♥️♥️ If you liked this video, don't hesitate to like it, comment and subscribe so you don't miss the next ones. ♥️♥️ If you want to follow our news, join us on our networks: 📸 instagram: / filezdroit 🐦 twitter: / droitfilez ⚠️ Warning ⚠️ This video is only intended to help you understand judgments that are sometimes quite complex. They are in no way intended to replace the doctrine which constitutes a solid source of knowledge. Don't forget that plagiarism is prohibited and severely punished in the academic context. So don't forget to cite your sources and put your quotes in quotation marks. ⤵️ Here is the text of the video ⤵️: Today, we will study the Société des cafés Jacques Vabre decision rendered by the Mixed Chamber of the French Court of Cassation on May 24, 1975. If this decision is in the pantheon of the great decisions of French jurisprudence, it is because it recognizes the primacy of international law over French law. Above all, it allows for the first time the judicial judge to carry out a control of the conventionality of laws himself. The facts are as follows: Two companies (the companies cafés Jacques Vabre and J. Weigel) decided in the sixties to import a new variety of soluble coffee from the Netherlands. ,But these coffees were taxed on import by an "internal consumption tax" included in article 265 of the Customs Code. The two companies therefore paid significant customs fees between 1967 and 1971. However, since the tax in question was specific to imports, this created a competitive imbalance with French coffee, which was not subject to this tax. French coffee sellers were therefore at an advantage, which was contrary to the provisions of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The applicants therefore asked the domestic judicial judge to return the sums collected and the compensation. The Paris Court of Appeal thus ruled in favor of the applicants and granted their request. According to the appeal judges, the Treaty of Rome should apply in this case, despite the tax set by the Customs Code. The customs administration then filed an appeal in cassation, contesting the ability of the Court of Appeal to carry out such a conventionality check. The question then arose: "is the judicial judge competent to interpret the compatibility of a domestic law with an international treaty"? Let's do a quick reminder: French law is subject to a hierarchy of standards. Initially, the Constitution is the supreme standard, since it is a direct emanation of the will of the people. This Constitution is superior to the law, which is itself superior to regulations, etc. Thus, all laws must therefore comply with the Constitution, under penalty of being annulled by the Constitutional Council. It is this control of laws against the Constitution that is called "constitutionality control". But since the 1950s, the number of international agreements ratified by France has multiplied. This is particularly the case, through membership of the European Economic Community through the Treaty of Rome, or the Council of Europe with the signing of the ECHR. The question for a time was to know where these international standards are placed within the hierarchy of standards. This is how, through the IVG decision that I mentioned to you earlier, the Constitutional Council confirmed on January 15, 1975, a few months before this decision, that international treaties were indeed superior to the law according to article 55 of the Constitution. However, it also specified that the control of the conformity of the law with the international convention, which is called "conventionality control" was not the responsibility of the Constitutional Council, since it is different from the constitutionality control of which it is the guarantor. It was therefore necessary to understand who was responsible for this control of conventionality. This is where the Jacques VABRE judgment intervened on May 24 of the same year. By the Jacques Vabres judgment, the mixed chamber of the Court of Cassation will thus reject the specific appeal and therefore confirm the power, for the judicial judge, to set aside an internal law that would be contrary to a treaty. It is therefore the judicial judge who has the competence to carry out a control of conventionality. This ruling will go even further, since according to the Court of Cassation, this control is possible even if French law is later than the international standard. The latter will always prevail since international law is hierarchically superior to the law. The ruling: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/i...