court-of-justice EUThe EU Court ruling that the association agreements and liberalization between the EU and Morocco are not applicable to Western Sahara.

As a result, the Court sets aside the judgment of the General Court, which he had ruled in the opposite direction, and inadmite the action brought by the Polisario Front against the decision of the Council Liberalisation Agreement is held.

Western Sahara is a territory of northwestern Africa, bordered to the north with Morocco, Algeria northeast, Mauritania to the east and south and the Atlantic west. Today, most of Western Sahara by Morocco is controlled.

A minor part of its territory, located east, It is controlled by the Polisario Front, organization that aims to gain independence of Western Sahara and whose legitimacy has been recognized by the United Nations.

The European Union and Morocco held in 2012 an agreement providing reciprocal liberalization measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products ("Liberalisation Agreement"). This agreement, whose territorial scope is the same as on the EU-Morocco Association, It was approved by the European Union through Council Decision.

The Polisario Front appealed for annulment of that decision before the General Court of the European Union. In its judgment of 10 December of 2015, 3 the General Court annulled the decision after consideration, first of all, that the Association Agreements and Liberalisation were applicable "to the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco" and that this expression should be understood, the absence of a stipulation in the opposite direction, in the sense of including Western Sahara.

Subsequently, the General Court stated that, given the application of these Agreements to Western Sahara, the Polisario Front was affected by the Council Decision, and, Therefore, He had standing to seek its annulment.

Finally, the General Court, essentially, that the Council had breached its obligation to examine, before entering into the agreement Liberalisation, if there was evidence of exploitation of natural resources in the territory of Western Sahara under Moroccan control that could be done to the detriment of the population of that territory and violating their fundamental rights.

Not being satisfied with that sentence, the Council appealed to the Court in order to obtain its annulment. In its judgment of 21 of December, the Court, it is pronounced after an accelerated procedure Council request, considers the appeal and sets aside the judgment of the General Court.

The Court observes that, to determine the territorial scope of the Agreement Liberalisation, whose wording does not refer at any point to Western Sahara, the General Court did not consider all the rules of international law applicable to relations between the European Union and Morocco, however as it required by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

In this regard, the Court notes that, given the recognized status separate and distinct from the territory of Western Sahara under the UN Charter and the principle of self-determination, It is excluded considering that the term 'territory of the Kingdom of Morocco ", which defines the territorial scope of the Association Agreements and Liberalisation, It includes Western Sahara and, Therefore, These agreements are applicable to that territory. In this way, the General Court did not draw the consequences of the status enjoyed by the Western Sahara in the light of international law.

Then, It follows the international practice, when a treaty is intended to apply not only in the sovereign territory of a State, but also beyond it, This treaty should explicitly foresee, be it a territory under the jurisdiction of that State, whether a territory for whose international relations it is responsible that State. So, It opposes this rule is also opposed a priori to be considered that the association agreements and liberalization are applicable to Western Sahara.

Finally, after recalling the principle of the relative effect of treaties, under which treaties should not harm or benefit others without their consent, the Court states that, given the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice 1975 on Western Sahara following a request by the United Nations General Assembly, 5 the people of this territory must be considered a third party who may be affected by the implementation of the Agreement on the Liberalisation. However, in the present case, does not seem that this people has expressed its consent to the Agreement applies to Western Sahara.

With regard to the fact that certain provisions of the Association Agreements and liberalization have been applied de facto in some cases to products originating in Western Sahara, the Court observes that has not been shown that such practice is the result of an agreement between the parties in order to change the interpretation of the territorial scope of these agreements.

In addition, an alleged will to do so would mean admitting the Union which it aims to implement the agreements inconsistently with the principles of self-determination and relative effect of treaties and the requirement of good faith arising from international law.
It is having concluded that the Liberalisation Agreement does not apply to the territory of Western Sahara, the Court sets aside the judgment of the General Court, I had reached the opposite conclusion, and he decides to rule on the appeal by the Polisario Front.

In this regard, declara que, toda vez que el Acuerdo de Liberalización no se aplica al Sáhara Occidental, el Frente Polisario no está afectado por la Decisión mediante la cual el Consejo celebró este Acuerdo. Por consiguiente, el Tribunal de Justicia declara la inadmisibilidad del recurso del Frente Polisario por falta de legitimación.