‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.

net‬‬

‫ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‬

‫ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﺍﻝﺒﺤﺙ‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻭﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‬

‫‪Direct and Indirect Effect of EC Law‬‬

‫ﻏﻴﺎﺙ ﻨﺎﺼﺭ‬

‫‪-1-‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﻓﻬﺭﺱ‬
‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫ﻤﻘﺩﻤﺔ ‪.‬‬

‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (1‬ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺤﺙ ﺍﻷﻭل‪ :‬ﺍﻝﺨﻠﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﻝﻨﺸﻭﺀ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ‪.‬‬

‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (1.1‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻷﻭل‪ :‬ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‬

‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫ﺃ( ﺍﻝﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻷﻭﻝﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫ﺏ( ﺍﻝﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻭﻴﺔ‪. :‬‬

‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (1.2‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻲ‪ :‬ﺇﻝﺯﺍﻤﻴﺔ ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻴﺔ ‪.‬‬

‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ‪ -‬ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ‬

‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (1.3‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻝﺙ‪ :‬ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‬

‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (1.4‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻝﺭﺍﺒﻊ‪ :‬ﻤﺂﺨﺫ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﻭﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‬

‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (2‬ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺤﺙ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻲ‪ :‬ﺘﺒﻨﻲ ﻤﺒﺩﺃَﻱ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻭﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ‪.‬‬

‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (2.1‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻷﻭل‪ :‬ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪. Van Gend en Loos‬‬

‫‪16‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (2.2‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻲ‪ :‬ﺸﺭﻭﻁ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ‬

‫‪18‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (2.3‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻝﺙ‪ :‬ﺘﻭﺴﻴﻊ ﻨﻁﺎﻕ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ‪.‬‬

‫‪19‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (1‬ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ– ‪Regulations‬‬

‫‪19‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (2‬ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ– ‪. Directives‬‬
‫‪20‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (3‬ﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭﺍﺕ‪Decisions -‬‬
‫‪20‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (4‬ﺍﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻤﻊ ﺩﻭل ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‬

‫‪21‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ (2.4‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻝﺭﺍﺒﻊ‪ :‬ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪Indirect Effect -‬‬

‫‪21‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫ﺨﺎﺘﻤﺔ ‪.‬‬

‫‪24‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫'&‪ $"%‬ا‪!"#‬ا ‪.‬‬

‫‪-2-‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﻤﻘﺩﻤﺔ‬

‫‪‬ﻴﻌﺎﻝﺞ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﺒﺤﺙ‪ ،‬ﻤﺒﺩﺃﻴﻥ ‪‬ﻴﻌﺩ‪‬ﺍﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻫﻡ ﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻤﺎ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‬
‫)‪ (Direct Effect‬ﻭﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ )‪ .(Indirect Effect‬ﻭﻴﻌﺘﺒﺭ ﻫﺫﺍﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺁﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻫﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﺒﻨﺘﻬﺎ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ )‪ (European Court of Justice- ECJ‬ﻭﻜﺎﻥ ﻝﻬﺎ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ‬
‫ﺠﺫﺭﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻲ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻴﻌﺎﻝﺞ ﻫﺫﺍﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺁﻥ ﻤﺴﺄﻝ ﹶﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻭﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫﻩ ﺃﻭ ﻤﺎ ‪‬ﻴﺴ ‪‬ﻤﻰ ﺒـ ‪ ،EC Law‬ﺩﺍﺨل ﺩﻭل‬
‫ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻤﺩﻯ ﻤﻘﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻝﻔﺭﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﻤﺤﺎﻜﻤﻪ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺩﺍﺨل‬
‫ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻗﺩ ﻗﺴﻤﻨﺎ ﺒﺤﺜﻨﺎ ﺇﻝﻰ ﻤﺒﺤﺜﻴﻥ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺤﺙ ﺍﻷﻭل ﺴﻨﻘﻑ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺍﻝﺨﻠﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﻝﻨﺸﻭﺀ ﻫﺫﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃﻴﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺴﻨﻌﺭﺽ ﺨﻼﻝﻪ‪ ،‬ﻤﻜﻭﻨﺎﺕ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﺜﻡ ﺴﻨﻌﺭﺽ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﻤﺂﺨﺫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻵﻝﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﺼﻌﻭﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻭﺍﺠﻪ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﺃﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺤﺙ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺴﻨﻌﺭﺽ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪Van‬‬
‫‪ Gend‬ﺍﻝﺸﻬﻴﺭﺓ‪ .‬ﺴﻨﻘﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺤﻴﺜﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻭﻤﺎ ﻋﺭﺽ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﺩﻋﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﻀﺩ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ‪ .‬ﺴﻨﻘﻑ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺍﻝﺸﺭﻭﻁ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻭﻀﻌﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺒﻌﺩ ﺫﻝﻙ ﺴﻨﻌﺭﺽ ﻜﻴﻑ ﺘﻡ ﺘﻭﺴﻴﻊ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﻝﻴﺤل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﻌﺩ ﺫﻝﻙ‬
‫ﺴﻨﻘﻑ ﻋﻨﺩ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﺍﻋ ﹸﺘ ‪‬ﻤﺩ ﻜﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﻤﻜﻤل ﻝﻠﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻷﻭل‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﻨﻬﺎﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺒﺤﺙ‬
‫ﺴﻨﻌﺭﺽ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻫﺫﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃﻴﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺒﻲ‪.‬‬

‫‪ (1‬ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺤﺙ ﺍﻷﻭل‪ :‬ﺍﻝﺨﻠﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﻝﻨﺸﻭﺀ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‬

‫‪ (1.1‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻷﻭل‪ :‬ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‬

‫ﻗﺒل ﺃﻥ ﻨﺘﻁﺭﻕ ﺇﻝﻰ ﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‪ ،‬ﺤﺴﺏ ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﺒﺤﺜﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺒﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻨﻘﻑ ﺃﻭﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﻨﻘﺴﻡ ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ ﺇﻝﻰ ﻗﺴﻤﻴﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃ( ﺍﻝﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻷﻭﻝﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺏ( ﺍﻝﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻭﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻝﻠﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪.‬‬

‫‪-3-‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﺃ( ﺍﻝﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻷﻭﻝﻴﺔ‪:‬‬

‫ﺃﻭل ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻺﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻡ ﺘﻌﺩﻴﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻤﺭﺍﺤل ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻤﻨﺫ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺒﺎﺭﻴﺱ )‪ (European Coal and Steel Community‬ﻝﺴﻨﺔ‬
‫‪(European Economic‬‬ ‫‪ ،11951‬ﻤﺭﻭ ‪‬ﺭﺍ ﺒﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺭﻭﻤﺎ ﻝﻠﺴﻭﻕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺸﺘﺭﻜﺔ‬
‫)‪ Community- EEC‬ﻝﺴﻨﺔ ‪ ،21957‬ﻤﺭﻭ ‪‬ﺭﺍ ﺒﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻭﺭﻗﺔ ﺍﻝﺒﻴﻀﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺒﺎ ﺍﻝﻭﺍﺤﺩﺓ ) ‪Single‬‬
‫‪ (European Act‬ﻝﺴﻨﺔ ‪ ،31986‬ﻭﺼﻭﻻ ﺇﻝﻰ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﻤﺎﺴﺘﺭﻴﺨﺕ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ ‪(Treaty on‬‬
‫)‪ European Union- EU‬ﻝﺴﻨﺔ ‪ .41992‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺃﻨﺸﺄﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺴﻭﻕ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﻤﺸﺘﺭﻜﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻨﻅﻤﺕ ﻤﻭﺍﻀﻴﻊ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻘﺔ ﺘﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺤﻘﻭﻕ ﻤﻭﺍﻁﻨﻲ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﺤﺭﻴﺔ ﺘﻨﻘل ﺍﻷﺸﺨﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺒﻀﺎﺌﻊ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻝﺨﺩﻤﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﺅﻭﺱ ﺍﻷﻤﻭﺍل‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﻴﻭﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﺭﺽ ﺍﻝﺠﻤﺎﺭﻙ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻘﺩ ﺍﻨﻁﻭﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺤﻘﻭﻕ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻝﻤﻭﺍﻁﻨﻲ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﻜﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻤﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺒﺈﻨﺸﺎﺀ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻝﻺﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻤﺜل ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺒﺭﻝﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺠﻠﺱ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ ﻭﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﻗﺎﻤﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻝﺘﻭﻗﻴﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺒﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺎﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺴﻴﺎﺩﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻭﺍﻀﻴﻊ ﻤﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻤﻨﺢ ﺍﻝﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻝﻤﻭﺍﻀﻴﻊ ﺇﻝﻰ‬
‫ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﻻ ﺘﺯﺍل ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺘﺸﻜل ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺱ ﻝﻠﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻲ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﻤﺼﺩﺭ ﺍﻷﻭل‬
‫ﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺘﺸﺒﻪ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻤﻌﻴﻥ "ﺍﻝﺩﺴﺘﻭﺭ" ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ب( ﺍﻝﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻭﻴﺔ‪:‬‬

‫ﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﺨﹶﻭﻝﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﺇﺼﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻝﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻝﻜﻲ‬
‫ﺸﺄ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺠﺎﺀ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪ 249‬ﻤﻥ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪:5‬‬
‫ﺘﺘﻤﻜﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺘﺤﻘﻴﻕ ﺍﻷﻫﺩﺍﻑ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻨ ‪‬‬

‫‪"Article 249:‬‬
‫‪In order to carry out their task and in accordance with the provisions of this‬‬
‫‪Treaty, the European Parliament acting jointly with the Council, the Council‬‬
‫‪and the Commission shall make regulations and issue directives, take‬‬
‫‪decisions, make recommendations or deliver opinions.‬‬
‫‪A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety‬‬
‫‪and directly applicable in all Member States.‬‬
‫‪A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each‬‬
‫‪Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national‬‬
‫‪authorities the choice of form and methods.‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪The Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community 261 UNTS 161.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪The Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, 298 UNTS 11.‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪The Single European Act, done at Luxembourg, 17 February 1986 ant at Hague, 28 February 1986, reprinted‬‬
‫‪in [1987] CMLR 741.‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪The Treaty on European Union, Official Journal of the European Community 1993 C 224 (Hereinafter “EU‬‬
‫‪Treaty”).‬‬
‫‪ NLOPQ 5‬آ‪&^K $"L‬ه\ة ا‪&efg‬د أ‪&^K _L` &ab‬ه\ة ا‪YZ#‬ق ا‪W‬ورو‪ $PT‬ا‪!RS"#‬آ‪.EEC $‬‬

‫‪-4-‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫‪A decision shall be binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪addressed. Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force” .‬‬

‫ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺒﻨﺎ ‪‬ﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ‪‬ﻤﻨﺤﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﹶﺘﺼﺩﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻴﺨﺘﻠﻑ ﺒﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﻋﻥ ﺒﻌﺽ‪ ،‬ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﻨﻭﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺨﺎﻁﺒﻴﻥ ﺒﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻨﻁﺎﻕ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﺭﺠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻝﺘﺯﺍﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﻠﻘﺎﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺎﺘﻘﻬﻡ‪ ،‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﻴﻠﻲ‪:‬‬

‫‪ (1‬ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ– ‪ :Regulations‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﻤﻭﺠﻬﺔ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻤﻠﺯﻤﺔ ﻝﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺎﺒﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻝﻠﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺤﺎﺠﺔ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺘﺤﻭﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪ .7‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺃﻭﻀﺤﺕ‬
‫ﻥ ﻝﻸﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴ ﹰﻘﺎ ﻤﺒﺎﺸ ‪‬ﺭﺍ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﻨﺼﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪ 249‬ﻤﻥ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﺃ ‪‬‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻜﻭﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ‪:‬‬
‫‪“A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its‬‬
‫‪entirety and directly applicable in all Member States” (Emphasis‬‬
‫‪added).‬‬

‫‪ (2‬ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ )ﺍﻝﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎﺕ( – ‪ :Directives‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﻨﻭﻉ ﺁﺨﺭ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﻝﻌﻤل‬

‫ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﻭﺠﻬﺔ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻤﻠﺯﻤﺔ ﻝﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺍﻷﻫﺩﺍﻑ ﻭﺍﻝﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﺴﻌﻰ‬
‫ﻝﺘﺤﻘﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﻓﻘﻁ‪ ،‬ﻭﻝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﻠﺯﻤﺔ ﻝﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺁﻝﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﻭﺴﺎﺌل ﺘﺤﻘﻴﻕ ﺍﻷﻫﺩﺍﻑ‪ .‬ﺤﻴﺙ ‪‬ﻴﺘﺭﻙ ﻝﻜل ﺩﻭﻝﺔ‬
‫ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻝﻭﺴﺎﺌل ﻭﺍﻵﻝﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻔﻀﻠﻬﺎ ﻝﻠﻭﺼﻭل ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻷﻫﺩﺍﻑ ﻭﺍﻝﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻝﻤﺭﺠﻭﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺘﺤﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ‪ ،‬ﺇﻝﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺘﺤﻭل ﺃﻭﻻ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﻜﻲ ﺘﺼﺒﺢ ﻗﺎﺒﻠﺔ ﻝﻠﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻨﺎﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ‪.8‬‬

‫‪ (3‬ﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭﺍﺕ‪ :Decisions -‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﻤﻠﺯﻤﺔ ﻝﻸﻁﺭﺍﻑ ﺍﻝﻤﺨﺎﻁﺒﻴﻥ ﺒﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻭﻝﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﻤﺤﺩﺩﺓ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ‪ ،9‬ﻭﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﺇﻝﻴﻬﻡ ﺍﺘﺨﺎﺫ ﺇﺠﺭﺍﺀ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻤل ﻤﻌﻴﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻻﻤﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﻋﻨﻪ‪.‬‬

‫‪6‬‬
‫‪EUROPEAN UNION — CONSOLIDATED VERSIONS OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND‬‬
‫‪OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY Official Journal C 321E of 29‬‬
‫‪December 2006.‬‬
‫‪!K 7‬آ‪ m‬درا‪&Q‬ت ا‪\kY#‬ة ا‪ ،$PT!^#‬ا@?>‪+‬د ا=ورو‪ <-‬وا‪;6‬روس ا‪+23456‬دة ‪!PT) ،+,-./‬وت‪ (2004 ،‬ص‪.251 .‬‬
‫‪ 8‬ا‪\s"#‬ر ‪ ،pZqr‬ص‪ .251 .‬و'\ &ء ‪ tu‬ا‪&"#‬دة ‪YsyT ،249‬ص إ‪m#‬ا‪ $PK‬ا‪&wPYR#‬ت ‪:tLb &K‬‬
‫‪“A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is‬‬
‫‪addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods”.‬‬
‫‪ 9‬ا‪\s"#‬ر ‪ ،pZqr‬ص‪ .251 .‬و'\ &ء ‪ tu‬ا‪&"#‬دة ‪YsyT ،249‬ص إ‪m#‬ا‪ $PK‬ا‪!z#‬ارات ‪:tLb &K‬‬
‫‪“A decision shall be binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed”.‬‬

‫‪-5-‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫‪ (4‬ﺘﻭﺼﻴﺎﺕ – ‪ :Recommendations‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﻠﺯﻤﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻨﺎﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻴﺘﺭﻙ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺤﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻌﻤل ﺃﻭ ﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﻝﻌﻤل ﺒﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻝﻜﻥ ﻴﺘﻌﻴﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻝﺘﻘﻴﺩ ﺒﻬﺎ ﻜﻠﻤﺎ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺫﻝﻙ ﻤﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻭﻀﺭﻭﺭﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻻﻨﺘﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻌﻤل ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻭﺘﺄﻜﻴﺩ ﺤﺴﻥ ﺍﻝﻨﻴﺔ‪.10‬‬

‫‪ (5‬ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ – ‪ :Opinions‬ﻭﻴﺘﻡ ﺍﻝﻠﺠﻭﺀ ﺇﻝﻴﻬﺎ ﺤﻴﻥ ﺘﻅﻬﺭ ﺍﻝﺤﺎﺠﺔ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭ ﻤﺴﺄﻝﺔ ﻏﺎﻤﻀﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﻌ ّﹺﺒﺭ ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ ﻋﻥ ﻭﺠﻬﺔ ﻨﻅﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺅﺴﺴﺔ ﺍﻝﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻻ ﺘﻠﺯﻡ ﻏﻴﺭﻫﺎ‪.11‬‬

‫‪ (1.2‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻲ‪ :‬ﺇﻝﺯﺍﻤﻴﺔ ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻴﺔ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل‬

‫ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﻋﺭﻀﻨﺎ ﻝﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﺘﺒ‪‬ﻴﻥ ﺃﻨﻪ ﺤﺴﺏ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻭﺤﻴﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻌﺘﺒﺭ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺃﻭ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ )‪.(Regulations‬‬

‫ﺒﺎﻝﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻝﻠﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻤﻠﺯﻤﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺍﻷﻫﺩﺍﻑ ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﻭﺏ ﺘﺤﻘﻴﻘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﺒﺎﻝﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻝﻠﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻷﺨﺭﻯ‬
‫ﻝﻠﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻷﻭﻝﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻭﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ‬
‫ﺴﻜﺘﺕ ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﻨﻬﺎﺌﻴﺎ ﻭﻝﻡ ﺘﺘﻁﺭﻕ ﺇﻝﻰ ﻤﺩﻯ ﺇﻝﺯﺍﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻨﺎﺸﺌﺔ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﻅﻬﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺒﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﺨﺼﻭﺹ ﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻔﺭﺍﻍ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻲ )‪.(lacuna‬‬

‫ﻁﺭﺡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﺴﻨﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﻝﻰ ﻤﻥ ﺇﻨﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻝﺴﻭﻕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻭ ﻤﺩﻯ ﺇﻝﺯﺍﻤﻴﺔ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻝﺴﺅﺍل ﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﹸ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻴﺔ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫل ﻴﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻴﺔ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ؟‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ‪ -‬ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻤﻤﺎ ﻻ ﺸﻙ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ ﻫﻲ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺤﻴﺙ ‪‬ﻭ ّ‪‬ﻗﻌﺕ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺩﻭل‬
‫ﻤﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﻌﺭﻑ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ "ﻜﺎﺘﻔﺎﻕ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺃﻁﺭﺍﻓﻪ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻏﻴﺭﻫﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺸﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ‬
‫ﻤﻤﻥ ﻴﻤﻠﻜﻭﻥ ﺃﻫﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﺒﺭﺍﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﺘﻀﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻕ ﺇﻨﺸﺎﺀ ﺤﻘﻭﻕ ﻭﺍﻝﺘﺯﺍﻤﺎﺕ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺎﺘﻕ‬

‫‪ 10‬ا‪\s"#‬ر ‪ ،pZqr‬ص‪ .251 .‬و'\ &ء ‪ tu‬ا‪&"#‬دة ‪YsyT ،249‬ص إ‪m#‬ا‪ $PK‬ا‪&P|YR#‬ت وا{راء ‪:tLb &K‬‬
‫‪“Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force”.‬‬
‫‪ 11‬ا‪\s"#‬ر ‪ ،pZqr‬ص‪ .251 .‬أ‪ !}r‬ا‪ $}k~"#‬ا‪.$zT&Z#‬‬

‫‪-6-‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﺃﻁﺭﺍﻓﻪ‪ ،‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻋﻪ ﺘﻨﻅﻴﻡ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻴﺤﻜﻤﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ"‪ .12‬ﻭﻗﺩ‬
‫ﻋﺭﻓﺕ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﻓﻴﻴﻨﺎ ﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﻜﻤﺎ ﻴﻠﻲ‪:‬‬

‫"ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺘﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﺘﻔﺎﻕ ﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﻴﻌﻘﺩ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺩﻭﻝﻴﺘﻴﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺸﻜل ﻤﻜﺘﻭﺏ ﻭﻴﺨﻀﻊ ﻝﻠﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ‬
‫ﺴﻭﺍﺀ ﺘﻡ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻕ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺜﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﺤﺩﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﻭﺃﻴﺎ ﻜﻨﺕ ﺍﻝﺘﺴﻤﻴﺔ"‪.13‬‬

‫ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺘﻨﻁﺒﻕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﺘﻌﺭﻴﻔﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﺤﺴﺏ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ‪ ،‬ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻝﻠﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺼﺩﻗﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻨﻀﻤﺕ ﺇﻝﻴﻬﺎ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﺎ ﻝﻘﺎﻋﺩﺓ ﺃﻥ‬
‫"ﻗﻭﺓ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺃﻁﺭﺍﻓﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﺘﻠﺯﻡ ﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ‪‬‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺘﻌﺎﻗﺩ ﻋﺒﺩ ﺘﻌﺎﻗﺩﻩ"‪ .14‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﺼﺭ ﺃﺤﺩ ﺃﻁﺭﺍﻑ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺒﺎﻝﺘﺯﺍﻤﺎﺘﻪ ﻭﻓﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﺨل ﺒﺸﺭﻭﻁﻬﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﻨﻌﻘﺩ ﻋﻨﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﻝﻤﺴﺅﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ‪ .15‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺘﺘﺭﺘﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﻤﺴﺅﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎل ﺍﻹﺨﻼل‬
‫ﺒﺎﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺇﻝﺯﺍﻤﻴﺔ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻨﻌﻘﺎﺩ ﺍﻝﻤﺴﺅﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎل ﺍﻹﺨﻼل ﺒﻬﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻻ ﺘﻌﻨﻲ ﺒﺎﻝﻀﺭﻭﺭﺓ ﺇﻝﺯﺍﻤﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺍﻝﻔﺼل ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻻﻝﺘﺯﺍﻤﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻨﺸﺄ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺴﺎﺤﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﻭﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻨﺸﺄ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﺃﻴﺔ ﻗﺎﻋﺩﺓ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺘﻨﺸﺄ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺠﺯ ‪‬ﺀﺍ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺃﻁﺭﺍﻑ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭ ‪‬ﻴﻌ ‪‬ﺩ ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻝﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﻭﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﻭﻀﻭﻋﺎﺕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﻫﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻜﺒﺭﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺼﻌﻴﺩ ﺍﻝﻌﻤﻠﻲ ﻭﺍﻝﻨﻅﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺒﺎﻝﺫﺍﺕ ﺒﺴﺒﺏ ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻭﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﻅﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﺒﺎﻴﻨﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﺍﻫﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻝﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻭﺭﺴﻡ ﺍﻝﺤﺩﻭﺩ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﻭﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﺫﻫﺏ ﻓﺭﻴﻕ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻔﻘﻬﺎﺀ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻝﻘﻭل ﺒﺄﻥ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﺍﻝﻌﺎﻡ ﺘﻌﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺘﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺠﺯﺀﺍ‬
‫ﻋﺭﻑ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻻﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﺒﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﻥ‪ .‬ﺒﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺫﻫﺏ ﻓﺭﻴﻕ ﺁﺨﺭ ﺇﻝﻰ‬
‫ﻻ ﻴﺘﺠﺯﺃ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭ ‪‬‬
‫ﻋﺭﻑ ﻫﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻘﻭل ﺒﺄﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﻭﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﻨﻅﺎﻤﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺎﻥ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﻼﻥ ﻋﻥ ﺒﻌﻀﻬﻤﺎ ﺒﻌﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭ ‪‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﺒﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ‪.16‬‬

‫‪ \‚` 12‬ا‪YL` €b!#‬ان‪ ،‬ا‪ <H I,JE6‬ا‪EF+G6‬ن ا‪;6‬و‪ <6‬ا‪+C6‬م‪ $‚RK) ،‬دار ا‪ !SƒL# $u&z„#‬وا‪YR#‬ز‪&"` ،b‬ن ‪ (1997‬ص‪.259 .‬‬
‫‪ 13‬ا‪\s"#‬ر ‪ ،pZqr‬ص‪.337 .‬‬
‫‪ 14‬ا‪\s"#‬ر ‪ ،pZqr‬ص‪.295 .‬‬
‫‪~| 15‬ح ا‪;6 KL;GL ،!K&` †b\#‬را‪ KJ‬ا‪EF+G6‬ن ا‪;6‬و‪) ،<6‬دار ا‪ $awƒ#‬ا‪ ،$PT!^#‬ا‪&z#‬ه!ة‪ .(2003 ،‬ﻭﺘﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﺴﺅﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ "ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﺤﻜﻡ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻤل ﺃﻭ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﺘﻨﺴﺏ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺃﺤﺩ ﺃﺸﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﻨﺠﻡ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻀﺭﺭ ﻝﺸﺨﺹ ﺁﺨﺭ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺸﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻤﺎ ﻴﺘﺭﺘﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻝﻙ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﺘﺯﺍﻡ ﺍﻷﻭل ﺒﺎﻝﺘﻌﻭﻴﺽ"‪.‬‬
‫‪ 16‬ر‰&د `&رف ا‪ ،\PZ#‬ا‪EF+G6‬ن ا‪;6‬و‪ <6‬ا‪+C6‬م ‪ O-EP <H‬ا‪&"`) ،;M;N6‬ن‪ (2001 ،‬ص‪.47 .‬‬

