principles of eu law 1 page condensed

supremacy of eu law

• eu law prevails over conflicting national law

• if conflict exists national courts must apply eu law and conflicting national law must be disapplied

key cases for supremacy

• van gend en loos= the eu is a new legal order

  • creates rights for indiduals that national courts must protect by disapplying conflicting legislation

  • autonomous source of law

  • required ms giving up part of their national sovereignty to the eu

• costa v enel= established the doctrine of supremacy

  • national courts must disapply conflicting legislation even if made later

• insitutionale= consitutional supremacy of eu law

  • eu law prevsils even over consitutional law

  • germany italy and poland contest this

• simmenthal II= national courts must immediately disapply national law in cases of conflict

  • any national judge

  • does not require parlaiment to repeal the law

  • does not require national consitutional court input

treaty basis

Supremacy is not directly codified into the orginal eu treaties however is inidrectly supported and applied

• article 4 (3) tfeu= loyal cooperation principle

  • member states must

    • fulfil eu obligations

    • must not jeopardise eu objectives

    • ensure effectiveness of eu law

    • avoid conflicting/contradicting eu law

declaration 17 on primacy

• attached to the lisbon treaty

• ackwloedges that the primacy of eu law is established through cjeu case law

  • such as costa v enel

direct effect

• eu law can create enforceable rights for individuals before national courts

• provisions must be

  • clear

  • precise

  • unconditional

• types:

  • vertical= indiduals can invoke their rights against the state

    • (state bodies, gov officials, public servants)

  • horizontal= indivuduals can invoke their rights aginst other private parties

    • (indiduals or companies)

• foundational case= van gend en loos

  • estbalished direct effect

  • indiduals can directly invoke their rights before national courts

treaty articles direct effect

• vertical direct effect= reyners

  • indiduals can invoke treaty rights against the state

• horizontal direct effect= defrenne v sabena

  • indiduals can invoke treaty provisions against private parties/other indiduals

regulations direct effect

• regulations are directly applicable meaning they are automatically part of national law

  • does not require further national implementation

• foundational case= frateli variola

  • establsihed direct effect of regulations

  • regulations create enforcable rights

• vertical direct effect

• horizontal direct effect

directives

• bind member states as to a result so require further imlementation/transposition into national law

• vertical direct effect= yes

  • van duyn v home office= directives may have vertical direct effect

  • becker= conditions for directives vertical effect

    • implementation deadline must have passed

    • clear precise and unconditional clauses

  • Ratti= no reverse direct effect

    • the state cannot rely on their own failure to implement directives against indiduals

  • inter environment wallonie=member state not liable before expiry of implementation period

    • member state cannot yet be blaimed for failing to impleent a directive

    • must still avoid action undermining directives purpose

• horizontal effect= no

  • marshall= no horizontal directive effect

  • faccini dori= confirmed prohibition for directives but effect for regulations

indirect effect

• national courts must intepret national law consitsntly with directives as dar as possible

• foundational case= marleasing

  • estbalished consitent interpetation obligations

state liability

• indiduals can claim damages from member states for brwaches of eu law

• state as a single entity=

  • legislature

  • judiciary

  • executive

• conditions

  • rule mist grant dineitfiable rights

  • sufficiently serious breach

  • causal connection between damage and breach

state liability cases

• foundational case= francovich v italy

  • estbalished state liability

  • established conditions

• factorame II= established requirements for a suffciently serious breach

  • clarity of provision breach

  • eu involvement/contribution

  • excusable error

  • intentional/volunatry breach

  • degree of state discretion

liability of the eu

• article 340 (2) tfeu established eu is liable for damage caused by

  • insitutions

  • eu servants acting in their duties

• non contractual liability

case summary

• van gend en loos= new legal order and direct effect

• costa= estbalished supremacy

• internationale= consitutional suoremacy

• simmenthal II= national courts must diapply national law immediately

• defrainne= horizontal direct effect of treaties

• reyners= vertocal direct effect of treaties

• fratelli variola= regulations direct effect

• van duyn= vertical effect of directives

• becker= vertical effect of directives conditions

• ratti= no reverse direct effect

• inter environemnt= implementation deadline expiry requirement for directives

• marshall= no horizontal directives

• faccini= confirmed no horizontal for directives only regulations

• marleasing= indirect effect

• francovich= estbalishes state liability and conditions

• factorame= estbalishes conditions for a serious breach in state liability