Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:28:05.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Issues of EC–Cyprus Trade Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Panos Koutrakos
Panos Koutrakos
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Whilst the political aspects of Cyprus's membership to the European Union have become the main focus of academic analysis over the years, its trade relations with the Member States have raised issues just as interesting from a legal point of view. This has been illustrated quite recently by the Anastasiou II judgment delivered by the European Court of Justice in 2000. The article aims at highlighting some of these issues. It is structured in three parts: the first part outlines the provisions of the EC–Cyprus Association Agreement governing trade between the parties; the second part analyses the Court's first ruling on imports of certain produce from the northern part of Cyprus;1 the third part examines the recent judgment of the Court on imports of produce which, whilst originating in the northern part of Cyprus, are being accompanied by phytosanitary certificates issued by the Turkish authorities.

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments, and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 489 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case C-432/92 The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte SP Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and Others [1994] ECR I-3087

2 See SEC (2001) 1745 2001 Regular Report on Cyprus' Progress towards Accession, at 8.

3 [1973] OJ L 133/2.

4 Art 2(1) of the Agreement.

5 Art 3 and Annexes I and II to the Agreement.

6 Art 4.

7 Art 7.

8 Art 8.

9 Art 10.

10 Art 10(3). In addition, it is provided that the measures authorized under that provision and the procedures for applying them should be notified to the Association Council without delay.

11 Art 11.

12 [1977] OJ L 332/2.

13 The more recent one is Decision 1/[2001] [2001] OJ L 127/51.

14 (2001) OJ L 229/6. On behalf of the EC, it was adopted pursuant to Dec 2001/647, (2001) OJ L 229/5.

15 Above n 1; the judgment was annotated by M Cremona, in (1996) 33 CMLRev 125 and N Emiliou, in (1995) 20 ELRev 202.

16 This protocol was incorporated in Council Regulation 2907/77 on the conclusion of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Cyprus [1977] OJ L 339/1.

17 [1977] OJ L 26/20.

18 Reference was made by the Commission to the Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Namibia. ICJ Reports (1971) 16. The thrust of this Opinion was that, following the illegal administration of Namibia by South Africa, the sanctions imposed on the latter should not deprive the population of the former of any advantages derived from international cooperation.

19 Para 37 of the judgment.

20 Para 38; the Court relied upon two earlier judgments, namely Case 218/83 Les Rapides Savoyards and Others [1984] ECR 3105 and Case 12/92 Huygen and Others [1993] ECR I-6381.

21 Para 40.

22 The Court held in para 39 of its judgment that the relationship between the competent authorities of the exporting state and those of the importing state should be based on ‘total confidence in the system of checking the origin of products and implemented by the competent authorities of the exporting State’ and the ‘the importing State [must be] in no doubt that subsequent verification, consultation and settlement of any disputes in respect of the origin of products or the existence of fraud will be carried out efficiently with the cooperation of the authorities concerned’.

23 Ibid, at para 41.

24 In relation to the application of the principle of non-discrimination, the Court mentioned that, on several occasions, the whole population of Cyprus had benefited from advantages stemming from the Association Agreement, especially in relation to the financial protocols concluded pursuant to the Agreement (para 45).

25 See para 46.

26 Para 47. For a different reading of the judgment, see S Talmon, ‘The Cyprus Question before the European Court of Justice’ (2001) 12 EJIL 727.

27 Ibid, para 53. In his Opinion, AG Gulmann stressed the lack of uniform practice amongst the Member States and its repercussions to the Common Commercial Policy in emphatic terms. He argued that ‘it would … be a significant factor with regard to [the] interpretation [of the Association Agreement] if it could be assumed that the Members States had, in fact, in the period after the problem arose, accepted certificates of origin issued by authorities other than the competent R[epublic] O[f] C[yprus] authorities’ (para 62). Furthermore, he argued that ‘it is unacceptable … for Community rules to be interpreted and applied in different ways in the Member States, unless there is a clear basis otherwise. In the area of common commercial policy it is especially important for the Communityrules to be treated uniformly, because application of the law of the importing State can directly affect other Member States as a consequence of the free movement of products in the internal market’ (para 66).

28 Ibid, para 54.

29 See para 51.

30 See Koutrakos, P, Trade, Foreign Policy and Defence in EU Constitutional Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2001), chs 6–7.Google Scholar

31 Case C-219/98 R. v Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte SP Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and Other [2000] ECR I-5241.

32 Above n 17.

33 [1991] OJ L 376/29.

34 [1992] OJ L 363/1.

35 Art 6(4) of Commission Dir 92/103.

36 Ibid, Art 9(1).

37 Para 21 of Anastasiou I, above n 1.

38 Para 24.

39 Para 32.

40 See para 34.

41 Para 36.

42 Para 37.

43 See para 30.

44 Para 32.

45 Ibid.

46 Para 49 of his Opinion.

47 Ibid.

48 Para 40.

49 Para 42.

50 [2000] OJ L 147/1.

51 See Financial Times, 22 May 2001, at 12.

52 Speech given at the Plenary Session of the European Parliament, Strasbourg, 16 May 2001.