European Commission v Council of the European Union.
Date: 2017-10-25
48


It follows from that statement to the effect that the common commercial policy belongs within the context of the European Union’s external action that that policy relates to trade with third States and not to trade within the internal market (judgment of 18 July 2013, Daiichi Sankyo and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, C‑414/11, EU:C:2013:520, paragraph 50, and Opinion 2/15 (Free Trade Agreement with Singapore) of 16 May 2017, EU:C:2017:376, paragraph 35).
50


International agreements which are concerned with safeguarding and organising the protection of intellectual property rights on the territory of the parties are among those that may fall within that policy, provided that they satisfy the two conditions recalled in the preceding paragraph of the present judgment (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 July 2013, Daiichi Sankyo and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, C‑414/11, EU:C:2013:520, paragraphs 58 to 61, and Opinion 2/15 (Free Trade Agreement with Singapore) of 16 May 2017, EU:C:2017:376, paragraphs 116, 121, 122, 125 and 127).
64


It is admittedly true that the draft revised agreement entrusts the International Bureau of WIPO with the management of one of the components of the international agreement which it presages, namely the mechanism for international registration of appellations of origin and geographical indications that it establishes. It is also true that, more generally, that international agreement is to be administered by that organisation. However, the detailed rules which an international agreement lays down for its future performance and administration must be viewed in the light of the objectives which led the parties to conclude that agreement, and not vice-versa.
65


As regards, secondly, the effects of the draft revised agreement, it is settled case-law that the fact that an act of the European Union, such as an international agreement concluded by it, is liable to have implications for international trade is not enough for that act to be required to be classified as falling within the common commercial policy. In addition to the condition, examined in paragraphs 52 to 64 of the present judgment, that such an act must be essentially intended to promote, facilitate or govern such trade, it must also have direct and immediate effects on such trade (judgments of 18 July 2013, Daiichi Sankyo and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, C‑414/11, EU:C:2013:520, paragraph 51, and of 22 October 2013, Commission v Council, C‑137/12, EU:C:2013:675, paragraph 57, and Opinion 3/15 (Marrakesh Treaty on access to published works) of 14 February 2017, EU:C:2017:114, paragraph 61).
81


That power may be exercised, on grounds of legal certainty, in particular where the annulment of a decision adopted by the Council, in the context of the procedure laid down in Article 218 TFEU for negotiating and concluding international agreements, is such as to call into question the participation of the European Union in the international agreement concerned or its implementation, even though there is no doubt as to the competence of the European Union for that purpose (see, with regard to decisions relating to the signature of international agreements, judgments of 22 October 2013, Commission v Council, C‑137/12, EU:C:2013:675, paragraphs 80 and 81; of 24 June 2014, Parliament v Council, C‑658/11, EU:C:2014:2025, paragraph 90; and of 28 April 2015, Commission v Council, C‑28/12, EU:C:2015:282, paragraphs 61 and 62).