The National Judge as Judge of the European Union

Fennelly, Nial

doi:10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_5

The National Judge as Judge of the European Union

Nial Fennelly²

Chapter
First Online: 01 January 2012

2309 Accesses
3 Citations

Abstract

The national judge is the first judge of the European Union. The early decisions of the Court favoured private enforcement of rights by individual action. This decentralised judicial power to courts of the Member States, exercising national procedural autonomy. This policy obviated the need for a separate system of EU courts. The national courts have the task of providing effective judicial protection for individuals under EU law; they are under a duty to apply EU law of their own motion; to interpret relevant national law in conformity with it; to apply provisions which have direct effect, according them primacy over conflicting provisions of national law. This includes holding the State itself liable. When necessary for their decisions, they have power to make references for preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice. The national courts, in a dynamic co-operation with the Court of Justice have contributed to the establishment of the acquis communautaire, the promotion of respect for the rule of law and for fundamental human rights at Union level and in the Member States.

Judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland, Advocate General at the Court of Justice from 1995 to 2000.

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

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Opinion 1/09, para 80.
2.
Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR 1-6079, para 21.
3.
Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich v Italy [1991] ECR 1-5357.
4.
Hereinafter usually “EU law.” The term “Community law,” may be used to avoid anachronism.
5.
Hereinafter, sometimes the ECJ or “the Court.”
6.
Case 26/62 NV Algemene Transport—En Expeditie Ondermening Van Gend & Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1.
7.
See Professor Paul Craig, “Once Upon a Time in the West: Direct Effect and the Federalisation of EEC Law,” in 12 Oxford Legal Studies (1992), pp. 453–479.
8.
European Parliament Resolution of 9 July 2008 on the role of the national judge in the European judicial system (2009/C 294 E/06) O.J. C 294 E27 3 December 2009.
9.
See above, fn. 8.
10.
From now on, I use the masculine which includes the feminine.
11.
Hereinafter usually abbreviated to ECJ.
12.
Hereinafter TFEU.
13.
Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585, at p. 593.
14.
Case 148/78 Pubblico Ministero v Ratti [1979] ECR 1629 at 1642; Case 8/81 Becker v Finanzqmt Munster-Innenstadt [1982] ECR 53.
15.
Case 2/74 Reyners v Belgium [1974] ECR 631.
16.
Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment.
17.
Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal S.p.a. [1978] ECR 629, para 15.
18.
Becker, already cited (fn. 14), para 24.
19.
Case 43/75 Defrenne v SABENA [1976] ECR 455.
20.
Already cited (fn. 13).
21.
Case 78/76 Steinike & Weinlig [1977] ECR 595, para 14; Case C-119/05 Ministero dell’Industria, del Commercio e dell’Artigianato v Lucchini, [2007] ECR I-6199.
22.
Reliance was placed on Case 9/70 Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein [1970] ECR 825.
23.
Dellway Investments & ors v NAMA & ors [2011] IESC 4, judgment of Fennelly J, nem. diss.
24.
Already cited (fn. 13). See p. 593 of the judgment.
25.
Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal S.p.a. [1978] ECR 629, paras 14–22 of the judgment.
26.
In Case C- 213/89 Factortame [1990] ECR I-2433.
27.
Case 11/70 Internationale Handellsgesellschaft v Einfuhr- und Vorratstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] 1125.
28.
In Case 249/85 Albako v BALM [1987] ECR 2345, the Court said it was to refrain from applying” inconsistent national rules.
29.
Case 177/78 Pigs and Bacon Commission v McCarren & Company [1979] ECR 2161.
30.
Pigs and Bacon Commission v McCarren [1981] I.R. 451 at 470.
31.
Originally laid down in Case 14/83 von Colson and Kamann [1984] ECR 1891, para 15.
32.
Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR I-4135.
33.
Case C-105/03 [2005] ECR I-5285.
34.
In Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Bailey [2012] IESC 16, the Irish Supreme Court refused to surrender the appellant to France because Irish law, though not the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant, required that a decision to try him should already have been made in France.
35.
Pupino, para 47 of the judgment.
36.
Pupino, paras 44 and 45; see Joined Cases C-387/02, C-391/02 and C-403/02 Berlusconi and others [2005] ECR I-3565.
37.
In Joined cases C-267/95 & C-268/95 Merck & Co v Primecrown Ltd [1996] 1 ECR 1-6285, the Court referred to “other criteria of interpretation,” where there was divergence in the different language versions. In Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld v Geteputeerde Staaten van Zuid-Holland [1996] ECR I-5403, paras 53–61, the Court considered all eleven of the then Community languages.
38.
Cases: Case 45/76 Comet v Produktschap [1976] ECR 2043; Case 33/76 Rewe v Landwirstchaftkammer Saarland [1976] ECR 1989 para 8; Case 199/82 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v San Giorgio [1983] 3595 para 12; C-208/90 Emmott [1991] ECR I-4269 para 16; C-9/90 Francovich and others [1991] ECR I-5357; Peterbroeck, cited above, para 12.
