* This document was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the CADC website <http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/01-7169b.pdf> (visited on December 5, 2005)

1 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm VeTicaret Anonim Sirketi v.Ireland App.No.45036/98 (June 30.2005),hereinafter Bosphorus

2 S.C. Res. 820, ¶ 24 (April 17, 1993). Note: The ICJ held in its decision in Legality of Use of Force (Serb.&Mont. V.Belg.), (Serb.&Mont. v. Can.), (Serb.&Mont. v. Fr.) (Serb.&Mont. v. Ger.), (Serb.&Mont. v. Italy), (Serb. Mont. v. Neth.), (Serb.&Mont. v. Port.) and (Serb.&Mont, v. UK) (December 15, 2004) (44 ILM 299) that Serbia and Montenegro is not the continuation of the former Yugoslavia.

3 Council Regulation 990/93, 1993 OJ. (L 102) 14; available at <http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.-do?uri=CELEX:31993R0990:EN:HTML>, last visited December 18, 2005.

4 Article 234 reads: The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: (a) the interpretation of this Treaty; (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community and of the ECB; (c) the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an act of the Council, where those statutes so provide. Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling thereon. Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

5 Case C-84/95, Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS v Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and others, 1996 E.C.R. 1-03953.

6 Bosphorus, para. 154.

7 Contrary to EC directives, EC regulations are immediately applicable in the member states of the EU and do not require any further implementation.

8 M.&Co v. Germany, no. 13258/87, Commission decision of February, 9 1990, Decisions and Reports (DR) 64, p. 138. Also available at: <http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkpl97/view.asp?action=html&documentld=665025&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=1132746FFlFE2A468ACCBCD1763D4D8149>, last visited December 18, 2005.

9 InM. and Co. v.Germany, a German company alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention when the German authorities issued a writ for the execution of a judgment of the ECJ. The applicant submitted that the German authorities were responsible for securing the rights under the Convention and should examine the compatibility of the judgment of the ECJ with the provisions of the Convention. The Commission found the application inadmissible due to the lack of jurisdictionratione materiae.

10 Bosphorus, para. 145.

11 Id., para. 152.

12 Id., para. 153.

13 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court] 73, p. 387.

14 Id.

15 Cases T-306/01 and T-315/01,Ahmed Mi Yusuf andAl Barakaat International Foundation and Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, Court of First Instance, Judgment of September 21, 2005; 45 ILM 81.

16 Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, available at:http://europa.eu.int/constitution/download/print_en.pdf>, last visited December 18, 2005.

1 Reference to the ECJ includes, as appropriate, the Court of First Instance

2 Stauder v. City of Vim, Case 29/69 [1969] ECR 419

3 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, Case 11/70 [1970] ECR 1125

4 Nold v. Commission, Case 4/73 [1974] 291

5 Rutili v. Minister of the Interior, Case 36/75 [ 1975] ECR 1219 and see paragraph 10 of Opinion No. 256/2003 of the European Commission for Democracy through law (Venice Commission)on “The Implications of a legally-binding EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on Human Rights Protection in Europe“

6 Hauer v.Land Rheinland-Pfalz, Case 44/79 [1979] ECR 3727

7 For example,Hauer v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz, cited above, at § 17 (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1);Regina v. Kent Kirk, Case 63/83 [1984] ECR 2689, § 22 (Article 7);Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Case 222/84 [1986] ECR 1651, § 18 (Articles 6 and 13);Hoechst AG v. Commission, Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88 [1989] ECR 2859, § 18 (Article 8);Commission v. Germany, Case 249/ 86 [1989] ECR 1263 § 10 (Article 8);ERT v. DEP, Case C- 260/89 [1991] ECR 1-2925, § 45 (Article 10);Bosnian and Others, Case C-415/93 [1995] ECR 1-4921, § 79 (Article 11).Philip Morris International, Inc and Others .v Commission, Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T- 272/01 [2003] ECR II-1, § 121 (Articles 6 and 13); andBodil Lindqvist, judgment of 6 November 2003, Case C-101/01 [2003], not yet published, § 90 (Article 10)

