslandisches bffentliches Recht und Vblkerrecht (2005), 837, 862
155. Douglas-Scott (n 10), 243, 252
156. Andreas Haratsch, "Die Solange-Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte", 66 Zeitschrifi für auslandisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (2006) 927, 945.
157. Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR1-6079 para. 39.
158. Regarding the decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, the ECJ has been unwilling to recognize them as binding, mainly due to the peculiarities of WTO law: Case C-377/02 Van Parys v BIRB [2005] ECR 1-1465; Confirmed in: Case 351/04 Ikea Wholesale Ltd. v Commissioner of Customs & Excise [2007] ECR 1-7723.
159. Article 4 Treaty of Chaguaramas.