[Auto-generated transcript. Edits may have been applied for clarity.] The. Street. Can you see any.
[自动生成的转录。可能已为清晰度进行了编辑。] 街道。你能看到什么吗。

Of that. All right. So.
那个。好的。那么。

Good afternoon everybody. I hope people can hear me.
大家下午好。希望大家能听到我说话。

Okay. So, school.
好的。那么，学校。

Brace yourselves for another hour of European Union law.
准备好迎接又一小时的欧盟法律课程。

Um, a very good preparation for Halloween.
呃，为万圣节做了很好的准备。

Um, probably less scary, but, uh, still difficult.
呃，可能没那么吓人，但，呃，仍然很难。

We embark on a, um, set of, uh, difficult topics.
我们将开始一系列，呃，困难的话题。

So we looked in the last few weeks, we looked at institutions of the European Union,
所以我们在过去几周里，考察了欧洲联盟的机构，

and we looked at the foundational features of the, um, of the legal system, what the sources are, uh,
我们看了法律体系的基础特征，嗯，法律体系的来源是什么，呃，

and we look at the sort of horizontal and vertical division of competencies horizontal between the
我们来看一下能力的横向和纵向划分，横向划分在于之间的分工

institutions of European Union and vertical between the member states and the Union as a whole.
欧洲联盟的机构以及成员国与整个联盟之间的垂直关系。

So in the next three weeks,
所以在接下来的三周里，

we'll be continuing to cast light on that vertical dimension of the relationship between the European Union and the member states.
我们将继续关注欧洲联盟与成员国之间关系的垂直维度。

Uh, the relationship between EU law and national law in particular.
呃，特别是欧盟法律与国家法律之间的关系。

And we are really entering now the nitty gritty of the whole legal system.
我们现在真正进入整个法律体系的细节部分。

So at the start of the whole other issue that we're dealing with,
因此，在我们正在处理的整个另一个问题的开始，

at the heart of it is the relationship between national and international law or supranational law,
其核心是国家法与国际法或超国家法之间的关系，

but basically legal systems that are above national law.
但基本上是高于国家法的法律体系。

So you are more or less familiar having them your first year subjects, you're more or less familiar what national law is.
所以你们或多或少熟悉这些内容，作为你们第一年的科目，你们或多或少了解什么是国家法。

Uh, countries have their sets of, uh, primary legislation.
呃，各国都有各自的一套，呃，主要立法。

Secondary legislation. Uh, some countries have written constitutions.
次级立法。呃，有些国家有成文宪法。

Others, such as Britain, don't. But by and large, it's a system that we have a good sense of what it represents.
其他国家，比如英国，没有。但总体来说，这是一个我们对其代表意义有清晰认识的体系。

So when we talk about international law, um, it is clearly the product of a different set of processes.
所以当我们谈论国际法时，嗯，它显然是由一套不同的程序产生的。

We are talking primarily about treaties, international agreements.
我们主要谈论的是条约、国际协议。

We talk about customary law, judicial decisions.
我们谈论习惯法、司法判决。

General principles of international law can also be deemed the sources of international law.
国际法的一般原则也可以被视为国际法的来源。

So it's a it's a system that is produced in a specific way through international negotiations between countries,
所以这是一个通过国家间国际谈判以特定方式产生的体系，

uh, and has a certain set of, uh, its own characteristics fairly distinct from national law.
呃，并且有一套相当独特的特征，与国家法律明显不同。

So the question that we are interested in is, how does European Union law, as a very specific form of international law, uh, relate to national law?
因此，我们感兴趣的问题是，作为一种非常特殊的国际法形式，欧盟法如何与国家法相关联？

So there are four main questions that we'll be dealing with in throwing light
因此，我们将处理四个主要问题，以阐明

on that relationship between national and international or European Union law.
国家法与国际法或欧盟法之间的这种关系。

So the first question is how does international law become part of or become applicable international law?
那么第一个问题是国际法如何成为国际法的一部分或如何适用国际法？

So what is its domestic status? So it's, as I said, something that's produced differently.
那么它在国内的地位如何？正如我所说，它是以不同方式生产的东西。

It's reside somewhere above the realm of, uh, sovereignty of the nations.
它位于国家主权领域之上的某个地方。

So how how does it actually become a domestic law?
那么，它实际上是如何成为国内法的呢？

Um, the. Second question is. If there is a conflict between the two.
嗯，第二个问题是。如果两者之间存在冲突。

How do we resolve it? In national law and international law are produced some different processes, as I said.
我们如何解决？正如我所说，国内法和国际法产生了一些不同的程序。

So conflicts are not impossible at all.
所以冲突完全不是不可能的。

And and they do happen very often. There is a difference.
而且它们确实经常发生。存在差异。

It's not just a matter of process.
这不仅仅是一个过程的问题。

It's also very often it's a matter of different political dynamic behind the law, making it national and international level.
这通常也是法律背后不同政治动态的问题，涉及国家和国际层面。

That might lead to a conflict. So what would happen then?
这可能导致冲突。那么接下来会发生什么？

Um, and in particular, which norms should prevail?
嗯，特别是，应该以哪些规范为准？

And if we say the international norms should prevail, then what happens to domestic law?
如果我们说国际规范应该优先，那么国内法怎么办？

So again, a very important question, uh, to think of.
所以，这又是一个非常重要的问题，嗯，值得思考。

The third question is, can individuals rely on international law before domestic courts because international law is made between states?
第三个问题是，个人能否在国内法院依赖国际法，因为国际法是国家之间制定的？

So it is an interstate law. It's the result of, um, diplomacy, negotiations and so on.
所以它是一种国家间的法律。它是外交、谈判等的结果。

