The case of monitoring the implementation of international treaties in the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union

---

It is the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) responsibility to monitor the implementation of international treaties. This duty consists of identifying the violations of treaties committed by the Union member states and restoring the rights violated. On 11 October 2018, the Court of the Union in the judgment in the case of “Oil Marin Group” (RF) v. Commission, demanded from the Commission (EEC) to carry out this duty fully, protecting the legitimate interests of the economic entity from the fiscal arbitrariness of public authority. The Court of the Union by this judgment for the first time towered over and constricted the Russian traditional orb holdern law priority of а fiscal interests and freedom of public power and decided the case in favor of legitimate private interest and protection of it by the Commission as the public authority of the Union. The orb holdern law is customary to exercise real power over written law to expand its discretionary powers. It does not violate the letter of the law due to the flexible interpretation of ambiguities of norms. It is impossible to develop the state's institutes by means ruling based on the orb-holdern power law. This development would be stuck on the stage of power autocracy as long as the courts' decisions realized the priority of the executives' interests against the legitimate interests of citizens and others. The previous two attempts to integrate the Eurasian countries were based on the orb-power holdern law. Those monarchical and Soviet attempts have ended in the disintegration of the state. It is an illusory hope that power orb-holdern law is a way of being a robust and powerful state. Based on the Russian Empire and the USSR's historical experience, one can conclude that it leads to officials' illegal arbitrariness, corruption, and the state's collapse. There remains only one way of integration – based on mutual benefit, that is economic integration. It is now complicated for Russia by competition with other integration centers – China, Turkey, and India. Therefore, it is vital that the Court of Justice of the Union ensured the application of the norms of the Treaty of the Union, and made it so contrary to three out of four Russian courts – court of appeal and two cassation instances, including the highest one. The precedent of this decision marked the beginning of Eurasian integration as a real practice of economic ties among the industrial entities of the Union.

About the author: Nikolay Kazantsev – Doctor of Sciences in Law, Ph.D. in Economics, Professor, Chief Researcher, Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.

Citation: Kazantsev N. (2020) Kazus monitoringa ispolneniya mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov v sude Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza [The case of monitoring the implementation of international treaties in the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.10, no.3, pp.98–117. (In Russian).

References

Entin L.M., Akopova I.G., Vodolagin S.V., Tolstopyatenko G.P. (eds.) (2001) Sud Evropeyskikh soobshchestv: Izbrannye resheniya [Court of justice of the European communities: Selected judgements], Moscow: Norma. (In Russian).

Kapustin A.Ya. (2017) Vliyanie pravovykh pozitsiy mezhdunarodnykh sudov na natsional'nuyu sudebnuyu praktiku [Influence of the legal positions of international courts on national judicial practice]. In: Khabrieva T.Ya., Lazarev V.V. (eds.) Sudebnaya praktika v sovremennoy pravovoy sisteme Rossii: monografiya [Court practice in the modern legal system of Russia: a monograph], Moscow: Institut zakonodatel'stva i sravni­tel'nogo pravovedeniya pri Pravitel'stve Rossiyskoy Federatsii: Norma: INFRA-M, pp.394–405. (In Russian).

Kapustin A.Ya. (ed.) (2020) Sovremennaya kontseptsiya primeneniya mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov: monografiya [The modern concept of the application of international treaties: a monograph], Moscow: Institut za­konodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya pri Pravitel'stve Rossiyskoy Federatsii: Norma: INFRA-M. (In Russian).

Kazantsev N.M. (2010) Ideologiya prava gosudarstvu ili ideologiya gosudarstva pravu? [The ideology of law to the state or the ideology of the state to law?]. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost', no.1, pp.42–50. (In Russian).

