314 / 336
categories of cases, except that they have served, over
the years, as occasions for the Court to develop its case
law about the extent to which, and the ways in which,
it can review administrative decisions of other Com-
munity Institutions.
Staff Cases
In essence staff cases exist because on the Continent,
unlike Ireland, the terms and conditions of service of
civil servants are governed by law—it is a branch of
administrative law, known in French as the "droit de
la fonction publique". So the Regulations that govern
the terms and conditions of service of the members of
the staffs of the Community Institutions give them a
right of appeal to the Court agamst any decision affect-
ing them by which they feel aggrieved.
This was all very well in the early days of the Court,
when business was fairly slack. But it is now becoming
a burden, even though staff cases are heard, not by the
full Court, but by divisions consisting of three Judges
and an Advocate-General. These divisions are referred
to in the authentic English text of the Treaties as
"Chambers". This is one of the many mistranslations in
the authentic English texts of the Treaties that al-
though inaccurate we now have learnt to live with. It
is fair to say that the English translations were carried
out and had to be done very quickly, by people none
of whom was a practising anglophone lawyer, and with
no bilingual tradition as in Ireland. Because of the
lack of such a tradition and technical expertise it is a
wonder that the translations are not worse than they
are. Indeed some parts are excellent.
There is a move afoot to create a lower Community
Court to deal with staff cases, from which there would
be a right to appeal on limited grounds to the Com-
munity Court. I think that it may take some time to
come to fruition.
References for preliminary rulings
More important than staff cases are
References for
preliminary
rulings.
The Treaty of Paris provides that the European
Court of Justice is to have, in the context of the Coal
and Steel Community, sole jurisdiction to rule on the '
validity of any act of any Institution of the Com-
mun'ty where the validity of that act is an issue in
proceedings in any Court or Tribunal of a Member
State. This means that, if the validity of, for instance,
a decision of the Commission purportedly made under
the Treaty of Paris is called into question in any Irish
Court, that Court is bound to refer the matter to the
Community Court.
So far as the Economic Community (the EEC) and
Euratom are concerned, the Treaties of Rome have
created a system that is at once wider in scope and
more flexible. It is wider in scope because it is not just
the question of the validity of an act of a Community
Institution that can be referred, but any question of
interpretation relating to such an act, or indeed, any
question of interpretation of the Treaties themselves. It
is more flexible because it is only Courts of final appeal,
or Courts from which there is no appeal, that are bound
to refer. Other Courts are merely empowered to do so.
The following are the underlying ideas of the Treaties
of Rome : (1) That the administration of Community
law is primarily a matter for the ordinary Courts of
Member States; (2) that nonetheless the European
Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction to rule defini-
tively on a question of Community law and, (3) that,
therefore, whilst a National Court from which there
can be an appeal need not refer, a National Court
whose decision is final must do so. In practice it is
usually best for the first Court before which a case comes
to refer, rnd to do so as early as possible.
An order for reference is a kind of cross between a
case stated and an order for the trial of a preliminary
point of law. It can be made at any stage of any
proceedings by any National Court or tribunal.
The topics that references made to the Court have
covered have been very varied. The largest number
have raised questions as to the validity or interpretation
of Regulations applying to the Common Agricultural
Policy. The topics next in importance are social security,
customs duties and the common customs tariff, in-
ternal taxation, restrictive trade practices and mono-
polies (known in Community law jargon as "dominant
positions'"'), industrial property rights—and so on.
D'.rect actions are of two main kinds, (1) those against
Member States, for failure to comply with a Treaty,
and (2) those against the Council or the Commission
for a declaration that some act of theirs—a Regulation,
a Directive or a Decision—is void, or that a failure by
the Council or by the Commission to act in particular
circumstances is an infringement of a Treaty, or for
damages for breach of a non-contractural obligation by
the defendant Institution or its servants. In the case of
contractual obligations, jurisdiction over Community
Institutions lies, in general, with the ordinary Courts
of Member States.
Actions against Member States
According to the Treaties, an action against a Mem-
ber State can be brought either by another Member
State or by the Commission. In general the Member
States do not bring actions against each other: they
leave the enforcement of the Treaties to the Com-
mission, though in the recent dispute between France
and Italy about wine Italy got very near to bringing
an action against France.
So far there have been 23 successful actions by the
Commission against Member States, 14 of them against
Italy, 3 against Belgium, 3 against France, 2 against
Luxembourg and 1 against Germany.
No member State has ever been known not to comply
with an order made against it by the Court, though
in some cases it has taken a little time. It can be said
that, within the scope of the Treaties, the Member
States accept unquestioningly the rule of law.
Direct actions against the Commission or the Council
are much more numerous than those against Member
States. An action against either Institution may be
brought by the other, or by a Member State, or by any
individual or corporation directly affected by the act
or omission he or it complains of.
In practice most direct actions are brought by trading
companies against the Commission. There are occas-
ional actions by Member States against the Com-
mission or the Council, and there have been three
actions brought by the Commission against the Council.
As far as I know there has never been an action by the
Council against the Commission. The Irish Government
took action against the Commission on the question of
"Compensatory amounts" provided for in Article 65
and 66 of the Act of Accession in relation to Irish
Tomatoes and now reported at page 429 of Vol. 1
Common Market Law Reports [1974].
Turning to the procedure of the Court, the Treaties
.307