Jerry wrote:CopperLine wrote:Jerry wrote:Copperline, I'm curious, are members of the EU obliged to adhere to decisions made by the ICJ or ECJ?
And since you, as far as I recall, did not express a view on the Jennifer Lopez saga, is her contract enforceable?
(apologies for going a bit off topic)
Jerry,
To be honest the JLo thing bored me. Same old, same old.
Enforceability of the contract ? Depends on where (jursidiction) that the contract was signed. I doubt that it was signed in TRNC (though it is possible) so international private commercial law applies. In the absence of information about the contract all else is speculation.
The ICJ and ECJ while both international courts operate differently. Effectively the ECJ deals now not with international law but with European Union law in all its diversity which is a now distinct family of law. The answer to your question then is yes EU state are obliged to comply with and enforce ECJ judgments, failure to so can lead to hefty financial penalties.
The ICJ on the other hand is a strictly international court adjudicating
only between state parties and UN organisations, and of giving opinions to the same. The question of 'adherence' or compliance is quite complicated - it depends on how the case was referred, what role the ICJ is playing, issues of jurisidiction and justiciability, and what kind of decision it makes. States have also refused the jurisdiction of the ICJ, most (in)famously in the case of Nicaragua v. United States of America. Ironically Libya - a supposedly rogue state - is one of the most respectful of states vis the ICJ.
The truth is that the ICJ has been far less used than might be imagined. Many critics say that whatever its decisions, it doesn't have the teeth for enforcement.
Thanks for that. So, who instigates proceedings in the ECJ, is it the EU for non compliance of its laws or can one member request the ECJ to take action against another member state? Should Turkey worry about the authority of the ECJ if it ever joins the EU?
If Turkey joins the EU then it is absolutely the case that Turkey would be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ and therefore subject to its decisions. Equally Turkey could take actions to the ECJ.
Regarding initiation of proceedings, the ECJ is effectively the highest court in the EU and so only deals with issues that could not be resolved in the national courts. Typically this will be in novel cases/issues, conflict of laws, or appeals. The key procedure is this :
It is thus through references for preliminary rulings that any European citizen can seek clarification of the European Union rules which affect him. Although such a reference can be made only by a national court, all the parties to the proceedings before that court, the Member States and the institutions of the European Union may take part in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.
[url]
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7024/#competences[/url]
So it could be that you as an individual could press a case through domestic courts and all the way up to the ECJ if the national court found it could not adjudicate or otherwise found it necessary to refer on to the ECJ. States and all other legal entities including 'natural persons', in principle, can access the ECJ subject to the above proviso.
A strong (and familiar) example is that of Apostolides v Orams which went (if I remember correctly):
A v O in RoC court. Judgment not enforceable --> UK High Court : A wins over O --> O appeals to Court of Appeal, CoA seeks judgment from ECJ on enforceability under EU law --> ECJ sends judgment back to CoA --> CoA say to O 'on yer bike'. But it needed Apostolides to follow it through to the end -- good for him, good for all of us, including those of us in northern Cyprus.
A