And um, it's signed by member states.
嗯，这是由成员国签署的。

But do individuals, um, citizens of those member states have the opportunity to benefit from international law and how?
但是个人，嗯，那些成员国的公民，有机会从国际法中受益吗？如何受益？

If so. And then the final question is, if states have signed international agreements and, uh,
如果是的话。最后一个问题是，如果国家签署了国际协议，并且，呃，

have taken on certain commitments, certain obligations, and they don't follow through on those commitments,
承担了某些承诺、某些义务，但他们没有履行这些承诺，

can they be held liable for failing to comply with those obligations,
他们是否应对未能履行这些义务承担责任，

especially in situations when individual rights are concerned, when the interests of individual claimants are at stake?
尤其是在涉及个人权利、个人索赔人利益受到威胁的情况下？

So, um, I will be misleading you if I told you that these four fundamental questions have been satisfactorily resolved in international law.
所以，嗯，如果我告诉你这四个基本问题在国际法中已经得到令人满意的解决，那我就是在误导你。

Uh, there are debates. There are sort of, uh, certain issues.
呃，存在争论。存在某些问题。

There are tensions. And as you will see, there have been largely resolved in European Union law, but not necessarily free from tension. 

And, uh, obviously not just legal tension, but also political tension as well, 

making legal obligations, legal rights go to the heart of national sovereignty. 

So a little bit more about the kind of the basics of, of, um, the principles of international law, 

simply because we need to understand how European law, um, uh, sits in this context and how it resolves these fundamental issues.
仅仅因为我们需要了解欧洲法律在这个背景下如何运作，以及它如何解决这些根本性的问题。

So, uh, typically when we talk about international law and, um, national law, uh, each country tends to decide how they would relate to each other.
所以，通常当我们谈论国际法和国家法时，每个国家往往会决定它们之间如何相互关联。

Typically that is done in the country's constitutions if countries have such fundamental founding documents.
通常，如果国家有这样的根本性创立文件，这些内容会写在国家宪法中。

Um, typically countries may also have a special law on treaties that would elaborate
通常国家也可能有一部关于条约的特别法律，来详细说明相关内容。

expands on the relationship between national law and international law.
扩展了国家法与国际法之间的关系。

But by and large, states decide for themselves.
但总体来说，国家自行决定。

Um, that tends to become a very important part of constitutional law.
嗯，这往往成为宪法法的重要组成部分。

And we try to create typologies because obviously there are lots of states.
我们尝试创建类型学，因为显然有很多国家。

And, uh, scientists like to introduce order in the universe, lawyers as well.
科学家喜欢在宇宙中引入秩序，律师也是如此。

So we talk about two main, um, systems on how international law and international and international law, um, uh, combined by different member states.
所以我们谈论两种主要的，嗯，关于国际法和国际法，嗯，呃，由不同成员国结合的系统。

So the first system is the so-called monist system.
第一个系统是所谓的一元论系统。

So countries, a lot of continental European countries subscribe to that system.
所以很多欧洲大陆国家都认同那个体系。

So such as the, let's say, the Netherlands. And there the idea.
比如说，荷兰。那里有这样的理念。

Is that, um, both international and national law.
即国际法和国内法。

Uh, a part of a single legal space.
呃，作为一个单一法律空间的一部分。

So they represent the unitary bit, the hierarchical legal space.
因此它们代表了统一的、分层的法律空间。

But the unions, everyone. So international law tends to be placed at the top of the pyramid.
但是工会，大家。所以国际法往往被置于金字塔的顶端。

So it has precedence over domestic law.
因此它优先于国内法。

But because they are viewed to be part of the same fabric.
但因为它们被视为同一整体的一部分。

Then there is no need for a special act to introduce international law into domestic legal systems.
那么就不需要特别的法案将国际法引入国内法律体系。

So you don't have to adopt any domestic legislation to transform international law.
因此，您不必通过任何国内立法来转化国际法。

International law. And on the same basis because it's deemed to be of the same fabric.
国际法。并且基于同样的理由，因为它被认为是同一体系的一部分。

Domestic courts can apply international law again directly.
国内法院可以再次直接适用国际法。

So that's very simply the monist system.
这就是非常简单的单一制体系。

Dualist countries. And here the UK is a prime example.
二元主义国家。在这里，英国是一个典型的例子。

The. International law and national law viewed as two distinct legal orders.
国际法和国内法被视为两个不同的法律体系。

So the idea is that they are produced by different subjects, different bodies.
因此，观点是它们由不同的主体、不同的机构产生。

They have different contents, different dynamic.
它们有不同的内容，不同的动态。

So therefore, for international law to become part of domestic law, you need an express domestic act to introduce it into the national law.
因此，为了使国际法成为国内法的一部分，需要有明确的国内法案将其引入国家法律中。

So the idea is that international law in itself cannot create or alter or repeal the mystic law and the other way around.
因此，国际法本身不能创造、修改或废除神秘法，反之亦然。

Neither can domestic law do that to international law.
国内法也不能对国际法做出这样的改变。

So the idea is that international law once signed, so international agreements once signed up binding, they are binding on the member states.
因此，国际法一旦签署，国际协议一旦签署即具有约束力，对成员国具有约束力。

But actually to give it legal effect into the domestic legal system, you need an act to transform it from international law to national law.
但实际上，为了使其在国内法律体系中具有法律效力，你需要一项法案将其从国际法转化为国内法。

So in effect, this typology, monism and dualism, these are sort of extremes.
因此，实际上，这种类型学，单一制和二元制，这些都是某种极端。

Um, in practice, um legal systems have developed ways of ways and means of um, addressing these questions.
嗯，实际上，法律体系已经发展出各种方法和手段来解决这些问题。

