Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of National Courts in the Process of Legal Integration in the European Union: Retrospective and Prospective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Democracy and Rule of Law in the European Union

  • 1134 Accesses

Abstract

The functioning of national courts as decentralized EU courts has been and will likely remain one of the most constitutive, complex, and intriguing aspects of the process of integration in the European Union. The fact that the law of the European Union can directly affect interests of individuals in the EU, and may be invoked and relied upon by them before national courts, which are in turn obliged to protect the rights individuals derive from EU law, have tremendous implications for the functioning of national judiciaries, and can hardly be overstated. It is the aim of this contribution to briefly look at the development of the role national courts play in the process of legal integration within the EU and, consequently, provide several reflections on the preconditions which seem necessary for the proper fulfillment of the tasks that national judges are assigned by the law of the European Union.

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

Access this chapter

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This contribution is predominantly based on the doctoral thesis by the author, Jaremba 2012, defended on the 5th of October 2012, forthcoming in Nijhoff Studies in EU Law (2015).

  2. 2.

    See Case 26-62 NV Algemene Transport en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECR 1: ‘(…) The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only Member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of Member States, European law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage.’

  3. 3.

    See Lord Slynn of Hadley 1993, p. 18.

  4. 4.

    Just to mention several contributions: Miasik 2008; Kühn 2005; Bobek 2006; F. Mayer, The European Constitution and the courts. Adjudicating European constitutional law in a multilevel system. 9 Jean Monnet Working Paper, 2003; Prechal et al. 2005; Stone Sweet 2000; Jarvis 1998; Sciarra 2001; Weiler 1993; O. Pollicino, New emerging judicial dynamics of the relationship between national and the European courts after the enlargement of Europe. 14 Jean Monnet Working Paper, 2008; M. Cartabia, Taking dialogue seriously. The renewed need for a judicial dialogue at the time of constitutional activism in the European Union. 12 Jean Monnet Working Paper, 2007; Kilpatrick 1998; Chalmers 1997.

  5. 5.

    See Articles 263, 265, 277 and 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

  6. 6.

    From Martinico 2011, p. 84.

  7. 7.

    On the process of Europeanisation of national public and constitutional laws see for instance Prechal et al. 2005; on the process of Europeanisation of national private laws see for instance Twigg-Flesner 2008; Keirse 2011; Hesselink 2011. For a general overview of the Europeanisation process see Jaremba 2012.

  8. 8.

    Only Article 267 TFEU directly refers to national courts. However, several Treaty articles refer to national courts or concern national courts in an indirect way, for instance Article 4(3) TEU which enshrines the principle of royal cooperation and Article 19 TEU in which it can be read that ‘Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law.’

  9. 9.

    Article 30 TFEU prohibits any custom duties on imports and exports and any charges having equivalent effect. This prohibition also applies to custom duties of a fiscal nature.

  10. 10.

    Case 26-62, above n. 2. The first of referred questions was as follows: ‘whether Article 12 of the ECC Treaty has direct application within the territory of a Member States, in other words, whether nationals of such a state can, on the basis of the article in question, lay claim to individual rights which the courts must protect’.

  11. 11.

    See Case 6/64, Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L [1964] ECR 585, the part on the submission that the Court was obliged to apply the national law.

  12. 12.

    See ibid.

  13. 13.

    See Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal SpA [1978] ECR 585, paras 14, 16, 21, and 24. See also C-159/91, Criminal proceedings against Jean-Claude Levy [1993] ECR I-4287, para 9; C-347/96, Solred SA v. Administración General del Estado [1998] ECR I-937, para 30.

  14. 14.

    For a broad overview of the jurisprudential development in that regard see Jaremba 2012.

  15. 15.

    See for instance Case C-415/95, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and others v. Bosman and others [1995] ECR 4291, where the ECJ ruled that Article 45 TFEU (ex Article 39 EC) has a horizontal direct effect, or Case C-281/98, Roman Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA [2000] ECR 4139, where the Court held that Article 54 TFEU (ex Article 48 EC) applies also to private parties. See also a recent Case C-171/11 Fra.bo SpA v. Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches eV (DVGW) – Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Vereinin [2012] ECR 00000, in which the ECJ decided to give horizontal direct effect to Article 34 TFEU on the free movement of goods in specific situations.

  16. 16.

    See Case 152/84, M. H. Marshall v. Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority [1986] ECR 723, para 48.

  17. 17.

    See judgment in Case 14/83, Sabine von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891, para 26.

  18. 18.

