Dans le cadre de son cycle de conférences consacrées à l’UE en tant qu’acteur international, l’unité de recherche en droit de l’Université du Luxembourg invite Allan Rosas, juge à la CJUE, et Marise Cremona, professeur à l’Institut universitaire européen de Florence, à tenir deux conférences sur la politique extérieure de l’UE le 28 mars 2014 de 11 à 13 heures.

Allan Rosas - Exclusive, Shared and National Competence in the Area of EU External Relations: Do Such Distinctions Matter?

Especially in the context of the conclusion by the EU and, as the case may be, its Member States, of international agreements, and the participation of the Union and, as the case may be, its Member States in international meetings and conferences, much attention is usually paid to the legal nature of the competences appertaining to the Union and its Member States, respectively. Are Union competences exclusive, shared (including, as the case may be, so-called parallel competences) or are they merely of a supplementing nature? Do they perhaps belong to the sphere of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)? When are competences purely national in nature? In this lecture, it will be asked as to whether, and to what extent, these legal distinctions can be upheld in actual practice, taking also into account the case law of the European Court of Justice. Are we, in fact, witnessing something closer to a sliding scale, making the legal distinctions less relevant or not corresponding to the reality on the ground?

Marise Cremona - A Reticent Court? Policy Objectives and the Court of Justice

The Court of Justice of the European Union has played a crucial, even determinative role in the creation of the complex multi-layered form of governance that is now so characteristic of the Union. In the external policy field, the Court has played an important role in defining the scope and nature of Community competence, and the legal effect of international obligations. It has not, however, been a driving force behind a policy agenda in the same way that the creation of the single market has influenced its approach to substantive treaty provisions on discrimination, competition policy or free movement. In the context of EU external action the nature of the Treaty provisions, with a weaker set of policy objectives and fewer substantive legal obligations on the Member States, has left much to the agenda-setting of the political institutions. This paper examines the role that the Court of Justice has assumed – as evidenced by the approach taken in its case law – in relation to the Union’s external policy objectives. The starting point is an observation: the Court appears to be reticent (non-interventionist) if not deferential as regards the policy choices of the political institutions in external relations. It tends to take those choices at face value (basing itself on statements in legal instruments and policy documents); it does not question them, nor seek to define or shape them. More than this, it emphasises the need for the political institutions to retain their policy discretion, their room for manoeuvre.

Registration by e-mail to fdef-colloques@uni.lu (specifying name and institution)

Contact : Nadja Risch Tel: +352 46 66 44 6619