² With respect to primary law, see art 314 EC or 53 EU (and the respective final provisions in other EU Treaties), with respect to secondary law, see art 1 of the Regulation 1/58/EEC determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, Journal Officiel no 17 du 6 Oct 1958 at 390, English special edition: Series I, ch 1952–8 at 59. There are, however, temporal derogations in respect of Irish (Gaelic) and Maltese—see Council Regulation (EC) 930/2004 of 1 May 2004 on temporary derogation measures relating to the drafting in Maltese of the acts of the institutions of the European Union, [2004] OJ L169/1; Council Regulation (EC) 920/2005 of 13 Jun 2005 amending Regulation 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Economic Community; and Regulation N1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Atomic Energy Community and introducing temporary derogation measures from those Regulations, [2005] OJ L156/3.

³ Generally on the topic, see, eg Van Calster, G, ‘The EU’s Tower of Babel. The Interpretation by the European Court of Justice of Equally Authentic Texts Drafted in more than one Official Language’ (1997) YEL 363 Google Scholar; Lutterman, , ‘Rechtsprachenvergleich in der Europäischen Union‘ (1999) EuZW 154 Google Scholar; and Pozzo, B and Jacometti, V (eds), Multilingualism and the Harmonisation of European Law (Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International, 2006)Google Scholar.

⁴ Most recently in Case C-63/06 UAB Profisa v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos [2007] ECR I-3239, para 13. For further examples, see: Case 26/69 Stauder v Stadt Ulm [1969] ECR 419, para 3; Case 55/87 Alexander Moksel Import und Export GmbH & Co Handels-KG v Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung [1988] ECR 3845, para 15; or Case C-296/95 R and Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex p EMU Tabac SARL, The Man in Black Ltd and John Cunningham [1998] ECR I-1605, para 36.

⁵ UAB Profisa, above n 4; see also instructive Opinions of the Advocates General in Case C-227/01 Commission v Spain [2004] ECR I-8253 para 22–8; and Case C-371/02, Björnekulla Fruktindustrier AB v Procordia Food AB [2004] ECR I-5791 para 34–43.

⁶ Case 100/84 Commission v United Kingdom [1985] ECR 1169. See also the very helpful and literarily rich Opinion of AG Mancini, 1170–6.

⁷ Opinion of AG Mancini, ibid, 1182 (para 16).

⁸ See, eg Case 55/87 Alexander Moksel Import und Export GmbH & Co Handels-KG v Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung [1988] ECR 3845, in which a similar problem arose because of a divergence in terminology in German translations of Community Regulations and the introduction of a new term ‘Werktag’ without clarifying its relationship to the already extant ‘Arbeitstag’.

⁹ Case C–63/06 UAB Profisa v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos [2007] ECR I-3239.

¹⁰ [1992] OJ L316/21.

¹¹ As was argued by the European Commission, which was perhaps the only subject which was genuinely able to compare, in its submission, all the then equally authentic 20 versions of the provision in question (written observations submitted on behalf of the European Commission of 22 May 2006 in Case C-63/06 UAB Profisa, ref JURM(2006)3084-FR, 5–8).

¹² Case C-1/02 Privat-Molkerei Borgmann GmbH & Co KG v Hauptzollamt Dortmund [2004] ECR I-3219, para 25; Case C-437/97 Evangelischer Krankenhausverein Wien v Abgabenberufungskommission Wien and Wein & Co HandelsgesmbH v Oberösterreichische Landesregierung [2000] ECR I-1157, para 42; or Case C-372/88, Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales v Cricket St Thomas Estate [1990] ECR I-1345, para 19.

¹³ Above n 4, paras 18 and 19.

¹⁴ Above n 4, paras 17 and 18.

¹⁵ One should be mindful that the comparison of the various language versions of the Community legislation forms a part of literal interpretation of the rule. It is not, for which it is commonly mistaken, comparative reasoning as such.

¹⁶ But not necessarily all: there are now linguistic regimes in Community law which reduce the number of official languages to, for instance, five. See Art 115 of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, [1994] OJ L11/1, which limits languages of the OHIM to English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. See also Case C-361/01 P Kik v OHIM [2003] ECR I-8283, especially paras [88]–[94].

¹⁷ Art 121 zákon č 99/1963 Sb, soudní řád správní (Code of Civil Procedure). The Czech version of the provision, which has remained the same for both countries from the times of the Czech and Slovak Federation, refers only to the Czech Collection of Laws, whereas the Slovak provision, which has been in the meantime amended, expressly also includes the Official Journal of the European Communities.

