DOCSLIB.ORG

John F. Sonnett Memorial Lecture Series

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Lectures John F. Sonnett Memorial Lecture Series 11-1-1990 John F. Sonnett Memorial Lecture Series: Legal Remedies Against the Council's Failure to Act Ole Due European Court of Justice Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/events_programs_sonnet_lectures Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Due, Ole, "John F. Sonnett Memorial Lecture Series: Legal Remedies Against the Council's Failure to Act" (1990). Lectures. 5. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/events_programs_sonnet_lectures/5 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the John F. Sonnett Memorial Lecture Series at FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Lectures by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 4. Due's Lecture: a. Due Biography Due Biography 1st draft Ole Due was born on February 10, 1931. Due received his law • degree from the University of Copenhagen in 1955, and in the same year, took up a post at Denmark's Ministry of Justice. In the years that followed, Ole Due worked in national service and was ultimately able to serve all of the European Community, as President of the Court of Justice. Like John Sonnett, Due devoted many of his early professional years to service of his country. At the Ministry of Justice, Due steadily worked his way to important positions of responsibility. In 1970, he became Head of Division and was made Director of the Ministry of Justice some five years later. From 1964 to 1973, Due was Head of Course and Lecturer for post-graduate courses in Community Law at the Danish Legal Society, • the Danish Civil Service Administration College, and the Council of Lawyers. From 1964 to 1976, he served as a member of the Danish delegation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Due served for many years as both Secretary and then President of the Commission on the Adaptation of Laws Prior to the Accession of Denmark to the European Communities. From 1970 to 1972, Due served as a Permanent Delegate to the conferences on the technical adjustments to be made to Community measures in view of the enlargement of the Communities and on drafting legal provisions in the Treaty of Accession. Due was Editor of the Community Law Index from 1973 to 1975, and has published numerous articles on European Community Law, • legal practice and private international law. He is co-editor and author of the Danish Community Law Reports. He is an Honorary Bencher of both Gray's Inn, London and King's Inns, Dublin. On October 7, 1979, Due became a judge at the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The Court of Justice has powers to oversee the interpretation and application of European Economic Community laws. On October 7, 1988, Due became President of the Court of Justice • • • b. Due Introduction •• • Due Introduction 4th draft w/ JDF changes The year 1992 marked the official beginning of the European • Economic Community and a different era for Europe. After over three millennia of constant political conflict, Europe was to begin knocking down its borders -- at least economically. As an economic entity, a single Europe would pose a formidable presence in a new world order. The emergence of Japan as a world economic power has shown how a nation can gain political clout with a strong economy rather than with a devastating arsenal of weaponry. With respect to the legal framework of the EEC, the judiciary branch is called the European Court of Justice. The Court of Justice interprets the articles of the Treaty of Rome and determines whether the economic harmonization legislation passed by the European Council, the EEC's legislative body, is followed by • each member state. In order to harmonize the laws of so many different countries, the European Council issues directives that require each member state to comply with a specific area of law harmonization, be it banking, labor, or securities law. While the sovereignty and foreign policy of each EEC member state are not preempted by the EEC, any economic legislation such as quantitative measures and customs duties passed by a member state is subject to review and rescission by the Court of Justice. In many ways, the Court of Justice is a distant cousin of the United States Supreme Court. While its American counterpart is guided by and interprets the concepts of the United States Constitution, the Court of Justice interprets the various articles • of the Treaty of Rome which formalized the concept of a Europe without economic borders. Since that document provides the foundation for the existence and the future of the new European economic entity, interpreting its articles incorporates similar responsibilities. The final decision of the Court of Justice will affect each and every member