Case C-345/06, Gottfried Heinrich, judgment of the court of justice (Grand Chamber) of 10 March 2009

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 46, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 2077-2094

  Bobek, Michal ^a  

^a EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954108469     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (59)

1. O.J. 2002, L 355/1.
2. O.J. 2003, L 89/9, as amended by Commission Regulation No. 68/2004, O.J. 2004, L 10/14.
3. Opinion of. A.G. Sharpston of 10 April 2008.
4. There appears to be (linguistic) uncertainty as to whether the term "non-existent legal act" means the same as nullity of a legal act (an act which is null and void). In the three categories put forward by the Advocate General, non-existence of a legal act means its initial and permanent nullity, which merely needs to be declared by the Court, as opposed to its later annulment because of illegality. For all practical purposes, nullity and non-existence of a legal act would thus mean the same thing.
5. The terminological confusion might be partly created by the need to explain the same concept within the terminology of various legal cultures, and especially to translate a new category, created in Community law (non-existence of a legal act), into languages which actually already have an elaborate doctrine of nullity of legal acts, such as the Germanic legal cultures. A new concept is created, in German "die Doktrin des inexistenten Rechtsakts" without much clarity as to how it relates to the established concept of "Nichtigkeit". In the German version of the Opinion of the Advocate General (see paras. 103 et seq.), which, according to Art. 31 of the Rules of the Procedure of the Court of Justice, should be authentic, both notions ["inexistent" (non-existent) as well as "nichtig" (null)] are used at the same time.
6. The confusion is complete if one considers that the action under Article 230 EC is called in English "action for annulment", in French "recours en annulation", but in German "Nichtigkeitsklage". As most of the standard German commentaries note, the action under Art. 230 EC should be in German correctly called "Aufhebungsklage" or "Anfechtungsklage", as its primary aim is to annul, not to declare nullity of a Community measure.
7. Further see e.g. Callies and Ruffert (Eds.), Kommentar zu EU-Vertrag und EG-Vertrag, 2nd ed. (Luchterland, 2002), pp. 2059-2060.
8. von der Groeben and Schwarze (Eds.), Kommentar zum Vertrag über die Europäische Union und zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, Band 4 (Art. 189-314 EGV) 6th ed. (Nomos, 2004), pp. 469-470.
9. Paras. 121-133 of the Opinion.
10. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, O.J. 2001, L 145/43.
11. Case C-161/06, Skoma-Lux, [2007] ECR I-10841.
12. See generally Lasiński-Sulecki and Moraw ski, "Late publication of EC law in languages of new Member States and its effects: Obligations on individuals following the Court's judgment in Skoma-Lux", 45 CML Rev., 705-725.
13. Paras. 42-47 of the judgment in Heinrich.
14. The referring Verwaltungssenat did not expressly specify in its request, whether the second question submitted by it was supposed to be a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the Regulation No. 622/2003 or a request for a preliminary ruling concerning its validity. Absent a clear formulation that the second question was to challenge the validity of the Regulation, the Court treated it as a question concerning interpretation. One can only speculate whether it would have made any difference if the question was expressly put as a preliminary ruling on validity.
15. An excellent historical overview is offered by Wittling, Die Publikation der Rechtsnormen einschliesslich der Verwaltungsvorschriften (Nomos, 1990), pp. 97-113.
16. See, in detail, Loeber, "Legal Rules 'For Internal Use Only' - A comparative analysis of the practice of withholding government decrees from publication in Eastern Europe and in Western countries", 19 ICLQ (1970), 70-98.
17. Butler, "Unpublished normative acts in post-Soviet legal space", 3 JCL (2008), 295-310.
18. From the point of view of moral philosophy, one can even argue that secret laws are inconsistent with the notion of law itself. Secret regulations are not legal norms, as they disorient the subjects and deprive the ruler of any possible legitimacy.
19. See the argument in the context of the current U.S. debate on secret laws and the "fight against terrorism" in Kutz, "Secret law and the value of publicity", 22 Ratio Juris (2009), 197-217.
