No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The European Court as an International Tribunal*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
To Speak of the European Court as an international tribunal is to expose oneself to the charge of heresy. No principle of Community law is more fundamental, none more frequently reiterated by the European Court, than that the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community “is more than an agreement which merely creates mutual obligations between the contracting States” but rather constitutes a new legal order capable of conferring rights and imposing obligations directly upon individuals. In the Court's words, “By contrast with ordinary international treaties, the E.E.C. Treaty has created its own legal system, which, on the entry into force of the Treaty, became an integral part of the legal systems of the Member States.” For this reason, Professor Lipstein has, with justification, said of Community law that it represents a “peculiar phenomenon … which does not fit into any regular pattern of international law.”Professor Hay has insisted upon describing it as “supranational law” and Professors Brown and Jacobs maintain that the function of the European Court, in interpreting and applying that law, is "constitutional" rather than international.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1983
References
1 Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administrate der Belaslingen [1963] E.C.R. 1, 12.
2 Case 6/64, Costa v. ENEL [1964] E.C.R. 585, 593. See also Joined Cases 20 and 21/63, Commission v. Luxembourg and Belgium [1964] E.C.R. 621, 631; Case 28/67, Molkerei-Zentrale v. Hauptzollamt Paderborn [1968] E.C.R. 143, 152; Case 14/68, Walt Wilhelm v. Bundeskartellamt [1969] E.C.R. 1, 14.
3 Lipstein, K., The Law of the European Economic Community (1974), p. 45.Google Scholar
4 Hay, P., Federalism and Supranational Organizations (1966), pp. 163–164.Google Scholar See further the same author's comments (1965) 59 Proc.A.S.I.L. 195–201 where he attributes the origin of the word supranational to Robertson, A. H., “Legal Problems of European Integration” (1957) 91 Hague Recueil 105, 145.Google Scholar
5 Brown, L. N. and Jacobs, F., The Court of Justice of the European Communities (1977), p. 7.Google Scholar
6 Wyatt, D., “New Legal Order, or Old?” (1982) 7 E.L.Rev. 147.Google Scholar
7 Similar provision is made in Art. 150 of the Euratom Treaty.
8 In the period between 1 January 1958 and 31 December 1981, 1,513 cases were lodged at the European Court, 913 of them being based on Art. 177 of the E.E.C. Treaty.
9 Similar provision is made in Art. 142 of the Euratom Treaty and Art. 89 of the E.C.S.C. Treaty.
10 Case 141/78, France v. United Kingdom [1979] E.C.R. 2923.
11 Similar provision is made in Art. 141 of the Euratom Treaty and Art. 88 of the E.C.S.C. Treaty.
12 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, Montego Bay; Convention signed by 117 states, excluding the United Kingdom. (U.K., along with all other Member States, signed the Final Act.) For the definitive text see U.N. Doc A/CON/62/122.
13 This was done in Case 42/82, Commission v. France (judgment pending), a dispute arising from imports to France of Italian wine. Italy intervened in support of the Commission having, according to press reports, considered but dismissed the possibility of initiating proceedings under Art. 170
14 Similar provision is made in Art. 153 of the Euratom Treaty and Art. 42 of the E.C.S.C. Treaty.
15 General Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, 250 U.N.T.S. 12, Art. 21; Articles of Agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Art. 7(3).
16 Similar provision is made in Art. 104 of the Euratom Treaty (and Art. 193 thereof authorises the Court to rule upon the compatibility with Community law of proposed treaties between Member States and third states).
17 Charter of the Organization of Central American States, 122 U.N.T.S. 3, Art. 15(b).
18 Similar provision is made in Art. 152 of the Euratom Treaty. The early staff cases involving officials of the E.C.S.C. came within the Court's jurisdiction by virtue of Art. 42 thereof, in combination with contractual terms and Rules of Procedure. See Case 34/59, Elz v. High Authority [1960] E.C.R. 101.
19 [1956] I.C.J. Rep. 77 (Advisory Opinion).
20 Application for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the U.N.A.T. [1973] I.C.J.Rep. 167 (Advisory Opinion).
21 E.E.C. Treaty, Art. 173; Euratom Treaty, Art. 146; cf. E.C.S.C. Treaty, Art. 33 which sets out more restricted principles governing judicial review.
