Küsimustik







VUB - UGent - UniLu research project on “Mixity and the Court - Jurisdiction in manifest and blurred mixity” – a QUESTIONNAIRE on the Interpretation and application of EU mixed agreements in supreme courts of Member States (dead-line 20 December 2024)


This questionnaire directed to supreme courts or jurisdictions of the Member States of the European Union is part of research project concerning the question of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and domestic courts of Member States to interpret mixed agreements of the European Union and its Member States. The research project is directed by Professors Merijn Chamon (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Inge Govaere (Ghent University, GELI) and Eleftheria Neframi (University of Luxembourg). The aim of the research project is to uncover the limits to and the dynamics of the CJEU’s jurisdiction over ‘mixed agreements’ concluded by the EU.

One of the topics included in the project – “Jurisdiction and constitutional pluralism” (Joni Heliskoski, Justice, Supreme Administrative Court of Finland) – seeks to shed light on the interpretation and application of mixed agreements by supreme courts or jurisdictions of the Member States.
Background
It follows from settled case-law of the CJEU that international agreements concluded by the Council, pursuant to Articles 217 and 218 TFEU constitute, as regards the European Union, acts of one of its institutions. The provisions of such an agreement form an integral part of the legal order of the Union from the time it enters into force and that, in the context of that legal order, the Court has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of that agreement.1,
The Union’s international agreements are often concluded as mixed agreements (thus including among their contracting parties not only the Union but also all or some of the Member States) and fall partly within the external competence of the Union and partly within that of the Member States. Unlike international agreements concluded by the Union without its Member States, mixed agreements give rise to specific legal questions concerning their status and legal effects in the domestic law of the EU and its Member States.
As regards the interpretation of mixed agreements, the CJEU has (a general) jurisdiction to define the obligations which the European Union has assumed and those which remain the sole responsibility of the Member States and for that purpose to interpret the provisions of such an agreement.2 According to the case law, the jurisdiction of the Court to interpret, and to define the effects in domestic law, of the provisions of a mixed agreement, depends, however, on the division of competence between the Union and its Member States insofar as concerns the given agreement. The Court has such jurisdiction, first, as regards the provisions falling within the exclusive competence of the Union pursuant to Article 3(1) TEFU .3 The Court has also jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of a mixed agreement that relate to the obligations assumed by the Union provided they are in a field in which the European Union has exercised its powers.4 Such jurisdiction also exists in respect of the provision of a mixed agreement that can apply both to situations falling within the scope of national law and to situations falling within the scope of EU law.5 Since Demirel ,6 it has also been clear that the Court has a general jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of association agreements (Article 217 TEFU). In those cases, the status and effects of a provision of a mixed agreement are governed by EU law.
The status and legal effects of the provisions of a mixed agreements that do not fall within the scope of EU law and, thus within the jurisdiction of the CJEU, are governed by the legal orders of Member States.

The questionnaire (deadline for the replies is 20 December 2024)
The purpose of this questionnaire is to investigate the actual practice concerning the interpretation and application of EU mixed agreements in supreme courts of Member States. In particular, the aim is to find out whether the interpretation and application of mixed agreements differs from the interpretation and application of international agreements to which only the given Member State is a contracting party (without the participation of the EU) and, if so, what those differences are.
For that purpose, the following questions are posed:
1) Have there been cases where mixed agreements have been invoked before your court? If so, please provide a reference or link to the decisions/judgments, together with a translation into English if one is available.















2) Have there been cases where mixed agreements have been applied by your court, even if they were not invoked by the parties to the case?





























3) Does the status and/or effects of mixed agreements differ from that of international agreements to which your Member State is a contracting party (without the EU)?

i. If so, how?
ii. If not, does the jurisprudence of your court reflect the special (EU) status of these agreements in another way?




























4) Have there been cases in which your court has applied the case law of the CJEU concerning its jurisdiction to interpret mixed agreements? If so, please provide a refence or link to the decisions/judgments, together with a translation into English if one is available.




























5) Have there been cases where your court has made a reference for a preliminary ruling (Article 267 TFEU) to the CJEU concerning interpretation or validity of a mixed agreement? If so, please provide a refence to the decisions/judgments, together with a translation into English if one is available.





























6) Have there been cases in which your court had to assess the direct effect of a part of a mixed agreement falling under national competence, and in such a case was the position of the CJEU as to the EU part of the agreement followed?





























7) Have there been cases where your court has applied an agreement formally concluded by your Member State without the EU but in the interest of the Union?7




























8) Do you have any other observations or information concerning interpretation or application of mixed agreements before your court?