36 In that regard, it should be recalled, as the Court has noted many times, that EU law is characterised by the fact that it stems from an independent source of law, the Treaties, by its primacy over the laws of the Member States (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 July 1964, Costa, 6/64, EU:C:1964:66, and of 17 December 1970, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 11/70, EU:C:1970:114, paragraph 3; Opinion1/91 (EEA Agreement — I), of 14 December 1991, EU:C:1991:490, paragraph 21, and 1/09, of 8 March 2011, EU:C:2011:123, paragraph 65, and judgment of 26 February 2013, Melloni, C‑399/11, EU:C:2013:107, paragraph 59) and by the direct effect of a whole series of provisions which are applicable to their nationals and to the Member States themselves (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 February 1963, van Gend & Loos, 26/62, EU:C:1963:1, p. 23; Opinion 1/09, of 8 March 2011, EU:C:2011:123, paragraph 65 and Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2454, paragraph 166 and the case-law cited).

36 In that regard, it should be recalled, as the Court has noted many times, that EU law is characterised by the fact that it stems from an independent source of law, the Treaties, by its primacy over the laws of the Member States (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 July 1964, Costa, 6/64, EU:C:1964:66, and of 17 December 1970, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 11/70, EU:C:1970:114, paragraph 3; Opinion1/91 (EEA Agreement — I), of 14 December 1991, EU:C:1991:490, paragraph 21, and 1/09, of 8 March 2011, EU:C:2011:123, paragraph 65, and judgment of 26 February 2013, Melloni, C‑399/11, EU:C:2013:107, paragraph 59) and by the direct effect of a whole series of provisions which are applicable to their nationals and to the Member States themselves (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 February 1963, van Gend & Loos, 26/62, EU:C:1963:1, p. 23; Opinion 1/09, of 8 March 2011, EU:C:2011:123, paragraph 65 and Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2454, paragraph 166 and the case-law cited).

74 In addition, by virtue of the mechanism referred to in Article 8.21 of the CETA, that Tribunal cannot take notice of the division of powers between the European Union and its Member States. The difficulty identified by the Court in paragraphs 33 to 36 of Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991 (EU:C:1991:490), and in paragraphs 224 and 225 of Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014 (EU:C:2014:2454), therefore does not arise in this case.

78 In the light of that separation, there is no need, within the system concerning the settlement of disputes before the CETA Tribunal, to provide a mechanism for the prior involvement of the Court. An analysis of the kind carried out by the Court in paragraphs 236 to 248 of Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014 (EU:C:2014:2454) is of no relevance in the present case. Further, the grounds that led the Court to examine the possibility of a prior involvement mechanism in Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991 (EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 54 to 65) are also absent in the present case. Unlike the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), it is not at all an aim of the CETA to extend a part of the EU law acquis to Canada.

78 In the light of that separation, there is no need, within the system concerning the settlement of disputes before the CETA Tribunal, to provide a mechanism for the prior involvement of the Court. An analysis of the kind carried out by the Court in paragraphs 236 to 248 of Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014 (EU:C:2014:2454) is of no relevance in the present case. Further, the grounds that led the Court to examine the possibility of a prior involvement mechanism in Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991 (EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 54 to 65) are also absent in the present case. Unlike the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), it is not at all an aim of the CETA to extend a part of the EU law acquis to Canada.

78 In the light of that separation, there is no need, within the system concerning the settlement of disputes before the CETA Tribunal, to provide a mechanism for the prior involvement of the Court. An analysis of the kind carried out by the Court in paragraphs 236 to 248 of Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014 (EU:C:2014:2454) is of no relevance in the present case. Further, the grounds that led the Court to examine the possibility of a prior involvement mechanism in Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991 (EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 54 to 65) are also absent in the present case. Unlike the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), it is not at all an aim of the CETA to extend a part of the EU law acquis to Canada.

78 In the light of that separation, there is no need, within the system concerning the settlement of disputes before the CETA Tribunal, to provide a mechanism for the prior involvement of the Court. An analysis of the kind carried out by the Court in paragraphs 236 to 248 of Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014 (EU:C:2014:2454) is of no relevance in the present case. Further, the grounds that led the Court to examine the possibility of a prior involvement mechanism in Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991 (EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 54 to 65) are also absent in the present case. Unlike the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), it is not at all an aim of the CETA to extend a part of the EU law acquis to Canada.

