SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 2

LIMITATIONS and EXCEPTIONS TO the JURISDICTION of the CJEU IN THE FIELD of COMMON FOREIGN and SECURITY POLICY

ABAD’nin YARGI YETKİSI’ne ORTAK DIŞ ve GÜVENLIK POLİTIKASI ALANINDA GETİRİLEN SINIRLAMALAR ve SINIRLAMALARA GETİRİLEN İSTİSNALAR

Ayşe Füsun Arsava(ATILIM UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF LAW)0000-0003-2275-7664
Pages
481–499
Publication Date
2026-06-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The article examines the provisions of Article 275, paragraph 1, and the exceptions provided for in Article 275, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on the Working Procedure of the European Union, as well as the Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Justice concerning this matter, and the Grand Chamber judgment on the EU's accession to the ECHR.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Article 275, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union excludes from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) the acts created in the field of CFSP and the regulations created pursuant to these acts.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While Article 275, paragraph 1, imposes this limitation on the ECJ's jurisdiction regarding CFSP acts, paragraph 2 of the same article provides an exception for the review of compliance with Article 40 of the EU Treaty and the review of restrictive measures affecting natural and legal persons through annulment proceedings.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The article examines the provisions of Article 275, paragraph 1, and the exceptions provided for in Article 275, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on the Working Procedure of the European Union, as well as the Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Justice concerning this matter, and the Grand Chamber judgment on the EU's accession to the ECHR.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ABAD’nin münhasır yargı yetkisi · ODGP tasarrufları · Orijini itibarı ile siyasi nitelikli tasarruflar

Abstract

Article 275, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union excludes from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) the acts created in the field of CFSP and the regulations created pursuant to these acts. While Article 275, paragraph 1, imposes this limitation on the ECJ's jurisdiction regarding CFSP acts, paragraph 2 of the same article provides an exception for the review of compliance with Article 40 of the EU Treaty and the review of restrictive measures affecting natural and legal persons through annulment proceedings. Excluding CFSP acts from the ECJ's jurisdiction prevents their review under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The ECtHR's review of CFSP acts for compliance with the ECHR has been considered the most significant obstacle to the EU's accession to the ECHR, on the grounds that it would violate the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction in the interpretation and validity review of Union law. The article examines the provisions of Article 275, paragraph 1, and the exceptions provided for in Article 275, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on the Working Procedure of the European Union, as well as the Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Justice concerning this matter, and the Grand Chamber judgment on the EU's accession to the ECHR.

Özet

AB’nin Çalışma Usulü Hakkındaki Anlaşmanın 275.madde, 1. fıkrası ODGP (Ortak Dış ve Güvenlik Politikası) alanında ihdas edilen tasarrufları ve bu tasarruflara istinaden ihdas edilen düzenlemeleri ABAD yargısı dışında bırakmaktadır. 275.madde, 1. fıkrasında ABAD yargısına ODGP tasarruflarına ilişkin olarak getirilen bu sınırlamaya madde hükmünün 2. fıkrasında AB anlaşmasının 40. maddesine uygunluk denetimi ve gerçek ve tüzel kişiler bakımından sonuç doğuran kısıtlayıcı önlemlerin iptal davası üzerinden denetimi bakımından istisna getirildiği görülmektedir. ODGP tasarruflarının ABAD yargı yetkisinin dışında bırakılması bu tasarrufların AB Temel Haklar Şartı muvacehesinde denetlenmesini engellemektedir. ODGP tasarruflarının AİHM ttarafından AİHS’ye uygunluk denetiminden geçirilmesi ABAD’nin Birlik Hukuku’nun yorum ve geçerlilik denetimi bağlamında sahip olduğu münhasır yetkiyi ihlâl edeceği gerekçesi ile şimdiye dek AB’nin AİHS’ye katılımında en önemli engel olarak görülmüştür. Makalede AB’nin Çalışma Usulü Hakkındaki anlaşmanın 275.madde, 1. fıkrasında öngörülen düzenleme ve 275.madde 2. fıkrada öngörülen istisnalara ilişkin ABAD Büyük Daire kararı yanısıra AB’nin AİHS’ye katılımına ilişkin Büyük Daire kararı ışığında yapılan değerlendirmeler ele alınmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Arsava, A. F. (2026). LIMITATIONS and EXCEPTIONS TO the JURISDICTION of the CJEU IN THE FIELD of COMMON FOREIGN and SECURITY POLICY. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 2, 481–499. https://doi.org/10.63117/yuhfd.1914354

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (33)

