No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
1 Reflections on the General Principles of Community Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Oration
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 1998
References
1 Fitzmaurice, G. “The General Principles of International Law considered from the standpoint of the Rule of Law” 11 (1997) Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of international Law 1, 7 Google Scholar.
2 The Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties 1155 UNTS 331; (1969) 8 ILM 679.
3 See for example case C–324/93 Evans Medical Ltd and Macfarlan Smith Ltd [1995] ECR I–563.
4 I very much hope that 1 will not see the day when this analysis is confirmed. See further Berman, F. “Community Law and International Law: How Far Does Either Belong to the Other” The Clifford Chance Lectures (given at the Institute of Anglo-American Law, University of Leiden) (OUP, 1996) vol. 01, 249 Google Scholar.
5 See for example Mackenzie-Stuart, Lord “The ‘Non-contractual’ Liability of the European Economic Community” 12 (1975) CMLRev. 493–512 Google Scholar.
6 Joined cases C–46/93 and C–48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur, Factortame III [1996] ECR I–1029, para. 34.
7 Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 3.
8 Article 220 (Article 164) of the EC Treaty.
9 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 UNTS vol. 213 p. 221.
10 Quoted in the Preface to Brealey, H. and Hoskins, M. Remedies in EC Law (Longman, 1994)Google Scholar.
11 Case C–199/82 San Giorgio [1983] ECR 3595.
12 Case 222/84 Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651.
13 Article 53(2) of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (SI 1976 No 1042 (NI 15)).
14 Above n 12 at para. 18.
15 Case C–213/89 Factortame I [1991] ECR 1–3905.
16 Case C–208/90 Emmott [1991] ECR I–4269.
17 Case 338/91 Steenhorst-Neerings [1993] ECR I–5475.
18 Case C–410/92 Elsie Rita Johnson [1994] ECR I–5483.
19 Case C–312/93 Peterbroeck [1995] ECR I–4599.
20 Case C–430/93 Van Schijndel [1995] ECR I–4705.
21 Above n 19 at para. 14.
22 See for example Curtin, D. “Directives: The Effectiveness of Judicial Protection of Individual Rights” 27 (1990) CMLRev. 709, 737Google Scholar.
23 Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, above n 5 at 493–495.
24 Joined cases C–A6/93 and C–48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur, Factortame III [1996] ECR I–1029.
25 Case C-6/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357.
26 Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1964] ECR 1.
27 Case 6/64 Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 585.
28 Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629.
29 Case C–6/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I–5357, para. 35.
30 Joined cases C–46/93 and C–48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur, Factortame III [1996] ECR I–1029.
31 Case C–302/94 British Telecommunications [1996] ECR I–1631.
32 Case C–5/94 Hedley Lomas [1996] ECR I–2553.
33 Case C–178/94 Dillenkofer [1996] ECR I–4845.
34 For further discussion see Craig, P. “Once More unto the Breach: The Community, the State and Damages Liability” 113 (1997) LQR Google Scholar; van Gerven, W. “Bridging the unbridgeable: Community and National Tort Laws after Francovich and Brasserie” 45 (1996) ICLQ 507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35 Brunner and others v. The European Onion Treaty [1994] 1 CMLR 57, para. 99.
36 Opinion 2/94 “Accession by the Community to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” [1996] ECR I–1759.
37 Ibid., at paras. 29 and 30.
38 For further discussion see Jowell, J. “Is Proportionality an Alien Concept?” [1996] European Public Law 401 Google Scholar; De Búrca, G. “The Principle of Proportionality and its Application in EC Law” 13 (1993) YBEL 105 Google Scholar.
39 Mackenzie-Stuart, Lord “Problems of the European Community Transatlantic Parallels” 36 (1987) ICLQ 183, 191CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 Mackenzie-Stuart, Lord “Subsidiarity – A Busted Flush” in Constitutional Adjudication in European Community and National Law; Essays for O’Higgins, T.F., Curtin, and O’Keefe, (eds.) (Dudlin, Round Hall 1992) 19, 21Google Scholar.
41 Ibid., at 24.
42 Case C–415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I–4921; Case C–84/94 United Kingdom v. Council (working time) [1996] ECR I-5755.
43 See for example cases 136/79 National Panasonic v. Commission [1980] ECR 2033; 46/87 Hoechst v. Commission [1989] ECR 2859; 374/87 Orkem v. Commission [1989] ECR 3283; C–340/89 Vlassopoulou v. Ministerium für Justiz [1991] ECR I–2357; C–60/92 Otto v. Postbank [1993] ECR I–5683; C–404/92 X v. Commission [1994] ECR I–4737; C–177/94 Procédure penale v. Perfili [1996] ECR I–161.
44 Case 155/79 AM & S Europe v. Commission [1982] ECR 1575.
45 SirGoldsmith, James “The European Court of Justice is a political court with a political agenda. Its rulings, time and again, are based on principles that the Court simply creates and which have no legal basis in the Treaties themselves” Sleepwalking into the European Superstate, pamphlet published by the Referendum Party (1996), 5 Google Scholar.
46 Lord Mackenzie-Stuart “The European Communities and the Rule of Law”, Chapter 2 in “The Court of Justice and the Judicial Process – The Sources of Community law” The Hamlyn Lectures 29th Series, p.12 “there are those unwritten rules which stem rather from the nature of the judicial function itself, from the concept of good administration or from the particular character of Community law”.
47 James Dalrymple, first Viscount Stair, Institutions of the Law of Scotland first published in 1681, second authoritative edition in 1693, current edition edited by Walker, D.M. (1981).