No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 April 2015
Since the Simmenthal case of the ECJ, the national judge has been coined the ‘ordinary judge of EU law’, meaning that this judge has the primary responsibility for ensuring the effectiveness of EU law through different techniques. While there has been a large amount of research on the role of domestic courts in relation to international law, the question of whether the domestic judge could also be characterized as the ‘ordinary judge of international law’ in the sense the phrase is used regarding EU law has never been raised. This article identifies the contents of the phrase in the context of EU law in order to test it against international law. It undertakes this by transposing the different types of invocability – direct effect, invocability of consistent interpretation, invocability of damages, and invocability of exclusion – which set the national judge as a primary judge of EU law, to international law before domestic judges. While the analysis relies mainly on French case law relating to international law, comparisons are drawn, where relevant, between the case law of this jurisdiction and that of other jurisdictions in order to establish a general trend. This permits the conclusion that, while the French courts remain reluctant to ensure the effectiveness of international law through the adoption of the different techniques of invocability, other domestic judges behave as ordinary judges of international law in a way that is very similar to the way the national judges treat EU law.
1 Case 70/77, Simmenthal SpA v. Amministrazione delle finanze, [1978] ECR 629 at 2785.
2 The Court only used this expression in its Opinion 1/09 of 8 March 2011 on the project of creation of a unified European patent litigation system, para. 80.
3 It may be completed with other forms of invocability which are not transposable to international law, such as the invocability of prevention, the reference for a preliminary ruling, or the interim protection of applicants.
4 Young, K., ‘The World, through the Judge's Eye’, (2009) 28 AYIL 27Google Scholar, at 44.
5 Betlem, G. and Nollkaemper, A., ‘Giving Effect to Public International Law and Community Law before Domestic Courts. A Comparative Analysis of the Practice of Consistent Interpretation’, (2003) 14 (3)EJIL 569CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 569.
6 Tzanakopoulos, A., ‘Domestic Courts as the “Natural Judge” of International Law: A Change in Physiognomy’, in Crawford, J. and Nouwen, S. (eds.), Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Law (2012)Google Scholar. An adapted version of this article is accessible at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1861067> (accessed 3 February 2015).
7 See, in part, de Witte, B., ‘The European Union as an International Legal Experiment’, in de Burca, G. and Weiler, J. J. H. (eds.), The Worlds of European Constitutionalism (2012), 19–56Google Scholar.
8 Leben, C., ‘Hans Kelsen and the Advancement of International Law’, (1998) 9 EJIL 287CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 298.
9 On the different forms of invocability relating to Community law, see D. Simon, Le système juridique communautaire (2001), 437–7.
10 Foster v. Neilson, 27 US 253 (Sup.Ct. 1829), 314.
11 Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig (Pecuniary Claims of Danzig Railway Officials who have passed into the Polish Service, against the Polish Railways Administration), Advisory Opinion, PCIJ Rep. Series B No. 15.
12 Ibid., at 17.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 It should nevertheless be noted that it appears indirectly through the criteria pertaining to the object and nature of the agreement in the case law of the ECJ when direct applicability of treaties concluded by the EU is involved. See Opinion of Advocate General Darmon, Case 12/86, Demirel v. Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd, [1987] ECR 3719.
16 Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transport – En Expedite Onderneming Van Gend en Loos c. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, [1963] ECR 1, at 3.
17 CE 29 Juin 1990, GISTI, concl. R. Abraham, (1990) AJDA, 621.
18 Op. R. Abraham, on CE 1997, GISTI, supra note 17. Similarly, op. F. Scanvic, CE 29 janv. 1993, Mme Josefa Bouilliez, (1993) RFDA, 794 ff.
19 Op. on CE, sect., 23 April 1997, GISTI, (1997) RFDA, 585.
20 CE 11 April 2012, GISTI-FAPIL, No. 322326, Lebon.
21 CE 31 October 2008, Section française de l’Observatoire international des prisons, No. 293785, Lebon 374.
22 GISTI-FAPIL, supra note 20.
23 Ibid.
24 Soc., 16 December 2008, Eichenlaub v.. Axia France, No. 05–40.876.
25 Civ. 1re, 18 May 2005, n° 02–20.613, Bull. civ. 2005, I, No. 212 et Civ. 1re, 18 May 2005, n° 02–16.336, Bull. civ. 2005, I, No. 211.
26 Deumier, P., ‘Le juge interne face à la coordination du droit communautaire et de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme’, (2008) 1 RTD Civ. 444Google Scholar.
27 For an assessment of the legal status of international fiscal conventions, see M. Collet, Droit fiscal (2012) 77–9. See also, CE, ass., 28 June 2002, Société Schneider Electric, No. 232276, Lebon, 233.
28 Études du Conseil d’État, La norme internationale en droit français, Doc. fr. 2000, 25.
