principles of eu law

supremacy

eu law takes precedence over national law whenever the 2 conflict

• if a national law conlficts with eu law national courts must apply the eu law instead

• esures uniform application of eu law across member states

• ensures legal certainty within the eu legal order

• ensures the effectiveness of eu law

origin

the treaties originally did not expressly state eu law was supreme

• it is now reflectedly indirecctly in article 4(3) teu and declaration 7

• the principle was devloped the the cjeu through case law

key case law

van gend en loos 1963= “the community consitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their soveregin rights”

• the eu created a new legal order

• member states limited parts of their sovereignty when joining the eu

• laid foundations for supremacy, direct effect and autonomy of eu law

costa v enel 1964=a later national law cannot prevail over eu law

• cjeu formally estbalished the doctrine of supremacy

• court held member states permanently limited sovereign powers

• court held national law cannot override eu law

• without supremacy every ms could ignore eu law whenever it wished so eu integration would fail

key case law 2

internationale handelsgesellschaft 1970= a member state cannot challenge eu law validity by arguing it conflicts with its consitution

• eu law is supreme even over national cosnitutional law and constitutional rights

• stregnthened uniformity of eu law and authority of the cjeu

simmenthal II 1978= any national judge can set aside incomptible national legislation

• national courts must aplly eu law fully

• national courts must disapply conflicting national law immediately

• courts do not need parliament to repeal the law or constituional court approval

treaty basis for supremacy

article 4 (3) teu= principle of loyal cooperation

• ms must take all apropriate measures to fulfil eu obligations

• ms must help achieve eu objectives

• ms must avoid measures that jeopardise the eu goals

  • the article does not explicitly mention supremacy

  • however indirectly supports it because ms must ensure eu law effectiveness

declaration 17

• confirms that acording to settled cjeu case law eu law has primacy over member state law

• although not legally binding in itself it poltically recognises the supremacy doctrine

direct effect

eu law can create rights for idniduals that national courts must protect

• individuas can rely directly on eu law before national courts without national implementation measures

  • subjective direct effect (narrow meaning)= eu law grants rights to indiduals

  • objective direct effect (broad meaning)= national courts must enforce those rights

origin

the doctrine was created by the cjeu through case law= van gend en loos

• principle=established eu law imposes obligations and grants rights to indiduals

• conditions= established a provision must generally be

  • clear

  • precise

  • unconditional

direct effect of treaty provisions

• vertica= indiuals can rely on eu law against the state (up and down)

  • reyners= certain treaty provisions can be enforced against member states directky

    • confirmed vertical direct effect of treaty articles

• horizontal= indiduvals can rely on eu law against other indiduals/private parties (side to side)

  • defrenne v sabena=article 119 eec (for equal pay) could be relied upon against employers including private party employers

    • confirmed horizontal effect of treaty provisions

regulations

regulations are directly applicable

• regulations automatically become law in member states with no national iplementation needed

• fratelli variola= regulations produce immediate legal effets so confer enforceable rights on idniduals

  • therefore national courts must protect rights created by regulations = direct effect

directives

directives bind member states as to the result to be achieved

• unlike regulations they require national implementation and are not automatically fully applicable

vertical

• van duyn v home office= directives may have vertical direct effect as it would undermine effectiveness if member states coud ignore directives htey failed to implement (damage theyve caused)

• becker= conditions for a directive to be relied upon against the state

  • implementation deadline has oassed

  • the provision is clear precise and unconditional

• interenvironment wallonie= before the transposition deadline expires member states cannot be blaimed for failing to implement

  • however states must still avoid actions seriously undermining the directives purpose

• ratti=no reverse vertical direct effect

  • a member state cannot rely on its own failure to implement a directive against an indidual

  • a ms cannotrely on an unimplemented directoive to impose obligations on idniduals ie we forgot to implement the directive but u didnt comply so we are forcing it against you

no horizontal

• marshall= directives cannot create olbigatios for private indiduals

  • an indidual cannot rely directly on a directive against another indiduals

  • directives are directed to member states to implement

• faccini dori= no horizontal effect for directives

  • only regulations may impose direct obligations on indiduals

indirect effect

consistent interpretation

• marleasing= national courts must interpret national law as far as possible in line with directives

  • helps ensurw directive effectiveness even where direct effect is unabilable

liability for breaches of eu law

liability of the eu= article 340 (2) tfeu

• the eu must compensate damage caused by

  • eu isnitutions

  • eu servants acting in official duties

• non contractual liability

state liability=

• member states may be liable for damages when theuy breach eu law

• the state is a single entity= legislature + exec + judiciary

  • any branch can trigger state liability

• indiduals can claim compensation

• francovich= italy failed to implement a directive protecting workers

  • member states are liable for losses caused by breach of eu law

  • conditions:

    • the eu law grants rights to idnidvuals

    • the breach is suffciently serious

    • there is a causal link between breach and damage

  • ensures effectiveness of eu law

• factortame II= explained when a breach is sufficiently serious

  • clarity of the rule breached

  • degree of discretion to nations

  • whether breach was intentional

  • whether lwgal error was excusable

  • whether eu insitutions contributed

summary

supremacy

• eu law rveials oer national law

• national law must disapply conflicting national rules

direct effect= eu law can create enfrocebale rights for indiduals

• treaties= vertical and sometimes horionztal direct effect

• regulations= fully directly affective

• directives= only vertical direct effect

  • no horiztonal direct effect

  • no reversal vertical direct efect

indrect effect

• national courts must intepret national law consititenly with directives where possible despite no direct effect

state liability

• indiduals may obtain damages where member state breach eu law

key cases

• van gend en loos= new legal order

• costa v enel= supremacy principle

• internationale handelsgesellschaft= consitutional supremacy

• simmenthal II= dity to disapply national law

• defrenne= treatys horizontal direct effect

• fratelli variola= regulations direct effect

• van duyn= directive vertical effect

• becker= conditions for directive direct effect

• marshall= no horizontal direct effect for directives

• marleasing= indirect effect/ consistent interpretation

• francovich= state liabiity

• factorame II= serious breach test for state liability