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

122
Christian Pennera
From December 1954 to June 1958 the Court passed twenty-seven judgments,
although the number of cases brought before it was about twice that figure. The difference
is explained by the fact that either litigants took the initiative of withdrawing
actions, or a number of related cases were joined in one and the same
decision.
Twenty cases were brought by individuals against the High Authority, while
three were initiated by Member States and four others by Community officials.
With the exception of one set of proceedings for interpretation of an earlier
decision and litigation relating more particularly to officials, all the cases brought
before the Court sought to annul decisions under Article 33 or Article 35 of the
ECSC Treaty.
The lessons already to be learned at that stage from the Court's case-law were
not inconsiderable. The principle of effectiveness ("effet utile") had been asserted
and associated with the concept of the preponderance of fundamental objectives in
any general interpretation of the Treaty. Certain provisions had been declared
directly applicable, and the concept of institutional balance and respect for the
competence of the various institutions had likewise been established. There was a
marked resolve to make access to the Court easy, via a very liberal interpretation of
the formal conditions and by enlarging the concept of the "objection on the grounds
of illegality".
The Beginnings of the European Communities' single Court
Setting up the Single Court and the major Innovations of the Rome Treaties
Both the Rome treaties were supplemented by two protocols on the Statutes of their
respective Court of Justice 33 , since each contained –,as did the ECSC Treaty –,provisions
that were peculiar to its own system of jurisdiction.
As opposed to the case for those institutions described as "executive" and which
were not brought together until the Merger Treaty of 1965, the Assembly and the
Court resulting from the three treaties were, immediately in 1957, declared to be
"single" institutions. This meant in fact setting up one court only which, with the
same staff and the same administration, would be called upon to pass judgment,
depending upon the litigation, in the fields of competence of the ECSC Treaty, the
32. At that time decisions were read in their entirety including both facts and legal arguments and,
finally, the judgment proper. The same applied to the opinions of the Advocates General. This
could take hours. Today, this practice has disappeared : the public pronouncement of the judgment
is reduced to the reading out of its operative part, for example the decision to annul or not to annul,
and the order for costs. A similar procedure applies to the opinions of the Advocates General.
33. The protocols on the Statutes of the Court of Justice of the EEC on the one hand and of EURA-
TOM on the other, were signed in Brussels on 17 April 1957. As is well known, the EURATOM
Treaty was not at the heart of Community activities, and no mention will be made of it here. The
remedies which it instituted are similar to those laid down by the EEC Treaty.