Reparation for Injuries Case ICJ (1949)

The UN has been implicitly granted international legal personality by its members and is
therefore able to submit international claims for itself and its agents.
ECtHR, Matthews (1999)
With a British Act that made exclusion of Gibraltar possible, the UK violated a “provision
binding on everyone” – art. 3 First Protocol ECtHR. The EP could be regarded as the
legislator for Gibraltar, and since Gibraltar belongs to the British Crown and is considered a
colony, but is not part of the UK, the UK should’ve facilitated elections for Matthews.
Dutch Supreme Ct, Mothers of Srebrenica (2019)
The Dutch state has a very limited liability towards relatives of men who died in the fall of
the Srebrenica enclave in July 1995 because the State had no effective control over the
actions of Dutchbat. Since Dutchbat operated under UN command this does not count as a
conduct attributable to the Netherlands, but as a conduct of the UN. The UN cannot be held
responsible either, because it enjoys immunity.
ICJ, Legality of nuclear weapons WHO Advisory Opinion (1996)
There is no longer a general, absolute prohibition in international law against the use of
nuclear weapons. The use however must be in compliance with the principles and rules of
international humanitarian law (proportionality, necessity, redelijkerwijs nodig om het doel te
bereiken)
PCIJ, Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube (1926)
The jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube was limited to those matters
specifically delegated to it by international treaties and agreements. The Commission did not
have general or unlimited jurisdiction over all aspects of the danube river.
PCIJ, Lotus Case (1927)
A state cannot exercise its jurisdiction outside its territory, unless an international treaty or
customary law permits it to do so. Within its territory, a State may exercise its jurisdiction, in
any matter, even if there is no specific rule of international law permitting it to do so. In these
instances, states have a wide measure of discretion which is only limited by prohibitive rules
of international law.
CJEU, 11 June 1991 Commission v. Council, Titanium Dioxide
The choice of the legal basis for a measure is to be determined in light of “objective factors
(...) in particular the aim and content of a measure”. If a measure has two objectives, but one
is main or predominant, the measure must be based on a single legal basis, namely that
required by the predominant objective.
CJEU, 5 October 2000, Germany v. European Parliament and Council, Tobacco
Advertisement
Germany challenged the Tobacco Advertising Directive before the CJEU, arguing that it
exceeded the powers conferred upon the EU under the TFEU and encroached on matters that
should fall within the competence of member states. The EU had the authority to take
measures to prevent smoking among you people and to safeguard public health more broadly.
The Directive restricted the freedom of commercial expression, but this restriction was
justified.
PCIJ, Interpretation of the Greco- Turkish Agreement of 1 December 1926
Emphasized the importance of interpreting international agreements in accordance with
established principles of treaty interpretations. The PCIJ provided its interpretations of
specific provisions of the Greco-Turkish agreement based on the text of the agreement and
relevant contextual factors.
CJEU, ERTA (AETR) Case (1971)
EEC Treaty rules were supreme within the territory of the Member States. National
authorities are obliged to ensure the application of Community law, even if it meant
disregarding provisions of international agreements.
PCIJ, Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco (1923)