The Anatomy of a Judicial Takeover: A Commentary on the Evolution of the CJEU’s Jurisprudence in the CFSP Field

Abstract: The area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy is seen, mainly due to the unique place it occupies in Treaties, as the: ‘realm of sovereign wills and national interest par excellence’. One may wonder what space it leaves for judicial review. The answer for so many years is that there wasn't any. The Court was, and still is, not fully granted the same liberty in CFSP matters as in other non-CFSP matters in the EU legal order, making this area an interesting one to say the least. However, the role of the Court has significantly changed throughout the years and Treaties. This policy area, which was protected from the rule of law and any human rights overview due to its political nature, has lost piece by piece its intergovernmental shield as the Court’s limited jurisdiction started to loosen up. Considering the numerous changes, does it mean that the field of CFSP will now be treated as any other policy area despite its uniqueness in the Treaties? This thesis will discuss the constant battle between the Court and the CFSP policymakers over the years. To do so, it will start by going through the relevant Treaties and their provisions which have reflected the evolution of the Court’s role over the years. As the Lisbon Treaty was a cornerstone for, amongst other things, the Court in CFSP matters. This thesis will contain a pre- and post-Lisbon Treaty section to reflect that, with relevant case law that demonstrates the Court’s adjudication or at least its ever so successful attempts to exercise its jurisdiction. In separate chapters, it will go through the Rosneft case and the pending Neves 77 case. The last point will be a discussion on the consequence of the Court’s extended review in CFSP.