Summary Lectures - Principles and Foundations of EU Law

Lecture 1: Autonomy of EU Law


Autonomy of EU law → internal & external dimension


1. Internal dimension of autonomy of EU Law
● Definition:
○ Internal dimension: Relationship between EU law & national legal orders of the
MS


● Specific characteristics of EU law: substance
○ Costa ENEL & van Gend → established internal dimension
○ In both cases → Court → decided on fundamental issues of EU law
■ Relationship between EU law & national law
■ Characteristics of EU law
■ Consequences for relationship with national national legal order follow
from EU law itself


a. Van Gend & Loos
● Facts
○ Decision by dutch authorities reclassifying a product → custom
tariff changed
○ Art. 234 TFEU → preliminary procedure = possibilities for
national courts to ask questions to CJEU
● Confirms that the Courts are bound to apply EU
law
● Treaties = direct effect = you as an individual
before a national court can invoke a provision
of EU law to have your case decided
○ EU law → direct effect over national law
● Courts finding
○ Treaties → created a new independent legal order
○ MS → limited their sovereign rights
○ Not only obligations between MS, but also obligations and
rights for individuals; more than an agreement creating
obligations between MS


b. Costa vs Enel
● Mr Costa → Shareholder of electricity company in Italy
● Courts findings
○ EU law is directly applicable
○ Confirms primacy of EU law
○ Treaties → created a new independent legal order
○ MS → limited their sovereign rights

, ○ Not only obligations between MS, but also obligations and
rights for individuals; more than an agreement creating
obligations between MS


● EU law = not just international law
● International law = follows from national constitutions
● → effect of EU law in national legal order = follows from national constitutional
law
- But → Court went around this → effect of EU law in national orders
does NOT depend on international law = depends on EU law and its
characteristics


→ no specific mention of autonomy in these cases yet
→ independence of EU legal order from the national legal orders = internal dimension


● Specific characteristics of EU law: take-aways
● Logic of CJEU → functionalist justification
○ EU: for its effectiveness depends on enforcement of EU law by the MS
○ But → system cannot depend on the MS for its effect = validity and
effect of EU law cannot depend on MS’s law = depends on EU law
○ EU law = precedence


● Primacy of EU law & autonomy of EU law
○ CJEU created it = not specifically in the Treaties
○ Court relied on spirit of treaty
○ Why did the MS give up their sovereignty?
○ CJEU’s view = not the only view = contested


● contestation/challenges: 2 examples of contestation:
1. national courts
● EU → depends on role national courts in enforcement EU law
○ But → primacy & autonomy EU law
○ This has been challenged by national constitutional courts
○ Conflicting claims about ultimate source of authority EU law
between CJEU & national constitutional courts
○ Where does EU authority come from?
■ Ex: international law = from constitutions of states
■ EU → foundation in EU law


● Understanding nature of challenges for EU:
○ Ex: case Bundesverfassungsgericht & Polish Constitutional
Court
○ 2 examples:

, a. Bundesverfassungsgericht (PSPP)
● Facts
○ About EU monetary policy or economic policy
○ Validity of secondary EU law
○ PSPP → Program of ECB to combat economic crisis
○ ECB → adopted PSPP = public bonds bought from MS


● Bundesverfassungsgericht asked PR
○ Challenged this
○ Asked for PR about compatibility PSPP with EU law
○ Was the ECB monetary policy or economic policy?


● CJEU = arguments
○ It is monetary policy → in line with the treaty


● Bundesverfassungsgericht = arguments
○ Decided 2 things:
1. ECB + CJEU = violation of treaty → ultra vires
(outside of the competences referred to it)


○ It challenged:
■ primacy of EU law → exclusive competence of
CJEU to interpret EU law
■ Foundations of EU law → foundation of EU law
is found in national law → in this case German
constitution
■ German court → had to review whether what is
done at EU law complies with EU law


→ Sparked a debate about legal interpretation = to what extent
is this in line with EU law?


b. Polish Constitutional Tribunal
● Context
○ Primacy of EU law → role & independence of national judiciary
○ Validity of primary EU law
○ Rule of law backsliding


● Facts
○ Polish government → asking from polish Court about
compatibility of certain elements of EU law with Polish
constitution

, ● Poland
○ EU law was in violation with Polish constitution


● Court
○ EU law was not in violation of the Polish constitution


Both cases → infringement procedure Commission


2. Academic discourse
● National constitutional courts challenging the CJEU
○ Effect of EU law in national legal order = follows from EU law itself
○ Ultimate interpreter of EU law = CJEU = contested by national courts =
Authority of EU law = found in national law


● Reasoning of case law criticised by academics → vulnerable & fragile
○ Fragility of self-referential reasoning & functional justification
○ More need to justify reasoning → such as by ethical principles


● Debate about pluralism
a. Pluralism as descriptive/explanatory theory
○ Conflict between CJEU & national courts


b. Pluralism as normative theory
○ Advocates say that this conflict is a good thing = it has benefits
○ Does not need to be solved
○ System can be trusted → mechanisms exist to deal with conflict
○ Contestations follows from legitimacy
○ Dealing with conflict → Dialogue
○ Through use of principles → solve issues


● Opponents of pluralism
○ Legal uncertainty → unacceptable → need to find a solution
○ Revise the treaties
○ Legitimacy comes from national politics


→ Internal autonomy works in practice = important to understand what is behind national
contestation