No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Kingdom of the Netherlands v. European Parliament & Council of the European Union
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- International Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002
References
1 Directive 98/44/EC of the European Council and of the Parliament of 6 July 1998 on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, 1998 OJ. (L 213) 13. European Union legal documents are available online at <http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html>.
2 Treaty Establishing The European Community, Mar. 25,195 7,298 UNTS 11, as amended by Treaty of Amsterdam, Oct. 2, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 340) 1, reprinted in 37 ILM 56 (1998) [hereinafter EC Treaty].
3 Once adopted, European directives are binding on member states. Any state not implementing a directive, or not implementing it properly, can be taken to task by the Court. An action to have a directive revoked does not, however, suspend the obligation on the member states to implement it. For this reason, the Dutch government initiated a separate action before the Court’s president to obtain a suspension. On July 25, 2000, the president refused the Netherlands’ request on the ground that it had not succeeded in demonstrating that implementation of the directive would result in serious and irreparable damage. According to the president, fundamental ethical objections did not constitute serious and irreparable damage. Case C-377/98 R, Kingdom of the Netherlands v. European Parliament, 2000 ECR 1-6229.
4 Case C-377/98, Kingdom of the Netherlands v. European Parliament, 2001 ECR 1-7079 [hereinafter judgment]. See the Web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, <http://www.curia.eu.int/en/index.htm>, for its recent judgments and the opinions of the advocate general.
5 Judgment, supra note 4, para. 15.
6 Convention on the Grant of European Patents, October 5,1973, at <http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/index.html>.
7 [Author’s Note: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15,1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, in World Trade Organization, The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 365 [hereinafter The Legal. Texts], reprinted in 33 ILM 81 (1994).]
8 Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 31 ILM 818 (1992).
9 [Author’s Note: Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Apr. 15,1994, in The Legal Texts, supra note 7, at 3, reprinted in 33 ILM 1143 (1994).]
10 [Author’s Note: Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, Apr. 15,1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, in The Legal Texts, supra note 7, at 138.]
11 Judgment, supra note 4, paras. 52-55 (citations omitted).
12 Id, para. 58.
13 Id., para. 63.
14 Id., para. 65.
15 Id., para. 66 (quoting Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 1).
16 Id. ‘
17 Id., para. 69. Article 5(2) of the Convention on Biological Diversity provides: “An element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by means of a technical process, including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, may constitute a patentable invention, even if the structure of that element is identical to that of a natural element.”
18 Article 5(1) provides: “The human body, at the various stages of its formation and development, and the simple discovery of one of its elements, including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, cannot constitute patentable inventions.”
19 Judgment, supra note 4, para. 75.
20 Id., para. 79.
21 Id., para. 54 (citation omitted) (follows Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, para. 147 (June 14, 2001), Judgment, supra note 4).
22 See Pescatore, Pierre, Die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs zur innergemeinschaftlichen Wirkung völkerrechtlicher Abkmnmen, in Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnunc, Internationale Gerichtsbarkeit, Menschenrechte: Festschrift Für Hermann Mosler 661, 686 (Bernhardt, Rudolf ed., 1993)Google Scholar; see also Joined Cases 21-24/72, International Fruit Company v. Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit, 1972 ECR 1219, paras. 14—18; Case 181/73, Haegemann v. Kingdom of Belgium, 1974 ECR 449, paras 2-6; Case C-l 62/96, A. Racke GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Mainz, 1998 ECR 1-3655, para. 46.
23 Schmid, Christoph, Der Status des GATT/WTO-Systems im Gemeinschaftsrecht, 51 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 190, 192 (1998)Google Scholar-; Rudolf Streinz, Europarecht, at para. 431 (2001).
24 Kirsten Schmalenbach, [Commentary on Article 300], para. 79, in EUV/EGV-Kommentar (Christian Calliess & Matthias Ruffert eds., 1999).
23 See Till Müller-Ibold, [Commentary on Article 133], para. 58, in EGV-Kommentar (Carl Otto Lenz ed., 2d ed. 1999).
26 Case 12/86, Demirel v. Stadt Schwäbisch Gmund, 1987 ECR 3719, para. 7; see Haegemann v. Kingdom of Belgium, para. 5.
27 See Case C-149/96, Portuguese Republic v. Council, 1999 ECR 1-8395, paras. 32-47; see also Egli, Patricia & Kokott, Juliane, Case Report: Portuguese Republic v. Council of the European Union, 94 AJIL 740 (2000)Google Scholar; Griller, Stefan, Judicial Enforceability of WTO Law in the European Union, 2 J. Int’l Econ. L. 441, 450 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (annotation of case C-149/96).
28 Ernst-Ulrich, Petersmann, Darf die EG das Völkerrecht ignorieren ? 7 Europäische Zeitschrift Für Wirtschaftsrecht 325 (1997)Google Scholar; Everling, Ulrich, Will Europe Slip over Bananas? 33 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 401 (1996)Google Scholar; Georg, M. Berrisch, Zum “Bananen”—UrteildesEuGHvom5.10.1994—Rs. C-280/93, Deulschland/Rat der Europäischen Union, 29 Europarecht 461, 469 (1994)Google Scholar; see also the Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro, para. 27, Case C-53/96, Hermès International v. FHT Marketing Choice BV, 1998 ECR 1-3603.
29 Judgment, supra note 4, para. 52; see also, e.g., Case C-301/97, Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Council, 2001 ECR 1-8853, para. 53.
30 Case C-280/93, Federal Republic of Germany v. Council, 1994 ECR 1-4973, para. 109.
31 Portuguese Republic v. Council, paras. 32-47; Joined Cases C-300/98, Parfums Christian Dior SA v. Tuk Consultancy BV, & C-392/98, Assco Gerüste GmbH v. Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG, 2000 ECR I-11307, para. 42. These joined cases are discussed at 95 AJIL 661 (2001).
32 Judgment, supra note 4, para. 52.
33 Portuguese Republic v. Council, para. 47 (see paras. 42, 45, and 46 for the Court’s reasoning).
34 This proposition may not be absolute. See Thomas, von Danwitz, Der EuGH und das Wirtschaftsrechl, 50 Juristenzeitung 727 (2001)Google Scholar.
35 See Egli & Kokott, supra note 27, at 745.
36 Judgment, supra note 4, para. 55.
37 See Case 70/87, Fédération de l’industrie de l’huilerie de la CEE (Fediol) v. Commission, 1989 ECR 1781, para. 19.