Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Individual Rights in EU Law pp 35–40Cite as

Genesis of the European Union Law Right

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 755 Accesses

Abstract

Though it may be possible today to rationalize the role of the notion of an individual right in European Union law, it may still be pertinent to ask what prompted the Court of Justice to first start speaking of rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Joined Cases 7/56 and 3-7/57 Algera v Common Assembly [1957] ECR 39.

  2. 2.

    Joined Cases 7/56 and 3-7/57 Algera v Common Assembly [1957] ECR 39, p. 55.

  3. 3.

    Joined Cases 42 and 49/59 Société nouvelle des usines de Pontlieue – Aciéries du Temple (SNUPAT) v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community [1963] ECR 53.

  4. 4.

    Case 6/60 Humblet [1960] ECR 559, p. 571.

  5. 5.

    Case 6/60 Humblet [1960] ECR 559, pp. 571–572.

  6. 6.

    Case 14/61 Koninklijke Nederlandsche Hoogovens en Staalfabrieken N.V. v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community [1962] ECR 253, at p. 272.

  7. 7.

    Joined Cases 19 and 21/60, 2 and 3/61 Fives Lille Cail v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community [1961] ECR 282, p. 288.

  8. 8.

    Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1, p. 12.

  9. 9.

    Cf., e.g., Dinan (2014), p. 110.

  10. 10.

    Cf., inter alia, Chalmers and Barroso (2014), p. 105.

  11. 11.

    Cf. Barnard (2014), p. 26.

  12. 12.

    Cf. Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1, 12.

  13. 13.

    Cf., in particular, Foster and Elam v Neilson, US Supreme Court 1929, 2 Peters (US) 253.

  14. 14.

    Cf. Iwasawa (1986), p. 629.

  15. 15.

    Advisory Opinion on Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig (1928) P.C.I.J. Series B No 15, 17–18. In the United States, the issue of individual rights derived from treaties has not lost its pertinence and one can immediately spot some common characteristics with the debate relating to European Union law. In the literature, ‘it is frequently said that treaties are enforceable by individuals in our courts only when they confer rights on individuals’, with references to ‘e.g., Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Baker, 949 F.2d 1109, 1110 (11th Cir. 1991) (treaty must “directly accord […] enforceable rights to persons”), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1295 (1992); Committee of U.S. Citizens Living in Nicar. v. Reagan, 859 F.2d 929, 937 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (treaty must “confer rights on private individuals”); United States v. Bent-Santana, 774 F.2d 1545, 1550 (11th Cir. 1985) (treaty must confer “privately enforceable rights”); Frolova v. U.S.S.R., 761 F.2d 370, 374 (7th Cir. 1985) (treaty must confer “rights enforceable by private litigants in American courts”); cf. Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 598–599 (1884) (treaty enforceable by individuals when “its provisions prescribe a rule by which the rights of the private citizens or subject may be determined”)’, cf. Vázguez (1992), p. 1082 (footnote 4).

  16. 16.

    Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1, pp. 12–13.

  17. 17.

    Weatherill (2000), p. 100.

  18. 18.

    Cf., e.g., Kakouris (1997).

  19. 19.

    Cf., e.g., Tuori (2005).

  20. 20.

    Cf., in similar direction, Adinolfi (2012), p. 286.

  21. 21.

    Joined Cases C-6/60 and C-9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357.

  22. 22.

    Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357, para 1.

  23. 23.

    Hinarejos (2009), p. 7.

  24. 24.

    Bellantuono (2010), p. 119.

  25. 25.

    Case C-453/99 Courage v Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297.

  26. 26.

    Collins (2006), p. 222.

  27. 27.

    Cf. Edward (1998), p. 424.

  28. 28.

    Chalmers and Barroso (2014), p. 106.

  29. 29.

    Cf., e.g., Schønberg (2000), pp. 36–37; and Malferrari (1999), pp. 811–814.

  30. 30.

    van Gerven (2000), p. 502.

References

  • Adinolfi A (2012) The “Procedural Autonomy” of Member States and the constraints stemming from the ECJ’s case law. In: Micklitz H-W, de Witto B (eds) The European Court of Justice and the autonomy of the Member States. Intersentia, Cambridge–Antwerp–Poland, pp 281–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard C (2014) The substantive law of the EU: the four freedoms, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellantuono G (2010) The limits of contract law in the regulatory state. ERCL 6:115–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D, Barroso L (2014) What Van Gend en Loos stands for. IJCL 12:105–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins H (2006) The alchemy of deriving general principles of contract law from European legislation: in search of the philosopher’s stone. ERCL 2:213–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinan D (2014) Europe recast, a history of European Union, 2nd edn. Palgrave MacMillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Edward D (1998) Direct effect and enforcement of obligations. In: Guiffrè DA (ed) Scritti in onore di Giuseppe Federico Mancini, vol II. Diritto dell’unione Europea, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinarejos A (2009) Judicial control in the European Union, reforming jurisdiction in the intergovernmental pillars. Studies in European Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Iwasawa Y (1986) The doctrine of self-executing treaties in the United States: a critical analysis. VJIL 26:627–692

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakouris CM (1997) Do the Member States possess judicial procedural ‘autonomy’? CML Rev 34:1389–1412

    Google Scholar 

  • Malferrari L (1999) State liability for violation of EC Law in Italy: the reaction of the Corte di Cassazione to Francovich and future prospects in light of its decision of July 22, 1999, No. 500. ZaöRV 59:809–838

    Google Scholar 

  • Schønberg S (2000) Legitimate expectations in administrative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuori K (2005) The law and its traditions. SSL 48:489–504

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gerven W (2000) Of rights, remedies and procedures. CML Rev 37:501–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Vázguez CM (1992) Treaty-based rights and remedies for individuals. CL Rev 92:1082–1163

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2000) Addressing problems of imbalanced implementation in EC law: remedies in an institutional perspective. In: Kilpatrick C et al (eds) The future of remedies in Europe. Hart Publishing, Oxford–Portland, Oregon, pp 87–116

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Private Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Bjarte Thorson

Authors
  1. Bjarte Thorson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Thorson, B. (2016). Genesis of the European Union Law Right. In: Individual Rights in EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32771-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32771-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32770-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32771-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation