Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Judicial Protection in the European Communities pp 129–285Cite as

Judicial review

  • Chapter

  • 71 Accesses

Abstract

The three Community Treaties all begin with assigning far-reaching tasks to the newly established Communities, tasks which are delineated precisely throughout the Treaties. The methods of implementation which may be used and the kinds of decisions to be taken are narrowly prescribed. The tasks entrusted to the Communities must be carried out by the four Institutions, each acting within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties. It is of great importance for the Member States which transferred sovereignty to the Communities, for the Institutions, each of which has its own responsibilities, and for the citizens of the Member States in whose interest the Communities are to work, that all Community decisions respect the requirements set out in the Treaties and that no powers are exercised unless expressly founded in the Treaties. Without some guarantee that the limits of the Treaties should be respected the Member States might not have been willing to transfer such wide-ranging powers to the Communities at all.

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   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. See also Christopher Harding, The review of EEC Regulations and Decisions, 19 CMLRev. (1982), pp. 311–315.

    Google Scholar 

  2. First Simet Case, see note 13. In Dutch law this is not always the case, see C.H.F. Polak, Het begrip ‘beschikking’ in BAB en AROB, 52 NJB ( 1977), p. 96.

    Google Scholar 

  3. On these decisions and agreements see Gerhard Bebr, Acts of representatives of the Governments of Member States, 14 SEW (1966) pp. 529–545.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Henry G. Schermers, Besluiten van de vertegenwoordigers der Lid Staten; Gemeenschapsrecht? 14 SEW (1966) pp. 545–579; Burger Report to the European Parliament, 12 March 1969, document 215 and the debates thereon on 8 May 1969; Jean Victor Louis, Les décisions des représentants des Gouvernements des Etats Membres, in Les Novelles, droit des Communautés européennes, Maison Ferdinand Larcier, Brussels 1969, pp. 427-435.

    Google Scholar 

  5. K.J. Mortelmans, The Extramural Meetings of the Ministers of the Member States of the Community, 11 CMLRev. (1974), pp. 62–91, in particular pp. 79-81.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pierre Pescatore, L’ordre Juridique des Communautés Européennes, 2nd ed., Liège 1973, p. 141. See also M.R. Mok, The Interpretation by the European Court of Justice of Special Conventions concluded between Member States, 8 CMLRev. (1971), pp. 485–491.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Albert Bleckmann, Die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes zur Gemeinschaftstreue, 27 RIW/AWD (1981), pp. 653–655.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See also Bernard Asso, Le contrôle de l’opportunité de la décision économique devant la Cour européenne de justice, 12 RTDE (1976), pp. 21–50.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Idem, consideration 7 (5). See also Ami Barav, Failure of Member States to fulfil their obligations under Community law, 12 CMLRev. (1975), pp. 369–383 at 373.

    Google Scholar 

  10. On EEC art. 235 see Ivo E. Schwarz, Article 235 and Law-Making Powers in the European Community, 27 ICLQ (1978), pp. 614–628 and Everling, Schwarz and Tomuschat, Die Rechtsetzungsbefugnisse der EWG in Generalermächtigungen, insbesondere in Art. 235 EWGV, EuR Sonderheft 1976, pp. 2-76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fifth Roquette Case (138/79), 29 Oct. 1980, considerations 33-37, [1980] ECR 3360, 3361; Maizena Case (139/79), 29 Oct. 1980, considerations 34-38, [1980] ECR 3424, 3425. See also Battaglia Case (1253/79), 4 Feb. 1982, consideration 17, and Francis G. Jacobs, Isoglucose resurgent; Two powers of the European Parliament upheld by the Court, 18 CMLRev. (1981), pp. 219–226.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lauwaars (op. cit., note 172) pp. 151-165; Hans-Hermann Scheffler, Die Pflicht zur Begründung von Massnahmen nach den europäischen Gemeinschaftsvertragen, Berlin 1974, 227 pages; C.D. Ehlermann and D. Oldekop, Due Process in Administrative Procedure, FIDE, Copenhagen 1978, Volume 3, pp. 11/17–11/19.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Christian Hen, La motivation des actes des institutions communautaires, 13 CDE (1977), pp. 49–91.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Advocate-General Roemer in the Eridania Case (10, 18/68), 10 Dec. 1969, [1969] ECR 488. See also Peter Oliver, Limitation of Actions before the European Court, 3, ELRev. (1978), p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Michel Fromont, L’influence du droit français et du droit allemand sur les conditions de recevabilité du recours en annulation devant la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes, 2 RTDE (1966), pp. 47–65.

