Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Legal Effects of EU Agreements$

Mario Mendez

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780199606610

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2013

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199606610.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 04 December 2016

Appendix EU Agreements Case Law Data-Set

Appendix EU Agreements Case Law Data-Set

Source:
The Legal Effects of EU Agreements
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

The data-set of case law involving EU Agreements created for this study was developed using the EUR-Lex search engine tool 〈http://eur-lex.europa.eu/RECH_jurisprudence.do〉. The objective was essentially to gather those cases in which EU Agreements were being invoked in three core ways (or were in any event engaged with by the ECJ in such contexts), to challenge either EU or Member State-level action or where in effect it is either the substance of the Agreement or the procedure by which it was concluded that is being challenged. The searches by procedure were limited to judgments and orders of the European Court of Justice and the General Court and were refined to search for cases in which the words ‘agreement’ or ‘agreements’ (searching for a?reement* in the ‘search for’ box incorporates both categories) or ‘convention’ or ‘conventions’ (likewise) or ‘European Economic Area’ or ‘EEA’ appear using the full text search option. The cut-off date for these searches was 3 October 2011 and this produces several thousand cases across the different procedures. The key issue then becomes that of sifting the cases to produce the data-set of those considered pertinent to this study. The vast majority of cases arising from these searches were easily dispensed with in having no connection to the subject of this study, for example:

  • use of the word agreement or convention in a fashion that has nothing to do with international agreements or conventions, examples include in the competition law sense of the term and in the context of the social partners;

  • agreements and conventions to which the EU is not a party,1 which predictably is dominated by the many cases involving ECHR-related pleas;

  • the mere reference to the text of a Regulation or Directive as being of EEA relevance.

There are several categories of cases which contain a direct reference to a EU Agreement but which are also excluded:

  • cases where the entry into force of an Agreement has been referred to by the ECJ; EEA examples include: C-396/05; C-28/00; C-389/99; C-277/99; C-412/96; C-389/98; C-290/00; a non-EEA example is C-452/04;

  • (p.324) the many additional cases in which there are what appear to be merely descriptive references to EU Agreements: eg 96/75; 86/75; 51/78; 124/84; 165/84; 386/87; 80/89; 328/89; 230/98; 179/00; C-100/05;

  • cases on the Trade Mark Directive in which amendments to it by the EEA Agreement are acknowledged by the Court: eg 405/03; 16/03; 143/00; 443/99;

  • the numerous cases on the technicalities of EU customs measures in which multilateral EU customs-related agreements are touched on: this includes cases on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets (eg C-371/99; C-310 & C-406/98; C-161/08; C-488/09; 78/01 and including in infringement proceedings where the plea does not concern breach of that Convention, eg C-377/03; C-105/02; C-312/04); cases on the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System which was the foundation of the Community nomenclature in Regulation 2658/87 (C-376/07; C-375/07; C-486/06; C-400/5; C-514/04; C-15/05; C-260/00; C-288/99; C-201/99; C-270/96); cases on the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures (26/88) At most, some of these cases appear to relate to consistent interpretation of the EU implementing measure vis-à-vis the relevant EU Customs Agreement. Only one was discovered involving a direct plea of breach of the EU Agreement and it has accordingly been included (C-267/94) in the data-set.

Having sifted the cases using 3 October 2011 as the cut-off date, some 337 cases remained which are listed below.2 The methodology employed for producing this data-set is subject to numerous pitfalls. Sifting through thousands of cases using the find tool for key words such as agreement and convention generates considerable scope for human error in searching through the cases to identify those of relevance. Secondly, any shortcomings with the EurLex search tool will be replicated in the search. Thus any cases that do not appear via the Eur-Lex search even using the case reference number, something that the author has noticed on occasion, will not be accessible via the search tool. A further shortcoming will be the cases that have not been translated into English. Many of those cases will not have been identified in the searches. It is also clear that pleas pertaining to, for example, breaches of EU Agreements can only be identified if they are acknowledged in the text of the judgment or an Advocate General’s Opinion. There are no doubt many examples (p.325) of such pleas during oral proceedings which might not then be recounted in the judgment, not least given that the extent to which judgments actually recount pleas of the parties and interveners has been dramatically reduced over the years. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the 337 cases identified constitute a reasonable attempt at comprehensiveness.

  • 41–4/70 International Fruit Co v Commission [1971] ECR 411 p 175, 245.

  • 92/71 Interfood [1972] ECR 231 p 196.

  • 96/71 R & V Haegeman v Commission (Haegeman I) [1972] ECR 1005 p 62–63, 162.

  • 21–4/72 International Fruit Co v Produktschapvoor Groenten en Fruit [1972] ECR 1219 p 65, 71, 72, 104, 175–194, 196–199, 203, 243, 244, 245, 272, 273.

  • 40/72 Schroeder v Germany [1973] ECR 125 p 62, 71, 143.

  • 9/73 Schlüter [1973] ECR 1135p 62, 143, 176, 301.

  • 147/73 Lenzing [1973] ECR 1543 p 62.

