As the ECJ’s two most famous decisions, Van Gend en Loos and Costa v. ENEL, which established the direct effect and supremacy of European law, are commemorated on their fiftieth anniversaries, attention has also turned to another of the ECJ’s early decisions. On 13th November 1964, in Commission v. Luxembourg & Belgium, the Dairy Products case, the ECJ rejected the use of ‘self-help’ countermeasures in the Community legal order, and therefore marked the fundamental distinction between European law and general international law. Drawing on writings by Robert Lecourt, Paul Reuter, and Paul Kapteyn, this paper demonstrates that a direct causal link between these three cases was recognized by ECJ judges and legal scholars as early as 1965. The historical evidence presented here therefore supports previous comparative analysis that has argued that these three decisions – Van Gend, Costa, and Luxembourg & Belgium – should be acknowledged as profoundly inter-connected, in that national court application of European obligations should be understood as a substitute for the enforcement of European obligations through inter-state countermeasures.
展开▼
机译:欧洲法院的两个最著名判决,即确立了欧洲法律的直接效力和至高地位的Van Gend en Loos和Costa v。ENEL,被纪念成立50周年,因此,人们的注意力也转向了欧洲法院的另一个早期判决。 1964年11月13日,在委员会诉卢森堡和比利时的乳制品案中,欧洲法院拒绝在共同体法律秩序中使用“自助”对策,因此标志着欧洲法与一般国际法之间的根本区别。本文借鉴罗伯特·勒科特,保罗·罗伊特和保罗·卡普特恩的著作,证明了这三个案例之间的直接因果关系早在1965年就被ECJ法官和法律学者所认可。因此,这里提供的历史证据支持以前的比较分析,指出,应该承认范·根德,哥斯达黎加,卢森堡和比利时这三个决定之间的密切联系,因为应将国家法院对欧洲义务的适用理解为通过国家间强制执行欧洲义务的替代方法对策。
展开▼