Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T21:26:51.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Philip Raworth
Philip Raworth*
Affiliation:
of the Alberta Bar
Get access

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

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 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