The Court of Justice of the European Communities is the judicial institution of the Community. It is made up of three courts: the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal. Their main task is to examine the legality of Community measures and ensure the uniform interpretation and application of Community law.
Advertisement
For the purpose of European construction, the Member States (now 27 in number) concluded treaties creating first the European Communities and then a European Union, with institutions which adopt laws in specific areas.
Through its case-law, the Court of Justice has identified an obligation on administrations and national courts to apply Community law in full within their sphere of competence and to protect the rights conferred on citizens by that law (direct application of Community law), and to disapply any conflicting national provision, whether prior or subsequent to the Community provision (primacy of Community law over national law).
The Court has also recognised the principle of the liability of Member States for breach of Community law which, first, plays an important part in consolidating the protection of the rights conferred on individuals by Community provisions and, secondly, may contribute to more diligent application of Community provisions by Member States. Infringements committed by Member States are thus likely to give rise to obligations to pay compensation which may, in some cases, have serious repercussions on their public funds. Moreover, any breach of Community law by a Member State may be brought before the Court and, where a judgment finding such an infringement is not complied with, the Court can order payment of a periodic penalty and/or a fixed sum.
The Court of Justice also works in conjunction with the national courts, which are the ordinary courts applying Community law. Any national court or tribunal which is called upon to decide a dispute involving Community law may, and sometimes must, submit questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The Court must then give an interpretation or review the legality of a rule of Community law.
The development of its case-law illustrates the Court’s contribution to creating a legal environment for European citizens by protecting the rights which Community legislation confers on them in various areas of their daily life.
Fundamental principles established by case-law
In its case-law (starting with Van Gend & Loos in 1963), the Court has introduced the principle of the direct effect of Community law in the Member States, which enables European citizens to rely directly on Community provisions before their national courts.
The transport company Van Gend & Loos had imported goods from Germany to the Netherlands and had to pay customs duties which it considered to be incompatible with the rule in the EEC Treaty prohibiting increases in customs duties in trade between Member States. The action raised the question of the conflict between national legislation and the provisions of the EEC Treaty. The Court decided the question referred by a Netherlands court by stating the doctrine of direct effect, thus conferring on the transport company a direct guarantee of its rights under Community law before the national court.
In 1964, the Costa judgment established the primacy of Community law over domestic law. In that case, an Italian court had asked the Court of Justice whether the Italian law on nationalisation of the production and distribution of electrical energy was compatible with certain rules in the EEC Treaty. The Court introduced the doctrine of the primacy of Community law, basing it on the specific nature of the Community legal order, which is to be uniformly applied in all the Member States.
In 1991, in Francovich and Others, the Court developed another fundamental concept, the liability of a Member State to individuals for damage caused to them by an infringement of Community law by that State. Since 1991, European citizens have therefore been able to bring an action for damages against a State which infringes a Community rule.
Two Italian citizens who were owed pay by their insolvent employers had brought actions for a declaration that the Italian State had failed to transpose Community provisions protecting employees in the event of their employers’ insolvency. On a reference from an Italian court, the Court stated that the directive in question was designed to confer on individuals rights which they had been denied as a result of the failure to act of the State which had not implemented the directive. The Court thus opened up the possibility of an action for damages against the State itself.
The Court in the life of European citizens
Of the thousands of judgments given by the Court, the majority, particularly preliminary rulings, clearly have important consequences for the daily life of European citizens. Some of these judgments are cited below as examples from the most important areas of Community law.
- Free movement of goods
- Freedom of movement of persons
- Freedom to provide services
- Equal treatment and social rights
- Fundamental rights
- European citizenship
Since the Cassis de Dijon judgment in 1979 on the principle of free movement of goods, traders can import into their country any product coming from another country within the Community, provided that it was lawfully manufactured and marketed there and that there is no overriding reason relating, for example, to the protection of health or the environment to prevent its importation into the country of consumption.
Many judgments have been given in the field of freedom of movement of persons.