  1. Alina Carrozzini/Luigi Lonardo, “Non-Contractual Liability For EU Sanctions: Towards the Normalisation of CFSP”, EFAR, C.26, No.3, 2021, S. 459-476
  2. Andreas Müller, “Das Individuum im auswärtigen Handeln der Union“, bknz.: Schmalenbach et al (eds.), Außen- und sicherheitspolitische Integration im Europäischen Rechtsraum. Festschrift für Hubert Isak, Wien, Jan Sramek Verlag, 2020, s.51-73
  3. Christina Eckes: Common Foreign and Security Policy: The Consequences of the Court’s Extended Jurisdiction”, ELJ, C.22, No.4, 2016, s.492- 518
  4. Christophe Hillion, “Decentralised Integration? Fundamental Rights Protection in the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, European Papers”, C.1, No.1, 2016, s.55-66
  5. Christophe Hillion/Ramses A. Wessel, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Three Levels of Judicial Control over the CFSP”, bknz.: Steven Blockmans/Panos Koutrakos (eds.), Research Handbook of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018, s.65-87
  6. Claas Friedrich Germelmann/Jörg Gundel, “Die Entwicklung der EuGH- Rechtsprechung zum europäischen Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsrecht im Jahr 2016“, BayVBl., 2017, (Teil I) s. 649-658
  7. Claas Friedrich Germelmann/Jörg Gundel, „Die Entwicklung der EuGH- Rechtsprechung zum europäischen Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsrecht im Jahr 2020“, BayVBl., 2021, S.583 vd.
  8. Damien Bouvier, “Abgeordnete nationale Agenten“, Europe, No.10, 2024, s.43-44.
  9. Felix Lange, “EU Sanktionen gegen Individuen - Möglichkeiten und Grenzen“, EuR, C.59, No.1,,2024, s.3-19
  10. Hans von der Groeben/Hürgen Schwarze/Armin Hatje, Europäisches Unionsrecht, 7. Bası, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlag, 2015
  11. Jan Martin. Hoffmann, “Rechtsschutz gegen Individualgerichtete Embargomassnahmen im Vorabentscheidungs-verfahren“, NVwZ, C.37, No.1-2, 2018, s.34-37
  12. Jörg Gundel, “Verfahrensrechte der EMRK“, bknz.: Detlef Merten/Hans/Jürgen Papier (eds.), Handbuch der Grundrechte, C.VI/1, Heidelberg, C.F. Müller, 2010, § 146, Rn. 8 vd., Rn. 171 vd.
  13. Jörg Polakiewicz, “Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights - An Insider’s View Adressing One by One the CJEU’s Objection in Opinion 2/13”, HRLJ, C.36, No.1-6, 2016, s.10-22
  14. Jörg Polakiewicz/Lena Panosch, “Das Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Hammer und Amboss”, bknz.: Claudia Seitz/Ralf Straub/Robert Weyeneth (eds.), Rechtsschutz in Theorie und Praxis, FS Breitenmoser, 2022, Basel, Helbing Lichtehahn, s.1031-1044
  15. Loukis G. Loucaides, “The Right of Access to a Court and the Doctrine of Political Acts”, The European Convention on Human Rights, Collected Essays, 2007, s.225-244
  16. Luigi Lonardo, “The Political Question Doctrine as applied to Common Foreign and Security Policy”, EFAR, C.22, No.4, 2017, s. 571-587
  17. Maria-Gisella Garbagnati Ketvel: “The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in respect of the Common Foreign and Security Policy”, ICLQ, C.55, No.1, 2006, s.77-120
  18. Martin Smolek, How to conquer Troy: adressing the Court of Justice’s concerns on adverse effects in opinion 2/13, bknz.: Liber amicorum Jiří Malenovský, 2020, Verlag Bruylant, S. 375-377
  19. Martin Smolek, S. 375; Polakiewicz/Panosch (dipnot 8), S.1038 vd.; kanun sözcüsü Tamara Ćapeta’nın 23.11.2023 tarihli nihai talebi için bknz.:Rs. C-29/22 P und C-44/22 P (KS und KD/Rat), ECLI:EU:C:2023:901, Rn. 26]
  20. Martina Spernbauer, EU peacebuilding in Kosovo and Afghanistan: Legality and accountability, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers/Boston, 2014, (52 sayfa), s.195 vd.
  21. Matthias Pechstein, Art. 275 AEUV, Rn. 2, bknz.: Matthias Pechstein/Carsten Nowak/Ulrich Häde (eds.), Frankfurter Kommentar zu EUV/GRC/AEUV, 2. Bası, Cilt 1, Tübingen, Mohr- Siebeck, 2023)]
  22. Oliver Dörr, Art. 275 AEUV, Rn. 12 vd,. bknz.: Eberhard Grabitz/Meinhard Hilf/Martin Nettesheim (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union,, C.H.BECH/München, 53. EL 2014,;
  23. Panos Koutrakos: “Judical review in the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy”, ICLQ, C.67, No.1, 2018, s.1-35;
  24. Panos Koutrakos, The EU Common Security and Defence Policy, Oxford, University Press, 2013, s.168 vd.;
  25. Peter van Elsuwege, “Upholding the rule of law in the Common foreign and Security Policy: H. versus Council”, CMLRev., C.54, No.3, 2017, s.841-858
  26. Sara Poli, “The right to effective judicial protection with respect to acts imposing restrictive measures and its transformative force for the Common Foreign and Security Policy”, CMLRev., C.59, No. 4, 2022, s.1045-1080
  27. Sara Poli, “The Common Foreign Security Policy after Rosneft: Still imperfect but gradually subject to the rule of law”, CMLRev., C.54, No.6, 2017, s.1799-1834
  28. Stian Øby Johansen, The Human Rights Accountability Mechanisms of International Organizations, Cambridge, University Press, 2020, (321 sayfa), s.164 vd.
  29. Thomas Henze/Jannika Jahn,“Die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik der EU unter der Kontrolle der EuGH“, EuZW, C.28, No.13, 2017, s.506-513
  30. Thomas Verellen, “In the Name of the rule of Law? CJEU Further extends Jurisdiction in CFSP”, European Papers, C.6, No.1,2021, s.17-24
  31. Thomas Verellen, “H. versus Council: Strengthening the rule of Law in the Sphere of the CFSP, One Step at a Time”, European Papers, C.1, No.3, 2016, s.1041-1053
  32. Felix Lange, “EU Sanktionen gegen Individuen - Möglichkeiten und Grenzen“, EuR, C.59, No.1,,2024, s.3-19
  33. Oliver Dörr, Art. 275 AEUV, Rn. 12 vd,. bknz.: Eberhard Grabitz/Meinhard Hilf/Martin Nettesheim (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union,, C.H.BECH/München, 53. EL 2014,;