19th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 January 2008
In 1996, the current President of the French Constitutional Council (the Conseil Constitutionnel), Pierre Mazeaud, wrote:
1 Mazeaud Le Monde, P 20 Jan 1996 p 13, reproduced in (1996) 28 Revue francaise de droit constitutionnel 702–4. The proposed constitutional amendment forbidding the Government from approving European legislation which infringed the French Constitution is set out in 28 Revue francaise de droit constitutionnel 705–6.Google Scholar
2 The importance of the decision can be seen by the press coverage, eg Gattengo, H and Jakubyszyn, C ‘Le droit européeen prime desormais sur la Constitution francaise’ Le Monde 16 06 2004.Google Scholar
3 Sacco, RLa comparaisonjuridique au service de la connaissance du droit (Economica Paris 1991), 139.Google Scholar
4 Ost, F and Van de Kerchove, MDe la pyramide au réeseau (Faculty Universitaires Saint Louis Brussels 2002) 184.Google Scholar
5 See Vedel, GDroit constitutionnel (Sirey Paris 1949) 529: There cannot be sovereignty of the law and of the national legislator in matters in which the State has voluntarily accepted the limitation of that sovereignty. (But he then explained that ratification involves an act of the legislator in the first place, so the sovereignty of the legislator is in fact preserved.)Google Scholar
6 Bell, JFrench Constitutional Law (OUP Oxford 1992) 28.Google Scholar
7 id French Legal Cultures (Butterworths London 2001) 200: CC decision No 92–308 DC of 9 Apr 1992, Rec 55.Google Scholar
8 CC decision no 74–54 DC of 15 Jan 1975, Rec. 19, see Bell French Constitutional Law 75 and 318: ‘Considering that a loi contrary to a treaty is not, as such, contrary to the Constitution...’ (considéerant 5).Google Scholar
9 Dutheillet de Lamothe, O ‘Le Conseil constitutionnel et le droit européeen’ (2004) 57 Revue francaise de droit constitutionnel 23, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Ibid.
11 Considerant 8 of the decision.Google Scholar
12 A rather extreme interpretation would be to suggest that the logic of this change of constitutional basis for the status of EU legislation would be to give the whole of Community law constitutional status and to permit any national law to be reviewed by the Conseil constitutionnel for its compatibility with EU law: Roux, J ‘Le Conseil constitutionnel, le droit communautaire derive et la Constitution’ RDP 2004, 912 at 923–4.Google Scholar
13 See Genevois, B ‘Le Conseil constitutionnel et le droit communautaire déerivée’ Rfda 2004, 651.Google Scholar
14 Above n 9, 25; cf Commentary, AJDA 2004, 2261 at 2265.Google Scholar
15 CE Ass pléen, 2 June 2000, Mlle Fraisse, D 2000 J 865, note Mathieu et Verpaux; CE Ass, 30 Oct 1998, Sarran, Rfda 1998, 1081 concl Maugüuée.Google Scholar
16 CE 3 Dec 2001, Syndicat national de l'industrie pharmeceutique, AJDA 2002, 1219 note Valenbois. This is in line with the broader thrust of the Cohn-Bendit decision of 1978, for which Genevois was commissaire du gouvernement, and Dutheillet de Lamothe was an approving commentator.Google Scholar
17 See Chamussy, DAJDA 2004, 1937 at 1940 and B Mathieu, D 2004 Chr 1739.Google Scholar
18 See fundamental principles recognized by the laws of the Republic. A similar criticism of the concept of a ‘express provision’ of the Constitution is offered by Oberdorff, H, ‘Le Conseil constitutionnel et l'ordre juridique communautaire: cooperation et contrôo1e’ RDP 2004, 869.Google Scholar
19 Above n 13, 657.Google Scholar
20 See Bell, ‘The Expansion of Judicial Review over Discretionary Powers in France’ [1986] PL 99 at 103–7.Google Scholar
21 See further, Cameron, I ‘The Protection of Constitutional Rights in Sweden’ [1997] PL 488.Google Scholar
22 Brunner, [1994] 1 CMLR 57, § 13.Google Scholar
23 See Schwarze, J (ed) The Birth of a European Constitutional Order (Nomos Baden-Baden 2000) 362–6.Google Scholar
24 In this decision, as in CC decision no 2004–497 DC of 1 July 2004, Telecommunications Package, Giscard d'Estaing did sit as a member of the Conseil.Google Scholar
25 Considerant 10.Google Scholar
26 Considerant 12.Google Scholar
27 ‘Le Conseil constitutionnel aux prises avec le droit constitutionnel déerivée’ RDP 2004, 889. On reservations of interpretation generally, see Bell French Constitutional Law 53–4.Google Scholar
28 Case No 4774/98 of 29 June 2004.Google Scholar
29 Considerant 25.Google Scholar
30 Art III-270, -271, -273, -276 and -300 § 2 (b) CT.Google Scholar
31 Art m-264, -273, -275, -276, and -277 CT.Google Scholar
32 A number of provisions on the areas if judicial cooperation in criminal matters and common foreign and security policy were identified here in considéerant 34 of the Conseil's decision, as well as the generalized ‘simplified revision’ procedure of Arts IV-444 and IV-445. The necessary amendments to the Constitution were made by the Constitutional Law of 1 March 2005.Google Scholar
