The Reality of EU-Conformity Review in France

Abstract

French High Courts embraced review of national measures for conformity with EU law in different stages and following distinct theories of EU law supremacy. Using data on all conformity challenges decided between 1989 and 2008, this article tests whether these Courts' adherence to different theories of EU law supremacy result in different levels of directive enforcement. After an introduction to the complex French system of review, this study provides an empirical analysis refuting the anecdotal view that different supremacy theories produce substantial differences in these Courts' decisions. The occurrence of uniformly high rates of directive enforcement, cumulatively and over time, and the Courts' similar willingness to refer questions to the ECJ for preliminary rulings, demonstrate that, despite different approaches to the supremacy of Communitarian law, French judges have flourished as Communitarian law judges. The article concludes by presenting an overarching rationale for this high degree of convergence: the French High Courts, responding to the intensification of European integration and enabled by a changing constitutional landscape, adjusted their views to ensure they would have a role in molding the integration of national and EU law.

Keywords: Comparative Constitutional Law, EU Conformity Review, Empirical Legal Studies, Choice of Law, Constitutional Review, Preliminary Rulings, French Law, International Agreements

JEL Classification: F53, K33, K41