National judges, community judges: Invitation to a journey through the looking-glass - On the need for jurisdictions to rethink the inter- systemic relations beyond the hierarchical principle

European Law Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 693-717

  Giorgi, Florence ^a   Triart, Nicolas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LUXEMBOURG   (Luxembourg)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65349121764     PISSN: 13515993     EISSN: 14680386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2008.00441.x     Document Type: Article

References (206)

1. Florence Giorgi is a PhD candidate and an assistant at the Centre de Droit Européen (University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg). Nicolas Triart is a PhD candidate at the Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Internationales et Communautaires (CERIC) at the Université Paul Cézanne (Aix-Marseille III, France). The authors wish to thank Advocate-General Miguel Poiares Maduro, as well as Professors Francis Snyder and Jörg Gerkrath, for their comments, and the time that they have contributed towards the improvement of this article.
2. There is no question here of denying the interest of an approach which, while aiming to bring a greater coherence to the expression of the internal point of view by the systematisation of decisions given by these jurisdictions, contributes to its construction.
3. A point of view described as extremely radical in François Ost et Michel van de Kerchove, Le système juridique entre ordre et désordre, PUF Coll. Les voies du droit, Paris, 1988, 29.
4. Epistemological approach developed by H. Hart and taken up by Neil MacCormick (N. MacCormick, 'Beyond the Sovereign State', (1993) 56 The Modern Law Review 1, at 1-18).
5. Catherine Richmond (C. Richmond, Perspectives on Law: System, Authority and Legitimacy in the European Union (Thesis, European University Institute, Florence, 2000).
6. and again François Ost and Michel van de Kerchove (F. Ost and M. van de Kerchove, Le système juridique, entre ordre et désordre (coll. Les voies du Droit, Puf, 1988), 26 et seq) which consists of taking into account, in the most comprehensive manner possible, both the requirements of systematisation inherent in law and also of its limits, without itself assuming the task of pursuing this systematisation. The objective described by Michel Van de Kerchove and François Ost is to distinguish the requirement of scientific systematisation from that of legal systematisation. The lack of systematisation of the object studied in no way affects the systematisation of the theory developed in relation with this object, these authors cite on this point P. Amselek, Méthode phénoménologique et théorie du droit (LGDJ, 1964), 187.
7. For a critical approach, see A-J. Arnaud, 'La valeur heuristique de la distinction interne/externe comme grande dichotomie pour la connaissance du droit: Éléments d'une démystification', (1986) Droit & Sociététe 2.
8. M. Poiares Maduro, 'Contrapunctual Law: Europe's Constitutional Pluralism in Action', in N. Walker (ed), Sovereignty in Transition (Hart Publishing, 2003), 501-537.
9. This work follows on from Alice in Wonderland by the same author.
10. The determination of the internal point of view of a legal order would undoubtedly require one to study equally the role played by the legislative organs as well as by the litigants. Such a study would, however, lead us beyond the limits of this article. Furthermore, if the origins of the internal point of view can be diverse, it is the judge who would have to know whether the dispute revealed a potential conflict between the norms and/or principles issuing from another legal order, and who would thus have to express the position of the latter as to the solution of this eventual conflict; in this sense, see D. R. Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional Boundaries of the European Community (Round Hall Sweet and Maxwell, 1997), 15.
11. J. Komarek, European Constitutionalism and the European Arrest Warrant: Contrapunctual Principles in Disharmony, Jean Monnet Working Paper (10/ 05, 2005), 5.
12. Decision 2BvR 2236/04 available in the original version at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/ rs20050718_2bvr223604.html and in English on http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/ rs20050718_2bvr223604en.html.
13. Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JAI of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member states, [2002] OJ L 190/1, at 1-19, 28 July 2002.
14. The German Constitutional Court moreover considers that the structures of the rule of law in the Member States are not necessarily synchronised: See §119 of the Anglophone version of the Decision.
