Professor Takis Tridimas:

I do. Allow me to comment on the cases that Professor Butler referred to. I have to say that these are difficult issues in law. Once more, allow me to come to this purely as a jurist. Confédération paysanne is a case on which Professor Butler relies but I ask for one minute to illustrate why this case is not relevant in our circumstances. This case had to do with the powers of a member state to prohibit the importation of fruit that originated in western Sahara and was labelled as originating in Morocco. The key question was whether a member state can unilaterally ban the importation of such a product on the basis of specific EU legislation that existed and regulated foodstuffs. Here we do not have specific EU legislation. Our argument is that where the EU has not regulated the provision of services in relation to third states, and where a member state adopts a restriction on the grounds of foreign policy, and subject to the other caveats that we expressed, that is permissible under EU law. Allow me also to say that the two cases really raised completely different interests. In the paysanne case the public interest that was engaged was of much lesser importance. It had to do with the violation of EU harmonised marketing standards.

Regarding Rosneft, I appreciate the difference that Professor Butler referred to but I would say that both the Advocate General and the Commission in that case took the view that the concept of public policy may justify the imposition of restrictions on the importation of services from third countries on the grounds of public policy because of a third country occupying the territory of another country. That is important.