European Community Law in National Courts: a Continuing Contradiction

1992 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-185
Author(s):  
Christine Boch ◽  
Robert Lane
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Community Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Challenge ◽  
European Community Law

Unless the law is enforced, it cannot command respect. Securing proper observance and protection of Community rights has long been recognized to be a fundamental challenge for the Community. The burden falls principally to the national courts, guided by the European Court of Justice. However, the guidance offered appears at times at variance with itself. It seems in particular that, in some instances, the obligation of result laid down in directives simply cannot be achieved. This article looks at the case law on remedies developed by the European Court, seeks to identify inconsistencies therein and suggests how they might be cured.

The Double Life of Effectiveness

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 287-302
Author(s):  
Paolisa Nebbia
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Community Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

As a general principle of Community law elaborated by the European Court of Justice (hereinafter, ECJ or ‘the Court’), effectiveness ‘requires the effective protection of Community rights and, more generally, the effective enforcement of Community law in national courts’: its origins—it has been argued—‘lie in the interpretative techniques of the Court which, even at an early stage, favoured a liberalised construction of the Treaty provisions so as to ensure their effet utile’. In fact, the roots of the principle of effectiveness can be found in the seminal case of Van Gend en Loos, which, without expressly naming that principle, provided the conceptual tools that have moulded its construction throughout the Community case law.

scholarly journals From Van Duyn to Mangold via Marshall: Reducing Direct Effect to Absurdity?

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 81-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Dashwood
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Golden Age ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Intellectual Influence ◽  
European Community Law

In an article published in 1983, Pierre Pescatore who, as a Member of the Court of Justice, exercised a powerful intellectual influence over the development of European Community law during what might be deemed the Court’s Golden Age, once described direct effect as ‘an infant disease’. What he meant was that, in the early years of the Community, it may have seemed remarkable, even dangerous, that provisions of the EC Treaty or of acts adopted under it could give rise to rights and correlative duties which national courts were called upon to recognise and enforce. But now that Community law had reached maturity, direct effect should be taken for granted, as a normal incident of an advanced constitutional order.

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice: What are the Limits of its Exclusive Jurisdiction?

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Lock
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Academic Discussion

The article explores the limits of the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction by addressing two main issues: firstly, whether there are exceptions to that exclusivity, such as the application of the CILFIT case law or the exclusion of Community law from the dispute. Secondly, it asks whether other international courts must respect the ECJ's jurisdiction over a case. The article commences by briefly discussing the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction as it was established in Opinion 1/91 and the Mox Plant-Case and draws conclusions from this case law. It then addresses the above-mentioned points and comes to the conclusion that there are generally no exceptions to the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction and that the only option open to Member States is to exclude Community law from a dispute (and even that option is subject to limitations). Furthermore, after exploring several routes advanced in the academic discussion, the article comes to the conclusion that other courts must respect the ECJ's jurisdiction and as a consequence declare the case inadmissible.

Indirect taxes and national remedies

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-48
Author(s):  
Angela Ward
Keyword(s):  
Attorney General ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Special Edition ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
European Court ◽  
National Rule ◽  
Indirect Taxes

IN Case C-188/95 Fantask A/S and Others v. Industriministeriet (Erhvervsministeriet) [1997] E.C.R. I-6783 the European Court of Justice provided further guidance on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/335 EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (O.J. English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as most recently amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (O.J. 1985 L 156, p. 23), and elaborated its case law concerning Member State remedies and procedural rules. More particularly, it was held that a national rule which would have allowed Danish authorities to escape the duty to refund charges levied in breach of the Directive on the ground of “excusable error” rendered Community law impossible in practice or excessively difficult to enforce (Case 199/82 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. San Giorgio [1983] E.C.R. 3595), while a five-year time limit for bringing proceedings under Danish law was upheld as a reasonable limitation period (cf. Case C-208/90 Emmott v. Minister for Social Welfare and the Attorney General [1991] EC.R. I-4269).

Would chocolate by any other name taste as sweet?

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 571-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Slater
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
European Community ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Generic Product ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Food Law ◽  
European Court

Food law in the European Community is a touchy subject. One of the big ongoing debates in this area centres on the question of what names we call our foodstuffs by. In an internal market where local supermarket shelves are stocked with products coming from all around the EC and beyond, how can we be sure that the contents of the packets conform to our connotations of the name on the label? For example, if it says “chocolate” on the label, how can we be sure that it really is “chocolate” within our understanding of the word? The question of what names can or should go on labels is, sadly, very complicated. This article therefore intends to look at only one aspect of this problem: when a Member State is allowed to insist that the name of an imported “generic” product be changed. We will begin by briefly looking at the case law and one of the major pieces of legislation in this area – the Labelling Directive – before going on to discuss application of the law to the recent Chocolate Cases, handed down by the European Court of Justice (hereafter the “Court”) at the beginning of this year. This discussion will give some (hopefully) interesting insights into the way in which primary law, as interpreted by the Court, and secondary legislation interact and into the balancing of consumer protection and free trade performed by the Court.

scholarly journals Vidaus pirkimai kaip viešojo pirkimo sutarties išimtis

Teisė ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 53-69
Author(s):  
Deividas Soloveičikas
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Substantive Law

Ši publikacija skiriama pozityviosios viešųjų pirkimų teisės nereguliuojamai temai – vidaus sandorių iš­imčiai. Straipsnyje siekiama pateikti vidaus sandorių išimties koncepcijos analizę, Europos Teisingumo Teismo jurisprudenciją šioje srityje, taip pat ištirti, kokios yra praktinės vidaus sandorių sudarymo Lietu­voje ir Europos Sąjungoje galimybės ir prielaidos. This article is dedicated to the analysis of the subject that is not regulated by the substantive law – in-house procurement. The author seeks to examine the whole concept of the in-house procurement as well as the case-law of the European Court of Justice related to the mentioned field. Besides, it is the aim of this publication to investigate the pragmatic possibilities of the in-house procurement in Lithuanian jurisdiction as well as within the European Community dimension.

The Interface Between Competition Law and Private Law: Article 81, Illegality and Unjustified Enrichment

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-243
Author(s):  
Barry J Rodger
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
General Question ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Private enforcement through private party litigation is to play a central role in the enforcement of the European Community competition rules. However, there has so far been little case-law in the national courts to explore in detail the range of issues concerning the award of remedies for breach of the competition rules, principally arts 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. This article considers the particular position of a cocontractor seeking to claim damages in unjustified enrichment in respect of a contract which is prohibited by art 81 and illegal. The Scots law position on the general question of recovery of damages with regard to an illegal contract is discussed, together with some recent English cases involving a breach of art 81. The article looks at the development of Community jurisprudence laying down the requirement for national courts to provide legal redress and to ensure the effectiveness of Community law. Finally, it considers the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice in Courage v Crehan on a reference from the Court of Appeal.

Does the Codification of the Principle of Supremacy Matter?

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 57-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Per Cramér
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
National Institutions ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law

A little more than four decades ago, the European Court of Justice declared that the law of the European Communities constitutes the supreme law of the Member States. The national institutions, most importantly the national courts, were to apply rules of Community law and, in so doing, were required to set aside conflicting provisions of national law, however framed. Since then, this judicially formulated constitutional principle has been developed and restated in later judgments by the ECJ. However, during the same period the absolute character of the principle has been continually challenged by the Member States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document