As explained by the ECJ, the opt-out clause applies to both internal and external EU legislative acts, such as.B. international agreements.58 The ECJ reaffirmed the primacy of the Charter of the European Union over international agreements of the EU and confirmed that the EU cannot conclude an international agreement (or a decision of an international decision-making body on the basis of that agreement) or implement it. by means of an EU legislative act, if the conditions set out in this opt-out clause are not met, namely the verification of proportionality and “necessity” (i.e. the “verification of necessity” of the EU Charter).59 Article 218(11) TFEU60 provides for a mechanism to ensure the compatibility of an international trade agreement with the Union`s constitutional framework before it is concluded by the Union. It allows an EU Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the European Commission, to request the ECJ`s opinion on the compatibility of a proposed international agreement with the EU Treaties, including the EU Charter. If the ECJ decides that such an agreement is incompatible with the Treaties, the international agreement can only enter into force if it is brought into line with the Treaties. This provision was used at the request of the European Parliament in relation to the EU-Canada Agreement on the Transfer and Processing of Passenger Record Data (Opinion on the EU-Canada PNR Agreement) 61, which provides, inter alia, for the transfer of personal data of Europeans to Canada. In this judgment of principle, after examining these provisions against the requirements of the opt-out clause, including the “necessity test” of the EU Charter, the ECJ stated that an agreement could only be reached if it was revised.62 These commitments are part of most international trade agreements concluded by the EU, the most recent examples of which are the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada. on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other (14 September 2014)  OJ L 347, 31.12.2014, p. 1.
L 11/23 (CETA) Art. 9.3, 9.5 and 9.6; the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (not yet ratified by the EU, authentic text as of April 2018) art. 8.5, 8.6; and the Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Japan (JEFTA), Annex to the proposal for a Council Decision, COM(2018) 192 final (18 April 2018) Art. 8.15-8.17 called May 22, 2020. To be justified by the general exception in Article XIV of the GATS, a GATS inconsistent measure must meet one of the essential requirements of the general derogation in article XIV(a) to (e) and the introductory clause (or chapeau) of this Article.70 The text of the general exception is remarkable in most free trade agreements concluded by the United States and the EU. if they closely comply with Article XIV.71 of the GATS, which is why the WTO interpretation of the trade “necessity test” may also be relevant in the context of other trade agreements. Most international trade agreements provide for what is known as a “general exception”, along the model of Article XIV of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS).6 This derogation gives parties to an international trade agreement regulatory autonomy to take and maintain measures “necessary” to protect the privacy of individuals when processing and disseminating personal data. even if such measures are contrary to the country`s international trade obligations (the “Trade Necessity Test”).