¹⁸ Joined Cases C-430 & 431/93 Jeroen Van Schijndel and Johannes Nicolaas Cornelis van Veen v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten [1995] ECR I-4705, paras 13–15; Case C-312/93 Peterbroeck, Van Campenhout & Cie SCS v Belgian State [1995] ECR I-4599, paras 12 & 14; and Case C-72/95 Aannemersbedrijf PK Kraaijeveld BV ea v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland [1996] ECR I-5403, paras 58 & 60. Most recently, see Case C-2/06 Willy Kempter KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, judgment of 12 February 2008, para 45. See further, eg Prechal, S, ‘Community Law in National Courts: The Lessons from Van Schijndel ‘ (1998) 35 CML Rev 681 Google Scholar.

¹⁹ See further Lenaerts, K, ‘Interlocking Legal Orders in the European Union and Comparative Law’ (2003) 52 ICLQ 873 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ See, eg Drobnig, U and Van Erp, S (eds), The Use of Comparative Law by Courts. XIVth International Coungress of Comparative Law, Athens 1997 (The Hague/London/Boston, Kluwer Law International, 1999)Google Scholar; or Uyterhoeven, U, Richterliche Rechtsfindung und Rechtsvergleichung. Eine Vorstudie über die Rechtsvergleichung als Hilfsmittel der richterlichen Rechtsfindung im Privatrecht (Bern, Verlag Stämpfli, 1959)Google Scholar. In Drobnig’s classification, this type of use of comparative argument would fall into the ‘advisable’ category.

²¹ Case 283/81 Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health [1982] ECR 3415, para 16.

²² Maduro, M Poiares, ‘Interpreting European Law: Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism’ (2007) 1 European Journal of Legal Studies 18 Google Scholar.

²³ Case C-495/03, Intermodal Transports BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën [2005] ECR I-8151.

²⁴ Ibid, para 39.

²⁵ P Pescatore, ‘Les objectifs de la Communauté européenne comme principes de l’interprétation dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice’, quoted from Dumon, F, ‘ La jurisprudence de la Cour de justice—Examen critique des methods d’interprétation’ in Rencontre judiciaire et universitaire 27–28 septembre 1976 (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications, 1976) III-80Google Scholar.

²⁶ Rasmussen, H, On Law and Policy in the European Court of Justice (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986)Google Scholar.

²⁷ The reasoning employed by the Court of Justice provides ample examples of both. For reasoning from a positive consequence see, eg Case 26/62 NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, ECR English special edition 1 (‘[t]he Community is a new legal order of international and it thus must have the following characteristics’); for reasoning from a negative consequence see, eg Case C-453/99 Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297 (‘[i]f we do not allow for damages for private breaches of Community competition rules, the effective enforcement of EC competition rules on the national level will be compromised’).

²⁸ See Kutscher, H, ‘Méthodes d’interprétation vues par un juge à la Cour’ in Rencontre judiciaire et universitaire 27–28 septembre 1976 (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications, 1976) I-39 ff Google Scholar.

²⁹ AG Mancini’s Opinion in Case 100/84 Commission v United Kingdom [1985] ECR 1169, 1173.

³⁰ See further Bobek, M, ‘The Binding Force of Babel: The Enforcement of EC Law Unpublished in the Languages of the New Member States’ 9 (2006–7) CYELS 43 Google Scholar.

³¹ Case C-161/06 Skoma Lux sro v Celní ředitelství Olomouc, judgment of 11 December 2007; and Case C-273/04, Republic of Poland v Council [2007] ECR I-8925.

³² Case C-161/06, Skoma Lux sro v Celní ředitelství Olomouc, ibid, para 74.

³³ Ibid, para 71.

³⁴ Ibid, para 73.

³⁵ It appears that the approach of the Czech administrative judiciary following the Skoma-Lux judgment would be to consider any penalty imposed upon an individual on the basis of unpublished EC legislation as infringing fundamental rights and reviewable by the court of its own motion—see the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24 January 2008, case no 9 As 36/2007 available at <http://www.nssoud.cz> accessed 13 August 2008. The case concerned a penalty imposed upon a lorry driver for the disregard of the compulsory rest periods defined by Council Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, [1985] OJ L370/1. In the course of the proceedings, the court noticed of its own motion that the Regulation had only been published in Czech on 1 September 2004, whereas the penalty was imposed following a police control conducted on 12 May 2004.

