Do the member states possess judicial procedural "autonomy"?

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 1997, Pages 1389-1412

  Kakouris, C N ^a  

^a Court of Justice of the European Communities ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21944432427     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1018348322214     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. And, indeed, necessary, as I will endeavour to demonstrate.
2. The views expressed are the author's alone.
3. For an analogous approach, see Pescatore, L'ordre juridique des Communautés européennes (Liège University Press, 1971) p. 146 and p. 150.
4. See also, in another context, Mehdi, "Le droit communautaire et les pouvoirs du juge national de l'urgence", (1996) RTDE, 100: ". . . un acte qui est incontestablement national dans sa forme, mais qui est d'une essence communautaire et dont l'existence ne se justifie que par les nécessités de l'exécution d'une norme communautaire".
5. See Kakouris, La relation de l'ordre juridique avec les ordres juridiques des États membres. Quelques réflexions parfois peu conformistes, in Du droit international au droit de l'intégration. Liber amicorum Pierre Pescatore (Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, 1987).
6. Kovar, in his remarkable article entitled "Le droit national d'exécution de droit communautaire: essai d'une théorie de l''écran communautaire'", in Europe et le Droit, Mélanges en hommage de J. Boulouis (Dalloz, 1990), p. 342, recognizes that the body of law implementing Community law, whilst "national dans sa forme, est en quelque sorte communautaire dans son fondement et dans sa substance". Nevertheless, he considers that "les mesures législatives, réglementaires ou administratives prises à ce titre ressortissent des droits nationaux" (p. 341); for that reason, "le contrôle de la légalité externe n'est . . . nullement affecté par la fonction d'exécution de la réglementation communautaire . . . Les moyens tirés d'un vice de forme conservent donc toute leur efficacité" (p. 347). On that view, a (regulatory) act adopted by a national authority is, at one and the same time, both "en quelque sorte communautaire . . . dans sa substance" and "national dans sa forme".
7. That same distinction had previously been drawn by Kovar in "L'efficacité interne du droit communautaire", in Colloque de Liège, 10-12 Jan. 1973, p. 222. The distinction and dichotomy of an act, being formally national and substantially community act, has no practical consequences; it is purely theoretical. In any event, the strange dichotomy disappears once it is realized that the national authorities have been empowered by Community law to enact the regulatory measure in the national form and that in this way the legal basis of that form is itself to be found in Community law.
8. In the sense that they are competent to hear and determine any dispute which is not expressly conferred on the ECJ (including the CH).
9. Grévisse and Bonichot, in "Les incidences du droit communautaire sur l'organisation et l'exercice de la fonction juridictionelle dans les États membres", in Mélanges J. Boulouis, op. cit. supra note 4, p. 310, speak of "une dichotomie, une sorte de 'dualisme juridictionnel' dans la personne du même juge, selon qu'il statue à titre national ou à titre communautaire".
10. Neither the fact that national judges are remunerated by the State nor the question as to who is liable to compensate persons adversely affected by any illegal act which they may commit (see in that regard Isaac, Droit Communautaire Général (Masson, 1994), p. 197) in any way alters the reality of their functional attribution. Attempts are sometimes made to disprove that reality by citing the passage in the judgment in Case 106/77, Simmenthal, [1978] ECR 629, para 16, which refers to "any national court whose task it is as an organ of a Member State to protect, in a case within its jurisdiction, the rights conferred upon individuals by Community law". In the context of that judgment, however, that wording must be understood as meaning that the national court is obliged in the same way as any national organ to apply Community law and in so doing to assume, from a functional standpoint, the role of a Community court.
11. See Kovar, op. cit. supra note 4, p. 260: "la fonction assurée par le juge le fait participer à l'ordre judiciaire communautaire". See also Barav, "La plénitude de compétence du juge national en sa qualité de juge communautaire", in Mélanges J. Boulouis, supra note 4, p. 3: "le juge interne, en sa qualité de juge communautaire
12. See more analytically Kakouris, op. cit. supra note 4; Rideau, in "Le rôle des États membres dans l'application du droit communautaire", (1972) Ann. fr. dr. int., 884, had previously referred to "utilisation des systèmes juridiques nationaux".
13. Louis, in L'ordre juridique communautaire, 5th edition (Brussels), p. 165, states (on behalf of the administration): "Les États membres 'prêtent' aux Communautés le concours de leur organisation administrative . . .".
14. See e.g. the judgments in Case 33/76, Rewe, [1976] ECR 1989, para 5; Case 45/76, Comet, [1976] ECR 2043, para 13; Case 68/79, Just, [1980] ECR 501, para 25; and Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Frankovich, [1991] ECR I-5357, para 42.
15. Judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, [1996] ECR I-1029, paras. 83 and 90.
16. Judgments in Joined Cases 66/79, 127/79 and 128/79, Salumi, [1980] ECR 1237, para 18, and Case 265/78, Ferwerda, [1980] ECR 617, para 10.
17. Judgment in Case 39/70, Fleischkontor, [1971] ECR 49, para 4.
18. Judgment in Case 158/80, Rewe, [1981] ECR 1805, para 44.
19. Judgment in Case 222/84, Johnston, [1986] ECR 1651, para 19.
20. Judgment in Case 222/86, Heylens, [1987] ECR 4097, para 14.
21. Judgment in Case 6/71, Rheinmühlen, [1971] ECR 823, para 8.
22. Judgment in Case 199/82, San Giorgio, [1983] ECR 3595, paras. 14 and 17, and the operative part thereof. See also Joined Cases 331/85, 376/85 and 378/85, Bianco and Girard, [1988] ECR 1099, para 12; also Case 109/88, Danfoss, [1989] ECR 3199, para 16, and Case C-127/92, Enderby, [1993] ECR I-5535, para 19, in which the Court ruled on the burden of proof regarding the absence of discrimination between men and women; also, on the same point, Case C-400/93, Royal Copenhagen, [1995] ECR I-1275, para 28: "the employer may have to bear the burden of proving that the differences found are not due to sex discrimination".
23. Joined Cases 331/85, 376/85 and 378/85, supra note 18 at para 12.
24. Case C-206/94, [1996] ECR I-2357.
25. Judgments in Case 33/76, Rewe, supra note 10 at para 6, and Case 45/76, Comet, supra note 10 at para 19.
26. Judgment in Case C-208/90, Emmott, [1991] ECR I-4269, para 24.
27. Judgment in Case C-338/91, Steenhorst-Neerings, [1993] ECR I-5475, para 24.
28. Judgment in Case C-410/92, Johnson, [1994] ECR I-5483, para 36.
29. Judgment in Case C-213/89, Factortame I, [1990] ECR I-2433, para 23.
30. Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89, Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Zuckerfabrik Soest, [1991] ECR I-415.
31. Case C-465/93, Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others, [1995] ECR I-3761.
32. Case C-177/94, Perfili, Case C-20/92, Hubbard and Case C-43/95, Data Delecta, fall outside the scope of this article, because they concern the principle of non-discrimination. Nevertheless, I cite them because they refer to two procedural rules. According to Perfili, [1996] ECR I-161, "Article 6 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Articles 52 and 59 thereof, laying down the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State's legislation from requiring a victim of a criminal offence who wishes to bring suit as a civil party in criminal proceedings to grant his representative a special power of attorney, even when the law of the Member State of which the victim is a national does not lay down such a formality". According to Hubbard, [1993] ECR I-3777, the fact that a Member State requires security for costs to be given by a national of another Member State who, in his capacity as an executor, brings an action before one of its courts, on the sole ground that he is a foreign national, constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality contrary to Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty. Lastly, according to Data Delecta, [1996] ECR I-4661, "the first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty precludes a Member State from requiring a legal person established in another Member State, who has brought before one of its courts an action against one of its own nationals or a company established on its own territory, to lodge security for the costs of those proceedings where no such requirement can be imposed on legal persons established in the first-mentioned State and where the action is concerned with the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law".
33. [1996] ECR I-6065.
34. Case 166/73, Rheinmühlen, [1974] ECR 33, para 4.
35. Joined Cases C-87/90, C-88/90 and C-89/90, Verholen and Others, [1991] ECR I-3757.
36. Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93, Van Schijndel and Van Veen, [1995] ECR I-4705.
37. Case C-312/93, Peterbroeck, [1995] ECR I-4599.
38. The case concerned a time-limit imposed on the litigant which was not in itself open to criticism but which resulted in such impossibility.
39. The expression "independently" (in the french text: "de manière autonome"), appears in para 8 of Case 6/71, Rheinmühlen, [1971] ECR 823. The context in which it appears is that referred to above, concerning the restricted field of evidence. It is accompanied by the words "provided that . . ." etc. In any event, it does not constitute recognition of any judicial procedural autonomy vested in the Member States. As far as I have been able to ascertain, it does not feature in any subsequent judgment. (The citation by Cavallini, Le juge national du provisoire face au droit communautaire (Bruylant, 1995), p. 225, footnote 19, is not substantiated.)
