No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
The way in which English courts and tribunals construe and apply Community law is of manifold interest, not least to the outside observer. English judges reacted at first with misgiving. Even if they were prepared, as was Lord Denning in Bulmer v. Bollinger, to concede that Community law (unlike English law) is expressed “in sentences of moderate length and commendable style,” they hastened to add that Community law, and Continental law behind it (unlike English law), “lacks precision,” lacks interpretation clauses and is full of gaps and lacunae.
1 A list of British cases involving questions of Community law up to 1976 and summaries of the facts and judgments is given by Forman, J. and Stevens, T. in their article “The attitude of British Courts to Community law—the first three years” (1976) 13 C.M.L.Rev. 388–414, 414.Google Scholar To this list add Application des Gaz S.A. v. Falks Veritas Ltd. [1975] 2 C.M.L.R. 177Google Scholar (Ch.D.), H. P. Bulmer Ltd. and Another v. J. Bollinger S.A. and Another [1975] 2 C.M.L.R. 479Google Scholar (Ch.D.), and Haug v. Registrar of Patent Agents (Comptroller of the Patent Office) [1976] 1 C.M.L.R. 491.Google Scholar The following later cases have come to my notice: Landi den Hartog B.V. v. Benjamin Stopps and Others (Ch.D.) 28 May 1976Google Scholar, unpublished; Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and European Ferries Ltd. v. British Transport Docks Board [1976] 2 C.M.L.R. 655Google Scholar (C.A.); Amies v. Inner London Education Authority [1977] 2 All E.R. 100Google Scholar (Employment Appeal Tribunal); R. v. Bouchereau (Marlborough Street Magistrates' Court) 2 March 1977 (request for a preliminary ruling—European Court, case 30/77, judgment not yet reported); In re Bigger, Deceased [1977] 2 W.L.R. 773Google Scholar; Snoxall and Davies v. Vauxhall Motor Limited and Charles Early and Marriott (Witney) Ltd. v. Smith and Ball [1977] 3 W.L.R. 189Google Scholar (Employment Appeal Tribunal); R. v. National Insurance Commissioner, ex parte C. M. Warry (Kelly case), Q.B.D., 12 April 1977Google Scholar (request for a preliminary ruling, European Court case 41/77, judgment not yet reported); Royal Scholten-Honig (Holdings) Ltd. v. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, Q.B.D., 8 August 1977Google Scholar (request for a preliminary ruling, European Court case 103/77, not yet decided); Tunnel Refineries Ltd. v. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, Q.B.D., 8 November 1977Google Scholar (request for a preliminary ruling, European Court case 145/77, not yet decided); British Beef Company Ltd. v. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, Q.B.D., 15 November 1977Google Scholar (request for a preliminary ruling, European Court case 146/77, not yet decided); R. v. Thompson and Others (Krugerrand case), C.A., The Times Law Report 19 December 1977Google Scholar (request for a preliminary ruling); P. C. Kenny v. The Insurance Officer, Liverpool Social Security Tribunal, 29 December 1977Google Scholar (request for a preliminary ruling, European Court case 1/78).
2 On the way of legislative drafting in England, see the report published in 1975 by a committee under Sir David Renton and very recently Sir Dale, William more radical book “Legislative Drafting: A New Approach” (London, 1977).Google Scholar
3 H. P. Bulmer Ltd. and Another v. J. Bollinger S.A. and Others [1974] 3 W.L.R. 202Google Scholar, 215 (C.A.).
4 The Times, Law Report, 5 May 1977.Google Scholar
5 Bulmer v. Bollinger, ibid., at p. 215.
6 See Simpson, A. W. B., “The Common Law and Legal Theory,” in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (Second Series, Oxford, 1973), p. 77Google Scholaret seq. Especially in the area of equity, the denial of principles is unjustified; see Davies, J. Derek, “Equity in English Law,” in Equity in the World's Legal Systems. A comparative Study, edited by Newman, Ralph A. (Brussels, 1973), p. 159Google Scholaret seq.; Davies speaks repeatedly of principles.
7 See Maccallum, Gerald C., “Legislative Intent,” in Essays in Legal Philosophy, edited by R., Summers (Oxford, 1970).Google Scholar English judges proceed sometimes to bold constructions on the basis of a presumed (and historically unfounded) legislative intent, as e.g., in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147Google Scholar —a judgment which, however, cannot be considered as typical. The right of the courts to ascertain the objectives of any particular measure and the background of the enactment is basically accepted: see the speeches of Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Simon in Black-Clawson International Ltd. v. Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975]Google Scholar A.C. 591.
8 Scarman, Lord in his Hamlyn lecture “English law—the new Dimension” (London 1974, p. 21Google Scholaret seq.) sees here a challenge to English law.
9 The recent view (Warner, J.-P., “Some Aspects of the European Court of Justice,” in [1976]Google ScholarJournal of the Society of Public Teachers of Law 15, 19, 20) that “the dichotomy between common law and civil law is irrelevant in the context of Community law” is hardly convincing.
10 Application des Gaz v. Falks Veritas Ltd. [1974] 3 W.L.R. 235Google Scholar, 242; Bulmer v. Bollinger, supra n. 3, at p. 209; Schorsch Meier GmbH v. Hennin [1974] 3 W.L.R. 823.Google Scholar
11 At p. 245.
12 [1977] 2 W.L.R. 773.
13 [1976] 1 C.M.L.R. 491.
14 [1977] 3 W.L.R. 189.
15 Defrenne v. Sabena, 43/74; [1976]Google Scholar E.C.R. 547.
16 [1977] 2 All E.R. 100, 104.
17 [1975] 2 W.L.R. 555.
18 [1974] 3 W.L.R. 823.
19 In his recent Hamlyn lectures “The European Communities and the Rule of Law” (London, 1977), p. 16.
20 The Times, Law Report, 12 February 1977.Google Scholar
21 The Times, Law Report, 22 May 1975.Google Scholar That statement also ran against the judgment of the House of Lords in British Railways Board v. Pickin [1974]Google Scholar C.M.L.R. 208.
22 Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and European Ferries Ltd. v. British Transport Docks Board [1976] 2 C.M.L.R. 655Google Scholar, 665. See the comments by Warner, J.-P., “The Relationship between European Community Law and the National Laws of Member States” (1977) 93 L.Q.R. 349Google Scholar, 365.
23 Of 28 May 1976, unreported.
24 [1974] 3 W.L.R. 823.
25 [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 630.
26 [1975] 2 C.M.L.R. 585, 596 per Lord Wilberforce. See the doubts already expressed by Bridge, J. W., “Community Law and English Courts and Tribunals: General Principles and Preliminary Rulings” [1975]Google ScholarEuropean Law Review 13 et seq., 20.
27 Van Duyn v. Home Office [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1107Google Scholar (Ch.D.) (case 41/74 of the European Court of Justice, [1974] E.C.R. 1337); E.M.I. Records Ltd. v. C.B.S. U.K. Ltd. [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 285Google Scholar (Ch.D.) (case 86/75 [1976] E.C.R. 871); Brack (deceased) v. Insurance Officer (case 17/76 [1976] E.C.R. 1429Google Scholar); R. v. Bouchereau (Marlborough Street Magistrates' Court) 20 November 1976Google Scholar (case 30/77, judgment not yet reported); R. v. National Insurance Commissioner ex parte C. M. Warry (Kelly case) (Q.B.D.) 15 February 1977Google Scholar (case 41–77, judgment not yet reported); Royal Scholten-Honig (Holdings Ltd.) v. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (Q.B.D.) (case 103/77); Tunnel Refineries Ltd. v. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (Q.B.D.) (case 145/77); British Beef Company Ltd. (Q.B.D.) (case 146/77); R. v. Thompson and Others (Krugerrand case) (C.A.); P. C. Kenny v. The Insurance Officer (Liverpool Social Security Tribunal) (case 1/78).
28 Supra, n. 3, at p. 213.
29 Cf. also Jacobs, F. G.. “When to Refer to the European Court” (1974) 90 L.Q.R. 486Google Scholar, 490.
30 Da Costa en Schaake N.V. and Others v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, 28–30/62; [1963]Google Scholar E.C.R. 31.
31 Bulmer v. Bollinger, ibid., at pp. 209–210, 213.
32 Bulmer v. Bollinger, ibid., at pp. 219–220.
33 Costa v. ENEL, 6/64; [1964] E.C.R. 585, 600.
34 [1971] C.M.L.R. 530.
35 E.g., the controversial article 37 (1) of the E.E.C. Treaty in the Shell-Berre case of the French Conseil d'Etat of 19 June 1964 [1964] Recueil Lebon 344.
36 Bulmer v. Bollinger, ibid., p. 215.
37 Bulmer v. Bollinger, ibid., p. 217.
38 Bulmer v. Bollinger, ibid., p. 219.
39 Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Centrafarm, 107/76; [1977]Google Scholar E.C.R. 957.
40 [1975] 2 C.M.L.R. 50, 51–52.
41 [1974] C.M.L.R. 1, 9.
42 [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1107, 1116.
43 Ibid., p. 1115.
44 Bulmer v. Bollinger, ibid., p. 212.
45 Ibid., pp. 211 et seq.
46 [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 285, 296–297.
47 This is the established view of the European Court, e.g., Giuseppe Sacchi, 155/73; [1974]Google Scholar E.C.R. 409.
48 Bulmer v. Bollinger, ibid., p. 213.
49 Ibid., p. 219.
50 Ibid., p. 212.
51 Ibid., p. 219.
52 [1974] C.M.L.R. 1, 9.
53 Ibid., p. 212; cf. EMI Records Ltd. v. CBS United Kingdom Ltd. [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 285.Google Scholar
54 [1974] W.L.R. 1107, 1116; Pennycuick V.-C. agreed with Graham J.
55 Lord Denning quotes the Van Duyn case and a decision of the Finanzgericht Hamburg [1966] C.M.L.R. 409, 416.
56 [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1107, 1116, per Pennycuick V.-C.
57 Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Centrafarm, 107/76; [1977]Google Scholar E.C.R. 957.
58 [1974] 1 C.M.L.R. at p. 9.
59 [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1107, 1116.
60 Bulmer v. Bollinger, ibid., p. 211.
61 Ibid., p. 211.
62 Cf. Stephenson L.J., ibid., p. 221.
63 Ibid., pp. 217, 219 (per Lord Denning and Stephenson L.J.).
64 Rheinmühlen-Düsseldorf v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futter-mittel, 166/73; [1974]Google Scholar E.C.R. 33; cf. 146/73; [1974] E.C.R. 139.
65 Ibid., p. 218.
66 Ibid., p. 217.
67 “The Common Market and the Common Law” [1972] 6 J.A.L.T. 3, 13 (referred to by Bridge, supra, n. 26, at p. 18).
68 Lord Wilberforce has explicitly acknowledged the duty of the House of Lords to refer questions of Community law to the European Court; Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd. [1975]Google Scholar C.M.L.R. 585, 595–596.
69 [1975] C.M.L.R. 184, 188.
70 Employment Appeal Tribunal [1977] 2 All E.R. 100, 104.
71 [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 285, 297.
72 See also Graham, J. in EMI Records Ltd. v. CBS United Kingdom Ltd. [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 285, 297.Google Scholar
73 Lord Denning considers this in Bulmer v. Bollinger, ibid., p. 215; see also Graham, J. in Löwenbräu München v. Grunhalle Lager International Ltd. [1974] 1 C.M.L.R. 1Google Scholar, 10.
74 See also Graham J., ibid., p. 10; Bridge, supra, n. 26 at p. 19.
75 [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 285, 297.
76 Lord Denning in Bulmer v. Bollinger, ibid., p. 211; see also Denning, Lord in Schorsch Meier GmbH v. Hennin [1974] 3 W.L.R. 823.Google Scholar
77 See Lord Dening and Stephenson L.J. in Bulmer v. Bollinger, ibid., pp. 214 and 220.
78 [1974] 1 C.M.L.R. 1, 10, 11.
79 In the EMI case Graham J. held the second view, see infra pp. 93–94.
80 Cf. Buckland, & McNair, , Roman Law and Common Law 2nd ed., by Lawson, F. H. (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 10, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
81 Bulmer v. Bollinger, ibid., p. 216.
82 [1975] C.M.L.R. 20. Cf. Forman and Stevens, ibid., p. 409 and at p. 410, note 65, citing the reply of the Commission to the written question No. 705/74 by Mr. Glinne in which it is said inter alia that “Article 106 of the Treaty has nothing to do with creditors receiving payment in a strong currency rather than an unstable currency.”
83 [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 383.
84 [1975] 2 C.M.L.R. 479.
85 Bridge, supra, n. 26, at p. 21, asks rightly: “If Community law was not being broken what effect would that have on the position under English law?”
86 [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. 285, 296–297.
87 Bulmer v. Bollinger, supra, n. 3, n. 215.
88 [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1107, 1116.
89 Supra, n. 3, pp. 211, 217, 220.
90 Supra, n. 58, p. 9.
91 Supra, n. 16, p. 104.
92 Supra, n. 26, p. 596.
93 Lord Goodman called the high legal costs “a reproach on the legal system” (The Times, 21 October 1974).
94 See Berlins, Marcel, “Litigation is an Essay for the Rich,” The Times, 4 March 1975Google Scholar (Europa XII).
95 The comparison with West Germany is appropriate as the U.K.'s population, socio-economic structure and standard of industrial development are closer to those of West Germany than of any other E.E.C. country. And see Mann, F. A., “Fusion of the Legal Professions?” (1977) 93 L.Q.R. 367, 371Google Scholaret seq., for a comparative study.
96 Statistisches Jahrbuch 1976 fur die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, p. 128 (table 8.4.1).
97 Judicial Statistics for the Year 1976, Cmnd. 6634 (London, 1976), p. 102Google Scholar (table G.1).
98 S'atitisches Jahrbuch 1996, p. 127 (table 8.1).
99 Calculated on the basis of data contained in ibid., p. 128 (tables 8.4.1 and 8.4.3).
1 Calculated on the basis of data contained in Judicial Statistics 1976, p.102 (table G.1).
2 Statistisches Jahrbuch 1976, p. 128 (table 8.4.3).
3 Judicial Statistics 1976, p. 102 (table G.1).
4 See Blom-Cooper, L. and Drewry, G., Final Appeal. A Study of the House of Lords in its Judicial Capacity (Oxford, 1972), p. 140Google Scholar (table 8).
5 A. M. Donner, 115 Recueil des Cours 42–44; J. W. Bridge, ibid., p. 19. The National Insurance Commissioner in the Italian Holiday case (ibid., p. 188) refused to apply Art. 177 (3) of the E.E.C. Treaty as his decisions could be set aside by an order of certiorari made by the High Court. An order of certiorari is, though, as Bridge (supra, n. 26, at p. 19) rightly points out, a discretionary remedy, so the National Insurance Commissioner is in most cases a final tribunal under Art. 177 (3) of the E.E.C. Treaty.
6 Bulmer v. Bollinger, p. 211.
7 Denning, Lord in Beecham Group Ltd. v. Bristol Laboratories Ltd.Google Scholar (see Blom-Cooper, L. and Drewry, G., Final Appeal, p. 146).Google Scholar
8 Judicial Statistics 1976, p. 10 (table A.7), and information kindly given to the author by the Judicial Office of the House of Lords.
9 Cf. F. G. Jacobs, supra, n. 29. at p. 493.
10 The number of proceedings brought under Art. 177 is about twice as high as the so-called direct actions: excluding proceedings by staff and similar cases, in 1975 69 proceedings for preliminary rulings were brought as against 35 direct actions. The respective figures for 1976 were 75 and 32.
11 More than a third of the references come from Germany.
12 For an interesting French explanation of the considerable German contribution to the European Court's case law, see Guy Sautter and Michel Fromont, in Les Communautts Europeennes et le Droit Administratif Francais (Travaux des Journees d'Etudes organisers les 15 et 16 octobre 1971 par le Centre de Droit Public Interne et le Centre de Documentation Europe'enne de L'Institut de Recherches Juridiques, Politiques et Sociales de Strasbourg) (Paris, 1972), at pp. 432–434, 439. See also Warner, J.-P., “Some Aspects of the European Court of Justice” [1976] Journal of the Society of Public Teachers of Law 15, 30.Google Scholar
13 The basic importance of Art. 177 of the E.E.C. Treaty was seen at a still earlier stage by Richard M. Buxbaum, Professor at Berkeley, California, in his paper “Article 177 of the Rome Treaty as a Federalizing Devise,” Comparative/International Series, Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1969.