state. Unlike the United States, Europe's legal systems are not as homogeneous as those of the fifty American states. In this context, the Court of Justice may very easily overreach its discretion. The Honorable Ole Due, current President of the European Court of Justice, discussed these issues in his Sennett Lecture. Judicial activism by the high court is as much an issue in Europe as it is in the United States. Unlike the Supreme Court, the European Court of Justice is not grappling with such controversial social issues as abortion and privacy rights • Instead, the European Court of Justice tackles highly contested • economic issues. The tension in the new Europe arises because the EEC consists of many nations with vastly different social, economic and cultural backgrounds. Because each directive issued by the European Council represents a compromise between these different nations, some nations will have to change their way of life somehow to achieve harmonization. Thus, there is a genuine concern for judicial activism which Ole Due addressed in his lecture at Fordham Law School • • c. Lecture by Bon. Ole Due, "Legal Remedies Against -· the Council's Failure to Act" • ADDRESS LEGAL REMEDIES FOR THE FAILURE OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS • TO ACT IN CONFORMITY WITH EEC TREATY PROVISIONS! Ole Duett Any discussion of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (the ""Court'' or the ""Court of Justice'') will sooner or later touch upon what is commonly called the judicial activism of the Court. A European Community Member State lawyer's attitude towards judicial activism normally depends on the relations between the judicial and legislative powers within his country. This relationship varies from Member State to Member State, ranging from the very cautious approach of the French and Danish courts to the extensive control exercised by the German court, the • ""Bundesverfassungsgericht.'' As expected, the Court of Justice has placed itself somewhere in the middle of these extremes. A U.S. lawyer will normally try to compare the case law of the Court of Justice with that of the U.S. Supreme Court, trying to distinguish between periods in which the tendency to promote integration has been more or less pronounced. Indeed, the Court of Justice's activism and role as intermediary between legislative and executive arms of the European Economic Community (the ""EEC'' or the ""Community'') and between national authorities and the institutions of the Community has led some to compare the Court to the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Marshall. In fact, differences in the Court's jurisprudence may be observed over time • However, contrary to the situation in the • United States, developments in the Court's jurisprudence are difficult to relate to changes in its composition. While in the United States, it is perfectly acceptable for the executive branch • to seek to influence future case law by making appointments to the federal courts, this is less common in the Member States of the EEC. I am not aware of any nomination to the Court of Justice aimed at changing the Court's attitude towards European integration. Therefore, the different trends in the case law of the Court of Justice should probably be seen more as reactions to changes in the political environment. In periods where centrifugal tendencies have dominated the political scene, the Court has tried to defend treaty objectives against such tendencies. In certain periods, the political institutions, first and foremost the Council of Ministers of the European Communities (the ""Council''), have found it hard to live up to the aims of the treaties, whether because of the need • for unanimity in a decision of the Council or because of the political currents in some of the major Member States. During these periods, we may find a tendency to compensate for this lack of legislative activity by basing Court decisions directly on the treaty provisions. On the other hand, during periods of great political activity aimed at a strengthening of the Community, we may find the Court of Justice more reluctant to commit itself. m:&!n~±&ilil~RDEin=l~ltB,nfil!HDriiitFFl<?.~~;:;£~Jf{l§llil~i!K§~ii;Mbiis~;E~ai sss~~1r.~lleJ£~££isu1::~i?nlssmi!nit1£1zmLii£1usat1m¥n~1-si~an;1:::;2~1;:::&na:1::::&e21±:;f~ :~s1± ~ai:£~m~~§Jmi11m:11~ri!~ni~&&1~¥!imEna:1mElt~:111R:111 ::::::;;+11m;1£sm11;;1::::: u~£esaea£i+ £t£~,.~a~n£11:1:1&ftt11:F:J;,g:q_i1::*::!!iiis}.i ':::: i+~nt!:1;:2a11;Mhke:eI::~£asesH:F:!±:::;lli~!t.R:saa:::;::~na e ~sim5Iii.!i!!Jii;mt,~;~;;:::st£1iiirsi;:£ the Court has no right to take initiatives itself. It must confine itself to • dealing with the cases brought before it.
Recommended publications
  • Mimetic Evolution. New Comparative Perspectives on the Court of Justice of the European Union in Its Federal Judicial Architecture

