Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:52:44.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A. Racke GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Mainz

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Bernard H. Oxman ,
Juliane Kokott  and
Frank Hoffmeister
Juliane Kokott
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf/Humboldt University Berlin
Frank Hoffmeister
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf/Humboldt University Berlin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A. Racke GMBH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Mainz. Case C-l 62/96.

Court of Justice of the European Communities, June 16, 1998.

The German Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) asked the Court of Justice of the European Communities whether an EEC Council regulation suspending the trade concessions provided for by the 1980 Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was valid. The Court answered in the affirmative, holding that, in adopting the regulation, the Council had not acted contrary to the rules of customary international law concerning termination and suspension of treaty relations because of a fundamental change of circumstances.

Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 93 , Issue 1 , January 1999 , pp. 205 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In a procedure under Article 177 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community [hereinafter Treaty], Mar. 25, 1957, 298 UNTS 11, as amended by Treaty on European Union, Feb. 7, 1992, 1992 O.J. (C 224) 1.

2 Council Regulation 3300/91 (Nov. 11, 1991), 1991 O.J. (L 315) 1.

3 Apr. 2, 1980, 1983 O.J. (L 41) 1.

4 Council Decision 91/602/EEC, 1991 O.J. (L 325) 23.

5 See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, Art. 62, 1155 UNTS 331.

6 Case C-162/96, Judgment, para. 31 [hereinafter Judgment].

7 Id., paras. 32–37.

8 Id., paras. 49–50.

9 Id., para. 51.

10 Id., para. 52.

11 Id., para. 55.

12 Id., paras. 56–57.

13 Id., paras. 58–59.

14 See Case C-286/90, 1992 ECR 1–6019, para. 9.

15 Council Regulation 3094/86, 1986 O.J. (L 288) 1.

16 Case C-162/96, Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs (Dec. 4, 1997).

17 On constitutional law aspects of the European Union, see Ingolf Pernice, Bestandssicherung der Verfassungen: Verfassungsrechtliche Mechanismen zur Wahrung der Verfassungsordnung, in The European Constitutional Area 225 (Roland Bieber & Peter Widmer eds., 1995).

18 Art. 25(1) of the German Basic Law, translated in 7 Constitutions of the Countries of the World (Albert P. Blaustein & Gisbert H. Flanz eds., 1994); Art. 9 of the Constitution of Austria, 1 id. (1998); Art. 10 of the Constitution of Italy, 9 id. (1987); 14th consideration of the Preamble to the 1946 Constitution of France cited in the Preamble to the 1958 Constitution, 7 id. (1997); Art. 28(1) of the Constitution of Greece, id. (1988); and Art. 8(1) of the Constitution of Portugal, 15 id. (1991).

19 See Luzius Wildhaber & Stephan Breitenmoser, The Relationship between International Customary Law and Municipal Law in Western European States, 48 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 163 (1988).

20 Id., with numerous references. Important exceptions are France and the United Kingdom.

21 The relationship between customary international law and primary EC law remains unclear. Arguably, in the internal Community legal order, EC primary law prevails over customary law apart from jus cogens. See Frank Hoffmeister, Die Bindung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft an das Völkergewohnheitsrecht der Verträge, 9 Europäisches Wirtschafts- & Steuerrecht 365 (1998).

22 Judgment, para. 51.

23 See Joint Cases 267/81–269/81, SPI and SAMI, 1983 ECR 801, para. 23; Case 9/73, Schlüter, 1973 ECR 1135, para. 27; Joint Cases 21–24/72, International Fruit Co., 1972 ECR 1219, 1230.

24 See Case C-280/93, Germany v. Council, 1994 ECR 1–5039, 5072 (with further references).

25 See Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), Judgment (ICJ Sept. 25, 1997), 37 ILM 162, para. 104 (1998). See also Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law 144 (Peter Malanczuk ed., 7th rev. ed. 1997) (arguing that the clausula applies only to “extreme cases”).

26 Judgment, paras. 24, 50.

27 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v. Ice.), Jurisdiction of the Court, 1973 ICJ Rep. 3 (Feb. 2); Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project, supra note 25.

28 See, e.g., Case C-70/94, Fritz Werner Industrieausrüstungen GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany, 1995 ECR 3189; and Criminal Proceedings against Leifer, Case C-83/94, 1995 ECR 3231; and the note on these cases by Juliane Kokott & Beate Rudolf, 90 AJIL 286, 288–89 (1996).

29 See Case C-156/87, Gestetner Holdings, 1990 ECR 1–781, para. 63.

30 See Thomas Giegerich, Verfassungsrechtliche Kontrolle der auswärtigen Gewalt im europäisch-atlantischen Verfassungsstaat: Vergleichende Bestandsaufnahme mit Ausblick auf the neuen Demokratien in Mittel- und Osteuropa, in Grundfragen der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Mittel- und Osteuropa 501 (Jochen Abr. Frowein & Thilo Marauhn eds., 1998).

31 See Fisheries Jurisdiction, 1973 ICJ Rep. at 21, para. 43.

32 See Draft articles on State responsibility, Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, UN GAOR, 51st Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 125, 134, pt. 1, Art. 27, UN Doc. A/51/10 (1996).

33 See the present authors’ report on ECJ Case C-268/94, 1996 ECR 1–6177, in 92 AJIL 292 (1998).

34 See 1980 O.J. (L 144) 1 (ASEAN); 1985 O.J. (L 250) 1 (China).