SUPREMACY Flashcards
COSTA
FACTS:Refused to pay energy bill of £1 as said nationalisation breached EU law.
TELEOLOGICAL: Own legal system, became part of MS and courts are then bound. By creating community and transferring powers they have bound themselves.
TEXTUAL: Used regulation def in Art 288 TFEU. Weaker argument.
PRACTICAL: Need consistency to follow objectives. All would be contingent if MS can still make legislation to change.
CONC: INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF LAW- Unilateral acts of the state cannot prevail.
POL: Introduced concept of supremacy.
INTERNATIONALE HANDELSGESELLSCHAFT
FACTS: looking at national law to just validity would have adverse impact. Can only be judged in light of community law. Cannot be overridden without legal basis of community being questioned. GERMANY SAID APPLIES AS LONG AS NO CONFLICT WITH GERMANY THEREFORE MAKING THE GERMAN COURT AN ARBITRATOR. APPLIES EXCEPT WHERE CONFLICTS WITH FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
POL: Cannot say Community measure contrary to Fundamental rights or principles of the State.
SIMMENTHAL
POL 1- Treaty renders automatically inapplicable any conflicting national law. Preclude valid adoption of new national legislative measures which would make incompatible.
POL 2- According to Italy only constitutional court can declare unconstitutional. ACTUALLY, any national court must apply it in its entirety. Any provision stopping this is incompatible with essence of the Community which it is founded upon.
IN.CO.GE / FILIPIAK
POL: Does not affect the validity of the national law provision. Continues to be a part of national law until it is amended and repealed.
KADI
Exception to the unreserved and absolute primacy dictated in costa is in Art 35 TFEU. Agreements with 3rd party states before accession. This is interpreted narrowly though.
WUNSHE HANDELSGESELLSCHAFT.
If the case law generally ensures protection then said would no longer exercise jurisdiction to decide applicability. Still not a full acceptance.
BRUNNER v EU TREATY.
Challenge to the German ratification of the TEU.
POL: Accept supremacy as long as within the express powers conferred on the EU. Interpretation of the treaty “must not have effects that are equivalent to extension.
Gauweiler v Treaty of Lisbon
Expressed similar message as that apparent in Brunner. Emphasised those conferred and that powers which have been transferred are revocable.
POL: Court may review if no EU level protection. May also review “whether the inviolable core content of the constitutional identity of the Basic law is respected.”
FRONTINI
Similar sentiments as WUNCHE but not as forceful.
DIRECTEUR v VABRE
Art 90 EC prevailed over later provision of French customs code. Accepted supremacy by ordinary courts fairly readily.
MINISTER OF INTERIOR v COHN-BENDIT
Admin court refused to accept direct effect of the directives.
RE NICOLO AND BOISDET
Supremacy eventually accepted in France.