    Mimetic Evolution. New Comparative Perspectives on the Court of Justice of the European Union in Its Federal Judicial Architecture

    Mimetic Evolution. New Comparative Perspectives on the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Federal Judicial Architecture Leonardo Pierdominici Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Laws of the European University Institute Florence, 29 February 2016 European University Institute Department of Law Mimetic Evolution. New Comparative Perspectives on the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Federal Judicial Architecture Leonardo Pierdominici Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Laws of the European University Institute Examining Board Prof. Loïc Azoulai, European University Institute Prof. Bruno De Witte, European University Institute Prof. Giuseppe Martinico, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna - Pisa Prof. Laurent Pech, Middlesex University London ©Title Leonardo Name Pierdominici,Surname, Institution 2015 Title Name Surname, Institution No part of this thesis may be copied, reproduced or transmitted without prior permission of the author Researcher declaration to accompany the submission of written work Department of Law – LL.M. and Ph.D. Programmes I Leonardo Pierdominici certify that I am the author of the work “Mimetic Evolution. New Comparative Perspectives on the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Federal Judicial Architecture” I have presented for examination for the Ph.D. at the European University Institute. I also certify that this is solely my own original work, other than where I have clearly indicated, in this declaration and in the thesis, that it is the work of others. I warrant that I have obtained all the permissions required for using any material from other copyrighted publications.
  • The European Union in Transition: the Treaty of Nice in Effect; Enlargement in Sight; a Constitution in Doubt

    The European Union in Transition: the Treaty of Nice in Effect; Enlargement in Sight; a Constitution in Doubt

    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 27, Issue 2 2003 Article 1 The European Union in Transition: The Treaty of Nice in Effect; Enlargement in Sight; A Constitution in Doubt Roger J. Goebel∗ ∗ Copyright c 2003 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The European Union in Transition: The Treaty of Nice in Effect; Enlargement in Sight; A Constitution in Doubt Roger J. Goebel Abstract This Article is intended to provide an overview of this transitional moment in the history of the European Union. Initially, the Article will briefly review the background of the Treaty of Nice, and the institutional structure modifications for which it provides, which paves the way for enlargement. Next it will describe the final stages of the enlargement process. Finally, the Article will set out the principal institutional innovations and certain other key aspects of the draft Constitution, the most important issues concerning them, and the current impasse. THE EUROPEAN UNION IN TRANSITION: THE TREATY OF NICE IN EFFECT; ENLARGEMENT IN SIGHT; A CONSTITUTION IN DOUBT Rogerj Goebel* INTRODUCTION Once again the European Union' (the "EU" or the "Union") is in a stage of radical evolution. Since the early 1990's, the EU has anticipated an extraordinary increase in its constituent Member States2 through the absorption of a large number of Central European and Mediterranean nations. Since the late 1990's, the Union has been negotiating the precise terms for their entry with a dozen applicant nations and has been providing cooperative assistance to them to prepare for their accession to the Union and in particular, its principal con- stituent part, the European Community.3 As this enlargement of the Union came more clearly in sight, the political leadership and the present Member States, joined by the Commission, con- * Professor and Director of the Center on European Union Law, Fordham Univer- sity School of Law.
  • The European Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution Mark Killian Brewer*

    The European Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution Mark Killian Brewer*

    Cornell International Law Journal Volume 34 Article 5 Issue 3 2001 The urE opean Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution Mark Killian Brewer Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brewer, Mark Killian (2001) "The urE opean Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution," Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 34: Iss. 3, Article 5. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol34/iss3/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell International Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The European Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution Mark Killian Brewer* Introduction ..................................................... 555 I. Background .............................................. 558 A. The Emergence of Neoconstitutionalism ............... 558 B. The Components of Neoconstitutionalism .............. 560 1. The European Treaties Lack the Form of Traditional Constitutional Law ................................. 560 2. The European Treaties Lack the Authority of Traditional Constitutional Law ...................... 562 3. The Communities Lack a Demos .................... 563 C. The Doctrine of Supremacy and German Resistance .... 564 D. The German Legal Framework ........................ 565 E.
  • The Politics of European Rights

    The Politics of European Rights

    The Politics of European Rights Willem Maas Yale University For Panel 15-5 ‘The Construction of Individual Rights in the European Union’ Abstract Citizenship rights in most states generally evolved through a long process of political contestation between rulers and subjects, but this is not the case in the European Union. Understanding the development of European rights – expressed in treaties and regulations signed by member states, directives issued by the Commission, and rulings and interpretations made by the Court – would not be complete without exploring the politics surrounding their introduction and expansion. This paper undertakes such an examination by focusing on the key right of EU citizenship: mobility, which consists of the freedom to move and the freedom to take up residence anywhere within the Union. On the basis of a sketch of the historical evolution of these mobility rights, a number of hypotheses are advanced. Willem Maas Box 203942 Yale Station New Haven CT 06520-3942 http://pantheon.yale.edu/~wm54/ [email protected] Prepared for delivery at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, 30 August - 2 September 2001. © Willem Maas and the American Political Science Association. Please don’t cite without permission. I welcome comments/suggestions for improvement. Willem Maas – The Politics of European Rights 1 Introduction Citizenship rights in most states generally evolved through a long process of political contestation between rulers and subjects. In the European Union, however, rights were simply introduced by treaties or regulations, and in some cases even fleshed out by Commission directives. They have also been subject to expansive interpretations by the Court.
  • The European Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution

    The European Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution

    The European Union and legitimacy: time for a European Constitution BREWER, Mark Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/23241/ This document is the author deposited version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it. Published version BREWER, Mark (2001). The European Union and legitimacy: time for a European Constitution. Cornell International Law Journal, 34 (3), 555-584. Copyright and re-use policy See http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive http://shura.shu.ac.uk Cornell International Law Journal Volume 34 Article 5 Issue 3 2001 The urE opean Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution Mark Killian Brewer Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brewer, Mark Killian (2001) "The urE opean Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution," Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 34: Iss. 3, Article 5. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol34/iss3/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell International Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The European Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution Mark Killian Brewer* Introduction ..................................................... 555 I. Background .............................................. 558 A. The Emergence of Neoconstitutionalism ............... 558 B. The Components of Neoconstitutionalism .............. 560 1. The European Treaties Lack the Form of Traditional Constitutional Law ................................
  • Legal Interpretation at the European Court of Justice

    Legal Interpretation at the European Court of Justice

    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 20, Issue 3 1996 Article 4 Legal Interpretation at the European Court of Justice Nial Fennelly∗ ∗ Copyright c 1996 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj Legal Interpretation at the European Court of Justice Nial Fennelly Abstract The object of all interpretation lies in the true intention of the lawmakers, whether they be framers of a constitution or a treaty, legislators, or drafters of secondary legislation. Its pursuit at The Court of Justice of the European Communities demands of the common lawyer a readiness to set sail from the secure anchorage and protected haven of “plain words” and to explore the wider seas of purpose and context. This Essay is an attempt to enunciate the essential elements of the Court’s approach to legal interpretation, by the only Irish Advocate General to be appointed to that Court to date and to draw attention to some of its most notable practical applications. LEGAL INTERPRETATION AT THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Nial Fennelly* INTRODUCTION "Schematic and teleological"' are in the view of Lord Den- ning, former Master of the Rolls, "strange words."2 They de- scribe the method of interpretation of legal texts employed by the Court of Justice of the European Communities ("Court"),' which sits in Luxembourg where the common and civil law tradi- tions meet. The Common Law, of course, prevails in only two of the fifteen Member States, the United Kingdom and Ireland. The adjustment of the common lawyer to new modes of in- terpretation and legal reasoning is commonplace and is not per- haps as difficult as Lord Denning's "strange words" might sug- * Advocate General, Court ofJustice of the European Communities.
  • European Ombudsman: Annual Report 2000

    European Ombudsman: Annual Report 2000

    01 06 QK-AA-01-001-EN-C THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL REPORT 2000 REPORT ANNUAL ANNUAL REPORT 2000 THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 10 ISBN 92-823-1546-0 OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES L-2985 LUXEMBOURG http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int 9 789282 315460 > EN EN Photographs (unless otherwise mentioned), layout and printing: Services of the European Parliament Mrs Nicole Fontaine Strasbourg, April 2001 President European Parliament rue Wiertz B - 1047 Bruxelles Madam President, In accordance with Article 195 (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 3 (8) of the Decision of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the Performance of the Ombudsman’s Duties, I hereby present my report for the year 2000. Jacob Söderman Ombudsman of the European Union TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 1 FOREWORD 11 2 COMPLAINTS TO THE OMBUDSMAN 17 2.1 THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE OMBUDSMAN’S WORK 17 2.2 THE MANDATE OF THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN 18 2.2.1 “Maladministration” 19 2.2.2 The Code of good administrative behaviour 19 2.3 ADMISSIBILITY OF COMPLAINTS 19 2.4 GROUNDS FOR INQUIRIES 21 2.5 ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINTS 22 2.6 ADVICE TO CONTACT OTHER AGENCIES AND TRANSFERS 22 2.7 THE OMBUDSMAN’S POWERS OF INVESTIGATION 23 2.7.1 The hearing of witnesses 23 2.7.2 Inspection of documents 24 2.7.3 Clarifying the Ombudsman’s powers of investigation 24 2.8 INQUIRIES BY THE OMBUDSMAN AND THEIR OUTCOMES 25 3 DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY 29 3.1 CASES WHERE NO MALADMINISTRATION WAS FOUND 29 3.1.1 The Council of the European Union 29 REFUSAL TO PROMOTE TO AN A2 POST .
  • Synopsis of the Work of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities

    Synopsis of the Work of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities

    COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 1992-1994 Synopsis of the work of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities Luxembourg 1995 Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Court of Justice of the European Communities L-2925 Luxembourg Telephone: 4303-1 Telex (Registry): 2510 CURIA LU Telex (Information Service): 2771 CJ INFO LU Telegraphic address: CURIA Telefax (Court): 4303-2600 Telefax (Information Service): 4303-2500 Court of First Instance of the European Communities Rue du Fort-Niedergriinewald L-2925 Luxembourg Telephone: 43 03-1 Telex (Registry): 60216 CURIA LU Telefax (Court): 4303-2100 Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1995 ISBN 92-829-0255-2 © ECSC-EC-EAEC, Brussels • Luxembourg, 1995 Reproduction is authorized, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Belgium Foreword This year, exceptionally, the Report of the Proceedings of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and of the Court of First Instance will replace the Annual Report of previous years. Following delays at various stages of publication, and relying on the understand­ ing of our readers, it has been decided to publish a version which, while retaining the usual content, relates to the proceedings of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance over three years, namely 1992, 1993 and 1994. As has been the case with publications for previous years, this report is intended for judges. lawyers and, in general, practitioners, teachers and students of Community law.
  • The Enforcement of European Union Law: the Role of the European Court of Justice and the Court's Latest Challenge*

    The Enforcement of European Union Law: the Role of the European Court of Justice and the Court's Latest Challenge*

    THE ENFORCEMENT OF EUROPEAN UNION LAW: THE ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE COURT'S LATEST CHALLENGE* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ......................... 835 II. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ........ 836 III. OUTLINE OF EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR INTERACTION .......................... 837 A. The Council ........................... 837 B. The Commission ....................... 839 C. The European Parliament ................ 840 D. The Courts ......................... 842 1. The European Court of Justice ........ 842 2. The Court of First Instance ............. 844 IV. COMMON MEANS OF ENFORCEMENT OF EUROPEAN UNION LAW IN AND AGAINST MEMBER NATIONS THROUGH THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ............... 845 A. EC Treaty Article 177 ................... 845 1. General Description .................. 845 2. Case Example: Francovich v. Italian Republic 849 B. EC Treaty Article 169 ................... 850 1. General Description .................. 850 2. Case Example: Commission v. Kingdom of Bel- gium ............................. 853 C. EC Treaty Article 170 ................... 854 1. General Description ................ 854 2. Case Example: France v. United Kingdom 855 V. ENFORCEMENT OF ECJ JUDGMENTS .............. 857 A. EC Treaty Article 171 ................... 857 1. Pre-Union Treaty Amendment .......... 857 * This is one of two papers which received the 1994-1995 Houston Journal of International Law Best Student-Written Article Award. 834 HOUSTON JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 18:833 a. Commission v. Italian Republic ..... 858 b. Commission v. Hellenic Republic .... 859 c. Commission v. Kingdom of The Nether- lands ......... .............. 860 2. Union Treaty Amendment and Its Predicted Effect ......................... 860 VI. NEW CHALLENGE TO ENFORCEMENT-THE FIRST EC TREATY ARTICLE 225 CASE: COMMISSION V. HELLENIC REPUBLIC ............................. 862 A. Greece's European Union Background ...... 862 1. Entrance ....................... 862 2. Greek Attitude Towards the European Union 863 a.
  • The Impact of the Amsterdam Treaty Upon the Court of Justice

