Primacy of European Union law
The primacy of European Union law is an EU law principle that when there is conflict between European law and the law of its member states, European law prevails, and the norms of national law are set aside. The principle was developed by the European Court of Justice, which interpreted that norms of European law take precedence over any norms of national law, including the constitutions of member states. Although national courts generally accept the principle in practice, most of them disagree with that extreme interpretation and reserve, in principle, the right to review the constitutionality of European law under national constitutional law.
For the European Court of Justice, national courts and public officials must disapply a national norm that is believed not to be compliant with the EU law. Disapplying is different by the European Parliament's legislation in that it concerns to a specific case, and legislation is universal and equivalent for all people. However, disapplication of the national law in a judicial case or administrative procedure can create a legal precedent that is repeated over the time by the same or other courts and so becomes part of the national jurisprudence. The United Kingdom claimed that statement to be contrary to the fundamental principle of the separation of powers into the national jurisdictions since it provides to unelected courts or other nonjurisdictional charges the power to ignore the role of Parliament with a de facto immunity from law enforcement.
Some countries provide that if national and EU law contradict, courts and public officials are required to suspend the application of the national law, ask to the national constitutional court and wait until its decision is taken. If the norm has been declared to be constitutional, they are automatically obliged to apply the national law. That fact can theorically create a contradiction between the national constitutional court and the European Court of Justice. It can also originate from a contradiction between two primary sources in the hierarchy of the sources of law: the national constitutions and European law.
Development
In Costa v. ENEL. Mr Costa was an Italian citizen opposed to the nationalising of energy companies. Because he had shares in a private corporation subsumed by the nationalised company, ENEL, he refused to pay his electricity bill in protest. In the subsequent suit brought to Italian courts by ENEL, he argued that nationalisation infringed EC law on the state distorting the market. The Italian government believed that not to be an issue that even could be complained about by a private individual since it was a decision to make by a national law. The ECJ ruled in favour of the government because the relevant treaty rule on an undistorted market was one on which the Commission alone could challenge the Italian government. As an individual, Mr Costa had no standing to challenge the decision, because that treaty provision had no direct effect. But on the logically prior issue of Mr Costa's ability to raise a point of EC law against a national government in legal proceeding before the courts in that member state the ECJ disagreed with the Italian government. It ruled that EC law would not be effective if Mr Costa could not challenge national law on the basis of its alleged incompatibility with EC law.It follows from all these observations that the law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, could not, because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed, without being deprived of its character as community law and without the legal basis of the community itself being called into question.
In other cases, countries write the precedence of EU law into their constitutions. For example, the Constitution of Ireland contains this clause: "No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities".
- C-106/77, Simmenthal ECR 629, duty to set aside provisions of national law that are incompatible with Union law.
- C-106/89 Marleasing ECR I-7321, national law must be interpreted and applied, if possible, to avoid a conflict with a Community rule.
Particular countries
Depending on the constitutional tradition of member states, different solutions have been developed to adapt questions of incompatibility between national law and EU law to one another. EU law is accepted as having supremacy over the law of member states, but not all member states share the ECJ's analysis on why EU law takes precedence over national law if there is a conflict.Belgium
In its ruling of 22 May 1971, nicknamed "het Smeerkaasarrest", the Belgian Court of Cassation ruled that self-executing treaties prevail over national law, including the Belgian constitution. Thus, EU regulations prevail over national law. EU directives do not prevail unless they are converted to national law.Czech Republic
Article 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic states that every international treaty ratified by the Parliament of the Czech Republic is part of the Czech legislative order and takes precedence over all other laws.France
Like many other countries within the civil law legal tradition, France's judicial system is divided between ordinary and administrative courts. The ordinary courts accepted the supremacy of EU law in 1975, but the administrative courts accepted the doctrine only in 1990. The supreme administrative court, the Conseil d'Etat, had held that as the administrative courts had no power of judicial review over legislation enacted by the French Parliament, they could not find that national legislation was incompatible with European law or give it precedence over a conflicting national law. That was in contrast to the supreme ordinary court, the Cour de cassation; in the case of Administration des Douanes v Société 'Cafes Jacques Vabre' et SARL Wiegel et Cie, it ruled that precedence should be given to European law over national law in line with the requirements of the Article 55 of the French Constitution, which accorded supremacy to ratified international treaty over national law. The administrative courts finally changed their position in the case of Raoul Georges Nicolo by deciding to follow the reasoning used by the Cour de cassation. However, both ordinary courts and administrative courts still reject the primacy of EU law over the French constitution.Germany
In Solange II, the German Constitutional Court held that so long as EU law had a level of protection of fundamental rights that is substantially in concurrence with the protections afforded by the German constitution, it would no longer review specific EU acts in light of that constitution.Ireland
The Third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland explicitly provided for the supremacy of EU law in the Republic of Ireland by providing that no other provision of the Irish constitution could invalidate laws enacted if they were necessitated by membership of the European Communities. In Crotty v. An Taoiseach, the Irish Supreme Court held that the ratification of the Single European Act by the Republic of Ireland was not necessitated by membership of the European Communities and so could be subject to review by the courts.Italy
In Frontini v. Ministero delle Finanze, the plaintiff sought to have a national law disregarded without having to wait for the Italian Constitutional Court do so. The ECJ ruled that every national court must apply European law in its entirety.Lithuania
The Lithuanian Constitutional Court concluded on 14 March 2006 in case no. 17/02-24/02-06/03-22/04, § 9.4 in Chapter III, that EU law has supremacy over ordinary legal acts of the Lithuanian Parliament but not over the Lithuanian constitution. If the Constitutional Court finds EU law to be contrary to the constitution, the former law loses its direct effect and shall remain inapplicable.Malta
Article 65 of the Maltese constitution provides that all laws made by Parliament must be consistent with EU law and Malta's obligations deriving from its Treaty of Accession.Poland
The Constitutional Tribunal of Poland ruled that while EU law may override national statutes, it does not override the Polish constitution. In a conflict between EU law and the constitution, Poland can make a sovereign decision as to how this conflict should be resolved.Former Members
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom was a member state of the European Union and its predecessor the European Communities from 1 January 1973 until 31 January 2020. During this time the issue of EU law taking precedence over national law was a significant issue and a cause for debate both among politicians and even in the judiciary.In R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd, the House of Lords ruled that courts in the United Kingdom had the power to "disapply" acts of parliament if they conflicted with EU law. Lord Bridge held that Parliament had voluntarily accepted this limitation of its sovereignty and was fully aware that even if the limitation of sovereignty was not inherent in the Treaty of Rome, it had been well established by jurisprudence before Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1972.
In 2011 the UK Government, as part of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement following the 2010 UK general election, passed the European Union Act 2011 in a attempt to address the issue by inserting a sovereignty clause. The clause was enacted in section 18 which says:
However, in the 2014 case of R v Secretary of State for Transport, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom said:
At 23:00 GMT on 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom became the first member state to formally leave the European Union after 47 years of membership under the terms of the Brexit withdrawal agreement. At the same time, the European Communities Act 1972, the piece of legislation that incorporated EU law into the domestic law of the United Kingdom, was repealed by the European Union Act 2018, although the effect of the 1972 Act was saved by the provisions of the European Union Act 2020 to enable EU law to continue to have legal effect within the UK until the end of the implementation period, which is expected to be 31 December 2020.