- As both coal and nuclear fall under separate Treaty regimes, ie, the ECSC and Euratom Treaties, the interface between Community institutions and the Member States is somewhat different. See, for example, the ruling of the European Court in Case C-128/92 Banks [1994] ECR I- 1209 and Case C Hopkins [1996] ECR 1–2309.
- Reich, N, Competition Between Legal Orders (1992) 29 CMLRev, 861 at 865. See in the same sense, Dashwood, A, ‘The Limits of European Community Powers’ (1996) 21 EL Rev 113.
- Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos (1963) ECR 1.
- For a detailed description of the legal effects of directives in national legal orders, see A Prechal, Directives in Community Law, OUP, 1996.
- OJ 1990 L 313/3.
- OJ 1991 L 147/37.
- OJ 1990 L 185/16, as amended OJ 1993 L 277/32.
- OJ 1997 L 27/20.
- For an application of this exception to the energy sector see the rulings of the Court in Case 72/83 Campus Oil [1984] ECR 3347; and Case C 347/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR 4747. A detailed discussion of these cases can be found in Chapter 2 of my book, EC Electricity Law, Chancery, 1992.
- For a useful if outdated review, see the Commission's Working Document on an Internal Energy Market, Com (88)232, 1988.
- See, for example, Edwards and Hoskins, ‘Article 90: Deregulation and EC Law’ in (1995) 32 CMLRev, pp 159–188.
- [1991] ECR 1–1223.
- On this point, and for a review of the relevant case law, see further Edwards and Hoskins, op cit at note 8.
- [1994] ECR 1477. See for a detailed discussion, my annotation in (1995) 32 CMLRev, pp 305–326.
- It may be noted that in Case C-189/95 Franzen, decided upon the same day, concerning the legality of the Swedish alcohol monopoly, the Court seems to adopt a somewhat different approach to Article 37 EC.
- The Commission relied primarily upon Case C393–92 Almelo, op cit, and Case 230/91 Corbeau [1993] ECR I-2533.
- OJ 1997 L27/20.
- Draft issued on 27 October 1997.
- This is essentially covered by Directive 94/22 on licensing in the hydrocarbons sector, OJ 1994 L164/3.
- The Commission has published a notice determining the required level of market opening at 23.2 per cent of total Community consumption. See OJ 1997 C 33018.
- For a summary of the literature on this issue, see NARUC, Dealing With Stranded Costs, Washington DC 1995.
- This is reaffirmed in Case C-159/94 Commission v France, where the fact that the supposed environmental obligations were not be found in any specific document was of considerable relevance.
- In this respect there seems no reason to call into question the approach taken by the judge in the national proceedings in the Almelo litigation in his ruling of October 1996. See further my annotation in (1997) 34 CMLRev, no 6, forthcoming.
- Case 72/83 Campus Oil, loc cit, and see the analysis of this case in AG Cosmas's Opinion in Cases 157 - 160/94 of 26 November 1996.
- A Commission's decision under Article 100(4) EC to allow a Member State to ‘continue imposing stricter environmental controls has been successfully challenged by another Member State, on the grounds that the Commission did not investigate the facts of the case and chose to rely on the arguments put forward by the government seeking to invoke the procedure. Case C41/93 France v Commission [1994] ECR I-1829.
- Case C-465/93 Atlanta MBH [1995] ECR.
- For a good overview of the issues, see Wesseling, R, Subsidiary in Community Antitrust Law (1977) 22 EurLRev, 35–54.
- Case T-24/90 Automec [1992] ECR 1–2223.
- Commission Notice OJ 1993 C39/6; J Temple Lange, ‘The Duties of national courts under Community constitutional law’ (1997) 22 European Law Review 1–14: Commission Notice on Cooperation between national competition authorities and the Commission, OJ 1997 C313/3; C-D Ehlermann, Implementation of EC Competition law by national anti-trust authorities (1996) European Competition Law Review, pp 88–95.
- OJ 1997 C76/9.
- [1989] ECR 803.
- J Temple Lang, Community Law and National Regulatory Authorities, Paper Presented to the Fordham Competition Law Conference, New York, October 1997.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
Volume 16, 1998 - Issue 1