Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Case C‑114/12

European Commission

v

Council of the European Union

‛Action for annulment — External action of the European Union — International agreements — Protection of neighbouring rights of broadcasting organisations — Negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe — Decision of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States authorising the joint participation of the Union and its Member States in the negotiations — Article 3(2) TFEU — Exclusive external competence of the Union’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 4 September 2014

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting in the Council — Included

   (Arts 218(3) and (4) TFEU and 263 TFEU)
2. International agreements — Conclusion — Competence of the Union — Convention of the Council of Europe on the protection of the rights of broadcasting organisations — Exclusivity — Basis — Effect on rules of EU law resulting from Directives 93/83, 2001/29, 2004/48, 2006/115 and 2006/116

   (Art. 3(2) TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directives 2001/29, 2004/48, 2006/115 and 2006/116)
3. International agreements — Conclusion — Competence of the Union — Exclusivity — Criterion for appraisal — Presence of common EU rules in a certain area dispersed across different legal instruments — No effect

   (Art. 3(2) TFEU)

1. A decision of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States authorising the joint participation of the Union and its Member States in the negotiations of an international agreement combines the authorisations to negotiate issued (i) to the Commission and (ii) to the Member States and to the Presidency of the Council. It necessarily follows that the Council was involved in the grant of both of those authorisations. Therefore, even if the action is partly directed against a decision adopted by the Representatives of the Member States in their capacity as Representatives of their Governments, and not as members of the Council, that action is admissible with regard to the contested decision as a whole.

   (see paras 38, 41)
2. There is a risk that common EU rules might be adversely affected by international commitments, or that the scope of those rules might be altered, which is such as to justify an exclusive external competence of the European Union, where those commitments fall within the scope of those rules or, at least, within an area which is already largely covered by those rules.

   The content of the negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe on the protection of neighbouring rights of broadcasting organisations, as is defined by the 2002 Recommendation, the 2008 Memorandum and the 2010 Report, falls within an area covered to a large extent by common EU rules. It is clear from Directives 93/83 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, 2006/115 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, and 2006/116 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, that those rights are the subject, in EU law, of a harmonised legal framework which seeks, in particular, to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and which established a regime with high and homogeneous protection for broadcasting organisations.

   Consequently, those negotiations may affect common EU rules or alter their scope. Therefore, those negotiations fall within the exclusive competence of the European Union.

   (see paras 68, 70, 79, 102)
3. Any exclusive external competence of the European Union must have its basis in conclusions drawn from a specific analysis of the relationship between the envisaged international agreement and the EU law in force, from which it is clear that such an agreement is capable of affecting the common EU rules or of altering their scope.

   In that regard, the fact that the harmonised legal framework of the area of EU law concerned has been established by various legal instruments is not such as to call into question the correctness of that approach. The assessment of the existence of a risk that common EU rules will be adversely affected, or that their scope will be altered, by international commitments cannot be dependent on an artificial distinction based on the presence or absence of such rules in one and the same instrument of EU law.

   (see paras 74, 81, 82)

[Top](#document1)