‫‪-7-‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﻭﻴﺭﻯ ﺃﻨﺼﺎﺭ ﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ )‪" ،(Dualist Approach‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﻭﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ‬
‫ﻨﻅﺎﻤﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺎﻥ ﻤﺘﺴﺎﻭﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻴﻨﻔﺼل ﻜل ﻤﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻵﺨﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻴﺨﻀﻊ ﺃﻱ ﻤﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻝﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻨﻪ"‪.17‬‬
‫ﻭﺤﺴﺏ ﺃﻨﺼﺎﺭ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻫﺏ "ﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﻻ ﻴﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺒﺼﻔﺔ ﺍﻹﻝﺯﺍﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺍﺌﺭﺓ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻭ‬
‫ﻤﺎ ﻴﻌﻨﻲ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻨﺎﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﻨﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺘﻌﺎﺭﻀﺕ ﻗﺎﻋﺩﺓ ﺩﺍﺨﻠﻴﺔ ﻤﻊ ﻗﺎﻋﺩﺓ ﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻀﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻁﺒﻕ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻋﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﻷﻨﻪ ﻴﺴﺘﻤﺩ ﺴﻠﻁﻪ ﻭﺍﺨﺘﺼﺎﺼﻪ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻪ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻲ ﻭﻝﻴﺱ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺘﺘﺤﻤل ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺼﻌﻴﺩ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﺴﺅﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻨﺎﺠﻤﺔ ﻋﻥ ﻤﺨﺎﻝﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﻻﻝﺘﺯﺍﻤﺎﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺜل ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺤﺎﻝﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻴﺘﺭﺘﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻝﻙ ﺃﻥ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﻻ ﺘﺼﺒﺢ ﻤﻠﺯﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻨﻁﺎﻕ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﺃﻴﻀﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺼﺩﺭﺕ ﺒﺼﻭﺭﺓ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺩﺍﺨﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻝﻺﺠﺭﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﺸﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺘﺒﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺼﺩﺍﺭ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻻ ﻴﻤﻠﻙ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻀﻲ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﻤﺎ ﻝﻡ ﺘﺘﺤﻭل ﺇﻝﻰ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺘﻌﺩﻴل ﺃﻭ ﺇﻝﻐﺎﺀ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﻻﺤﻕ"‪.18‬‬

‫ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺤﺴﺏ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻫﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻨﺎﺠﻤﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺘﻌﺘﺒﺭ ﺠﺯﺀﺍ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺘﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﻤﺎ ﺩﺍﻤﺕ ﻝﻡ ﺘﺘﺤﻭل ﺇﻝﻰ ﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻲ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﻝﻠﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ‪.‬‬

‫ﺃﻴﻀﺎ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﺍﻵﺨﺭ‪ ،‬ﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺭﻏﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺍﺨﺘﻼﻓﻪ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﺍﻷﻭل‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻨﺼﺎﺭﻩ‬
‫ﻴﻘ ‪‬ﺭﻭﻥ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﻭﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﻝﻭﻴﺔ ﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ‪ .19‬ﻭﻜﻤﺎ ﻋﺒﺭﺕ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻝﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﻝﺴﺎﺌﺩ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ ﺍﻝﻜﺎﺘﺒﺔ ‪:Evelen Ellis‬‬

‫‪“Classical International Law is concerned primarily with regulating the‬‬

‫‪relations between states, rather than with creating rights directly for their‬‬
‫‪subjects, …”20‬‬

‫ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺘﻡ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺇﺘﺒﺎﻉ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺒﺎﻹﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻺﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻝﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺒﻤﻭﺠﺒﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺠﺯﺀﺍ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل‪ ،‬ﺼﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻹﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 17‬ا‪\s"#‬ر ‪ ،pZqr‬ص‪.47 .‬‬

‫‪ 18‬ا‪\s"#‬ر ‪ ،pZqr‬ص‪.48 .‬‬
‫‪ 19‬ا‪\s"#‬ر ‪ /pZqr‬ص‪.52-51 .‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪Evelen Ellis, “The Enforcement of EEC Law in the Courts of the Member States: What Direct Affect Really‬‬
‫‪Mean?” (1989-1990) 14 Holdsworth L. Rev. 94.‬‬

‫‪-8-‬‬
Ghiath Nasser, Law Office www.nasserlaw.net

‫ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ‬:‫( ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻝﺙ‬1.3

‫ ﻫﻭ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ‬،‫ ﻭﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺍﻝﺘﻁﺭﻕ ﺇﻝﻴﻪ ﺒﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﺨﺼﻭﺹ‬،‫ﺍﻝﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻵﺨﺭ ﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﻴﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‬
.‫ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ‬

‫ ﻝﻠﺒﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻀﺎﻴﺎ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ‬،‫ ﺍﺨﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺃﻭ ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ‬،‫ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻝﻡ ﺘﻤﻨﺢ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ ﻤﻨﺤﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‬،‫ ﺒﺎﻝﻤﻘﺎﺒل‬.‫ ﺃﻭ ﻤﻨﺢ ﻋﻼﺠﺎﺕ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎل ﺍﻹﺨﻼل ﺒﺎﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‬،‫ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‬
‫( ﻝﻠﺒﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻀﺎﻴﺎ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺘﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺎﻨﺼﻴﺎﻉ‬ECJ) ‫ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﺨﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺨﺎﺹ ﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‬
.‫ ﻭﺍﺤﺘﺭﺍﻡ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩﻫﺎ‬،‫ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﻝﻠﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‬
‫ ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﺭﻓﻊ ﺍﻝﺩﻋﺎﻭﻯ ﻀﺩ ﺃﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺩﻭل‬،‫ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ‬،21‫ ﻤﻥ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‬226 ‫ﻓﻘﺩ ﻤﻨﺤﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ ﻜﻤﺎ ﺘﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﺭﻓﻊ ﺩﻋﻭﻯ ﺃﻴﻀﺎ ﺒﺴﺒﺏ‬.‫ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺘﻌﺘﻘﺩ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﺨﻠﺕ ﺒﺄﻱ ﺍﻝﺘﺯﺍﻡ ﺤﺴﺏ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‬
‫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ‬،‫ ﻗﺒل ﺭﻓﻊ ﺩﻋﻭﻯ ﻤﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻨﻭﻉ‬،‫ ﻭﻝﻜﻥ‬.‫ﺇﺨﻼل ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ ﺒﺎﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺼل ﻝﻤﺎﺫﺍ ﺘﻌﺘﻘﺩ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ‬
 ‫ﻴﻔ‬ (Reasoned Opinion) ‫ﺼل‬
 ‫ﺘﺘﻘﺩﻡ ﻝﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺒﺘﻘﺭﻴﺭ ﻤﻔ‬
‫ ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻝﻡ ﺘﻌﺩل ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ ﻋﻤﺎ ﻭﺭﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﺘﻘﺭﻴﺭ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻝﻤﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﺤﺩﺩﻫﺎ‬.‫ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ ﺘﺨل ﺒﺎﻝﺘﺯﺍﻤﺎﺘﻬﺎ‬
.‫ ﺘﻘﺩﻡ ﻀﺩﻫﺎ ﺤﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﻋﻭﻯ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ‬،‫ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﺭﻓﻊ ﺩﻋﻭﻯ ﻀﺩ ﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﻋﻀﻭ‬،22‫ ﻤﻥ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‬227 ‫ﻜﻤﺎ ﻤﻨﺤﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ ﻗﺒل ﺃﻥ ﺘﺭﻓﻊ ﺩﻋﻭﻯ‬،‫ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ‬.‫ﺩﻋﻲ ﻹﺨﻼل ﺍﻷﺨﻴﺭﺓ ﺒﺎﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ‬ ‫ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘ‬،‫ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‬
‫ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﺴﻤﺎﻉ ﺍﻷﻁﺭﺍﻑ ﻭﺇﺼﺩﺍﺭ‬.‫ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻘﺩﻡ ﺸﻜﻭﻯ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ‬،‫ﻀﺩ ﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﻋﻀﻭ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‬
.‫ ﺘﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ‬،‫ ﻭﻓﻘﻁ ﺒﻌﺩ ﺇﺼﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻝﺘﻘﺭﻴﺭ‬،‫ﺘﻘﺭﻴﺭﻫﺎ‬

21
EU Treaty, consolidated version, Supra note 6, Article 226: “If the Commission considers that a Member
State has failed to fulfill an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after
giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations.
If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the
latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice”.
22
EU Treaty, consolidated version, Supra note 6, Article 227:
“A Member State which considers that another Member State has failed to fulfill an obligation under this
Treaty may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
Before a Member State brings an action against another Member State for an alleged infringement of an
obligation under this Treaty, it shall bring the matter before the Commission.
The Commission shall deliver a reasoned opinion after each of the States concerned has been given the
opportunity to submit its own case and its observations on the other party's case both orally and in writing.
If the Commission has not delivered an opinion within three months of the date on which the matter was brought
before it, the absence of such opinion shall not prevent the matter from being brought before the Court of
Justice”.

-9-
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﺤﺕ ﻝﻠﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ‪ ،23‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ ﻁﺭﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻫﻤﺎ ﺃﺸﺨﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻜﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ‪‬ﻤ ‪‬ﻨ ‪‬‬
‫ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺴﺒﺏ ﺍﻝﺩﻋﻭﻯ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل ﺒﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺘﻭﺼﻠﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻝﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﻗﺩ ﺃﺨﻠﺕ ﺒﺄﺤﺩ ﺍﻝﺘﺯﺍﻤﺎﺘﻬﺎ ﺤﺴﺏ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻨﻬﺎ ﺘﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻔﺭﺽ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺨﻠﺔ ﺍﺘﺨﺎﺫ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺠﺭﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻼﺯﻤﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ ﺍﻝﺘﺯﺍﻤﺎﺘﻬﺎ‪ .24‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﺨﻭﻝﺕ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﻤﺎﺴﺘﺭﺨﺕ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﻓﺭﺽ ﻏﺭﺍﻤﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺨﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎل ﻝﻡ ﺘﻨﻔﺫ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺨﻠﺔ ﺍﻹﺠﺭﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻓﺭﻀﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﻭﺠﻬﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺒﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﺨﺼﻭﺹ ﻤﺭﺓ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‪.25‬‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻤﻔﺼﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﻓﺭﺽ ﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ ﺍﻻﻝﺘﺯﺍﻤﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻝﻙ ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻌﺘﺒﺭ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﻝﻠﺒﺕ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﻀﺎﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‪ ،‬ﻝﻡ ﻴﺭﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺃﻱ ﺫﻜﺭ ﻝﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﻝﻠﺒﺕ‬
‫ﺒﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﻀﺎﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺒﻔﺭﺽ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻌﻤل ﺩﺍﺨﻠﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻬل‪،‬‬
‫ﻝﻠﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﻤﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻝﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺒﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﺨﺼﻭﺹ؟!‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺫﺍ ﻤﺎ ﺴﻨﺭﺍﻩ ﻻﺤﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﺴﻭﺍﺒﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﺒﻨﺘﻬﺎ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻝﻜﻥ ﻻ ﺒﺩ ﻗﺒل ﺫﻝﻙ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻨﺘﻁﺭﻕ ﺇﻝﻰ ﻤﺂﺨﺫ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﻭﻗﻔﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﺃﻥ ﻓﻬﻡ ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺂﺨﺫ ﻴﻭﻀﺢ ﻝﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺨﻠﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺃﺩﺕ ﺒﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺘﺒ ﱢﻨﻲ ﺴﻭﺍﺒﻕ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻝﻡ ﻴﺭﺩ ﺫﻜﺭﻫﺎ ﺒﺎﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺘﻘﻭﻴﺔ ﻭﺩﻋﻡ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪ (1.4‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻝﺭﺍﺒﻊ‪ :‬ﻤﺂﺨﺫ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﻭﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‬

‫ﺘﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺁﻝﻴﺘﻴﻥ ﺃﺴﺎﺴﻴﺘﻴﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﻝﻨﻅﺎﻤﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﻭﻝﻰ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ ﺍﻝﻌﺎﻡ ﻝﻠﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ )‪ ،(Public Enforcement‬ﺃﻱ ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻴﺔ‪،‬‬

‫‪23‬‬
‫‪Robbie Sabel, International Law, (The Harry and Michael Sacher Institute for legislative research and‬‬
‫‪Comparative law, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 2003) (In Hebrew) at 145.‬‬
‫‪24‬‬
‫‪EU Treaty, consolidated version, Supra note 6, Article 228(1): “1. If the Court of Justice finds that a Member‬‬
‫‪State has failed to fulfill an obligation under this Treaty, the State shall be required to take the necessary‬‬
‫‪measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice”.‬‬
‫‪25‬‬
‫‪EU Treaty, consolidated version, Supra note 6, Article 228(2):‬‬
‫‪“2. If the Commission considers that the Member State concerned has not taken such measures it shall, after‬‬
‫‪giving that State the opportunity to submit its observations, issue a reasoned opinion specifying the points on‬‬
‫‪which the Member State concerned has not complied with the judgment of the Court of Justice.‬‬
‫‪If the Member State concerned fails to take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgment within‬‬
‫‪the time limit laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the case before the Court of Justice. In so‬‬
‫‪doing it shall specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned‬‬
‫‪which it considers appropriate in the circumstances.‬‬
‫‪If the Court of Justice finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment it may impose‬‬
‫‪a lump sum or penalty payment on it. This procedure shall be without prejudice to Article 227”.‬‬