  • 181/73 R & V Haegeman v Belgium (Haegeman II) [1974] ECR 449 p 63–77, 83, 89, 94, 95, 104, 105, 107, 117, 143, 157, 214, 215, 225, 302, 317.

  • 38/75 Spoorwegen [1975] ECR 1439 p 177, 245.

  • 87/75 Bresciani [1976] ECR 129 p 67, 94–96, 99, 100, 104, 108, 114, 150, 151, 152, 167.

  • 52/77 Cayrol v Rivoira [1977] ECR 2261 p 96.

  • 65/77 Razanatsimba [1977] ECR 2229 96. 97, 116, 142, 149.

  • 90/77 Stimming v Commission [1978] ECR 995 p 177.

  • 225/78 Bouhelier [1979] ECR 3151 p 96–97, 98.

  • 65/79 Chatain [1980] ECR 1345 p 96–97.

  • 112/80 Dürbeck [1981] ECR 1095 p 178, 245.

  • 270/80 Polydor v Harlequin Records Shops [1982] ECR 329 p 67, 96–101, 105, 109, 110, 111, 150.

  • 17/81 Pabst & Richarz [1982] ECR 1331 p 100–101, 104, 108, 150, 151, 152.

  • 104/81 Hauptzollamt Mainz v CA Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641 p 67–69, 73, 76, 94, 101, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 113, 119, 149, 150, 151, 152, 157, 167, 204, 207, 211, 214, 246, 268, 293, 295, 315.

  • 266/81 SIOT [1983] ECR 731 p 113, 176, 179, 193, 195, 291, 294.

  • 267–9/81 SPI and SAMI [1983] ECR 801 p 176–177, 177, 193, 195, 294.

  • 290–1/81 Singer and Geigy [1983] ECR 847 p 177, 193, 195, 294.

  • 314–16/81 & 83/82 Waterkeyn [1982] ECR 4337 p 110.

  • 170/82 Ramel [1983] ECR 1319 p 113.

  • 99/83 Fioravanti [1984] ECR 3939 p 113.

  • 218/83 Les Rapides Savoyards [1984] ECR 3105 p 111, 112, 113.

  • 253/83 Kupferberg II [1985] ECR 157 p 108, 109.

  • 174/84 Bulk Oil (Zug) AG [1986] ECR 559 p 111, 150.

  • 290/84 Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt [1985] ECR 3909 p 196.

  • 82/85 Eurasian Corporation v Commission [1985] ECR 3603 p 163.

  • 89, 104, 114, 116, 117 & 125–9/85 Ahlström v Commission [1988] ECR 5193 p 165.

  • (p.326) 156/85 Perles Eurotool [1986] ECR 1595 p 111, 112.

  • C-183/85 Itzehoe [1986] ECR 1873 p. 196.

  • 187/85 Fediol v Commission [1988] ECR 4155 p 196.

  • 193/85 Cooperativa Co-Frutta [1987] ECR 2085 p 114, 177, 245, 294.

  • 194 & 241/85 Commission v Greece [1988] ECR 1037 p 157, 158, 162.

  • 12/86 Demirel [1987] ECR 3719 p 67, 68, 105, 113, 116, 117, 118, 125, 149, 151, 154, 165, 167, 172, 239, 251, 268, 292, 293.

  • 114/86 UK v Commission [1988] ECR 5289 p 162.

  • 70/87 Fediol v Commission [1989] ECR 1781 p 197–199, 200, 203, 204, 205, 206, 211, 218, 219, 221, 225, 226, 230, 233, 237, 245, 247, 248, 275.

  • 165/87 Commission v Council [1988] ECR 5545 p 78, 81, 83, 86.

  • C-175/87 Matsushita [1992] ECR I-1409 p 196, 244.

  • C-178/87 Minolta v Council [1992] ECR I-1577 p 177, 245.

  • C-179/87 Sharp v Council [1992] ECR I-1409 p 196.

  • 247/87 Star Fruit Company SA v Commission [1989] ECR 291 p 163.

  • 340/87 Commission v Italy [1989] ECR 1483 p 157–158, 169, 297.

  • 125/88 Nijman [1989] ECR 3533 p 110, 172.

  • C-188/88 NMB v Commission [1992] ECR I-1689 p 199, 245.

  • C-189/88 Cartorobica [1990] ECR I-1269 p 177, 245.

  • 191/88 Co-Frutta v Commission [1989] ECR 793p 177, 245, 303.

  • C-17/89 Deutsche Olivetti [1990] ECR I-2301 p. 196.

  • C-69/89 Nakajima v Council [1991] ECR I-2069 p 197–199, 200, 203, 204, 205, 206, 211, 218, 219, 220, 221, 225, 226, 229, 230–238, 245, 247, 248, 275.

  • C-192/89 Sevince [1990] ECR I-3461p 67, 114, 116–119, 120, 121, 124, 125, 130, 131, 153, 154, 172, 239, 292, 293.

