Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Since the launching of the ECSC in 1951, the logic of power which had essentially characterized the relations between European states until World War
II has gradually made way to a logic of cooperation. Calling into question the primacy of state sovereignty is the keystone of the European system of
regional integration. For the pioneers of the European cause, right after the two global conflicts which had bled Europe dry, with their trail of ruin and
barbarity, it was necessary to go beyond the system inherited from the Peace of Westphalia, constructed on the principle of unlimited state
sovereignty, and in which interstate relations were above all power struggles. The idea of a new system, in which the states would be subject to a set
of regulatory principles and common objectives, appeared as the only alternative to the state of nature in which the state apparatuses had coexisted until that point.
This idea required new legal techniques. Formally, the EU is an international organization. Established by treaty, it rests on the commitment of states to
confer limited powers to common organs in order to attain preset objectives, as is common to all international organizations. In the international system,
the transfer of competences is generally limited, and states retain a central role in the decision process, which limits possibilities for the organization to
impose a will of its own to member countries. On the contrary, the EU system is based on an unconditional transfer of power to institutions exercising
autonomous powers by adopting binding acts. This is what has been called, suggestively, a transfer of sovereign rights. The system of the EU is
characterized not only by the allocation of certain limits to states freedom, but also by the establishment of control mechanisms to ensure the
effectiveness of the decisions taken together at the supranational level.
In the EU system, control powers have been granted in particular to a supranational judicial body, the ECJ. This institution is a relatively small and
isolated circle: less than 2,000 people currently work at the Court, located in Luxembourg.1 However, it has gained a major role in the daily lives of
most European citizens. This is the result of two main factors: first, the action of the Court itself to fashion a new legal order and to give it the status of
the supreme law of the European land; second, the political context and the institutional configuration of the EU system which create incentives to
systematically turn to the Court as a means to solve problems that meet political blockades at the European or national level. Somewhat
unexpectedly, these factors have considerably enlarged the opportunities for private citizens to interfere in interstate relations by submitting cases
affecting their interests to the Court, which have ended up altering significantly both the scope and the pace of the integration process.
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2013. All Rights Reserved. Under the
terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for
details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Bibliotheque Sciences Po; date: 31 December 2013
25.6 Conclusion
The ECJ has played a leading role in the integration process. It has decisively shaped the structure of the EU legal system and its relationships with
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2013. All Rights Reserved. Under the
terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for
details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Bibliotheque Sciences Po; date: 31 December 2013
Notes:
(1) .R. Grass, Les ressources humaines la Cour de justice des Communauts europennes, in Le droit la mesure de lhomme. Mlanges en
lhonneur de Philippe Lger (Paris, Pedone, 2006), 69.
(2) .C. Tomuschat.National Representation of Judges and Legitimacy of International Jurisdictions: Lessons from ICJ to ECJ? in I. Pernice, J. Kokott,
and C. Saunders, eds, The Future of the European Judicial System in a Comparative Perspective (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2006).
(3) .J.-V. Louis, The Court in the Constitution: How Federal? in I. Pernice et al., The Future of the European Judicial System.
(4) .D. Simon, Les mcanismes juridictionnels dans la Communaut europenne, in Perspectives convergentes et divergentes sur lintgration
conomique, Colloque commun SFDI/SQDI de Qubec (Paris: Pedone, 1993), 6178.
(5) .J. Basedow, The Judge's Role in European IntegrationThe Court of Justice and its Critics, in H.-W. Micklitz and B. De Witte, eds. The European
Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States (Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland: Intersentia, 2012).
(6) .For example, by ruling in favor of the mobility of students; see case C-147/03, Commission v. Austria.
(7) .J. H. H. Weiler, The Constitution of Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
(8) .Case 26/62.
(9) .R. Lecourt, LEurope des juges (Brussels: Bruylant, 1976), 260.
(10) .Case 6/64.
(11) .Case 106/77, Simmenthal.
(12) .B. de Witte, Retour Costa: La primaut du droit communautaire la lumire du droit international, Revue trimestrielle de droit europen
(1984), 425.
(13) .Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90CJCE, Francovich, Bonifaci, and others v Italy.
(14) .Case C-83/94, Leifer.
(15) .Case 283/81, CILFIT.
(16) .A. Vauchez, Integration Through Law: Contribution to a Socio-History of EU Political Common Sense, EUI Working Paper RSCAS, no. 2008/10,
2008.
(17) .See e.g. case 205/84, Commission v. German Federal Republic.
(18) .Joined cases 281, 2835, 287/85, FRG et al. v. Commission.
(19) .Case 68/86, UK v. Council; case C-376/98, German Federal Republic v. Council.
(20) .Case C-540/03, Parliament v. Council; Joined cases C-317/04 et C-318/04, Parliament v. Council.
(21) .L. Azoulai, La fabrication de la jurisprudence communautaire, in P. Mbongo and A. Vauchez, eds, Dans la fabrique du droit europen. Scnes,
acteurs et publics de la Cour de justice des Communauts europennes (Brussels: Bruylant, 2009), 153.
(22.) M.-P. Granger, Les stratgies contentieuses des Etats devant la Cour de justice, in Mbongo and Vauchez, Dans la fabrique du droit europen.
Scnes, acteurs et publics de la Cour de justice des Communauts europennes (Brussels: Bruylant, 2009), 53.
(23.) M. Mandel, The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada, second edition (Toronto: Thompson, 1994), 81.
(24.) Article 263 does not change this rule, it only provides an exception for persons acting against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them
and does not entail implementing measures.
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2013. All Rights Reserved. Under the
terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for
details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Bibliotheque Sciences Po; date: 31 December 2013
Renaud Dehousse
Renaud Dehousse Jean Monnet Professor of EU Law and Politics and Director, Centre dtudes europennes, Sciences Po, Paris.
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2013. All Rights Reserved. Under the
terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for
details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Bibliotheque Sciences Po; date: 31 December 2013