This essay seeks to evaluate on the extent on whether or not the doctrine of
supremacy and direct effect has developed in a desirable, logical and coherent
manner. This essay consists of three parts, with the first addressing the
effectiveness of the doctrines, with the second clarifying the distinction between the
two principles and the last discussing on the issue of desirability. It is argued that the
logical and coherent element has been achieved to an extent despite the issue of
horizontal direct effect, however following the Brexit of the UK, there is a clear issue
on the desirability of the doctrines.
Effectiveness of the doctrines
Prior to the evaluation, the mentioned doctrines will be explained briefly. The
doctrine of supremacy was pronounced in the case of Costa v ENEL where it was
clarified by the courts that in cases where there is a conflict between EU Laws and
the national laws of the member state (MS), the EU Law shall take priority over the
national law. in relation to the principle of direct effect, this was introduced in the
case of Van Gend en Loos where the court recognised the rights of individuals to
enforce their fundamental rights against their own State. For the purpose of this
essay, the evaluation will be on the direct effect of directives, and it is argued that the
refusal of the court to recognise horizontal direct effect illustrates the biggest flaw to
the effectiveness of the doctrine of direct effect.
Directives are defined under Art 288 of the TFEU and are only ‘binding as to
the result to be achieved’. The vertical direct effect for directives was recognised in
the case of Van Duyn in order to resolve the issue on the lack of effectiveness of EU
Law. however, in the case of Marshall it was affirmed that directives could not be
relied on by a private entity against another private entity. This was further affirmed
in later cases of Faccini Dori and Duke.
It is argued that the refusal of the court to recognise directives to have
horizontal effect undermines the effectiveness of the doctrine and the EU law. this is
due to the fact that it is a clear violation of the fundamental principle of equality
provided under Art 2 TEU, as there is a difference in the enforceability of rights, as
the issue in determining whether or not the directive have direct effect is on the
nature of the entity. Hence this would ultimately impact the certainty of the on the
supremacy and direct effect has developed in a desirable, logical and coherent
manner. This essay consists of three parts, with the first addressing the
effectiveness of the doctrines, with the second clarifying the distinction between the
two principles and the last discussing on the issue of desirability. It is argued that the
logical and coherent element has been achieved to an extent despite the issue of
horizontal direct effect, however following the Brexit of the UK, there is a clear issue
on the desirability of the doctrines.
Effectiveness of the doctrines
Prior to the evaluation, the mentioned doctrines will be explained briefly. The
doctrine of supremacy was pronounced in the case of Costa v ENEL where it was
clarified by the courts that in cases where there is a conflict between EU Laws and
the national laws of the member state (MS), the EU Law shall take priority over the
national law. in relation to the principle of direct effect, this was introduced in the
case of Van Gend en Loos where the court recognised the rights of individuals to
enforce their fundamental rights against their own State. For the purpose of this
essay, the evaluation will be on the direct effect of directives, and it is argued that the
refusal of the court to recognise horizontal direct effect illustrates the biggest flaw to
the effectiveness of the doctrine of direct effect.
Directives are defined under Art 288 of the TFEU and are only ‘binding as to
the result to be achieved’. The vertical direct effect for directives was recognised in
the case of Van Duyn in order to resolve the issue on the lack of effectiveness of EU
Law. however, in the case of Marshall it was affirmed that directives could not be
relied on by a private entity against another private entity. This was further affirmed
in later cases of Faccini Dori and Duke.
It is argued that the refusal of the court to recognise directives to have
horizontal effect undermines the effectiveness of the doctrine and the EU law. this is
due to the fact that it is a clear violation of the fundamental principle of equality
provided under Art 2 TEU, as there is a difference in the enforceability of rights, as
the issue in determining whether or not the directive have direct effect is on the
nature of the entity. Hence this would ultimately impact the certainty of the on the