20. Art. 6(2) TEU. Further see Lenaerts, "Interlocking legal orders in the European Union and comparative law", 52 ICLQ (2003), 873-906.
21. "Legislation" for our purposes means a normative measure of general application, typically a law or a regulation, which binds an indeterminate number of persons in ex ante an indeterminate number of situations, as contrasted with an individual (administrative) decision.
22. Brown, "La promulgation, la signature et la publication des textes législatifs en Grande-Bretagne" in Herzog and Vlachos (Eds.), La promulgation, la signature et la publication des textes législatifs en droit comparé, Travaux et recherches de ĺ Institut de droit compare de ĺ Université de Paris XX (Les Éditions de l'Epargne, 1961), pp. 99 and 105.
23. A situation which apparently does not happen often, as the authority for this conclusion appears to be (according to Brown, cited in the previous note) centuries-old cases of R v. Jefferies (1721) 1 Stra 446 and Price v. Hollis (1813) 1 M & S. 105.
24. Belgium is also under distinct French influence: see de Visscher, "La Promulgation, la Signature et la Publication des Lois en Droit Belge" in Herzog, Vlachos, op. cit. supra note 17, p. 41.
25. see also Delpérée, Le droit constitutionnel de la Belgique (Bruylant, 2000), pp. 802-804.
26. Puget and Séché, "La promulgation et la publication des actes législatifs en droit français", in Herzog, Vlachos, op. cit. supra note 17, p. 71.
27. see also Terré, Introduction générale au droit, 5th ed. (Dalloz, 2000), pp. 442-450.
28. Starck, Roland and Boyer, Introduction au droit, 5th ed (Litec, 2000), pp. 194-99.
29. Lavroff, Le droit constitutionnel de la Ve République 3rd ed. (Dalloz, 1999), pp. 804-8.
30. See e.g. BVerfGE 7, 330 (337), BVerfGE 62, 343 (353) or BVerfGE 65, 283 (291).
31. BGHZ 761 387 (390) and BVerwGE 17, 193.
32. Art. 82 of the Fundamental Law (Grundgesetz).
33. For some of the standard commentaries see, e.g., Von Münch and Kunig (Eds.), Grundgesetz-Kommentar. Band 3, 3rd ed. (CH Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1996), pp. 313-27.
34. Maunz and Dürig (Eds.), Grundgesetz-Kommentar. Band V. (Verlag CH Beck, 1998), point 82, 1-6.
35. Dreir (Ed.), Grundgesetz-Kommentar. Band II. (Mohr Siebeck, 1998), pp. 1570-85.
36. For a detailed study see Hallier, "La Promulgation et la Publication des Lois et Règlements dans la République Fédérale d'Allemagne" in Herzog, Vlachos, op. cit. supra note 17, pp. 13-39.
37. Art. 52(1) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic in conjunction with § 3(1) of law 309/1999 Coll., on Collection of Laws and Collection of International Treaties, as amended [zákon o Sbírce zákonů a Sbírce mezinárodních smluv].
38. Art. 87(4) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic (Constitutional law No. 460/1992 Coll., as amended, consolidated version in No. 135/2001 Coll.).
39. Art. 88(1) of the Constitution of the Polish Republic in conjunction with Art. 2(1) of the law on the publication of normative acts and some other legal acts [Ustawa z dnia 20 lipca 2000 r. o ogłaszaniu aktów normatywnych i niektórych innych aktów prawnych (Dziennik Ustaw z 2005 Nr 190 poz. 1606)].
40. This "schism" dates back to older EC law doctrine - cf. e.g. the opposing views expressed, on the one hand, in Joliet, Le droit institutionnel des Communautés européennes (Faculté de Droit, d'Economie et de Sciences socials de Liège, 1983), p. 166 and, on the other
41. Constantinesco, Das Recht der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (Nomos, 1977), p. 592.
42. Para 105 and footnote 83 of the Opinion.
43. Press release of 16 Jan. 2004 No. IP/04/59 entitled "Air security: Commission draws up EU-wide list of prohibited articles on passenger aircraft". The press release is accessible via the RAPID database at: europa.eu/rapid (last accessed 12 Sept. 2009).
