111 / 294
Fruits et Legumes
VIII R. 901, 933.
21. Aff. 26/62 IX R. 1, 25.
22. Aff. 16/65 XI R. 1081. Sec too the Avocat-Géncral in
VIII R. at 933-934.
23. Perhaps the closest similarity exists either with the pro-
cedure by which a Lord Ordinary can refer a matter to
the Inner House or with the British Law Ascertainment
Act 1859.
24. Three quotations from Aff. 26/62 IX R. 1 at 23 and 24
make the point in relation to Article 12. In addition to that
already given in footnote 4 one may add—"que, partant,
le droit communautaire, independant de la législation des
Etats membres, de méme qu'il créé des charges dans le chef
des particuliers, est aussi destiné á engendrer des droits qui
entrent dans leur patrimoine juridique"; "que cette pro-
hibition se prcte parfaitement, par sa nature mcme, á
produire des effets directs dans les relations juridiqucs
entre les Etats membres et lcurs justiciables." The dis-
tinctiveness of the Community legal order is emphasised in
Aff. 13/61 VIII R. 89, 101.
25. See Constantinides-Megret,
Le droit de la C.E.E. et
I'ordre juridique des états membres.
Cf.,thc
conclusions
in
Aff. 26/62 IX R. at p. 46. Equally, the differences between
Community law and international law made this autono-
mous concept inevitable, see e.g., Pescatore,
"International
Law and Community Law
" (1970) 7
C.M.L.Rev.
167.
26. [1966] 3 All E.R. 871, 874.
27. C.E. 1 March 1968
Syndicat general de fabricants de
semoules de France
(1968) D. (J.) 285, a note by M.
Lagrange.
28. In particular Aff. 26/62 IX R. 1 and Aff. 57/65 XII R. 293,
and see generally Bebr, "Directly Applicable Provisions of
Community Law: the development of a Community con-
cept" (1970) 19
I.C.L.Q.
257.
29. The decisions are Aff. 9/70
Grad c. Finanzamt
Traunstein
and Aff. 33/70
S.p.a.S.A.C.E. de Bergame c. Ministére des
Finances de la Republique ltalienne.
Neither makes all
decisions or directives self-executing and in the second
case (concerned especially with directives) three elements
were present. Articles 9 and 13 of the Treaty, a directive,
and a decision of the Court declaring Italy to be in breach
of obligations.
30. See Aff. 75/63
Unger c. Bestuur des
Bedrijfsvereniging
voor Detailhandel en Ambachten a Utrecht
X R. 347 at
362 insisting on "une portée Communautaire" for the
word.
31. Aff. 23/67
S.A. Brasserie de Haecht c. Janssen
XIII R. 525.
32. See, e.g., Aff. 13/68
Salgoil
XV R. 661, 677. The German
wording is perhaps even stronger and in the latter case, see
e
.g.,
Aff. 9/70
Grad.
In Aff. 33/70 the Court uses the
second phrase in relation to the effects of Article 13(2)
and the first in relation to the effects of the combination
of the Directive in question and Articles 9 and 13(2).
33. Aff. 28/67 XV R. 211.
34. In France the starting'point would be the
Fabricants de
Semoules
(fn. 27
supra),
in Italy Aff. 6/64,
Costa c.
E.N.E.L.
X R. 1141.
35. Mitchell,
Constitutional Law
(2nd ed. 1968), chapter IV.
36. Consider especially
Ibralebbe
v.
The Queen
[1964] A.C.
900 at 924 and Mitchell, "L'adhcsion du Royaume-Uni
aux Communautés" (1970)
Cahiers de Droit Europcen
251-
37. See. e.g., Aff. 17/67 Neumann XIII R. 571, 589.
38. The "model" involves a conflation of the ideas of Aff.
14/68
Walt Wilhelm c. Bundeskartellamt
XV R. 1, to-
gether with those of
Brasserie de Haecht
(fn. 31,
supra).
This does not seem to be an outrageous case of imagin-
ation. Other models can be created.
39. Aff. 11/70.
40. The two passages run—
"qu'en effet, le droit né du traité, issu d'une source
autonome, ne pourrait, en raison de sa nature, se voir
judiciaircment opposer des régles de droit national quelles
qu'elles soient, sans pcrdre son caractére communautairc
et sans que soit mise en cause le base juridique de la
Communauté elle-méme;
"que, dés lors, l'invocation d'atteintcs portécs, soit aux
droits fondamentaux tels qu'ils sont formulés par la con-
stitution d'un Etat membre, soit aux principes d'une
structure constitutionnelle nationale, ne saurait alfecter la
validité d'un acte de la Communauté ou son effet sur lc
territoire de cet Etat;"
"qu'en effet, le respect des droits fondamentaux fait
partic intégrante des principes généraux du droit dont la
Cour de Justice assure le respect;
que la sauvegarde de ces droits, tout en s'inspirant des
traditions constitutionnelles communes aux Etats membres,
doit ctre assuréc dans le cadre dc la structure et des
objectifs de la Communauté."
41.
Soc. Acciaierie San Michele
v.
H.A.
T
C.M.L.R.
450
-457
and vol. 4 at 81-84.
42.
Corveleyn
7 Oct. 1968. Aff. 13/46 (1968) Recueil des Arrets
et Civis 710.
43. Affaires Jointes 5, 7 and 13/66
Kampffmeyer etc. c. Com-
mission de la C.E.E.
XIII R. 317.
44. Some of this is indicated in Mitchell "The Causes and
Consequences of the Absence of a System of Public Law."
•LL.B., Ph.D.,, LL.D., Solicitor (England), Salvesen Professor
of European Institutions in the University of Edinburgh.
Irish Unity through European Unity
The inaugural address was delivered to the Law
Students Debating Society of Ireland by
Mr. Seán
Kelleher
on 23rd February 1972 at the King's Inns,
Dublin, on the subject of "Irish Unity Through Euro-
pean Unity". Mr. Kelleher said
inter alia :
The Rome Treaty limits itself to unifying the economics
of its members and the tendency to regard it merely as a
treaty to establish a free trade area has dominated all
discussion on Ireland's application for entry, and
ignored the long term and far more important prin-
ciples which were the bases for the foundation of the
Community generally referred to as the Common
Market.
The Preamble to the Treaty of Paris in' 1951 says of
the signatories that they "resolve to substitute for his-
toric rivalries a fusion of their essential interests, to
establish, bv
creating an economic community the foun-
dations of a broader and deeper Community among
peoples, long divided by bloody conflict and to lay the
bases of institutions capable of guiding their future
common destiny." We are seeking to be a partner in
this Community.
The architects of the Community, as now established,
realised the importance of economic unity in their quest
for a United Europe and the Rome Treaty undoubtedly
had this as its primary objective. However, the Treaty
is not an end in itself, but only a beginning of a union
resolved to safeguard peace and liberty by binding its
members together so closely that aggression and injus-
tice perpetrated against a minority, whether or not that
minority belongs to the same geographical entity will in
itself so affect the majority perpetrating it, that violence
will as a means to an end become like civil war an
exercise in self-destruction.
It was the suffering and destruction of World War H
that brought home to the post-war leaders of Europe
the dangerous limitations of national sovereignty and
the dire need for a supranational institution capable of
controlling the forces that lead nations into a situation
110