15. Read §77 of the English version of the decision. In addition to Article 34§2 b) TEU, the Court will insist on this distinction between Community pillar and intergovernmental pillars to reject, for example, any idea of direct effect for framework decisions; see §81 of the English version of the Decision.
16. §79 of the English version of the decision.
17. §117 of the English version of the decision.
18. Case C-105/03, Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285.
19. See §117 of the English version of the decision.
20. A. Hinarejos Parga, 'Case law: Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Constitutional Court), Decision of the
21. July 2005 (2BvR 2236/04) on the German Arrest Warrant Law', (2006) 43(2) Common Market Law Review 588.
22. Hinarejos Parga, ibid, at 590.
23. See §78 of the English version of the decision.
24. Decision of 13 December 2004 available at http://www.tribunalconstitutional.es/JC.html.
25. Translation of legal basis 2 of the decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court from the French version given by A. del Valle Gálvez, 'Constitution espagnole et traitéte constitutionnel européteen-La déteclaration du Tribunal constitucional du 13 détecembre 2004', (2005) 1-2 Cahiers de Droit Européteen 712, at 712-713, emphasis added.
26. Article I-5 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.
27. 'The "first line of defence" against encroachments upon these limitations will necessarily come through the normal remedies provided for in Union law, so that the ECJ paradoxically becomes at the same time guarantor of the material limitations imposed by national constitutions', F. Castillo de la Torre, 'Case-law-Tribunal constitucional (Spanish Constitutional Court), Opinion 1/2004 of 13 December 2004, on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe', (2005) 42(4) Common Market Law Review 1186.
28. 'Primacy is not affirmed in terms of hierarchical superiority, but as an existential requirement of the Community legal order, aimed at producing direct effect and ensuring uniform application in all the Member States'.
29. See del Valle Gálvez, op cit n 21 supra, at 715.
30. Translation of the Spanish decision from the French version given by Alejandro del Valle Gálvez in del Valle Gálvez, op cit n 21 supra, at 714-715.
31. See R. Alonso Garcia, 'The Spanish Constitution and the European Constitution: The Script for a Virtual Collision and other Observations on the Principle of Primacy', (2005) 6 German Law Review 1024.
32. Decisions 2004-496 DC of 10 June 2004, Loi pour la confiance dans l'éteconomie numéterique, JORF 22.6.2004, 11182; 2004-497 DC of 1 July 2004, Loi relative aux communications ételectroniques et aux services de communication audiovisuelle, JORF 1.7.2004, 12506; 2004-498 DC of 29 July 2004, Loi sur la bioétethique, JORF 7.8.2004, 14077; and 2004-499 DC of 29 July 2004, Loi relative à la protection des personnes physiques à l'étegard des traitements de donnétees à caractère personnel, JORF 7.8.2004, 14087.
33. Decision 2006-540 DC of 27 July 2006, Loi relative au droit d'auteur et aux droits voisins dans la sociétetéte de l'information, JORF 3.8.2006, 11541.
34. Decision 2004-505 DC of 19 November 2004, Traitétete étetablissant une Constitution pour l'Europe, JORF 24.11.2004, 19885. Of course, since then, the Treaty of Lisbon has been adopted and is in the process of being ratified. The Conseil constitutionnel, moreover, gave a decision on 20 December 2007 (Decision n° 2007-560 DC, Traitéte modifiant le traitéte sur l'Union européteenne et le traitéte instituant la Communautéte européteenne, JORF 29.12.2007, 21813) which repeats in large part the decision given in November 2004.
35. X. Magnon and D. Simon, '4La jurisprudence communautaire du Conseil constitutionnel (juin 2004- Novembre 2004)', (2005) 1-2 Cahiers de Droit Européteen 225.
