EU Court Ruling on Geneva Act Accession

Extract

[...] For the Court, which follows the Commission's opinion, it is indeed the latter that has exclusive competence in this matter. More broadly, the judgment is part of a constitutional dimension of the balance of powers at the level of the Union. Therefore, to what extent does the judgment C-24/20 of the Court of Justice contribute to refining a little more, in a quasi-constitutional perspective, the separation and balance of powers within the institutional architecture of the European Union? The first part of the commentary is devoted to the complaints relating to Article 3 and 4 of the Council's decision 2019/1754 of 7 October 2019 on the accession of the European Union to the Geneva Act). [...]

[...] 55) in so far as the accession by Member States to the Act is optional (cons. 53) and where the annulment of the said articles 'would not affect the legal scope of Article 1'he of the challenged decision and would not call into question the Union's accession to the Geneva Act - Similarly, the CJEU dismisses the Council's request for non-consideration of the possibility of partial annulment (cons. 56). Substantially, however, it is the underlying question of institutional balance, which by the violation of Article 293, paragraph TFUE, that the Court of Justice raises (cons. [...]

[...] However, by its judgment of 25 October 2017, Commission v Council (Revised Lisbon Arrangement) (C-389/15, EU:C:2017:798), 'the Court held that the negotiation of the Geneva Act fell within the exclusive competence' of the Union (cons. which indicates a convergence between the Commission's arguments and the previous decision of the Court (cons. 75). B. On the accession to the Geneva Act by the Member States - The Court recalls that Article 3 of the contested decision provides that 'Member States who wish are authorised to ratify the Geneva Act or to accede to it, as the case may be, alongside the Union, in the interest and full respect of the exclusive competence of the latter' (cons. [...]

[...] On the use of the detachability theory by the Council - The theory of detachability of the contentious elements of an act is the basis for partial annulment actions before the Court of Justice if the elements are detachable from the act and provided that the detachable elements do not affect the substance of the act concerned (CJUE 5 December 2012 Qualitest v. Council T-421/11 cons but also T-331/11 cons. 109). This theory, which is a constant of the Court, is re-employed in the present judgment. - Or it is in the name of the alleged impossibility of this detachability that the Council argues (cons. [...]

[...] The second part of the commentary is, on the other hand, devoted to the examination of the partial retention of the effects of the challenged decision resulting from an explicit request from the CommissionII). I. On the modalities of accession to the Geneva Act While the Commission had recommended to the Council a specific legal basis for the Council's decision, namely Articles 207 of the TFEU and 218, paragraphs 3 and the latter did not follow the Commission's recommendation and therefore preferred an alternative legal basis Subsequently, the Commission mainly criticizes Articles 3 and 4 of the challenged decision, the legal basis of which, according to the Commission followed by the Court, is indeed inoperative A. [...]