22 E.E.C. Treaty, Arts. 178 and 215; Euratom Treaty, Arts. 153 and 188; E.C.S.C. Treaty, Art. 40.
23 Statute of the Court of Justice of the E.E.C., Art. 37; Statute of the Court of Justice of Euratom, Art. 38. In the case of the E.C.S.C. statute, Member States must prove their interest in the outcome of any case other than one between Member States: Statute of the Court of Justice of the E.C.S.C, Arts. 34 and 41.
24 Joined Cases 91 and 200/82, Chris International Foods Ltd. v. Commission. After this lecture was given, the Court decided by Order dated 9 March 1983, to permit the Windward Islands States to intervene. See the author's article “Intervening in Cases before the European Court: A New Avenue for the Governments of Commonwealth Countries,” to be published in (1983) 9 C.L.B.
25 Statute of the Court of Justice of the E.E.C., Art. 37. Identical wording is used in the Statute of the Court of Justice of Euratom, Art. 38; and similar wording appears in the Statute of the Court of Justice of the E.C.S.C, Art. 34. Detailed rules governing the form of application are contained in the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 93.
26 Joined Cases 7 and 9/54, Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v. High Authority [1954–56] E.C.R. 175, 223. Under the same Treaty the Court permitted a German Lander to intervene in Joined Cases 3–18, 25 and 26/58, Erzbergbau v. High Authority [1960] E.C.R. 173.
27 Pescatore, P., “Les travaux du groupe juridique dans la négotiation des traītés de Rome” (1981) 34 Studia Diplomatica 159, 173.Google Scholar28 Brussels, 15 March 1965; entered into force 1 January 1974.
29 See Bowett, D. W., The Law of International Institutions (1982), pp. 263–264.Google Scholar Unlike the European Court, the proposed International Prize Court was to have been a true court of cassation.
30 Statute of the Court of Justice of the E.E.C., Art. 20; Statute of the Court of Justice of Euratom, Art. 218. No similar provision is made expressly in the case of the E.C.S.C. although the same procedure is invariably followed.
31 Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 95.
32 Art. 119 of the E.E.C. Treaty requires no “transnational” element to come into play; but even that Article has as one of its objects the aim of ensuring that producers in different Member States are not placed at a competitive advantage or disadvantage by reason of the maintenance of different national rules on the subject: Case 43/75, Defrenne v. Sabena [1976] E.C.R. 455, 472.
33 Case 175/78, R. v. Saunders [1979] E.C.R. 1129, 1135.
34 Case 115/78, Knoors v. Secretary of State [1979] E.C.R. 399, 410.
35 This seems to follow from Joined Cases 35 and 36/82, Morson and Jhanjan, 27 October 1982, not yet reported. The Oberverwaltungsgericht of Rheinland–Pfalz reached a similar conclusion in Re Residence Permit for an Egyptian National [1975] C.M.L.R. 402. Art. 1 of Regulation No. 1612/68 of 15 October 1968, [1968] O.J.Eng.Sp.Ed. 474 speaks of the right of a national to enter the territory of another Member State. A person may, however, enforce Community provisions against his own state if a transnational element exists, such as is the case where he or she seeks recognition in his own Member State, for the purpose of working there, of a qualification obtained in another Member State: Case 115/78 Knoors (supra) and Case 246/80 Broekmeulen v. Huisarts Registratie Commissie [1981] E.C.R. 2311.
36 Case 104/79, Foglia v. Novello (No. 1) [1980] E.C.R. 745; Case 244/80, Foglia v. Novello (No. 2) [1981] E.C.R. 3045.
37 Bebr, G., “The Existence of a Genuine Dispute: An Indispensable Precondition for the Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty?” (1980) 17 C.M.L.Rev. 525;Google ScholarBarav, A., “Preliminary Censorship? The Judgment of the European Court in Foglia v. Novello” (1980) 5 E.L.Rev. 443.Google Scholar Almost alone in supporting the Court's judgment is Wyatt, D., “Following up Foglia: Why the Court is Right to Stick to its Guns” (1981) 6 E.L.Rev. 447Google Scholar and “Foglia No 2: The Court Denies it has Jurisdiction to Give Advisory Opinions” (1982) 7 E.L.Rev. 186.Google Scholar
