StJ ' ' • ~ ' .1> Court of Justice of the European Communities Judicial and Academic Conference 27-28 September 1976 Reports :.UXEMBOURG ..q Court of Justice I' of the European Communities ,...- Judicial and Academic Conference ~ ~\ ~ 27-28 September 1976, lu ~~t-ow·~// C, -:::;:: Reports -__...- LUXEMBOURG C'i~ II I. I. l Note The original text of the Report (I) by Judge H. Kutscher, President of Chamber, was drawn up in German The original text of the Report (II) by Professor C. Hamson, Q.C., was drawn up in English The original text of the Report (III) by Mr F. Duman, First Advocate-General at the Belgian Cour de Cassation, was drawn up in French The original text of the Report (V) by Mr Advocate-General J.-P. Warner was drawn up in English The original text of the Report (VI) by Judge P. Pescatore was drawn up in French In view of the very short period of time within which the manuscripts had to be translated and printed, it was not possible for the authors to arrange for the translations of their texts to be revised. 2 Preface At the end of a period of activity of almost 25 years the Court of Justice of the European Communities took the initiative in inviting a new type of reflection upon its methods of interpretation. The time appeared to be particularly ripe in that, following the rise in the number of requests for preliminary rulings submitted under the Treaty of Rome, the European Court of Justice is receiving an ever-increasing number of questions concerning the interpretation of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. It was therefore of the greatest interest to the Court to bring together senior members of the judiciaries of the Member States and qualified representatives of the national Bars and famous universities in order to submit to their critical assessment the whole of its case-law. Such was the first aim of the Judicial and Academic Conference held in Luxembourg on 27 and 28 September 1976 in which more than 150 people took part. The Conference was also an exceptional opportunity to give the nine Ministers responsible for the administration of justice the chance to meet - for the first time - lawyers from all the Member States and to obtain an overall picture of the comparative vitality of Community law in each of those States. Three papers were to introduce the discussion on the methods of interpretation employed by the Court. So that the area of criticism should be as wide as poss­ ible three 'rapporteurs' from different environments were asked to present papers. Mr Kutscher, then President of Chamber at the Court, was to bring to the Conference his wide experience of an enterprise in which he has been intimately involved within the Court, whilst two other 'rapporteurs' from outside the institution were also invited to submit their own critical obser­ vations. A prominent lawyer - Mr Duman, First Advocate-General at the Cour de Cassation of Belgium - and an eminent professor from a British 3 university- Mr Hamson, former Professor of Law at Cambridge- were in fact particularly well qualified to present the views of lawyers from both civil and common law countries on the theory and practice of the Court. The lively, deep and varied discussions which followed under the chairman­ ship of, first, Mr Alberto Trabucchi, Advocate-General, and, secondly, Mr Aindrias O'Keeffe, President of Chamber, were based on those three significant documents. The themes were very varied. Approval alternated with criticism, often from the same contributors. At the risk of over-simplifying the discussion, let me refer, among the problems most frequently touched on, to those raised by Professor Hamson in relation to the direct effect of the Treaties as it results from the judgment in Van Gend and Laos and those referred to by Mr Duman, First Advocate-General, in relation to the principle of equal pay for men and women acknowledged in the Defrenne judgment. The time available was, of course, insufficient to exhaust the debate. However, the number, the authority and the diverse national origins of the contributors1 gave great weight to the critical examination undertaken in a remarkable community of spirit. The instructional part of the meeting, to which the second day was devoted, enabled the same audience, which then included the Ministers responsible for the administration of justice of the various Member States, 2 to appreciate the vitality of Community law in all its various forms. 1 Despite the crowded timetable the following participants were able to contribute: Mr Olmi, Director-General of the Legal Department of the Commission of the European Communities, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, Chairmen of the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, Viscount Ganshof van der Meersch, Emeritus Public Prosecutor at the Cour de Cassation of Belgium, Professor Van Gerven from Louvain, Professor Lando from Copenhagen, Professor Boerner from Cologne, Mr Deringer from Cologne, Mr Monguilan, First President of the Cour de Cassation of France, Mr Touffait, Public Prosecu­ tor at the Cour de Cassation of France, Mr Bellet, President of Chamber at the Cour de Cassation of France, Professor Vedel from Paris, Professor Teitgen from Paris, Mr Catalano from Rome, Professor Monaco from Rome, Senator Bosco from Rome, Professor Ubertazzi from Milan, Councillor Liesch from Luxembourg, Professor Verloren van Themaat from Utrecht, Professor Schermers from Amsterdam, Lord. Denning, Master of the Rolls, from London, Professor Lipstein from Cambridge, Professor Graveson from London, Professor Lawton from Belfast. 2 Mr van Agt for the Netherlands, Lord Elwyn-Jones and Lord King Murray for Great Britain, Mr M0ller for Denmark, Mr Erkel for the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr Guichard for France, Mr Cooney for Ireland, Mr Bonifacio for Italy and Mr Krieps for Luxembourg. 4 It was first necessary to define for the Ministers the various trends which had emerged from the previous day's discussion on the methods of interpretation employed by the Court. That task fell to Mr J. Mertens de Wilmars, Judge. Mr J.-P. Warner, Advocate-General, then traced the evolution of the work of the Court from its earliest days and Mr Gundelach, Member of the Commis­ sion, described the difficulties of interpretation which that body has also encountered. The final stage was to be a survey of the ways in which the Treaties and Regulations are applied in the Member States. This task was entrusted to Mr P. Pescatore, Judge, who spoke, in comparative terms, of the evolution of the case-law of the national courts, the progress made and the difficulties which persist here and there. In a well-documented and penetrating address Mr van Agt, President of the Council of Ministers for Justice of the Community, then sought to describe the development of integration through the case-law of the Court of Justice and of the national courts and to express the confidence of the Member States in those bodies. What conclusions are to be drawn from such a conference? First of all, this novel formula may be applied again in future. It appears to be useful to submit a body of case-law to the constructive criticism of such an assembly, as it may bring about a closer alignment of theory and practice and a closer cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts. Certain of the latter are ~ven proposing to try the same formula at their own level. Moreover, this high-level conference brought out the essential features of Community law. The frequent emphasis on the need for a uniform body of case-law showed the importance which the audience attached to the basic principles of a single system of law which is common to all the Member States and whose uniform interpretation and application binds their nationals more closely together. It also became apparent that close cooperation between the national courts and the Court of Justice is a decisive factor in the success of Community law. It is, in fact, as a result of several thousand questions submitted by several hundred courts and tribunals that the case-law has developed step by step in an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence. It is the national court which, 5 by taking the initiative, has been the driving force of that development. Thus the case-law of the Community is both progressive and collective in nature. The results of the Conference to which I have just referred highlight possible future progress towards new developments. Experience has shown that the repercussions of any Community provision, however unimportant it may, be hasten judicial integration - the experience of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters is the most recent illustration of this; it must therefore be recognized that here is a discreet but effective practical method of bringing about gradual integration whilst other, more ambitious, projects are marking time. In this regard, it would be very easy, with a little imagination, to draw up an impressive list of subjects in which substantial progress might be achieved towards the adoption of a uniform attitude by the national courts. A methodi­ cal examination of commercial law and, on a more general level, of private law, might lead in particular to the discovery of numerous international conventions, for example, on negotiable instruments or commercial sales, of which various Member States are signatories. This list could lead to the extension of those conventions in the Community context, either in the search for identical common solutions or in an attempt by the contracting Member States to elaborate uniform interpretative procedures.