While the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union over Union-only agreements has long been established and remains largely uncontroversial, the same cannot be said of mixed agreements. This article pursues a twofold objective: first, to examine the reasons underlying the difficulty of delineating the Court’s jurisdiction over mixed agreements; and second, to propose a general methodology for addressing this jurisdictional dilemma. The central argument advanced is that, although the Court’s case law on this issue may appear fragmented or inconsistent, certain important patterns can be discerned. Crucially, the Court does not simply draw a binary distinction between the ‘Union part’ of a mixed agreement (falling within its jurisdiction) and the ‘national part’ (falling outside it). Instead, it exercises a differentiated jurisdiction, whose limits may vary depending on the nature of the legal question raised, the procedural framework in which it arises, and the degree of connection between the dispute and the scope of Union law. The article systematizes this emerging methodology, explores its constitutional underpinnings and argues that it should be accepted as a pragmatic solution to the jurisdictional dilemma posed by mixed agreements.
Common Market Law Review