Search

Comme toutes les institutions de l’Union europeenne, la Cour de justice est multilingue et requise de pouvoir s’exprimer dans les 24 langues officielles que compte l’organisation. Pour gerer ce systeme unique au monde, la Cour dispose de services tres competents, de traduction et d’interpretation, dont elle ne cesse d’ameliorer l’efficacite pour fournir un travail de tres haute qualite, dans des delais raisonnables, comme l’exigent les regles de fonctionnement de l’institution judiciaire.

L’arret de la Cour de justice de l’Union europeenne du 6 octobre 2015 Conseil c. Commission a trait a la delicate question de la representation exterieure de l’Union europeenne. Rendu en grande chambre, il se prononce, pour la premiere fois, sur l’identite de l’institution investie du pouvoir de representer l’organisation devant une juridiction internationale, en l’espece le Tribunal international du droit de la mer. Le point est delicat, les enjeux decisifs. L’arret ne tranche pourtant que tres imparfaitement le litige. La responsabilite n’en incombe pas a la seule Cour, cependant. Les questions de fond soulevees en la cause, de repartition des competences et d’equilibre des pouvoirs entre deux des institutions majeures de l’Union, ne sont en effet que tres incompletement reglees par les traites. Il en resulte des differends en nombre, que la juridiction de Luxembourg n’est pas necessairement (la plus) a meme de trancher, et que l’organisation serait bien avisee de regler hors la saisine du juge.

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) finds its roots in the Helsinki Final Act of 1 August 1975. Despite the fact that it is not, legally speaking, an international organization, The OSCE carries out functions that are similar and sometimes even identical to those of such organizations. This ordinarily would warrant having in place a clear and predictable regime of privileges and immunities that allows it to operate efficiently. However, the OSCE has no such regime. The privileges and immunities of the OSCE and its staff vary from one participating state to another and from one legislative act to another. There have been calls to implement an international convention to address this anomaly. The purpose of this article, which is part of the volume on the legal framework of the OSCE (forthcoming in Steinbruck Platise/Moser/Peters (eds), The Legal Framework of the OSCE, Cambridge University Press), is to relay these calls and expand on them. It does so first by summarising the nature of the problem and the current patchwork of applicable regulatory statutes on privileges and immunities. It subsequently highlights the difficulties that this patchwork creates and how the creation of uniform regime through an international treaty would improve the day-to-day work of the OSCE.

The development of international organisations and the increasing significance of their role in a wide range of fields, has put at issue the adequacy of the rules governing their operation, with regard to the needs of modern justice. In particular, the question of the scope of the immunity from jurisdiction of international organisations is the subject of some debate, as the multiplication of disputes involving international organisations has led courts to address this topic with increasing frequency.1

The jurisdictional immunities of States and their immunities from measures of constraint collide head on with the right to a judge as it has progressively emerged in the course of the 20th century. This chapter, in French with an English summary, examines the way in which this conflict is resolved by the courts and in legal literature, focusing on instances where immunity is claimed with regard to an act performed in violation of a basic rule of international law. Keywords: courts; international law; jurisdictional immunities of States; legal literature

Applying competition law to the agricultural sector is regularly debated, given the agricultural market’s many specificities and multifunctional nature. The shift towards the liberalisation of these markets has led to an enhanced position for agricultural economic organisations, such as producer organisations (PO), associations of producer organisations (APO) and interbranch organisations (IO), all within the framework of the common agricultural policy (CAP). The tasks entrusted to these organisations concerning the structuring and management of agricultural markets inevitably lead to discussions about volumes and prices - normally prohibited by common competition law. In the course of the reforms on the regulation pertaining to the common organisation of the markets (COM) for agricultural products, measures derogating from article 101, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibiting anticompetitive agreements were developed so that agricultural economic organisations may guarantee agricultural market regulation. Nonetheless, the need to protect effective competition on agricultural markets is reasserted by case law, to ensure these markets are indeed integrated into the European Union’s internal market, and given the extent to which competition contributes to the completion of common agricultural policy (CAP) objectives. Setting the framework for the intervention of agricultural economic organisations falling outside competition law is thus a difficult feat., L’application du droit de la concurrence au secteur agricole est régulièrement discutée en raison des spécificités des marchés agricoles et du caractère multifonctionnel de l’agriculture. Le mouvement de libéralisation de ces marchés a conduit au développement de la place des organisations économiques agricoles, telles que les organisations de producteurs (OP), associations d’organisations de producteurs (AOP) et organisations interprofessionnelles (OI), dans le cadre de la politique agricole commune (PAC). Les missions confiées à ces organisations en matière de structuration et de gestion des marchés agricoles conduisent nécessairement à des concertations en matière de volumes et de prix, normalement prohibées par le droit commun de la concurrence. Au cours des réformes de la réglementation portant sur l’organisation commune des marchés (OCM) des produits agricoles, les mesures dérogatoires à l’article 101, paragraphe 1, du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne (TFUE) prohibant les ententes anticoncurrentielles, ont été développées afin que les organisations économiques agricoles puissent assurer la régulation des marchés agricoles. Pour autant, la nécessité de protéger une concurrence effective sur les marchés agricoles est réaffirmée par la jurisprudence afin d’assurer l’intégration de ces marchés au marché intérieur de l’Union européenne et en raison de la contribution de la concurrence à la réalisation des objectifs de la politique agricole commune (PAC). La délimitation du cadre d’intervention des organisations économiques agricoles échappant au droit de la concurrence est alors difficile à déterminer.