Resolution on the relationships between international law, Community law and the constitutional law of the Member States
Date: 1997-10-02
Institutions: Committee on Legal Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, EU competence, EU law - national law, international law, primacy of EU law













EUR-Lex - 51997IP0278 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997IP0278

Resolution on the relationships between international law, Community law and the constitutional law of the Member States  


Official Journal C 325 , 27/10/1997 P. 0026 





A4-0278/97Resolution on the relationships between international law, Community law and the constitutional law of the Member StatesThe European Parliament,- having regard to the symposium on the relationships between Community law, international law and the constitutional law of the Member States, organized by its Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights on 21 and 22 June 1995,- having regard to the draft Treaty of Amsterdam of 19 June 1997 ((CONF/4001/97.)),- having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights and the opinion of the Committee on Institutional Affairs (A4- 0278/97),A. whereas the European Community is a Community based on the rule of law ((Judgment of 23 April 1986 in Case 294/83 Parti écologiste 'Les Verts' v European Parliament [1986] ECR 1339 et seq., paragraph 23. )) and must be based on the clear separation of powers,B. whereas comprehensive judicial protection of fundamental rights at a high level is an important feature of any Community based on the rule of law,1. Recalls that the law of the European Union constitutes an autonomous legal system and recalls also the case-law ((Judgment of 15 July 1964 in Case 6/64 Costa v E.N.E.L. [1964] ECR 585 et seq.)) of the Court of Justice of the European Communities with regard to the supremacy of Community law over national law;2. Recalls that one of the essential elements of the constitutional law of the Member States of the Union is the separation of powers and that, therefore, any transfer of powers from the Member States to the Union must be accompanied by the assignment of powers to the European Parliament as the direct expression of the will of the peoples who make up the European Union;3. Recalls that, in view of this autonomy, no domestic provisions of any kind can take precedence over Community law, since this would be to deny its character as Community law and call into question the very legal basis of the Community ((Judgment in Case 6/64 Costa v E.N.E.L. referred to above; Judgment of 17 December 1970 in Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide- und Futtermittel [1970] ECR 1107 et seq.));4. Recalls that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the supremacy of Community law means that any national law which conflicts with Community law is inapplicable ((Judgment of 21 May 1987 in Case 249/85 Albako v B.A.L.M. [1987] ECR 2345, paragraph 14; judgment of 7February1991 in Case C-184/89 Nimz v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg [1991] ECR I-297, paragraph 19.));5. Points out that every individual national judge has the duty not to apply any national law which is incompatible with Community law ((Judgment of 9 March 1978 in Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal S.p.A. [1978] ECR 629 et seq., paragraph 21.));6. Emphasizes the great significance of the preliminary ruling procedure pursuant to Article 177 of the EC Treaty for turning the supremacy of Community law over national law into reality, and refers forcefully to the CILFIT judgment ((Judgment of 6 October 1982 in Case 283/81 CILFIT e Lanificio di Lavardo v Ministerio della Sanitá [1982] ECR 3415 et seq.)), which laid down criteria governing the obligation for national courts to refer cases;7. Recalls that, in accordance with the Foto-Frost judgment ((Judgment of 22 October 1987 in Case 314/85 Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost [1987] ECR 4199 et seq., paragraph 15.)), national courts do not have the power to declare the acts of the Community institutions invalid, and reaffirms the view that jurisdiction concerning the binding nature of Community law rests solely with the Court of Justice and draws attention also to the exclusive competence of the European Court of Justice under Articles 164-188 and 219 of the EC Treaty, to have the final say on the scope of the tasks and powers transferred to the Community institutions;8. Draws attention to the significance of Article 177(3) of the EC Treaty as a means of ensuring the uniform application of Community law in all Member States; stresses that the supreme national courts must also submit questions of Community law to the Court of Justice of the European Communities and must abide by its preliminary rulings;9. Is concerned about developments in certain national courts, which are considering the possibility - contrary to Community law - of examining secondary Community law;10. Observes that it follows from the logic of Community law that the Court of Justice of the European Communities should be the only judicial body with the power to take binding decisions on the interpretation and application of Community law;11. Welcomes the indirect entrenchment of the supremacy of Community law through paragraph 2 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which is included in the draft Treaty of Amsterdam, and which is to be annexed to the EC Treaty;12. Calls, in addition, for the supremacy of Community law to be enshrined directly in the EC Treaty itself;13. Considers that, in so far as powers which have implications for sovereignty are transferred to the EU institutions, such transfers must presuppose the recognition that the EU assumes sovereign powers which cease to fall within the exclusive ambit of the States, so that national courts cannot review the acts of the Community institutions acting within their proper competencies;14. Calls for a clear statement of the relationship between international law and European law to be written into the EC Treaty, in terms of the EC being equated with nation states, which means that international law is applicable not directly but only after it has been declared applicable by an internal legal act of the EC or after its substance has been transposed into EC legislation;15. Calls for the relationship with international law ultimately also to be regulated for the second and third pillars, in other words for the EU as a whole, in the same way as for the first pillar;16. Calls for an amendment to the EU Treaty to the effect that the European Union is given legal personality;17. Considers that Article L(c) of the EU Treaty, as it is to be inserted by the draft Treaty of Amsterdam, should be regarded as giving the European Court of Justice a mission to ensure and develop comprehensive protection at a high level of fundamental rights in respect of the sphere of activity of the European Community such that the level of protection of human rights by the Court of Justice is at least as high as under any national constitutional jurisdiction and, in so far as the Court has jurisdiction, in respect of the sphere of activity of the European Union;18. Instructs its President to forward this resolution, together with the explanatory statement of the committee's report, to the Council, the Commission, the parliaments of the Member States, the European Court of Justice and all the courts of last instance in the Member States.