204 / 300
however. It made it impossible to contest the validity in
the Irish Courts of any Community measure on the
grounds that it was inconsistent with the fundamental
rights provisions of the Constitution. It also made it
impossible to contest the validity, on those grounds, of
any measure adopted by any Irish governmental insti-
tution, once it had been shown that the measure was
"necessitated by the obligations of membership of the
Communities". This result, which can fairly be de-
scribed as a revolution in Irish constitutional law, under-
standably caused concern as a matter of principle,
although it is clear that no conflict between Community
measures and the Irish fundamental rights provisions
is likely.
As the present writer has already pointed out in an
analysis of the constitutional amendment ("Legal and
Constitutional Implications for Ireland of Adhesion to
the EEC Treaty", 9,
Common Market Law
Review
(1972), p. 167), the Court of Justice of the Commu-
nities has repeatedly declared that fundamental rights
are basic principles of Community law. It is reassuring
for Irish lawyers concerned with civil rights to consider
the Court's decision in the case of
Nold v Commission
(No. 4/73) decided on 14 May 1974, in which the
Court indicated the sources on which it will draw for
Community law on fundamental rights, and how it
would interpret that law. The Commission had autho-
rised the major supplier of coal in the Ruhr to make
direct supplies of coal only to purchasers who signed
firm contracts for 6,000 metric tons per year for two
years. Nold claimed that this decision was invalid, on
the grounds among oth ers that its fundamental rights
wore violated by being deprived of direct supplies of
coal.
The Court repeated that fundamental rights form an
integral part of the general principles of Communitv
law which the Court is obliged to uphold. The Court
will base itself on the constitutional traditions common
to the Member States and will not permit measures
which are incompatible with the fundamental rights
recognised and guaranteed by their Constitutions. Inter-
national conventions on human rights to which Mem-
ber States are parties also provide evidence of what
basic rights should he recognised in Community law.
In this case, what was involved was the right or free-
dom to carry on business activities, a right similar to
the right of ownership, and recognised by several nati-
onal constitutions and by the European Convention on
Human Rights. These rights, however, are not absolute:
they must be considered in the light of the social func-
tion of the property and activities which are protected,
and they, therefore, are guaranteed only subject to
limits resulting from the public interest. In Communitv
law, some of these limits result from the aims pursued
in the general interest by the Community, provided
that the substance of the fundamental rights is not
affected. In particular, fundamental rights of enter-
prises cannot provide protection of all their interests
against commercial risks inherent in economic activitv,
and this, the Court held, was what was involved in the
case before it.
Extracts from the Third Irish Report on
Legislation of the European Communities
Right to provide services: Lawyers
6.12. A working group of officials of the Member
States is continuing its examination of a draft Directive
on the provision of services by lawyers (OJ No. C78.
20 June 1969). At a meeting in October 1973 the group
decided to submit an interim report to COREPER
setting out the progress made to date and seeking direc-
tions on certain basic issues. The interim report has
since been prepared and was circulated in February
1974. It seeks policy decisions on such matters as :
—the activities to be covered by the draft directive and
the conditions under which they should be exercised
taking into account rules of professional conduct;
—the form of the instrument by which liberalisation
should be achieved, i.e. whether this should be a
Directive under the EEC Treaty or a Convention
between the Member States;
—the Courts before which advocacy and related acti-
vities might be permitted, e.g., should the right of
audience in the highest Courts of Member States be
excluded because in some States this is reserved to a
certain class of lawyer; and
—-the extent and form of the collaboration between the
lawyer of the host State and the visiting lawyer.
The working group has also posed a more fundamental
question regarding the interpretation of Article 55 of
the EEC Treaty which provides that the Treaty provi-
sions on establishment and services shall not apply to
activities which are connected, even occasionally, with
the exercise of official authority. The question is
whether this means that the legal profession as a whole
is excluded from the application of those provisions or
that only those particular activities which are connected
with the exercise of official authority should be regarded
as excluded. Ireland favours the latter interpretation.
This point has also been raised in the case
Reyners v
Belgium
(case 2/74) which has recently been referred
to the Court of Justice of the Communities by the
Belgian Conseil d'Etat for a preliminary ruling under
Article 177 of the EEC Treaty. The legal profession
is being kept informed of developments in relation to
the draft Directive and is being consulted as necessarv.
Company Law
10.1. The Council Resolution of 17 December 1973
on Industrial Policy (OJ No. CI77, 31 December 1973)
established a timetable for the consideration of the
draft Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Directives on
Company Law as well as the draft statute establishing
a European Company. The provisions of these drafts
are described in the First Report, paragraphs 10.2 to
10.7. T lie Resolution provides that the Council will act
(a) by 1 January 1975 on the draft Second Directive
which deals with the formation of public limited
liability companies and with the maintenance and
operation of their capital;
202