Judicial decisions – cases & materials
Costa v. ENEL – supremacy
EU law has primacy over national law, because EU law must be applicated in the
same way in all member states (with monism and dualism, the EEC treaty
created a new autonomous legal order – member states and court bound to
apply). National law can’t violate EU law since it has primacy. It is up to the EU to
determine whether its laws have direct effect > constitutes the autonomy of the
EU legal order. Member states limited their sovereign rights and have created a
body of law which binds their nationals and themselves. The executive force of
EU law can’t vary per member state but is all the same. Where the treaty grants
member states to act unilaterally it can. A subsequent unilateral legal measure
can’t precede over EU law. EU law prevail over earlier and later realised national
law.
Simmenthal – supremacy
National law must be set aside if it conflicts with EU law whether prior or
subsequent to the EU law. National authorities are forbidden to apply national
rules incompatible with EU law. National courts must protect rights conferred by
provisions of EU law (if necessary refusing its own motion to apply confliction
national law).
Van Gend en Loos – direct effect
ECJ had to determine whether art. 12 EEC had ‘direct application in national law’.
EU member states have limited their sovereignty and are masters of the treaties
and subjects of the EU – obliged to comply with EU law. Individuals are able to
derive mutual rights and obligations from national and EU law as subjects. EU law
applies directly to member states.
EU law imposes obligations on individuals and confers rights upon them. EEC
treaty produces direct effects and creates individual rights which national courts
must protect. Van Gend en Loos was allowed to rely on the provision of EU law >
all binding force of EU law are able to produce direct effect.
Marshall – direct effect
Ms. Marshall relied on a directive on equal treatment against her employer.
Discrimination was allowed according to national law but not according to EU
directives. Civilians are able to rely on directives against a member state
necessary to prevent the member state from taking advantage of its own failure
to comply with community law (vertical direct effect). Directive should be precise,
sufficiently clear and unconditional.
The EU law is not allowed to be used when a directive causes horizontal direct
effect:
- Art. 288 TFEU: directives are only binding to members states and not
individuals unless implemented.
- If directives would have horizontal direct effect it would not have
implementation and would be the same as regulations.
- Legal certainty > if there would be horizontal direct effect, men wouldn’t
know to follow legal or national law.
, Marleasing – direct effect
In applying national law, whether the provisions in question were adopted before
or after the directive, the national court called upon to interpret it is required to
do so as far as possible in the light of the wording and the purpose of the
directive in order to achieve the result pursued by the latter > interpretation in
conformity with directive.
Inter-Environnement – direct effect
Before the end of the implementation period member states should not adopt
measures that are seriously compromise the result prescribed of a directive.
Mangold – direct effect
Mr. Mangold (age discrimination) wanted to invoke an EU directive but the period
for transposition hadn’t expired yet so he couldn’t. ECJ stated that the directive
contained the general principle of equal treatment which can be invoked against
any natural/legal person. The national courts must ensure full effectiveness of the
principle by setting aside conflicting national provisions (if necessary set aside
national law) even where the period of transposition hasn’t expired. General
principles of EU law are developed by the courts.
Francovich – state liability
Member states required to make good loss and damages caused to individuals as
a result of breaches of EU for which a member state is liable. Conditions:
1. Infringed rule intends to confer rights on individuals – the conferral of the
right must apply specifically to the individual who is bringing an action.
2. Sufficiently serious breach > manifestly and gravely disregard of the
limitation of discretionary powers.
3. Direct causal link between the breach and the damage.
Faccini Dori – state liability
When applying national provisions, whether adopted before or after the directive,
the national court must interpret them as far as possible in the light of the
wording and purpose of the directive.
Köbler – state liability
Member states are obliged to make good damage caused to individuals by
infringement of EU law for which they’re responsible. Applicable to decisions of a
court adjudicating at last instance where;
- EU law infringement is intended to confer rights on individuals.
- Breach is sufficiently serious > whether infringement is manifest.
- Direct causal link between the breach and loss/damage.
The full effectiveness of the infringed rules and protection of those rights would
be weakened if individuals were precluded from being able to obtain reparation
when their rights are affected by an infringement of EU law attributable to a court
in last instance. Courts against whose decision is not judicial remedy under
national law are required to make a reference to the ECJ.
