European Public Law, Volume 13, Issue 4 587 © Kluwer Law International, 2007 SCRUTINY The Werner Mangold Case: An Example of Legal Militancy Antoine Masson* and Claire Micheau** Introduction When ruling the fundamental Costa v. E.N.E.L. 1 and Van Gend en Loos 2 cases with respect to the primacy and the direct effect of EU law, the European Court of Justice 3 had not only shown strong legal activism in favour of strengthened European integration but it has also conferred to individuals a central place within the control of European law enforcement. If the concept of legal militancy differs from judiciary activism, a strong connection exists between legal activism of the ECJ and judicial militancy. Judicial activism refers to the judge’s position while legal militancy stands on the plaintiff’s side. Judicial activism is commonly regarded as the ECJ’s tendency to take a lexible view of its judicial interpretation powers: the ECJ not only interprets European law but also shapes the European legal framework by extending the powers of the European institutions. 4 The legal militancy is deined * Faculty of Law at the University of Luxembourg and Ceprisca at University of Picardie, LL.M. TCD, Master in Business Law, Paris XI – HEC Paris. ** Faculty of Law at the University of Luxembourg and Paris 1 Sorbonne (Paris Bar; LL.M. Trinity College Dublin, Master in Business and Law, Paris 1 Sorbonne and HEC; LLM Universität zu Köln, Germany). 1 Costa v. E.N.E.L., Case 6/64, judgment of 15 July 1964, ECJ. 2 Van Gend en Loos v. Administratie der Belastingen, Case 26/62, judgment of 5 February 1963, ECJ. 3 Hereinafter ‘the ECJ’. 4 The two main principles illustrating the extension of the powers entrusted to the ECJ in a judiciary context are the primacy of EU law over national law; Costa v. E.N.E.L., see no. 1 above and the