‫‪- 10 -‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﻝﺴﻤﺎﺡ ﻝﻸﻓﺭﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﺇﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﻝﻠﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺒﻘﻀﺎﻴﺎ ﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺫﻝﻙ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل‬
‫ﺤﻤﺎﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﺭﺽ ﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻜﻤﺎ ﻋﺭﻀﻨﺎ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﺍﻨﺘﻬﺠﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ ﺍﻝﻌﺎﻡ ﻝﻠﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ) ‪Public‬‬
‫‪ ،(Enforcement‬ﺤﻴﺙ ‪‬ﻤﻨﺤﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺎﺕ ﻝﻤﻼﺤﻘﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﻤﻨﺤﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل‬
‫ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺎﺕ ﻤﺸﺎﺒﻬﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻝﻜﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻝﻙ ﻤﺂﺨﺫ ﻋﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻜﻭﺭ ﻝﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ‪.26‬‬

‫ﺃﻭل ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﺂﺨﺫ‪ ،‬ﻫﻭ ﺘﺤﻤﻴل ﻋﺏﺀ ﻓﺭﺽ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻝﻠﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻤﻁﻠﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻤﺭ ﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﻴﺯﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﻤﺴﺅﻭﻝﻴﺎﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﻴﺜﻘل ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻤﻔﺭﻁ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﺍﻨﻪ ﻗﻠﻴﻼ ﻤﺎ ﺘﺘﻘﺩﻡ ﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﻋﻀﻭ ﺒﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻀﺩ ﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﻋﻀﻭ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺤﺘﻰ ﻝﻭ ﺤﺩﺙ ﺫﻝﻙ‪ ،‬ﻓﺤﺴﺏ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،227‬ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺎﻝﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﺒﺕ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺸﻜﻭﻯ ﻭﺘﻘﺩﻴﻡ ﺘﻘﺭﻴﺭﻫﺎ ﻗﺒل ﺃﻥ ﺘﺘﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ ﻤﻥ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﻡ ﺩﻋﻭﻯ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻝﻜﻥ ﻝﻠﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻋﺒﺎﺀ ﻋﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ ﺩﻭﺭ "ﺍﻝﻨﺎﺌﺏ ﺍﻝﻌﺎﻡ" )‪ .(Prosecutor‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺯﺍﺩ ﻋﺩﺩ ﺍﻝﺸﻜﺎﻭﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺨﻼل ﺒﺎﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻜﺒﻴﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﺴﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺫﻝﻙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺤﺴﺎﺏ ﻤﻬﺎﻡ ﻫﺎﻤﺔ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﻤﻠﻘﺎﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺎﺘﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻤﺜل ﺘﻘﺩﻴﻡ ﺍﻗﺘﺭﺍﺤﺎﺕ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻌﺘﺒﺭ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻫﻡ ﻤﻬﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻷﺨﺭﻯ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻻﺩﻋﺎﺀﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل ﺍﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ‪ ،‬ﺘﻜﻤل ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﺭﺽ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﺨﻔﻑ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻌﺏﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻝ ‪‬ﻤﻠﻘﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ‪.27‬‬

‫ﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﺘﻭﺍﺠﻪ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﻌﺎﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻝﻭﻋﻲ ﺒﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﻗﻭﻉ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل‬
‫ﺒﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻓﺸﺭﻁ ﻤﺴﺒﻕ ﻝﻜﻲ ﺘﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺒﺩﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻓﻌﺎل‬
‫ﻭﻤﻼﺤﻘﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺨﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻤﻌﺭﻓﺘﻬﺎ ﺒﻭﻗﻭﻉ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل ﺒﺎﻝﻘﺎﻋﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻌﻼ‪ ،‬ﻗﺩ ﺘﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺤﺼﻭل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﺒﺸﺄﻥ ﻭﻗﻭﻉ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل‪ ،‬ﻭﻝﻜﻥ ﺫﻝﻙ ﺴﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﺭﻭﻗﺭﺍﻁﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻤﻌﻘﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺨﺫﻨﺎ ﺒﻌﻴﻥ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻝﺤﺠﻡ ﺍﻝﻀﺨﻡ ﻝﻼﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺤﺠﻡ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل‬
‫ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺯﺍﻴﺩ ﻤﺴﺘﻤﺭ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻭﺍﻗﻊ ‪‬ﻴﺤ ‪‬ﺩﺙ ﺼﻌﻭﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺴﻬﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻭﺼﻭل ﺇﻝﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺭﻏﻡ ﻤﻥ ﻤﻘﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﻝﻠﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﺭﺽ ﺸﻜﺎﻭﻴﻬﻡ‪ .28‬ﻤﻥ‬
‫‪26‬‬
‫‪D. Lasok, Law and institutions of the European Union, (London, 1994) at 322: “The Efficacy of the‬‬
‫”‪enforcement procedure has inherent limitations‬‬
‫‪27‬‬
‫‪P. P. Craig, “Once Upon a Time in the West: Direct Effect and the Federalization of EEC Law” (1992) 12‬‬
‫‪Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 253, at 254-255: “ Such a scheme of public enforcement therefore expenditure‬‬
‫‪of Time on the part of the commission. This of particular importance within a system such as the EEC, in which‬‬
‫‪the Commission has a plethora of other responsibilities quite separate from that of ‘prosecutor’. If the burden of‬‬
‫‪pursuing claims becomes too great then the commission will have relatively less time to, for example, devise‬‬
‫‪legislation, which is one of the main tasks under the Treaty. Private actions rendered possible by the concept of‬‬
‫‪direct effect, complement the enforcement role of the commission by sanctioning claims brought by individuals‬‬
‫‪in their own capacity. Another way of putting the same point that direct effect creates a large number of ‘private‬‬
‫‪attorneys general’”.‬‬
‫‪28‬‬
‫‪Ibid at 255: “The second difficulty with public enforcement is closely related to the first. In order for such a‬‬
‫‪system to be effective the Commission must be aware that a breach of the Treaty or legislation made pursuant‬‬

‫‪- 11 -‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﺠﻬﺔ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‪ ،‬ﻤﻨﺢ ﺍﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﺤﻕ ﻤﻘﺎﻀﺎﺓ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺒﺴﺒﺏ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل ﺒﺎﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻴﺴ ‪‬ﻬل ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻝﻔﺭﺩ ﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﻴﺩﻋﻲ ﻝﺤﺩﻭﺙ ﻤﺨﺎﻝﻔﺔ ﺃﻀﺭﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻴﻌﻲ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺸﺨﺹ‬
‫ﺁﺨﺭ ﻭﻗﺎﺌﻊ ﺍﻝﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻝﻪ ﺩﺍﻓﻊ ﻗﻭﻱ ﺒﺎﻹﺘﻴﺎﻥ ﺒﺎﻝﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻝﺘﺩﻗﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﻭﺇﺼﺩﺍﺭ ﺤﻜﻤﻬﺎ‪.29‬‬

‫ﺍﻝﻤﺄﺨﺫ ﺍﻵﺨﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻴﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺎﻝﻘﻴﻭﺩ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﺭﻭﻀﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺒﺎﻝﻨﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻝﻠﻌﻼﺠﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻔﺭﻀﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻝﺔ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل ﺒﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻝﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺒﻤﻭﺠﺒﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺭﺃﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺘﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﺭﺽ ﻏﺭﺍﻤﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺨﻠﺔ ﺃﻭل ﻤﺭﺓ ﻅﻬﺭ ﺃﻤﺎﻤﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺨﻼل‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻔﺭﺽ ﺃﻭﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ ﺍﺘﺨﺎﺫ ﺍﻹﺠﺭﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻼﺯﻤﺔ ﻝﺘﺼﻠﻴﺢ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل‪ .‬ﻓﻘﻁ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎل ﻝﻡ ﺘﺫﻋﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ ﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﻋﻨﺩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺒﻌﺩ ﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﻤﺭﺓ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﻝﻠﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻓﺭﺽ ﻏﺭﺍﻤﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ‪ .‬ﻭﻝﻜﻥ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﺴﺘﻤﺭﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺤﺩﻭﺩ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻨﺎﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻓﻌﻠﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻝﺘﻐﻠﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎل ﺘﻤ ﱠﻜﻥ ﺍﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﺇﻝﻰ ﻤﺤﺎﻜﻤﻬﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﻀﺩ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل‬
‫ﺒﺎﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﻜﻤﺎ ﻫﻭ ﻤﻌﺭﻭﻑ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻝﺤﻜﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﺘﻤﻴل ﻏﺎﻝﺒﺎ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﺤﺘﺭﺍﻡ ﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﻤﺤﺎﻜﻤﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺃﺤﺩ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ‪ .30‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻝﻠﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﺘﺠﺭﺒﺔ ﺃﻜﺒﺭ ﺒﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﺍﻝﻌﻼﺠﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻼﺯﻤﺔ ﻀﺩ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل ﺒﺎﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻔﺭﺽ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺤﻜﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﺃﻭﺍﻤﺭ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻝﺘﺤﻭل ﺩﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺨﻼل‪.31‬‬

‫ﺍﻝﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺨﻴﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻭﺍﺠﻪ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻫﻲ ﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺭﻤﺯﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻤﻘﺩﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺘﺘﺤﺩﺙ ﻋﻥ ﺇﺭﺴﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﺴﺱ ﻤﻥ ﺍﺠل ﺨﻠﻕ ﺍﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺃﻗﺭﺏ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺸﻌﻭﺏ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‪ .32‬ﻭﺘﻌﻤل‬
‫ﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺨﻠﻕ ﺘﻘﺎﺭﺏ ﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻭﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺸﻌﻭﺏ ﻭﺩﻭل ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻝﺫﻝﻙ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﺭﻓﻊ ﻗﻀﺎﻴﺎ ﻤﺘﻜﺭﺭﺓ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﻀﺩ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺭﻓﻊ ﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﻋﻀﻭ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻀﺩ ﺩﻭﻝﺔ‬

‫‪thereto has occurred. Knowledge of the existence of a breach is clearly a condition precedent for the‬‬
‫‪enforcement action. Such knowledge could be of course be acquired by the Commission itself, but this would be‬‬
‫‪an extremely complex an protracted process given the size of the treaty and the volume regulations and‬‬
‫‪directives which have been promulgated…Direct effect alleviates this problem. an individual who believes‬‬
‫‪himself to be wronged by Member Stare action which is contrary to the Treaty is in the optimal position to know‬‬
‫”‪the facts to which the alleged violation relates, and has a strong incentive to tale steps to have the matter tested.‬‬
‫‪29‬‬
‫‪Ibid at 255: “Direct effect alleviates this problem. an individual who believes himself to be wronged by‬‬
‫‪Member Stare action which is contrary to the Treaty is in the optimal position to know the facts to which the‬‬
‫”‪alleged violation relates, and has a strong incentive to tale steps to have the matter tested.‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫‪Ibide at 256: “…national governments are more likely to adhere a judgment given directly from within their‬‬
‫‪own system. This is much well known”.‬‬
‫‪31‬‬
‫‪Ibid.‬‬
‫‪32‬‬
‫‪“of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”.‬‬