39.
Case C-255/00 Grundig Italiana Spa v Ministero delle Finanze [2002] ECR I-8003.
40.
Emmott, already cited (fn. 38), para 17.
41.
Case C-312/93 Peterbroeck [1995] ECR I-4599, para 14. In the French version, “its progress” is better rendered as “son déroulement.”
42.
This is the case in Poland. See “When must national judges raise European law issues of their own motion?” Tadeusz Erecinski ERA Forum Vol 11 Number 4 February 2011
43.
Case C-188/10 Melki [2010] ECR 1-5665.
44.
Case 166/73 Rheinmühlen v Einfuhr- und Vorratstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1974] ECR 33, cited in the judgment of the Court in Peterbroeck, para 13.
45.
Case C-137/08 VB Pénzügyi Lizing Zrt v Ferenc Snyder [2010] ECR I-10947
46.
Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal S.p.a. [1978] ECR 629, paras 24 and 26.
47.
Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 Van Schijndel and van Steen v SPF [1995] ECR I-4705, para 13; Case C-2/06 Kempter [2008] ECR I-411.
48.
Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld v Geteputeerde Staaten van Zuid-Holland [1996] ECR I-5403, paras 53–61.
49.
Case 294/83 Les Verts v Parliament [1986] ECR 1339, para 23.
50.
Case 222/84 [1986] ECR 1651.
51.
Case C-213/89 The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd [1990] ECR I-2433, para 20.
52.
Already cited (fn. 49).
53.
Case 314/85 Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost [1987] ECR 4199, para 15.
54.
Cases C-300/99 Area Cova v Council [2001] ECR I-983; C-301/99 Area Cova v Commission [2001] ECR I-1005, order of the Court.
55.
Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, para 38.
56.
European Parliament and Council Directive 98/43/EC of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products. (OJ 1999 L 213 p. 9).
57.
Case C-376/98 Germany v European Parliament and Council; Case C-74/99 Queen v Secretary of State for Health, ex p. Imperial Tobacco and others [2000] ECR I-8419, para 2 of the judgment.
58.
Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré v Commission [2002] ECR II-2365.
59.
Paragraph 47 of the judgment.
60.
Paragraphs 39 and 45 of the judgment.
61.
Case C-50/00 P, already cited (fn. 55).
62.
Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich v Italy [1991] ECR 1-5357.
63.
Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame [1996] ECR 1-1029, para 20.
64.
Francovich, already cited (fn. 62), para 40.
65.
Brasserie du Pêcheur, paras 51 and 55.
66.
Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, para 58.
67.
Ibid, para 56.
68.
Case C-224/01 Köbler v Republic of Austria [2003] ECR I-10239.
69.
Paragraph 53 of the judgment.
70.
Case C-2/06 Kempter, already cited (fn. 47).
71.
Opinion 1/09, 8 March 2011.
72.
CJEU Press Release no 14/12 Luxembourg 17 February 2012.
73.
Article 104b(1).
74.
An examples are: Case C-400/10 PPU McB, [2010] 1-8965, refered by the Supreme Court of Ireland.
75.
See fn. 34 above.
76.
Case C–251/11 Martial Huet v Université de Bretagne occidentale.
77.
Case -281/98 Angonese v Casso di Risparmio di Bolzano [2000] ECR I-4139, para 18.
78.
Case 283/81 CILFIT v Ministry of Health [1982] E.C.R. 3415.
79.
Already cited (fn. 68), para 35.
80.
Case 35/76 Simmenthal S.p.a. v Italian Minister for Finance [1976] E.C.R. 1871, para 4.
81.
Case C-34/09, judgment of 8 March 2011, paras 40–44.
82.
Cases 28, 29 and 30/62 Da Costa v Nederlandse Belastingadministratie [1963] ECR 31 at 38; Case 52/76 Benedetti [1977] ECR 163.
83.
Case 170/84 Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v. Karin Weber von Hartz [1986] ECR 1607, para 36.
84.
Case C-145/88 Torfaen Borough Council v B & Q plc [1989] ECR 1-3851, paras 11–37; Case 72/83 Campus Oil Limited v Minister for Industry and Energy [1984] ECR 2727, paras 49 and 50.
85.
Kapteyn and VerLoren van Themaat 1998, p. 505, footnote 280. For an example, see Case C-67/97 Ditlev Bluhme [1998] ECR I-8033.
86.
Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers’ Federation v Viking [2007] ECR I-10779.
87.
Case C-166/11 Gonzales Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros SAE, judgment of March 2012, para 33.
88.
Opinion 1/09, already cited (fn. 71), para 71.

References

Craig P (1992) Once upon a time in the west: direct effect and the federalisation of EEC Law. Oxf J Leg Stud 12:453–479
Article Google Scholar
Ereciński T (2011) When must national judges raise European law issues of their own motion? ERA Forum Number 11:525–536
Google Scholar
Kapteyn PJG, VerLoren van Themaat P (1998) Introduction to the Law of the European Communities: from Maastricht to Amsterdam. Kluwer Law International, London
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Supreme Court of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
Nial Fennelly

Authors

Nial Fennelly
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nial Fennelly .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fennelly, N. (2013). The National Judge as Judge of the European Union. In: The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l'Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_5
Published: 05 December 2012
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-896-5
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-897-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

TMC Asser Press (opens in a new tab)