International Law, by its nature binds the State in its executive, legislative, and judicial activities, and no international tribunal would permit a respondent State to plead provisions of its law or constitutions as a defence to an alleged infringement of an international obligations. It is the same in European Community Law. The court of justice, in Commission v Italy 1972 explained that:
"no appeal to provisions of internal law of any kind whatever can prevail".
The court had always refused a plea of force majeure where a Member State has attempted to comply with Community Obligations, but failed as a result of delays in the legislative process.
Similarly, the Court has consistently held that a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time limits laid down in a directive...
[...] In that case, the European Court of Justice is pushing the European Community law beyond the national law. The case Commission v Council (Re European Road Transport Agreement) 1970[3], it is said that once the Community has acted in one area, Member States cannot collectively or individually affect those rules. That means that when the community makes one law, it is forbidden for the different government of the Member States to make their own law in the area of the previous law. [...]
[...] This article states that Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks. They shall abstain from any measure, which could jeopardize the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty. The article 10 contains affirmative obligations: the obligations of cooperation. It applies in cases of Member State omission of failure. The article 10 mandates in a negative obligation to refrain from undermining Community objectives. It applies to situation where Member States have already acted in a manner inconsistent with their Community obligations. [...]
[...] There are various other sources of Community Law for which we can apply the Direct effect. The principals are developed in Article 249 (old 189) of the European Community Treaty. The article provides that: A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. [...]
[...] The European Court of Justice developed its jurisprudence. This is what it did in Publico Ministero v. Tullio Ratti Case[10]: would be incompatible with the binding effect which Article 189 ascribes to directive to exclude on principle the possibility of the obligations imposed by them being relied on by persons concerned particularly in cases in which the community authorities have, by means of directive, placed member states under a duty to adopt a certain course of action, the effectiveness of such an act would be weakened if persons were prevented from relying on it on legal proceedings and national courts prevented from taking it into consideration as an element of community law. [...]
[...] It appears to be in ascendancy. First of all, this article is cited more frequently. Then, it appears that this article was used in complement with others articles, but now, this article provides an independent and sufficient basis for judicial decisions. The doctrine of direct effect has been an essential component in advancing the effectiveness of Community Law. It allows European Union nationals to bring suits based on Community law in national courts. Direct effect, however, can go only so far. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