36. 'The French Conseil constitutionnel translates a conventional obligation to transpose an EC directive in domestic law into a constitutional obligation', in J. Dutheil de la Rochere, 'Conseil constitutionnel (French constitutional Court), Decision N° 2004-496 DC of 10 June 2004, Loi pour la confiance dans l'éteconomie numéterique (e-commerce)', (2005) 3 Common Market Law Review 862, at 862-863.
37. Disposition contraire expresse de la Constitution.
38. 'Souveraineté constitutionnelle primordiale de l'Etat', F. Chaltiel, 'Nouvelles variations sur la constitutionnalisation de l'Europe-A propos de la Décision du Conseil constitutionnel sur l'économie numérique', (2004) 480 Revue du Marché Commun et de l'Union Européenne 452.
39. Théodore Georgopoulos, for his part, speaks of 'réserves de souveraineté' (T. Georgopoulos, 'Le Conseil constitutionnel face à la directive communautaire: 3 destinataires pour un message ambivalent', (2005) 227 Les Petites Affiches 3).
40. Considérant 19 of the decision 2006-540 DC.
41. D. Simon, 'L'examen par le Conseil constitutionnel du traité portant établissement de la Constitution pour l'Europe: Fausses surprises et vraies confirmations', (2005) 2 JCP Europe 7.
42. 'Venin supraconstitutionnel', Simon, ibid.
43. The commentators speak of an 'interprétation neutralisante' (V. Champeil-Desplats, 'Commentaire de la décision du Conseil constitutionnel n° 2004-505 DC du 19 novembre 2004 relative au Traité établissant une Constitution pour l'Europe', (2005) 2 RTDE 560.
44. F. Chaltiel, 'Une première pour le Conseil constitutionnel: Juger un traité établissant une Constitution', (2005) 484 RMCUE 10), of a 'minimisation'
45. (A. Levade, 'Le cadre constitutionnel du débat de révision de la Constitution-Commentaire de la Decision n° 2004-505 DC du 19 novembre 2004 "Traité établissant une Constitution pour l'Europe"', (2004) 191 Le supplément de la lettre, Fondation Robert Schuman, 6), of a 'lecture minorante'
46. (F. Chaltiel, ibid, at 5;
47. V. Champeil-Desplats, ibid, at 560), and even of a 'primauté tamisée'
48. (D. Simon, op cit n 36 supra, at 7) or 'aseptisée'
49. (C. Picheral, 'La primauté du droit de l'Union aux termes de la décision n° 2004-505 DC du Conseil constitutionnel', (2005) RAE-LEA 119).
50. Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.
51. Namely Article II-70 on the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Article II-107 on the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and Article II-110 on the non bis in idem rule.
52. For a theoretical reminder on this point and on the distinction between monism with primacy of internal law and monism with primacy of international law, see H. Kelsen, Théorie pure du droit (Bruylant LGDJ, 1999 (réédition)), 328 et seq.
53. See in particular P. Pescatore, L'ordre juridique des Communautés européennes (Bruylant, 2006), 151.
54. in the same sense V. C. Kaddous, Le droit des relations extérieures dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes (Bruylant, 1998), 271-272.
55. See J. H. J. Bourgeois, 'The European Court of Justice and the WTO, Problems and Challenges' in J. H. H. Weiler (ed), The EU, The WTO and the NAFTA (Oxford University Press, 2000), 71-123, especially at 77.
56. Case 21 to 24/72, International Fruit Company [1972] ECR 1219.
57. also Case 9/73, Schlüter [1973] ECR 1135.
58. Case 266/81, SIOT [1983] ECR 731.
59. Case 267 to 269/81, SPI and SAMI [1983] ECR 801.
60. 45 Ibid, para 6.
61. Ibid, para 7.
62. Case 181/73, Haegeman v Belgium [1974] ECR 449. Position recalled recently in C-344/04, IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I-403.
63. equally Case C-459/03, Commission/Ireland [2006] ECR I-4635.
64. Ibid, para 5.
65. See notably V. Constantinesco et D. Simon, 'Quelques problèmes de relations extérieures des Communautés européennes', (1975) Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 432.
