Community Law

The Modern Law Review, 1979

The Modern Law Review, 1993

2001

I. INTRODUCTION In any legal system the jurisdiction of the courts is a topic of significance. This is especially so in relation to the European Union, where judicial authority is divided between the Community courts and those of the Member States. The way in which these courts interrelate is of importance in both practical and conceptual terms. In practical terms, it can have a profound effect on the efficiency of the judicial regime taken as a whole. In conceptual terms, this relationship can tell us much about the more general nature of the Community legal order. This article will therefore reconsider the jurisdiction of the Community courts. The inquiry is timely given the need to think more generally about the Community's institutional structure in the light of expansion. There have been two important papers which directly address key issues concerning the Community's judicial architecture. One has been written by those currently in the ECJ and CFI, and will be referred...

The American Journal of Comparative Law, 1994

LAW No. 90/9 Anne-Laurence FAROUX Le Ministere de la Culture en France: Creation et organisation LAW No. 91/10 Christian JOERGES (ed.

2010

When the Maastricht Treaty on European Union entered into force in November 1993, every national of a Member State became, in addition, a citizen of the Union. The provisions concerning citizenship of the Union were inserted into the Treaty establishing the European Community as a new Part Two of the Treaty (Articles 8 to 8e). Hence they are firmly anchored in Community law. The public authorities with which citizens are most likely to have personal contact are bodies carrying out administrative tasks. In relation to Community law and policies administrative tasks are carried out partly by Community institutions and bodies and partly by public authorities in the Member States. From the standpoint of the citizen, the administrative activity of public authorities, at the Community level as well as at the national level, has three main aspects. First, it may involve restrictions or interference with private rights that normally enjoy legal protection, such as property or privacy. Seco...

Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, 1999

With reference to the effective protection of the individual this dialectic is intensified by the ECJ's rulings on cases such as Francovich, 5 FactortameI 6 and Dillenkofer, 7 which have brought to the fore the debate about the ECJ's activist or minimalist role. 8 In recent years, activism has been seen in terms of its integrative potential while minimalism as a pillar of the statecentric paradigm. At the epicentre of these two hypotheses lies the oldest point of contention with reference to the European integration process: National sovereignty. Before we proceed to look at this dialectic with reference to Art 215(2) let us first briefly look at the two theoretical paradigms behind them. Space does not allow us to look at the different supranational and statecentric theories so we shall focus on two fundamental paradigms which stand at opposite ends of the pro-and anti-European spectrum: functionalism and intergovernmentalism. The Theoretical Context Functionalism Much of the functionalist approach to international relations has been formulated by David Mitrany in his book A Working Peace System. As the title of Mitrany's influential work suggests, the ultimate aim of the functionalist thesis is the preservation of world peace which, he proposes, can be achieved by seeking to link "authority to a specific activity [in order] to break away from the traditional link between authority and a defined territory". 9 Central to the functionalist theory is the belief that national sovereignty is the root of international conflict due to the rivalry which exists between self-centred nation-states. Based on the assumption that community is "the sum of functions carried out by its members" 10 Mitrany maintained that people have a sense of loyalty towards their nation-state because they can satisfy their welfare needs. If their needs are satisfied efficiently at a transnational level there would, inevitably, follow a shift of loyalties from the national to the transnational level. Although Mitrany is not very specific in his use of "welfare needs" other functionalists, very much in the same vein of thought, have made a distinction between basic welfare needs such as health or housing and the need to have values such as national pride or defence of the realm. It is argued that both inspire loyalty but that individuals have been misdirected in placing more importance on the need for "patriotic values" rather than the efficient satisfaction of their basic welfare 5 See Joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90

The Denning Law Journal, 2012