The Interpretation of Community Law by the 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

The Cambridge Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s0008197399331019 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 58 (1) ◽

pp. 1-48

Author(s):

Angela Ward

Keyword(s):

Attorney General ◽

Case Law ◽

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).

The European Court of Justice, More than a Teleological Court

10.5235/152888712802815789 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 2 ◽

pp. 373-398 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Albertina Albors Llorens

Keyword(s):

Common Denominator ◽

Community Law ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

European Court ◽

Legal Texts ◽

The Media ◽

The Common ◽

Ec Law

The judgments of the Community judicature are often subject to intense scrutiny by the media and by academic writers. The European Court of Justice, in particular, is regularly accused of being by and large an “activist” court, namely a court that construes EC law in the light of the objective the judges are trying to pursue. In particular, it is argued that the European Court uses the teleological method of interpretation to enhance the effectiveness of Community law at the expense of the written legal texts. Several studies have been published on the supposed “activist” role of the European Court and as many (or more) have been written in defence of the Court. The common denominator of all these works is that they are selective.

Criminal Jurisdiction, the Public Dimension to ‘Effective Protection’ and the Construction of Community-Citizen Relations

10.1017/s1528887000004006 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

pp. 25-46

Author(s):

Estella Baker

Keyword(s):

Law Enforcement ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Effective Protection ◽

The Public ◽

Community Law ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

European Court ◽

Criminal Justice Systems ◽

Law And Justice

In a series of decisions the European Court of Justice [‘the Court’] has ruled that Member States must deploy their law enforcement authorities, including their criminal justice systems, so as to safeguard Community interests from threat or damage. These rulings have received attention from commentators because, amongst other things, they make it explicit that Community law has a tangible impact on matters of criminal law and justice notwithstanding the absence of a criminal legal base in the Community Treaty.

The Principle of Non-discrimination in Respect of Age: Dimensions of the ECJ's Mangold Judgment

German Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s2071832200004818 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 7 (5) ◽

pp. 505-524 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Marlene Schmidt

Keyword(s):

General Framework ◽

Equal Treatment ◽

Preliminary Ruling ◽

Framework Agreement ◽

Community Law ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Council Directive ◽

European Court ◽

Answering Questions

On 22 November 2005, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered a judgement in a preliminary ruling procedure from the Arbeitsgericht München (Labour Court Munich), answering questions concerning the interpretation of Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term contracts, put into effect by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, and as regards the construction of Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. Essentially, the Arbeitsgericht wanted to know whether a statutory provision exempting employees of 52 years of age and older from limitations to the conclusion of fixed-term contracts was compatible with Community law.

Oxford Principles Of European Union Law: The European Union Legal Order: Volume I ◽

Supranational Differentiation and Enhanced Cooperation

10.1093/oso/9780199533770.003.0030 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Daniel Thym

Keyword(s):

Political Legitimacy ◽

Legal Order ◽

European Law ◽

Legal Basis ◽

Community Law ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

European Court ◽

The Common ◽

Uniform Composition

The ‘unity dogma’ has long characterized European law discourse. In many of its landmark judgments, the European Court of Justice had recourse to the ‘unity argument’—such as in Costa v ENEL, where the Court stated that ‘the executive force of Community law cannot vary from one state to another … without jeopardizing the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty’. Unilateral national deviations could not be tolerated without the common rules ‘being deprived of their character as Community law and without the legal basis of the Community itself being called into question’. Other expressions of the ‘unity dogma’ include the principle of non-discrimination or the uniform composition of EU institutions. This contribution demonstrates that the asymmetric non-participation of some Member States in selected policy areas can be embedded into the supranational legal order. The main danger seems to be a structural weakening of political legitimacy.

Criminal Jurisdiction, the Public Dimension to ‘Effective Protection’ and the Construction of Community-Citizen Relations

10.5235/152888712802761699 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

pp. 25-46

Author(s):

Estella Baker

Keyword(s):

Law Enforcement ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Effective Protection ◽

The Public ◽

Community Law ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

European Court ◽

Criminal Justice Systems ◽

Law And Justice

In a series of decisions the European Court of Justice [‘the Court’] has ruled that Member States must deploy their law enforcement authorities, including their criminal justice systems, so as to safeguard Community interests from threat or damage. These rulings have received attention from commentators because, amongst other things, they make it explicit that Community law has a tangible impact on matters of criminal law and justice notwithstanding the absence of a criminal legal base in the Community Treaty.

European Community Law in National Courts: a Continuing Contradiction

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s0922156500002466 ◽

1992 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

pp. 171-185

Author(s):

Christine Boch ◽

Robert Lane

Keyword(s):

European Community ◽

Case Law ◽

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

10.1017/s1528887000001348 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 10 ◽

pp. 287-302

Author(s):

Paolisa Nebbia

Keyword(s):

General Principle ◽

Early Stage ◽

Case Law ◽

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.