‫‪- 12 -‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﻋﻀﻭ ﺁﺨﺭ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻴﺼﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺨﺩﻤﺔ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﻝﻬﺩﻑ‪ ،33‬ﺒل ﺇﻨﻪ ﻴﺅﺩﻱ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺨﻠﻕ ﺘﻭﺘﺭ ﻭﺤﺴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﻋﻀﻭ ﻭﺃﺨﺭﻯ‪.34‬‬
‫ﺒﻴﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻤﻨﺢ ﺍﻝﻔﺭﺩ ﺇﻤﻜﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﻝﻠﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ‪ ،‬ﻴﻌﻔﻲ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻤﻌﻴﻥ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﺘﺩﺨل ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺘﺭ‪ ،‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺘﺼﺒﺢ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﻔﺭﺩ ﻭﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﺘﻡ ﺍﻝﺒﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻤﺭ ﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﻴﺨﻔﻑ ﻜﺜﻴﺭﺍ ﻤﻥ ﺸﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺘﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻘﻀﺎﻴﺎ ﺍﻝﺒﺩﻴﻠﺔ ﻭﻓﻕ ﺍﻵﻝﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻨﻅﺭﺍ ﻝﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﺂﺨﺫ‪ ،‬ﻜﺎﻥ ﻻ ﺒﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﺘﻔﻜﻴﺭ‪ ،‬ﻫل ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻴﺠﺎﺩ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺒﺩﻴﻠﺔ ﻭﺇﻀﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻝﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻭﻓﺭﺽ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩﻩ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ؟ ﺃﻭ ﻫل ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺇﻋﻁﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﺤﻕ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ؟‪.‬‬
‫ﻝﻘﺩ ﻁﺭﺡ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﺴﺅﺍل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺒﺩﺍﻴﺎﺕ ﺴﻨﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺴﻨﺔ ‪ ،1962‬ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺸﻬﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪ ،35 Van Gend en Loos‬ﻭﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﺒﻨﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ )‪ .(Direct Effect‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺴﻨﻘﻑ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻴﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺤﻴﺜﻴﺎﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﻬﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﺼﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﻴﻌﺘﺒﺭ ﺴﺎﺒﻘﺔ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﻀﺨﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺎﺭﻴﺦ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺼﻌﻴﺩ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ (2‬ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺤﺙ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻲ‪ :‬ﺘﺒﻨﻲ ﻤﺒﺩَﺃﻱ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻭﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‬

‫‪ (2.1‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻷﻭل‪ :‬ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪Van Gend en Loos‬‬

‫ﺼﺩ ﺒﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻤﻘﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﻝﻠﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻲ ﺍﻝﺠﺩﻴﺩ‬
‫‪‬ﻴﻘ ‪‬‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻜﻤﺎ ﺠﺎﺀ ﺍﻝﺘﻌﺭﻴﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻝﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻝﻜﺎﺘﺒﺔ ‪:Josephine Steiner‬‬

‫‪“Directly effective Community law is Community law which may be‬‬

‫‪invoked by individuals before their national courts”36.‬‬

‫ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻭﺍﻀﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺘﻠﺯﻡ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺫﻝﻙ ﺍﻝﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺼﺩﺭﺕ ﺒﻤﻭﺠﺒﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻜﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺨﻠﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ ﺒﻭﺍﺠﺒﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻤﻘﺎﻀﺎﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻝﻜﻥ‪ ،‬ﻤﺎ‬
‫‪33‬‬
‫‪Ellis, supra note 20 , at 94: “prosecutions of Member States by the Commission or by another Member States‬‬
‫‪under the Articles 169 and 170 are time-consuming and sometimes politically undesirable or non-feasible, so‬‬
‫‪that enforcement through the ,medium of individuals protecting their own rights under community law provides‬‬
‫‪a welcome short-circuiting procedure”.‬‬
‫‪34‬‬
‫‪Craig, supra note 27, at 257.‬‬
‫‪35‬‬
‫‪Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1.‬‬
‫‪36‬‬
‫‪Josephine Steiner, Enforcing EC Law, (Blackstone Press Limited, London, 1995) 14.‬‬

‫‪- 13 -‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﻫﻲ ﻤﻜﺎﻨﺔ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻴﺔ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ؟‪ .‬ﻭﻫل ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ؟‬
‫ﻜﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﻝﻡ ﺘﺘﻁﺭﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﻝﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﺴﺄﻝﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﺠﺎﺒﺕ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺒﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺃﻫﻤﻬﺎ ﻗﺭﺍﺭ ‪.Van Gend‬‬

‫ﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺩﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻜﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻤﺴﺘﻭﺭﺩﺍ ﻫﻭﻝﻨﺩﻴﺎ ﻝﻤﻭﺍﺩ ﻜﻴﻤﺎﻭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺍﺴﺘﻭﺭﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻝﻤﺎﻨﻴﺎ ﺇﻝﻰ ﻫﻭﻝﻨﺩﺍ‬
‫ﻁﻠﺏ ﻤﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻴﺩﻓﻊ ﺠﻤﺭﻜﺎ ﺒﻤﺎ ﻨﺴﺒﺘﻪ ‪ .%8‬ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺘﻡ ﻓﺭﻀﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺴﻨﺔ ‪ 1960‬ﻤﻭﺍﺩ ﻜﻴﻤﺎﻭﻴﺔ ﻤﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﹸ‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻫﻭﻝﻨﺩﻱ ﻤﻥ ﺴﻨﺔ ‪ .1959‬ﻓﺎﺩﻋﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺴﺘﻭﺭﺩ ﺍﻝﻬﻭﻝﻨﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﺠﻤﺭﻙ ﻴﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻤﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪ 12‬ﻤﻥ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍل‪ ،EC-‬ﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﻴﻤﻨﻊ ﻓﺭﺽ ﺠﻤﺎﺭﻙ ﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻀﺭﺍﺌﺏ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺃﺜﺭ ﻤﻤﺎﺜل ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻴﺭﺍﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻓﻊ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﺠﻤﺎﺭﻙ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﺌﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺠﺎﺀ ﻓﻌﻼ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪12‬‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻜﻭﺭﺓ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪:‬‬

‫‪“To refrain from introducing between themselves any new customs duties on‬‬
‫‪imports or exports or any changes having equivalent effect”37.‬‬

‫ﻭﻋﻨﺩ ﺩﺨﻭل ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﺴﻭﻕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ )‪ (EEC‬ﺤﻴﺯ ﺍﻝﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ ﻓﻲ ﺴﻨﺔ ‪ ،1957‬ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻝﺠﻤﺭﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﻔﺭﻭﻀﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺴﺘﻴﺭﺍﺩ ﺍﻝﺒﻀﺎﺌﻊ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻜﻭﺭﺓ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻝﻤﺎﻨﻴﺎ ﻫﻲ ‪ .%3‬ﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻀﺭﺍﺌﺏ ﺍﻝﻬﻭﻝﻨﺩﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺎﺕ ﻗﻀﺎﺌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺠﻬﺕ ﺇﻝﻰ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺴﺅﺍل‪" ،‬ﻫل ﺘﻭﺠﺩ ﻝﻠﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫‪ 12‬ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺒﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‪ ،‬ﻫل ﻴﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺃﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻻﺩﻋﺎﺀ ﻝﺤﻘﻭﻕ ﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺤﻤﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ؟“‪.‬‬
‫ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻝﺨﻠﻔﻴﺔ ﻝﻠﺴﺅﺍل ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻜﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﺃﻨﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻭل ﻜﺜﻴﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻴﻭﺠﺩ ﻓﺼل ﺘﺎﻡ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﺍﻝﺘﻌﺎﻗﺩﻱ ﻭﺒﻴﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﻌﺘﺩ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺒﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ‪ ،‬ﺒﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺘﹸﻨﺸ‪‬ﺊ ﺤﻘﻭﻗﹰﺎ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺠﺒﺎﺕ ﻝﻤﻭﺍﻁﻨﻲ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺴﻤﻌﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﺩﻋﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﺜﻼﺙ ﺩﻭل‪ ،‬ﻫﻭﻝﻨﺩﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﻝﻤﺎﻨﻴﺎ ﻭﺒﻠﺠﻴﻜﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻻﺩﻋﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﻤﺘﺸﺎﺒﻬﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺩ ﻁﺭﺤﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺇﺩﻋﺎ ‪‬ﺀﻴ‪‬ﻥ ﺃﺴﺎﺴﻴﻴﻥ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﻭل‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻺﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻗﺩ ﻨﺼﺕ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻭﺍﻀﺢ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻌﻼﺝ ﺍﻝﻭﺤﻴﺩ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻜﻭﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻝﺔ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل ﺒﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻭ‬
‫‪38‬‬
‫ﺤﺴﺏ ﺍﻝﻤﻭﺍﺩ ‪ 226‬ﻭ‪ 227 -‬ﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ‬ ‫ﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ ﺇﻝﻰ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ .39‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﺍﻻﺩﻋﺎﺀ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﺃﻀﺎﻑ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻹﺩﻋﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﻭل‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻅﻡ ﺍﻝﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﺘﻡ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﻭﻓﻕ ﺍﻝﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻨﺼﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻨ ﱢ‬

‫‪37‬‬
‫‪EEC Treaty, supra note 2, article 12.‬‬
‫‪38‬‬
‫‪Craig, supra note 27, at 458.‬‬
‫‪ 39‬ا‪Y"#‬اد ا‪–"#‬آ‪Y‬رة آ&‪ \ƒ` &zT&Q •"ef ”r‬ا‪ tu ”‚#‬ا‪ $Paz#‬ا‪W‬ر'&م ‪ 169‬و‪.170 -‬‬

‫‪- 14 -‬‬
Ghiath Nasser, Law Office www.nasserlaw.net

 ‫ ﺇ‬،‫ ﻭﻗﺩ ﺃﺭﺩﻑ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻻﺩﻋﺎﺀ ﻗﺎﺌﻼ‬.40‫ﻝﻴﺱ ﻝﻠﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻨﻅﺭ ﺒﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻘﻀﺎﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻥ ﻤﻨﺢ ﺍﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ‬
‫ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻤﻨﺢ ﻫﺫﺍ‬،‫ ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬،‫ﺤﻕ ﺍﻻﺩﻋﺎﺀ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﻝﻡ ﻴﻜﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﻘﺼﻭﺩ ﻤﻥ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺘﻭﻗﻴﻊ ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ‬
.41‫ ﻴﻌﻨﻲ ﺘﻐﻴﻴﺭ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﻝﺘﺯﺍﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻗﺒﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺘﻭﻗﻴﻊ ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ‬،‫ﺍﻝﺤﻕ ﺍﻝﻴﻭﻡ‬

‫ ﻭﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺍﺩﻋﺎﺀ ﺤﺼﺭﻴﺔ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻭﻓﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﻭﺍﺩ‬،‫ﺭﻓﻀﺕ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﺩﻋﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‬
‫ ﺇﺫ ﺃﻥ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺃﻤﻜﺎﻨﻴﺔ‬،‫ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﺒﺭﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﻋﺎﺀ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻜﻭﺭ ﺃﻨﻪ ﺍﺩﻋﺎﺀ ﺨﺎﻁﺊ‬.‫ ﻝﻼﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ‬227 -‫ ﻭ‬226
‫ﻝﻠﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﻭﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﻝﻠﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﻻ ﻴﻌﻨﻲ ﻋﺩﻡ ﻤﻘﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻓﻊ ﺩﻋﺎﻭﻱ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒﻠﻬﻡ‬
‫ ﺃﺠﺎﺒﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺒﺎﻹﻴﺠﺎﺏ ﻋﻥ‬،‫ ﻴﻌﺘﺒﺭ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻫﻡ ﺍﻝﺴﻭﺍﺒﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‬،‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﻗﺭﺍﺭ ﺠﺭﻱﺀ‬.42‫ﺃﻴﻀﺎ‬
‫ ﻭﻗﺩ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺩﺕ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ‬.‫ﺠﻪ ﺇﻝﻴﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل ﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻀﺭﺍﺌﺏ ﺍﻝﻬﻭﻝﻨﺩﻴﺔ‬‫ﺍﻝﺴﺅﺍل ﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﻭ‬
‫ ﻭﺘﻭﺼﻠﺕ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻝﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل‬،‫ ﻋﻠﻰ "ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ" ﻭﺃﻫﺩﺍﻓﻬﺎ‬،‫ﻗﺭﺍﺭﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺍﻝﻌﺎﻡ ﻝﻠﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ‬
‫ ﺒﺤﻴﺙ ﻴﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ‬،‫ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﻗﺩ ﻭﺍﻓﻘﻭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻤﻜﺎﻨﺔ ﻤﻠﺯﻤﺔ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‬
‫ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﺒﺭﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﺴﻭﻕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﻨﻅﺎﻡ‬.‫ﺍﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ ﻭﺍﻝﺤﻘﻭﻕ‬،‫ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻭﺍﻀﻴﻊ ﻤﺤﺩﺩﺓ‬،‫ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻲ ﺠﺩﻴﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﻗﻴﺩﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠﻠﻪ ﺴﻴﺎﺩﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ ﻻ ﻴﻔﺭﺽ‬،‫ ﻭﺇﻨﻤﺎ ﻝﻤﻭﺍﻁﻨﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻴﻀﺎ‬،‫ﺍﻝﻤﻤﻨﻭﺤﺔ ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻝﻪ ﻝﻴﺴﺕ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﻓﻘﻁ‬
‫ ﻭﻜﻤﺎ ﺠﺎﺀ ﻓﻲ‬.‫ﺀﺍ ﻤﻥ ﺘﺭﺍﺜﻬﻡ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻲ‬ ‫ ﻭﺇﻨﻤﺎ ﻴﻤﻨﺤﻬﻡ ﺤﻘﻭﻕ ﺃﺼﺒﺤﺕ ﺠﺯ‬،‫ﻭﺍﺠﺒﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﻓﻘﻁ‬
:‫ﺍﻝﻔﻘﺭﺓ ﺍﻝﻤﺸﻬﻭﺭﺓ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭ‬
“The community constitute a new legal order of international law for the
benefit of which the states had limited their sovereign rights, albeit within
limited fields, and the subject of which comprise not only the Member States
but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of a Member States
Community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is
also intended to confer on them rights which become rights of their legal
heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the
treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly
defined way upon individuals as well upon Member States and upon
institutions of the community”43.

40
Craig, supra note 27, at 458: “This theme was complemented b second, the substance of which was that the
treaty was simply a compact between states, to be policed in the manner dictated by the Treaty itself. If a
Member State was in breach of the treaty then it should have to face the consequences at the hands of another
state, or at the hands of the organ explicitly accorded the task of policing the treaty, the Commission.
41
Ibid at 258-259.
42
Van Gend case, supra note 35, at 12-13: “the argument based on articles 169 and 170 of the Treaty [now
articles 226 and 227] put forward by the three governments…is misconceived. The fact that these articles of the
Treaty enable the Commission and the Member States to bring before the court a state which has not fulfilled its
obligations does not mean that individuals cannot plead these obligations, should the occasion arise, before a
national court”.
43
Ibid , at 12-13.

- 15 -
Ghiath Nasser, Law Office www.nasserlaw.net

‫ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻤﻬﺎ‬،‫ ﺃﻭل ﺭﻜﻴﺯﺓ‬.‫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺩﺓ ﺭﻜﺎﺌﺯ‬،‫ﻭﻗﺩ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺩﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﻝﻭﺼﻭﻝﻬﺎ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻝﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‬
.‫( ﻭﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺃﺼﺒﺤﺕ ﻤﻥ ﻤﻤﻴﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‬purposive approach) ‫ﻝﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻬﺎﺩﻑ‬
‫ ﻭﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ‬.‫ﻭﻝﻬﺫﺍ ﻓﻘﺩ ﺒﺩﺃﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭ ﺒﺎﻹﺸﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻷﻫﺩﺍﻑ ﺍﻝﻌﺎﻤﺔ ﻭﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ‬
‫ ﻭﺇﻨﻤﺎ‬،‫ ﺘﻭﺼﻠﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻝﻴﺴﺕ ﻓﻘﻁ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺘﻨﻅﻡ ﺍﻝﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل‬،‫ﺍﻝﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭ ﻫﺫﻩ‬
ّ ‫ﺩ‬ ‫ﻴﺴﺘ‬ ‫ ﻓﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ‬،‫ ﺃﻤﺎ ﺍﻝﺭﻜﻴﺯﺓ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻴﺔ‬.44‫ﺘﹸﻌﻨﻰ ﺃﻴﻀﺎ ﺒﺎﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ‬
177 ‫ل ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺭﺕﹾ ﺃﻥ ﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻗﻭﺓ ﻭﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ‬ ‫ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺃﻗ‬،‫ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ‬
‫ ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ‬12 ‫ ﻓﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘﺭﻜﻴﺯ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬،‫ ﺃﻤﺎ ﺍﻝﺭﻜﻴﺯﺓ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻝﺜﺔ ﻝﺘﻌﻠﻴل ﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭ‬.45‫ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‬
.‫ ﺘﻌﺘﺒﺭ ﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻜﻼﺴﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻝﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ‬12 ‫ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﺒﺭﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬.‫ﻋﺭﻀﺕ ﺃﻤﺎﻤﻬﺎ‬
 ‫ﺍﻝﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ‬
‫ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻪ ﻻ‬،‫ ﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻜﻭﻨﻪ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺸﺭﻭﻁ‬،‫ﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻜﱠﺩﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻝﺴﻠﺒﻲ ﻝﻼﻝﺘﺯﺍﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﺒﻬﺎ‬
.46‫ﻴﻌﺘﻤﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻴﺔ ﺇﺠﺭﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺇﻀﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ ﻗﺒل ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻨﺎﻓ ﹰﺫﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ‬

‫ ﺸﺭﻭﻁ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ‬:‫( ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻲ‬2.2

‫ ﺘﻨﺨﺭﻁ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻲ ﻭﻴﻤﻜﻥ‬،‫ﻭﻝﻜﻥ ﻝﻴﺴﺕ ﻜل ﺍﻝﻤﻭﺍﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﻝﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‬
‫ ﻤﻥ‬.‫ ﺒل ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺘﺤﻘﻴﻕ ﺸﺭﻭﻁ ﻤﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻗﺒل ﺃﻥ ﻴﻨﻁﺒﻕ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ‬،‫ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ‬Directly Effective ‫ﺃﺠل ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ‬
:47‫ﺘﺘﻭﻓﺭ ﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﺸﺭﻭﻁ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﺎﻝﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻑ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ‬
 ‫ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﺍﻝﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻀﺤﺔ ﻭﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻜﺎ‬:‫ﺃ( ﺍﻝﺸﺭﻁ ﺍﻷﻭل‬
‫ ﺃﻭ ”ﻴﻔﺤﺼﻭﺍ“ ﺃﻭ ”ﻴﻌﻤﻠﻭﺍ ﻝﻬﺩﻑ“ ﻭﻤﺎ ﺸﺎﺒﻪ‬،“‫ ﺃﻭ ﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻤﺜل ”ﻴﺤﺎﻭﻝﻭﺍ‬،‫ﻤﺔ‬ ‫ ﻻ ﺘﻜﻔﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻋﺎ‬.‫ﻗﻀﺎﺌﻴﺎ‬
.‫ﻤﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬

44
Craig, supra note 27, at 459: “The EEC is not simply to be viewed as a compact between nations. The
‘interested parties’ include the people, a fact which is affirmed by the preamble and by the existence of
institutions charged with the duty of making provisions for, inter alia, those individuals”.
45
Ibid at 460:”Thus the ECJ utilize Article 177 and asserts that this provision indicates that the states have
acknowledged that ‘Community law has an authority which can be invoked by their nationals’ before national
courts”. See also the decision, supra note 33, at 12.
46
Ibid at 460: “Thus the ECJ stresses the negative nature of the obligation, the fact that it is unconditional, and
that its implementation is not independent on any further measures before being effective under national law. It
is thereby able to conclude that the ‘very nature of this prohibition makes it ideally suited to produce direct
effects in the legal relationship between Member States and their subjects’”.
47
Steiner, supra note 36, at 15:”However, not all community law is directly effective. In order to be directly
effective it must first satisfy the criteria for direct effects. It must be unconditional and sufficiently precise; it
must leave no discretion in implementation to member state or Community institutions. It must be ‘legally
perfect’ capable of application by national courts”.

- 16 -
Ghiath Nasser, Law Office www.nasserlaw.net

‫ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺘﺤﺭﻡ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬،(‫ ﺴﺎﺒﻘﺎ‬119 ‫ ﻤﻥ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ )ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬141 ‫ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬،‫ﻤﺜﺎل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﺸﺭﻁ‬
:141 ‫ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺠﺎﺀ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻔﻘﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﻝﻰ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬.48‫ﺃﻱ ﺘﻤﻴﻴﺯ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﺭﺠل ﻭﺍﻝﻤﺭﺃﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺃﺠﺭﺓ ﺍﻝﻌﻤل‬
“Article 141
1. Each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male
and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied”49.

‫ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻜﻭﺭﺓ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ‬،‫ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺭﺕ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‬،50 Defrenne v. Sabena ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ‬
.‫ﻭﻭﺍﻀﺤﺔ ﺇﺫ ﺘﻔﻲ ﺒﺎﻝﺸﺭﻁ ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﻭﺏ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‬

‫ ﺤﻴﺙ ﻜﺎﻥ‬،51 Salgoil v. Italian Ministry for foriengn trade ‫ ﻭﺭﺩ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ‬،‫ﻤﺜﺎل ﺁﺨﺭ‬
.‫ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻴﻤﻨﺢ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺭﺃﻴﺎ ﺒﺎﻝﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻝﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ‬،‫ ﺭﻓﻊ ﻜﻤﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻴﺭﺍﺩ‬،‫ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﺍﻝﻘﻀﻴﺔ‬
.‫ﺙ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﺍ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭﺍ‬‫ ﻗﺭﺭﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻤﻁﺭﻭﺤﺔ ﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺘﹸﺤﺩ‬،‫ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬

‫ ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻝﻙ ﺤﺎﺠﺔ ﻻﺘﺨﺎﺫ‬.‫ ﺃﻥ ﺘﹶﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻋﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺠﺒﺎ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺸﺭﻭﻁ‬:‫ﺏ( ﺍﻝﺸﺭﻁ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻲ‬
:Fairhurst ‫ ﻭﻜﻤﺎ ﺠﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻝﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻝﻜﺎﺘﺏ‬.‫ﺇﺠﺭﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺇﻀﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ‬

“Unconditional: A Community provision is ‘unconditional’ where it is

not subject, in its implementation or effects, to any additional measure by
either the Community institutions or Member States”52.

.Van Gend ‫ ﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ‬12 ‫ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬،‫ﻤﺜﺎل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﺤﻘﻕ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﺸﺭﻁ‬
‫ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺭﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬،53 Costa v. ENEL ‫ ﻓﻔﻲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ‬،‫ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺴﺒﻴل ﺍﻝﻤﺜﺎل‬،‫ﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‬
‫ ﻭﻜﺎﻥ ﺠﺎﺀ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬.‫ ﻻ ﺘﻔﻲ ﺒﺸﺭﻁ ﺍﻝﻭﺍﺠﺏ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺸﺭﻭﻁ‬،(‫ ﺴﺎﺒﻘﺎ‬102 ‫ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ )ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬97
‫ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻗﺩ ﻴﺅﺜﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ‬،‫ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎل ﺭﻏﺒﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﻀﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺠﺭﺍﺀ ﺘﻌﺩﻴل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻨﻬﺎ‬،‫ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻜﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫ ﻭﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ‬.54‫ ﻓﻴﺠﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﺠﺭﺍﺀ ﺘﺸﺎﻭﺭ ﻤﺴﺒﻕ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ‬،‫ﻅﺭﻭﻑ ﺍﻝﺘﻨﺎﻓﺱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﺴﻭﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﺸﺘﺭﻜﺔ‬

48
John Fairhurst, Law of the European Community, (Pearson-Longman, Fourth Ed., London, 2003) at 188.
49
EU Treaty, supra note 6, Article 141.
50
Case 43/75 Defrenne v. Sabena [1976] ECR 455.
51
Case 33/68 Salgoil v. Italian Ministry for foreign trade [1968] ECR 453.
52
Fairhurst, supra note 48, at 188.
53
Case 6/64 Costa v. Enel [1964] ECR 585.
54
EU Treaty, supra note 6, Article 97: “Where there is a reason to fear that the adoption or amendment of a
provision laid down by law, regulation or administrative action may cause distortion within the meaning of
Article 96, a Member State desiring to proceed therewith shall consult the Commission. After consulting the
Member States, the Commission shall recommend to the States concerned such measures as may be appropriate
to avoid the distortion in question”.