³⁶ [2006] OJ L166/1.

³⁷ [2007] OJ L211/30.

³⁸ Case 283/81 Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health [1982] ECR 3415, para 18.

³⁹ Which is more assumed than real; the proof of knowledge of at least one foreign language is not a condition for the appointment to the judicial office in either the Czech Republic or Slovakia, nor, to the knowledge of the author, in any other of the new Member States. On the other hand, this is not anything in which the new Member States would deviate from the practice in the old Member States.

⁴⁰ For instance, in a series of recent decisions concerning the interpretation of the Protocol on Asylum for Nationals of Member States of the European Union, [1997] OJ C340/103, the Czech Supreme Administrative Court used references to the English, German and French versions of a provision of Art 1 of the Protocol just to confirm that the meaning of the provision was equally vague in the other languages as well: see judgment of 19 July 2006, case no 3 Azs 259/2005, no 977/2006 Coll SAC. In another recent decision, Krajský soud v Ostravě (Regional Court in Ostrava) confirmed, by reference to the English, French, German and Slovak versions of the Council Regulation (EEC) 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, [1987] OJ L256/1, that a problematic listing in a provision is indeed supposed to be a non-closed list—judgment of 4 December 2007, case no 22 Ca 167/2007, unpublished.

⁴¹ Or perhaps in the Court of Justice itself? See the surprisingly frank remark by AG Jacobs in Case C-338/95 Wiener v Hauptzollamt Emmerich [1997] ECR I-6518, para 65 of the Opinion, in which he noted, with respect to the CILFIT requirements as far as comparing various language versions are concerned, that it is somehow exaggerated to require from Member States courts something that even the Court of Justice does not normally do itself.

⁴² Which also makes sense because, as far as Community legislation of the last years is concerned, more than 70% of it is drafted in English, about 15% in French and the rest (15%) in other languages, out of which German is the strongest ‘small’ drafting language. This means that, if a court consults these language versions, there is a high chance that it is actually reading the ‘original’ text. (Figures originating from DG Translation Information Booklet ‘Translating for a Multilingual Community’ (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications, 2007) 6.)

⁴³ In this context, Justice Holländer was referring to the Czech Code of Civil Procedure, which, within one year, had undergone 18 direct and indirect amendments: Holländer, P, Ústavneěprávní argumentace (Constitutional Legal Reasoning) (Prague, Linde Publishing, 2003) 11 Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Especially the linguistic factors sketched above, which do not comprise only the absence of, or incorrect, translations of EC legislation: for instance, the entire pre-accession case law of the Court of Justice, which could provide some guidance, is inaccessible in the languages of the new Member States.

⁴⁵ Further see zákon č 382/2004 Zz, o znalcoch, tlmočníkoch a prekladatel’och (Law 382/2004 Coll, on legal experts, interpreters and translators) and č 490/2004 Zz vyhláška, ktorou sa vykonáva zákon č 382/2004 Zz o znalcoch, tlmočníkoch a prekladate’och (Regulation 490/2004 Coll, regulation carrying out the law 382/2004 Coll, on legal experts, interpreters and translators).

⁴⁶ The registry of these experts is accessible online at <http://jaspi.justice.gov.sk/jaspiw1/ htm_reg/jaspiw_maxi_regz_fr0.htm> accessed 13 August 2008.

⁴⁷ Eg Joined Cases C-6 & 9/90, Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci v Italy [1991] ECR I-5357, para 31.

⁴⁸ Apart from the constitutional level, the duty to know the applicable Community legislation can be inferred from the provision of § 121 zákon č 99/1963 Zb, Občiansky súdny poriadok (Code of Civil Procedure) which provides that before the court, the parties are not obliged to prove ‘legally binding acts, which were published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and the Official Journal of the European Union’.

⁴⁹ In a first instance decision, the Okresný súd Bratislava II (District Court for Bratislava II), for instance, refused to take into (any) account Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, [1986] OJ L382/17, which was invoked by the applicant, stating that ‘[t]he European Community Treaty provides for the binding force and the direct applicability, not necessitating any further implementation, only in the case of regulations and not in the case of directives. A non-transposed directive does not directly create any obligations. The invoked directive cannot thus be considered to be a legally binding act with any application on the territory of the Slovak Republic, as the directive cannot be found in the list of transposed measures’: judgment of 11 October 2005, case no 42Cb/67/2005, accessible at <http://jaspi.justice.gov.sk> accessed 13 August 2008.

