Source: http://www.iuspublicum-thomas-schmitz.uni-goettingen.de/Lehre/Jurisprudence-on-integration-1.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:37:41+00:00

Document:
Note that the law of the European Union is a continental European and not a common law legal system. Thus, court decisions interpret the law but do not make the law, and the findings are not binding for later judgements. There is European jurisprudence but no European "case-law" in the proper sense. The doctrine of precedent (stare decisis) does not apply to the European Court of Justice. This affects the dealing with the jurisprudence. The ECJ often refers to previous judgements, but mostly superficially to some dogmatic statements only, not to the decision as a whole, and without regard to the facts of the case. Usually, it does not deal with its own jurisprudence as a common law court does with its case-law. Under the pressure of criticism from the Advocates General, legal science or other courts, it sometimes deviates from its former jurisprudence. For legal science, its interpretation of the law is important but not binding, since (like that of other courts) it may be wrong. For a lawyer, this means that the reference to decisions of the ECJ cannot replace one's own legal argumentation!
- however: fundamental rights will be protected in Community law!
- primacy in application: non-application of colliding norms of national law, without prior abrogation by the legislator, the constitutional court etc.
- problematic: also (hierarchical) primacy in validity? "... preclude the valid adoption of new national legislative measures to the extent to which they would be incompatible with Community provisions."
- however, the interests of the Community must be "taken fully into account"
● EEC Treaty as "constitutional charter of a Community based on the rule of law"
- arguments concern "based on the rule of law" but not "constitutional charter"
- "... it is possible to apply a rule of interpretation generally accepted in both international and national law, according to which the rules laid down by an international treaty or a law presuppose the rules without which that treaty or law would have no meaning or could not be reasonably and usefully applied."
- reasoning: the integration into the institutional system of the ECHR (→ the submission under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights...) would have fundamental institutional implications for the Union and therefore be of a "constitutional dimension".
- essential factor in the institutional balance intended by the Treaty"
- "reflects ... the fundamental democratic principle that the peoples should take part in the exercise of power through the intermediary of a representative assembly"
- note: in no. 26 f. the Court presents a reasoning which is not legal but purely political and ignores the (then) prevailing law!
- any pecuniary charge, however small and whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the state, is not discriminatory or protective in effect or if the product on which the charge is imposed is not in competition with any domestic product.
- all trading rules enacted by member states which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-community trade"
- all "requirements ... which may prevent or otherwise obstruct the activities of the person providing the service"
- according to the wording of the judgement, even generally on "private persons"
- note: dogmatically, these remarks are nothing but the formulation of a matter of course, which is self-evident in any legal system based on the fundamental value of the respect of fundamental rights!
 In most cases preliminary rulings under art. 267 FEU Treaty (formerly 234 EC Treaty and 177 EEC Treaty).
 Casebook Weatherill, Cases and Materials on EU Law, 8th edition 2007.
 Casebook Hummer/Vedder, Europarecht in Fällen, 4th edition 2005 (in German). See also the casebooks Pechstein, Entscheidungen des EuGH. Kommentierte Studienauswahl, 5th edition 2009 (in German) and Rambaud, Les grandes décisions de la jurisprudence communautaire, 3rd edition 2007 (in French).
[3a] Since this judgement and its acceptance by the then member states, the primacy also over national constitutional law constitutes a central component of the acquis communautaire. Only is limits (the core or identity of the national constitution) are disputed. All member states that joint the Communities or Union later recognized it in the accession treaty as a legal condition for their membership. Nevertheless, nowadays it is challenged in the consitutional jurisprudence in Greece, Spain, Poland and Lithuania (see diagram 2).
 See also ECJ, case 41/74, van Duyn,  ECR 1337 (= We, 109, 436). Note: There is no direct application against the citizen (horizontal effect), ECJ, case 152/84, Marshall I,  ECR 723 (= We, 132); ECJ, case C-91/92, Faccini Dori,  ECR I-3325 (= We, 137, 164). There is, however, a wide concept of the "state", against which directives might be applied. It includes bodies which, pursuant to a measure adopted by the state, are responsible for providing public services under the control of the state, ECJ, case C-188/89, Foster,  ECR I-3313 (= We, 138). The direct applicability must be ascertained separately for the individual provisions of a directive, ECJ, case 8/81, Becker,  ECR 53.
