Methods Used By the Court Of Justice of the European Union - Essay Example

European Union Law Essay Critical Assessment of the Methods Used By the Court Of Justice of the European Union for the Purposes of Interpreting the European Union Law There are times that the European Union courts find it necessary to do the interpretation and the application of the provisions of the international agreements that bind the Community in different contexts. Those agreements make up the Community law and thus they come from within the jurisdiction of the courts (Eeckhout 2004, p256). The European Union law is interpreted based on the Article 31 of the 1969 on Law of Treaties of the Vienna Convention. The article provides that the interpretation be based on the treaty‘s ordinary meaning of the terms, in its object and the purpose. However, the European Court of Justice gives priority to the interpretation in its general context (systematic method of interpretation) and in its light of object and purpose (teleological method of interpretation) over the method of literal interpretation of the Treaty (Kaczorowska 2008, p243). When the courts are interpreting the provisions in the agreement, they are interpreting what is actually the international law act. The mere fact that the agreements are part of the European Union legal order does not mean that they are fully integrated into the internal Community law and this is in regard to the methods of interpretation. When performing the conclusion of the agreement with the Community, the parties in the contract tend not to have the Community law interpretation methods extended into the agreement, unless indicated otherwise (Eeckhout 2004, p256). An agreement is simply an act under the international law and it is to be interpreted according to the recognized methods of interpretation of the international agreements and treaties. In case the European Union courts are required to interpret the agreements, they will do so according to the methods of interpretation if they want their substance to correspond with the Community law effects of the agreements; it is interpreted and governed under the international law. This suggests that there are differences in the methods of interpretation of the international law and the Community law (Eeckhout 2004, p257). The real application of the Treaties (international laws) and the Community acts are dependent on the interpretation given to them. The interpretation that is valid is the one that comes from the Court of Justice. The interpretations normally apply to the past and the future cases and thus they have a retroactive effect. In practice, the Court has its own methods of interpretation of the law and according to the settled case-law; the Court will take the wordings of the provision, its context and then its finality (Schermers and Waelbroeck 2001, p10). The methods that the Court of Justice and the national courts use have many similarities. It will be wrong to think that the national judges would follow the texts faithfully and that the Court of Justice would not put into consideration the wording of the provision applicable (Bavasso and O’Keeffe 2000, p57). There are four methods of interpretation; literal interpretation, background/systematic interpretation, teleological interpretation, and historical interpretation. The Court at times may lay more emphasis on some of the methods than on others. This is so in the teleological interpretation; it is rarely used in the traditional legal systems and thus has to be privileged. This may be partly associated with the entry of the Community legal order, the basis of the provisions of law which have to be completed, and the dynamic and economic nature of the European construction (this explains why the law as drafted in 1957 needs changes as the years progress). In a nutshell, the Court will attempt to combine all the methods of interpretation (Schermers and Waelbroeck 2001, p10). The Court can use other methods of interpretation depending on the case and the level to which the provision being interpreted is obscure, ambiguous or imprecise. The following are the characteristic features of the interpretation of the Community law by the European Court of Justice; The wide selection of the methods of interpretation of the European Union law and the willingness to reap maximum effectiveness from them. Autonomy and originality of the laws that is the Members States national laws and the international laws are given much consideration. The desire to maintain the consistency of the Community system is also given prior consideration, and Lastly the desire to ensure the homogeneity and unity of the European Union law (Kaczorowska 2008, p243). Literal Interpretation The Court will tend not to deviate from the plain or the literal meaning when the legal provisions are clear. The Court describes plain meaning as the normal meaning of the use of the words (Moens and Trone 2010, p342). If the legal provision is unambiguous and clear, the Court cannot interpret the legal provision contrary to its meaning. Thus, the Court cannot substitute its role for the Community legislator; that will be opposite of the principle of the principle of legal certainty (Schermers and Waelbroeck 2001, p11). Literal interpretation remains to be the method of interpretation of the Community law. A comma in the Community law may prove decisive in law interpretation. However, a pure literal interpretation is not sufficient. It must also consider if the cases are covered by the Community legislature intention. To reach proper interpretation of the law, the Court of Justice considers itself not strictly held by the letter of the law. Thus, when the intention of the Treaty provision was not meant to cover the circumstances in question, the Court may be compelled to deviate from the literal interpretation of the rule. In other cases, the Court may be compelled to provide a wide interpretation of the existing rules through the judicial interpretations. The fact that the Court may deviate from the clear law text does not mean it would not hold the importance of the legal provision when making a ruling. In most of the cases, the Court has first to study the legal provision involved in all the official languages available (Schermers and Waelbroeck 2001, p11). When the Court finds the legal provision ambiguous, it may rule that the matter in question be examined in the provisions in which it is intended to serve (Schermers and Waelbroeck 2001, p12). The literal text of rules of the Community law differs in character from most of the national laws because of the several language authenticities. The