⁵⁰ BVerfGE 73, 339 (366); BVerfGE 82, 159 (194); Order of 21 May 1996—1 BvR 866/96—NVwZ 1997, 481; Order of 5 August 1998—1 BvR 264/98—DB 1998, 1919.

⁵¹ BVerfG, 1 BvR 1036/99 of 9 January 2001, accessible online at <http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rk20010109_1bvr103699.htm> accessed 13 August 2008.

⁵² Ibid, para 20.

⁵³ From the vast literature see, eg Slaughter, A-M, ‘A Global Community of Courts’ (2003) 44 Harvard International Law Journal 191 Google Scholar; McCrudden, C, ‘A Common Law of Human Rights? Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights’ (2000) 4 OJLS 499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Jackson, VC, ‘Comparative Constitutional Federalism and Transnational Judicial Discourse’ (2004) 1 ICON 91 Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ In the Czech Republic, for instance, one has to mention the plenary decision of the Czech Constitutional Court on the European Arrest Warrant, in which the Court considered in its reasoning case law on the EAW from Poland and Germany: see EAW Case, judgment of 3 May 2006, case no Pl ÚS 36/05, published in Czech as no 434/2006 Coll; the full English translation is available at <http://www.concourt.cz> accessed 13 August 2008. Another attempt is the judgment of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court of 27 September 2006, 1 Ao 1/2005, which concerned the transferability of mobile telephone numbers between various operators and the domestic implementation of Council Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’), [2002] OJ L108/51. In assessing the issue, the Court sought inspiration in the German, French and Belgian implementation of the Directive. Absent any useful comparisons, the entire intra-Community comparative element was discarded and did not appear in the reasoning itself.

⁵⁵ For the description of the situation in 1990s see, eg Frowein, JA and Marauhn, T (eds), Grundfragen der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Mittelund Osteuropa. Beiträge zum auslän dischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht. Band 130 (Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, Springer Verlag, 1998)Google Scholar; more particularly on Hungary, see Sólyom, L and Brunner, G, Constitutional Judiciary in a New Democracy. The Hungarian Constitutional Court (Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Maduro, above n 22.

⁵⁷ For an introduction to this debate see, eg Markesinis, B and Fedtke, J, Judicial Recourse to Foreign Law—A New Source of Inspiration? (Abingdon, UCL Press and Taylor & Francis Group, 2006)Google Scholar; or Canivet, G, Andenas, M and Fairgrieve, D (eds), Comparative Law before the Courts (London, BIICL, 2004)Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Schiemann, K, ‘The Judge as Comparativist’ in Markesinis, B and Fedtke, J, Judicial Recourse to Foreign Law—A New Source of Inspiration? (Abingdon, UCL Press and Taylor & Francis Group, 2006) 369 Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ See Fentiman, RG, ‘Foreign Law in National Courts’ in Canivet, G, Andenas, M and Fairgrieve, D (eds), Comparative Law before the Courts (London, BIICL, 2004) 13 and 15Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Above n 23.

⁶¹ For a classic account, see Scalia, A, A Matter of Interpretation (Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1997) 3–48 Google Scholar.

⁶² See Procházka, R, ‘Prekážka rozhodnutej veci—judikatúra Súdného dvora ES a jej dopad na konanie vnútroštátnych súdov’ (Res iudicata—the Case law of the Court of Justice and its Impact on the Procedure before National Courts) (2007) 10 Justičná revue 1240, 1248Google Scholar.

⁶³ See Kühn, Z, ‘The Application of European Law in the New Member States: Several (Early) Predictions’ (2005) 3 German Law Journal 565 Google Scholar; similar remarks have been made, with respect to Croatia, by Ćapeta, T, ‘Courts, Legal Culture and EU Enlargement’ (2005) Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 23 Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ See, eg Prechal, S, Directives in EC Law 2nd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005) 180 ff Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ For instance, the key Art 69 of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Czech Republic, of the other part, [1994] OJ L360/2, read: ‘The Contracting parties recognize that the major precondition for the Czech Republic’s economic integration into the Community is the approximation of the Czech Republic’s existing and future legislation to that of the Community. The Czech Republic shall endeavour to ensure that its legislation will be gradually made compatible with that of the Community’.

⁶⁶ Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 29 September 2005, case no 2 Afs 92/2005–45, published as no 741/2006 Coll SAC. The holding has been accepted and applied in numerous other cases, eg judgment of 22 March 2007, case no 9 Afs 5/2007–70; judgment of 26 September 2007, case no 5 As 51/2006–287; judgment of 12 July 2007, case no 9 Afs 25/2007–95; judgment of 31 January 2007, case no 3 As 41/2006–122; and judgment of 31 January 2007, case no 7 As 50/2006–262. All decisions are accessible at <http://www.nssoud.cz> accessed 13 August 2008. For further information and discussion on this, see Bobek, M, ‘Thou Shalt Have Two Masters; The Application of European Law by Administrative Authorities in the New Member States’ (2008) 1 Review of European Administrative Law 51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁷ The second-hand car importation cases from Hungary and Poland being a prime example: Case C-313/05 Maciej Brzeziński v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie [2007] ECR I-513; and Joined Cases C-290 & 333/05, Ákos Nádasdi v Vámés Pénzügyo˝rség Észak-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága and Ilona Németh v Vámés Pénzügyo˝rség Dél-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága [2006] ECR I-10115.

⁶⁸ Or, moreover, any freshly established dictatorial system, which in its first stage, seeks to eliminate the remnants of the previous legal order via interpretation—see, with respect to the situation in the Nazi Germany, Rüthers, B, Die unbegrenzte Auslegung: Zum Wandel der Privatrechtsordnung im Nationalsozialismus (Thübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1968)Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ See, eg Boura, F, ‘K otázce výkladu zákonů‘ (On the Question of Interpretation of Laws) (1949) Právník 292 Google Scholar, who, shortly after the Communist take-over in the former Czechoslovakia, argued (at 297) that ‘the fundamental canon of interpretation is that the interpretation of any legal provision must be in conformity with the nature and aims of the peoples’ democratic order’. On the formalistic and purposive reasoning in Communist law, see Kühn, Z, ‘Worlds Apart: Western and Central European Judicial Culture at the Onset of the European Enlargement’ (2004) American Journal of Comparative Law 531 Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ See Kühn, Z, Aplikace práva soudcem v éře středoevropského komunismu a transformace Analýza příčin postkomunistické právní krize (Judicial Application of Law in Central Europe in the Communist and Transformation Eras. An Analysis of the Post-Communist Legal Crisis) (Prague, CH Beck, 2005) 86 Google Scholar. The same patterns and tensions concerning methodology were also discernable in Fascist Italy: see G Calabresi, ‘Two Functions of Formalism’ (2000) University of Chicago Law Review 479.

⁷¹ Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 18 July 2006, case no 1 Ao 1/2006, no 968/2006 Coll SAC.

⁷² (United Nations) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, done at Åarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998, which is a ‘mixed’ treaty, as the European Community and the Member States are parties to it (see Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, [2005] OJ L124/1).

⁷³ Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, [2001] OJ L197/30; Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, [2003] OJ L41/26; Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment, [2003] OJ L156/17.

⁷⁴ Judgment of the SAC (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007, case no 3 Ao 1/2007 accessible at <http://www.nssoud.cz> accessed 13 August 2008.

⁷⁵ The case is currently pending before the Czech Constitutional Court, where it was submitted as a constitutional complaint: case no Pl ÚS 14/07.

⁷⁶ See Jacobs, F, ‘Which courts and tribunals are bound to refer to the European Court?’ (1977) 2 EL Rev 119 Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ See Hašek, J, The Good Soldier Švejk and His Fortunes in the World War (London, Penguin Classics, 2005)Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Statistically, there appears to be a proportion between the number of decisions a supreme jurisdiction renders and the number of cases it receives from lower courts; the more decisions and case law a precedent-setting jurisdiction produces, the less predictable its case law gets and the greater the demand for new decisions from lower courts. See M Bobek, ‘Quantity or Quality? Re-Assessing the Role of Supreme Jurisdictions in Central Europe’, EUI LAW Working Paper No 2007/36 (online at <http://cadmus.iue.it/dspace/handle/1814/7663> accessed 13 August 2008); for similar reflections in the context of the work of the Court of Justice, see Komárek, J , ‘“In the Court(s) We Trust?” On the need for hierarchy and differentiation in the preliminary ruling procedure’ (2007) 32 EL Rev 467 Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ See recently A Dashwood, ‘From Van Duyn to Mangold via Marshall: Reducing Direct Effect to Absurdity?’ (2007) CYELS 81.

⁸⁰ Case C-224/01 Gerhard Köbler v Republik Österreich [2003] ECR I-10239.

⁸¹ PJ Wattel, ‘Köbler, CILFIT and Welthgrove: We Can’t Go on Meeting Like This’ (2004) CML Rev 177.