38 Barav, A., “Imbroglio Préjudiciel” [1982] Rev.trim.dr.eur. 431, 435.Google Scholar
39 Case 22/76, Import Gadgets v. L.A.M.P. [1976] E.C.R. 1371; Case 52/77, Cayrol v. Rivoira [1977] E.C.R. 2261.
40 Case 46/80, Vinal v. Orbat [1981] E.C.R. 77.
41 Case 261/81, Rau v. De Smedt, 10 November 1982, not yet reported.
42 Case 224/78, Union Laitiire Normande v. French Dairy Farmers Ltd. [1979] E.C.R. 2663.
43 See, e.g., Mathijsen, P. S. R. F., A Guide to European Community Law (1975), p. 1;Google ScholarParry, A. and Dinnage, J., Parry and Hardy: EEC Law (1981), p. 95;Google ScholarLasok, D. and Bridge, J., Introduction to the Law and Institutions of the European Communities (1982), pp. 91–92;Google Scholar Brown and Jacobs, supra, n. 5 at p. 82; Pescatore, P., Le droit de l'intégration (1972), p. 48;Google ScholarGutteridge, J. A. C., “A Public International Lawyer Looks at the EEC,” in Multum non Multa: Festschrift für Kurt Lipstein (1980), p. 61.Google Scholar
44 O'Connell, D. P., in International Law (1970), Vol. I, p. 56 distinguishes between treaties “self–executing in international law” and those self–executing in internal law.Google Scholar
45 See Henry, L., “When is a Treaty Self–Executing?” 27 Mich.L.Rev. 776 (1928–1929);CrossRefGoogle ScholarMetzger, S., “A Contract Approach to International Law,” 16 La.L.Rev. 725 (1956);Google Scholar cf. Bebr, G., “The Relationship between Community Law and the Law of the Member States” (1962) 11 I.C.L.Q. 1.Google Scholar The provisions of the laws of the Member States of the European Communities dealing with the application of Community law by national courts, are set out (in English translation) in Plender, R. and Usher, J., Cases and Materials on the Law of the European Communities (1980), pp. 173–221.Google Scholar
46 Pescatore, P., “International Law and Community Law: A Comparative Analysis” (1970) C.M.L.Rev. 167, 174.Google Scholar
47 Supra, n. 1.
48 (1928) P.C.I.J. Ser. B. No. 15 at pp.17–18.
49 Nuremberg Judgment, p. 41.
50 E.E.C. Treaty, Art. 238.
51 E.E.C. Treaty, Art. 131 (amended by Act of Accession, Art. 24(1) and Adaptation Decision, Art. 3) and Arts. 132, 133, 136.
52 Such were the arguments advanced in Case 87/75, Bresciani v. Amministrazione Italiana delle Finanze [1976] E.C.R. 129 and Case 65/77, Razanatsimba [1977] E.C.R. 2229.
53 Mr. Advocate General Warner stated in Case 51/75, EMI Records v. CBS United Kingdom [1976] E.C.R. 811, 861: “the meaning of words depends on the context in which they are found and the same words, used in different instruments brought into existence for different purposes, may mean different things.”
54 Case 96/71, Haegeman v. Commission [1972] E.C.R. 1005, 1023–1024.
55 Case 181/73, Haegeman v. Belgium [1974] E.C.R. 449, 460. In the interim the Court adopted similar reasoning in Case 40/72, Schroeder v. Germany [1973] E.C.R. 125, 146.
56 Case 52/77, Cayrol v. Rivoira, supra, n. 39 at p. 2276; Case 225/78, Bouhelier [1979] E.C.R. 3151,3160.
57 Supra, n. 52 at p. 141.
58 Case 225/78, Bouhelier, supra, n. 56 at p. 3164 (Mr. Capotorti).
59 Case 270/80, Polydor and RSO Records v. Harlequin Record Shops and Simons Records [1982] E.C.R. 329.
60 See in particular Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos, supra, n. 1.
61 Cmnd. 4140; (1969) 8 l.L.M. 679.
62 Case 104/81, Hauptzollamt Mainz v. Kupferberg, K.G., 26 October 1982, not yet reported.
63 See paras. 18 and 23 of the judgment.
64 U.N.T.S. Vols. 55–61, Cmd. 7258.
65 On the principle of incompatibility of Community agreements with other treaties, see Pazarci, H. “Problèmes d'incompatibilité des accords conclus par la CEE” (1981) Mélanges P. Reuter 391–405.Google Scholar
66 Joined Cases 21 to 24/71, International Fruit Company N. V. v. Produktschap voor Groenlen en Fruit [1972] E.C.R. 1219, 1226.
