number 1 - Centre d'études et de recherches européennes Robert ...

The Court of Justice and its Role as a driving Force in European Integration 121
would be forced, whenever a general decision was published, to seek out in it all
such provisions as might subsequently cause them injury. Here, the Court clearly
added to the body of judge-made law by having recourse to the concept of a provision's
29 meaning and effectiveness ("effet utile"), which was to prove one of the
cornerstones of its future case-law.
This same decision lays down yet another constitutional principle which heralds
major case-law of the eighties. Indeed, in relation to a delegation of powers which
the High Authority had granted within the framework of Article 53 of the Treaty
and the exercise of which could jeopardize the competence of the other institutions,
the Court pointed to the place occupied by the High Authority in the task which
Article 3 entrusts to all the Community institutions "within the limits of their
respective powers in the common interest". The Court said that through this provision
"there can be seen in the balance of powers, which is characteristic of the institutional
structure of the Community, a fundamental guarantee granted by the
Treaty" 30 .
Institutional matters continued to occupy the Court's attention. It declared, for
example, that in the quest for a "common interest" within the meaning of Article 3,
the High Authority must act with circumspection and care in its appraisal of the
various interests at stake; under that proviso, it was at liberty to employ its regulatory
powers as circumstances dictated, even to the detriment of certain private interests 31 .
After a marathon hearing on 26 June 1958 at which four long judgments were
delivered 32 the ECSC Court formally terminated its functions pending its official
replacement by the single Court, the Treaty of Rome having come into force in the
meantime.
29. On the concept of effectiveness, which was to facilitate considerably the interpretation of the texts
in a sense favourable to integration, the Court expressed the following view, as early as 1956:
"The Court considers that without having recourse to a wide interpretation it is possible to apply a
rule of interpretation generally accepted in both international and national law, according to which
the rules laid down by an international treaty or a law presuppose the rules without which that
treaty or law would have no meaning or could not be reasonably and usefully applied. Furthermore,
under the terms of Article 8 of the Treaty it shall be the duty of the High Authority to ensure
that the objectives set out in that Treaty are attained in accordance with the provisions thereof. It
must be concluded from that provision, which is the guiding principle for the powers of the High
Authority defined in Chapter I of the Treaty, that it enjoys a certain independence in determining
the implementing measures necessary for the attainment of the objectives referred to in the Treaty
or in the Convention which forms an integral part thereof." (Case 8/55, 26 November 1956, [1954
to 1956] ECR 292).
30. Cases 9 and 10/56, 13 June 1958, [1957 and 1958] ECR 133 and 157. The impression of daring
which this decision gives is to be explained perhaps by the fact that the EEC Treaty, which was
already in force on the day that the judgment was passed, expressly provides in Article 184 for the
device of the plea of illegality. What is said about the balance of powers reflects the concept of the
attribution of competence laid down in Article 4 of the EC Treaty.
In its Opinion of 17 December 1959 on the "minor revision" of Article 95, the Court was to come
back to the concept of the balance of powers but, this time, in the relations between the Institutions
and the Member States, [1959] ECR 260.
31. Case 15/57, 12 June 1958, [1957 and 1958] ECR 211.