Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to follow up on some of the questions I put earlier to Ms Ní Ghrálaigh, Professor Tridimas and Professor Koutrakos. We have heard that there is a clear arguable case and nobody disagrees that there is an arguable case. We then come to the question of testing it. Ireland has with, I think, nine other countries written publicly that its understanding of the ICJ advisory opinion is that there is an obligation in relation to both goods and services. Ireland has stated that publicly and made that clear alongside many other EU countries. Would it then weaken our public policy case if we were then to say that we are only looking for an exemption in public policy on the goods side or would it strengthen our case if we were consistent with what has been the stated Irish public opinion that both goods and services constitute trade and should be prevented, based on the ICJ advisory opinion? Would it be a stronger case if it included both goods and services? Professor Tridimas mentioned that he thought the Commission would be likely to lose and that we would have a strong case, but would it be stronger if we also include services? That is one key question.

If there is an opportunity, I would like Professor Koutrakos to come back on Article 347, the particular argument that is additional to public policy. That was a key point.

Ms Ní Ghrálaigh mentioned that the EU is also bound by that ICJ judgment when we talked about a precedent in a general sense. The others might also like to answer on this. Would it be useful to have a ruling of the European Court of Justice-----