Enforcing WTO/GATS law and fundamental rights in EU infringement proceedings: An analysis of the ECJ’s ruling in Case C-66/18 Central European University
| Author | Erich Vranes |
| Published date | 01 October 2021 |
| Date | 01 October 2021 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211024991 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Enforcing WTO/GATS law
and fundamental rights in EU
infringement proceedings:
An analysis of the ECJ’s ruling
in Case C-66/18 Central
European University
Erich Vranes*
Abstract
This article analyses the ECJ’s ruling in Case C-66/18 (Central European University), in which the
Court found that two amendments to Hungary’s Law on Higher Education violate EU law and the
WTO GATS Agreement. The ruling is remarkable in legal and political terms: it touches upon a
series of fundamental issues, such as the EU’s efforts to protect European values, democracy and the
rule of law in its MemberStates, infringement proceedings against Member States for their failure to
comply with international agreements, the applicability of the Fundamental Rights Charter in EU
external relations, the tension between the ECJ and the WTO dispute settlement system, national
measures enacted to ward off ‘undesirable’ investments andother cross-cutting questionsof EU law.
Keywords
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, WTO law, GATS, external relations, free movement of capital,
erga omnes effect, investment screening, state liability, Central Europe an University, ECJ Case
C-66/18
1. Introduction
On 6 October 2020, the Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down a ruling that is remarkable in legal and
political terms: the Court found that two amendments to Hungary’s Law on Higher Education
* Institute for European and International Law,Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU Wien), Vienna, Austria
Corresponding author:
Erich Vranes, Institute for European and International Law, Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU Wien),
Vienna, Austria.
E-mail: erich.vranes@wu.ac.at
Maastricht Journal of European and
Comparative Law
ªThe Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211024991
maastrichtjournal.sagepub.com
MJ
MJ
2021, Vol. 28(5) 699–713
To continue reading
Request your trial