  • C-18/90 Kziber [1991] ECR I-199 p 115, 128–132, 134, 151, 152, 153, 156, 293.

  • C-50/90 Sunzest v Commission [1991] ECR I-2917 p 162.

  • C-105/90 Goldstar v Council [1992] ECR I-677 p. 196, 244.

  • C-163/90 Legros [1992] ECR I-4625 p 108, 110, 167.

  • C-228–34/90, 339/90 & 353/90 Simba [1992] ECR I-3713 p 114, 172.

  • C-65/91 Commission v Greece [1992] ECR I-5245 p 157, 158.

  • C-188/91 Deutsche Shell AG [1993] ECR I-363 p 113, 114.

  • C-207/91 Eurim-Pharm GmbH [1993] ECR I-3723 p 111, 155.

  • C-228/91 Commission v Italy [1993] ECR I-2701 p 157–158.

  • C-237/91 Kus [1992] ECR I-6781 p 120–122, 130, 135.

  • C-292/91 Weis [1993] ECR I-2219 p 111, 112.

  • C-312/91 Metalsa Srl [1993] ECR I-3751 108. 109.

  • C-327/91 France v Commission [1994] ECR I-3641 78, 80, 81, 85, 86, 90, 91, 93.

  • C-12/92 Huygen [1993] ECR I-638 p 111, 112.

  • C-432/92 Anastasiou [1994] ECR I-3087 p 111–113, 150, 151, 293.

  • C-58/93 Yousfi [1994] ECR I-1353 p 130.

  • (p.327) C-280/93 Germany v Council [1994] ECR I-4973 p 104, 130, 163, 177, 181, 190–192, 193, 194, 200, 201, 280, 301, 302.

  • C-334/93 Bonapharma Krefeld [1995] ECR I-319 p 111, 112.

  • C-355/93 Eroglu [1994] ECR I-5113 p 120, 122.

  • C-360/93 European Parliament v Council [1996] ECR I-1195 p 78, 80, 81.

  • C-434/93 Bozkurt [1995] ECR I-1475 p 120, 121, 122, 155.

  • C-469/93 Chiquita Italia [1995] ECR I-4533 p 114, 150, 151, 177, 291, 293, 294.

  • C- 61/94 Commission v Germany (IDA) [1996] ECR I-3989 p 71, 158, 159, 196, 200–202, 230, 243, 245, 294, 298.

  • C-70/94 Werner v Germany [1995] ECR I-3189 p 196.

  • C-83/94 Leifer [1995] ECR I-3231 p 196.

  • C-103/94 Krid [1995] ECR I-719 p 130.

  • T-115/94 Opel Austria v Council [1997] ECR II-39 p 166–168, 170, 172, 177, 245, 301, 302, 304.

  • C-125/94 Aprile Srl [1995] ECR I-2919 p 108, 110, 158.

  • T-162/94 NMB v Commission [1996] ECR II-427 p 199, 245.

  • T-163/94 & T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council [1995] ECR II-1381 p 196, 244, 288, 302.

  • T-170/94 Shanghai Bicycle v Council [1997] ECR II-1383 p 177, 245.

  • C-267/94 France v Commission [1995] ECR I-4845p 163, 169, 324.

  • C-268/94 Portugal v Council [1996] ECR I-6177 p 78.

  • C-277/94 Taflan-Met [1996] ECR I-4085 p 130, 131, 132, 151, 154, 177, 292, 293.

  • C-38/95 Ministero delle Finanze v Foods Import Srl [1996] ECR I-6543 p 177, 245.

  • T-47/95 Terres Rouges v Commission [1997] ECR II-481 p 163, 303.

  • C-51/95 Unifruit Hellas v Commission [1997] ECR I-727 (appeal of T-489/93 Unifruit Hellas v Commission [1994] ECR II-1201) p 166.

  • C-64/95 Lubella [1996] ECR I-5105 p 143, 148.

  • C-114/95 & C-115/95 Texaco A/S [1997] ECR I-4263 p 108–110.

  • C-122/95 Germany v Council [1998] ECR I-973 p 79, 80, 81, 82, 88, 90, 92, 93, 163, 289.

  • C-126/95 Hallouzi Choho [1996] ECR I-4807 p 130.

  • C-150/95 Portugal v Commission (BHA) [1997] ECR I-5863 p 199, 231, 245.

  • C-171/95 Tetik [1997] ECR I-329 p 120, 122, 123.

  • C-183/95 Affish [1997] ECR I-4315 p 203.

  • T-228/95 R Lehrfreund [1996] ECR II-111 p 203.

  • C-285/95 Kol [1997] ECR I-3069 p 120, 121.

  • C-293/95 P Odigitria [1996] ECR I-6129 (appeal of T-572/93 Odigitria [1995] ECR II-2025) p 79, 80, 288.

  • C-351/95 Kadiman [1997] ECR I-2133 p 120, 122.

  • C-364/95 & C-365/95 T. Port III [1998] ECR I-1023 p 203.

  • C-369/95 Somalfruit [1997] ECR I-6619 p 143, 144.