Costa v. ENEL – supremacy
EU law has primacy over national law, because EU law must be applicated in the
same way in all member states (with monism and dualism, the EEC treaty
created a new autonomous legal order – member states and court bound to
apply). National law can’t violate EU law since it has primacy. It is up to the EU to
determine whether its laws have direct effect > constitutes the autonomy of the
EU legal order. Member states limited their sovereign rights and have created a
body of law which binds their nationals and themselves. The executive force of
EU law can’t vary per member state but is all the same. Where the treaty grants
member states to act unilaterally it can. A subsequent unilateral legal measure
can’t precede over EU law. EU law prevail over earlier and later realised national
law.
Simmenthal – supremacy
National law must be set aside if it conflicts with EU law whether prior or
subsequent to the EU law. National authorities are forbidden to apply national
rules incompatible with EU law. National courts must protect rights conferred by
provisions of EU law (if necessary refusing its own motion to apply confliction
national law).
Van Gend en Loos – direct effect
ECJ had to determine whether art. 12 EEC had ‘direct application in national law’.
EU member states have limited their sovereignty and are masters of the treaties
and subjects of the EU – obliged to comply with EU law. Individuals are able to
derive mutual rights and obligations from national and EU law as subjects. EU law
applies directly to member states.
EU law imposes obligations on individuals and confers rights upon them. EEC
treaty produces direct effects and creates individual rights which national courts
must protect. Van Gend en Loos was allowed to rely on the provision of EU law >
all binding force of EU law are able to produce direct effect.
Marshall – direct effect
Ms. Marshall relied on a directive on equal treatment against her employer.
Discrimination was allowed according to national law but not according to EU
directives. Civilians are able to rely on directives against a member state
necessary to prevent the member state from taking advantage of its own failure
to comply with community law (vertical direct effect). Directive should be precise,
sufficiently clear and unconditional.
The EU law is not allowed to be used when a directive causes horizontal direct
effect:
- Art. 288 TFEU: directives are only binding to members states and not
individuals unless implemented.
- If directives would have horizontal direct effect it would not have
implementation and would be the same as regulations.
- Legal certainty > if there would be horizontal direct effect, men wouldn’t
know to follow legal or national law.
, Marleasing – direct effect
In applying national law, whether the provisions in question were adopted before
or after the directive, the national court called upon to interpret it is required to
do so as far as possible in the light of the wording and the purpose of the
directive in order to achieve the result pursued by the latter > interpretation in
conformity with directive.
Inter-Environnement – direct effect
Before the end of the implementation period member states should not adopt
measures that are seriously compromise the result prescribed of a directive.
Mangold – direct effect
Mr. Mangold (age discrimination) wanted to invoke an EU directive but the period
for transposition hadn’t expired yet so he couldn’t. ECJ stated that the directive
contained the general principle of equal treatment which can be invoked against
any natural/legal person. The national courts must ensure full effectiveness of the
principle by setting aside conflicting national provisions (if necessary set aside
national law) even where the period of transposition hasn’t expired. General
principles of EU law are developed by the courts.
Francovich – state liability
Member states required to make good loss and damages caused to individuals as
a result of breaches of EU for which a member state is liable. Conditions:
1. Infringed rule intends to confer rights on individuals – the conferral of the
right must apply specifically to the individual who is bringing an action.
2. Sufficiently serious breach > manifestly and gravely disregard of the
limitation of discretionary powers.
3. Direct causal link between the breach and the damage.
Faccini Dori – state liability
When applying national provisions, whether adopted before or after the directive,
the national court must interpret them as far as possible in the light of the
wording and purpose of the directive.
Köbler – state liability
Member states are obliged to make good damage caused to individuals by
infringement of EU law for which they’re responsible. Applicable to decisions of a
court adjudicating at last instance where;
- EU law infringement is intended to confer rights on individuals.
- Breach is sufficiently serious > whether infringement is manifest.
- Direct causal link between the breach and loss/damage.
The full effectiveness of the infringed rules and protection of those rights would
be weakened if individuals were precluded from being able to obtain reparation
when their rights are affected by an infringement of EU law attributable to a court
in last instance. Courts against whose decision is not judicial remedy under
national law are required to make a reference to the ECJ.
