The English Legal System - The Relationship between EU Law and National Law (Chapter 11)

Question 1

In which article is the principle of Direct Effect grounded?

Answer 1

It’s not mentioned in any provision.

It was stipulated in the EU Court of Justice decision Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963]

Question 2

What did the Court of Justice elaborate on Direct Effect in Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963]?

Answer 2

The Court held that, in order for a provision to to have a Direct Effect, so that a citizen can enforce a right granted by the European Community against the state, the provision must be:

1) be sufficiently clear and precisely stated
2) be unconditional or non-dependent and
3) confer a specific right for the citizen to base their claim on

Question 3

Summarize the Van Gend en Loos case

Answer 3

Van Gend en Loos is a landmark decision made by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1963. The case involved a Dutch company named Van Gend en Loos, which challenged a Dutch customs authority’s decision to impose a tariff on goods it was importing from Germany. The ECJ ruled that European Community law is directly applicable and enforceable in the national courts of member states, and that individuals have the right to rely on it in legal disputes. This decision established the principle of “direct effect,” which means that individuals can invoke European Union law in national courts, and it helped pave the way for the development of EU law and the establishment of the European Union as it exists today.

Question 4

What is the Supremacy of EU law doctrine? What case is it based on?

Answer 4

It means that EU law takes precedence over laws of member states and the conflicting law of member states must not be applied. The case emerged from Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585; [1964] 3 CMLR 425

Question 5

Besides Costa v ENEL [1963] there were two other landmark rulings by the European Court of Justice

Which and what were the effects?

Answer 5

Member states have a duty to set aside provisions of national law which are incompatible with EU law (Simmenthal II [1978] ECR 629 [1978])

National law must be interpreted and applied, insofar as possible, as to avoid conflict with a Community rule (Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion (1990) C-106/89 [1991])

Question 6

Explain the Simmenthal II 1978 case

Answer 6

The Simmenthal II case, decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1978, concerned the relationship between national law and European Union (EU) law. Specifically, the case addressed whether national courts were obligated to apply EU law, even if it conflicted with domestic law.

Question 7

Explain the Marleasing SA 1990 case

Answer 7

The Marleasing SA case, decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1990, concerned the principle of “indirect effect” of European Union (EU) law on national law. The case addressed whether national courts were required to interpret national law in a manner consistent with EU law, even in the absence of explicit provisions to that effect.

Question 8

What is “indirect effect”? Which case established the principle?

Answer 8

The Marleasing SA case, decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1990, concerned the principle of “indirect effect” of European Union (EU) law on national law. The case addressed whether national courts were required to interpret national law in a manner consistent with EU law, even in the absence of explicit provisions to that effect.

Question 9

Case in which a constitution of a EU Member State had to amended because of a lawsuit of an individual

Answer 9

Tanja Kreil v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2000)

Rejection of application due to gender. Was not in agreement with EU law on gender equality.

Question 10

UK statutory law for UK’s entry into EU (now repealed)

Answer 10

European Communities Act (ECA) 1972

Question 11

What is the difference between Direct Applicability and Direct Effect?

Answer 11

Provisions of Treats and Regulations become directly applicable. This means that they automatically become law in all member states the moment they enter into force and are published by the European Commission. They also automatically override any conflicting domestic provisions.

Direct effect means that individuals and companies can rely on rights granted by EU measures, such as Regulations and Directives, in certain circumstances, to enforce these rights directly in national courts. These rights may either be enforced by vertical direct effect or horizontal direct effect.

Question 12

What is the difference between Horizontal Direct Effect and Vertical Direct Effect?

Answer 12

Horizontal Direct Effect concerns the relationship between private individuals, including companies. Certain provisions of the Treaties and legislative acts, such as Regulations, are capable of being directly enforced horizontally.

Direct Vertical Effect concerns the relationship between EU law and national law with respect to a claim between a private party and an arm of the EU Member State.

Question 13

Which legal instrument only has direct vertical effect?

Answer 13

Directives.

Question 14

Which is a famous case for Horizontal Direct Effect?

Answer 14

Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) [1976] ECR 455

Defrenne sued her employer, an airline, because it paid its female employees less than its male. Claim was made based on Art. 100 of the Treaty of the European Community.

Question 15

Which is a famous case for Vertical Direct Effect?

Answer 15

Pubblico Ministerio v Tullio Ratti [1979] ECR 1629

Labeling of solvents. Two directives of EU on labeling, one was not in force yet. Italian law was stricter. EUCJ ruled that directive A which date for implementation had already elapsed was applicable and overruled the Italian law. Directive B wasn’t applicable yet as date for implementation hadn’t elapsed, so Italian law was still applicable.

Question 16

Explain Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043

Answer 16

Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen was a landmark case in the European Union, which dealt with the issue of mandatory contributions imposed by a public body on businesses.