67 See the debate between DrHunnings, N. March and Waelbroeck, M. Michel on this issue (Hunnings: “Enforceability of the EEC-EFTA Free Trade Agreements” (1977) 2 E.L.Rev. 163;Google ScholarWaelbroeck, : “Enforceability of the EEC-EFTA Ftee Trade Agreements—A Reply” (1978) 3 E.L.Rev. 27;Google ScholarHunnings, : “Enforceability of the EEC-EFTA Free Trade Agreements–A Rejoinder” (1978) 3 E.L.Rev. 278).Google Scholar
68 Finanzgerichl, Hamburg, 23 September 1965 [1966] E.F.G. 41 and 1 December 1969 [1970] E.F.G. 196; Finanzgerichl, Munich, 10 December 1969 [1970] E.F.G. 144. Cf. Cone di cassazione 6 July 1968 [1968] I Foro It. 2463.
69 A case on the issue is now pending: Case 266/81, SIOT v. Ministero delle Finanze.
70 E.E.C. Treaty, Art. 189.
71 Case 41/74, Van Duyn v. Home Office [1974] E.C.R. 1337, 1348.
72 Alabama Arbitration (1872) 4 Moo.I.A. 4057; Treatment of Polish Nationals in Danzig (1932) P.C.I.J. Rep. Ser. A/B No. 44, at p. 24.
73 Case 148/78, Pubblico Ministero v. Ratti [1979] E.C.R. 1629, 1642.
74 Case 100/77, Commission v. Italian Republic [1978] E.C.R. 879, 887; Case 102/79, Commission v. Belgium [1980] E.C.R. 1473, 1487; Case 8/81, Becker v. Finanzamt Munster [1982] E.C.R. 53, 70–71; Case 255/81, Grendel v. Finanzamt Hamburg, 10 June 1982, at para. 11, not yet reported.
75 See Easson, A., “Can Directives Impose Obligations on Individuals?” (1979) 4 E.L.Rev. 67;Google ScholarWinter, J. A., “Direct Applicability and Direct Effect: Two Distinct and Different Concepts in Community Law” (1972) 9 CM.L.Rev. 425.Google Scholar
76 It is readily admitted, however, that this is no more than a suggestion. It is possible that a Directive should be taken to be addressed to the courts (among other organs) of Member States, obliging the latter to secure respect for rights between individuals.
77 Supra, n. 74 at p. 75. There is a bare hint in para. 44 of the Court's judgment that it may have accepted the Advocate General's argument on the issue.
78 Plender, and Usher, , supra, n. 45 at pp. 11–18;Google ScholarPlender, , “The Interpretation of Community Acts by Reference to those Relations of the Authors,” appearing in (1983) 2 Ybk.Eur.L. at notes 83–88.Google Scholar
79 Case 8/55, Fédération Charbonnère de Belgique v. High Authority [1954–56] E.C.R. 245, 299.
80 Reparations for Injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations (1949) I.C.J.Rep. 178, 179, 182.
81 Case 4/73, Nold v. Commission [1974] E.C.R. 491, 507–508; Case 36/75, Rutili v. Minister ofthe Interior [1975] E.C.R. 1219, 1232; Case 130/75, Vivien Prais v. Council, [1976] E.C.R. 1589; Case 44/79, Hauer v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz [1979] E.C.R. 3727, 3745; Joined Cases 209–215 and 218/78, Heintz van Landewyck v. Commission [1980] E.C.R. 3125, 3248; Case 136/79, National Panasonic v. Commission [1980J E.C.R. 2033, 2056.
82 Case 4/73, Nold v. Commission, supra, n. 81 at p. 513 (Mr. Advocate General Trabucchi); Case 130/75, Vivien Prais v. Council, supra, n. 81 at p. 1608 (Mr. Advocate General Warner); Case 61/77, Commission v. Ireland [1978] E.C.R. 417, 469 (Mr. Advocate General Reischl); Case 149/77, Defrenne v. Sabena [1978] E.C.R. 1365, 1385 (Mr. Advocate General Capotorti); Case 34/79, R. v. Henn and Darby [1979] E.C.R. 3795, 3821 (Mr. Advocate General Warner); Case 44/79, Hauer v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz, supra, n. 81 at p. 3759 (Mr. Advocate General Capotorti); Case 136/79, National Panasonic v. Commission, supra, n. 81 at p. 2067 (Mr. Advocate General Warner); Joined Cases 209–215/78, Heintz van Landewyck v. Commission, supra, n. 81 at p. 3302 (Mr. Advocate General Reischl); Joined Cases 100–103/80. Pioneer and Others v. Commission, 8 February 1983, not yet reported (Mr. Advocate General Slynn).