    Google Scholar 

  16. A.G. Toth, The Individual and European Law, 24 ICLQ (1975), in particular pp. 672–681; J. Mertens de Wilmars, Annulation et Appréciation de Validité dans le Traité CEE: Convergence ou Divergence, Festschrift Kutscher, Nomos 1981, pp. 283-300, in particular pp. 284-287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. See Robert Kovar and Ami Barav, Le recours individuel en annulation, 12 CDE (1976), pp. 68–109.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Christopher Vajda, Some Aspects of Judicial Review within the Common Agricultural Policy, 4 ELRev. (1979), pp. 244–261 and 341-355.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hjalte Rasmussen, Why is Article 173 Interpreted against Private Plaintiffs? 5 ELRev. (1980), pp. 112–127; Jürgen Schwarze, Rechtsschutz Privater gegenüber normativen Rechtsakten im Recht der EWG, in Festschrift Schlochauer, Berlin, New York 1981, pp. 927-946; Gerhard Bebr, Development of Judicial Control of the European Communities, Nijhoff 1981, pp. 50-85.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Frans Urlesberger, Die Rechtsstellung von Nicht-Gemeinschaftsbürgern vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof, 20 Zf RV (1979), pp. 227–232.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See James Dinnage, Locus standi and Article 173 EEC: the effect of Metro SB Grossmärkte v. Commission, 4 ELRev. (1979), pp. 15–34.

    Google Scholar 

  22. EEC Art. 175, ECSC Art. 35. On this action, see Ami Barav, Considérations sur la spécificité du recours en carence en droit communautaire, 1975 RTDE pp. 53-71; A.G. Toth, The law as it stands on the appeal for failure to act, LIEI 1975/2, pp. 65-93 and op. cit. note 196, Vol 2, pp. 97-117; Emile Reuter, Le recours en carence de l’Article 175 du Traité de la CEE dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice des Communautés Européennes, 8 CDE (1972) pp. 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See also Ami Barav, The exception of illegality in Community Law: a critical analysis, 1974 CMLRev., pp. 366-386; Gerhard Bebr, Judicial remedy of private parties against normative acts of the European Communities: the role of the exception of illegality, 4 CMLRev. (1966-67), pp. 7-31; Lauwaars (op. cit., note 172) p. 276-285; T.P.J.N. Van Rijn, Exceptie van onwettigheid en prejudiciële procedure inzake geldigheid van gemeenschapshandelingen, Europese Monografieen No. 26, Kluwer 1978; Patrick Dubois, L’exception d’illegalité devant la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes, 14 CDE (1978), pp. 407–439.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Thomas van Rijn, L’ exception d’illegalité, 16 CDE (1980), pp. 177–205.

    Google Scholar 

  25. On this subject see Gerhard Bebr, Examen en validité au titre de l’article 177 du traité CEE et cohesion juridique de la Communauté, 11 CDE (1975) pp. 379–424; Henry G. Schermers in LIEI 1974/1 pp. 105-106; Van Rijn, (op. cit., note 396), pp. 229-272.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jean François Couzinet, Le renvoi en appreciation de validité devant la cour de justice des communautés européennes, 12 RTDE (1976), pp. 648–690.

    Google Scholar 

  27. T.L. Early, The Scope of Preliminary Rulings on the Validity of Community Law, 15 The Irish Jurist (1980), pp. 237–262. On the differences between preliminary rulings on interpretation and on validity, see also.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ami Barav, Some Aspects of the Preliminary Rulings Procedure in EEC Law, 2 ELRev. (1977), pp. 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  29. On this question see also B.H. ter Kuile, Procedures over ongeldige gemeenschapsnormen, 25 SEW (1977), pp. 621–623.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Second De Bloos Case (59/77), 14 Dec. 1977, consideration 4, [1977] ECR 2368; [19781 1 CMLR 528; CCH para 8444. On this question see Richard Clutterbuck, Article 177 EEC: two important questions left unanswered, 3 ELRev. (1978), pp. 292–295.

    Google Scholar 

  31. J. Mertens de Wilmars and I.M. Verougstraete, Proceedings against Member States for Failure to Fulfil their Obligations, 7 CMLRev. (1970), pp. 385–406; Manfred Zuleeg in Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart, neue Folge, Band 20 (1971), pp. 52-63; Jean-Victor Louis, Ordre public communautaire et interêts des Etats dans la procédure en constatation de manquements, in Miscellanea W.J. Ganshof van der Meersch, Brussels 1972, pp. 225-239; Hans Peter Ipsen, Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht, Tübingen 1972, pp. 233-237; Pierre Pescatore, Responsabilité des états membres en cas de manquement aux règles communautaires, Il Foro Padano, No. 10, Oct. 1972, 24 pages; Christian Tomuschat, La Contribution de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes au règlement des conflits entre états membres, RGDIP 1974, pp. 40-59;.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Philippe Cahier, Les Articles 169 et 171 du traité instituant la CEE à travers la pratique de la Commission et la jurisprudence de la Cour, 10 CDE (1974), pp. 3–38; H.A.H. Audretsch, Supervision in European Community Law, North Holland, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ami Barav, Failure of Member States to fulfil their obligations under Community Law, 12 CMLRev. (1975), pp. 369–383; Léon Goffin, Le manquement d’un Etat Membre selon la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes, in Melanges Fernand Dehousse, Vol. 2, Paris-Brussels 1979, pp. 211-218; C.D. Ehlermann, Die Verfolgung von Vertragsverletzungen der Mitgliedstaaten durch die Kommission, Festschrift Kutscher, Nomos 1981, pp. 135-153.

    Google Scholar 

  34. EEC Art. 171. On the proceedings before the Court, see also Cahier (op. cit., note 390) pp. 15-25; Diane de Bellescize, L’article 169 du traité de Rome, et l’efficacité du contrôle communautaire sur les manauements des états membres, 13 RTDE (1977), pp. 173–213.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gérard Nafilyan, La position des états members et les recours en manquement des articles 169 CCE et 141 CEEA, 13 RTDE (1977), pp. 214–243.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See AA Cançado Trindade, L’épuisement des recours internes dans des affaires interétatiques, 14 CDE (1978), p. 139 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See A.C. Evans, The Enforcement Procedure of Article 169 EEC: Commission Discretion, 4 ELRev. (1979), pp. 442–456.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See Pierre Pescatore, L’effet direct du droit Communautaire, Pasicrie Luxembourgeoise 1972, No. 5 and 6, first part, pp. 11-15; M-F. Gayet et D. Simon, Manquement et effet direct, 9 CDE (1973), pp. 298–324.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See also Antonio Tizzano, Litiges fictifs et compétence préjudicielle de la Cour de justice européenne, 85 RGDIP (1981), pp. 514–528.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ami Barav, Preliminary Censorship? The judgment of the European Court in Foglia v. Novello, 5 ELRev. (1980), pp. 443–468.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Leiden, Netherlands

    Henry G. Schermers (Professor of Law)

Authors
  1. Henry G. Schermers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1983 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schermers, H.G. (1983). Judicial review. In: Judicial Protection in the European Communities. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-4412-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-4412-6_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-6544-051-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-4412-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation