The «minimum harmonisation» exception was reaffirmed in Opinion 1/03 on the Lugano Convention, where a full court summarised the exception's rationale by stating that «the Court did not find [in Opinion 2/91] that the Community had
exclusive competence where, because both the Community provisions and those of an international convention laid down minimum standards, there was nothing to prevent the full application of Community law by the Member States» (para. 123).
Not exact matches
[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).
This dynamic was at play also in the context of the Marrakesh Treaty,
where the discussion revolves around the question of whether the EU is endowed with an
exclusive or a shared
competence to conclude the agreement.
These provisions conflict with EU law on the
exclusive competence of the EU court [s] for claims which involve EU law, even for claims
where EU law would only partially be affected.
Obligatory mixity arises
where a mixed agreement is required because the EU has
exclusive competence over one area of an agreement, but no
competence at all over another area.