In the judgment in Kraus (1993), the Court held that the situation of a Community national who holds a postgraduate academic title, which was awarded in another Member State and facilitates access to a profession or the pursuit of an economic activity, is governed by Community law, even as regards the relations between that national and his Member State of origin. Accordingly, if a Member State can make use of that title in its territory subject to an administrative authorisation, the authorisation procedure must be intended solely to verify whether the title was properly awarded.
One of the most well-known cases in this field is Bosman (1995), in which the Court gave a ruling on a reference from a Belgian court on the compatibility of rules of football federations with freedom of movement of workers. It stated that professional sport is an economic activity whose exercise may not be hindered by rules governing the transfer of players or restricting the number of players who are nationals of other Member States. That principle was extended in subsequent judgments to the situation of professional sportsmen from third countries which had entered into an association agreement (Deutscher Handballbund, 2003) or a partnership agreement (Simutenkov, 2005) with the European Communities.
A judgment of 1989 on freedom to provide services concerned a British tourist who was assaulted and seriously injured in the Paris metro. On a reference from a French court, the Court held that, as a tourist, he was the recipient of services outside his country and was covered by the Community law principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. He was therefore entitled to the same compensation as a French national could claim (Cowan).
In cases referred by the Luxembourg courts, the Court declared that national provisions having the effect that an insured person cannot obtain reimbursement of the cost of dental treatment on the ground that it was given in another Member State constitute an unjustified restriction on freedom to provide services (Kohll, 1998), and that refusal to reimburse costs related to the purchase of spectacles abroad is regarded as an unjustified restriction on free movement of goods (Decker, 1998).
An air hostess brought an action against her employer on the grounds of discrimination in the pay she received compared with her male colleagues who did the same work. On a reference from a Belgian court, the Court held in 1976 that the Treaty rule requiring equal pay for men and women for equal work had direct effect (Defrenne).
In its interpretation of the Community rules on equal treatment for men and women, the Court has played a part in protecting women against dismissal linked to pregnancy. A woman who was unable to continue work because of difficulties connected with her pregnancy was dismissed. In 1998, the Court held that that dismissal was contrary to Community law. Dismissal of a woman during pregnancy for absences linked to pregnancy-related illness is unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex (Brown).
In order to ensure the protection of the health and safety of workers, workers must have paid annual leave. In 1999, BECTU, a British trade union, challenged United Kingdom legislation which denied that right to workers on short-term contracts on the ground that it was incompatible with a Community directive on the organisation of working time. The Court held (BECTU, 2001) that the right to paid annual leave is a social right directly conferred on every worker by Community law and that no worker may be denied that right.
By holding that respect for fundamental rights is an integral part of the general principles of law it safeguards, the Court has made a considerable contribution to improving the standards of protection of those rights. In this respect, it looks to the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and to international treaties on the protection of human rights, on which the Member States have collaborated or which they have signed, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights.
After numerous terrorist attacks against the police, police officers in Northern Ireland began carrying fire-arms. However, on the grounds of public safety, women police officers were not authorised to carry fire-arms (on the basis of a certificate issued by the competent minister which could not be challenged before the courts). As a result, full-time contracts in the Northern Ireland police were no longer offered to women. On a reference from a United Kingdom court, the Court held that excluding any power of review by the courts of a certificate issued by a national authority runs counter to the principle of effective judicial control which may be relied upon by all persons who consider themselves wronged by discrimination on grounds of sex (Johnston, 1986).
In respect of European citizenship, which the Treaty establishes for every Member State national, the Court has stated that such citizenship entails the right to reside in another Member State. Accordingly, a minor who is a Member State national, is covered by sickness insurance and has available to him or her sufficient resources also has that right to reside. The Court noted that Community law does not require the child itself to have the necessary resources and that refusal to grant at the same time to its mother, who is a third-country national, a right to reside would render redundant the child’s right to reside (Zhu and Chen, 2004).
In the same judgment the Court stated that, even where the purpose of acquiring the nationality of a Member State is to obtain for a third-country national a right of residence pursuant to Community law, it is not permissible for a Member State to restrict the effects of the grant of the nationality of another Member State.
Source: CURIA: The Court of Justice of the European Communities