40. This idea has already been expressed, in embryonic form, in the observation: ". . . car les règles nationales de procédure n'ont plus ici qu'un rôle supplétif . . . " made by Grévisse and Bonichot, op. cit. supra note 6, p. 309. In that article, the authors speak of a Community judicial ethic involving the national courts in a dynamic of cooperation. The idea also finds latent expression in the remark "Community law and national law operate in combination, the latter taking over where the former leaves off", made by A.G. Warner in his Opinion in Case 33/76, Rewe, supra note 10 at 2004. Tesauro, La sanction des infractions au droit communautaire, XVth FIDE Congress (Lisbon, 1992), p. 455, considers that procedural autonomy "présente un caractère sinon subsidiaire, du moins subordonné". Mehdi, op. cit. supra note 3, p. 100: "le droit procédural des États membres est venu à jouer un rôle résiduel . . . ".
41. E.g. Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 Oct. 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in the Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (O.J. 1989, L
42. Certain authors speak of "subsidiarity"; for example, Cavallini, op. cit. supra note 35, p. 226.
43. An example is to be found in the commentary by Mehdi, op. cit. supra note 3, pp. 78-79, who makes the following attempt to categorize the decision in Atlanta within the rest of the case law on the point: "Pour atténuer les conséquences indésirables de cette situation de dualité imposée, la Cour s'est attachée à encadrer le droit processuel interne et l'office du juge national. Toutefois, consciente que cet effort ne suffit pas toujours, . . . elle s'est engagée sur une voie jusque là inconnue . . . a inauguré le recours à la méthode de l'habilitation immédiate . . . a décidé d'investir directement les juridictions internes de prérogatives détenues et exercées en vertu du seul droit communautaire . . . "; "la Cour . . . ignore les exigences du principe de l'autonomie procédurale . . . ". The author goes on to point out that that approach originated with the judgment in Zuckerfabrik and that it ran counter to the view taken by the Commission, which considered that compliance with Community law did not permit any alteration of national procedural law. The author further mentions that Rideau had, since 1972, drawn attention to the secondary character, "la secondarité", of the principle of procedural autonomy.
44. E.g. Mehdi, op. cit. supra note 3, p. 97, observes that "il semble en tout état de cause risqué et très éloigné de l'intention des rédacteurs du traité d'atténuer trop systématiquement la rigueur du principe de l'autonomie des voies de droit au nom d'une conception très unilatérale de l'efficacité juridictionnelle". It is true that it could be feared that a more "communautaire" approach might constitute an excess of activism. However, such apprehension would necessarily be based on the assumption that, when establishing the competence of the national courts, the fathers of the Treaty at the same time embodied in it a principle of procedural autonomy. As it is, there is nothing in the Treaty to suggest any intention to embody such a principle, since procedural autonomy does not in itself constitute the necessary corollary of the competence conferred on the national courts.
45. Editions du Jurisclasseur, Europe, Feb. 1996, p. 9.
46. "consacrent en des terms particulièrement surprenants un 'désencadrement' de l'autonomie procédurale et une 'renationalisation' de l'office du juge interne", ibid.
47. "une prise en compte [excessive. . . ] de l'autonomie procédurale . . . ", ibid.
48. "Peut-on alors encore qualifier les juridictions nationales de juges communautaires de droit commun?", ibid.
49. See supra section 2.7.
50. Danzer-Vanotti, "Der Gerichtshof der Europäischen Gemeinschaft beschränkt vorläufigen Rechtsschutz", (1991) Der Betriebsberater, 1015.
51. "en matière d'évolution prétorienne du droit", ibid.
52. Cited by Mehdi, op. cit. supra note 3, p. 99.
53. Tesauro, in his Report to the XVth FIDE Congress, p. 455, supra note 36: "plus apparente que réelle".
54. Kovar, "L'efficacité interne du droit communautaire", op. cit. supra note 4, pp. 260 and 253: "prolongé jusqu'à des conséquences ultimes, ce raisonnement conduit à nier le principe d'autonomie procédurale . . . On voit mal les raisons qui pourraient justifier l'octroi d'une immunité particulière aux règles du droit judiciaire".
55. "environnements juridiques nationaux", Mertens de Wilmars, op. cit. supra note 37.
56. "Le juge national et le droit communautaire", (1996) ADJA, L'actualité juridique, 275. "l'arrêt Atlanta s'inscrit incontestablement dans le courant d'une jurisprudence communautaire qui tend à resteindre de plus en plus sensiblement la portée du principe de l'autonomie procédurale".
57. Op. cit. supra note 35, pp. 229-230.
58. See supra section 1.1.
59. Storme, Rapprochement du droit judiciaire de l'Union Européenne - Approximation of Judiciary Law in the European Union (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff, 1994).