44. As put forward in the submissions of the Swedish government to the ECJ - see para 38 of the Opinion of the A.G.
45. Footnote 34 in the A.G.'s Opinion.
46. The A.G. was pointing to the parallel with the Court's ruling in Skoma-Lux (cited supra note 7, paras. 47-50) where a similar argument of de facto "internet accessibility" of some of the Community legislation in the form of working translations of the acquis was dismissed by the Court.
47. Paras. 111-120 of the Opinion, entitled "What ought the Commission to have done?".
48. See in this context e.g. Case C-192/89, S.Z. Sevince v. Staatssecretaris van Justicie, [1990] ECR I-3461. The case concerned the question whether or not two decisions of the EEC-Turkey Association Council can be directly effective within the Community legal order. The Court answered in the affirmative, despite the fact that both decisions were rather program-setting norms and that they were in need of some further implementation measures on the national level. One of the further objections raised against the direct effect of the decisions was the fact that they were not published. The Court stated (para 24 of the judgment) that this does not prevent their direct effect. The key difference to the Heinrich case was, however, as the A.G. pointed out in her Opinion in para 84, that these were decisions (not regulations), and neither the Treaty, nor any other legal document provided for the obligation to publish them.
49. O.J. 2008, L 221/8.
50. Para 71 of the judgment. The same part in French reads "n'a pas de force obligatoire pour autant qu'elle vise à imposer des obligations aux particuliers", in German "hat keine Bindungswirkung, soweit mit ihm den Einzelnen Pflichten auferlegt werden sollen".
51. Skoma-Lux, cited supra note 7, para 74. The French version reads: "s'oppose à ce que les obligations... puissent être imposées à des particuliers", the German version states: "gestattet es nicht, dass Verpflichtungen... Einzelnen in diesem Staat auferlegt werden".
52. Paras. 89 and 90 of the Opinion.
53. For a detailed discussion on these issues, see Bobek, "The binding force of Babel: The enforcement of EC law unpublished in the languages of the new Member States", 9 C.Y.E.L.S. (2007), 43-80.
54. Opinion, para 100. The allusion made by the A.G. to the "Nelsonian blind eye" refers to an incident ascribed to Horatio Nelson, the British naval commander in the wars with Napoleonic France. It is said that in the course of the naval battle of Copenhagen in early 1801, Nelson was ordered to disengage. Not willing to see the flag signals sent to his ship and refusing to retreat, he intentionally put the telescope to his blind eye. When asked why he had not followed the admiralty orders, he claimed he did not see them.
55. A fact repeatedly pointed out by the A.G., which, in her point of view, would make the decision the Court actually made impossible - see paras. 70-77 of the Opinion.
56. As was already mentioned above (supra, text to note 34), the Commission adopted a new Regulation. This was, however, a consequence of the criticism by the A.G. One can only speculate whether, if the Commission had waited for the decision of the Court, it would have proceeded in the same way.
57. Unless, of course, one subscribes to the vision that transparency and efficient government are irreconcilable values. As eloquently put in Yes Minister, Series 1, Episode 1 - "Open Government" (First Aired on the BBC 25 Feb. 1980), where the new policy of "open government" was discussed in a dialogue between an "idealist" new personal private secretary to the minister (Bernard Woolley) and a "realist" senior civil servant (Sir Arnold): Bernard Woolley: "Well, yes, Sir... I mean, it [open government] is the Minister's policy after all." Sir Arnold: "My dear boy, it is a contradiction in terms: you can be open or you can have government.".
58. Famously in Case 294/83, Parti écologiste "Les Verts" v. European Parliament, [1986] ECR 1339, para 23, since then repeated in tens of other cases.
59. Arts. 197, 200 and 201 EC.