Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:12:04.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of Judicial Control of the European Communities. Gerhard Bebr. The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1981. Pp. xviii, 822. Dlf. 360.00/USA. $150.00 (cloth).

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2019

Peter Hay
Peter Hay*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
The International Bookshelf
Information
International Journal of Legal Information , Volume 11 , Issue 1-2 , April 1983 , pp. 29 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 by International Association of Law Libraries 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Preliminary Ruling No. 102/81 (Nordsee), [1982] E.C.R. ________. For comment see Grunwald, “Die Entwicklung des Gemeinschaftsrechts,” [1982] Europarecht 254, 281–84.Google Scholar

2. Hay, “Une approche politique de l'application de l'Article 177 de Traité CEE par les jurisdictions nationales,” 7 Cahiers de Droit Européen 503, 506-07 (1971).Google Scholar

3. Preliminary Ruling No. 283/81 (Soc. CILFIT v. Ministry of Health, Rome), [1982] E.C.R._________, European Law Letter, October 1982, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

4. The Court had introduced this notion in the early leading Case No. 26/62, Van Gend & Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, [1963] E.C.R. 1. It had there said that a restriction of an action for infringement of the Treaty to the procedures of Arts. 169 and 170 would remove all direct legal protection of the individual rights of nationals of the infringing Member State and that the matter of possible infringement should therefore be capable of being raised indirectly in an Art. 177 procedure. CILFIT, supra n. 3, now states that Art. 177 was not intended to provide a new and additional appeal against national decisions. The notion of the “private attorney general” is being limited.Google Scholar

5. Case 244/80, [1981] E.C.R. 3045.Google Scholar

6. Bebr, “The Possible Implications of Goflia v. Novello II,” 19 C.M.L. Rev. 421, 441 (1982).Google Scholar

7. An example is Joint Cases Nos. 28-30/62, Da Costa en Schaake N.V. v. Netherlands Fiscal Administration, 9 Recueil de la jurisprudence de la Cour 59 (1963). For discussion of these solutions see Hay, Federalism and Supranational Organizations 138-144 (1966).Google Scholar