interpretation requires precision as an expression can appear vague in one language and have a clearer meaning in another. Thus, varying meanings of the text may emerge due to the different languages. In such a case, the Court has more freedom in deciding on the rule because it can resort to other methods of interpretation. The Court relies on the interpretation which allows it to accomplish the objectives being followed by the decision in question. It is imperative for the Court to apply and interpret the Community rule in regard to all the existing official languages (Schermers and Waelbroeck 2001, p16). Historical Interpretation In majority of the European civil law nations, the judge seeks out the subjective nature of the legislature by doing an examination of the law travaux preparatoires (Moens and Trone 2010, p342). The Court is incapable of examining the original 1957 EEC Treaty travaux preparatoires because they are a secret. The preparatory materials are still available for most of the Treaties amendments. The preparatory documents have been used by the Court for secondary legislations like the Directives. Management Committee papers, European Parliament debates and convention explanatory notes are some of the preparatory materials. These materials consider the European Union legislature intention when interpreting the European Union legal provisions (Moens and Trone 2010, p342). Systematic Interpretation It is also referred to as contextual interpretation or background interpretation. When the Court is interpreting the European Union law, it places more emphasis upon the systems of secondary legislation or the Treaties (Moens and Trone 2010, p343). An article’s place in a certain chapter of the Treaty is important for the interpretation. The introductory articles that set out the aims of the Communities also play a vital role in the interpretation of other articles. Therefore, the ruling made by the Court regarding EC Article 37(1) [presently EC Article 31(1)], should be considered in relation to article’s other paragraphs and its place in the general structure of the Treaty (Schermers and Waelbroeck 2001, p17). The Court interpretations may be guided by the regulations adopted by the international system. This happened within the United Nations Conference for Trade and Development when regulations were adopted in respect to the execution of the tariff preferences. There are also preliminary considerations that guide the Court in its interpretation; (a) the Court may regularly use the preliminary considerations of a directive in the interpretation of acts, [the interpretations cannot be considered as binding rules], and (b) the introductory articles and the preamble of the Treaties are also important in the interpretation, they define the objectives that are dispensable for the accomplishment of the Community’s tasks (Schermers and Waelbroeck 2001, p17). Interpretation by analogy is a unique type of systemic interpretation. The extent of the Treaty or the Community act is usually defined by its own terms and the terms may be extended to circumstances other than those contained in the Treaty or in the Community act. When a certain situation lacks an express provision, the Court can use other provisions in the Community law that is applicable to that particular situation. There are exceptional cases where an individual may prove that the application of analogy of a particular applies to them (Schermers and Waelbroeck 2001, p17). When two provisions are contradicting, the lex specialis principle becomes applicable. This means that the more specific provision applies by belittlement of the general principle. Lastly, the Court can legalize interpretation; this is another form of systemic interpretation. The Court may take the wording of the secondary Community law open to more than interpretation. Preference is offered to the interpretation that provides more provisions that are consistent with the Treaty. The interpretations that offer provisions that are incompatible with the Treaty are not given preference. This approach gives a reflection of the general principle of consistency of the Community action. The principle requires institutions in order to avoid any inconsistencies that may arise in the process of implementation of the Community law provisions (Schermers and Waelbroeck 2001, p20). Teleological Interpretation It refers to the interpretation of the Treaties on the basis of the intention and aims of the provisions that are under consideration. This form of interpretation is unique because it is not restricted by the background, wording or the context of the provision in question. The interpretation is purposeful and dynamic in its application and it seeks to give effect to the overall objectives and schemes of the particular provision under consideration. Treaties and other forms of legislature are also included (Moens and Trone 2010, p344). All Language Versions Considered The Court considers all the official different languages when interpreting the European Union Legislation. This is done so to ensure that the application and interpretation of the European Union law is uniform or the same (Moens and Trone 2010, p345). When the different language versions move away from the meaning, literal interpretation cannot be relied upon in the interpretation of the issue in question; the purpose and the context of the provision have to be examined (Derlen 2009, p50). The multilingual nature of the European Union laws has produced a number of challenges and problems. The relationship between legal certainty and multilingualism is considered problematic. It demonstrates an approach towards legitimate expectations and legal certainty as adopted by the European Court of Justice. Contrast comes in with the weight offered to the legitimate expectation and legal certainty of the matters pertaining to the multilingual interpretation (Derlen 2009, p51). References Bavasso, A. & O’Keeffe, D. (2000) Judicial review in European Union law. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. Derlen, M. (2009) Multilingual interpretation of European Union law. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. Eeckhout, P. (2004) External relations of the European Union: Legal and constitutional foundations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kaczorowska, A. (2008) European Union law. Oxon, OX: Taylor & Francis. Moens, G. & Trone, J. (2010) Commercial law of the European Union. London, UK: Springer. Schermers, H. G. & Waelbroeck, D. F. (2001) Judicial protection in the European Union. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. Read More