  • C-386/95 Eker [1997] ECR I-2679 p 120.

  • (p.328) C-395/95 P Geotronics v Commission [1997] ECR I-2271 (appeal of T-185/94 Geotronics v Commission [1995] ECR II-2795) p 163.

  • C-1/96 Ex parte Compassion in World Farming [1998] ECR I-1251 p 260–261.

  • C-36/96 Gunaydin [1997] ECR I-5143 p 120.

  • T-48/96 Acme Industry v Council [1999] ECR II-3089 p 203.

  • C-53/96 Hermès [1998] ECR I-3603 p 227, 239, 240, 241, 242, 247, 254, 292, 294, 304.

  • T-75/96 Söktas v Commission [1996] ECR II-1689 p 162.

  • C-98/96 Ertanir [1997] ECR I-5179 p 120.

  • C-100/96 Ex parte British Agrochemicals Association Ltd [1999] ECR I-1499 p 203, 247

  • C-147/96 Netherlands v Commission [2000] ECR I-4723 p 205.

  • C-149/96 Portugal v Council (Portuguese Textiles) [1999] ECR I-8395 p 80, 203–227, 230, 232, 234, 238, 248, 302, 315.

  • C-159/96 Portugal v Commission [1998] ECR I-7379 p 163, 169.

  • C-162/96 Racke [1998] ECR I-3655 p 143, 144, 145.

  • C-200/96 Metronome [1998] ECR I-1953 p 227.

  • C-262/96 Sürül [1999] ECR I-2685 p 131, 132, 152, 153, 293, 295.

  • C-352/96 Italy v Council (Rice Tariffs) [1999] ECR I-6937 p 203, 231, 237, 248.

  • C-416/96 El-Yassini [1999] ECR I-1209 p 134–135, 136, 141, 156.

  • C-210/97 Akman [1998] ECR I-7519 p 120.

  • C-1/97 Birden [1998] ECR I-7747 p 120.

  • C-104/97 P Atlanta [1999] ECR I-6983 (appeal of T-521/93 Atlanta [1996] ECR II-1707) p 163, 177, 218, 219, 302.

  • C-106/97 Dutch Antillian Dairy Industry Inc [1999] ECR I-5983 p 203.

  • C-113/97 Babahenini [1998] ECR I-183 p 130.

  • C-140/97 Rechberger [1999] ECR I-3499 p 142.

  • C-179/97 Spain v Commission [1999] ECR I-1251 p 261, 282, 285.

  • T-186–7/97, T-190–2/97, T-210–11/97, T-216–18/97, T-279–80/97, T-293/97 & T-147/99 Kaufring v Commission [2001] ECR II-1337 p 164, 168, 169.

  • C-189/97 European Parliament v Council [1999] ECR 1–4741 p 78, 81.

  • T-254/97 Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH Chemnitz v Commission [1999] ECR II-2743 p 218.

  • T-256/97 BEUC v Commission [2000] ECR II-101 p 229, 247, 288, 302.

  • C-301/97 Netherlands v Council [2001] ECR I-8853 p 205.

  • C-321/97 Andersson [1999] ECR I-3551 p 142.

  • C-329/97 Ergat [2000] ECR I-1487 p 120, 123.

  • C-340/97 Nazli [2000] ECR I-957 120, 123.

  • C-441/97 P Stahl [2000] ECR I-10293 (appeal of T-244/94 Stahl [1997] ECR II-1963) p 166, 170, 305.

  • T-32/98 & T-41/98 Netherlands Antilles v Commission [2000] ECR II-201 p 205.

  • C-36/98 Spain v Council [2001] ECR 1–779 p 78.

  • (p.329) T-99/98 Hameico Stuttgart v Council and Commission [2003] ECR II-2195 p 218.

  • C-37/98 Savas [2000] ECR I-2927 p 124–125, 126, 147, 154, 293.

  • C-65/98 Eyup [2000] ECR I-4747 p 120, 121.

  • C-74/98 DAT-SCHAUB [1999] ECR I-8759 p 143, 145, 148, 305.

  • C- 76/98 P & C-77/98 P Ajinomoto v Council [2001] ECR I-3223 (appeal of T-159/94 & T-160/94 Ajinomoto v Council [1997] ECR II-2461) p 177, 245.

  • C-102/98 & C-211/98 Kocak [2000] ECR I-1287 p 132, 133, 137.

  • C-179/98 Mesbah [1999] ECR I-7955 p 132, 155.

  • C-300 & 392/98 Christian Dior [2000] ECR I-11307 p 205, 227, 239–240, 242, 247, 294.

  • C-377/98 Netherlands v Parliament and Council (Biotech) [2001] ECR I-7079 p 205–206, 248, 265–267, 268, 270, 278, 282, 285, 301, 305, 306, 320.

  • C-452/98 Nederlandse Antillen v Council [2001] ECR I-8973 p 205.

  • T-2/99 T. Port v Council [2001] ECR II-2093 p 218.

  • T-3/99 Bananatrading [2001] ECR II-2123 p 218.

