Abstract
The landmark decision of the Court of Justice in Rosneft (judgment of 28 March 2017, case C-72/15) has been mostly praised by academic commentators for opening the doors of preliminary rulings in the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and for upholding the rule of law in that area. While this Article mostly welcomes the momentous pro-integrationist implications of the mechanism of preliminary ruling through the immediacy of dialogue between Member States’ and EU Courts, it also criticises the decision in Rosneft. In particular, it argues that the Court’s reasoning to establish jurisdiction over a restrictive measure perpetuates a line of case law that hides risks, both for the judicial protection of individuals, and for the institutional balance and the separation of powers. By such critique, this Article partially departs from mainstream scholarship, which sees in Rosneft a positive development for the respect for the rule of law in CFSP. While that progress is entirely commendable, this Article elaborates upon and criticises other potential consequences of the Court’s decision on what constitutes a reviewable act pursuant to Art. 275 TFEU.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 547-561 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| Journal | European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2018 |
| Externally published | Yes |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Keywords
- Common foreign and security policy
- Integration
- Jurisdiction
- Preliminary ruling
- Restrictive measures
- Rosneft
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Law and Foreign Policy Before the Court: Some Hidden Perils of Rosneft'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver