Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:31:12.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

National Courts—the Powerhouse of Community Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

David Edward
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is always an honour to be invited to give a named lecture and especially to be invited to do so in this University. But it is an added privilege and also a pleasure to be invited to do so when one has known the person in whose honour the lecture has been named. It is particularly delightful to be able to do so with Lady Mackenzie-Stuart among us.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 5 , 2003 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kress v France (application n° 39594/98), judgment of 7 June 2001, para 79 (emphasis added).

2 Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECR 1; Case 41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337.

3 See Claes, M, and de Witte, B, ‘Report on the Netherlands’, in Slaughter, A-M, Stone Sweet, A, and Weiler, JHH (eds), The European Court and National Courts, Doctrine and Jurisprudence (Hart Publishing 1998) ch 6 Google Scholar.

4 For a report of the proceedings in the Chancery Division, see Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] 1 CMLR 347.

5 Cases C–320/90, C–321/90 and C–322/90 Telemarsicabruzzo SpA and Others v Circostel and Others [1993] ECR I–393.

6 Case C–280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH, Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH, judgment of 24 July 2003, nyr.

7 Case C–167/97 Seymour-Smith and Laura Perez [1999] ECR I–623.

8 Case C–306/99 Banque internationale pour l’Afrique occidentale SA (BIAO) v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg [2003] ECR I–1.

9 Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA (No 2) [1978] ECR 629.

10 Case C–35/99 Manuele Arduino [2002] ECR I–1529.

11 Case of Raoul Georges Nicolo [1990] 1 CMLR 173.

12 See for example Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 3) [2000] 2 WLR 15 (CA), [2000] 2 WLR 1220 (HL).

13 Case 283/81 CILFIT (Srl) & Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health [1982] ECR 3415.

14 See Brunner v European Union Treaty (the ‘Maastricht Judgment’) [1994] 1 CMLR 57.

15 James, Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, (Oxford University Press, 1901) 504 Google Scholar.

16 Case C–367/96 Kefalas and others v Elliniko Dimosio and OAE [1998] ECR I–2843 and the subsequent decision of Efeteio Athinon, Tmima 1, judgment of 9 May 2000, n 3841/2000.

17 Case C–224/01 Köbler v Republic of Austria, judgment delivered 30 September 2003, not yet reported.

18 Case C–28/95 Leur-Bloem v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 [1997]. ECR I–4161 and Case C–130/95 Giloy v HZA Frankfurt am Main-Ost [1997]. ECR I–4291; Case C–338/95 Wiener v HZA Emmerich [1997] ECR I–6495; and Case C–306/99 BIAO, above n 8.

19 Case 8/55 Fédéchar v High Authority [1954–56] ECR 245 at 277.

20 Claes & de Witte, above n 3 at 179.

21 Case C–431/92 Commission v Germany [1995] ECR I–2189.

22 Case C–72/95 Kraaijeveld [1996] ECR I–5403.

23 Case C–129/96 Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL [1997] ECR I–7411.

24 Cases C–300/98 and C–392/98 Parfums Christian Dior SA v Tuk Consultancy BV; Assco Gerüste GmbH and R van Dijk v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co KG and Layher BV [2000] ECR I–11307.

25 Case C–89/99 Schieving-Nijstad v Groeneveld [2001] ECR I–5851.

26 See the title of Volume II of Birks English Private Law (Oxford University Press, 2000).

27 Cases C–6/90 and C–9/90 Francovich & Bonifaci v Italy [1991] ECR I–5357.

28 Cases C–213/89, C–221/89 and C–48/93 R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Limited and others [1990] ECR I–2433, [1991] ECR I–3905, [1996] ECR I–1029.

29 Case C–253/00 Muñoz v Frumar Limited [2002] ECR I–7289.

30 Case C–453/99 Courage Limited v Crehan [2001] ECR I–6297.

31 Case C–83/91 Wienand Meilicke v ADV/ORGA FA Meyer AG [1992] ECR I–4871.

32 Case C–208/00 Überseering BV and Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC) [2002] ECR I–9919.

33 Cases C–414/99, C–415/99 and C–416/99 Zino Davidoff SA v A&G Imports Limited [2001] ECR I–8691.

34 Case C–355/96 Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1998] ECR I–4799.

35 See summaries of arguments in the Opinion of Advocate General La Pergola in Case C–85/96 Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] ECR I–2691, para 15, and the Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas in Case C–378/97 Wijsenbeek [1999] ECR I–6207, para 76.

36 Case C–85/96 Martínez Sala above n 35; Case C–184/99 Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve [2001] ECR I–6193; and Case C–224/98 D’Hoop v Office national de l’emploi [2002] ECR I–6191.

37 Mitchell, JDB, ‘Why European Institutions?’, Edinburgh University Inaugural Lecture, 1968, 13–14.