  • T-7/99 Medici Grimm v Council [2000] ECR II-2671 p 205, 247.

  • T-18/99 Cordis [2001] ECR II-913 p 218.

  • T-30/99 Bocchi [2001] ECR II-943 p 218.

  • C-33/99 Fahmi [2001] ECR I-2415 p 132.

  • T-55/99 CETM v Commission [2000] ECR II-3213 p 230, 247.

  • T-58/99 Mukand v Council [2001] ECR II-2521 p 232, 247.

  • C-63/99 Gloszczuk [2001] ECR I-6369 p 130, 139–140, 156.

  • T-71/99 Meyer v Commission [1999] ECR II-1727 p 164.

  • C-89/99 Groeneveld [2001] ECR I-5851 p 205, 227, 240, 247, 294.

  • C-178/99 Salzmann [2001] ECR I-4421 p 142.

  • T-188/99 Euroalliages [2001] ECR II-1757 p 229, 247.

  • T-196/99 Area Cova v Council [2001] ECR II-3597 p 79, 80, 288.

  • C-235/99 Kondova [2001] ECR I-6427 p 130, 139–140, 156.

  • C-248/99 P France v Monsanto and Commission [2002] ECR I-1 (appeal of T-112/97 Monsanto v Commission [1999] ECR II-1277) p 205.

  • C-257/99 Barkoci and Malik [2001] ECR I-6557 p 130, 139–140, 156.

  • C-268/99 Jany [2001] ECR I-8615 p 140.

  • C-300 & 388/99 P Area Cova v Council [2001] ECR I-983 (appeal of T-194/95 Area Cova v Council [1999] ECR II-2271) p 79, 288.

  • C-301/99 P Area Cova v Council [2001] ECR I-1005 (appeal of T-12/96 Area Cova v Council [1999] ECR II-2301) p 79, 288.

  • C-307/99 OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft [2001] ECR I- 3159 p 205, 218, 219.

  • C-317/99 Kloosterboer [2001] ECR I-9863 p 231–232, 247.

  • C-13/00 Commission v Ireland (Irish Berne) [2002] ECR I-2943 p 158–159, 172, 241, 162, 239, 292, 297, 298.

  • C-27/00 & 122/00 Omega Air [2002] ECR I-2569 p 206, 213, 221, 224.

  • T-56/00 Dole v Council and Commission [2003] ECR II-579 p 206.

  • (p.330) T-94/00, T-111/00 & T-159/00 Rica Foods v Commission [2002] ECR II-4677 (appeal was C-41/03 P Rica Foods v Commission [2005] ECR I-6875) p 206.

  • T-123/00 Thomae v Commission [2002] ECR II-5193 p 207, 247.

  • C-76/00 P Petrotub v Council [2003] ECR I-79 (appeal of T-33 & 34/98 Petrotub and Republica v Council [1999] ECR II-3837) p 166, 170, 232–234, 236, 237, 247, 248, 302, 305.

  • T-151/00 Laboratoire du Bain v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-23 p 222.

  • C-162/00 Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer [2002] ECR I-1049 p 135, 136, 137.

  • C-188/00 Kurz [2002] ECR I-10691 p 120, 122, 155.

  • C-251/00 Ilumitrónica [2002] ECR I-10433 p 142, 143, 145, 148, 149, 171, 302.

  • T-301/00 Groupe Fremaux SA v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-25 p 222.

  • T-320/00 CD Cartondruck AG v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-27 p 222.

  • T-383/00 Beamglow [2005] ECR II-5459 p 222.

  • C-422/00 Capespan [2003] ECR I-597 p 206.

  • C-438/00 Kolpak [2003] ECR I-4135 p 135, 136, 137–139, 153, 156, 254.

  • T-19/01 Chiquita v Commission [2005] ECR II-315 p 219–220, 221, 231 235.

  • T-35/01 Shanghai v Council [2004] ECR II-3663 p 229, 247.

  • T-64/01 & T-65/01 Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie [2004] ECR II-521 p 219.

  • C-76/01 P Eurocoton v Council [2003] ECR I-10091 p 229, 247.

  • T-132/01 Euroalliages v Commission [2003] ECR II-2359 p 229, 247.

  • C-171/01 Wählergruppe [2003] ECR I-4301 p 135, 136, 137.

  • C-189/01 Jippes [2001] ECR I-5689 p 261, 282, 284, 285.

  • C-211/01 Commission v Council [2003] ECR I-8913 p 78, 80, 81, 288.

  • C-213/01 P T. Port v Commission [2003] ECR I-2332 (appeal of T-52/99 T. Port v Commission [2001] ECR II-981) p 218.

  • C-281/01 Commission v Council [2002] ECR I-2049 p 78, 80, 82.

  • C-300/01 Salzmann [2003] ECR I-4899 p 142.

  • C-317/01 & 369/01 Abatay & Sahin [2003] ECR I-12301 p 124–125, 155, 156.

  • C-452/01 Ospelt [2003] ECR I-9743 p 142, 172.

  • C-465/01 Commission v Austria [2004] ECR I-8291 p 160, 162.

  • C-491/01 British American Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453 p 206, 305.

  • C-23/02 Alami [2003] ECR I-1399 p 132, 133.

  • C-49/02 Heidelberger [2004] ECR I-6129 p 228, 247.

  • C-93/02 P Biret v Council [2003] ECR I-10497 p 218–219, 224, 233.

  • C-94/02 P Biret and Cie v Council [2003] ECR I-10565 218–219, 224.

  • T-212/02 Commune de Champagne v Council and Commission [2007] ECR II-2017 p 79, 80, 206–207, 288.

  • C-245/02 Budvar [2004] ECR I-1989 p 227–228, 247.

  • T-274/02 Ritek v Council [2006] ECR II-4305 p 234, 247.

  • C-275/02 Ayaz [2004] ECR I-8765 p 120, 121, 123.

  • C-286/02 Bellio [2004] ECR I-3465 p 143, 145.

  • C-327/02 Panayotova [2004] ECR I-11055 p 140, 155.

  • (p.331) C-358/02 Haddad [2004] ECR I-1563 p. 132.

  • C-373/02 Öztürk [2004] ECR I-3605 p 132, 133.

  • C-377/02 Van Parys [2005] ECR I-1465 p 115, 143, 145–146, 219–223, 225, 231, 235, 301, 302, 312.

  • C-422/02 P Europe Chemi-Con v Council [2005] ECR I-791 p 229, 247.

  • C-467/02 Cetinkaya [2004] ECR I-895 p 120, 123.

  • C-40/03 P Rica Foods v Commission [2005] ECR I-681 (appeal of T-332/00 & T-350/00 Rica Foods and Free Trade Foods v Commission [2002] ECR II-4755) p 206.

  • C-94/03 Commission v Council [2006] ECR I-1 p 78, 80, 81.

  • C-136/03 Dörr [2005] ECR I-4759 p 120, 121, 123.

  • C-213/03 Pêcheurs de l’ Étang de Berre v EDF [2004] ECR I-7357 p 251–253, 257, 275, 276, 278, 282, 284, 293, 294.

  • C-219/03 Commission v Spain, Judgment of 9 December 2004 p 260.

  • C-230/03 Sedef [2006] ECR I-157 p 120.

  • C-239/03 Commission v France (Étang de Berre) [2004] ECR I-9325 p 257–260, 282, 284, 292, 294, 297, 298, 304.

  • C-244/03 France v Parliament and Council [2005] ECR I-4021 p 207.

  • C-254/03 P Vieira v Commission [2005] ECR I-237 (appeal of T-44/01, T-119/01 & T-126/01 Vieira v Commission [2003] ECR II-1209) p 212, 262, 285.

  • C-265/03 Simutenkov [2005] ECR I-2579 p 135, 138–139, 151, 153, 156, 254, 293, 294, 299.

  • C-342/03 Spain v Council [2005] ECR I-1975 p 164.

  • C-347/03 ERSA [2005] ECR I-3785 p 78, 79, 80, 207, 288, 302.

  • C-373/03 Aydinli [2005] ECR I-6181 p 120, 123.

  • C-374/03 Gürol [2005] ECR I-6199 p 127–128, 153, 293, 295.

  • C-383/03 Dogan [2005] ECR I-6237 120, 121, 123.

  • T-4/04 Achaiber Sing v Commission [2006] ECR II-41 p 206.

  • C-23–5/04 Sfakianakis [2006] ECR I-1265 p 111, 112.

  • T-107/04 Aluminium Silicon Mill Products v Council [2007] ECR II-669 p 234, 247.

  • T-170/04 FederDoc v Commission [2005] ECR II-2503 p 207, 303.

  • T-201/04 Microsoft [2007] ECR II-3601 p 230, 234, 264, 282.

  • T-226/04 Italy v Commission [2006] ECR II-29 p 235–236.

  • C-231/04 Confcooperative [2006] ECR I-61 p 78, 79, 80, 207, 288, 302.

  • C-313/04 Egenberger [2006] ECR I-6331 p 229, 234, 247.

  • C-317/04 & C-318/04 European Parliament v Council and Commission (PNR) [2006] ECR I-4721 p. 78, 79, 80, 81, 86, 88, 93.

  • C-344/04 IATA [2006] ECR I-403 p 267–270, 272, 275, 278, 282, 285, 304, 306, 313.

  • C-351/04 Ikea Wholesale [2007] ECR I-7723 p 235, 247.

  • T-462/04 HEG Ltd v Council [2008] ECR II-3685 p 234.

  • C-471/04 Keller Holding [2006] ECR I-2107 p 141–142, 151, 172.

  • C-479/04 Laserdisken [2006] ECR I-8089 p 262, 282, 285.

  • (p.332) T-498/04 Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group v Council [2009] ECR II-1969 p 234, 247.

  • C-502/04 Torun [2006] ECR I-1563 p 120, 123.

  • C-522/04 Commission v Belgium [2007] ECR I-5701 p 160.

  • C-4/05 Güzeli [2006] ECR I-10279 p 120, 135, 136.

  • C-16/05 Tum [2007] ECR I-7415 p 126, 154, 155.

  • C-97/05 Gattoussi [2006] ECR I-11917 p 135, 136, 141, 268.

  • C-173/05 Commission v Italy [2007] ECR I-4917 p 160.

  • T-221/05 Huvis v Council [2008] ECR II-124 p 236–237, 247, 248.

  • C-246/05 Häupl [2007] ECR I-4673 p 228, 247.

  • T-295/05 Document Security Systems v ECB [2007] ECR II-2835 p 207.

  • C-325/05 Derin [2007] ECR I-6495 p 120, 123.

  • C-335/05 Řízení [2007] ECR I-4307 p 228. 247.

  • C-336/05 Echouikh [2006] ECR I-5223 p 132, 133.

  • C-345/05 Commission v Portugal [2006] ECR I-10633 p 160.

  • C-431/05 Merck [2007] ECR I-7001 p 212, 240, 241, 242, 247, 292, 294.

  • C-447/05 & C-448/05 Thomson Multimedia [2007] ECR I-2049 p 228, 247.

  • T-45/06 Reliance Industries [2008] ECR II-2399 p 229, 237–238.

  • C-56/06 Euro Tex [2007] ECR I-4859 p 111, 112.

  • C-104/06 Commission v Sweden [2007] ECR I-671 p 160.

  • T-119/06 Usha Martin Ltd v Council and Commission, Judgment of 9 September 2010, nyr p 234.

  • C-120/06 P & C-121/06 P FIAMM v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6513 (appeal of T-69/00 FIAMM [2005] ECR II-5393 and T-135/01 Fedon & Figli [2005] ECR II-29) p 222–223, 224, 226, 231, 233, 235, 243,

  • C-143/06 Ludwigs-Apotheke [2007] ECR I-9623 p 110–111, 172.

  • T-143/06 MTZ Polyfilms v Council [2009] ECR II-4133 p 234, 247.

  • C-228/06 Soysal [2009] ECR I-1031 p 126, 143, 147, 148, 155, 171, 172, 302.

  • C-238/06 P Develey v OHIM [2007] ECR I-9375 p 206.

  • C-242/06 Sahin [2009] ECR I-8465 125.

  • C-248/06 Commission v Spain [2008] ECR I-47 p 160.

  • C-255/06 P Yedaş Tarim v Council and Commission [2007] ECR I-94 (appeal of T-367/03 P Yedaş Tarim v Council and Commission [2006] ECR II-873) p 164–165, 170.

  • C-265/06 Commission v Portugal [2008] ECR I-2245 p 160.

  • C-275/06 Promusicae [2008] ECR I-271 p 228, 247.

  • C-276/06 El Youssfi [2007] ECR I-2851 p 132, 133.

  • C-294/06 Payir [2008] ECR I-203 p 120, 121, 124, 155.

  • C-308/06 Intertanko [2008] ECR I-4057 p 130, 270–286, 304, 306–310, 313–321.

  • C-325/06 P Galileo [2007] ECR I-44 (appeal of T-279/03 Galileo v Commission [2006] ECR II-1291) p 227–228.

  • C-310/06 FTS International [2007] ECR I-6749 p 230, 247.

  • C-349/06 Polat [2007] ECR I-8167 p 120, 121, 123.

  • (p.333) C-372/06 Asda Stores [2007] ECR I-11223 p 143, 146.

  • T-407/06 & T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes v Council [2010] ECR II-747 p 234.

  • T-409/06 Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes Factory v Council [2010] ECR II-807 p 229, 247.

  • C-92/07 Commission v Netherlands (Turkish Residence Permit Charges) [2010] ECR I-3683 p 160, 162, 297.

  • C-157/07 Krankenheim [2008] ECR I-8061 p 141–142, 151.

  • C-188/07 Commune de Mesquer v Total [2008] ECR I-4501 p 281, 285.

  • C-204/07 P CAS v Commission [2008] ECR I-6135 (appeal of T-23/03 CAS v Commission [2007] ECR II-289) p 164, 168, 169.

  • C-337/07 Altun [2008] ECR I-10323 120.

  • C-406/07 Commission v Greece [2009] ECR I-62 160–161.

  • C-453/07 Er [2008] ECR I-7299 p 120.

  • C-484/07 Pehlivan, 16 June 2011 p 120, 121.

  • C-485/07 Akdas, 26 May 2011 p 132, 133.

  • C-521/07 Commission v Netherlands [2008] ECR I-4873 p 161–162.

  • C-540/07 Commission v Italy [2009] ECR I-10983 p 161, 169, 297.

  • C-562/07 Commission v Spain [2009] ECR I-9553 p. 160–161.

  • C-13/08 Stamm [2008] ECR I-11087 p 141, 151.

  • C-105/08 Commission v Portugal [2010] ECR I-5331 p 161, 169, 297.

