Debate: Non-objection mechanisms in international conventions to which the European Union is a party
Date: THURSDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2023
Speaker: Helena Dalli
Language: EN

Accession to Hague Conventions is regulated in three different ways depending on the convention. In the first case, there is an open procedure, meaning all countries are free to accede to the convention without the need for the other contracting parties to accept them or the possibility to raise an objection. Treaty relationships between the acceding third state and the existing Contracting Parties are established automatically. For those types of conventions, such as the 2005 Choice of Court Convention, no EU decision needs to be or can be adopted, because the acceptance of all future acceding countries is already inherent in the convention.  In the second case, an explicit acceptance procedure is provided. If a party does not accept the accession, then the convention will not have an effect in the bilateral relationship between the party and the acceding state. This means Treaty relationships between the exceeding third state and an existing Contracting Party are only established if that Contracting Party adopts a decision on acceptance. For conventions with this type of mechanism, such as the 1980 Child Abduction Convention, the acceptance decision by the EU is taken on the basis of Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  Finally, the third and last category provides for the automatic establishment of Treaty relationships between the Contracting Parties and an exceeding third state in principle. But it leaves a possibility for the existing Contracting Parties to exceptionally prevent that from happening by lodging an objection to the accession within a specific period, which is usually. Between 6 to 12 months. This is the type of convention, such as the Judgments Convention, which I understand your oral question is focusing on. The current practice is that in relation to such Hague Conventions with a no objection procedure, the EU only adopts a formal position in case it wants to object to an accession, after a thorough assessment of the situation of the new acceding party. This assessment aims at verifying whether or not it is in a position to fulfil its obligations under the convention. This practice is based on the principle of favour towards new accessions by other Contracting Parties and only envisages an objection procedure as an exception, in line with the objectives of the convention.  The Commission therefore takes the view that, under the current practice, formal decisions under Article 218 are required only where the EU intends to object to the establishment of such Treaty relations. This approach is in line with the need to implement the EU obligation under international law in good faith.  The Commission is committed to informing the Parliament, as well as the Council, and to take their views into account in full compliance with the treaties and, notably, the duty of sincere cooperation. This is why, when deciding whether to propose an objection decision, we committed to consistently informing the Parliament of each intending intended accession of a third country to the Judgments Convention, taking due account of the views expressed. If, following discussions in the Council and in the Parliament, it appears that there is no reason to object to the accession of the third State, the Commission, under the current practice, does not adopt a formal position. We have delivered on this commitment with the written assessment on Ukraine, certification of the Judgments convention, and the outcome was a consensus in favour of no objection, also confirmed by the Parliament in a debate last June on the matter.  We will share the Commission’s assessment also regarding future accessions to the Judgments Convention and to other Hague Conventions with no objection mechanisms in the future.