The case arose when Comet BV, a Dutch flower exporter, challenged the mandatory levy imposed by the Produktschap voor Siergewassen (PS), a public body responsible for the regulation of the horticulture sector in the Netherlands. PS had imposed a compulsory contribution on businesses engaged in the production and export of flowers and plants, which was used to fund various activities, including research and development, marketing, and quality control.

Comet BV argued that the levy was unconstitutional and violated EU law since it imposed a burden on businesses without providing any direct benefit in return. They claimed that the levy amounted to an unlawful tax, which violated the principle of proportionality and the free movement of goods within the EU.

The case was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling. The ECJ ruled that the levy imposed by PS was not a tax but a regulatory charge, which was permissible under EU law. The court further held that the levy did not violate the principle of proportionality since it was proportionate to the benefits derived by the businesses from the activities funded by the levy.

The court also ruled that the levy did not violate the free movement of goods within the EU since it did not discriminate against imports from other member states or restrict the free movement of goods.

The judgment in this case established an important precedent regarding the legality of compulsory levies imposed by public bodies in the EU. The ruling clarified that such levies are permissible under EU law, provided they are proportionate and do not violate fundamental EU principles such as the free movement of goods.

Question 17

Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043 elaborated on the principles of effectiveness and equivalence. What do they mean?

Answer 17

he ruling in Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen did not specifically address the principles of effectiveness and equivalence. However, these principles are relevant in the context of the case, as they are fundamental principles of EU law that apply to national measures that affect the free movement of goods.

The principle of effectiveness requires that national measures should not make it practically impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by EU law. In the context of the case, the levy imposed by PS should not have made it excessively difficult for Comet BV to exercise its right to free movement of goods within the EU.

The principle of equivalence requires that national measures should not discriminate against imports from other member states. In the context of the case, the levy imposed by PS should not have discriminated against imports from other member states in favor of domestic producers.

The ECJ did not find any violation of these principles in its ruling. The court found that the levy did not discriminate against imports from other member states and did not impose any disproportionate burden on businesses engaged in the production and export of flowers and plants. Therefore, the levy was considered permissible under EU law, and the principles of effectiveness and equivalence were not found to have been violated.

Question 18

Case that must be known in relation to Direct Effect on Procedural Law

Answer 18

BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043

Question 19

What is indirect effect?

Answer 19

Indirect effect is the principle that compels national courts to interpret national legislation in accordance with the aims of a Directive (“sympathetic interpretation”) in a situation where the Directive lacks Direct Effect, such as where it is being used against a non-State body.

In such an event, the national court cannot be asked to apply the Directive instead of the national legislation, but it can be asked to interpret the national legislation in light of the EU Directive “as far as possible”

Question 20

Which case must be known in relation to indirect effect?

Answer 20

Marleasing v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion [1990]

Question 21

Explain why Marleasing v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion [1990] was a landmark case

Answer 21

The case arose when Marleasing, a Spanish company, challenged a decision by a Spanish court that refused to apply EU law (a Directive which Spain had not implemented) in a dispute between Marleasing and La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion (CIA), a Spanish company. Marleasing argued that the Spanish court was obligated to interpret Spanish law in a way that was consistent with EU law and that the Spanish law at issue conflicted with EU law.

The case was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling. The ECJ ruled that national courts are required to interpret national law in light of the wording and purpose of the relevant EU law, even if the national law predates the EU law. This is known as the principle of indirect effect.

The court stated that national courts must take into account not only the literal wording of EU law but also its spirit and purpose. The court further held that the principle of indirect effect requires national courts to interpret national law in a way that allows it to be applied consistently with EU law, even if this requires the national court to go beyond the literal wording of the national law.

The ruling in the Marleasing case established an important precedent regarding the interpretation of EU law by national courts. The ruling clarified that national courts must interpret national law in light of EU law and apply EU law consistently, even if this requires going beyond the literal wording of national law. The principle of indirect effect has since been applied in numerous cases, becoming a fundamental principle of EU law.

Question 22

Has Marleasing v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion [1990] introduced Horizontal Direct Effect?

Answer 22

Yes, but by indirect means

Question 23

List the 5 sources in EU legislation, their effect and their use in a claim

Answer 23

1) Treaty Articles, Horizontal and Vertical Effect, Directly Applicable - Individuals can base claims on the provisions
2) Regulations, Horizontal and Vertical Effect, Directly Applicable - Individuals can base claims on the provisions
3) Directives, Vertical Direct Effect only, Individuals can rely on the Directive, if the Member State fails to implement within a time limit
4) Decisions, Vertical Direct Effect on the addressee, Individuals can rely on the them in an action against the addressee
5) Recommendations and Opinions, Do not have Direct Effect, Have some effect on the interpretation of law by court