In the MOX Plant case relating to the UNCLOS Joint Agreement, the Court obliged Member States to inform and consult with the relevant Community institutions before initiating a settlement of disputes against another Member State.34 This obligation is intended to prevent conflicts in situations where the exclusive powers of the Union or, in particular, the Court of Justice are threatened. While MOX Plant was an exclusive competence of the Union, the obligation to inform and consult must be seen in a broader context. The reason is that the provisions of a joint agreement apply not only between The Member States, but also between the Member States and the Union. That is why the obligations of Member States to third countries under such an agreement are also due to the Union.35 As a result we can conclude that we can conclude that there is a general obligation, regardless of the jurisdiction of the Member States and the European Union. to coordinate and consult with each other in joint agreements where the interests of one of the parties are affected.36 As a general rule, Member States are not required to take a concerted position on matters within their exclusive jurisdiction106, as has already been mentioned, Member States are bound by the principle of loyalty, even if they act within the framework of a joint agreement within their reserved powers. The reason for this is that, in a joint agreement, the interests of the Union can be affected by the action of a Member State, even in the absence of EU competence. A second reason is the union`s general interest in the unity that Member States demand loyalty in their actions. In the context of infringement proceedings, it is therefore easy to understand why the Court has based itself on the community`s interest as an expression of loyalty. The parts of the joint agreements under the union`s jurisdiction (P.206) are part of EU law which falls under the competence of the Union. These commitments are therefore converted into EU objectives.

Loyalty in this regard requires that Member States do not compromise the achievement of these objectives. This obliges Member States to act on matters within their own jurisdiction and allows the Court of Justice to hold Member States to account for the performance of these obligations. The same is true when the Union has jurisdiction but has not been able to accede to the agreement concerned and the Member States have become contracting parties on their behalf. In this case, compliance with the agreement and its implementation by Member States are necessary under EU law157 If, despite the best efforts of the Member States, no common position is adopted in an area of shared competence, the following should be taken into account. Since the issues relating to such a case fall within the competence of the Union, even in the absence of a common position, 125 loyalties remain in place in order to preserve certain interests of the Union and the general interest of the Union for the unity of international representation. This means that Member States must take due account of the relevant interests of the Union, even if they have not been expressed by a Council decision or as an EU strategy. In addition, the loyalty mandates that divide the EU Member States in defining a negotiating position126 will also be more determined to this commitment when the jurisdictional situation (p.202) or the agreement itself is interdependent/complex. As noted above, MOX Plant can be seen as the basis for a general obligation in the area of joint agreements to “inform and consult with Community institutions before individual action.”127 (116) I.