    Case 14/83, Von Colson, para 28. In the C-397/01 to C-403/01, Bernhard Pfeiffer et al. v. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, kreisverband Waldshut eV [2004] ECR I-8835, the Court of Justice uses the term ‘to as far as possible extent’, see para 113.

  19. 19.

    See Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01, Bernhard Pfeiffer, para 115.

  20. 20.

    See Case C-212/04, Konstantions Adeneler and others v. Ellinikos Organisamos Galaktos (ELOG) [2006], para 110.

  21. 21.

    See for instance Case C-101/01, Bodil Lindqvist [2003] ECR I-12971, para 24, and Case C-305/05, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others [2007] ECR I-5305, para 28.

  22. 22.

    Previously Article 234 EC Treaty. The Treaty of Lisbon slightly reformed the preliminary ruling procedure. As a result of the disappearance of the pillars, the ECJ acquired jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings also in the area of freedom, security and justice. Regarding police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the jurisdiction of the Court has become binding and no longer subject to a declaration by each Member State. Regarding the issue of visas, asylum and immigration, any national court or tribunal (not only the highest courts) has now the competence to request preliminary rulings.

  23. 23.

    Any EU measure, also a non-binding measure, may be subject to review by the ECJ; see Case C-322/88, Salvatore Grimaldi v. Fonds des maladies professionnelles [1989] ECR 4407, para 8.

  24. 24.

    The term of the last instance court should be understood as including the highest courts, and all the courts against the decisions of which there exist no further remedy. See Case 6/64, Costa v. ENEL, the part on the application of Article 177; see also Case C-99/00, Criminal proceedings against Lyckeskog [2002] ECR I-4839.

  25. 25.

    See Craig and De Búrca 2011, pp. 442–443.

  26. 26.

    Case 166-73, Rheinmühlen-Düsseldorf v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1974] ECR 33, para 2.

  27. 27.

    From ECJ 1973, pp. 16–17. Stone Sweet formulates it as follows: ‘As the ECJ’s doctrines of direct effect and supremacy gradually took hold, Article 234 EC emerged as a kind of central nervous system for the enforcement of EC law and the coordination of the EC and the national legal order.’ See Stone Sweet 2007, p. 924.

  28. 28.

    See for instance Case 17/81, Pabst and Richarz KG v. Hauptzollamt Oldenburg [1982] ECR 1331, para 12.

  29. 29.

    From Chalmers 1997, p. 174.

  30. 30.

    From Hirsch Ballin 2005, p. 19.

  31. 31.

    Those authors provide various and often competing theories aimed at explaining the problem of the determinants of national judges’ behavior in the process of legal integration within the European Union. To name just a few contributions: Alter 2001; Dehousse 1998; Jarvis 1998; Micklitz 2005; Slaughter, Stone Sweet, Weiler (eds) 1997; Volcansek 1986; Tridimas and Tridimas 2004; Wind 2010.

  32. 32.

    See orders in case C‑339/10 Asparuhov Estov and Others [2010] ECR I‑0000, para 13; and Case C‑457/09 Chartry [2011] ECR I‑0000, para 25. It should however be stressed that the Charter is intended to complement the existing system of protection of fundamental rights, it does aim at replacing it.

  33. 33.

    See European Commission 2013, p. 7. As observed in the document: “The community of law, on which the Union is based, relies on national courts. Only if national judges fully exercise their powers, can the rights that Union law grants to citizens be effectively guaranteed”, see p. 8.

  34. 34.

    There are also other tasks and obligations which are placed on national courts by means of EU law which follow from for instance the principle of state liability, the obligation to apply EU law ex officio, or the principle of effectiveness.

  35. 35.

    See Weiler 1993, p. 422.

  36. 36.

    See Lasser 2009, p. 248. See for instance Case C-213/89, The Queen v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others [1990] ECR I-2433 in which there was no competence for English courts to grant interim relief to the applicants. In accordance with the claim of the applicant, such a situation was in breach of EU law. The Court decided that any national rule that may impede the full effect of Union law must be set aside by the national court.

  37. 37.

    To name just a few contributions: Alter 2001; Dehousse 1998; Jarvis 1998; Micklitz 2005; Slaughter et al. 1997; Volcansek 1986; Tridimas and Tridimas 2004; Wind 2010.

  38. 38.

    On the problem of education in the area of EU law see Jaremba 2012 and Coughlan et al. 2011.

  39. 39.

    The term ‘operational context’ is borrowed from Bell 2006, p. 30.

  40. 40.

    See Jaremba 2012.

