The development of the judicial control of the European Communities is perhaps best illustrated by comparing the first decision the Court of Justice rendered in December 1954, under the ECSC Treaty, with its preliminary rulings van Gend & Loos (1962), ENEL (1964) and Simmenthal II (1978) rendered under the EEC Treaty. In the first case the Court quashed a decision of the High Authority impugned by an annulment action of a Member State for an illegal exercise of Community powers - a judicial control which at the time already represented a spectacular legal in­ novation introduced by the ECSC Treaty. At that time the Court was, for evident reasons, still reserved as to its role within the unprecedented institutional structure of the Community. In van Gend, ENEL and Simmenthal II, on the other hand, the Court resolutely pursued a judicial policy intended to ensure an effective operation of the Community legal order, a problem hardly envisaged in 1954. In these rulings the Court characterized the emerging legal order and stated its fundamental and indispensable requirements: the unlimited supremacy of Community law and its direct effect. The development of a superior and autonomous Community legal order was finally completed by the Court's recognition of fundamental Communiry rights of individuals. This development from an initially reserved stand of the Court searching for its proper role and its potentialities to a bold and determined judicial policy is truly remarkable.

Inhalt

One: The Court of Justice and the Community Legal Order.- 1. The Nature and Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.- 1.1. Introduction.- 1.2. Characterization and Nature of the Court of Justice.- 1.3. Jurisdiction of the Court.- 1.4. Composition of the Court.- 1.5. Authority of the Jurisprudence of the Court.- Two: Direct Judicial Control.- A. Review of Legality of Community Acts.- 2. Action for Annulment.- 2.1. Introduction.- 2.1.1. Objective Control.- 2.1.2. Subjective Control.- 2.2. Constituent Elements of a Binding Community Act.- 2.3. Right of Action.- 2.3.1. ECSC Treaty.- 2.3.2. EEC Treaty.- 2.4. Acts Subject to an Annulment Action.- 2.4.1. Acts Subject to an Objective Control.- 2.4.2. Acts Subject to a Subjective Control.- 2.4.2.1. ECSC Treaty.- 2.4.2.2. EEC Treaty.- 2.4.2.2.1. Regulations.- 2.4.2.2.2. Decisions.- 2.4.2.2.3. Decisions in the Guise of a Regulation.- 2.4.2.2.4. Decisions Addressed to Third Parties.- 2.5. Admissibility.- 2.5.1. ECSC Treaty.- 2.5.1.1. Admissibility of Action Contesting an Individual Act.- 2.5.1.2. Admissibility of Action Contesting General Acts.- 2.5.2. EEC Treaty.- 2.5.2.1. Individual Concern.- 2.5.2.1.1. Determination of Class of Persons Generally Affected.- 2.5.2.1.2. Individualisation.- 2.5.2.2. Direct Concern.- 2.5.2.2.1. Acts Addressed to the Member States.- 2.5.2.2.2. Decisions Addressed to Private Parties.- 2.5.2.3. Some Tentative Conclusions.- 2.5.3. Time Limit for Action.- 2.6. Grounds of Illegality.- 2.6.1. Lack of Competence.- 2.6.2. Essential Procedural Requirements.- 2.6.2.1. Hearing.- 2.6.2.2. Community Legislative Process.- 2.6.2.3. Mandatory Consultation.- 2.6.2.4. Statement of Reasons.- 2.6.2.4.1. Functions of a Statement of Reasons.- 2.6.2.4.2. Indispensable Requirements of a Statement of Reasons.- 2.6.2.4.3. Extent of a Statement of Reasons.- 2.6.3. Infringement of Community Law.- 2.6.3.1. Legal Basis for Examining the Legality of an Act.- 2.6.3.2. Determination of an Infringement of Community Law.- 2.6.4. Misuse of Powers.- 2.6.4.1. Notion of a Misuse of Powers.- 2.6.4.2. Scope of a Misuse of Powers.- 2.6.4.3. Evidence of a Misuse of Powers Committed.- 2.7. Extent of Judicial Review: Evaluation of Economic Facts and Circumstances.- 2.7.1. Limits of Evaluating Economic Facts and Circumstances.- 2.7.2. Unlimited Jurisdiction.- 2.7.3. Court's Practice in Reviewing and Evaluating Economic Facts and Circumstances.- 2.8. Application for a Stay of Operation of Acts and Other Interim Measures.