Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bifurcated Justice: The Dual Character of Judicial Protection in EU Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l'Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence

Abstract

This paper examines two aspects of the interplay between the ECJ and the national courts. It first looks at the degree of specificity of the rulings delivered by the ECJ in preliminary references. It distinguishes three categories of cases depending on the degree of specificity (outcome, guidance and deference) and seeks to explore the rationale and function of each. It then looks at the role of national courts in building the edifice of EU law and the varying ways in which they perceive the preliminary reference procedure. It concludes that the process towards the constitutionalisation of the EU Treaties could not have advanced without the cooperation of the national courts. While such cooperation has taken a variety of forms ranging from encouragement to acquiescence, national courts have essentially played a very constructive role in legitimating integration.

Sir John Lubbock Professor of Banking Law, Queen Mary College, University of London and Visiting Professor, College of Europe, Bruges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1.

  2. 2.

    Mancini and Keeling 1994, p. 183.

  3. 3.

    For a detailed explanation of this argument, see Tridimas 2011, p. 737.

  4. 4.

    According to established case-law, in the absence of EU rules, the protection of EU rights is subject to national rules of procedure and remedies provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar rights under national law (principle of equivalence) and they do not render the exercise of EU rights excessive, difficult or virtually impossible (principle of effectiveness). See Case 33/76 Rewe v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland [1976] ECR 1989; Case 45/76 Comet v Productschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043.

  5. 5.

    See e.g. in relation to non-discrimination, Case C-453/08 Karanikolas v Ministry of Agriculture, judgment of 2 September 2010.

  6. 6.

    Case C-442/02 Caixa Bank France v Minister for the Economy [2004] ECR I-8961.

  7. 7.

    Case C-255/00 Grundig Italiana SpA v Ministerodelle Finanze [2002] ECR I-8003.

  8. 8.

    See Arsenal Football Club Plc v. Reed (No.2) [2003] 1 All E.R. 137; reversed on appeal: [2003] EWCA Civ 96.

  9. 9.

    See e.g. Case C-255/02 Halifax v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2006] ECR I-1609, para 77; Case C-238/05 Asnef-Equifax and Administración del Estado [2006] ECR I-11125, para 40; Case C-79/01 Payroll and Others [2002] ECR I-8923, para 29; Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04 Manfredi [2006] ECR I-6619, para 48.

  10. 10.

    Case C-368/95 Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und Vertreibs GmbH v Bauer Verlag [1997] ECR I-3689.

  11. 11.

    See e.g. Joined Cases C-46 and 48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur v Germany and the Queen v SS for Transport ex parte Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029 where the ECJ explained which conditions of liability applicable under English and German law made excessively difficult the protection of Community rights.

  12. 12.

    Case C-67/98, Questore di Verona v Diego Zenatti [1999] ECR I-7289. For another example, see Case C-405/98 Gourmet [2001] ECR I-1795.

  13. 13.

    See e.g. Case C-372/04 Watts [2006] ECR I-4325 on the application of Article 56 TFEU on medical services.

  14. 14.

    Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers Federation & Finnish Seamen s Union v Viking Line ABP [2007] ECR I-10779; see also Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet [2008] ECR I-11767.

  15. 15.

    Viking 2007, paras 81 et seq.

  16. 16.

    See Case 145/88 Torfaen BC v B & Q [1989] ECR 3851; Case C-169/91 Council of the City of Stoke on Trent v B & Q [1992] ECR I-6635.

  17. 17.

    Case C-302/97 Konle v Republic of Austria [1999] ECR I-3099.

  18. 18.

    Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04 Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico [2006] ECR I-6619.

  19. 19.

    Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2925.

  20. 20.

    Case C-109/01 Akrich [2003] ECR I-9607.

  21. 21.

    See e.g. Joined Cases C-414 to 416/99 Zino Davidoff v A & G Imports Ltd [2001] ECR I-8691.

  22. 22.

    Case C-262/99 Louloudakis v Greece [2002] ECR I-5547.

  23. 23.

    See e.g. Case C-302/97 Konle v Republic of Austria [1999] ECR I-3099.

  24. 24.

    See e.g. Case C-341/08 Petersen v Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe[2010] ECR I-47.

  25. 25.

    Case C-63/01 Evans v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2003] ECR I-14447.

  26. 26.

    See e.g. Case C-12/02 Grilli [2003] ECR I-1017. For another example in this category, see Familiapress, 1997.

  27. 27.

    See e.g. Case C-48/05 Adam Opel AG v Autec AG [2007] ECR I-1017, para 25.

  28. 28.

    See the criticism expressed by Jacobs AG in Case C-349/95 Loendersloot [1997] ECR I-6227, at 6239 and Sharpston AG in Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim KG v Swingward Ltd (Boehringer II) [2007] ECR I-3391, Opinion of Sharpston AG, para 3.

