The Eurasian Economic Union Court’s advisory opinion in case No.P-6/24 on physical persons’ access to justice: an extended commentary

The article is devoted to the analysis of the Eurasian Economic Court advisory opinion of February 12, 2025, on the application of the Eurasian Economic Commission. The article describes the context that prompted the EEC to submit the question of the right of physical persons who are not individual entrepreneurs to challenge the acts, actions (or failure to act) of the Commission in the field of competition. It analyses the advisory opinion’s structure and the arguments used by the Court. The commentary notes that the advisory opinion illustrates the Court’ commitment to ensuring respect for human rights, including access to justice, as general principles of Union law. At the same time, the author contends that recourse to general principles may not be used to fill the gaps in the Union’s primary law. The opposite approach would amount to the creation of a new norm and would mean the attribution of new powers to the Court that were not conferred to it by the Member States. Using the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as an example, the author argues that such an approach is not common among other integration union courts either. The article also addresses the issue of the division of powers between the EAEU Court and national courts, mentioned in the application of the Commission. The author notes that the fact that the advisory opinion does not indicate that the jurisdiction of the EAEU Court to control the validity of EEC decisions is exclusive should be analyzed in the context of the need to establish a dialogue with national courts. At the same time, the Court’s statement on the need to ensure the right of physical persons to judicial protection shall be construed as pointing to the need of introducing changes to the EAEU Treaty, rather than to the permissibility of using national judicial remedies. The author contends that control by national courts over the validity of EEC decisions would be contrary both to the mandatory character and direct applicability of EEC decisions and to the principle of legal certainty.