  • C-152/08 Kahveci [2008] ECR I-6291 p 135, 136, 139, 153.

  • C-153/08 Commission v Spain [2009] ECR I-9735 p 161.

  • C-214/08 P Guigard v Commission [2009] ECR I-91 p 163.

  • T-237/08 Abadía v OHIM [2010] ECR II-1583 p 228, 247.

  • C-260/08 HEKO [2009] ECR I-11571 p 228, 247.

  • C-303/08 Bozkurt [2010] ECR I-13445 p 120, 121.

  • C-351/08 Grimme [2009] ECR I-1077 p 135, 141, 151.

  • C-355/08 P WWF-UK v Council and Commission [2009] ECR I-73 (appeal of T-91/07 WWF-UK v Council [2008] ECR II-81) p 263, 282, 283–284, 303.

  • T-367/08 Abouchar v Commission [2009] ECR II-128 p 162.

  • C-373/08 Hoesch Metals and Alloys [2010] ECR I-951 p 228, 247.

  • C-386/08 Brita [2010] ECR I-1289 p 63, 67, 111, 112.

  • C-428/08 Monsanto v CefetrA [2010] ECR I-6765 p 228, 247.

  • C-444/08 P Região autónoma dos Açores v Council [2009] ECR I-200 (appeal of T-37/04 Região autónoma dos Açores v Council [2008] ECR II-103) p 263–264, 282, 283–284, 285.

  • C-462/08 Bekleyen [2010] ECR I-563 p 120, 121, 124.

  • C-487/08 Commission v Spain [2010] ECR I-4843 p 161, 169, 267.

  • C-541/08 Fokus Invest AG [2010] ECR I-1025 p 142, 149.

  • T-584/08 Cantiere v Commission [2011] ECR II-63 p 222.

  • C-14/09 Genc [2010] ECR I-931 p 120, 121, 123.

  • C-20/09 Commission v Portugal, Judgment of 7 April 2011 p 160, 161.

  • (p.334) C-39/09 P SPM v Council and Commission [2010] ECR I-38 (appeal of T-128/05 SPM v Council & Commission [2008] ECR II-260) p 163–164.

  • C-70/09 Hengartner [2010] ECR I-7233 p 142, 149, 172.

  • C-72/09 Rimbaud [2010] ECR I-10659 p 130, 142, 149.

  • T-292/09 Mugraby v Council and Commission, Judgment of 6 September 2011 nyr p 165.

  • C-102/09 Camar [2010] ECR I-4045 p 108, 110, 115, 150, 151.

  • C-115/09 Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (Trianel), Judgment of 12 May 2011 p. 256, 257, 282, 284, 294.

  • C-155/09 Commission v Greece [2011] ECR I-65 p 160–161.

  • C-160/09 Katsivardas [2010] ECR I-4591 p 63, 67, 70, 115, 150, 151, 154, 293.

  • T-210/09 Formenti Soleco v Commission, Judgment of 19 May 2011 p 162–163.

  • C-240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republic (LZ VLK), 8 March 2011 nyr p 253–256, 258, 259, 272, 282, 284, 285, 292, 293, 294, 297, 304.

  • C-267/09 Commission v Portugal, Judgment of 5 May 2011 p 161, 169, 267.

  • C-288/09 & C-289/09 BSB and Pace, 14 April 2011 p 228, 230, 294.

  • C-300/09 & 301/09 Toprak and Oguz [2010] ECR I-12845 p 125–126, 156.

  • C-393/09 Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace v Ministerstvo kultury [2010] ECR I-13971

  • C-10/10 Commission v Austria, 16 June 2011 p 228, 247.

  • T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Parliament and Council, 6 September 2011 p 234, 264, 282, 283, 284.

  • C-101/10 Pavlov, 7 July 2011 p 135, 136, 151.

  • C-186/10 Tural Oguz, 21 July 2011 p 126.

  • C-187/10 Unal, 29 September 2011 p 120, 121.

  • C-387/10 Commission v Austria, 29 September 2011 p 160–161.

Notes:

(1) With the exception of GATT 1947, which as noted in the introduction falls within the scope of this study.

(2) A number of additional cases where EU Agreement references could be found were discovered and some are cited in a number of footnotes in Chapters II, IV, and V, but have as noted therein, not been included in the charts in those chapters (10/61 Commission v Italy [1961] ECR 1; 2–3/62 Commission v Luxembourg and Belgium [1962] ECR 445; C-284/95 Safety Hi-Tech [1998] ECR I-4301; C- 341/95 Bettati v Safety Hi-Tech [1998] ECR I-4355; C-410/03 Commission v Italy [2005] ECR I–3507; C-111/05 Aktiebolaget NN [2007] ECR I-2697; C-173/07 Emirates Airlines [2008] ECR I-5237; C- 549/07 Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia [2008] ECR I-11061; C-204/08 Rehder v Air Baltic [2009] ECR I-6073; C-63/09 Axel Walz v Clickair [2010] ECR I-4239).