 The ECJ finally made it clear in the joint cases C-10/97 - C-22/92, IN.CO.GE.'90 a.o.  ECR I-6307, that there is only a primacy of application.
 See also ECJ, case 14/83, von Colson and Kamann,  ECR 1891 (from the same day) and ECJ, case C-106/89, Marleasing,  ECR I-4135 (= We, 151).
 See also ECJ, case 102/79, Commission v. Belgium,  ECR 1473, from 1980.
 See also ECJ, case C-422/05, airport noise,  ECR I-4749.
 As regards state liability for incorrect implementation of directives see ECJ, case C-392/93, British Telecommunications,  ECR I-1631 (= We, 178 ).
 Confirmed in ECJ, joint cases 3,4,6/76, Kramer,  ECR 1279 (= HV, 383). The international treaties concluded by the Community may even establish new institutions of public international law, ECJ, opinion 1/76, Laying-up Fund for Inland Waterway Vessels,  ECR 741 (= HV, 427).
 Confirmed in ECJ, case C-300/89, titan dioxide,  ECR I-2867.
 See later (the new wording of) art. 230 sub-sect. 1 EC Treaty, today: 263 sub-sect. 1 FEU Treaty.
 See later (the new wording of) art. 230 sub-sect. 3 EC Treaty, today: 263 sub-sect. 2 FEU Treaty.
 See also ECJ, case 204/86, Greece v. Council,  ECR 5323.
 Note, however, the important corrective reduction of the Dassonville formula in the decision Keck from 1993 (see below).
 In particular requirements of permissions which demand special professional qualifications, ECJ, case C-76/90, Säger,  ECR I-4239.
 Confirmed in ECJ, case 178/84, Reinheitsgebot für Bier (German purity law for beer),  ECR 1227 (= We, 381 = HV, 489). The restriction of the label "beer" to products, which had been brewed in compliance to the traditional purity law, was not justified by mandatory requirements of consumer protection, because regulations on compulsory consumer information were sufficient. The absolute prohibition to sell beers with additives was unproportional and therefore not justified under art. 36 EEC Treaty (later: art. 30 EC Treaty, today: 36 FEU Treaty).
 Note: Given that restrictions by the member states therefore do not fall in the field of application of Community law, legal protection can only be granted by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In the similar case Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland this court has stated a violation of art. 10 ECHR (ECHR, judgement 29.10.1992).
 This formula summarizes the conditions for the justification of indirect discriminations and (non-discriminative) restrictions of all economic fundamental freedoms, according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice.
 Note, however, the corrective reduction in ECJ, case C-190/98, Graf,  ECR I-493 (= HV, 550): the effect must not be too uncertain or too indirect to affect the access to the labour market.
 See also ECJ, case C-112/00, Schmidberger,  ECR I-05659 (= We, 349, 407).
 See also ECJ, case C-438/05, Viking.
 Note, that according to the decision in the case Internationale Handelsgesellschaft from 1970 (see above) the protection of fundamental rights in the Communities is provided at the level of Community law and not of national constitutional law.
 Inventories of the individual fundamental rights, which have been worked out by the ECJ, can be found at Hummer/Simma/Vedder, Europarecht in Fällen, 3rd edition 1999, p. 436 ff.; Kingreen, in: Calliess/Ruffert (editors), EUV/EGV, 2nd edition 2002, art. 6 EU Treaty no. 93 ff. and in the European Parliament Fact Sheets 1999 - 2002, 2.1.1.
 This position has been abandoned in ECJ, case C-94/00, Roquette Frères,  ECR I-9011, no. 29 with regard to the judgement of the ECHR from 16.04.2002 in the case Stés Colas Est u. a. v. France.
 However, see now ECJ, case C-427/06, Bartsch: no general prohibition of discrimination, which would even apply if in a national case no Community law was involved.
 Herzog/Gerken, Stop the European Court of Justice, EU Observer 10.09.2008, = Stoppt den Europäischen Gerichtshof, FAZ 08.09.2008, p. 8. Until January 2009, the German Bundesverfassungsgericht has not yet decided on this case.
 Cf. BVerfG, 06.07.2010, 2 BvR 2661/06 (Honeywell); see also the dissenting vote of the Justice Landau.

References: art. 267
 v. 
 art. 230
 art. 230
 v. 
 art. 36
 art. 30
 v. 
 art. 10
 art. 6
 v.