83 Joined Cases 209–215/78, Heintz van Landewyck v. Commission, supra, n. 81 at p. 3248. See also the Opinion of Mr. Advocate General Capotorti in Case 44/79, Hauer v. Commission, supra, n. 81 at p. 3761.
84 I.L.O. Convention No. 111 on Discrimination with Respect to Employment: Case 149/77, Defrenne v. Sabena, supra, n. 82 at p. 1378; I.L.O. Convention No. 100 on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value: Case 43/75, Defrenne v. Sabena, supra, n. 32 at p. 473. See also Mr. Advocate General Trabucchi's Opinion in that case at p. 484 and Mr. Advocate General Warner's Opinion in Case 69/80, Worringham and Humphreys v. Lloyds Bank [1981] E.C.R. 767, 804.
85 Supra, n. 64. Case 10/61, Commission v. Italy [1962] E.C.R. 1, 10; Case 92/71, Interfood v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg [1972] E.C.R. 231, 242; Joined Cases 21–24/72, International Fruit Company, supra, n. 66 at p. 1226; Case 9/73, Karl Schlüter v. Hauptzollamt Lörrach E.C.R. 1135, 1156; Case 38/75, Nederlandse Spoorwegen v. Inspecleur der invoerrechten en accijnzen [1975] E.C.R. 1439, 1447; Case 112/80, Dürbeck v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt [1981] E.C.R. 1095, 1119.
86 Case 14/70, Bakels v. Oberfinanzdirektion München [1970] E.C.R. 1001, 1009.
87 Joined Cases 3, 4 and 6/76. Cornells Kramer [1976] E.C.R. 1279, 1305; Case 141/78, France v. United Kingdom, supra, n. 10 at p. 2940.
88 Case 34/79, R. v. Henn and Darby, supra, n. 82 at p. 3816.
89 Supra, n. 44, Vol. II, p. 821.
90 (1927) P.C.I.J. Ser. A. No. 10.
91 Professor O'Connell referred in particular to U.S. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d. 416 (1945); U.S. v. National Lead Co., 63 F.Supp. 513 (1945); U.S. v. General Electric Co., 82 F.Supp. 753 (1949) and U.S. v. Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. 105 F.Supp. 215 (1952).
92 148 F. 2d. 416, 443 (2d. Cir. 1945).
93 See further Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 704–706 (1962); Restatement Second, Foreign Relations Law of the U.S. (1965), para. 18: “Extra territorial Application of Federal Antitrust Laws …” (1978) 40 A.L.R.Fed. 343.
94 [1953] Ch. 19(C.A.).
95 U.S. v. General Electric Co., 82 F.Supp. 753 (D.N.J. 1949).
96 549 F. 2d. 597, 611 (9th Cir. 976).
97 Manningham-Mills Inc. v. Congoleum Corp., 595 F. 2d. 1287 (3d. Cir. 1979).
98 U.S. v. Scophony Corp., 333 U.S. 795 (1948).
99 Case 48/69 [1972] E.C.R. 619, 694.
1 Ibid., at p. 662 (para. 126).
2 Ibid., at p. 663 (para. 139).
3 Case 22/71, Béguelin v. S.A.G.L. Import [1971] E.C.R. 949, 959 (para. 11).
4 Case 6/72, Europemballage and Continental v. Commission [1973] E.C.R. 215, 242 (para. 15).
5 Joined Cases 6 and 7/73R, Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano S.p.A. and Commercial Solvents Corp. v. Commission [1973] E.C.R. 357, 359 (para. 16) and Joined Cases 6 and 7/73, Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano and Commercial Solvents Corp. v. Commission [1974] E.C.R. 223, 246 (para. 6) 252 (para. 33).
6 Ibid., at p. 265 (support for this view is found in para. 33 of the Court's judgment).
7 Case 51/75, EMI Records v. CBS (U.K.) Ltd. [1976] E.C.R. 811, 864.
8 Rowe, F., Jacobs, F. and Joelson, M., eds. Enterprise Law of the 80's (1980), p. 234.Google Scholar