EU Law and the National Legal Orders
Costa v ENEL
What was the basis of the court’s ruling?
What is the impact of this ruling?
How have the national constitutional courts responded?
The basis of the court’s ruling
Purposive and literal interpretation – looking at the purpose and text
of the treaties
Builds on the case of Van Gend en Loos
Article 189 referred to – European institutions can adopt regulations
which are both directly applicable and binding in their entirety –
clear indication that EU law has primacy (not stated in the treaty,
the purposive approach)
Impact of Costa v ENEL
First issue concerning supremacy of EU law related to the scope of
the supremacy – how far were the EU treaties supreme?
According the court in Internationale Handelgesellschaft EU law
trumps even national constitutional law – EU would be supreme
even in relation to fundamental rights etc. – controversial because
the member states seem to have created a body which has more
power than even the individual member states. Creation of
something out of their power? Court worked around this by
recognising human rights and stating that they would not require
states to break their own constitutions.
How have the national courts responded?
Can national legislation impliedly repeal EU law?
o Simmenthal – EU law is supreme over prior existing national
law and subsequent conflicting national law.
o “Every national court must, in a case within its jurisdiction,
apply community law in its entirety and protect rights…”
Factortame
o Developed even further – court said that EU law is supreme
and the member states must guarantee the full effectiveness
of EU law, and even though there may be a provision of
national law precluding a certain remedy it may need to be set
aside to give full effect to the EU law.
o In this case a provision of UK law preventing the granting of
interim relief was set aside by the courts as EU law required
the granting of interim relief.
o EU law is not intended to require the introduction of new
remedies into national law – should operate through pre
existing national procedures – EU court said that interim relief
was known about and so wasn’t introducing anything new, it
just should be used in a situation where it usually wouldn’t be.
Costa v ENEL is very significant – it asserts the supremacy of EU law
and the scope of supremacy.
Comment
Costa v ENEL
What was the basis of the court’s ruling?
What is the impact of this ruling?
How have the national constitutional courts responded?
The basis of the court’s ruling
Purposive and literal interpretation – looking at the purpose and text
of the treaties
Builds on the case of Van Gend en Loos
Article 189 referred to – European institutions can adopt regulations
which are both directly applicable and binding in their entirety –
clear indication that EU law has primacy (not stated in the treaty,
the purposive approach)
Impact of Costa v ENEL
First issue concerning supremacy of EU law related to the scope of
the supremacy – how far were the EU treaties supreme?
According the court in Internationale Handelgesellschaft EU law
trumps even national constitutional law – EU would be supreme
even in relation to fundamental rights etc. – controversial because
the member states seem to have created a body which has more
power than even the individual member states. Creation of
something out of their power? Court worked around this by
recognising human rights and stating that they would not require
states to break their own constitutions.
How have the national courts responded?
Can national legislation impliedly repeal EU law?
o Simmenthal – EU law is supreme over prior existing national
law and subsequent conflicting national law.
o “Every national court must, in a case within its jurisdiction,
apply community law in its entirety and protect rights…”
Factortame
o Developed even further – court said that EU law is supreme
and the member states must guarantee the full effectiveness
of EU law, and even though there may be a provision of
national law precluding a certain remedy it may need to be set
aside to give full effect to the EU law.
o In this case a provision of UK law preventing the granting of
interim relief was set aside by the courts as EU law required
the granting of interim relief.
o EU law is not intended to require the introduction of new
remedies into national law – should operate through pre
existing national procedures – EU court said that interim relief
was known about and so wasn’t introducing anything new, it
just should be used in a situation where it usually wouldn’t be.
Costa v ENEL is very significant – it asserts the supremacy of EU law
and the scope of supremacy.
Comment