- 17 -
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﻫﻨﺎﻝﻙ ﺤﺎﺠﺔ ﻹﺠﺭﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺇﻀﺎﻓﻴﺔ )ﺍﻝﺘﺸﺎﻭﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﺤﺎﻝﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻝﻡ ﹶﺘ ‪‬ﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ ﺘﻨﻁﻭﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺠﺏ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺸﺭﻭﻁ‪.55‬‬

‫ﺝ( ﺍﻝﺸﺭﻁ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻝﺙ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﻭﺍﺠﺏ ﺘﺎﻤﺎ ﻭﺸﺎﻤﻼ ﻤﻥ ﻨﺎﺤﻴﺔ ﻗﻀﺎﺌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺴﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝﻪ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﻭﺴﺎﺌل‬
‫ﻴﺠﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺴﻭﻕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﺘﺨﺎﺫﻫﺎ ﻤﻊ ﺇﻤﻜﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﺘﻔﻌﻴل ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺭﺃﻴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪Ministere Public‬‬ ‫ﻤﺜﺎل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻝﻙ‪ ،‬ﻫﻭ ﻤﺎ ﺠﺎﺀ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ ،56 Luxembourgeois v. Muller‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﻋﺭﻀﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪ (2)90‬ﻤﻥ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻑ ﺒﺎﻝﺸﺭﻁ ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﻭﺏ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﻤﻭﻀﺤﺔ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻠﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻋﺘﺒﺭﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻻ ﺘ ‪‬‬

‫‪“Its application involves an appraisal of requirements, on the one hand, of‬‬

‫‪the particular task entrusted to the undertaking concerned and, on the other‬‬
‫‪hand, the protection of the interest of the community. This appraisal depends‬‬
‫‪on the objectives of general economic policy pursued by States under the‬‬
‫‪supervision of the Commission. Consequently …Article 90(2) cannot at the‬‬
‫‪present stage create individual rights which the national courts must‬‬
‫‪protect”57 .‬‬

‫ﻭﺒﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﺍﻝﺸﺭﻁ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ ﻤﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺎﻝﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻝﺭﻗﺎﺒﻴﺔ ﻝﻠﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻝﻪ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ (2.3‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻝﺙ‪ :‬ﺘﻭﺴﻴﻊ ﻨﻁﺎﻕ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻷﺨﺭﻯ‬

‫ﻜﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻻ ﻴﻘﺘﺼﺭ ﻓﻘﻁ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻭﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﻨﻤﺎ ﻫﻨﺎﻝﻙ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﺸﻤل ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﺼﺩﺭ ﻋﻥ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺨﻭﻝﺔ ﻝﻬﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﻓﺘﺢ ﻗﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺠﺎل ﻝﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺒﺄﻜﻤﻠﻪ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻗﺩ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻝﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﻝﺴﺎﺌﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻷﻤﺭ‪ ،‬ﺃﻨﻪ ﺤﺴﺏ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪ 249‬ﻤﻥ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻝﻠﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﻓﻘﻁ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺃﻭﻀﺤﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺩﺓ ﻗﺭﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺃﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻤﺎ‬

‫‪55‬‬
‫‪Fairhurst, supra note 47, at 188.‬‬
‫‪56‬‬
‫‪Case 10/71 Ministere Public Luxembourgeois v. Muller [1971] ECR 723.‬‬
‫‪57‬‬
‫‪Ibid at 730.‬‬

‫‪- 18 -‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﻋﺩﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻻ ﻴﻭﺠﺩ ﺨﻼﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‬
‫ﻝﻠﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ )‪ (Directives‬ﻭﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭﺍﺕ )‪ (Decisions‬ﺃﻴﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺤﺘﻰ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﻤﻊ ﺩﻭل ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‪.58‬‬

‫‪ (1‬ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ– ‪:Regulations‬‬
‫ﻻ ﻴﻭﺠﺩ ﺨﻼﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻝﻸﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ .59‬ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺭﺕ ﻋﻥ ﺫﻝﻙ ﺼﺭﺍﺤﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪ 249‬ﻤﻥ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺤﻴﻥ ﻨﺼﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ‪:‬‬

‫‪“A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its‬‬

‫‪entirety and directly applicable in all Member States” (Emphasis‬‬
‫‪added).‬‬

‫ﺒل ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﻭل‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺩﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺱ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺒﻨﻴﻬﺎ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻨﺹ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﺁﺨﺫﺓ ﺒﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﻘﻴﺎﺱ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﻤﻥ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﻘﻭل‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺒﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺨﻭﻝﺕ ﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﺇﺼﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪.‬‬

‫‪ (2‬ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ )ﺍﻝﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎﺕ( – ‪:Directives‬‬

‫ﻜﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﻭﺠﻬﺔ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻝﺘﺤﻘﻴﻕ ﺃﻫﺩﺍﻑ ﻤﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﺘﺭﻙ ﻝﻜل ﺩﻭﻝﺔ‬
‫ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻝﻭﺴﺎﺌل ﻭﺍﻵﻝﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻔﻀﻠﻬﺎ ﻝﻠﻭﺼﻭل ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻷﻫﺩﺍﻑ ﻭﺍﻝﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻝﻤﺭﺠﻭﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻜﺎﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺘﻭﻗﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻻ‬
‫ﻴﻁﺒﻕ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﻨﻅﺭﺍ ﻝﻨﺹ ﺍﻝﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪.60249‬‬
‫ﻭﻝﻜﻥ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺭﻏﻡ ﻤﻥ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻓﺭﻕ ﻭﺍﻀﺢ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻤﻊ ﻤﺭﻭﺭ ﺍﻝﻭﻗﺕ‪ ،‬ﺘﻼﺸﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻔﺭﻭﻕ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻜﺒﻴﺭ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﺘﻡ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﻝﻠﺘﺸﺭﻴﻊ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻜﺒﻴﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﻭﻴﺩﺍ ﺭﻭﻴﺩﺍ ﺃﺼﺒﺢ ﻨﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺸﻜل ﺃﻭﺍﻤﺭ ﻤﻔﺼﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺘﺨﺘﻠﻑ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻜﺒﻴﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﺠﺄﺕ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺭﺍﻗﺒﻴﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺴﻨﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﺴﺒﻌﻴﻥ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺩﻤﺎ ﺃﻗﺭﺕ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ‬
‫‪61‬‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪ .62 Van Duyn v. Home Office‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﺠﺎﺀ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺃﻴﻀﺎ‬

‫‪58‬‬
‫‪Steiner, supra note 36, at 15.‬‬
‫‪59‬‬
‫‪Case 43/71 Politi S.A.S v. Italain Ministry of finanace [1971] ECR 1039; [1973] CMLR 60.‬‬
‫‪60‬‬
‫‪Christopher Vincemzi, Law of the European Community, (Manchester, 1996) at 74: “Its is clear from Art‬‬
‫‪189[now 249] that directives were not to be applicable in the same way as regulations”.‬‬
‫‪61‬‬
‫‪Robert Scarborough, “Directives and the Doctrine of Direct Effect: A Critique of Marshal v. Southampton‬‬
‫‪Area Health Authority” (1992) U. Chi. Legal F. 316. See also: Anthony Arnull, “The Direct Effect of‬‬
‫‪Directives: Grasping the Nettle” (1986) 35 The International and comparative Law Quarterly at 939-946. See‬‬
‫‪also: A. J. Easson, “The "Direct Effect" of EEC Directives” (1979) 28 The International and Comparative Law‬‬
‫‪Quarterly at 319-353.‬‬
‫‪62‬‬
‫‪Case 41/74 Van Duyn v. Home Office [1974] ECR 1337. [1975] CMLR 1.‬‬

‫‪- 19 -‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﺃﻨﻪ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻭﺠﻬﺔ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎل ﻤﺭﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺩﺩﺓ ﻝﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﻋﻠﻠﺕ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﻝﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺃﻴﻀﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺒﺄﻨﻪ ﻤﻥ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﻘﻭل ﺃﻥ ﺘﻌﺘﻤﺩ ﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﻝﻡ ﺘﻨﻔﺫ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﻭﺠﺔ ﺇﻝﻴﻬﺎ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻝﻤﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺩﺩﺓ ﻝﺫﻝﻙ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺘﻘﺼﻴﺭﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﻀﺩﻫﺎ ﻤﻁﺎﻝﺒﺔ ﺇﻴﺎﻫﺎ ﺒﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻪ‪.63‬‬

‫‪ (3‬ﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭﺍﺕ‪:Decisions -‬‬

‫ﺒﺨﻼﻑ ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻝﻴﺴﺕ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﺘﺸﺭﻴﻊ ﻋﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻨﻤﺎ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﻭﺠﻬﺔ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺸﺨﺹ‬
‫ﻤﻌﻴﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﻤﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻝﻤﺠﻭﻋﺔ ﻤﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻷﺸﺨﺎﺹ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﻠﺯﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺨﺎﻁﺒﻴﻥ ﺒﻬﺎ ﻓﻘﻁ‪ .‬ﻤﺜﺎل ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺫﻝﻙ‪ ،‬ﻫﻭ ﻗﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺭﺽ ﻏﺭﺍﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺸﺭﻜﺔ ﻤﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﺘﺨﺎﻝﻑ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﺘﻨﺎﻓﺱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻝﻜﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﻗﺭﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪ ،64 Grad‬ﺃﻨﻪ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺃﻴﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ‬
‫ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﻋﻠﻠﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﻗﺭﺍﺭﻫﺎ ﺒﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻝﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻋﻠﻠﺕ ﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺎﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ‪ .65‬ﻭﻜﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺠﺎﺀ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪“It would be incompatible with the binding effect attributed to Decisions by‬‬
‫‪Article 189 [now 249] to exclude in principal the possibility that persons‬‬
‫‪affected may invoke the obligation imposed by a decision”66.‬‬

‫‪ (4‬ﺍﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻤﻊ ﺩﻭل ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‬

‫ﻜﻤﺎ ﻫﻭ ﻤﻌﻠﻭﻡ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻝﻠﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﺤﻕ ﺍﻝﺩﺨﻭل ﻓﻲ ﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﻤﻊ ﺩﻭل ﺜﺎﻝﺜﺔ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺠﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻨﺹ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺩﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺃﻴﻀﺎ ﺒﺎﻝﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻝﻬﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪.67‬‬

‫ﻭﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻴﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺘﺠﺎﺭ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻝﺨﺎﺭﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺫﻴﻥ ﻴﺘﻌﺎﻤﻠﻭﻥ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﻝﻠﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﻭﺍ ﻴﻌﺘﻘﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺘﻀﻊ ﺍﻝﻌﺭﺍﻗﻴل‬
‫ﻭﺍﻝﺼﻌﻭﺒﺎﺕ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺘﺼﺩﻴﺭﻫﻡ ﻝﻤﻨﺘﺠﺎﺘﻬﻡ‪ ،‬ﺒﺸﻜل ﻤﺨﺎﻝﻑ ﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺓ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﻘﺭﺭ ﺃﻴﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻨﻪ‬

‫‪63‬‬
‫‪Case 148/78 Criminal Proceedings v. Tullio Ratti [1979] ECR 1629; [1980] CMLR 96.‬‬
‫‪64‬‬
‫‪Case 9/70 Grad v. Finazamt Traunstien [1970] ECR 825.‬‬
‫‪65‬‬
‫‪Stephen Weathrill and Paul Beaumint, EC Law, (Penguin Books, second Ed. 1995) at 358: “The court took‬‬
‫‪the view that when people other than the addressees are effected by a decision they may be able to rely on the‬‬
‫‪decision’s direct effects, invoking its binding nature and the need to make it effective”.‬‬
‫‪66‬‬
‫‪Grad Case, supra note 64, at 837.‬‬
‫‪67‬‬
‫;‪Case 87/75 Conceria Daniele Brescianin v. Amminstrazione Italiana delle Finanza [1976] ECR 129‬‬

‫‪- 20 -‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺤﺘﻰ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻝﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻝﻙ ﺇﻤﻜﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﻤﻘﺎﺒﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻝﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻕ ﺒﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﺸﻜل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺘﻌﺎﻗﺩﺓ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪.68‬‬

‫‪ (2.4‬ﺍﻝﻤﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻝﺭﺍﺒﻊ‪ :‬ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪Indirect Effect -‬‬

‫ﺒﺎﻹﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻝﻰ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺩﺕ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‬
‫)‪ .(Indirect Effect‬ﻭﺤﺴﺏ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﺠﺎﺀ ﻤﻜﻤﻼ ﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻴﺘﻌﻴ‪‬ﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻗﺩﺭ ﺍﻝﻤ‪‬ﺴﺘﻁﺎﻉ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻴﺘﻤﺎﺸﻰ ﻤﻊ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﺒﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻝﻙ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ )‪ .69(directives‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻨﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻫﻨﺎﻝﻙ ﺇﻤﻜﺎﻨﻴﺘﺎﻥ ﻝﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭ ﻨﺹ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻭﻝﻰ ﺘﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻭﺘﺼﻁﺩﻡ ﻤﻊ ﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﺘﺘﻤﺎﺸﻰ ﻤﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺘﻌﻴﻥ ﻋﻨﺩﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺘﻔﻀﻴل ﺍﻝﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻭل‪.‬‬

‫ﻭ ‪‬ﻴﻁﺒﻕ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﻗﺒل ﺍﻨﺘﻬﺎﺀ ﺍﻝﻤﻭﻋﺩ ﺍﻷﺨﻴﺭ ﻝﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﺔ‪.70‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﺘﻜﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻔﺎﺌﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺒﻨﻲ ﻤﺜل ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻓﻀﻠﻴﺘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﺭﺤﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﻜﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺭﺃﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺒﻌﺩ ﻤﺭﻭﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺤﺩﺩﺕ‬
‫ﻝﻠﺩﻭﻝﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻴﻭﺍﺠﻪ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻔﺘﺭﺓ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻘﻊ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺼﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻴﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﻭﻋﺩ ﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫﻩ ﺍﻷﺨﻴﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺠﺎﺀ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﻝﻴﻐﻁﻲ ﺍﻝﻨﻘﺹ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻝﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻴﻭﺍﺠﻬﻬﺎ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻔﺘﺭﺓ‪.71‬‬

