The scientific-practical Law Journal
“Almanac of Law” Volume 12 (2021), 292-299 p
DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2021-12-49
Kaminska I. V. Court of Justice of the European Union: historiography of European sources published in the period 1957-1992
Before proceeding to the analysis and characterization of foreign publications, all the sources we found were systematized according to the time criterion, according to which all the publications found, which in one way or another examined the Court of Justice, we divided into three periods, namely: I period (1957–1992); II period (1992–2007); III period (2007-present). The division was based on the periodization of the development of European integration, or rather its main stages. And the period – the creation and functioning of the European Communities (from the Treaties of Rome to the signing of the Maastricht Treaty); II period – the formation of the European Union (signing of the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice treaties); Period III – the functioning of the European Union in its modern form (after the signing of the Lisbon Treaty and until now). Thanks to this systematization, we were able to demonstrate what topics were relevant among scholars in a particular period of development of integration and functioning of the Court of Justice. The main presentation of the material is devoted to the results of the analysis of foreign scientific publications concerning the principles of organization and functioning of the Court of Justice published in the period 1957–1992. We found that most scientific papers were published by scientists from Great Britain, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, France which account for a significant share of the work of judges and Advocates-General of the Court of Justice. All foreign sources published in this period were analyzed by us on the subject of research and grouped by subject. Thus, we found that in the period 1957–1992.current research topics on the Court of Justice of the EU were: protection of individuals in the EU law and order; methods of interpretation in the decision of the Court of Justice of the EU; judicial control in the EU; the legal nature of the interaction between national judicial institutions and the Court of Justice and their impact on the uniform application of the Community legal order and its organic combination with the national legal order; judicial activism; principles of EU law; the role of EU judges in the development of European integration.
Keywords: EU Court, judicial activism, EU legal order, principles of EU law, EU court decision.
References
1. Case C-26/62: NV Algemene Transport-en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, C-26/62, EU:C:1963:1.
2. Case C-6/64: Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L., Reference for a preliminary ruling: Giudice conciliatore di Milano – Italy, Case 6-64, EU:C:1964:66.
3. Schermers Henry G. Judicial Protection in the European Communities: second edition. Deventer: Kluwer, 1983. 455 p.
4. Bebr G. Judicial remedy of private parties against normative acts of the European Communities: The role of exception of illegality. Common Market Law Review. 1966. Vol. 3. Ð. 7–31.
5. Barav A. The exception of illegality in Community Law; A Critical Analysis. CML Review, 1974. 366 p.
6. Dubois P. L’ exception d’illégalité devant la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes. CDE, 1978. 411 p.
7. Louis J.-V. De l’exception d’illégalité dans la jurisprudence de la Cour des Communautés européennes. Revista de derecho y jurisprudencia de Administración (Montevideo), 1965. Ð. 119-120.
8. Müller-Heidelberg T. Schutzklauseln im europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht: dissertation. Hamburg, 1970. 334 p.
9. Lejeune M. A. Un droit de temps de crise: Les clauses de sauvegarde de la CEE. Brussels, 1975. 311 p.
10. Dijk van P. Judicial Review of Governmental action and the requirement of an interest to sue. Alphen a/d Rijn/Maryland USA/The Hague, 1980. Ð. 284 – 305.
11. Gori P. Les clauses de sauvegarde des traités CECA et CEE. Brussels, 1966. 239 p.
12. Rasmussen H. Why Is Article 173 Interpreted Against Private Plaintiffs? European Law Review, 1980. Vol. 5. Ð. 112–127.
13. Harding C. The Private Interest in Challenging Community Action. European Law Review, 1980. Vol. 5. pp. 354–361.
14. Toth A. Legal Protection of Individuals in the European Communities: Remedies and procedures North-Holland Publishing Company, 1978. 226 p.
15. Kutscher H. Methods of interpretation as seen by a judge at the Court of Justice. Judicial and Academic Conference,27–28 September 1976. Luxemburg, 1976. Ð. 1-5.
16. Hamson C. Methods of interpretation. A Critical Assessment of the Results. Judicial and Academic Conference, 27–28 September 1976, above n 6 at II-3 and III-3 respectively. Luxemburg, 1976. Ð. 11 – 15.
17. Meersch van der W. L’ordre juridique des Communautés européennes et le droit international. Revue international de droit comparé Année, 1980. Ð. 847 – 849.
18. Bebr G. Development of judicial control of the European Communities. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1981. 822 p.
19. Bebr G. The Existence of a Genuine Dispute: An Indispensable Precondition for the Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 177 EEC Treaty? 17CMLRev, 1980. Ð. 525 – 537.
20. Bebr G. Arbitration tribunals and Article 177 of the EEC Treaty. Common Market Law Review,1985. Ð. 489 – 504.
21. Bebr G. Preliminary Rulings of the Court of Justice, their Authority and Temporal Effect. Common Market Law Review Volume 18, Issue 4, 1981. Ð. 475 – 507.
