This paper will assess the claim that supremacy of EU law is still an evolving and debatable concept. To do this, I have divided this paper into four sections. The first section will discuss the establishment of supremacy in EU law through ECJ case law. The second section will explore the vibrant debate surrounding constitutional pluralism that has arisen since the early 1990s. The third section will examine the debate and impact of the codification of primacy in the early 2000s. The fourth section will examine the extent to which the principle of sovereignty has been accepted in three EU Member States, namely, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Poland.
However again this higher status can be seen as limited as is only assumed from a written obligation. Therefore to asses if supremacy is not the challenge to member state sovereignty that is appears to be, a close analysis of how the CJEU has dealt with the issue of supremacy of EU law in case law is needed, firstly looking at Van Gend en Loos which stated that the ‘EU was a new legal order permanently limiting the sovereign rights of the Member State’. This customs case helped establish the ‘relationships between the European Union and international law…to grantee that the rules of one system are complied with in another legal order ’ showing in practise that if on a national level EU law is breached CJEU will take supremacy and comply with ‘the integrity of the EU legal order’ . Further evaluation of the limits of the supremacy can be seen in the case of Costa V ENEL where ‘Italy had claimed that the EU treaties…had been transposed into the Italian legal order by national legislation, which could therefore be derogated by subsequent national legislation. The court rejected this presumption of the supremacy of national law by insisting on the supremacy of EU law’ . This case holds significance as it ‘is well-known since Costa V ENEL the court has affirmed the supremacy of Community law over national law’ strongly suggesting the continued existence of EU supremacy is not frequently
The doctrines of direct effect and supremacy are extremely important because they require national courts to apply European Union law over any conflicting provision of national law. This essay will first consider the doctrine of direct effect, its advantages and disadvantages and it will go on examining the doctrine of supremacy, how it can be assessed and its relation with the doctrine of direct effect. Finally, some conclusion will be drawn as to how the direct effect and supremacy of Union law provisions are related to each other and how can be really helpful for individuals and member states when looking at the big picture, even if in some situations they might be seen as inappropriate.
Question: In retrospect was the European court of justice correct when it stated that in Van Gend en Loos (1963) a new legal order had been created? Discuss.
As the raison d 'etre of the common market, the free movement of goods may be regarded as a fundamental freedom common to all states holding membership of the European Community. The role of the European Court of Justice as a decision-maker is critical in maintaining and ensuring that free movement can prevail between the United States of Europe. Its
The CJEU case-law on horizontal direct effect of directives arguably lacks consistency in regards to the application of the general principle. The principle of direct effect was established in Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen. Although there is no set definition of direct effect, a broader definition was provided in Van Gend en Loos that it “can be expressed as the capacity of a provision of EU law to be invoked before a national court.” However, Van Dyun v. Home Office established that directives are capable of direct effect. Furthermore, Marshall v. Southampton established that there could only be vertical direct effect of directives. This stringent principle has arguable ignited the highly contested debate of whether or not horizontal direct effect is applicable to directives or if directives could only have vertical direct effect. However, this essay shall explore the lack of consistency in case-law regarding horizontal direct effect of directives. Firstly, this paper will delve into the case-law of the topic of horizontal direct effect of directives in efforts to try to highlight its consistency in its approach. Secondly, the paper will use case law and the opinion of academics (enter the name of the academics later) to highlight its inconsistencies using the legal mechanisms that have been introduced by the Courts to try to compensate for the lack of horizontal direct effect of directives. Namely, indirect effect, incidental horizontal
This article also examines the meaning and implementation of universal jurisdiction. For no sanction mechanisms have been created to induce them, without their consent, to abide by their obligations, until now only the goodwill of states could be relied on to guarantee their implementation in good faith. Before ending with some possible remedies to minimize potential
The legitimacy of the ECJ to uphold EU legislation is a necessary component of effective human rights policy. The history of its increase in power is worth noting. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the ECJ’s location in Luxembourg, far from the political fray in Brussels and Strasburg, prevented it from becoming a strong body of the EU. Yet, throughout that time the court methodically built case-law that would lead to its surge in influence in the 1980s. The two most significant developments of the court during this time period were direct effect and supremacy. These twin pillars clarified the relationship between the national and EU legal orders.
This essay advances the position that the quotation under discussion is, with all due respect to the Author, entirely incorrect. It is the counter-argument of this essay that the Courts of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have ‘abused’ their interpretive jurisdiction, and, in places, have even done violence to the very wording of the Treaty itself.
The International Criminal Court also known as the (ICC) are a group of judges who investigates and prosecutes individuals that are guilty of crimes such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and only intervenes when a state cannot intervene or is unwilling to intervene or is an international concern (Understanding the International Criminal Court). Many inhumane corruptions were committed in the past such as the Holocaust and many individual have gone unpunished for it. Due to this the United Nation General Assembly was determined to have a court were individuals who commit such cruel crimes will be held accountable and will be punished for it. An
European Law is very complex law , within EU law there is various different treaties which are in place. Two most significant treaties which have importance to the legislative process are The Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union.
By virtue of the doctrine of the ‘direct effect’ of Treaty provisions, individuals can rely directly on EC law before their national courts. There is no need for implementation of EC law by Member States through national law. The ECJ’s creation of the doctrine was driven by Member States’ failure to comply with EC law.
Enforcing the European Union legal system is diverse and done on multiple platforms; through not only actions taken against member states for breach of their obligations, but also, for example, through the use of direct effect1. Article 267 TFEU; an organism devised to practice private enforcement of EU law before national courts, has been critical to ensure uniform interpretation and application of EU law in member states. References for preliminary rulings occur when the national courts are presented with a question of EU law due to uncertainty of the provision. The national court will therefore ‘make a reference to the Court of Justice (COJ) to obtain a preliminary ruling on any point of EU law relevant to the proceedings’2. In
The doctrine of direct effect is the primary tool by which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) enforces European Union (EU) law within member-states. However, the power of direct effect as a tool of enforcement means that the CJEU has had to resist impulses to overextend its application. This essay will argue that rather than unnecessarily undermining the doctrine of direct effect, the CJEU has skilfully managed to create an effective enforcement regime for directives while applying consistent principles in regards to respecting the purpose and function of directives, keeping EU directives and regulations distinct, and crafting new methods of achieving the aim of directives.
The European Union is the unifying power of 28 member states, and consists of many branches of government that fall under intergovernmentalist or supranationalist functions. One branch that seems to go below the radar is the European Court of Justice, which in reality, has greatly affected the development of European Community law, and contributed greatly to European integration. As we have seen throughout history, the member states have been ebbing back and forth between integration and sovereignty, and the states hardly want to give up their national rights, but the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has proven to be vital to the process European integration. Different sets of case laws set up the precedents of direct effect, supremacy, and