Labor and the Schuman Plan

Who Are the ‘Gatekeepers’?: In Continuation of the Debate on the Direct Applicability and the Direct Effect of EU International Agreements

“…150 It is significant that these 142 For instance, Martines and Zonnekeyn consider that the condition related to the nature and the broad logic of the agreement comes first followed by the attributes of the provision, whereas Holdgaard views the attributes of the provision to be the first condition followed by the purpose and the nature of the agreement; Martines, (n 19), 138; Zonnekeyn, The Direct Effect of GATT, (n 50), 66; Holdgaard, (n 33), 251-271. early cases concerned challenges to EU law, whereby the denial of direct effect effectively meant ensuring the validity of the then Community acts. 151 It should be noted here, that while the finding that international agreements are capable of direct effect signified an openness to international law, the Court simultaneously took a significant step in the opposite direction by linking the issue of validity of secondary EU law in light of obligations assumed under international agreements to the latter's direct effect. The Court's jurisprudence is seen here to be based on '(unspoken) assumption' that EU law should be presumed to be compatible with international law.…”

“…From this perspective, the Court's leading role was needed to guarantee not only the uniformity of interpretation, but also the efficiency of Union law of which the agreements formed an integral part of. 113 Returning to the second consideration of preserving the 'unique character' and the autonomous legal order of the EC, vertical and horizontal dimensions can be identified to the institutional or power balance, that is between the EU and its Member States vertically and between the EU institutions horizontally. 114 The 'door-opening' through direct effect furthers the impact of direct applicability on the national legal orders of the Member States.…”