22. Bebr G. The Rambling Ghost of «Cohn-Bendit»: Acte Clair and the Court of Justice. Common Market Law Review, Volume 20, Issue 3, 1983. Ð. 393 – 693.
23. Shaw J. Article 177 EEC — The Organic Connection Between National Courts and the European Court of Justice. European Community Law, 1993. Ð. 135-150.
24. Jacobs F. Which courts and tribunals are bound to refer to the European Court? 2 ELRev, 1977. Ð. 119 – 121.
25. Mendelsohn M. The European Court of Justice and Human Rights. Yearbook of European Law, 1981. Vol. 1, Issue 1.Ð. 125–165.
26. Lord MacKenzie Stuart. The European Communities and the Rule of Law. The Hamlyn Lectures twenty-ninth series.Published by Stevens & Sons Limited of 11 New Fetter Lane, London, 1977. 154 p.
27. Bengoetxea J. The legal reasoning of the European Court of justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993, 294 pp.
28. Boulouis J. A propos de la fonction normative de la jurisprudence. Remarques sur l’oeuvre jurisprudentielle de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes. Mélanges offerts à Marcel Waline : le juge et le droit public, 1974. T. 1. Ð. 149-162.
29. Winter J. Direct Applicability and Direct Effect – Two Distinct and Different Concept in Ñommunity Law. Common Market Law Review, 1972. Vol. 9. Ð. 425–438.
30. Weiler J. The Court of Justice on Trial. 24 C.M.L.Rev., 1987. P. 555-589.
31. Dashwood A. The Principle of Direct Effect in European Community Law. Journal of Common Market Studies, 1978.Vol. 16. Ð. 229–245.
32. Diplock K. The courts as legislators. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1989, Vol. 9, No. 4. P. 441-462.
33. Cappelletti M. Is the European Court of Justice Running wild? European Law Review, 1987. Vol. 12, Issue 1. Ð. 3–17.
34. Cappelletti M. The Law-Making Power of the Judge and its Limits: A Comparative Analysis. Monash University Law Review 15, 1981. P. 15-54.
35. Coppel J., O’Neill À. The European Court of Justice: Taking Rights Seriously? Common Market Law Review, 1992. Vol. 29. Ð. 681–692.
36. Köpenik G. Die Ausweitung der Rechtssetzungsbefugnisse der Europäischen Gemeinschaften durch den Europäischen Gerichtshof, Thesis München, 1974. 225 p.
37. Koopmans T.The Roots of Judicial Activism, Protecting human rights: The European Dimension (1988). Studies in honour of G.J. Wiarda, 1988. 11 p.
38. Mancini G. Attivismo e autocontrollo nella giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia, in Riv. dir. eur., 1990. P. 229-240.
39. Pescatore P. The Doctrine of Direct Effect: An Infant Disease of Community Law. European Law Review, 1983. Vol. 8. Ð. 155–177.
40. Rasmussen H. The European Court’s Acte Clair Strategy in C. I. L. F. I. T.; Or: Acte Clair, of Course! But What Does it Mean? European Law Review, 1984. Vol. 9. Ð. 242–259.
41. Rasmussen H. On law and policy in the European Court of Justice. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1986. 555 p.
42. Stein E. Lawyers, Judges and the Making of a Transnational Constitution. The American Journal of International Law, 1981. Vol. 75, No. 1. pp. 1-27.
43. Lecourt R. L’Eeurope des Juges. Brussels : Establissements Emile Bruylant, 1976. 334 p.
44. [Åëåêòðîííèé ðåñóðñ]. – ðåæèì äîñòóïó: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/162021972.pdf
45. Lecourt R. Le rôle de la Cour de Justice dans le développement des Communautès. European Yearbook, 1976. Vol. 24. Ð. 19–41.
46. Lagrange Ì. La Cour de justice des Communautés européennes du plan Schuman à l’Union européenne. Mélanges Fernand Dehousse, la construction européenne. Paris; Bruxelles : Fernand Nathan/EditionsLabor, 1979. Vol. 2, Ð. 132.
47. Lagrange M. The Court of Justice as a Factor in European Integration », The American Journal of Comparative Law,15 (4), 1966-1967. P. 709-725.
48. Schermers G., The European Court of Justice: Promoter of European integration, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 1974. Vol. 22, No. 3. P. 444-464.
49. Wyatt D. The Direct Effect of Community Social Law – Not Forgetting
50. Directives. European Law Review, 1983.Vol: 8. P. 241.
51. Waelbroeck M. Can the Court of Justice Limit the Retrospective Operation of its Judgements? Yearbook of European Law, Volume 1, 1981. Issue 1. P. 115–123.
52. Jacqué J.-P., Weiler J. On the road to European Union – a new Judicial architecture. Common Market Law Review, 1990. Vol. 27. Ð. 187–223.
53. Lenaerts K. Constitutionalism and the Many Faces of Federalism. American Journal of. Comparative Law, 1990. Vol. 38, No. 2. Ð. 205–263.
<< Back
