:
=
mainly by individual farmers. So far as the Community law directly affects individuals in their private capacities it confers rights rather than imposes obligations. The jurisprudence of the European Court indicates, for example, that private individuals may be able to rely on provisions of the Community law in contesting the imposition of customs duties alleged to be contrary to a Treaty provision. There is therefore no reason to think that the impact of Community law would weaken or destroy any of the basic rights and liberties of individuals under the law of the United Kingdom. The only regulations directly affecting individuals in their private capacities (apart from those concerned with the terms of service of employees etc., of the Community institutions) are those which facilitate the free movement of labour by entitling workers to take up available employment in other Member countries and by giving reciprocal rights under the social security systems of the different Member States to workers moving from one country to another. This would not be likely to affect the rights of persons who stay in this country under the social security legislation (including the Health Services) of the United Kingdom and even for those who sought employment abroad there would be little change from the position under the present reciprocal agreements with the individual Members of the Six. It is also noteworthy that the EEC regulations on these subjects which affect private individuals fall primarily to be administered and enforced by the domestic authorities and tribunals of the Member States.
31. In general, responsibility for the enforcement of the Community law having direct internal effect (and indeed of Community law as a whole) lies with the Commission or the High Authority. These institutions have power in some cases to decide whether there has been an infringement and, in accordance with a quasi-judicial procedure, to impose penalties1 for the infringement: see for examples Articles 3, 16 and 19 of EEC Regulation 17 (Restrictive Practices) and Articles 36 and 64 of the ECSC Treaty. Such a decision is subject to challenge before the European Court in proceedings under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, and the imposition of a penalty has always been made subject to a right of appeal to the court under Article 172: there are similar provisions in the other Treaties.
32. This enforcement procedure has given rise to anxieties that British subjects would be liable to criminal proceedings in which they would not enjoy the safeguards of the criminal law and procedure of this country. Such anxieties appear to be based on misconceptions. In the first place, as already stated, the powers are not applicable to persons in their private capacities, and there are no provisions, such as are often found in United Kingdom statutes, making directors and officers of a company personally liable for breaches. Secondly, the procedures which lead to the imposition of penalties under the existing Community provisions are not regarded under Community law as criminal proceedings, so that trial by the ordinary criminal processes would not be appropriate. Important safeguards are that before imposing a penalty the Commission or High Authority are required to give the party concerned an opportunity to state his case and that there is a right of appeal to the European Court. The appeal procedure ensures a fair and full hearing before an impartial tribunal of the highest judicial quality. Further, if an individual or undertaking in a Member State wishes to challenge a decision on any of
1 These penalties, except in the case of the EURATOM Treaty, are always monetary.
11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.