  29. 29.

    See e.g. the cases concerning the defence of “passing on”: Case 199/82 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v San Giorgio [1983] ECR 3595; Joined cases C-192 to C-218/95 Comateb and Others v Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects [1997] ECR I-165; cf. Case C-147/01 Weber’s Wine World and others [2003] ECR I-11365.

  30. 30.

    Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097.

  31. 31.

    Case C-224/01 Köbler v Austria [2003] ECR I-10239.

  32. 32.

    Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2925.

  33. 33.

    See Case C-112/00 Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge [2003] ECR I-5659; Case C-60/00 Carpenter v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-6279; Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn [2004] ECR I-9609. See further Case C-71/02 Herbert Karner Industrie-Auktionen GmbH v. Troostwijk GmbH [2004] ECR I-3025 and Joined Cases C-20 and C-64/00 Booker Aquaculture Ltd & Hydro Seafood GSP Ltd v Scottish Minister [2003] ECR I-7411 where the ECJ also provided outcomes in relation to the application of fundamental rights.

  34. 34.

    Omega, 2004.

  35. 35.

    Köbler, 2003.

  36. 36.

    For a subsequent case where the ECJ provided guidance on liability for judicial acts, see Case C-173/03 Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA v Italy [2006] ECR I-5177.

  37. 37.

    Case 33/76 Rewe v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland [1976] ECR 1989; Case 45/76 Comet v Productschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043.

  38. 38.

    Keck, 1993.

  39. 39.

    Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH[2003] ECR I-7747.

  40. 40.

    See Arsenal v Reed, 2003.

  41. 41.

    For a case where the guidelines provided by the ECJ gave rise to uncertainty and needed to be interpreted by the UK Supreme Court, see OB v Aventis Pasteur [2010] UKSC 23.

  42. 42.

    Maastricht Treaty case[1994] 1 CMLR 57; Lisbon Treaty case, Judgment of 30 June 2009, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html..

  43. 43.

    See the data published in the Court of Justice of the European Union Annual Report 2011, http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-03/ra2011_stat_cour_provisoire_en.pdf

  44. 44.

    These cases are the following: Joined Cases C-46 and 48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur v Germany and the Queen v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029; Case C-392/93 British Telecommunications [1996] ECR I-1631; Case C-5/94 Hedley Lomas [1996] ECR I-2553; Case C-66/95 The Queen v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Sutton [1997] ECR I-2163; Case C-127/95 Norbrook Laboratories v MAFF [1998] ECR I-1531; Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98 Metallgesellschaft Ltd and Hoechst AG v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2001] ECR I-1727; Case C-63/01 Evans v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2003] ECR I-14447; Case C-278/05 Robins and Others [2007] ECR I-1053; Case C-446/04Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Test Claimants I), judgment of 12 December 2006; Case 524/04 Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Test Claimants II) [2007] ECR I-2017; Case C-452/06 The Queen on the application of Synthon BV v Licensing Authority of the Department of Health [2008] ECR I-7681;.

  45. 45.

    See, for an example, Case C-285/98, Kreil [2000] ECR I-69.

  46. 46.

    See e.g. Case C-81/09 Idrima Tipou AE v Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis, judgment of 21 October 2010.

  47. 47.

    See e.g. Case C-34/09 Zambrano, judgment of 8 March 2011 and Case C–256/11Dereci v Bundesministerium für Inneres, judgment of 15 November 2011.

  48. 48.

    See e.g. the successive generations of cases following the ruling in Case C-279/93 Schumacker [1995] ECR I-225 which applied the free movement provisions of the Treaty on direct taxation.

  49. 49.

    See e.g. the golden share cases, e.g. Case C-112/05 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-8995, and the gambling cases, e.g. Zenatti, 1999.

  50. 50.

    For a notable example from Germany, which led the ECJ to change its case-law, see Case C-269/90 Technische Universität München [1991] ECR I-5469. See also the Greek company law cases, including Joined Cases C-19 and C-20/90 Karellas [1991] ECR I-2691; Case C-441/93 Pafitis [1996] ECR I-1347; C-373/97 Diamandis v Elliniko Domosio [2000] ECR I-1705.

  51. 51.

    Hanne Norup Carlsen and others v Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen [1999] 3 CMLR 854, Judgment delivered on 6 April 1998.

References

  • Mancini G, Keeling DT (1994) Democracy and the European Court of Justice MLR 57:175

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (2011) Constitutional review of Member State action: the virtues and vices of an incomplete jurisdiction. Int J Const Law 9:737–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queen Mary College University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Takis Tridimas

Authors
  1. Takis Tridimas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takis Tridimas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2013 T.M.C. Asser Instituut

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Tridimas, T. (2013). Bifurcated Justice: The Dual Character of Judicial Protection in EU Law. In: The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l'Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_20

    Download citation

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Societies and partnerships

    Search

    Navigation