Week 1
Question 1:
Explain the concept of the internal dimension of the autonomy of EU law, citing relevant case
law.
Answer: The internal dimension of the autonomy of EU law refers to the relationship between EU
law and the national legal orders of the Member States (MS). This autonomy ensures that EU law
functions independently within the legal frameworks of the MS. The key cases that established this
internal dimension are Van Gend & Loos and Costa v. ENEL.
● In Van Gend & Loos, the Court ruled that the treaties create a new legal order, where EU law
directly affects individuals, allowing them to invoke EU law before national courts. This
confirmed the direct effect of EU law over national law.
● In Costa v. ENEL, the Court reaffirmed the primacy of EU law, meaning that EU law takes
precedence over conflicting national laws. The ruling emphasized that Member States had
limited their sovereign rights by accepting EU law, thus creating an independent legal order
that does not depend on national constitutional law for its application.
Question 2:
What is the principle of primacy in EU law, and how does it relate to the autonomy of EU law?
Answer: The principle of primacy means that in cases of conflict between EU law and national law,
EU law prevails. This principle is integral to the autonomy of EU law, as it asserts the independence
of the EU legal order from national legal systems. While the Treaties do not explicitly mention
primacy, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) developed this principle through case law, notably in
Costa v. ENEL. The Court ruled that EU law must be uniformly applied across all Member States to
ensure its effectiveness, and its application cannot be contingent on national law. This guarantees
that EU law is not subordinate to any national legal system, reinforcing its autonomous character.
Question 3:
Discuss the challenges to the internal dimension of EU law's autonomy by national courts,
using the examples of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (PSPP) and the Polish Constitutional
Tribunal.
Answer: Challenges to the internal autonomy of EU law often come from national constitutional
courts questioning the primacy and authority of EU law.
, ● Bundesverfassungsgericht (PSPP Case): The German Federal Constitutional Court
questioned the European Central Bank's (ECB) Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP),
arguing that both the ECB and CJEU acted ultra vires (beyond their powers). The German
court challenged the primacy of EU law, asserting that EU law’s validity stems from national
constitutional law (in this case, the German Constitution). This ruling sparked a debate over
whether national courts can overrule the CJEU's interpretation of EU law.
● Polish Constitutional Tribunal: The Polish Constitutional Tribunal challenged the primacy
of EU law in matters concerning the independence of the judiciary. The Polish court ruled
that certain EU legal provisions were incompatible with the Polish Constitution. This
contestation raised concerns over rule of law backsliding, as it questioned the CJEU's
authority and the supremacy of EU law.
Both cases illustrate national courts' claims that national constitutions, not EU law, are the ultimate
sources of authority, challenging the internal dimension of EU law’s autonomy.
Question 4:
Define the external dimension of the autonomy of EU law and explain its significance,
referencing Opinion 2/13.
Answer: The external dimension of the autonomy of EU law concerns the relationship between the
EU legal order and international law. The CJEU emphasizes that while the EU can engage in
international agreements, these agreements must not compromise the essential characteristics of
EU law, such as primacy, direct effect, mutual trust, and fundamental rights protection.
In Opinion 2/13, the CJEU ruled that the draft agreement on the EU’s accession to the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was incompatible with EU law because it undermined the
autonomy of EU law. Specifically, the CJEU expressed concerns that the European Court of Human
Rights (ECtHR) could interpret EU law, a role exclusively reserved for the CJEU. The ruling highlighted
the need to protect the EU’s institutional framework and the division of competences between the
EU and its Member States, reinforcing the external dimension of EU law’s autonomy.
Question 5:
How do academic perspectives on pluralism affect the understanding of EU law's autonomy,
and what are the arguments for and against pluralism?
Answer: Pluralism in the context of EU law refers to the coexistence of different legal orders (EU
and national) and the potential conflicts between them.