  41. 41.

    Ibid.

  42. 42.

    See M. Bobek, ‘Of feasibility and silent elephants: the legitimacy of the Court of Justice through the eyes of national courts’. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2129683. Accessed 3 December 2012, who suggests that the Court should avoid controversial judgments, and be predictable, feasible, and concise. Furthermore, the style of the case law should, in the opinion of the author, be more discursive, analytical, transparent, and conversational.

  43. 43.

    Article 4(3) TEU.

References

  • Alter K (2001) Establishing the supremacy of European law. The making of an international rule of law in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell J (2006) Judiciaries within Europe: a comparative review. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobek M (2006) A new legal order, or a non-existent one? Some (early) experiences in the application of EU law in central Europe. Croatian Yearb Eur Law Policy 2:265–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D (1997) Judicial preferences and the Community legal order. Mod Law Rev 50:163–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughlan J, Opravil J, Heusel W (2011) Judicial training in the European Union member states. Study. European Parliament. Directorate General for Internal Policies, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P, De Búrca G (2011) EU law. Text, cases, and materials, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehousse R (1998) The European Court of Justice. The politics of judicial integration. Macmillan Press, Houndmills—London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesselink MW (2011) A toolbox for European judges. ELJ 17(4):441–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Ballin EMH (2005) Reflections on co-actorship. In: Hirsch Ballin EMH, Senden LAJ (eds) Co-actorship in the development of European law-making. The quality of European legislation and its implementation and application in the national legal order. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 3–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaremba U (2012) Polish civil judges as European Union law judges: knowledge, experiences and attitudes. Manuscript defended on October 5, 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis MA (1998) The application of EC law by national courts. The free movement of goods. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Keirse ALM (2011) Europe impact on contract law. A perspective on the interlinked contributions of legal scholars, legislators and courts to the Europeanisation of contract law. Utrecht Law Rev 7:34–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick C (1998) Community or communities of courts in European integration? Sex equality dialogues between UK courts and the ECJ. Eur Law J 4:121–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kühn Z (2005) The application of European law in the new member states: several (early) predictions. Ger Law J 6:563–582

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasser M.de S.-O.-l’E. (2009) Judicial Transformations, The Rights Revolution in the Courts of Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord Slynn of Hadley (1993) European law and the national judge. Butterwort Lect 1991–92:18–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinico G (2011) Born to be together: the constitutional complexity of the EU. Rev Const Stud 16:63–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Miasik D (2008) Application of general principles of EC law by Polish courts—is the European Court of Justice receiving a positive feedback. In: Bernitz U, Nergelius J, Cardner C (eds) General principles of EC Law in a process of development. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 357–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz H-W (2005) The politics of judicial co-operation in the EU. Sunday trading, equal treatment and good faith. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechal S, van Ooik RH, Jans JH, Mortelmans KJM (2005) ‘Europeanisation’ of the law: consequences for the Dutch judiciary. 1 Raad voor de Rechtspraak Research Memoranda

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciarra S (2001) Labour law in the courts. National judges and the European Court of Justice. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter AM, Stone Sweet A, Weiler JHH (eds) (1997) European Court and national courts—doctrine and jurisprudence. Legal change in its social context. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A (2000) Governing with judges. Constitutional politics in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A (2007) The juridical coup d’état and the problem of authority. Ger Law J 8:916–928

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas G, Tridimas T (2004) National courts and the European Court of Justice: a public choice analysis of the preliminary reference procedure. Int Rev Law Econ 24:125–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twigg-Flesner Ch (2008) The Europeanisation of contract law. Current controversies in law. Routledge-Cavendish, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Volcansek ML (1986) Judicial politics in Europe. An impact analysis. Peter Lang, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler JHH (1993) Journey to an unknown destination: a retrospective and prospective of the European Court of Justice in the arena of political integration. J Common Mark Stud 31:417–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wind M (2010) The nordics, the EU and the reluctance towards supranational judicial review. J Common Mark Stud 48:1039–1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EU Law, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Urszula Jaremba

Authors
  1. Urszula Jaremba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Urszula Jaremba .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Flora A.N.J. Goudappel

  2. Tilburg - The Hague, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Ernst M.H. Hirsch Ballin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jaremba, U. (2016). The Role of National Courts in the Process of Legal Integration in the European Union: Retrospective and Prospective. In: Goudappel, F., Hirsch Ballin, E. (eds) Democracy and Rule of Law in the European Union. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-066-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-066-4_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-065-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-066-4

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation