No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome and the Evolution of the Doctrine of the Supremacy of Community Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
Extract
The Reference Under Article 177
Article 164 of the Treaty of Rome sets up a Court of Justice of the Communities whose task it is to ensure that “in the interpretation and application of the Treaty the law is observed.” The Court exercises this jurisdiction in various ways. It can hear actions against member states for violations of the Treaty and it can review the legality of the acts — or lack of action — of the Community organs. The Court of Justice also has a more or less plenary jurisdiction over certain purely Community matters. In none of these areas, however, has the Court had to deal with the sensitive issue of the relationship between municipal law and Community Law; this issue has come before it only by way of the reference under Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome.
- Type
- Notes and Comments
- Information
- Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 15 , 1978 , pp. 276 - 286
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1978
References
1 The Treaty of Rome, Articles 169 and 170.
2 Ibid., Articles 173 and 175.
3 Ibid., Articles 172, 182, and 183.
4 Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administrate der Belastingen, [1963] C.M.L.R. 105, at 128.
5 Costa v. Ente Nazionale Per L’Energia Elettrica (ENEL), [1964] C.M.L.R. 425. at 455.
6 Lasok, Dominik and Bridge, John William, An Introduction to the Law and Institutions of the European Communities 189 (2nd ed., London: Butter-worths, 1976).Google Scholar
7 Titre IX, Article 13, which states: “Les fonctions judiciares sont distinctes et demeureront toujours séparées des fonctions administratives: les juges ne pourront à peine de forfaiture troubler de quelque manière que ce soit les opérations des corps administratifs.”
8 [1963] C.M.L.R. 105.
9 Ibid., 129.
10 [1964] C.M.L.R. 425.
11 Ibid., 456.
12 Ibid., 455–56.
13 Winters, J. A., “Direct Applicability and Direct Effect: Two Distinct and Different Concepts in Community Law,” (1972) 9 C.M.L.Rev. 425, at 433.Google Scholar
14 [1972] C.M.L.R. 255.
15 Ibid., 283.
16 Ramel, [1971] C.M.L.R. 315.
17 Re Syndicat général de fabricants de semoules en France, [1970] C.M.L.R. 315.
18 Re Syndicat national du commerce extérieur des céréales, January 23, 1971.
l9 Directeur-général des douanes v. Société de Cafés Jacques Vabres et Société Weigel et cie, May 24, 1975.
20 Ibid1.
21 Fromagerie franco-suisse, [1972] C.M.L.R. 372.
22 The German Constitutional Rights Case (1967–68), 5 C.M.L.Rev. 483.
23 (1975) 12 C.M.L.Rev. 303.
24 Ibid., 305.
25 See, for example, Mitchell, J. B., “Constitutional Aspects of the Treaty and Legislation Relating to British Membership,” (1972) 9 C.M.L.Rev. 134.Google Scholar
26 See, for example, Gibson v. Lord Advocate, [1973] C.M.L.R. 506 (Scottish Court of Session); Application de Gaz S.A. v. Falk Veritas Ltd., [1974] C.M.L.R. 75 (Court of Appeal).
27 British Railway Board v. Pickin, [1974] C.M.L.R. 208.
28 EMI Records (U.K.) Ltd. v. CBS (U.K.) Ltd., [1975] C.M.L.R. 285.
29 Bebr, Gerhard, “How Supreme is Community Law in the National Courts,” (1974) 11 C.M.L.Rev. 3, at 8.Google Scholar