Article 177 European Economic Community

Expert representatives of all member states of the EEC met in The Hague in 1985 to discuss ``Experiences and problems in applying the preliminary proceedings of Article 177 EEC''. All categories of practitioners were present; at the national level (judges, counsel, government agents) and at the European level (Commission, Council, European Parliament and the Court of Justice). The importance of the preliminary procedure of article 177 EEC for the development of the legal order of the European Communities is undisputed. It is the most effective means available to individuals and companies of ensuring the respect of the national authorities of the rights which they enjoy under Community law (freedom of movement of goods, persons, services and capital, common policies, etc.). Without detracting from the success of the preliminary procedure, certain deficiencies do exist. To a large extent these may be attributed to the workload of the Court of Justice, which has led to a considerable increase in the delay for obtaining a preliminary ruling. It is felt that there is a growing need to streamline the procedure before the court.
 
Expert representatives of all member states of the EEC met in The Hague in 1985 to discuss ``Experiences and problems in applying the preliminary proceedings of Article 177 EEC''. All categories of practitioners were present; at the national level (judges, counsel, government agents) and at the European level (Commission, Council, European Parliament and the Court of Justice). The importance of the preliminary procedure of article 177 EEC for the development of the legal order of the European Communities is undisputed. It is the most effective means available to individuals and companies of ensuring the respect of the national authorities of the rights which they enjoy under Community law (freedom of movement of goods, persons, services and capital, common policies, etc.). Without detracting from the success of the preliminary procedure, certain deficiencies do exist. To a large extent these may be attributed to the workload of the Court of Justice, which has led to a considerable increase in the delay for obtaining a preliminary ruling. It is felt that there is a growing need to streamline the procedure before the court.