Supremacy Flashcards
Costa V ENEL
By virtue of doctrine of supremacy of EU law, provisions of community law with direct effect take precedence over domestic laws.
- case raised the issue of whether a national court should refer to the ECJ if it considers EU law may be applicable or in the view of the Italian government simply apply the subsequent national law
Van gend en Loos
Dutch law accepts priority of binding international obligations; Netherlands take the position of law that is applicable in their domestic realm prevails; supremacy not questioned; Dutch law adheres to EU law no matter what
-case affirmed the courts jurisdiction in interpreting EU legal provisions the object of which is to ensure that there is uniform interpretation in the Member States
Treaty articles to know 4(3) TEU Art 18 TFEU Art 288 TFEU Art 344 TFEU Art 260 TFEU
4(3) - good faith or fidelity clause
Art 18 - general prohibition on the grounds of discrimination against nationality
Art 288 - respect of direct applicability of regulations
Art 344 - obligation of member states to submit only to treaty dispute resolution
Art 260 - requirement to comply with rulings of the court of justice
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft
Community law takes precedence over constitution
Simmenthal
Arose from conflict between Italian constitution and community laws. Custom for Italian courts to refer matters to their constitutional court. Issue arose between community law provision and national law provision and the owner to disregard or consider invalid was that of the constitutional court, however the national requirement to refer to constitute court would have been contrary to EU law and would provide an inconsistent outcome to that of EU law
ECJ declared that the doctrine of direct effects of EU legislation was not dependent on any national constitutional provisions but a source of rights in itself
-national courts which are called upon to apply provisions of EU law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions including a refusal to apply conflicting national legislation even if adopted consequently.
Factortame (no2)
Building on principle of Simmenthal
- national court must suspend national legislation that may be incompatible with EU law until final determination on its compatibility has been made
- represents another confirmation that national constitutional practices or rules in this case the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in the uk must not be allowed to stand in the way of EU law
Conclusions
- EU supremacy is a logical conclusion from the above cases stated
- EU law doctrine of direct effects and EU law should be supreme because of the transfer of powers from the ms and by having its own law making machinery
- must have precedence if union is going to work
- 2007 Lisbon treaty has acknowledged supremacy in a a roundabout way in declaration 17 it makes reference to the well settled case law which had established EU law supremacy
ECA 1972
Impliedly recognizes the unique legal system and is regarded as a very special, even constitutional form of uk legislation by its attempt to bind future parliaments and it also ensures that EU law remains supreme not only against prior uk legislation but also future uk legislation
2(1) ECA
2(4) ECA
3(1) ECA
3(2) ECA
2(1) - recognizes legal validity and direct applicability of community and now union treaties and regulations already existing and those to be recognized in the future - also recognizes doctrine of direct effect and allows for future developments of ECJ
2(4) - recognizes the supremacy of EU law and therefore concerns sovereignty - means any future act of parliament must be construed in such a way as to give effect to the enforceable union rights - achieved by denying effectiveness to any national legislation passed later which is in conflict with EU law
3(1) instructs the courts to refer questions on the interpretation and hence the supremacy of EU law to the court of justice if the uk courts cannot solve the problem themselves by reference to previous court of justice rulings
3(2) - followed by Costa ruling - requires courts to judicially follow decisions of the court of justice on any question of EU law
It can be argued that combination of section 2(1) and (4) with control of section 3(1) and 3(2) achieve the essential requirements of the recognition of direct effects and the supremacy of EU law for past and future uk legislation
McCarthys v Smith
L Denning - expressed the view that it was the courts duty to give priority to EU law under s2(1) and 2(4) of ECA act in cases of deficient or inconsistent national law.
Court of appeal confirmed that EU law is now apart of uk law and where there is any inconsistency EU law has priority
Garland v Brel
Held that Uk courts should interpret uk law consistently no matter how wide a departure from the words of the UK act the interpretation needed to be
