Supremacy (European Union law)

Supremacy (European Union law)
Name	Supremacy
Type	Principle of European Union law
Legal status	Fundamental doctrine

Supremacy (European Union law). The principle of supremacy, or primacy, is a foundational doctrine of European Union law establishing that valid EU law takes precedence over conflicting national law of member states. Developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union through its jurisprudence, it ensures the uniform application and effectiveness of the European Union's legal order across all member states. This principle is central to the Union's constitutional architecture, directly impacting the legal systems of countries like France, Germany, and Italy.

Origins and development

The doctrine was not explicitly stated in the original founding treaties but was established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the landmark 1964 case Costa v ENEL. In this ruling, the Court asserted that European Economic Community law created an independent legal order integrated into the legal systems of member states, which national courts were bound to apply. This reasoning was further solidified in subsequent judgments like Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel. The principle was later acknowledged in political declarations, such as the 1970 European Council communiqué and the failed Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.

Legal basis and justification

The legal justification stems from the autonomous nature of the European Union legal order, as articulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court derives supremacy from the spirit and objectives of the treaties, particularly the need for uniform application and effectiveness, essential for the functioning of the Single European Market. While the Treaty of Lisbon did not codify the principle in the treaty articles, Declaration 17 annexed to the treaties references the consistent case-law of the Court and the opinions of the Council Legal Service. This underscores that the doctrine is a judicial creation deemed necessary for the attainment of the Union's objectives, such as those outlined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Relationship with national constitutional law

The relationship between EU supremacy and national constitutional law has been a source of ongoing dialogue, often termed a "constitutional dialogue," between the Court of Justice of the European Union and national constitutional courts. Courts like the Bundesverfassungsgericht in Germany and the Italian Constitutional Court have conditionally accepted supremacy but assert ultimate authority to review EU acts for compliance with fundamental national constitutional principles, as seen in rulings like Solange I and Frontini v. Ministero delle Finanze. Similarly, the Danish Supreme Court in the Maastricht judgment and the Polish Constitutional Tribunal in recent rulings have asserted national constitutional review.

Key case law

The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union is pivotal. The foundational case is Costa v ENEL. The 1970 case Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel confirmed supremacy even over fundamental national constitutional rights. The 1978 case Simmenthal SpA v Commission established that national courts must disregard any conflicting national law without awaiting its repeal. The 1991 Francovich v Italy judgment further reinforced the effectiveness of EU law by establishing member state liability for breaches. Landmark national court decisions contributing to this dialogue include the German Bundesverfassungsgericht's Solange II and Lisbon Treaty rulings.

Practical implications and application

In practice, supremacy requires national courts and administrations to directly apply valid EU regulations and directives (where sufficiently clear) and to set aside conflicting national legislation, whether enacted before or after the EU act. This ensures the uniform implementation of policies across the Single European Market, from competition rules to environmental standards. It empowers entities like the European Commission to launch infringement proceedings against member states before the Court of Justice of the European Union for failures to comply, as seen in cases against Poland and Hungary concerning the rule of law.

Current debates and challenges

Contemporary debates focus on the limits of supremacy, particularly regarding the protection of fundamental rights and national constitutional identities referenced in Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union. Tensions have arisen from rulings by the Bundesverfassungsgericht on the European Central Bank's PSPP program and assertive stances by the Polish Constitutional Tribunal and the Hungarian Constitutional Court challenging the primacy of EU law in specific areas. The ongoing conflict between the Court of Justice of the European Union and these national courts over the independence of the judiciary and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union represents a significant constitutional challenge for the Union's legal order.

Category:European Union law Category:Legal doctrines