29 X. Domino and A. Bretonneau, ‘Les aléas de l’effet direct’, (2012) AJDA, 936. It should be noted that some provisions, namely paras. 2, 3, and 7 of Art. 6 of the Aarhus Convention are of direct effect.
30 CE 4 July 2012, Confédération française pour la promotion sociale des aveugles et des amblyopes (CFPSAA), No. 341533, Lebon, 261.
31 CE 7 November 2012, No. 350313.
32 Supreme Court, 30 May 1986, NJ 1986, No. 688, (1987) 1987, 389–7 (on the European Social Charter, Art. 6, para. 4 and Art. 31).
33 C. Santulli, (2013) RFDA, 419. Our translation.
34 See Demirel case, supra note 15, at pts. 23 and 25.
35 Sloss, D., ‘United States’, in Sloss, D. (ed.), The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement (2009), 528–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
36 See for instance the famous US Supreme Court case Medellin v. Texas, 552 US 491 (Sup.Ct. 2008).
37 See Sloss, supra note 35, at 529.
38 Brouwer, J.,‘The Netherlands’, in Hollis, D., Blakeslee, M., and Ederington, B. (eds.) National Treaty Law and Practice (2005), 483, at 503Google Scholar.
39 Tribunal Supremo (sala de lo contencioso-administrativo), 22 April 2010, 507/2007.
40 Nollkaemper, A., ‘The Duality of Direct Effect of International Law’, (2014) 25 (1)EJIL 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 115.
41 For instance, even though Italy has a formally dualist system, the measure for the incorporation of the treaty into the national legal order requires the adoption of a standpoint on the directly applicable character of its provisions.
42 The Czech Constitution provides for a particular regime for treaties on human rights which are not subject to an obligation of incorporation for the purposes of applicability.
43 Broyelle, C., ‘La responsabilité de l’État pour non-exécution du droit communautaire’, in Auby, J.-B. and de la Rochère, J. Dutheil (eds.), Droit administratif européen (2007), 729Google Scholar.
44 Case 14/83, Von Colson and Kamann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, [1984] ECR 1891. See also Case C-106/89, Marleasing v. La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion, [1991] ECR 4135, esp. paras. 8–9.
45 Case C-53/96, Hermès International v. FHT Marketing Choice BV, [1998] ECR 3603, para. 35.
46 Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 US 64 (Sup.Ct. 1804).
47 Supreme Court (Netherlands), TSM Compagnie d’Assurance Transports v. Geisseler Transport AG, 16 November 1990, NJ 1992/107.
48 For more examples, see chapter on ‘consistent interpretation’ in A. Nollkaemper, National Courts and the International Rule of Law (2011), 148–9.
49 Garcia, R. Bermejoet al., ‘Espange/Spain’, in Eisemann, P. (ed.), L’intégration du droit international et communautaire dans l’ordre juridique interne (1996), 183 at 211Google Scholar.
50 See also, the Portugese Constitution (Art. 16[2] limits the obligation of conform interpretation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and the Romanian Constitution (Art. 20[1]).
51 Section 233: ‘When interpreting any legislation, every court must prefer any reasonable interpretation of the legislation that is consistent with international law over any alternative interpretation that is inconsistent with international law’. The system may be characterized as mainly dualist because the concept of self-executing treaties ‘has thus far remained a dead letter in the practice of South African courts’ (de Wet, E., ‘South Africa’, in Shelton, D. (ed.), International Law and Domestic Legal Systems, (2011), 567 at 574Google Scholar).
52 [1999] 2 SCR 817.
53 See also the cases of Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Ville), [2001] 2 RCS 241, 2001 CSC 40; Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 SCR 3, 2002 SCC 1.
54 A (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Conjoined Appeals) (2005) UKHL 71.
55 Kav La’oved Association v. Israel, HCJ 4542/02; ILDC 382 (IL2006) [37].
56 Rahman v. Minister of Immigration; Rahman v. Deportation Review Tribunal and Minister of Immigration, AP 56/99/CP49/99; ILDC 219 (NZ 2000) [54].
57 State v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, 60 DLR (2008) 660; ILDC 1410 (BD 2008).
58 People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) 125 ILR 510. In another case, the Supreme Court held that international declarations and conventions ‘hold an important persuasive value’ and that consequently, they may be used for the interpretation of Acts of Parliament (Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, Supreme Court decision, AIR 1997 SC 3011 (1997), 13 August 1997, ILDC 1177 (IN 2007)).
59 Waters, M., ‘Creeping Monism: The Judicial Trend toward Interpretive Incorporation of Human Rights Treaties’, (2007) 107 (3)Columbia Law Review 628, at 684Google Scholar.
60 Case C-6/90 and C-9/90, Francovich and Bonifaci v. Italy, [1991] ECR 5357.
61 Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v. Federal Republic of Germany and The Queen v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd. and Others, [1996] ECR 1029.
