European Court of Justice Essay Example for Free

European Court of Justice Essay The European Union (EU) is a celebrated alliance of Nations that runs from the United Kingdom and Portugal in the West to Turkey in the East. The EU has made travel and trade much easier between its member states. With few exceptions this Union now shares a common currency known as the Euro. After close to a decade of existence the Euro is now stronger than the U. S. Dollar. This economic powerhouse is energized by free trade between its members a free trade marked by cooperation rather than competition. Today, the average French Citizen has access to Limburger, Swiss and Italian Cheeses at ever cheaper prices. The EU can legitimately boast that it has all but eliminated tariffs between native states. Unfortunately, this Union is not without its faults. There are occasions when selfish national interest subvert the good of the Union. After all, despite the good will and benefits that nations gain from free trade, parochial interests can still sometimes over come the common good. In such cases the European Court of Justice may be forced to intervene. For example, In Commission v.  Italy Italian customs charges were struck down because any pecuniary charge, however small, imposed on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier constitutes an obstacle to the movement of such goods. † Commission vs. Italy is not an isolated case, it is safe to say that â€Å"In developing the rules of the internal market, the European Court of Justice has maintained a careful balance between the de-regulation imperative of the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court, on the one hand, and legitimate Member State interests and the reality of regulatory diversity, on the other. The Court’s perception of the place of both civil and political rights and social rights within the internal market changes in accordance with how this balance falls. † The European Court of Justice (ECJ), also known as the Court of Justice of the European Communities is the highest court of the European Union. The court is similar to a national Supreme Court. It strives, interpret the EU laws to ensure equal application across the various European Union member states The European Court of Justice is based in Luxembourg City and was established in 1952. It is one of the few European Union institutions that is not based in Brussels. There is one judge for every member state although only thirteen can be present to hear a case at any given time. The ECJ has jurisdiction over all matter of European Community law, but can not intervene with respect to national law. Every nation has its respective national legal system which the Union must respect. However, the ECJ ensures that EU level legislation is interpreted and applied in equal manner across the whole of the EU. This prevents national Supreme Courts from interpreting the same legislation differently. The Courts decisions are binding. For instance, a state that fails to implement a directive or a Commission that acts outside its delegated power has to answer to the ECJ. The Court also has jurisdiction over cases involving disputes between states, institutions, businesses and individuals A full tale of the ECJs jurisdiction includes the insurance that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of the Treaties of the European Union. This application must be uniform across all nations without bias or favoritism, hence the need for a Union-wide arbiter of the law. The court must also see that the provisions are laid down by Community institutions with the proper competence. The Court enjoys a wide latitude to hear various actions. Among other things the court may rule on applications for annulment or actions for failure to act raised by a member state or institution, actions against Member States for failure to fulfill obligations, references for a preliminary ruling and appeals against decision of the Court of First Instance Under Article 226 of the Consolidated Treaty Establishing the European Community (CTEEC), the ECJ may determine if a Member State has fulfilled its obligations under Community Law. A preliminary hearing will allow the erring Member State to reply to the complaint. If the hearing does not result in termination of the claim of failure by the Member State an action for breach of Community law may be brought before the European Court of Justice. Such an action is ordinarily brought to the court by a Member State by another Member State. If the court finds that the claimed obligation has not been fulfilled the erring Member State must terminate the breach with due haste. If the breach is not resolved within a reasonable time period upon the Request of the Commission, the European Court of Justice may impose a fixed or periodic financial penalty. In addition the court may also act on Actions for Annulment, Actions for failure to act, Applications for compensation based on non-contractual liability. The court can also rule of review on point of the law. The ECJ is the final arbiter with respect to the interpretation and application of community law. The Court of First Instance, deals with most cases before they are elevated to the ECJ. However, these two bodies are not the only judicial body tasked with interpreting the application of Community Law. The true court of first instance is actually the national courts. The national courts retain jurisdiction to review the administrative implementation of Community law. , for which the authorities of the Member State are responsible. It is because of this role that the National courts are the first guarantors of the Community law. Unfortunately, National courts are beholden to the nations in which they belong. It cannot be helped but for a justice to give his loyalty first to his country and second to the Union. Cynicism aside, there can and there have been occasions were the parochial interest of the state was upheld by the National courts over the fair and equitable application of the EU’s laws. It is in these circumstance that the Court must intervene. In Costa vs ENEL it was established that Community law takes precedence over the member states domestic law. Furthermore, in Simmenthal II the Court held that there is a Duty to set aside provisions of national law which are incompatible with Community Law. Hence, the Court justifies its rulings in favor of Community law over the parochial decisions of National Courts. Despite criticism that at time the court has overstepped its bounds and has interfered with local laws. The powerhouse economy of the EU is made possible by the elimination of Tariff barriers that once plagued the nations. Tariffs historically, made products of one nation less competitive in the market of another nation. For example, all things being equal, a bottle of wine produced in France will cost more than Italian wine in Rome because the French wine had to pay Tariffs. Articles 23 and 25 of the EC prohibit all â€Å"customs duties on imports and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect. This applies between Member States and also applies to customs duties of a fiscal nature. The ECJ has remained steadfast in upholding the Union’s commitment to Free Trade. The ECJ has ruled that ‘Goods’ are â€Å"products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such of forming the subject of commercial transactions . † Hence, painting, sculptures and even musical recordings are ‘goods’ the establishment of tariff barriers against is disallowed. Even waste is capable of forming the subject of a commercial transaction A criticism against the ECJ is that at times it may overstep its bounds and interfere with the internal workings of a nation. For example, in Diamantarbeiders ; â€Å"A charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty is any pecuniary charge however small and whatever its designation and mode of application which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense. This is the case even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the State [and] is not discriminatory or protective in effect, or if the product on which the charge is imposed is not in competition with any domestic product. Also in Bresciani Charges imposed for a public health inspection carried out on the entry of goods to a Member State can be a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty. It was not important that the charges were proportionate to the costs of the inspection, nor that such inspections were in the public interest . Thus, the ECJ continues to maintain its commitment to free trade and the removal of all barrier to trade between Member States. The efforts of non-compliant Member States to form covert or hidden tariffs is vigilantly watch by the Court in order for it to act swiftly and decisively upon any breech that arises However, Court is not wholly without heart or willingness to render judgment based on its jurisdiction as a court of Justice AND equity. It is not utterly insensitive to the plight of Member States. In commission vs Germany it ruled that; A charge for a service will not be regarded as a customs duty where it: (a) does not exceed the cost of the service, (b) that service is obligatory and applied uniformly for all the goods concerned, (c) the service fulfills obligations prescribed by Community law, and (d) the service promotes the free movement of goods in particular by neutralising obstacles which may arise from unilateral measures of inspection . This decision is of interest because of its Solomonic approach, Germany at that time was suffering a period of economic dislocation and in a nut shell needed to be cut some slack. By allowing charges for a service to be accounted as not a customs duty, it allowed Germany a quantity of income. Strict rules were established to ensure that such allowance is not abused by Germany or any other Member State. However, the European Court of Justice still upheld its commitment to free trade. Art 90 of the EC provides that Member States are prevented from imposing, â€Å"directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products. In Humblot it was held that the prohibition extends to internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection of product†. This case was an example of how pervasive and at times invasive the European Court of Justice can get in upholding its mandate. The European Court of Justice has a mandate to protect the Community Law. At times it must do so over the heads of Member States who have put parochial interests before the good of the Union. Fortunately, the Court has been granted sufficient mandate and jurisdiction to uphold the its commitment to Free Trade. The Court is at times criticized for being too invasive and interfering even with the internal workings of a Member State. The Court is also lambasted from being overly committed and ignoring the facts of the ground, or the special circumstances which might merit certain exceptions. As was noted in the Germany case, this is not so. Despite its mandate, the Court remains sensitive to the needs of individual nations some of which may require some temporary consideration in order to adjust and eventually be full partners of the European Union.