● Supporters of pluralism argue that these conflicts are beneficial because they foster
dialogue and cooperation between national courts and the CJEU. This descriptive and
normative theory suggests that legal pluralism promotes a balanced system where
, mechanisms exist to resolve disputes, and legitimacy arises from both EU and national
politics.
● Opponents of pluralism argue that it creates legal uncertainty and that the primacy of EU
law should be absolute to ensure a stable and predictable legal environment. They call for
revising the Treaties to clarify the authority of the CJEU and the relationship between EU and
national law. Opponents believe that legitimacy should primarily stem from national
constitutional frameworks.
This debate affects the understanding of EU law’s autonomy by questioning whether national courts
should have the power to challenge the CJEU’s authority.
Week 2: Divisions of Power in EU Law
Question 1: Explain the difference between the division of powers and the separation of powers in
the context of EU law.
Answer:
● Division of powers refers to the distribution of competences between different levels of
government, particularly between the EU and Member States (vertical division), and between
different institutions within the EU (horizontal division). It is not a fundamental principle of
EU law but a structural concept that ensures power is shared and regulated to prevent
arbitrary rule.
● Separation of powers, on the other hand, is a more general constitutional principle that
refers to the division of governmental functions (executive, legislative, judicial) to ensure
checks and balances. In the EU, the institutional balance embodies aspects of separation of
powers but tailored to the EU’s unique structure.
Question 2: What are the two main principles underpinning the vertical division of powers in the EU?
Provide a brief explanation of each.
Answer:
1. Principle of conferral: According to Article 5(2) TEU, the EU can only act within the powers
that have been conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties. Any powers not
explicitly given to the EU remain with the Member States.
2. Principle of subsidiarity: As set out in Article 5(3) TEU, in areas where the EU does not have
exclusive competence, it may act only if the objectives of the proposed action cannot be
sufficiently achieved by Member States alone, but can be better achieved at the EU level.
Question 3: What is the principle of conferral, and how has it been interpreted by the CJEU? Use the
Tobacco Advertising case to illustrate your answer.
Question 1:
Explain the concept of the internal dimension of the autonomy of EU law, citing relevant case
law.
Answer: The internal dimension of the autonomy of EU law refers to the relationship between EU
law and the national legal orders of the Member States (MS). This autonomy ensures that EU law
functions independently within the legal frameworks of the MS. The key cases that established this
internal dimension are Van Gend & Loos and Costa v. ENEL.
● In Van Gend & Loos, the Court ruled that the treaties create a new legal order, where EU law
directly affects individuals, allowing them to invoke EU law before national courts. This
confirmed the direct effect of EU law over national law.
● In Costa v. ENEL, the Court reaffirmed the primacy of EU law, meaning that EU law takes
precedence over conflicting national laws. The ruling emphasized that Member States had
limited their sovereign rights by accepting EU law, thus creating an independent legal order
that does not depend on national constitutional law for its application.
Question 2:
What is the principle of primacy in EU law, and how does it relate to the autonomy of EU law?
Answer: The principle of primacy means that in cases of conflict between EU law and national law,
EU law prevails. This principle is integral to the autonomy of EU law, as it asserts the independence
of the EU legal order from national legal systems. While the Treaties do not explicitly mention
primacy, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) developed this principle through case law, notably in
Costa v. ENEL. The Court ruled that EU law must be uniformly applied across all Member States to
ensure its effectiveness, and its application cannot be contingent on national law. This guarantees
that EU law is not subordinate to any national legal system, reinforcing its autonomous character.
Question 3:
Discuss the challenges to the internal dimension of EU law's autonomy by national courts,
using the examples of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (PSPP) and the Polish Constitutional
Tribunal.
Answer: Challenges to the internal autonomy of EU law often come from national constitutional
courts questioning the primacy and authority of EU law.