62 Case 91/92, Faccini Dori v. Recreb Srl, [1994] ECR 3325.
63 Bundesgerichtshof, 24 October 1996, Brasserie du Pêcheur, III ZR 127/91; (1997) 1 CMLR 971; House of Lords, R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and ors (No. 5), (2000) 1 AC 524, 28 October 1999; or, in Spain, Audiencia Nacional, Recurso contencioso-administrativo, No. 365/2001, RJCA/634, 7 May 2002.
64 CE, ass., 28 February 1992, Société Arizona Tobacco Products, No. 87753, Lebon, 81; CE, ass., 30 October 1996, Société Jacques Dangeville, No. 141043, Lebon, 558.
65 CE, ass., 8 February 2007, No. 279522, Lebon, 78
66 J.-C. Bonichot, ‘Le point de vue d’un juge de l’Union’, (2013) AJDA, 396.
67 E. Lagrange, ‘L’efficacité des normes internationales concernant la situation des personnes privées dans les ordres juridiques internes’, RCADI, 2011, 523. The author relies on the opinion of Advocate General Derepas in this case. He had suggested that the Conseil d’État limit open the liability regime only for directly applicable provisions.
68 See Simon, supra note 9, at 441; Prechal, S., ‘Direct Effect, Indirect Effect, Supremacy and the Evolving Constitution of the European Union’, in Barnard, C. (ed.), The Fundamentals of EU Law Revisited: Assessing the Impact of the Constitutional Debate (2007), 35Google Scholar.
69 J. Sirinelli, Les transformations du droit administratif par le droit de l’Union européenne (2011), 527–8.
70 The Gardedieu case itself involved the ECHR and therefore exceeded the strict perimeter of EU law which benefits from a guaranteed extrinsic effectiveness.
71 T. A. Bordeaux, 5 November 2008, M. S. Bouamine, No. 0701796 (invoking Art. 2 of the ECHR for information on the effects of smoking; T. A. Lille, 10 November 2009, M. Camuset, No. 0702487 (directive of Community law which had not been transposed into domestic law).
72 Broyelle, C., ‘L’influence du droit communautaire sur le régime de la responsabilité administrative’, in Auby, J.-B. and de la Rochère, J. Dutheil (eds.), Droit administratif européen (2007), 1032–3Google Scholar.
73 Cass. (Belgique), 14 January 2000, Bull. Cass., 2000, 102.
74 Jogi v. Voges, 480 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2007) (Jogi II).
75 Roucounas, E., ‘Greece’, in Eisemann, P. (ed.), L’intégration du droit international et communautaire dans l’ordre juridique interne (1996) 287, at 298Google Scholar.
76 Cede, F. and Hafner, G., ‘Austria’, in Hollis, D., Blakeslee, M. and Ederington, B. (eds.) National Treaty Law and Practice (2005), 59, at 69Google Scholar.
77 In his opinion on the case of Gardedieu, L. Derepas refers to the rule issued from the Opinion relating to the Case Concerning the Factory of Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), PCIJ Rep Series A No. 17. A. Nollkaemper seeks the legal ground for the obligation to compensate in several rules of international law (A. Nollkaemper, supra note 48, at 166–213).
78 P. Craig, Administrative Law (2003), 934.
79 M. Emberland, note on A v. Royal Norwegian Ministry of Justice, Decision of Supreme Court, Case No. HR-2005-01690-P, Norwegian Supreme Court Gazette (Rt, Retstidende) 2005, 1365; ILDC 261 (No. 2005).
80 Advocate General Y. Bot produced a synthesis of the case law which tends towards the ‘disconnection’ of invocability of substitution and invocability of exclusion Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co., [2010] ECR 365, Opinion, para. 64.
81 Ibid.
82 See, however, the Perreux case which deprives this technique of part of its usefulness for EU law. CE, ass., 30 October 2009, Perreux, No. 298348, Lebon.
83 Opinion on CE, sect., 23 avr. 1997, GISTI, (1997) RFDA, 585.
84 Cour d’arbitrage, 22 July 2003, No. 106/2003, B4.2. See also, in the same direction, the case of 19 May 1994, No. 40/94, APM., June 1994, 109.
85 Conseil d’Etat (Belgique), Judgments of 6 September 1989, No. 32.989 and 32.990, RACE 1989, 66 and 71 (on Art. 13.2 on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, relating to the access to primary education)
86 H. Bribosia, ‘Applicabilité directe et primauté des traités internationaux et du droit communautaire’, (1996) RBDI 1, 46–7.
87 Tribunal supremo (Sala de lo Contencioso – Administrativo), 22 avr. 2010, 506/2007 (On the Convention of the United Nations of 21 March 1950 for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others) See A. Iglesias Velasco, La aplicacion del derecho internacional por los jueces estatales (2012), 39.
88 Case C-70/87, [1989] ECR 1781.
89 Case C-69/89, [1991] ECR 2069.
90 Similarly, Betlem and Nollkaemper, supra note 5, at 588.