According to this institution, in this journalistic context, the term “EU” should be interpreted as referring to the heads of state and government of the Member States of the European Union. In this context, the European Council stressed the way in which the EU-Turkey declaration in this case was published, namely that of a press release which, by its very nature, has only an informative purpose and has no legal value. The defendant points out that this informational support is provided by the press service of the General Secretariat of the Council in order to address the general public. This explains, on the one hand, the positioning of a double head “European Council/Council of the European Union” in some documents published on the internet. Like what. B the online version of press release 144/16 relating to the eu-Turkey declaration, submitted by the applicant, to a double head “European Council/Council of the European Union” and, secondly, to the fact that some documents are sometimes accidentally placed under inappropriate sections of the website shared by these two institutions and the President of the European Council. It is clear from this global context, prior to the publication online on the Council`s website by press release 144/16, which presents the eu-Turkey declaration, that the European Council, as an institution, has not taken a decision to conclude an agreement with the Turkish Government on behalf of the Union and that it has also not obliged the Union to conclude Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Accordingly, the European Council has not adopted a measure corresponding to the impugned measure as described by the applicant and the content of which was set out in this press release. The applicant disputes the allegation that the European Council can, on the one hand, to argue that the members of this institution acted in this case in their capacity as representatives of their governments or states and argues, on the other hand, that The Member States were thus in a position to act on behalf of the Union by linking them to a third country by what it calls the `attacked agreement`, which is otherwise contrary to the domestic law standards of the applicable EU law. In a letter from the register of 3 November 2016, the European Council was asked to comply with the measures of the procedure adopted by the Court in accordance with Article 89, paragraph 3, points (a) and (d) and Article 90, paragraph 1, of the Procedure Regulation, while the Council and the Commission have been invited by the Court of Justice to answer certain questions and submit certain documents in accordance with Article 24, paragraph 2, the statute of the European Court of Justice and Article 89, paragraph 3, paragraph (c), of the internal regulation. In this context, these institutions were invited to inform the Court of Justice whether the meeting of 18 March 2016 had resulted in a written agreement and, if necessary, to provide it with all documents to identify the parties who had agreed to the “additional points of action” mentioned in the EU-Turkey declaration. 1. This agreement does not infringe on the rights, obligations and obligations of the Union, its Member States and Turkey under international law: including the international conventions to which they are parties, in particular: with regard to this presentation of the European Council and in view of the ambivalence of the term `members of the European Council` and the term `EU` in the EU-Turkey declaration, as published in press release 144/16, it is appropriate to refer to the documents relating to the meeting of 18 March 2016, in order to define its scope.
Eu-Turkey Agreement Official Document
Napisano w Bez kategorii