66. We are of the opinion that it deals with a monist approach with primacy of internal (Community) law over international law in the sense where the validity of international engagements of the Community finds its basis in the constitutive treaties.
67. The primacy of constitutive treaties over agreements concluded by the Community flows from the general logic of the Community system whose respect is, in principle, assured by the preventive procedure under Article 300 § 6 EC. In addition, the decision to conclude an international agreement in violation of constitutive treaties can be overruled by the Court: Case C-122/95, Germany v Council [1998] ECR I-973.
68. Case 40/72, I Schroeder KG v RFA [1973] ECR 125.
69. Case 87/75, Bresciani [1976] ECR 136; equally Case 17/81, Pabst [1982] ECR 1331; Case C-469/93, Chiquita Italia SpA [1995] ECR I-4533.
70. Case 104/81, Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641. In this decision, the Court has not considered that the suppleness of the dispute resolution system instituted by the free trade agreement between the EEC and Portugal excluded that the latter was of a nature to engender rights for individuals.
71. Case C-18/90, Kziber [1991] ECR I-199;
72. Case C-103/94, Zoulika Krid [1995] ECR I-719.
73. See the cases of Case 181/73, Haegeman v Belgian State [1974] ECR 449, Case 87/75.
74. Bresciani [1976] ECR 136 and Case 12/86.
75. Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd [1987] ECR 3719.
76. Case C-286/90, Poulsen [1992] ECR I-6052.
77. Case 89/85, 104/85, 116/85, 117/85, 125/85 à 129/8527, Ahlström Osakeytiö [1988] ECR 5193.
78. Case C-62/96, Commission v Greece [1997] ECR I-6746.
79. Case C-327/91, France v Commission [1994] ECR I-3751.
80. Equally, although in an indirect manner see the case C-162/96, Racke [1998] ECR I-3665.
81. Case T-306/01, Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3533.
82. also Case T-315/01, Kadi v Conseil and Commission [2005] ECR II-3649. This last case was pending before the ECJ at the time of writing.
83. Among an abundant literature, see in particular M. Maresceau, 'The GATT in the Case-Law of the European Court of Justice' in M. Hilf, F. Jacobs and E-U Petersmann (eds), The European Community and GATT (Kluwer Law International, 1986).
84. E-U Petersmann, 'Application of GATT by the Court of Justice of the European Communities', (1983) 20 Common Market Law Review 397, at 397-437.
85. P. Eeckhout, 'The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreements: Interconnecting legal systems', (1997) 34 Common Market Law Review 11, at 11-57.
86. F. Snyder, 'The Gatekeepers: The European Courts and WTO Law', (2003) 40 Common Market Law Review 313, at 313-367.
87. P. J. Kuijper and M. Bronckers, 'WTO Law in the European Court of Justice', (2005) 42 CommonMarket Law Review 1313, at 1313-1356.
88. 63 Case 21 to 24/72, International Fruit Company [1972] ECR 1219, para 18.
89. The Court deemed that the fact that the General Agreement was founded 'on the principle of negotiations undertaken on the basis of "reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements"' and 'characterised by the great flexibility of its provisions, in particular those conferring the possibility of derogation, the measures to be taken when confronted with exceptional difficulties and the settlement of conflicts between the contracting parties', excluded the possibility that it could creates rights for individuals to rely on in court: Ibid, para 21.
90. Case 104/81, Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641.
91. Case C-280/93, Federal Republic of Germany v Council [1994] ECR I-4973. For a detailed presentation of this case see U. Everling, 'Will Europe Slip on Bananas? The Bananas Judgement of the Court of Justice and National Courts',
92. (1996) 33 Common Market Law Review 401, at 401-437.
93. Case C-69/89, Nakajima All Precision [1991] ECR I-2069.
94. Case 70/87, Fediol [1989] ECR 1781.
95. Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994, [1994] OJ L 336/1. The agreement had been concluded under the form of a mixed agreement following Opinion 1/94 given by the Court in the framework of procedure of Article 300 § 6 EC.
