Jurisprudence of the Court of the EEU / Court of the EEC: problems of the application of law and some results

Available in Russian

Price 140 rub.

Author: Vladislav Tolstykh

DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2016-4-114-128

Keywords: customs law; international courts; International integration; international law; the Eurasian Union


The article summarizes some results of the activity of the Court of the Eurasian economic union in the four years of its existence. The author cites statistics on the total number of cases and their nature; classifies the sources used by the Court; analyzes the position of the Court on the issue of determining the place of “external” treaties in Union law; determines the particularity of the Court’s use of the jurisprudence of other international courts and the jurisprudence of domestic courts; shows how the Court addresses the domestic legislation; discloses the specifics of interpretative and investigative activities of the Court. He also formulates certain procedural and substantive legal problems facing the Court, and shows through specific examples the Court’s approaches to solving these problems. Summarizing the practice of the Court, the author makes several conclusions. Firstly, the Court’s judgments reveal two lines of argumentation: a rising one, which gives the priority to the state will, and a descending one, which gives the priority to the natural-law principles and to the objectives of the integration policy. The rising line prevails. Secondly, the Court has not made a significant contribution to the development of the Union law: the questions decided by the Court, may be important for the applicants, but do not belong to the category of fundamental issues. Thirdly, the Court has not occupied a decent place in the Eurasian institutional mechanism; in this regard, his political prospects look uncertain. In conclusion, the author notes that the Court’s potential is huge and unrealized: the Union is experiencing an obvious need for a strong and qualified court and an expanded political and legal discourse, and the Court, in turn, can become architect of the new political community.

About the author: Vladislav Tolstykh – Doctor of Sciences in Law, Associate Professor, Head of the International Law Department, Novosibirsk State University; Senior Researcher, Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Citation: Tolstykh V. (2016) Praktika Suda EAES / Suda EvrAzES: problemy pravoprimeneniya i nekotorye itogi [Jurisprudence of the Court of the EEU / Court of the EEC: problems of the application of law and some results]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no. 4, pp. 114–128. (In Russian).


Ispolinov A. S. (2013) Reshenie bol'shoy kollegii Suda EvrAzES po delu Yuzhnogo Kuzbassa: naskol'ko obosnovan sudeyskiy aktivizm? [Eurasian Economic Community Court Grand Collegium decision in Yuzhny Kuzbass case: in what measure is judicial activism justified?].Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 19–26. (In Russian).

Ispolinov A. S. (2013) Navyazannyy monolog: pervoe preuditsial'noe zakluchenie Suda EvrAzES [An imposed monologue: the first preliminary ruling of the Eaurasian Economic Community]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiyzhurnal, vol. 63, no. 8, pp. 29–30. (In Russian).

Ispolinov A. S. (2014) Voprosy pryamogo primeneniya prava VTO v pravoporyadke Rossii [Questions of direct applicability of WTO law in the legal order of Russia]. Zakonodatel'stvo, no. 2. pp. 68–79. (In Russian).

Ispolinov A. S. (2016) Pervoe reshenie Suda EAES: reviziya nasledstva i ispytanie iskusheniem [The first judgment of the EAEC Court: revision of the inheritance and test of temptation]. Available at: https://zakon.ru/aispolinov/blogs (accessed 01.11.2016). (In Russian).

Kembayev Zh. (2016) Sravnitel'no-pravovoy analiz funktsionirovaniya Suda Evraziyskogo Ekonomicheskogo Soyuza [The comparative study of functioning of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no. 2, pp. 30–45. (In Russian).

Kennedy D. (1987) International legal structures, Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Koskenniemi M. (2006) From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smbatyan A. S. (2013) Kontseptsiya “osobosti” pravoporyadka Tamozhennogo soyuza v reshenii Suda EvrAzEs po prokatnym valkam [The concept of «specificity» of the Customs Union legal order in the EurAsEc Court judgment on mill rolls]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no. 8, pp. 31–36. (In Russian).

Smbatyan A. S. (2013) Perspektivy Suda EvrAzEs v sisteme organov mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya [Prospects of the cCourt of Eurasian Economic Community in the system of international justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii, no. 1, pp. 104–109. (In Russian).

Smbatyan A. S. (2014) Resheniya Suda EvrAzEs ne vyzyvayut nauchnogo interesa? [Don’t the decisions of EurAsEC Court attract scientific interest?]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no. 6, pp. 63–68. (In Russian).