The Court of the Eurasian Economic Union: Some Initial Jurisprudence
This article offers an overview of the first years of case law of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union, which started its work on 1 January 2015. Both procedural and substantive issues are covered, ranging from the pre-litigation procedure and the presentation of new pleas in law during court proceedings to the mutual recognition of customs authorities’ decisions in the Union and the deferral of the decision to impose anti-dumping measures beyond the maximum duration of an anti-dumping investigation.
The present chapter examines the provisions of the law of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) on the free movement of persons, focusing on workers. It asks whether there is a “Civis Eurasiaticus” and what this status means. Under EAEU law, there are a number of protections for workers and their family members, but due to a number of limitations the overall status is significantly less advantageous than that of workers under EU law. Moreover, EAEU law appears to pursue a non-integration rationale. A comparison with the citizenship provisions of the Russia-Belarus Union state legal framework reveals that the latter contains at least some more far-reaching provisions e.g. in the field of permanent residence rights. One may hope that based on inspiration from this source and on the interpretive “wiggle room” of EAEU law provisions the future case law of the EAEU Court continues to adhere to a rights-based reading of EAEU law and develops its own “citizenship spirit”.
Accession of Russia and Kazakhstan to the World Trade Organization (WTO) constitutes a landmark event in the history of this organization, especially in relation to trade in energy, in general, and trade in electricity, in particular. As a result, the role of the WTO in regulating trade in electricity has increasingly grown. However, the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union, a treaty that binds both Russia and Kazakhstan, necessitates additional regulation for trade in electricity, concurrent with law of the WTO. Recently, this treaty was amended by the Protocol on Common Electricity Market on 1 July 2019. As a result, compatibility issues between the rules of the WTO and the Eurasian Economic Union arise. This article concludes that the law of the WTO can be relevant to trade in electricity between Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union and third countries because of the specific place of the rules of the WTO under the Eurasian Economic Union legal order.
Since its establishment in 2015 the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union (the 'Court') has been largely seen as a mechanism for resolving disputes between governments or for interpreting the law of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) in abstracto via its advisory opinions. As a result, its potential has been largely underutilized by economic entities despite a liberal locus standi and the possibility to challenge the validity of both individual acts (for instance, in the field of EAEU competition law) and regulatory acts of general application adopted by the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC), including antidumping measures or even technical regulations. This article aims to discuss how the EAEU Court may help private actors to protect their rights and legitimate interests under EAEU law. It examines the different types of actions available to economic entities, the admissibility criteria and the consequences of the Court's judgements. As the analysis of the EAEU Court's case-law shows, the action for failure to act is of particular importance as it may be used by private entities as an indirect mechanism to enhance Member States' compliance with their obligations under EAEU law. Finally, the authors also address the issue of the sources of law that private actors could rely upon.
The norms of Eurasian Economic Union law and the norms of WTO law mostly govern international trade relations. Therefore, the spheres of international relations governed by WTO law and the law of the Eurasian Economic Union often overlap. Moreover, the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union contains references to WTO agreements. This paper is aimed at determining specific characteristics of challenging measures adopted by the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) in the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). The analysis is based on four existing disputes where complainants put forward an issue connected with the inconsistency of EAEU law or its interpretation and its application to WTO obligations. Russia is the respondent in three out of four disputes mentioned above, and Kazakhstan is the respondent in one of the four disputes. The authors conclude that WTO law and EAEU law should be interpreted and applied on the basis of the principle of harmonization. However, the norms of EAEU law are not considered by the DSB as rules of law. Rather, they are considered as measures applied by EAEU member-states, while taking into account the fact that the EAEU is not a member of the WTO. Moreover, all the actions of the EAEU and its bodies are attributable to every EAEU member-state. The authors also conclude that not only the content of EAEU law norms as such, but also the method of their interpretation and application is of great importance in the context of challenging measures adopted by the EAEU in the DSB. The paper contains more detailed analysis of the Panel Report on Russia – Railway equipment. The other four disputes are briefly covered with a special focus on challenging measures adopted by the EAEU in the DSB. The paper makes several concluding remarks in respect to the specific characteristics of challenging such measures in the DSB.
The article is devoted to a particular form of freedom of assembly — the right to counter-demonstrate. The author underlines the value of this right as an element of democratic society, but also acknowledges the risk of violent actions among participants of opposing demonstrations. Due to this risk, the government may adopt adequate measures restricting the right to counter-demonstrate, certain types of which are analyzed in this paper.
Development of standards of international controllability is reviewed in the article. Institutional approach is applied to development of international legal regime of Energy Charter. Definition of controllability is connected to development of international standards of dispute settlement, which are described in the article in detail. In connection with controllability, Russian interest, defense of investment in European Union and ecological investment encouragement, is reviewed in the article.
мировое управление и управляемость, Мировая экономика, международное экономическое право, энергетическая хартия, International control and controllability, International economics, international economic law, Energy Charter
международное частное право; недвижимость; ; школа бартолистов; бартолисты; теория статутов; статуарная теория/