96. Opinion 1/94, Competence of the Community to conclude international agreements concerning services and the protection of intellectual property-Article 228 (6) of the EC Treaty [1994] ECR I-5267.
97. A negative consensus is now necessary to block the adoption of a panel's report; moreover, the DSB was endowed with an appeal body, and the recommendations adopted in the reports have a binding character. For a description of the innovations introduced by the agreement instituting the WTO, see D. Carreau and P. Juillard, Droit international économique (LGDJ, 1998), 49-92.
98. Case C-149/96, Portugal v Council [1999] ECR I-8395. Amongst an abundant literature see notably A. ROSAS, 'Annotation Case C-149/96, Portugal v Council'.
99. (2000) 37 Common Market Law Review 797, at 797-816.
100. F. Berrod, 'La Cour de justice refuse l'invocabilité des accords OMC: Essai de régulation de la mondialisation', (2000) 36 Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 419.
101. 72 Council Decision 96/386/EC of 26 February 1996, [1996] OJ L 153/47.
102. Case C-149/96, Portugal v Council [1999] ECR I-8395, para 42.
103. Case C-377/98, Netherlands v Parliament and Council [2001] ECR I-7079.
104. See Case C-300/98 and C-392/98, Dior e a [2000] ECR I-11307.
105. Case C-377/98, Netherlands v Parliament and Council [2001] ECR I-7079.
106. Case C-491/01, British American Tobacco Investments and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453.
107. Case T-56/00, Dole Fresh Fruit International/Council and Commission [2003] ECR II 577.
108. Case C-149/96, Portugal v Council [1999] ECR I-8395, para 49.
109. Case T-19/01, Chiquita Brands [2005] ECR II-315; equally Case T-226/04, Italy v Commission [2006] ECR II-29.
110. Case T-19/01, Chiquita Brands [2005] ECR II-315, at para 117.
111. Ibid, para 125.
112. Ibid, para 159.
113. Case C-341/95, Bettati [1998] ECR I-4355, para 20.
114. Case C-53/96, Hermès [1998] ECR I-3603.
115. See Case C-300/98,Dior e a [2000] ECR I-11307, para 48 also Case C-431/ 05, Merck Genéricos Produtos Farmacêuticos [2007] ECR I-7001, para 34.
116. Case C-49/02, Heidelberger Bauchemie [2004] ECR I-6129, para 20.
117. Case C-245/02, Anheuser-Busch [2004] ECR I-10989, para 42.
118. Case T-279/03, Galileo International Technology e a/Commission [2007] ECR II 1291.
119. Case C-431/05, Merck Genéricos Produtos Farmacêuticos [2007] ECR I-7001.
120. See para 118 of the conclusions of Advocate General Geelhoed in the Case C-244/03, France v Parliament and Council [2005] ECR I-4021.
121. Case T-256/97, BEUC [2000] ECR II-101.
122. Case C-76/00, Petrotub et Republica v Council [2003] ECR I-79.
123. Case T-35/01, Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co Ltd [2004] ECR II-3663.
124. Case C-313/04, Franz Egenberger [2006] ECR I-6331.
125. See para 63 of the conclusions of Advocate General Geelhoed in Case C-313/04, Franz Egenberger [2006] ECR I-6331.
126. See J. H. J. Bourgeois, op cit n 43 supra, at 71-123; P. Eeckhout, 'The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems', (1997) 34 Common Market Law Review 11, at 11-58;
127. P. J. Kuijper and M. Bronckers, op cit n 62 supra.
128. Case C-431/05, Merck Genéricos Produtos Farmacêuticos [2007] ECR I-7001, at para 31.
129. Ibid, at paras 34-38.
130. Case C-93/02 P, Biret International v Council [2003] ECR I-10497 and Case C-94/02 P, Biret and Cie v Council [2003] ECR I-10565.
