Autoritet suda EU ispred pravne sigurnosti - presuda MOX

Abstract

Presuda Suda Evropske unije u sporu povodom arbitraže o pogonu 'Moks' iz 2006. godine ima višestruki značaj za tumačenje i razvoj prava Evropske unije. Spor je inicirala Evropska komisija zahtevom da se utvrdi da je Irska, time što je započela arbitražni postupak protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva na osnovu Konvencije UN o pravu mora, povredila isključivu nadležnost Suda Evropske unije za rešavanje sporova u pogledu tumačenja prava EU, da je spor o pravu EU podnela na rešavanje nenadležnom telu, kao i da je prekršila obavezu saradnje. Sud je našao da čak i samo pristupanje EU mešovitom sporazumu čini materiju tog sporazuma delom prava EU. Presudom je potvrđena isključiva nadležnost Suda Evropske unije za sve sporove povodom prava EU. Dužnost lojalne saradnje protumačena je kao ograničenje prava država članica da uživaju prava i vrše obaveze koja imaju po međunarodnom pravu. Zajedničko dejstvo stavova iznetih u presudi dovodi do praktičnog razdvajanja pravnih sistema država članica od prava i obaveza koje te države imaju po međunarodnom pravu, uz učvršćivanje uloge institucija EU kao moćnog posrednika.

The focus of this paper is on the judgment of the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) of 2006 in a case instituted by the European Commission against Ireland over the arbitration that Ireland had initiated against the United Kingdom in relation to the MOX plant in Sellafield, UK, and its manifold importance for interpretation and development of the EU law. As it is shown, the Commission claimed that Ireland, by having instituted arbitral proceedings pursuant to UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), breached exclusive competence of CJEU for disputes involving EU, that it has thus submitted a dispute involving EU law to a non-competent authority and infringed upon autonomy of EU law, as well as that it has breached duty of cooperation with EU institutions. The analysis of the problem presented is reflected in several aspects: firstly, the judgment upheld the claims of the Commission, and in doing so broadened exclusive jurisdiction of CJEU for adjudicating disputes involving EU law: mere accession of EU to a mixed agreement subsumes the subject matter of that agreement under the concept of EU law; secondly, the judgment for the first time explicitly affirmed exclusive jurisdiction of the CJEU over disputes involving EU in a particular case; finally, the duty of cooperation was interpreted as limiting the power of member states to independently from the EU institutions pursue their rights and obligations under international law. As the paper concludes, the MOX judgment may be regarded seminal due to the synergetic effect of its dicta on decoupling of legal systems of EU member states from their rights and obligations under international law, together with affirmation of EU institutions as a powerful broker between the two realms.