Abstract
The review of validity of Community acts by the Court under the EEC Treaty Article 177 has oddly enough received relatively little attention up to now. Two grounds may explain this lack of interest. Firstly, the review of validity was examined frequently only at random in connection with a general discussion of Article 177 focusing primarily on the question of interpretation of Community rules. Moreover, its particularity was sometimes overlooked, as if both aspects of Article 177 raised an identical problem solved by the Treaty in the same manner. Secondly — and this may explain the greater interest for this aspect of Article 177 — until recently, national courts requested an interpretation of Community rules by the Court more frequently than a review of validity of a Community act. But as of recently, a notable increase of requests by national courts for a review of validity may be observed. Such a review may be even of greater importance for the operation of the Community legal order than an interpretation of Community rules.1 A comparison of both objectives of Article 177 makes this clear. A preliminary interpretative ruling seeks a uniform interpretation of Community rules. A review of validity of a Community act reaches much further: it concerns the vital question of whether or not an act is to be applied by a national court. This different objective, and the fact that this review raises particular problems of its own, absent in case of interpretation, calls for a separate examination.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Pescatore, “Interpretation of Community Law and the Doctrine of ‘Acte Clair’,” Legal Problems of an Enlarged European Community 27, 31 (1972).
Couzinet, Le renvoi en appréciation de validité devant la Cour de Justice des Communautés Européennes,12 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen 648, 660 (1976), assumes too easily that the drafters of the EEC Treaty intended to confer a right on lower courts to rule on the validity of Community acts and fails to consider and appreciate the weighty grounds which strongly militate against such a power of lower courts which is manifestly incoherent with the judicial system instituted by the EEC Treaty.
This is also the proposal of the Court on the European Union, Bulletin of the European Communities, Commission’s Report on the European Union, Spec. Suppl. 5/75 at p. 35. In this sense, for example, Carstens, Rechtsprechung zu den allgemeinen Problemen der Integration, FIDE, VIe Congrès, Rapport, p. 37; Donner, Les rapports entre la compétence de la Cour de Justice des Communautés Européennes et les tribunaux internes, Académie de Droit International, 115 Recueil des Cours 3 at p. 39 (1965); Ehle, Inzidenter Rechtsschutz gegen Handlungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaftsorgane, 18 Monatsschrift für deutsches Recht 719 at p. 720 (1964); Lutter, Europäische Gerichtsbarkeit und nationale Gerichtsbarkeit, 86 Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 107, at p. 132 (1973); Pescatore, “Interpretation of Community Law and the Doctrine of ‘Acte Clair’,” in Legal Problems of an Enlarged European Community 27 at p. 37 (1972); Pépy, Le rôle des juridictions dans l’ application de l’ article 177 et la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice, Cahier de Droit Européen 21 at p. 34 (1966); Schumann, Deutscher Richter und der Gerichtshof der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, 78 Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 77 at p. 120 (1965); Tomuschat, Die gerichtliche Vorabentscheidung nach den Verträgen über die Europäischen Gemeinschaften 202, (1964). Jacobs, When to Refer to the European Court, 90 Law Quarterly Rev. 486, 487 (1974); van Empel, L’acte public inexistant et le droit communautaire, 7 Cahiers de Droit Européen 251, 275 (1971).
Even if the invalidity of an act were manifest, this may not dispense a court of last instance of its obligation, under the EEC Treaty Article 177(3), to request the Court for its review. The slippery doctrine of “acte clair” may not liberalize this obligation of the courts of last instance. But so Couzinet, Le renvoi en appréciation de validité devant la Cour de Justice des Communautés Européennes, 12 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen 648, 662 (1976).
The fact alone that one of the parties contested the validity of an act before the national court does not suffice to oblige this court to request its review. But in this sense Steindorff, Rechtsschutz und Verfahren im Recht der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 83 (1964); Zuleeg, Das Recht der Europäischen Gemeinschaften im innerstaatlichen Bereich 371–372 (1969).
Daig, Aktuelle Fragen der Vorabentscheidungen nach Artikel 177 EWGV unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Rechtsprechung und Praxis des Europäischen Gerichtshofes,3 Europarecht, 259 at p. 277, 371 at pp. 382–383 (1968); Gaudet, “La coopération judiciaire, instrument d’édification de l’ordre juridique communautaire” in Festschrift für Walter Hallstein 202 at pp. 222–224 (1966).
Runge, Die europäischen Verträge und der nationale Richter,16 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 748, 749 (1963).
However, Dumon, “Le renvoi préjudiciel” in Collège de Bruges, Droit communautaire et droit national (Semaine de Bruges 1965) 19.7 at p. 209, who also includes the Economic and Social Committee among the Community institutions.
Lagrange, cit. supra, id. Dumon, “Questions préjudicielles” in Les,Novelles, Droit des Communautés Européennes 341, 347 (No. 962) (1969). The decision of the German Constitutional Court, June 9 1971, 24 Der Betrieb 1651, 1652 (1971) assumes that even judgments of the Court of Justice are subject to review by the Court.
In this sense, Pescatore, Les repartitions de compétence entre la Communauté et ses Etats membres,p. 13 Université de Liège, 6e Colloque sur les Communautés Européennes (1973).
Pescatore, L’ordre juridique des Communautés Européennes 140 (2nd Ed. 1973).
Kovar, Les accords liant les Communautés Européennes et l’ordre juridique communautaire: A propos d’une jurisprudence récente de la Cour de Justice,Revue du Marché Commun 345 at p. 354 (No. 176/ 1974); Mégrêt, Conclusions, formes et effets des accords internationaux passés par la CEE,Revue du Marché Commun 19 at pp. 25–26 (No. 76/ 1965); Pescatore, Relations extérieures des Communautés,Académie de Droit International, 103 Recueil des Cours 123 at pp. 125–126 (1961).
Pescatore, L’ordre juridique des Communautés Européennes 150; Millarg, 8 Europarecht p. 155.
Ehle, Inzidenter Rechtsschutz gegen Handlungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaftsorgane, 18 Monatsschrift für deutsches Recht 719 at p. 720 (1964); Hay, Une approche politique de l’application de l’Article 177 du Traité CEE, 7 Cahiers de Droit Européen 503 at p. 512 (1971); Lutter, op. cit. supra, note 10 at p. 138; Matthies, “Die Bindungswirkung von Urteilen des Gerichtshofes der Europäischen Gemeinschaften” Festschrift für Walter Hallstein 304, 320–1 (1966).
Pescatore, L’ordre juridique des Communautés Européennes 226 (1973).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1981 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers bv, The Hague
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bebr, G. (1981). Review of Validity of Community Acts. In: Development of Judicial Control of the European Communities. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9019-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9019-0_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8339-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9019-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive