Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T14:51:21.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Natural Justice Rediviva? The Right to a Fair Hearing in European Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

T. Koopmans
T. Koopmans
Affiliation:
Former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (1979–1990), and previously Professor of constitutional law at Leyden University (1967–1978), presently Advocate General of the Hoge Road of the Netherlands; also fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Get access

Extract

(1) According to ancient common law precedents, fair hearings are required by natural justice. In 1723, a somewhat difficult scholar, Dr. Bentley, who had been deprived of his degrees by the University of Cambridge because of grave misconduct, was reinstated by the King's Bench, on the ground that he had not been asked to make his defence as required by the laws of God and men. More than two centuries later, the House of Lords held that the dismissal of Brighton's Chief Constable was void for similar reasons: the town's Watch Committee had given him no notice of any charge against him and no opportunity to make his defence. Lord Reid, giving the leading speech, said that the Brighton authorities had been exercising a power affecting a person's rights, and that they were therefore ‘subject to the principles of natural justice’—whether they were acting in a judicial or in an administrative capacity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 39 , Special Issue S1: Law and Reality , October 1992 , pp. 175 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1991

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. See Wade, H.W.R., Administrative Law, 5th edn. (1983) p. 444.Google Scholar

2. Ridge, v. Baldwin, (1964) A.C. 40.Google Scholar

3. Malloch, v. Aberdeen Corp. [1971] 1 WLR 1587Google Scholar; Durayappah, v. Fernando, (1967) A.C. 337.Google Scholar

4. Wade, , op. cit. n. 1, p. 419.Google Scholar

5. Powell, v. Alabama, , 287 U.S. 45 (1932)Google Scholar; Palko, v. Connecticut, , 302 U.S. 319 (1937).Google Scholar

6. CE 5 May 1944, veuve Trompier-Gravier, Rec. 138.

7. Golder, , 21 02 1975Google Scholar, Publ. ECHR Series A, vol. 17.

8. Ringeisen, , 16 07 1971Google Scholar, Publ. ECHR Series A, vol. 13; Benthem, , 23 10 1985Google Scholar, PubL. ECHR Series A, vol. 97.

9. See Fawcett, J.E.S., The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights (1987) pp. 147–158.Google Scholar

10. Art. 1639w, para. 11, Bur gerlijk Wetboek [Civil Code].

11. HR 4 March 1988, NJ 1989 no. 4, Hollandsche Beton Maatschappij.

12. See, respectively, Art. 173(1) EEC Treaty, and Art. 18(2) and (4) Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC (the Statute is a protocol annexed to the Treaty).

13. See Hartley, T.C., The Foundations of European Community Law (1986) pp. 120–122.Google Scholar

14. See Louis, Jean-Victor, L'ordre juridique communautaire, 2nd edn. (1983) p. 28.Google Scholar

15. See Case no. 44/79, Liselotte Hauer [1979] ECR 3727; Hartley, , pp. 122–128.Google Scholar

16. See Case no. 17/74, Transocean Marine Paint [1974] ECR 1063, and the opinion of Advocate General Warner.

17. See Arts. 24 and 25 European Convention on Human Rights; also Case no. 5310/71, Ireland v. United Kingdom, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, vol. XV (1972) p. 76.Google Scholar

18. See also Art 48 European Convention.

19. Art 24(1) and (2) European Convention.

20. Ninth Protocol, signed 6 November 1990.

21. See van Dijk, P. and van Hoof, G.J.H., De Europese Conventie in theorie en praktijk [The Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights], 3rd edn. (1990) pp. 150–151 and pp. 181–189.Google Scholar

22. Art. 21, Statute of the Court of Justice (EEC).

23. Case no. 99/79, Lancôme [1980] ECR 2511 (see 2526–2528). See also Case no. 155/79, A.M. & S. Europe [1982] ECR 1575 and 1616.

24. See also Brown, L.N. and Jacobs, F.G., The Court of Justice of the European Communities, 3rd edn. (1989) Chap. 12.Google Scholar

25. Examples: Case no. 62/79, Coditel I [1980] ECR 881; Case no. 229/83, Centres Distributeurs Edouard Leclerc [1985] ECR 17.

26. Case no. 222/84, Johnston, v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1663.Google Scholar

27. Council directive 76/207/EEC, on the implementation of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ No. L 39/40 of 14.2.1976).

28. Case no. C-2/88 Imm., Zwartveld, order of 13 July 1990 (not yet reported; but see Weekly Survey 18/90).

29. The relevant treaty provisions are Art 5 EEC Treaty and Arts. 1–2 Protocol on Privileges and Immunities.

30. Case no. 4/73, Nold [1974] ECR 491 at 507. At the time, France had not yet ratified the Convention.

31. See, in particular, Case no. 136/79, National Panasonic [1980] ECR 2033; Case no. 374/87, Orkem [1989] ECR 3283.

32. Case no. 14/83, Van Colson, and Kamarm, [1984] ECR 1891.Google Scholar

33. See Pound, Roscoe, The Spirit of the Common Law (1921) Chap. III.Google Scholar

34. See Vedel, G. and Delvolvé, P., Droit administratif, 9th edn. (1984) p. 786.Google Scholar

35. Bork, Robert, The Tempting of America (1990) p. 15.Google Scholar

36. Gai, Institutiones 1, 1Google Scholar; English translation: Gordon, and Robinson, , The Institutes of Gaius (London 1988); see p. 19.Google Scholar

37. The view briefly expressed in no. 8 has been elaborated by the present author in: ‘The Future of Legal Systems’, Presidential Address to the David Hume Institute (Hume Occasional Papers no. 13 (Edinburgh 1990)Google Scholar; also published in Juridisch stippelwerk [Legal Sketches] (1991) p. 114).