8 For example,Criminal proceedings against X, Joined Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 [1996] ECR 1-6609, § 25 (concerning Article 7);Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und ver- triebs GmbHv.Heinrich Bauer Verlag, Case C-368/95 [1997] ECR 1-3689, §§ 25-26 (concerning Article 10);Lisa Jacqueline Grant v. South-West Trains Ltd, Case C-249/96 [1998] ECR 1-621, §§ 33-34 (concerning Articles 8, 12 and 14);Baustahlgewebe GmbH v. Commission, Case C-185/95 [1998] ECR 1-8417, §§ 20 and 29 (concerning Article 6);Dieter Krombach v. André Bamberski, Case C-7/98 [2000] ECR I-1935 §§ 39—40 (concerning Article 6);Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v.Commission, Case T-l 12/98 [2001] ECR 11-729, §§ 59 and 77 (concerning Article 6);Connolly v. Commission, Case C-274/99 [2001] ECR 1-1611, § 39 (concerning Article 10);Mary Carpenter v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Case C-60/00 [2002] ECR 16279, §§ 41-42 (Article 8);Joachim Steffensen, Case C-276/01 [2003] ECR 1-3735, §§ 72 and 75-77 (Article 6);Rechnungshof et al, Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and 139/01 [2003] ECR 1-4989, §§ 7377 and 83 (concerning Article 8);Archer Daniels Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd v. Commission, Case T-224/00 [2003] ECR 11-2597, §§ 39, 85 and 91 (concerning Article 7);Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Hacene Akrich, Case C-109/01 [2003] ECR I-9607, §§ 58-60 (concerning Article 8);KBv.National Health Service Pensions Agency and Secretary of State for Health, judgment of 7. January 2004, Case-117/01 [2004] not yet published, §§ 33-35 (concerning Article 12);Herbert Karner Industrie-Auktionen GmbH v.Troostwijk GmbH, judgment of 25 March 2004, C71/02 [2004] not yet published, §§ 50-51 (concerning Article 10);Georgios Orfanopoulos and Others v.LandBaden-Württemberg, judgment of 29 April 2004, Joined Cases C-482/01 and C-493/01 [2004] not yet published. §§ 98-99, (concerning Article 8); andJFE Engineering Corp., Nippon Steel Corp., JFE Steel Corp. and Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd v.Commission, judgment of 8 July 2004, Joined Cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 [2004], not yet published, § 178 (concerning Article 6)

9 ERT v. DEP, cited above

10 Accession by the Community to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Opinion 2/94 [1996] ECR 1-1759

11 The Queen v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Eleanora Ivanovo Kondova, C235/99 [2001], ECR 1-6427

12 The former numbering of Articles of the EC Treaty is used (followed, as appropriate, by the present numbering) given the period covered by the facts of the case

13 Regulations enter into effect on the date specified therein or, where there is no such date specified, 20 days after publication in the Official Journal (Article 191(2), now 254(2))

14 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council of the European Union, C-50/00 ECR [2002] 1-6677

15 Aktien-Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v Council,Case 5/71 [19.71] ECR 975

16 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr-und Vor- ratsstelle fur Getreide und Futtermittel, Case no. 11/70 [1970] ER 1125

17 laid down in the case ofVan Gend en Loos vNederlandse Administratie des Belastingen, Case 26/62 [1963] ECR 1

18 Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Case 14/83 [1984] ECR 1891 andMarleasing SA La Comercial International de Alementacion SA, Case C-106/89 [1990] ECR 1-4135

19 Francovich and Others v.Italy, Cases C-6&9/90 [1991] ECR 1-5357

20 Brasserie du Pêcheur and R vSecretary of State for Transport ex pane Factortame Ltd, Case C46&48/93 [1996] ECR I- 1029. See alsoKöbler v. Austria, Case C-224/01 [2003] ECR 1-10239

21 Commission v.Portugal, Case C-55/02, judgment 18 November 2002, not yet published,§ 45

22 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planziige v. Austria, C-l 12/00 [2003] ECR 1-05659

23 CILFIT Sri v Ministro della Sanitá, Case 283/81 [ 1982] ECR 3415

24 Jacob Adlerblum vCaisse nationale d'assurance vieillesse des travailleurs salariés, Case 93-75 [1975] ECR 02147

25 Costa v.Ente Nazionale per I'Energia Electtrica (ENEL), Case 6/64, [1964] ECR 585