1. Proceedings of the Court of Justice No.15/95 or on the Europa page of the Internet at http://europa.eu.int/en/agenda/igc-home/eu-doc/justice/index.html.

2. Ibid.

3. Art.109a(2) EC.

4. Case C–70/88 European Parliament v. Council [1990] E.C.R. 1–2041.

5. Of 5 Dec. 1995. Available on the Europa page of the Internet at http://europa.eu.int/en/agenda/igc-home/eu-doc/reflect/final.html.

6. idem, para.120.

7. idem, para.68.

8. Intergovernmental Conference Commission Opinion: Reinforcing Political Union and Preparing forEnlargement(Luxembourg, 1996, ISBN 92–827–5857–5)or http:// europa.eu.int/en/agenda/igc-home/eu-doc/commissn/avis-e n.ht.Google Scholar

9. Parliament's Opinion on the convening of the IGC of 13 Mar. 1996, EU Bull. 3–1996, point 2.2.1 or http://europa.eu.int/en/agenda/igc-home/eu-doc/parlment/opinion.html.

10. Supra n.5, at para.120. Although the UK was undoubtedly one of the minority on this point it has not completely ruled out some extension of the role of the ECJ in this area by its statements in the White Paper, A Partnership of Nations, op. cit. infra n.14, at paras.49 and 53. The government believes the role of the Community institutions, apart from the Council, should be strictly limited in the third pillar and that a “much greater role” for those institutions “would raise very real difficulties of principle”.

11. EU Bull. 3–1996, point 1.3 or http://europa.eu.int/en/record/turin.html.

12. Supra n.8, at para.20.

13. Supra n.9, at para.23.

14. A Partnership of Nations, 03 1996, para.62, available on the FCO home page on the Internet at http://www.fco.gov.uk/europe/index.html.Google Scholar

15. 07 1996, available on the Internet from the home page at ibid.Google Scholar

16. See Art. A(2)(b) of the UK's proposed new Articles for the EC! Statute in Annex D to the Memorandum.

17. See Annex E to the Memorandum which refers to cases where “(a) the liberty, criminal liability or personal status of an individual is in issue; (b) by reason of the reference the operation of domestic or Community legislation is suspended: or (c) by reason of the reference Member States, economic operators or individuals may suffer serious financial consequences”.

18. See Cases C–46/93 and C–48/93, Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame [1996] 1 C.M.L.R. 889; Case C–392/93 R. v. HM Treasury, ex p. British Telecom [1996] 2 C.M.L.R. 217; Case C–5/94 R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex p. Medley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd [1996] 2 C.M.L.R. 391; and Cases C–178–179/94 and C–188–190/94, Dillenkofer and Others v. Germany, judgment of 8 10 1996, The Times 14 10 1996.Google Scholar

19. Annex A to the Memorandum. The UK proposal does not distinguish between situations where a member State has a wide discretion or a very limited discretion in carrying out its Community law obligations. In the former case the ECJ requires proof that the member State has “manifestly and gravely disregarded” the limits on the exercise of its powers whereas in the latter case the “mere infringement of Community law may be sufficient” see Factortame, idem, paras.45–47 and British Telecom, idem, paras.38–46 contrasted with Hedley Lomas, idem, para.28 and Dillenkofer, idem, paras.25–29.

20. Op.cit.supra n.11.

21. Annex H to the Memorandum.

22. The last point is contained in a draft Treaty Article in Annex C to the Memorandum. At most it is an attempt to persuade the Court to constrain the retrospective effect of its judgments more often. It does not require the Court to limit the retrospective effect of its judgments.

23. Annexes F and G to the Memorandum.

24. Art.165 EC and Art.95(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure (1991) O.J. L176.Google Scholar

25. In the Court's submission to the IGC, supra n.1, it is stated that since the entry into force of the TEU the member States and Community institutions “have confined to exceptional cases their requests that the Court sit in plenary session”.

26. (1995)44I.C.L.Q.218.Google Scholar

27. 110 1994. Up-to-date information is provided in each issue of International Litigation Procedure: see [1996] I.L.Pr. 526.Google Scholar

28. 1 03 1996.Google Scholar

29. 1 09 1996.Google Scholar

30. 1 03 1996.Google Scholar

31. 1 03 1995.Google Scholar

32. 1 10 1995.Google Scholar

33. 1 11 1994.Google Scholar

34. Case C–406/92 [1994] E.C.R. 1–5439.

35. See the critique by Adrian Briggs, “The Brussels Convention” (1994) 14 Y.E.L. 557, 581–582.Google Scholar

36. Case C–68/93 Shevill v. Presse Alliance SA [1995] E.C.R. 1–415.

37. It would seem that the English courts are competent to rule on the damage caused throughout the UK and not just in England and Wales because the Court's ruling explicitly refers to the harm caused in the “State of the court seised” rather than the “place” of the court seised. The wording used by the Court contrasts with that proposed by Advocate General Darmon, idem, p.438, who referred to the “places where the newspaper is distributed” having jurisdiction solely in respect of the damage arising within their “judicial district”.Google Scholar

38. (1974) R.C.D.I.P. 700.Google Scholar

39. Supra n.36, at pp.429–434.Google Scholar

40. Case C–364/93 Marinari v. Lloyds Bank and Another [1995] E.C.R. 1–2719.

41. Case C–220/88 Dumez France and Tracoba v. Hessische Landesbank (Helaba) and Others [1990] E.C.R. 1–49.

42. (1990) R.C.D.I.P. 367, 375.Google Scholar

43. Supra n.40, at pp.2728–2730.Google Scholar

44. Case C–346/93 Kleinwort Benson Ltd v. City of Glasgow District Council [1995] E.C.R. 1–615. For a critical note on the case see Paul Beaumont, “Civil Jurisdiction: AngloScottish Conflicts” (1995) 63 Scottish L.Gaz. 111.Google Scholar