- 2.8.1. Admissibility of an Application for a Stay of Operation and for Other Interim Measures.- 2.8.2. Grounds for a Stay of Operation.- 2.8.3. Other Interim Measures.- 2.9. Effects and Consequences of an Annulment Judgment.- 2.9.1. Direct Consequences.- 2.9.2. Further, Indirect Consequences of an Annulment.- 2.9.3. Community Institution Obliged to Comply with the Annulment Judgment.- 2.9.4. Remedies against a Non-Compliance with the Court's Annulment Judgment.- 3. Action for Default.- 3.1. Introduction.- 3.2. Nature of Default.- 3.3. Right to Institute an Action for Default.- 3.3.1. ECSC Treaty Article 35.- 3.3.2. EEC Treaty Article 175.- 3.4. Admissibility of an Action for Default.- 3.4.1. Preliminary Request.- 3.4.2. Termination of Inaction.- 3.4.2.1. ECSC Treaty.- 3.4.2.2. EEC Treaty.- 3.4.3. Interests Aggrieved by Inaction.- 3.4.4. Identity of Request and Action for Default.- 3.4.5. Abuse of an Action for Default.- 3.4.6. Delayed Request for Action.- 3.5. Grounds of Illegality.- 3.5.1. ECSC Treaty.- 3.5.2. EEC Treaty.- 3.6. Acts Subject to an Action for Default.- 3.6.1. ECSC Treaty.- 3.6.2. EEC Treaty.- 3.7. Acts Sought by Private Parties.- 3.7.1. Acts Which May Not Be Sought.- 3.7.2. Acts Which May Be Sought.- 4. Plea of an Exception of Illegality.- 4.1. Origin and Purpose of an Exception of Illegality.- 4.2. General Analysis of the ECSC Treaty Article 36.- 4.3. Parties Entitled to Plead an Exception of Illegality.- 4.4. Acts Subject to an Exception of Illegality.- 4.5. Community Institutions whose Acts are Subject to an Exception of Illegality.- 4.6. Jurisdiction before which an Exception of Illegality may be Pleaded.- 4.7. Proceedings in which an Exception of Illegality may be Pleaded.- 4.8. Formulation of a Charge of an Exception of Illegality.- 4.9. Relevance of a General Act or Regulation for the Act based thereon.- 4.10. A Plea of an Exception of Illegality Unlimited in Time?.- 4.11. Grounds of Illegality.- 4.12. Effects of a Successful Plea of an Exception of Illegality.- 5. Action for Damages.- 5.1. Introduction.- 5.2. Legal Basis for an Action for Damages.- 5.2.1. ECSC Treaty Article 34.- Article 40.- 5.2.2. EEC Treaty Article 215, para. 2.- 5.3. Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Court.- 5.4. Determination of the Liable Party.- 5.4.1. Sole, Direct Liability of the Community.- 5.4.2. Sole, Direct Liability of the Member States.- 5.4.3. Difficulties in Determining the Liable Party.- 5.4.4. Shared Liability.- 5.5. Determination of the Proper Forum.- 5.6. Conditions for Claiming Compensation for Damages.- 5.6.1. Fault.- 5.6.2. Superior Rule of Law Intended to Protect Interests of Individuals.- 5.6.2.1. Superior Rule of Law.- 5.6.2.2. Rules Intended to Protect Individuals.- 5.6.2.3. Sufficiently Serious Breach of a Superior Rule of Law.- 5.6.3. Scope of Non-Contractual Liability of the Community.- 5.6.4. Causal Connection.- 5.6.5. Period of Prescription.- 5.7. Nature and Determination of Damage.- 5.7.1. Actual Damage.- 5.7.2. Direct Damages.- 5.7.3. Special Damage.- 5.7.4. Action for Declaration of Liability.- 5.7.5. Determination of Damage.- B. Action for Infringement of Community Law.- 6. Infringement Procedure against a Defaulting Member State.- 6.1. General Infringement Procedure under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty.- 6.1.1. Origin and Nature of Community Obligations of Member States.- 6.1.2. Nature and Objective of an Infringement Procedure.- 6.1.3. Extra judicial Procedure.- 6.1.4. Judicial Procedure.- 6.1.4.1. Time Limit for Legal Action.- 6.1.4.2. Reasoned Opinion: Framework and Limit of the Commission Action.- 6.1.4.3. Decisive Date for Judging the Alleged Infringement.- 6.1.4.4. Admissibility of the Commission Action.- 6.1.4.5. Principles Governing the Determination of an Infringement.- 6.1.4.6. Execution of Community Obligations.- 6.1.5. Judgment of the Court Determining an Infringement.- 6.1.6. Effects of a Judgment Determining an Infringement.- 6.2. Infringement Procedure Instituted by a Member State under…