Next

The TRIPs Agreement and The ECJ: A New Dawn?
Some Comments About Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98,
Parfums Dior and Assco Gerüste

Gaëlle Bontinck ^*

• Abstract
• 1. Introduction
  • (i) Factual Background
  • (ii) The Ruling of the Court
  • (iii) Focus of the Analysis
• 2. The Debatable Jurisdiction of the Court
  • (a) Admissibility Of The Reference Under Article 234
    • (i) Arguments of the Court
    • (ii) Comments
  • (b) Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret Article 50 of TRIPs
    • (i) The Judgment of the Court
    • (ii) Comments
      • b. Position taken by the Court
        • Practical Elements underpinning the Reasoning of the Court
        • Legal Reasons Underpinning the Reasoning of the Court
      • c. Prospects deriving from the Reasoning of the Court
• 3. The Possible Direct Effect of Article 50(6) of TRIPs
  • (a) The Position of the Court Towards Direct Effect of International Agreements
    • (i) The Case-law of the ECJ
    • (ii) Comments
  • (b) A New Dawn For the Direct Effect of TRIPs?
    • (i) Some Arguments in Favor of a Certain Direct Effect of TRIPs
    • (ii) The `Taking Back' of the Direct Effect
• 4. Conclusion
• Appendix - Article 50 of TRIPs
• References

* Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, Brussels, gaellebontinck@post.harvard.edu. The paper was written in satisfaction of the LL.M. Written Work Requirement, in the framework of the Jean Monnet Seminar on the European Union, NAFTA and the WTO: Advanced Issues in Law and Policy, held at Harvard Law School during the spring of 2001. I wish to thank my supervisor, Professor Joseph H. H. Weiler, as well as the participants to the Jean Monnet Seminar for their useful comments that helped me develop the ideas contained in this paper. I also wish to express my deep gratitude to David Bailey for his invaluable editorial comments. This paper in up-to-date on May 1^st, 2001.

Top|Next

© 2001 Gaëlle Bontinck