Judicial and Academic Conference

Court Of Justice Of The European Union

Description

27-28 September 1976 : reports
Community secondary legislation

Sujets

• Higher education
• Lawyer
• Court of Justice of the European Union
• Teacher
• Droit et juridique

Informations

• Publié par: COURT-OF-JUSTICE-OF-THE-EUROPEAN-UNION
• Nombre de lectures: 39
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 5 Mo

Extrait

Court of Justice
of the
European Communities
Judicial and Academic Conference
27-28 September 1 976
Reports
LUXEMBOURG Court of Justice
of the
European Communities
Judicial and Academic Conference
27-28 September 1976
Reports
LUXEMBOURG Note
The original text of the Report (I) by Judge H. Kutscher, President of
Chamber, was drawn up in German
The original text of the Report (II) by Professor C. Hamson, Q.C., was
drawn up in English
The original text of the Report (III) by Mr F. Dumon, First Advocate-General
at the Belgian Cour de Cassation, was drawn up in French
The original text of the Report (V) by Mr Advocate-General J.-P. Warner
was drawn up in English
The original text of the Report (VI) by Judge P. Pescatore was drawn up in
French
In view of the very short period of time within which the manuscripts had
to be translated and printed, it was not possible for the authors to arrange
for the translations of their texts to be revised. Preface
At the end of a period of activity of almost 25 years the Court of
Justice of the European Communities took the initiative in inviting a new
type of reflection upon its methods of interpretation.
The time appeared to be particularly ripe in that, following the rise in the
number of requests for preliminary rulings submitted under the Treaty of
Rome, the European Court of Justice is receiving an ever-increasing number
of questions concerning the interpretation of the Brussels Convention on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Matters.
It was therefore of the greatest interest to the Court to bring together senior
members of the judiciaries of the Member States and qualified representatives
of the national Bars and famous universities in order to submit to their critical
assessment the whole of its case-law. Such was the first aim of the Judicial and
Academic Conference held in Luxembourg on 27 and 28 September 1976 in
which more than 150 people took part.
The Conference was also an exceptional opportunity to give the nine Ministers
responsible for the administration of justice the chance to meet — for the
first time — lawyers from all the Member States and to obtain an overall
picture of the comparative vitality of Community law in each of those States.
Three papers were to introduce the discussion on the methods of interpretation
employed by the Court. So that the area of criticism should be as wide as poss­
ible three 'rapporteurs' from different environments were asked to present
papers. Mr Kutscher, then President of Chamber at the Court, was to bring
to the Conference his wide experience of an enterprise in which he has been
intimately involved within the Court, whilst two other 'rapporteurs' from
outside the institution were also invited to submit their own critical obser­
vations. A prominent lawyer — Mr Dumon, First Advocate-General at the
Cour de Cassation of Belgium — and an eminent professor from a British university — Mr Hamson, former Professor of Law at Cambridge — were in
fact particularly well qualified to present the views of lawyers from both civil
and common law countries on the theory and practice of the Court.
The lively, deep and varied discussions which followed under the chairman­
ship of, first, Mr Alberto Trabucchi, Advocate-General, and, secondly, Mr
Aindrias O'Keeffe, President of Chamber, were based on those three significant
documents.
The themes were very varied. Approval alternated with criticism, often from
the same contributors. At the risk of over-simplifying the discussion, let me
refer, among the problems most frequently touched on, to those raised by
Professor Hamson in relation to the direct effect of the Treaties as it results
from the judgment in Van Gena and Loos and those referred to by Mr Dumon,
First Advocate-General, in relation to the principle of equal pay for men and
women acknowledged in the Defrenne judgment. The time available was, of
course, insufficient to exhaust the debate. However, the number, the authority
and the diverse national origins of the contributors1 gave great weight to the
critical examination undertaken in a remarkable community of spirit.
The instructional part of the meeting, to which the second day was devoted,
enabled the same audience, which then included the Ministers responsible
for the administration of justice of the various Member States,2 to appreciate