‫ﺨﺎﺘﻤﺔ‬

‫ﻜﺎﻥ ﻝﻠﺴﺎﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﻀﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ‪ ،Van Gend‬ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻜﺒﻴﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻲ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺤﻴﺙ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺩ ﻷﻭل ﻤﺭﺓ ﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺼل ﺍﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺩﻭل‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺼﺒﺢ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻨﻁﻭﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻻﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﺘﺸﺭﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺜﺎﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺒﻤﻭﺠﺒﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪68‬‬
‫‪Case 104/81 Hauptzollmat Mainz v. C.A Kupferberg & Cie KG [1982] ECR 3641.‬‬
‫‪69‬‬
‫‪Case 14/83 Sabine von Colson et. Al. Land Nordrhein-Wesfalen ECR 1891.‬‬
‫‪70‬‬
‫‪Case 79/83 Dorit Harz v. Deusche Tradaks GmbH [1984] 1984 ECR 1921.‬‬
‫‪71‬‬
‫‪Christopher Doksy, “The Duty of national Courts to Interpret Provisions of National Law in Accordance with‬‬
‫‪Community Law”, (1991) 20 Indus. L.J. 114.‬‬

‫‪- 21 -‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﻤﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻝﻙ ﺠﺩﻻ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺤﻭل ﺼﺤﺔ ﺍﻝﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻲ ﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﺘﻭﺼﻠﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼﻝﻪ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻝﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺴﻴﻤﺎ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﻝﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻝﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻭﺍﺴﻊ ﻭﺍﻝﻬﺎﺩﻑ ﻝﻠﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻝﻜﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻭﺍﻀﺢ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺭﻏﺒﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺘﻘﻭﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻲ ﻝﻼﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ ﻭﺭﻓﻊ ﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻝﻴﺱ ﻓﻘﻁ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻨﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﺃﻴﻀﺎ‪ .72‬ﺇﺫ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﻭل‪ ،‬ﺃﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺢ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻨﺤﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﻤﺫﻜﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻝﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺇﻤﻜﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﻀﻌﻴﻔﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻝﻭ ﻝﻡ ﺘﻨ ‪‬‬
‫ﻜﻤﺎ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻝﺤﺎل ﻓﻲ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻋﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﻫﻭ ﻤﻌﻠﻭﻡ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻝﻙ ﺍﻝﻜﺜﻴﺭ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻨﻁﻭﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺠﻴﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻨﻌﺩﺍﻡ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﻓﻌﺎﻝﺔ ﻝﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻴﺤﻭل ﺩﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻋﻨﺩﻤﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺩﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﺭﻓﻌﺕ ﺒﻬﺫﺍ ﻤﻥ ﺸﺄﻥ ﻭﻗﻭﺓ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻝﺩﻭل‬
‫ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ ﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﻴﺴﺘﻁﻴﻌﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻝﻤﻨﻊ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺇﺨﻼل ﻝﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺭﺍﺩﻉ ﻜﺒﻴﺭ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل ﺒﺎﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﺩﻓﻌﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺇﻝﻰ ﺍﺤﺘﺭﺍﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﻭﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩﻫﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻝﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻷﻫﻡ ﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ‪ ،‬ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺨﻠﻕ ﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺜﻨﺎﺌﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻼﺤﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﺨﻼل ﺒﻘﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﻗﺒل ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻭﻀﺤﻨﺎ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺎﻝﻙ ﻤﺂﺨﺫ ﻋﺩﻴﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ ﻭﻓﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﻭﺍﺩ‬
‫‪ 226‬ﻭ‪ 227 -‬ﻝﻼﺘﻔﺎﻗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺒﺴﺒﺏ ﺍﻝﺼﻌﻭﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻗﺩ ﺘﻭﺍﺠﻪ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ ﻤﻬﺎﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﺒﻴﺭﻭﻗﺭﺍﻁﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﺘﻨﻁﻭﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻨﺘﻬﺎﺝ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻵﻝﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﺤﺴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻲ ﻗﺩ ﺘﺨﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻝﻤﻼﺤﻘﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ ﻭﺃﻋﻀﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻝﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻝﻬﺎﻤﺔ ﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ‪ ،‬ﻫﻭ ﺨﻠﻕ ﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺜﻨﺎﺌﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻼﺤﻘﺔ ﺨﺭﻕ ﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺒﺸﻜل ﻴﺨﻔﻑ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻝﻌﺏﺀ ﺍﻝﻤﻠﻘﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺎﺘﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﻔﻭﻀﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺒﻭﺍﺴﻁﺘﻪ ﺍﻝﺘﻐﻠﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﺼﻌﻭﺒﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻨﺘﻬﺎﺝ ﺁﻝﻴﺔ ﺍﻝﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻷﻭﻝﻰ ﻭﻓﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﺨﻠﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﻤﻜﺎﻨﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻹﻝﺯﺍﻡ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻝﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﺠﺩﻴﺩ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃ( ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻤﻼﺤﻘﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺨﺎﻝﻔﺎﺕ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻕ ﺍﻝﻤﻭﺍﺩ ‪ 226‬ﻭ‪.227 -‬‬
‫ﺏ( ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻤﻼﺤﻘﺔ ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻝﻤﺨﺎﻝﻔﺎﺕ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل ﺍﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻕ ﺍﻝﻘﺭﺍﺭ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻝﻔﺎﺌﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻬﺎﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﻀﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﻫﻭ ﺇﺸﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻜﺒﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﺭﺽ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻓﺒﻌﺩ ﻗﺭﺍﺭ ‪ ،Van Gend‬ﺒﺩﺃﺕ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻝﻭﻁﻨﻴﺔ ﺘﺄﺨﺫ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ﻓﻌﺎﻻ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻷﻤﺭ ﻻ ﻴﻘﺘﺼﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺩل ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻝﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﺇﻝﻴﻬﺎ ﺒﺎﻝﻁﺭﻕ ﺍﻝﻌﺎﺩﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻝﻤﻌﻘﺩﺓ‪.‬‬

‫‪72‬‬
‫‪Lenore Jones, “Opinions of the Court of the European Union in the National Courts” (1995-1996) 28 N.Y.U.‬‬
‫‪J. Int’l L. & Pol. 276.‬‬

‫‪- 22 -‬‬
‫‪Ghiath Nasser, Law Office‬‬ ‫‪www.nasserlaw.net‬‬

‫ﻜﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻷﻤﺭ ﺒﺎﻝﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻝﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﺠﺎﺀ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﻝﻴﻜﻤل ﺍﻝﻤﺒﺩﺃ ﺍﻷﻭل ﻭﻝﻴ‪‬ﺤﺩ‪‬ﺙ ﺘﻘﺎﺭﺒﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺘﻨﺎﻏﻤﺎ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﻘﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﺍﺨﻠﻴﺔ ﻝﻠﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﻭﺒﻴﻥ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻹﺘﺤﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻤﺭ ﺍﻝﺫﻱ ﻴﺯﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﻓﺭﺹ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻝﺩﻭل ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪.‬‬

‫ﻏﻴﺎﺙ ﻨﺎﺼﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻝﻘﺩﺱ‪ 10 ،‬ﻴﻭﻨﻴﻭ‪.2007 ،‬‬

‫‪- 23 -‬‬
Ghiath Nasser, Law Office www.nasserlaw.net

RS‫ا‬.56‫ ا‬K5T+U

:‫ه;ات‬+CL -K,6‫در أو‬+WL (‫أ‬

- The Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community 261 UNTS 161.
- The Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, 298 UNTS 11.
- The Single European Act, done at Luxembourg, 17 February 1986 ant at Hague, 28
February 1986, reprinted in [1987] CMLR 741.
- The Treaty on European Union, Official Journal of the European Community 1993 C 224.
- EUROPEAN UNION — CONSOLIDATED VERSIONS OF THE TREATY ON
EUROPEAN UNION AND OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITY Official Journal C 321E of 29 December 2006.

:KMEF+P ‫در‬+WL (‫ب‬

:K,-.C6‫ ا‬K\]6+- ^3‫( آ‬1

.(2001 ،‫ )ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‬،‫ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﺍﻝﻌﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺜﻭﺒﻪ ﺍﻝﺠﺩﻴﺩ‬،‫ ﺭﺸﺎﺩ ﻋﺎﺭﻑ‬،‫ ﺍﻝﺴﻴﺩ‬-
.(2003 ،‫ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻫﺭﺓ‬،‫ )ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻝﻨﻬﻀﺔ ﺍﻝﻌﺭﺒﻴﺔ‬،‫ ﻤﻘﺩﻤﺔ ﻝﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ‬،‫ ﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﻝﺩﻴﻥ‬،‫ ﻋﺎﻤﺭ‬-
.(1997 ‫ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‬،‫ )ﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻝﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‬،‫ ﺍﻝﻭﺴﻴﻁ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻝﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻝﺩﻭﻝﻲ ﺍﻝﻌﺎﻡ‬،‫ ﻋﺒﺩ ﺍﻝﻜﺭﻴﻡ‬،‫ ﻋﻠﻭﺍﻥ‬-
.(2004 ،‫ )ﺒﻴﺭﻭﺕ‬،‫ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ ﻭﺍﻝﺩﺭﻭﺱ ﺍﻝﻤﺴﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻋﺭﺒﻴﺎ‬،‫ ﻤﺭﻜﺯ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻝﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺍﻝﻌﺭﺒﻴﺔ‬-

:KM.`C6‫ ا‬K\]6+- ^3‫( آ‬2

- Sabel, Robbie, International Law, (The Harry and Michael Sacher Institute for legislative
research and Comparative law, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 2003) (In Hebrew).

:KMa,]NF@‫ ا‬K\]6+- ‫@ت‬+GL‫^ و‬3‫( آ‬3

- Arnull ,Anthony, “The Direct Effect of Directives: Grasping the Nettle” (1986) 35 The
International and comparative Law Quarterly 939.
- Craig, P., “Once Upon a Time in the West: Direct Effect and the Federalization of EEC
Law” (1992) 12 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 253.
- Doksy, Christopher, “The Duty of national Courts to Interpret Provisions of National Law
in Accordance with Community Law”, (1991) 20 Indus. L.J. 114.
- Easson, A. J., “The "Direct Effect" of EEC Directives” (1979) 28 The International and
Comparative Law Quarterly 319.
- Ellis, Evelen, “The Enforcement of EEC Law in the Courts of the Member States: What
Direct Affect Really Mean?” (1989-1990) 14 Holdsworth L. Rev. 94.

- 24 -
Ghiath Nasser, Law Office www.nasserlaw.net

- Fairhurst, John, Law of the European Community, (Pearson-Longman, Fourth Ed., London,
2003) at 188.
- Jones, Lenore, “Opinions of the Court of the European Union in the National Courts”
(1995-1996) 28 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 276.
- Lasok, D., Law and institutions of the European Union, (London, 1994).
- Steiner, Josephine, Enforcing EC Law, (Blackstone Press Limited, London, 1995) 14.
- Scarborough, Robert, “Directives and the Doctrine of Direct Effect: A Critique of Marshal
v. Southampton Area Health Authority” (1992) U. Chi. Legal F. 316.
- Vincemzi, Christopher, Law of the European Community, (Manchester, 1996) at 74:
- Weathrill, Stephen, and Beaumint, Paul, EC Law, (Penguin Books, second Ed. 1995).

‫( ﻗﺭﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ‬4

- Case 6/64 Costa v. Enel [1964] ECR 585.

- Case 87/75 Conceria Daniele Brescianin v. Amminstrazione Italiana delle Finanza [1976]
ECR 129;
- Case 148/78 Criminal Proceedings v. Tullio Ratti [1979] ECR 1629; [1980] CMLR 96.
- Case 43/75 Defrenne v. Sabena [1976] ECR 455.
- Case 79/83 Dorit Harz v. Deusche Tradaks GmbH [1984] 1984 ECR 1921.
- Case 9/70 Grad v. Finazamt Traunstien [1970] ECR 825.
- Case 104/81 Hauptzollmat Mainz v. C.A Kupferberg & Cie KG [1982] ECR 3641.
- Case 10/71 Ministere Public Luxembourgeois v. Muller [1971] ECR 723.
- Case 43/71 Politi S.A.S v. Italain Ministry of finanace [1971] ECR 1039; [1973] CMLR 60.
- Case 14/83 Sabine von Colson et. Al. Land Nordrhein-Wesfalen ECR 1891.
- Case 33/68 Salgoil v. Italian Ministry for foreign trade [1968] ECR 453.
- Case 41/74 Van Duyn v. Home Office [1974] ECR 1337. [1975] CMLR 1.
- Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1.

- 25 -