⁸² See, eg Case C-224/97 Erich Ciola and Land Vorarlberg [1999] ECR I-2517; and Case C-201/02 R on the application of Delena Wells and Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2004] ECR I-723.

⁸³ Case C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz NV and Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren [2004] ECR I-837.

⁸⁴ Case C-234/04 Rosmarie Kapferer v Schlank & Schick GmbH [2006] ECR I-258.

⁸⁵ Case C-119/05 Ministero dell’Industria, del Commercio e dell’Artigianato v Lucchini SpA [2007] ECR I-6199.

⁸⁶ Case C-2/06 Willy Kempter KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, judgment of 12 February 2008.

⁸⁷ See Procházka, above n 66.

⁸⁸ An extreme example of lack of any real reasoning is the recent decision in Case C-273/04 Poland v Council [2007] ECR I-8925, where the Court of Justice, instead of dealing with the hotly debated issue of the admissibility of the action simply stated in one sentence (para 33) that ‘[i]n the present case, the Court considers it necessary to rule at the outset on the substance of the case’. If such a decision were to be appealed in any of the national judicial systems, it would be instantly annulled for lack of reasoning. For further examples, see Komárek, J, ‘“In the Court(s) We Trust?” On the need for hierarchy and differentiation in the preliminary ruling procedure’ (2007) 32 EL Rev 467, 482–3Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ A (traditionally) sceptical view is offered by H Rasmussen, ‘Present and Future European Judicial Problems After Enlargement and the Post-2005 Ideological Revolt’ (2007) CML Rev 1661, 1668 ff.

⁹⁰ See Bobek, above n 78.

⁹¹ See Maduro, M Poiares, ‘Contrapunctual Law: Europe’s Constitutional Pluralism in Action’ in Walker, N (ed), Sovereignty in Transition (Oxford, Hart, 2003) 501, 504Google Scholar.

⁹² Above n 85.

⁹³ Ibid, para 63.

⁹⁴ From the first few case notes see, eg P Bříza, ‘ECJ case Lucchini SpA—is there anything left of res judicata principle?’ [2008] Civil Justice Quarterly 40; and X Groussot and T Minssen, ‘Res Judicata in the Court of Justice Case-Law: Balancing Legal Certainty with Legality?’ (2007) European Constitutional Law Review 385.

⁹⁵ The issue of ‘Consequences of incompatibility with EC law for final administrative decisions and final judgments of administrative courts in the Member States’ is actually the topic of the 21st Colloquium of the Association of the Councils of State and the Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the European Union, which was held in June 2008 at the Supreme Administrative Court of Poland, Warsaw. The national rapports submitted by the member jurisdictions are accessible online at <http://www.juradmin.eu/en/colloquiums/ colloq_en_21.html> accessed 13 August 2008.

⁹⁶ For an introduction see, eg Heap, SP Hargreaves and Varoufakis, Y, Game Theory, A Critical Text 2nd edn (London/New York, Routledge, 2004)Google Scholar; or Baird, DG, Gertner, RH and Picker, RC, Game Theory and the Law (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ See, eg Case C-99/00 Kenny Roland Lyckeskog [2002] ECR I-4839, para 14; Case C-337/95 Parfums Christian Dior [1997] ECR I-6013, para 25; Case 283/81 Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health [1982] ECR 3415, para 7; and Case 244/80, Foglia v Novello [1981] ECR 3045, para 16.

⁹⁸ See the classical definition by Nash, JF, ‘Two-person Cooperative Games’ and ‘Non-Cooperative Games’, both reprinted in Nash, JF, Essays on Game Theory (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 1996)Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ First put forward in Nash, JF, ‘Non-Cooperative Games’ (1951) 2 Annals of Mathematics 286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Case C-161/06 Skoma Lux sro v Celní ředitelství Olomouc, above n 31, discussed in section III. A above.

¹⁰¹ Case C-119/05 Lucchini SpA, above n 85, discussed in section IV.B above.

¹⁰² BVerfGE 52, 187 (201), ‘Vielleicht-Beschluss’.

¹⁰³ For one of the few instances see Case C-129/00 Commission v Italy [2003] ECR I-14637.

¹⁰⁴ Case C-224/01 Köbler, above n 80, because such incorrect application must not only breach EC law, but must do so in a sufficiently serious manner.

¹⁰⁵ See further Baird, DG, Gertner, RH and Picker, RC, Game Theory and the Law (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1994) 35 ff Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Case C-313/05 Maciej Brzezinński v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie [2007] ECR I-513.