131. Case C-93/02 P, Biret International v Council [2003] ECR I-10497, at point 57.
132. Case C-94/02 P, Biret and Cie v Council [2003] ECR I-10565.
133. Case C-93/02 P, Biret International v Council [2003] ECR I-10497, paras 64-66 and Case C-94/02
134. P, Biret and Cie v Council [2003] ECR I-10565, paras 67-69.
135. the Tribunal de commerce de Paris had ruled on the liquidation of Biret International in a decision of 15 December 1995 fixing the provisional date of cessation of payments for 28 February 1995. The plaintiff alleged that the harm resulting from the liquidation of Biret International had been caused by the adoption and maintenance of Community directives after the 1 January 1995. Now, the DSB Decision that judged these directives as being contrary to the WTO rules was dated 13 February 1998. Furthermore, the Community had requested and obtained a 15-month postponement of having to meet its obligations expiring on 13 May 1999.
136. Case C-377/02, Léon Van Parys NV [2005] ECR I-1465; see Case T-19/ 01, Chiquita Brands [2005] ECR II-315.
137. See paras 71 and 73 of the conclusions of Advocate General Tizzano in Case C-377/02, Léon Van Parys NV [2005] ECR I-1465.
138. Ibid, para 41.
139. See Opinion 1/91, [1991] ECR I-6079, para 35.
140. Case 2/94 Avis [1996] ECR I-1759.
141. more recently, see Case C-459/03, Commission v Ireland [2006] ECR I-4635.
142. Council Regulation (EC) n°1515/2001 of 23 July 2001, on the measures that may be taken by the Community following a report adopted by the WTO dispute settlement body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy matters ([2001] OJ L 201/10).
143. Case C-351/04, Ikea Wholesale [2007] ECR I-7723, para 35.
144. The prudence of the Court can only be explained by the circumstances of the instant case (the nonretroactive effect of the modifying regulation and the exclusion of reimbursement), all the more so since the adoption of measures provided for by Regulation n° 1515/2001 have no more than a facultative quality for the Council.
145. Case T-69/00, FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-5393.
146. Case T-151/00, Laboratoires du Bain [2005] ECR II-23.
147. Case T-301/00, Groupe Fremaux and Palais Royal [2005] ECR II-25.
148. Case T-320/00, CD Cartondruck [2005] ECR II-27.
149. Case T-383/00, Beamglow [2005] ECR II-5459.
150. Case T-135/01, Fedon & Figli e a [2005] ECR II-29.
151. Case T-69/00, FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-5393, para 202.
152. Ibid, para 205.
153. Case C-120/06 P, Pending Case FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and others.
154. Case C-121/06 P, Pending Case Fedon & Figli and Fedon America v Council and others.
155. See D. R. Phelan, ibid, at who analyses the different points of view on the relationship between the Community legal order and the national legal orders. He proposes to place the ultimate legal authority into the hands of national constitutional authorities who will determine the limits of the integration of Community law into internal law according to the fundamental principles of the latter. This will avert any revolt by national constitutional authorities against the pretensions of the ECJ.
156. N. Walker, The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism, EUI Working Paper 2002/ 01, 27.
157. In the expression of Ost and van de Kerchove, op cit n 4 supra, at 102.
158. The internal jurisdictions have gradually agreed to ensure the primacy of European law, its superiority in the hierarchy is respected but on the basis of the internal legal order. We can speak, in this sense, of an 'entangled hierarchy': See Ost and van de Kerchove, op cit n 4 supra, at 105-111.
159. MacCormick, op cit n 4 supra.
160. Poiares Maduro, op cit n 5 supra, at 501-502.
161. See Richmond, op cit n 4 supra, at 116-119.
162. Miguel Maduro relies here on the example of the attention that the ECJ has paid to fundamental rights constitutionally protected at the national level, and on the fact that the national Constitutions have generally been interpreted in such a manner as to avoid a constitutional control over specific Community acts.
