Antoniadis, A. (2005) 'The Chiquita and Van Parys judgments : rules, exceptions and the law.', Legal issues of economic integration., 32 (4). pp. 461-476.
The judgments in Chiquita and Van Parys are poised between the jurisprudence constante denying direct effect to the WTO Agreement and proposals furnished by the academic community and Advocates General to broaden the scope of the so-called Nakajima doctrine which provides an exception from the general prohibition. Essentially, the suggestion was that the Court should give effect to Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) recommendations identifying the incompatibility of Community legislation with the WTO Agreement and review the legality of Community acts under WTO law. Both judgments, properly construed, must lead to the conclusion that the Court followed the strict line dating back to International Fruit denying direct effect lato sensu to WTO law, elaborated its previous case-law and dispelled any expectations raised by the judgment-aberration in Biret. The Court has attracted criticism for its position denying direct effect to WTO law and one would expect, in the light of the unequivocal character of the judgments under review, that criticism is destined to continue and probably intensify. This article aims to argue in favour of the Court and contribute to the explanation of the legal and political considerations justifying its position. At the same time, it will attempt to surmise the misunderstandings that gave way to the criticism against the Court and argue against some of the newly-cast polemic thrown at the Court.
|Keywords:||Direct effect, Liability, Chiquita, Van Parys, Court of Justice.|
|Full text:||Full text not available from this repository.|
|Publisher Web site:||http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/productinfo.php?pubcode=LEIE|
|Record Created:||22 Feb 2008|
|Last Modified:||10 May 2013 13:27|
|Social bookmarking:||Export: EndNote, Zotero | BibTex|
|Usage statistics||Look up in GoogleScholar | Find in a UK Library|