No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
The emerging of an early idea, – the idea of a united Europe in peace replacing the destructive force of nationalism – could not have been a proper blueprint for the formation of a European Society until the brute force of the two World Wars prepared the ground for the awareness of political, economical, and social necessities. The first chapter in the book of the European Union regarding this founding idea was written back in 1951/52 by establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) as a Community based upon law. At first, following Jean Monnet's sectoral approach toward integration in connection with the idea of supranationalism, unifying element should have been the supranational administrative body called “High Authority” (former name of the Commission in the first ESCS-Treaty). Given that the ECSC arose on the basis of law, one of the first and most important questions seemed to be the need of legal protection framing and balancing the power of the nearly almighty High Authority. This need should be satisfied by the establishment of a European Court of Justice (ECJ) as a permanent Court in the ECSC-Treaty. Although the shape of the former European Community has been immensely changed and extended through the years of integrational process, the once established ECJ still remains the judicial core in the institutional structure. But how did the system of legal protection react on the defiances of the integrational process?
1 Neill Nugent, The Government and Politics of the European Union 1 (1994). See also source cited infra note 3.Google Scholar
2 Dokumente zum Europäischen Recht, tome 1-3 (Rainer Schulze &Thomas Hoeren eds., 1999) (providing an important source in the German language of the historical foundation).Google Scholar
3 Burk, Kathleen & Stokes, Melvyn, The United States and the European Alliance since 1945 18 (1999) (providing a short overview, particularly at note 4 on page 18 concerning Geir Lundestad's examination in this book).Google Scholar
4 Case T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré v. Commission, 2002 E.C.R. II-2365; see commentary by Dominik Hanf, Facilitating Private Applicants’ Access to the European Courts? On the Possible Impact of the CFI's Ruling in Jégo-Quéré, 3 German Law Journal No. 7 (1 July 2002), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=166.Google Scholar
5 ECJ C-50/00 P, Unión de Pequenos Agricultores v. Council, ECR 2002 I 6677 (hereto the commentary by Dominik Hanf, Kicking the ball into the Member States’ field: the Court's response to Jégo-Quéré (Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores, Judgment of 25 July 2002), 3 German Law Journal No. 8 (1 August 2002), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=171), and the latest Appeal-decision ECJ (1. April 2004) Case C-263/02 P, available at www.curia.eu.int.Google Scholar
6 Varju, Marton, The Debate on the Future of the Standing under Article 230(4) TEC in the European Convention, 10 European Public Law 1, 42 (2004).Google Scholar
7 Ule, Carl Hermann, Der Gerichtshof der Montangemeinschaft als europäisches Verwaltungsgericht, DVBl., 65-72 (1952).Google Scholar
8 Case C-6/64, Costa v. ENEL, 1964 E.C.R. 585.Google Scholar
You have
Access