the vitality of Community law in all its various forms.
1 Despite the ctowded timetable the following participants were able to contribute:
Mr Olmi, Director-General of the Legal Department of the Commission of the European
Communities, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, Chairmen of the Legal Affairs Committee of the
European Parliament, Viscount Ganshof van der Meersch, Emeritus Public Prosecutor
at the Cour de Cassation of Belgium, Professor Van Gerven from Louvain, Professor Lando
from Copenhagen, Professor Boerner from Cologne, Mr Deringer from Cologne, Mr
Monguilan, First President of the Cour de Cassation of France, Mr Touffait, Public Prosecu­
tor at the Cour de Cassation of France, Mr Bellet, President of Chamber at the Cour de
Cassation of France, Professor Vedel from Paris, Professor Teitgen from Paris, Mr Catalano
from Rome, Professor Monaco from Rome, Senator Bosco from Rome, Professor Ubertazzi
from Milan, Councillor Liesch from Luxembourg, Professor Verloren van Themaat from
Utrecht, Professor Schermers from Amsterdam, Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, from
London,r Lipstein from Cambridge, Professor Graveson from London, Professor
Lawton from Belfast.
2 Mr van Agt for the Netherlands, Lord Eiwyn-Jones and Lord King Murray for Great
Britain, Mr Møller for Denmark, Mr Erkel for the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr
Guichard for France, Mr Cooney for Ireland, Mr Bonifacio for Italy and Mr Krieps for
Luxembourg. It was first necessary to define for the Ministers the various trends which had
emerged from the previous day's discussion on the methods of interpretation
employed by the Court. That task fell to Mr J. Mertens de Wilmars, Judge.
Mr J.-P. Warner, Advocate-General, then traced the evolution of the work of
the Court from its earliest days and Mr Gundelach, Member of the Commis­
sion, described the difficulties of interpretation which that body has also
encountered.
The final stage was to be a survey of the ways in which the Treaties and
Regulations are applied in the Member States. This task was entrusted to
Mr P. Pescatore, Judge, who spoke, in comparative terms, of the evolution
of the case-law of the national courts, the progress made and the difficulties
which persist here and there.
In a well-documented and penetrating address Mr van Agt, President of the
Council of Ministers for Justice of the Community, then sought to describe
the development of integration through the case-law of the Court of Justice
and of the national courts and to express the confidence of the Member States
in those bodies.
What conclusions are to be drawn from such a conference?
First of all, this novel formula may be applied again in future. It appears to
be useful to submit a body of case-law to the constructive criticism of such an
assembly, as it may bring about a closer alignment of theory and practice and
a closer cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts. Certain
of the latter are even proposing to try the same formula at their own level.
Moreover, this high-level conference brought out the essential features of
Community law. The frequent emphasis on the need for a uniform body of
case-law showed the importance which the audience attached to the basic
principles of a single system of lawh is common to all the Member States
and whose uniform interpretation and application binds their nationals more
closely together.
It also became apparent that close cooperation between the national courts
and the Court of Justice is a decisive factor in the success of Community law.
It is, in fact, as a result of several thousand questions submitted by several
hundred courts and tribunals that the case-law has developed step by step in
an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence. It is the national court which, by taking the initiative, has been the driving force of that development. Thus
the case-law of the Community is both progressive and collective in nature.
The results of the Conference to which I have just referred highlight possible
future progress towards new developments. Experience has shown that the
repercussions of any Community provision, however unimportant it may, be
hasten judicial integration — the experience of the Brussels Convention on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Matters is the most recent illustration of this; it must therefore be recognized
that here is a discreet but effective practical method of bringing about gradual
integration whilst other, more ambitious, projects are marking time.
In this regard, it would be very easy, with a little imagination, to draw up an
impressive list of subjects in which substantial progress might be achieved
towards the adoption of a uniform attitude by the national cou