78 In the light of that separation, there is no need, within the system concerning the settlement of disputes before the CETA Tribunal, to provide a mechanism for the prior involvement of the Court. An analysis of the kind carried out by the Court in paragraphs 236 to 248 of Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014 (EU:C:2014:2454) is of no relevance in the present case. Further, the grounds that led the Court to examine the possibility of a prior involvement mechanism in Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991 (EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 54 to 65) are also absent in the present case. Unlike the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), it is not at all an aim of the CETA to extend a part of the EU law acquis to Canada.

78 In the light of that separation, there is no need, within the system concerning the settlement of disputes before the CETA Tribunal, to provide a mechanism for the prior involvement of the Court. An analysis of the kind carried out by the Court in paragraphs 236 to 248 of Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014 (EU:C:2014:2454) is of no relevance in the present case. Further, the grounds that led the Court to examine the possibility of a prior involvement mechanism in Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991 (EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 54 to 65) are also absent in the present case. Unlike the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), it is not at all an aim of the CETA to extend a part of the EU law acquis to Canada.

78 In the light of that separation, there is no need, within the system concerning the settlement of disputes before the CETA Tribunal, to provide a mechanism for the prior involvement of the Court. An analysis of the kind carried out by the Court in paragraphs 236 to 248 of Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014 (EU:C:2014:2454) is of no relevance in the present case. Further, the grounds that led the Court to examine the possibility of a prior involvement mechanism in Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991 (EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 54 to 65) are also absent in the present case. Unlike the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), it is not at all an aim of the CETA to extend a part of the EU law acquis to Canada.

78 In the light of that separation, there is no need, within the system concerning the settlement of disputes before the CETA Tribunal, to provide a mechanism for the prior involvement of the Court. An analysis of the kind carried out by the Court in paragraphs 236 to 248 of Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014 (EU:C:2014:2454) is of no relevance in the present case. Further, the grounds that led the Court to examine the possibility of a prior involvement mechanism in Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991 (EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 54 to 65) are also absent in the present case. Unlike the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), it is not at all an aim of the CETA to extend a part of the EU law acquis to Canada.

78 In the light of that separation, there is no need, within the system concerning the settlement of disputes before the CETA Tribunal, to provide a mechanism for the prior involvement of the Court. An analysis of the kind carried out by the Court in paragraphs 236 to 248 of Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014 (EU:C:2014:2454) is of no relevance in the present case. Further, the grounds that led the Court to examine the possibility of a prior involvement mechanism in Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991 (EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 54 to 65) are also absent in the present case. Unlike the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), it is not at all an aim of the CETA to extend a part of the EU law acquis to Canada.

78 In the light of that separation, there is no need, within the system concerning the settlement of disputes before the CETA Tribunal, to provide a mechanism for the prior involvement of the Court. An analysis of the kind carried out by the Court in paragraphs 236 to 248 of Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014 (EU:C:2014:2454) is of no relevance in the present case. Further, the grounds that led the Court to examine the possibility of a prior involvement mechanism in Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991 (EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 54 to 65) are also absent in the present case. Unlike the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), it is not at all an aim of the CETA to extend a part of the EU law acquis to Canada.

78 In the light of that separation, there is no need, within the system concerning the settlement of disputes before the CETA Tribunal, to provide a mechanism for the prior involvement of the Court. An analysis of the kind carried out by the Court in paragraphs 236 to 248 of Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014 (EU:C:2014:2454) is of no relevance in the present case. Further, the grounds that led the Court to examine the possibility of a prior involvement mechanism in Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991 (EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 54 to 65) are also absent in the present case. Unlike the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), it is not at all an aim of the CETA to extend a part of the EU law acquis to Canada.

78 In the light of that separation, there is no need, within the system concerning the settlement of disputes before the CETA Tribunal, to provide a mechanism for the prior involvement of the Court. An analysis of the kind carried out by the Court in paragraphs 236 to 248 of Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014 (EU:C:2014:2454) is of no relevance in the present case. Further, the grounds that led the Court to examine the possibility of a prior involvement mechanism in Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991 (EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 54 to 65) are also absent in the present case. Unlike the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), it is not at all an aim of the CETA to extend a part of the EU law acquis to Canada.