Kazantsev N.M. (2018) Modernizatsiya administrativnogo zakonodatel'­stva: k publichnomu pravu grazhdan [Modernization of administrative legislation: to the public law of citizens]. In: Nozdrachyov A.F. (ed.) Modernizatsiya administrativnogo zakonodatel'stva (tseli, zadachi, prin­tsipy i aktual'nye napravleniya): monografiya [Modernization of administrative legislation (goals, objectives, principles and current trends): a monograph], Moscow: Institut zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya pri Pravitel'stve Rossiyskoy Federatsii: INFRA-M, pp.153–174. (In Russian).

Kazantsev N.M. (2019) Ekonomicheskie kazusy regulirovaniya rynochnykh tsen nalogovym zakonodatel'stvom [Economic consequences of regulation of market prices by tax legislation]. In: Kazantsev N.M. (ed.) Ekonomicheskie kazusy zakonodatel'stva: monografiya [Neg-economy cases created by legislation: a monograph], Moscow: Prospekt, pp.237–254. (In Russian).

Kazantsev N.M. (2019) Kazus — obshchenauchnaya kategoriya sinteza nauki i praktiki [Case — a general scientific category of the synthesis of science and practice]. In: Kazantsev N.M. (ed.) Ekonomicheskie kazusy zakonodatel'stva: monografiya [Neg-economy cases created by legislation: a monograph], Moscow: Prospekt, pp.19–25. (In Russian).

Kazantsev N.M. (2019) Kazus SSSR: pravovye prichiny raspada [The Casus of the USSR: legal reasons for the disintegration]. In: Kazantsev N.M. (ed.) Ekonomicheskie kazusy zakonodatel'stva: monografiya [Neg-economy cases created by legislation: a monograph], Moscow: Prospekt, pp.25–41. (In Russian).

Kazantsev N.M. (2019) Pravo i ekonomika: makrokazusy vzaimodestruktsii [Law and economics: macrocases of mutual degradation]. In: Kazan­tsev N.M. (ed.) Ekonomicheskie kazusy zakonodatel'stva: monografiya [Neg-economy cases created by legislation: a monograph], Moscow: Prospekt, pp.19–41. (In Russian).

Kazantsev N.M. (ed.) (2019) Ekonomicheskie kazusy zakonodatel'stva: mo­nografiya [Neg-economy cases created by legislation: a monograph], Moscow: Prospekt. (In Russian).

Lazarev B.M. (1972) Kompetentsiya organov upravleniya [Competence of governing bodies], Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura. (In Russian).

Lisitsin-Svetlanov A.G. (ed.) (2018) Mekhanizm resheniya sporov v regio­nal'nykh integratsionnykh gruppirovkakh: na primere Evropeyskogo Soyuza, EAES, ASEAN, MERKOSUR, NAFTA i v GATT/VTO: monografiya [The mechanism for resolving disputes in regional integration groups: the case of the European Union, EAEU, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, NAFTA and the GATT/WTO: a monograph], Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. (In Russian).

Neshataeva T. (2018) Slyshat' zhizn': deystvie aktov mezhdunarodnogo suda v natsional'nykh pravovykh sistemakh [Hearing life: the effect of acts of an international court in national legal systems]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.8, no.1, pp.53–66. (In Russian).

Tikhomirov L.A. (1998) Monarkhicheskaya gosudarstvennost' [Monarchist statehood], Moscow: “Oblizdat”, “Alir”. (In Russian).

Tolstykh V. (2019) Nevynosimaya logika Suda: kommentariy k Resheniyu Suda Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza ot 11 oktyabrya 2018 goda po delu “Oyl Marin Grupp” (RF) protiv Komissii [The unbearable logic of the Court: commentary on the Decision of the Court of the EAEU dated October 11, 2018 in the case “Oil Marine Group” (RF) v. Commission]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.9, no.2, pp.128–135. (In Russian).

Zakharova M.V. (2015) Frantsuzs kaya pravovaya sistema: problemy teorii: Dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk [The French legal system: problems of theory: Dr. in law sci. diss.], Moscow. (In Russian).