Sentences with phrase «as exclusive competence»

This was exactly the case here, as exclusive competence would mean that Member States can no longer act on their own.

Not exact matches

Secondly, to streamline its diplomatic action so to encompass the various areas of shared and exclusive competence (e.g. trade, energy, climate change), and thirdly, to aim at reinforcing the legalisation of those international agreements and institutions that are deemed as capable to protect the EU's strategic endowment and interests.

60) If the Community were to be recognized as having exclusive competence to enter into agreements with non-member countries to harmonize the protection of intellectual property and, at the same time, to achieve harmonization at Community level, the Community institutions would be able to escape the internal constraints to which they are subject in relation to procedures and to rules as to voting.

[4] Quite often, the challenged measures relate to policy areas where member states enjoy wide discretion (if not exclusive competence), which begs the question of whether the measures relate to a «field covered by EU law» if the measures only have to comply with the fundamental freedoms and the principle of non-discrimination and have no direct connection to the requirements of specific EU acts (such as directives and regulations).

The discussion on facultative mixity revolves around a seemingly simple question: to what extent does the nature of the EU's competence (exclusive or shared) over an international agreement (or part of it) determine whether the agreement is supposed to be concluded by the EU alone or together with the Member States as a «mixed» agreement?

It would violate the exclusive competence of the CJEU to interpret EU secondary law in a binding manner if as a consequence the ECtHR had to decide for itself on a plausible interpretation of secondary law in this context (para 246).

The Opinion here is especially noteworthy because it is the first time the Court had to interpret the last part of article 3 (2) TFEU which is commonly understood as a codification of the ERTA case - law on exclusive EU external competence.

«The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union [Opinion 1 / 94 - type exclusivity] or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence [Opinion 1 / 76 - type exclusivity], or in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope [ERTA - type exclusivity].»

On the well - established doctrine of enforcement - follows - substance, that would have been enough to deny the EU exclusive competence for the chapter's dispute settlement provisions as well.

After all, the Union's exclusive competence in the area of monetary policy for the Eurozone Member States entails parallel exclusive competence in external relations, as is confirmed by the wording of Article 219 (3) TFEU.

Be that as it may, in so far as Eurozone Member States are no longer able to fulfil their obligations under the IMF Articles of Agreement without encroaching upon the Union's exclusive competence, it can be argued that they have a duty to take «all appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities» between the Union Treaties and the Articles of Agreement (see Article 351 TFEU).

Besides, national legislators must respect EU law even when they act in exercise of an exclusive competence of the State, so as not to adopt measures capable of compromising the protection of legal positions ruled on at the EU level.

Trade and customs policy are an exclusive competence of the EU, so unless the EU negotiates an agreement with the UK, the kind of exit you propose, denouncing the Treaties, will oblige to treat the UK as a completly foreign country, imposing customs duties, trade defense instruments, etc..

In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action can not be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.