57 It is true that, according to settled case-law of the Court, an international agreement providing for the establishment of a court responsible for the interpretation of its provisions and whose decisions are binding on the institutions, including the Court of Justice, is not in principle incompatible with EU law. The competence of the EU in the field of international relations and its capacity to conclude international agreements necessarily entail the power to submit to the decisions of a court which is created or designated by such agreements as regards the interpretation and application of their provisions, provided that the autonomy of the EU and its legal order is respected (see, to that effect, Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991, EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 40 and 70; Opinion 1/09 (Agreement creating a unified patent litigation system) of 8 March 2011, EU:C:2011:123, paragraphs 74 and 76; and Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the EU to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2454, paragraphs 182 and 183).

57 It is true that, according to settled case-law of the Court, an international agreement providing for the establishment of a court responsible for the interpretation of its provisions and whose decisions are binding on the institutions, including the Court of Justice, is not in principle incompatible with EU law. The competence of the EU in the field of international relations and its capacity to conclude international agreements necessarily entail the power to submit to the decisions of a court which is created or designated by such agreements as regards the interpretation and application of their provisions, provided that the autonomy of the EU and its legal order is respected (see, to that effect, Opinion 1/91 (EEA Agreement — I) of 14 December 1991, EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 40 and 70; Opinion 1/09 (Agreement creating a unified patent litigation system) of 8 March 2011, EU:C:2011:123, paragraphs 74 and 76; and Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the EU to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2454, paragraphs 182 and 183).

166. To these must be added the specific characteristics arising from the very nature of EU law. In particular, as the Court of Justice has noted many times, EU law is characterised by the fact that it stems from an independent source of law, the Treaties, by its primacy over the laws of the Member States (see, to that effect, judgments in Costa, EU:C:1964:66, p. 594, and Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, EU:C:1970:114, paragraph 3; Opinions 1/91, EU:C:1991:490, paragraph 21, and 1/09, EU:C:2011:123, paragraph 65; and judgment in Melloni, C‑399/11, EU:C:2013:107, paragraph 59), and by the direct effect of a whole series of provisions which are applicable to their nationals and to the Member States themselves (judgment in van Gend & Loos, EU:C:1963:1, p. 12, and Opinion 1/09, EU:C:2011:123, paragraph 65).

180. By contrast, as a result of the EU’s accession the ECHR, like any other international agreement concluded by the EU, would, by virtue of Article 216(2) TFEU, be binding upon the institutions of the EU and on its Member States, and would therefore form an integral part of EU law (judgment in Haegeman, 181/73, EU:C:1974:41, paragraph 5; Opinion 1/91, EU:C:1991:490, paragraph 37; judgments in IATA and ELFAA, C‑344/04, EU:C:2006:10, paragraph 36, and Air Transport Association of America and Others, C‑366/10, EU:C:2011:864, paragraph 73).

182. The Court of Justice has admittedly already stated in that regard that an international agreement providing for the creation of a court responsible for the interpretation of its provisions and whose decisions are binding on the institutions, including the Court of Justice, is not, in principle, incompatible with EU law; that is particularly the case where, as in this instance, the conclusion of such an agreement is provided for by the Treaties themselves. The competence of the EU in the field of international relations and its capacity to conclude international agreements necessarily entail the power to submit to the decisions of a court which is created or designated by such agreements as regards the interpretation and application of their provisions (see Opinions 1/91, EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 40 and 70, and 1/09, EU:C:2011:123, paragraph 74).

184. In particular, any action by the bodies given decision-making powers by the ECHR, as provided for in the agreement envisaged, must not have the effect of binding the EU and its institutions, in the exercise of their internal powers, to a particular interpretation of the rules of EU law (see Opinions 1/91, EU:C:1991:490, paragraphs 30 to 35, and 1/00, EU:C:2002:231, paragraph 13).

201. The Court has consistently held that an international agreement cannot affect the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties or, consequently, the autonomy of the EU legal system, observance of which is ensured by the Court. That principle is notably enshrined in Article 344 TFEU, according to which Member States undertake not to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaties to any method of settlement other than those provided for therein (see, to that effect, Opinions 1/91, EU:C:1991:490, paragraph 35, and 1/00, EU:C:2002:231, paragraphs 11 and 12; judgments in Commission v Ireland, C‑459/03, EU:C:2006:345, paragraphs 123 and 136, and Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, EU:C:2008:461, paragraph 282).