So, for example, even if you have a dualist legal system.
例如，即使你有一个二元法律体系。

Um, courts may be obliged, obliged to interpret national law in light of international treaties.
嗯，法院可能有义务根据国际条约来解释国家法律。

So that's something that has been a very well accepted principle in the United Kingdom, for example.
例如，这在英国是一个被广泛接受的原则。

But the important thing is that countries vary.
但重要的是，各国情况各不相同。

So whether they're modernist or jaundiced or somewhere in between, and they've adopted various constitutional ways and means to resolve this issue.
无论他们是现代主义者、持怀疑态度，还是介于两者之间，他们都采用了各种宪法方式和手段来解决这个问题。

To address this issue of how international law becomes national law, they can vary from each other.
为了解决国际法如何成为国内法的问题，它们之间可能存在差异。

So how does that affect the whole concept, the whole principle of European integration and the principles of European Union law.
那么这如何影响整个欧洲一体化的概念和欧洲联盟法的原则呢？

And that is something that has been, um, addressed in a series of very influential cases of the European Court of Justice produced in the 60s.
这是欧洲法院在 60 年代一系列非常有影响力的案件中所处理的问题。

And the European Court of Justice has made the very strong case that from the perspective of the EU.
欧洲法院从欧盟的角度提出了非常有力的论点。

The legal system that is created within the European Community is not a normal international law.
在欧洲共同体内部创建的法律体系不是普通的国际法。

It has a special nature. And because of that special nature,
它具有特殊的性质。正因为这种特殊性质，

the answers to those four questions and the answer to how international and national were linked to each other would have specific answers.
对那四个问题的答案以及国际法和国内法如何相互关联的答案都会有具体的回应。

So you can see in this, in this case, one in the laws that, um,
所以你可以看到，在这个案例中，在那些法律中，嗯，

the court argued that the community has created a new legal law, that of international law,
法院认为，社区创造了一种新的法律，即国际法，

not the normal international law that we know from international agreements on fisheries or, uh, you know, the navigation of rivers.
这不是我们从渔业国际协议或，呃，你知道，河流航行中所熟知的普通国际法。

But it is, uh, in service of an ambitious integration project where, uh, characteristically, the member states who have signed it,
但它是，呃，为了一个雄心勃勃的一体化项目服务的，在这个项目中，呃，签署该协议的成员国具有典型特征，

it will have signed the funding agreement, founding agreements with European uh community have consciously limited their sovereign rights,
它们将签署资助协议，与欧洲呃社区的创始协议有意识地限制了它们的主权权利，

and therefore we have uh subjects of, uh, European Union, the subjects of European Union law, uh, not just its,
因此我们有，呃，欧洲联盟的主体，欧洲联盟法律的主体，呃，不仅仅是它的，

uh, member states, but also actually the nationals, the, uh, the people of, of those member states.
呃，不仅是成员国，还有实际上那些成员国的国民，呃，那些成员国的人民。

So it is a perspective where they very much the court very much relied on, um, the, the purposeful interpretation of the treaties, uh, and,
所以这是一个视角，法院非常依赖于条约的有目的解释，嗯，嗯，和，

and looked at the process of the emergence of the European project and uh,
并观察了欧洲项目的出现过程，呃，

provided this strong case justification that European Union law is a special international law.
提供了这个有力的案例论证，说明欧盟法律是一种特殊的国际法。

Um, and therefore, uh.
嗯，因此，呃。

Therefore basically we have, um, a certain requirements that have to be met.
因此，基本上我们有一些必须满足的要求。

Um, and of course, the personnel is another case where this, uh, justification was provided.
嗯，当然，人员也是另一个提供了这种论证的案例。

Uh, again here, you can see in this quote of the case, it's elaborated a bit more fully, uh, with regard to the nature of the community.
呃，再次在这里，你可以看到这个案件的引用中，对社区的性质进行了更详细的阐述。

Um, and, uh, this whole case that the European, um, the Treaty of Rome has created its own legal system.
嗯，呃，这整个案件中，欧洲，嗯，罗马条约创造了它自己的法律体系。

So in addressing them, the the first question, how does the European Union law become part of or applicable in national law?
因此，在处理这些问题时，第一个问题是，欧洲联盟法律如何成为国家法律的一部分或适用于国家法律？

There are we talk about the whole doctrine of direct applicability.
我们谈论的是整个直接适用性原则。

And, um, the answer very much is that, um, we need to look at the different sources of law.
嗯，答案确实是，我们需要查看不同的法律来源。

So we need to look at primary legislation, and we will need to look at, um, secondary legislation.
所以我们需要查看主要立法，同时也需要查看次级立法。

But the point is that, uh, the European Union law, because of its nature.
但关键是，欧盟法律，因其性质。

Needs to be fully and uniformly applied in all member states.
需要在所有成员国中得到全面且统一的适用。

From its entry into force onwards. Um, and while member states can vary in how they incorporate international law,
自其生效之日起。嗯，虽然成员国在如何纳入国际法方面可能有所不同，

normal international law, that cannot be the case as far as European Union law is concerned.
普通国际法，在欧洲联盟法方面情况不能如此。

So from that point of view, there has to be a common way in which primary and secondary sources become national law.
因此，从这个角度来看，必须有一种共同的方式，使初级和次级来源成为国家法律。

So there is no, uh, space for difference between monist and dualist system.
因此，在一元制和二元制体系之间没有差异的空间。

Because of the special nature of the European Union law.
由于欧盟法律的特殊性质。

But ultimately, not all European Union law is directly applicable,
但归根结底，并非所有欧盟法律都是直接适用的，

and there are certain differences in terms of primary sources and secondary sources.
在初级资料和次级资料方面存在某些差异。

So as far as primary legislation is concerned.
因此，就主要立法而言。

So that's. The treaty is of the European Union, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
所以就是这样。该条约是关于欧洲联盟的，关于基本权利宪章的。

We know that they are signed by member states at inter-governmental conferences, uh, and so on.
我们知道它们是由成员国在政府间会议上签署的，呃，等等。

So they are binding on the member states and member states ratify them according to their own national procedures.
因此它们对成员国具有约束力，成员国根据各自的国家程序批准它们。

And what the European Court of Justice argued in Costa versus Cinahl is that, uh, once these agreements have been ratified,
欧洲法院在 Costa 诉 Cinahl 案中所主张的是，呃，一旦这些协议被批准，

according to the respective constitutional systems of the member states, they become an integral part of those legal systems.
根据成员国各自的宪法体系，它们成为这些法律体系的组成部分。

So they can produce legal effects within these legal systems.
因此，它们可以在这些法律体系内产生法律效力。

With secondary legislation, the picture is a bit more varied.
对于二级立法，情况则更加多样化。

So if you remember from last time regulations, uh, one of the most commonly used pieces of types of secondary legislation of the European Union,
如果你还记得上次讲的条例，呃，欧盟最常用的二级立法类型之一，

and they were documents that are immediately binding are directly applicable.
它们是立即具有约束力的文件，具有直接适用性。

They are described as being of general application.
它们被描述为具有一般适用性。

And in fact, the treaty on the founding of the European Union, article 239 describes them specifically as directly applicable.
事实上，关于欧洲联盟成立的条约，第 239 条具体描述了它们具有直接适用性。

So once they're passed following the legislative procedure, they become part of domestic law, and there is no need for a domestic act to be adopted.
因此，一旦它们按照立法程序通过，就成为国内法的一部分，无需通过国内法案。

So, in effect, uh, any kind of dualist legal systems cannot, uh, treat regulations as standard international law.
因此，实际上，任何形式的二元法律体系都不能将法规视为标准的国际法。

They have to immediately, uh, accept them as is part of domestic, uh, law without any transformative effects.
它们必须立即接受这些法规，视其为国内法律的一部分，而无需任何转化效力。

As far as directives are concerned. If you remember these four documents that are intended as binding insofar as the purpose of the act is concerned,
至于指令，如果你还记得这四份文件，它们在行为目的方面具有约束力，

but the means, the methods of achieving uh, this purpose is left to member states.
但实现该目的的手段和方法则由成员国自行决定。

So because they require implementation, they require transposition in domestic legislation within a deadline.
因为它们需要实施，所以需要在截止日期内在国内立法中进行转置。

The very clearly not directly applicable. So you need to do something.
它们显然不是直接适用的。所以你需要采取一些措施。

Member States need to do something before they are applied as before.
成员国需要在它们被适用之前采取一些措施。

Uh, they become part of the domestic legal system.
呃，它们成为国内法律体系的一部分。

And decisions. The decisions were a binding document, but the price to a specific party and they are directly applicable.
还有决定。这些决定是具有约束力的文件，但价格针对特定方，并且它们是直接适用的。

In fact, they, uh, you can look at them as an order to the, uh, addressee, um, to, to implement or carry out whatever's envisaged in those decisions.
事实上，你可以把它们看作是对收件人的命令，去实施或执行那些决定中设想的内容。

So we can see that we have this system where the European Court of Justice has, uh,
所以我们可以看到，我们有这样一个体系，欧洲法院已经，

decided, uh, in a in a succession of authoritative cases and has been consistently,
在一系列权威案件中作出了决定，并且一直保持一致，

um, confirmed since that the European Union, uh, legal system, primary and secondary legislation.
嗯，确认自那时起，欧洲联盟，呃，法律体系，初级和次级立法。

You cannot have the words and practices.
你不能只有文字和做法。

You have to ensure that once European Union law is legitimately produced, it has to become a part of the domestic legal system.
你必须确保一旦欧洲联盟法律合法产生，它必须成为国内法律体系的一部分。

And you can't kind of, um, have a varied state practice on this matter.
并且你不能在这个问题上有不同的国家做法。

And in only in relation to directives, you have this requirement for transposition.
并且仅仅针对指令，您有这个换位的要求。

So that's this question is is fairly clearly, uh, resolved and addressed rests.
所以这个问题相当明确地解决和处理了。

Now a lot more complicated question is okay.
现在有一个更复杂的问题，好吧。

European Union law is part of the domestic legal systems.
欧盟法律是国内法律体系的一部分。

Once it's ratified or once it's transposed, or once it's produced as a result of the legislative process, such as regulations.
一旦它被批准或一旦它被转置，或者一旦它作为立法过程的结果产生，比如法规。

Um, but then what happens if you actually have a difference between the domestic legal norms,
嗯，但如果你实际上存在国内法律规范之间的差异，会发生什么呢，

pre-existing or subsequent, and the European Union norms themselves?
先前存在的或后续的，以及欧盟自身的规范？

And again, typically this question is a matter of sovereign decisions.
同样，通常这个问题是主权决定的问题。

Or when we deal with normal international law, it is a matter of sovereign constitutional decision.
或者当我们处理普通国际法时，这涉及到主权宪法决定的问题。

And this is one prime area where we see a clash of perspectives,
这是我们看到观点冲突的一个主要领域，

a tension of perspectives between the European Court of Justice, European Union law and member states.
欧洲法院、欧盟法律与成员国之间的观点紧张关系。

So if this is such an important issue, you would say, why wasn't it decided in the founding treaties?
如果这是一个如此重要的问题，你会说，为什么它没有在创始条约中决定？

So why didn't they? Uh, all these, uh, men in suits back in the 19, late 1960s.
那么他们为什么没有呢？呃，这些穿西装的男人们都在 19 世纪 60 年代末。

Why didn't they actually provide that? Um, I mean, it is looking it's legal history.
他们为什么实际上没有提供那个？嗯，我是说，看起来这是法律历史。

It's it can be argued that it was not a gap, but it was that the diplomacy basically was easier to agree.
可以说这并不是一个差距，而是外交基本上更容易达成一致。

Uh, otherwise it would have been, uh, very difficult to get the European Union projects off the ground.
否则，欧盟的项目就很难启动。

So there is no provision in the treaties on this matter which norm will prevail?
那么在条约中没有关于此事的规定，哪一条规范将优先适用？

But we have a clear doctrine produced by the Court of Justice of European Union, which embodies the European Union perspective.
但是我们有欧洲联盟法院制定的明确原则，体现了欧洲联盟的观点。

And there was an effort to, uh, provide a clear, picture, clear rule on this in the constitutional treaty of 2004.
并且曾有努力在 2004 年的宪法条约中提供一个清晰的图景和明确的规则。

But as you know, that is one of the projects that didn't succeed.
但如你所知，那是一个未能成功的项目。

Um, when the Treaty of Lisbon was signed in 2007, the issue was raised again.
嗯，当里斯本条约在 2007 年签署时，这个问题再次被提出。

What do we do? Do we, uh, take on the, uh, provisions from the draft Constitution treaty of 2004?
我们该怎么办？我们是否，呃，采纳 2004 年宪法条约草案中的条款？

And again, the answer was slightly, uh, kind of flexible, modern commitments.
同样，答案是稍微有点，呃，有点灵活，现代的承诺。

The, uh, signatory of the Lisbon Lisbon Treaty signed, uh, declaration, declaration number 17.
里斯本条约的签署方签署了，呃，第 17 号声明。

So a non-binding declaration where, as this quote, uh, shows you, uh,
所以这是一个非约束性的声明，正如这段引述所显示的，呃，

they agreed that the treaties and the law adopted by the European Union on the basis of those treaties have primacy
他们同意基于这些条约，欧洲联盟通过的条约和法律具有优先权

over the law of the member states under the conditions laid down by the case law of the European Court of Justice.
超过成员国法律，条件是根据欧洲法院的判例法所规定的。

So. The fact that it is not a part of the treaty, uh, doesn't mean that the principle of supremacy doesn't exist.
所以。它不是条约的一部分，呃，并不意味着最高权原则不存在。

And indeed, as you can see here, the language is primacy over, uh, the law of the member states.
正如你们在这里看到的，语言优先于成员国的法律。

Uh, but ultimately, it's the case law of the European Court of Justice has, uh, provided a system that has been endorsed in a non-binding way,
但归根结底，欧洲法院的判例法提供了一个被非约束性方式认可的体系，

politically, um, and very much less on the sort of authority of the European Court of Justice.
在政治上，嗯，远不及欧洲法院的权威性。

So what is this case law that is being referred to that tells us which norm prevails,
那么，这个被提及的判例法是什么，它告诉我们哪个规范优先，

and then the what conditions would, uh, European Union law have primacy over national law?
那么，在什么条件下，欧盟法律会优先于国家法律？

Um, I mentioned already this case Costa versus and now,
嗯，我已经提到过这个案件，Costa 诉案，现在，

which is the primary case where the European Court of Justice develops this doctrine of, uh, primacy.
这是欧洲法院发展这一优先权原则的主要案件。

Back in 1964. Uh, so.
回到 1964 年。呃，所以。

That case came two years after the one hand case, which, uh, determined the concept of the European law as a, uh, special, unique new legal order.
该案发生在“一手案”两年之后，该案确定了欧洲法作为一种特殊、独特的新法律秩序的概念。

And we see that two years after that, the European Court of Justice was already, uh, keen, willing, uh, in pushing,
两年后，我们看到欧洲法院已经非常积极，愿意推动，

in fact, to spell out the implications of, uh, looking at the European Union law as a unique vehicle order.
实际上，明确阐述将欧盟法视为一种独特法律秩序的含义。

So what the case related to was, uh, a referral from an Italian court to the Court of Justice with a legal question.
该案涉及的是意大利法院向欧洲法院提出的一个法律问题的请求。

And the legal question was whether an Italian law which nationalised electricity providers, whether that, uh,
法律问题是意大利一项将电力供应商国有化的法律是否，呃，

Italian law is in conflict with several articles of the European um Economic Community treaty with the Treaty of Rome.
意大利法律是否与欧洲经济共同体条约中罗马条约的若干条款相冲突。

And uh, these two very much was that.
呃，这两者非常相关。

Uh, yeah.
呃，是的。

Where, where would international where would Italian law as a type of national law be, uh, in hierarchical terms relative to the Treaty of Rome?
国际法作为一种国家法类型，在层级上相对于《罗马条约》会处于什么位置？

Because if it isn't the same level of hierarchy, uh, as the European um, Economic Community treaty, then actually a subsequent law,
因为如果它的层级不与欧洲经济共同体条约相同，那么实际上后来的法律，

a law adopted later could, um, override it and in effect, could override the Treaty of Rome itself.
一项后来通过的法律可能会推翻它，实际上可能会推翻《罗马条约》本身。

And if that happens, then obviously the uniform, the whole idea of applying European Union law in a uniform way will be compromised.
如果发生这种情况，那么显然统一的、以统一方式适用欧盟法律的整个理念将会受到破坏。

So what the court ruled in Costa versus Anele was that, uh, actually.
所以法院在 Costa 诉 Anele 案中裁定的是，呃，实际上。

Community law has precedents. And.
社区法有先例。而且。

So if there is a conflict between the treaty and the national law, it is the community law that will prevail.
因此，如果条约与国家法律发生冲突，社区法将优先适用。

And it justified this primacy, uh, with this peculiar nature of the European Union, of the European Economic Community at the time.
它以欧洲联盟的这种特殊性质，呃，当时的欧洲经济共同体，来证明这种优先权的合理性。

So it doesn't. According to the Court of Justice, the Supreme AC doesn't depend on the system,
所以并非如此。根据法院的判决，最高法院的权威不依赖于体系，

the constitutional system that the member states follow or whether, uh, de concedes to change that constitutional system.
成员国所遵循的宪法体系，或者是否，呃，承认改变该宪法体系。

It is simply a matter of the peculiar nature of European Union law, because it is,
这纯粹是欧洲联盟法律特殊性质的问题，因为它是，

as it says here in this quote, its special and the regional nature, uh, as an independent source of law.
正如这里引用中所说，它具有特殊和区域性质，呃，作为独立的法律渊源。

And that characteristic simply cannot survive otherwise.
这种特性否则根本无法存续。

Um, if. It is allowed for national law to prevail over community law in situations of conflict.
嗯，如果允许国家法律在冲突情况下优先于社区法律。

So we see after that a sequence of cases which try and sort of deal with the, um, various nuances and modalities of this question of supremacy.
因此，我们看到随后一系列案件试图处理这个至高无上的问题的各种细微差别和方式。

So they very much develop the issue of supremacy for them and, and tell us the scope and,
因此，他们非常重视至高无上的问题，并告诉我们其范围和，

um, address a number of tensions that, um, have have arisen since.
嗯，解决一些自那时以来出现的紧张局势。

So another very important case is, uh, the international agency handles Gesellschaft of 1970, where the question,
另一个非常重要的案例是，呃，国际机构处理 1970 年 Gesellschaft 案，其中的问题是，

uh, that arose was, uh, on a preliminary reference from a German court to the European Court of Justice.
呃，出现的问题是，呃，来自德国法院向欧洲法院的初步裁决请求。

Um, and the issue there was very much about whether, uh, uh, what what happens if a European Union legislation, in this case,
嗯，问题主要是关于，如果欧洲联盟的立法，在这种情况下，会发生什么，呃，呃，什么情况。

a regulation, is found to be potentially in conflict with the fundamental principles of the German Constitution.
一项法规被发现可能与德国宪法的基本原则相冲突。

So it's not any more like the Italian law and Costa versus it now.
所以现在它不再像意大利法律和 Costa 案那样了。

But here we're dealing with the highest supreme, uh, fundamental law of the land, which is the Constitution.
但这里我们处理的是国家最高的、呃、基本法律，也就是宪法。

Um, and in that particular case this year was that the regulation, uh,
嗯，在那个特定的案例中，今年的情况是该法规，呃，

provided for a system of export licenses for agricultural products, which had to be guaranteed by deposit.
为农产品出口许可证制度提供了保障，该制度必须通过押金来保证。

So if you wanted such a license, you need to pay a deposit.
所以如果你想要这样的许可证，你需要支付押金。

And the plaintiff, uh, lost their deposit.
原告，呃，丢失了他们的押金。

Um, and it was alleged that.
嗯，据称。

That requirement to purchase a license was actually contrary to the principles of freedom
购买许可证的要求实际上违背了自由的原则

of action and economic liberty and proportionality envisaged in the German Constitution.
德国宪法中设想的行动自由、经济自由和比例原则。

So what the Court of Justice ruled in that case was that, uh,
那么法院在那个案件中裁定的是，呃，

again with reference to the unique and specific nature of European Union law, uh, you cannot actually, uh, compromise that principle.
再次提到欧盟法律的独特和具体性质，呃，你实际上不能妥协这一原则。

So you cannot, uh, as that rule of primacy cannot be affected by, uh, arguments,
因此，你不能，呃，那个优先规则不能被，呃，论点所影响，

that it runs contrary to the fundamental rights formulated by the Constitution.
它违背了宪法制定的基本权利。

So what it.
那它是什么。

Suggested, argued, was that European Community law has primacy over all types of national law, ordinary legislation as well as the Constitution.
建议，主张，欧洲共同体法在所有类型的国家法律之上具有优先权，包括普通立法和宪法。

And then we have another case that is, um, important to take into account Simmental.
然后我们还有另一个案例，那就是，嗯，考虑到西门塔尔牛的问题。

So that was a case where, um, you had, uh, a French, uh, exporters sending beef into Italy and.
所以那是一个案例，嗯，你有，呃，一位法国的，呃，出口商向意大利出口牛肉。

So the idea is that that should happen without any obstacles, because it's an essential part of the, um, free trade paradigm.
所以这个想法是，这应该没有任何障碍地发生，因为这是，嗯，自由贸易范式的一个基本部分。

But, uh, Italy charges a fee for veterinary checks and public health checks.
但是，呃，意大利对兽医检查和公共卫生检查收取费用。

So it's not the standard tariff, but it is a, uh, tax, um, a monetary amount that has an effect which is equivalent to that of a tariff.
所以这不是标准关税，但它是一种，呃，税收，嗯，一种货币金额，其效果相当于关税。

So the question was, is that legal or not, for Italy to introduce such a barrier?
那么问题是，意大利引入这样的壁垒是否合法？

The Court of Justice concluded that it was illegal.
司法法院裁定这是非法的。

Uh, and Italy refused to actually pay the charges because they said a national law has been adopted after 1957,
呃，意大利拒绝实际支付这些费用，因为他们说 1957 年后通过了一项国家法律，

after the adoption of the Treaty of Rome.
罗马条约通过之后。

So the issue was very much about this, uh, matter of conflict, priority of legislation adopted different points in time.
因此，问题主要涉及这个，呃，冲突事项，不同时间点通过的立法优先权。

So whether a subsequent national law should be disregarded.
因此，是否应忽视后续的国家法律。

And the court, again, was quite, uh, clear that all national acts,
法院再次非常明确，所有国家法案，

whether they were adopted before or after the European Union Act in question, uh uh uh, covered by the scope of supremacy.
无论它们是在相关的《欧洲联盟法案》之前还是之后通过的，都属于最高权威范围内。

Now. What the court also clarified in Singapore was what happens with a domestic law that has been found to be in conflict with European Union law,
现在，新加坡法院还澄清了当国内法与欧洲联盟法发生冲突时会发生什么，

and what it ruled was that a conflicting provision simply needs to be set aside.
它裁定冲突的条款只需被搁置。

So it needs to be applied. So the court needs to refuse to apply domestic law that has been found to be, uh, in conflict with, uh, European law.
因此需要执行法院必须拒绝适用被认定与欧洲法冲突的国内法。

So we can't allow it if you can't change it.
所以如果你不能改变它，我们就不能允许它。

But, uh, it needs to simply ignore it.
但是，呃，它需要简单地忽略它。

And it also can't use it as an excuse that the national law is not being annulled and that it needs to go to Parliament,
而且也不能以国家法律没有被废止，需要提交议会为借口，

and Parliament needs to repeal it. So it needs to act simply by putting it aside.
议会需要废止它。所以它需要简单地将其搁置一旁。

So to summarise, from the perspective of the court of Justice, supremacy is unconditional and absolute under all community.
总结来说，从司法法院的角度来看，至高无上在所有共同体中都是无条件且绝对的。

Law prevails over all national law, and all that is derived from the special nature of the European Union,
法律优先于所有国家法律，以及所有源自欧盟特殊性质的法律，

which requires that you have to have uniform application in order to achieve the objectives of the treaties.
这要求你必须有统一的执行，以实现条约的目标。

So if you have differences in how different member states approach supremacy, that is not going to happen.
所以如果不同成员国在如何处理至高权的问题上存在分歧，那是不可能实现的。

Now, you wouldn't be surprised that this view is not necessarily something that member states were, uh, happy with.
现在，你不会感到惊讶的是，这种观点并不一定是成员国所乐见的。

So there's been significant tension there. Especially as the core areas of European Community law expanded.
因此，这里存在着显著的紧张局势。尤其是随着欧洲共同体法律核心领域的扩展。

So. Especially when successive treaties started adding competences.
所以。尤其是当连续的条约开始增加权限时。

So it wasn't just about customs union, but if you remember,
所以这不仅仅是关于关税同盟，但如果你还记得，

economic policy was adding social policy and its equality and diversity legislation was added and so on and so on.
经济政策正在加入社会政策，其平等和多样性立法也被纳入，诸如此类。

And we have some countries that have accepted the principles as defined, as embraced by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
我们有一些国家接受了由欧洲联盟法院所定义和采纳的原则。

Uh, fairly problematically accepted the reasoning of the Court of Justice,
呃，相当有问题地接受了欧洲联盟法院的推理，

that supremacy is derived on the basis of the peculiar nature of the community legal order.
即至高无上权是基于共同体法律秩序的特殊性质而产生的。

So Benelux, for example, tend to be such countries.
例如，贝内卢克斯国家往往属于这样的国家。

Um, we have others that have gradually embraced the principle with some modalities, possibly, but with France, for example, and succession of cases,
嗯，我们还有其他国家逐渐接受了这一原则，可能带有一些方式，但以法国为例，以及一系列案例，

we can see that there is a relatively, um, kind of gradual acceptance of the justification,
我们可以看到对这一理由的相对逐步接受，

um, of supremacy by the European Court of Justice and the parameters of that primacy.
嗯，对欧洲法院的最高权威及其优先权参数的接受。

And then we have a number of other countries where we've seen, uh, clear conditional acceptance and, uh, a lot of new tensions.
然后我们还有一些其他国家，我们看到，呃，明确的有条件接受，以及，呃，许多新的紧张局势。

So they have either not accepted the justification of the court of justice or have basically argued that,
所以他们要么没有接受法院的正当理由，要么基本上认为，

um, it could be allowed under certain conditions.
呃，在某些条件下可能被允许。

So, for example, it's been argued that.
例如，有人认为。

If primacy is to be accepted.
如果要接受优先权。

That is something that doesn't have to follow from the, uh, unique nature of the European Community laws as a novel legal order.
这并不一定必须源于欧洲共同体法律作为一种新颖法律秩序的独特性质。

But, uh, it should be based on the national constitutions or national constitutions choosing to, uh, accept that, to admit that.
但是，它应该基于国家宪法，或者国家宪法选择接受这一点，承认这一点。

Um, and similarly, a number of conditions have been added, uh, to win when supremacy the uh accepted.
嗯，同样，为了赢得当优越性被接受时，已经增加了许多条件。

So we have a clearly a there a doctrine that uh with, with with some variations but that European Union law doesn't enjoy absolute primacy.
因此，我们显然有一个原则，虽然有一些变体，但欧洲联盟法律并不享有绝对的优先权。

And it's worth looking at the German Constitutional Court, a number of cases a that's since 1974.
值得看看德国联邦宪法法院自 1974 年以来的若干案件。