, ● Bundesverfassungsgericht (PSPP Case): The German Federal Constitutional Court
questioned the European Central Bank's (ECB) Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP),
arguing that both the ECB and CJEU acted ultra vires (beyond their powers). The German
court challenged the primacy of EU law, asserting that EU law’s validity stems from national
constitutional law (in this case, the German Constitution). This ruling sparked a debate over
whether national courts can overrule the CJEU's interpretation of EU law.
● Polish Constitutional Tribunal: The Polish Constitutional Tribunal challenged the primacy
of EU law in matters concerning the independence of the judiciary. The Polish court ruled
that certain EU legal provisions were incompatible with the Polish Constitution. This
contestation raised concerns over rule of law backsliding, as it questioned the CJEU's
authority and the supremacy of EU law.
Both cases illustrate national courts' claims that national constitutions, not EU law, are the ultimate
sources of authority, challenging the internal dimension of EU law’s autonomy.
Question 4:
Define the external dimension of the autonomy of EU law and explain its significance,
referencing Opinion 2/13.
Answer: The external dimension of the autonomy of EU law concerns the relationship between the
EU legal order and international law. The CJEU emphasizes that while the EU can engage in
international agreements, these agreements must not compromise the essential characteristics of
EU law, such as primacy, direct effect, mutual trust, and fundamental rights protection.
In Opinion 2/13, the CJEU ruled that the draft agreement on the EU’s accession to the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was incompatible with EU law because it undermined the
autonomy of EU law. Specifically, the CJEU expressed concerns that the European Court of Human
Rights (ECtHR) could interpret EU law, a role exclusively reserved for the CJEU. The ruling highlighted
the need to protect the EU’s institutional framework and the division of competences between the
EU and its Member States, reinforcing the external dimension of EU law’s autonomy.
Question 5:
How do academic perspectives on pluralism affect the understanding of EU law's autonomy,
and what are the arguments for and against pluralism?
Answer: Pluralism in the context of EU law refers to the coexistence of different legal orders (EU
and national) and the potential conflicts between them.
● Supporters of pluralism argue that these conflicts are beneficial because they foster
dialogue and cooperation between national courts and the CJEU. This descriptive and
normative theory suggests that legal pluralism promotes a balanced system where
, mechanisms exist to resolve disputes, and legitimacy arises from both EU and national
politics.
● Opponents of pluralism argue that it creates legal uncertainty and that the primacy of EU
law should be absolute to ensure a stable and predictable legal environment. They call for
revising the Treaties to clarify the authority of the CJEU and the relationship between EU and
national law. Opponents believe that legitimacy should primarily stem from national
constitutional frameworks.
This debate affects the understanding of EU law’s autonomy by questioning whether national courts
should have the power to challenge the CJEU’s authority.
Week 2: Divisions of Power in EU Law
Question 1: Explain the difference between the division of powers and the separation of powers in
the context of EU law.
Answer:
● Division of powers refers to the distribution of competences between different levels of
government, particularly between the EU and Member States (vertical division), and between
different institutions within the EU (horizontal division). It is not a fundamental principle of
EU law but a structural concept that ensures power is shared and regulated to prevent
arbitrary rule.
● Separation of powers, on the other hand, is a more general constitutional principle that
refers to the division of governmental functions (executive, legislative, judicial) to ensure
checks and balances. In the EU, the institutional balance embodies aspects of separation of
powers but tailored to the EU’s unique structure.
Question 2: What are the two main principles underpinning the vertical division of powers in the EU?
Provide a brief explanation of each.
Answer:
1. Principle of conferral: According to Article 5(2) TEU, the EU can only act within the powers
that have been conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties. Any powers not
explicitly given to the EU remain with the Member States.
2. Principle of subsidiarity: As set out in Article 5(3) TEU, in areas where the EU does not have
exclusive competence, it may act only if the objectives of the proposed action cannot be
sufficiently achieved by Member States alone, but can be better achieved at the EU level.
Question 3: What is the principle of conferral, and how has it been interpreted by the CJEU? Use the
Tobacco Advertising case to illustrate your answer.
