Editorial: The Concept of Implied Jurisdiction and the Court’s Role in CFSP

It has almost become an urban myth that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) lacks jurisdiction in relation to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).True, CFSP has long been regarded as the European Union's most distinctive policy domainone characterized by political discretion, unanimitydriven decision-making, and a conspicuous absence of judicial oversight.Yet, recent developments in case law and legal doctrine reveal a profound transformation: CFSP is no longer an enclave shielded from the reach of the courts.Instead, it is increasingly subject to the same legal principles and judicial scrutiny as other areas of EU policy.This shift is not merely procedural but reflects a deeper integration of CFSP into the Union's constitutional framework.Rather than lacking jurisdiction the presumption now is that the Court does have jurisdiction, apart from some specific situations.Central to this evolution is the concept ofwhat I would like to coin -'implied jurisdiction', a doctrine through which the CJEU has gradually asserted its authority to review CFSP acts, even where the Treaties do not explicitly grant such competence.While Articles 24(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and 275 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) appear to restrict the Court's role in CFSP matters, the CJEU has interpreted these limitations narrowly.It has instead emphasized its overarching mandate under Article 19 TEUto ensure that 'in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the law is observed'as a basis for extending its general oversight.The notion of implied jurisdiction has practical implications for the enforceability of CFSP. 1 While the Court's role remains constrained by the Treaties' explicit exclusions, its expanding jurisdiction signals a broader normalization of 'The Concept of Implied Jurisdiction and the Court's Role in CFSP'.