So quite early on have been, uh, rehearsed.
所以很早以前这些问题就已经被反复讨论过了。

All these arguments have been rehearsed in these cases.
所有这些论点都在这些案件中被反复讨论过。

So we have, for example, um, the Zo lang a case in 1971 which looked at the issue, um, in a hypothetical way, uh,
例如，我们有 1971 年的 Zo lang 案，它以假设的方式探讨了这个问题，

as to when European Union law will prevail over domestic law and concluded that that would be allowed only insofar
关于何时欧盟法律将优先于国内法律，并得出结论，只有在一定范围内才允许这样做，

as it doesn't threaten the fundamental values of democratic principles protected under the German Constitution.
只要它不威胁到德国宪法保护的民主原则的基本价值。

So only when it is not, uh, in contradiction with those fundamental principles of the Constitution,
因此，只有当它不与宪法的这些基本原则相抵触时，才适用，

which also means that the German Constitutional Court reserves for itself the power it deems it to be within its own jurisdiction.
这也意味着德国宪法法院保留了它认为属于其自身管辖权范围内的权力。

To rule on this question, it says, you know, just the second, if you can or can't be the European Court of Justice,
它说，要裁定这个问题，你知道，只是第二点，如果你能否成为欧洲法院，

that determines and it's almost becomes an automatic process, but it is the discretion of the German Constitutional Court to decide that.
这决定了，几乎成为一个自动的过程，但由德国宪法法院自行决定。

And we have, uh, in the subsequent case, that point was slightly mitigated.
在随后的案件中，这一点有所缓和。

Um. So the stance was moderated, and the German Constitutional Court ruled that it will not scrutinise, uh, European Union legislation.
嗯。所以立场有所缓和，德国宪法法院裁定不会审查欧盟立法。

European Union legislation will be allowed to have a supremacy, uh, in situations when actually there is equivalent protection of fundamental rights.
在实际上存在等同的基本权利保护的情况下，欧盟立法将被允许具有优先权。

So when there is a substantially similar to the protection, uh, afforded by the German constitution,
因此，当保护实质上与德国宪法所提供的保护相似时，

the Federal Court of uh, of Germany will no longer review legislation.
德国联邦法院将不再审查该立法。

So, uh, a certain litigation when a number of other cases and, uh, in the textbooks, I think the work is particularly good.
所以，呃，在一些诉讼案件以及其他一些案例中，呃，在教科书里，我认为这项工作特别出色。

Uh, in, in going through these cases, uh, you have examples of, of other type of, uh, conditions imposed.
嗯，在审查这些案例时，你会看到施加的其他类型的条件的例子。

So not only the issue of the fundamental rights, um, protected by the Constitution, but also in the Maastricht judgement,
所以不仅是宪法所保护的基本权利问题，嗯，还有在马斯特里赫特判决中，

the extent to which a certain piece of European Union legislation is adopted
某项欧盟立法获得通过的程度

within the competences conference to the European Union to to to adopt it.
在欧洲联盟的权限会议内通过它。

Um, we have a number of new kind of headaches created, especially with, uh, the sort of the political changes in Poland.
嗯，我们遇到了一些新的头疼问题，特别是与波兰的政治变化有关。

So if after coming in power of the Law and Justice party, where in a high profile case, um,
所以在法律与正义党上台后，在一个备受关注的案件中，嗯，

before the Polish Constitutional Court, it was ruled that certain articles of the treaty.
在波兰宪法法院之前，裁定条约的某些条款。

Thank you very much. We're not talking about even secondary legislation.
非常感谢。我们甚至没有谈论次级立法。

We're talking about the treaty articles directly, which presumably, you know, Poland's, uh, treaty of the European Union, 2007.
我们谈论的是条约条款，可能是波兰的，呃，2007 年欧洲联盟条约。

Poland was already a member of the European Union. So without the.
波兰已经是欧洲联盟的成员了。所以没有必要。

To go into the kind of the whole back.
讲述整个背景。

But ultimately, the Constitutional Court ruled that, uh, these articles incompatible with the Polish constitution.
但最终，宪法法院裁定这些条款与波兰宪法不符。

So it caused a huge amount of headache.
所以这引起了极大的头痛。

So, for example, here, I've given you a quote from the resolution of the European Parliament,
例如，这里我给你引用了欧洲议会决议中的一段话，

which very, very clearly, um, kind of assesses, um, this step as a deeply problematic step.
这段话非常明确地评估了这一步骤是一个极其有问题的步骤。

And it's a politically driven step, uh, in challenging the primacy of European Union law, uh,
这是一个政治驱动的举措，呃，旨在挑战欧盟法律的优先地位，呃，

as a result of what is increasingly becoming a rule of law crisis, uh, within within Poland, which is.
这是由于波兰内部日益加剧的法治危机，呃，导致的。

Yeah, and it's still unresolved.
是的，这个问题仍未解决。

So we have, as I said, the fundamental questions of the relationship between European Union law and international law decided, um,
正如我所说，我们已经决定了欧盟法律与国际法之间关系的根本问题，嗯，

very authoritatively by the European Court of Justice that it becomes an integral part of national law and that it prevails over national law.
欧洲法院非常权威地指出，它成为国家法律的一个组成部分，并且优先于国家法律。

But in certain states, we see that especially to the latter part of that principle is, uh,
但在某些国家，我们看到特别是该原则的后半部分，呃，

either conditionally applied or is accepted, subject to a different rationale than the one that the Court of Justice offers.
要么有条件地适用，要么接受的理由与欧洲法院提供的理由不同。

So we'll continue with this whole area. So we'll continue with question three until next time.
所以我们将继续讨论整个领域。我们将继续讨论第三个问题，直到下次。

So we need. To.
所以我们需要。去。