    The Impact of the Amsterdam Treaty Upon the Court of Justice

    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 22, Issue 6 1998 Article 4 The Impact of the Amsterdam Treaty upon the Court of Justice Ole Due∗ ∗ Copyright c 1998 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The Impact of the Amsterdam Treaty upon the Court of Justice Ole Due Abstract The Intergovernmental Conference leading up to the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty was probably the first during which the case law of the Court of Justice formed a topic of discussion. The result of this discussion was certainly positive in relation to the new Treaty’s general rules. But, clearly, criticism had also been voiced during the discussion. This criticism can be seen from two protocols to the Treaty, both drawn up as unfortunate reactions to specific rulings. It is important that the establishment of a closer cooperation between some Member States does not permit them to escape from the rules of jurisdiction applicable in the area in question and that decisions on the establishment of and accession to such closer cooperation are subject to the rules of jurisdiction of the EC Treaty. The extension of the Court’s jurisdiction to areas outside the Community Treaties is certainly an achievement, and it is important that this extension also applies to conventions, where the question until now has created great difficulties. The mere complexity of the provisions and the many limitations of access to the Court, however, greatly reduce its practical importance. On the other hand, the system is sufficiently flexible to permit the Member States and their courts to remedy some of the deficiencies.
  • The European Union's Constitutional Order? Between Community Method and Ad Hoc Compromise

    The European Union's Constitutional Order? Between Community Method and Ad Hoc Compromise

    The European Union's Constitutional Order? Between Community Method and Ad Hoc Compromise By Youri Devuyst* I. INTRODUCTION According to the European Court of Justice, "the EEC Treaty, albeit con- cluded in the form of an international agreement, none the less constitutes the Constitutional Charter of the Community based on the rule of law."' The Court has consistently held that the European Union ("EU")2 treaties have established * Adjunct Professor, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Free University of Brussels), Belgium. 1. Case 294/83, Les Verts v. Parliament, 1986 E.C.R. 1339, 1365. 2. The founding treaties of the European Communities are: - the Treaty of Paris establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, Apr. 18, 1951, 261 U.N.T.S. 140 [hereinafter ECSC TREATY]; - the Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 U.N.T.S. 11 [hereinafter EEC TREATY]; and - another Treaty of Rome establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 U.N.T.S. 140 [hereinafter EURATOM TREATY]. European integration was reinvigorated in the 1980s through the Single European Act, Feb. 17 & 28, 1986, O.J. (L 169) 1; 25 I.L.M. 503 (1986) [hereinafter SEA]. The EU was established by the Treaty on European Union, Feb. 7, 1992, O.J. (C 224) 1; 31 I.L.M. 247 (1992) [hereinafter TEU or-Treaty of Maastricht]. The TEU changed the name of the EEC Treaty in Treaty establishing the European Community [hereinafter EC Treaty]. The treaties were amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam Amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and Certain Related Acts, Oct.
  • The Treaty of Amsterdam in Historical Perspective: Introduction to the Symposium

    The Treaty of Amsterdam in Historical Perspective: Introduction to the Symposium

    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 22, Issue 6 1998 Article 2 The Treaty of Amsterdam in Historical Perspective: Introduction to the Symposium Roger J. Goebel∗ ∗ Copyright c 1998 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The Treaty of Amsterdam in Historical Perspective: Introduction to the Symposium Roger J. Goebel Abstract On February 27-28, 1998, the Center on European Union Law of the Fordham Law School was pleased to present a program, “The European Union and the United States: Constitutional Systems in Evolution,” intended to provide a clear description of the impact of the Treaty of Am- sterdam upon the European Union (or “EU”), and to enable some valuable points of comparison and contrast between constitutional and legal developments within the European Union and the United States. This symposium issue of the Fordham International Law Journal publishes a series of papers presented at the conference centering on the Treaty of Amsterdam, signed on October 2, 1997, and scheduled for complete ratification and entry into effect in 1999. All of the articles were written by present or former officials of institutions of the European Union who either participated in the preparation of the text of the Treaty of Amsterdam or are well-suited to analyze it. Let me now make a few remarks situating the Treaty of Amsterdam within the context of the constitutional evolution of the European Union. Not only is the study of the European Union one of the greatest practical importance, in view of its major political and economic role on the world stage, but also it is fascinating and rather elusive.