Volume 42 (2015) / Issue 3
The Court of Justice dealt with the problem of inconsistency between the EU-Turkey association law and European Union (EU) secondary legislation in the Soysal case. The solution adopted by the Court was to accord primacy to the association law and to interpret the provisions of secondary legislation, to the extent possible, in a manner that is consistent with that law. However, this solution was not taken into consideration during the accession of Croatia to the EU and Croatia had to adopt the relevant secondary legislation which itself was adopted by the EU without observing its respective standstill obligation, which led to the tightening of its more liberal regime towards Turkey. Moving from the example of Croatia, this contribution explores the limits of the consistent interpretation approach of the Court and proposes a solution reconciling this approach with the obligations of EU membership.
All rights reserved