163. Poiares Maduro, op cit n 5 supra, at 523.
164. See for a rare example on the subject in French doctrine I. Raducu and N. Levrat, 'Le métissage des ordres juridiques européens', (2007) 1-2 Cahiers de Droit Européen 111, at 111-148.
165. F. Snyder, 'Global Economic Networks and Global Legal Pluralism', in G. A. Bermann, M. Herdegen and P. Lindseth (eds), Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Legal Problems and Political Prospects (Oxford, 2000), 99-115.
166. also F. Snyder, 'Governing Globalization' in M. Likosky (ed), Transnational Legal Processes: Globalization and Power Disparities (London, 2002), 65-97.
167. On the differences between the EU and the WTO see P. Holmes, 'The WTO and the EU: Some Constitutional Comparisons', in G. de Búrca and J. Scott (eds), The EU and the WTO, Legal and Constitutional Issues (Hart Publishing, 2000), 59-80.
168. F. Snyder, 'Constructing Multi-Site Governance: WTO Law in the European Courts', in S. Puntscher- Rieckmann, M. Mokre and M. Latzer (eds), The State of Europe: Transformation of Statehood from a European Perspective (Campus Verlag, 2004), 306-328.
169. F. Snyder, 'Governing Economic Globalisation: Global Legal Pluralism and European Law', (1999) 5(4) ELJ 372. The author describes the influence of several sites of governance on the formation of a chain of international toymakers. It is from the particular point of view of this chain that he evokes the network constituted by the different sites of governance.
170. See notably K.-H. Ladeur, 'Toward a Legal Theory of Supra-nationality-The Viability of the Network Concept' (1997) 1 European Law Journal 33, especially at 47-55.
171. and by the same author, The Theory of Autopoiesis as an Approach to a Better Understanding of Postmodern Law-From the Hierarchy of Norms to the Heterarchy of Changing Patterns of Legal Inter-relationships, EUI Working Paper LAW 99/3, 1999, 45 p.
172. François OST et Michel van de Kerchove, De la pyramide au réseau? Pour une théorie dialectique du droit (Publications des Facultés universitaires Saint Louis, Bruxelles, 2002), at 50: 'sans disparaêtre, la hiérarchie révèle ses limites-discontinuité, inachèvement, alternance-où la subordination cède partiellement la place à la coordination et à la collaboration; sans perdre toute vigueur, la linéarité se relativise et s'accompagne fréquemment de phénomènes de bouclage ou d'inversion dans l'ordre des relations; l'arborescence se dilue, dans la mesure ù la multiplicité des foyers de création du droit ne peut pas toujours être dérivée d'un point unique et souverain'.
173. Ost and van de Kerchove, ibid, at 24: 'le réseau constitue une "trame" ou une "structure", composée d'"éléments" ou de "points", souvent qualifiés de "noeuds" ou de "sommets", reliés entre eux par des "liens" ou "liaisons", assurant leur "interconnexion" ou leur "interaction" et dont les variations obéissent à certaines "règles de fonctionnement"'.
174. Even if our 'network-based' approach rests essentially on the work of F. Ost and M. van de Kerchove, it should be noted that there is an Anglophone school of the 'network' notably represented by K.-H. Ladeur: see Ladeur, op cit n 122 supra.
175. We refer here to the work of Francis Snyder on the question: See nn 118, 120 and 121 supra.
176. In this regard, read the conclusions of Advocate General Maduro in C-402/ 05P, Kadi v Council and Commission, given on 16 January 2008 and in C-415/050P, Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission given on 23 January 2008, nyp.
177. Ost and van de Kerchove, op cit n 123 supra, at 32.
178. See M. Delmas-Marty, 'La grande complexité juridique du monde', in Etudes en l'honneur de Gérard Timsit (Bruylant, 2004), 105.
179. Article 234 TEC.
180. Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, [2003] OJ L1/1 of 4 January 2003.
181. Commission Notice on cooperation within the network of competition authorities, [2004] OJ C 101/43 of 27 April 2004.
182. See also A.-M. van den Bossche, 'Une politique plus proche des citoyens: l'apport du réseau européen de la concurrence', (2007) 135 Journal des Tribunaux Droit Européen 1, at 1-7.
183. See section II A a) supra.
184. See Article 6 of the future Treaty on European Union (if ratified).
185. Read Mattias Kumm, 'The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe before and after the Constitutional Treaty', (2005) 2 ELJ 290, at 290-304.
186. Ost and van de Kerchove, op cit n 123 supra, at 27.
187. On this notion, see infra.
188. The database of the Venice Convention constitutes a valuable resource in this area, see http://www.venice.coe.int and http://codices.coe.int.
189. Such as the Network of Presidents of the Supreme Courts of the European Union, see http://www.uepcsj.org. There also exists an Association of Councils of State and Administrative Courts of the European Union, bringing together the highest administrative courts of theMember States and the ECJ, see http://www.juradmin.eu/fr/home_fr.html.
190. For our part, we are in favour of a greater visibility for meetings between Community judges and national judges. The institutionalisation of a meeting on a bi-annual basis could be one way forward.
191. M. Kumm and V. Ferrerez Comella, 'The Future of Constitutional Conflict in the European Union: Constitutional Supremacy after the Constitutional Treaty', in Altneuland: The EU Constitution in a Contextual Perspective, Jean Monnet Working Paper 5/2004, 2004, 16.
192. M. Kumm, some time later, precised this proposal and 'systematicized' it (see Kumm, op cit n 134 supra, at 298) without erasing the risks of re-nationalisation.
193. See section II A a) supra.
194. Delmas-Marty, op cit n 129 supra, at 95: 'l'assouplissement est aussi rendu possible par des techniques d'interprétation judiciaires comme la reconnaissance d'une "marge nationale d'appréciation" (...) La marge peut être aussi reconnue de façon implicite, notamment quand la CJCE examine les clauses selon lesquelles un Etat peut invoquer l'ordre public national pour s'écarter de la norme europé enne'. The limits of this technique are however laid out by M. Maduro in Poiares Maduro, op cit n 5 supra, at 515-517.
195. Delmas-Marty, op cit n 129 supra, at 96-97: 'ainsi, les juges de Luxembourg ont-ils reconnu la primauté des règles de l'OMC sur le droit communautaire, donc accepté une certaine hiérarchie, mais il s'agit d'un contrôle minimal car leur refus de donner à la norme OMC un effet direct semble préserver une marge "communautaire", qui n'est pas sans évoquer la marge "nationale" des Etats'.
196. Read in this sense the intervention of the President of the Conseil constitutionnel before the Committee for Reflections and Proposals on the modernisation and re-balancing of the French institutions, 19 September 2007, available at http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr.
197. We think in particular here of Case T-306/01, Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation against Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3533. M. Yusuf was a Swedish national. On the hypothesis that such a court had existed in Sweden, it would perhaps have been useful for the Court of First Instance to have the opinion of the court in charge of constitutionality in Sweden on the jus cogens for example, or on what that court would have decided if faced with a similar question. That is without mentioning an eventual referral to the ICJ.
198. Case C-459/03, Commission v Ireland [2006] ECR I-4635.
199. Ibid, point 36.
200. Ibid, point 46.
201. Ibid, point 46.
202. See, too, M. Poiares Maduro, 'Europe and the Constitution: What if this is as good as it gets?', in J. H. H. Weiler and M. Wind, European Constitutionalism Beyond the State, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, 74-102.
203. Poiares Maduro, op cit n 5 supra, at 524.
204. Ibid, at 526-531.
205. See section II A c) supra.
206. See Ost and van de Kerchove, op cit n 123 supra, at 17.