Supermacy of EU Law

Ans. When the first European Community was established in 1957, it was
agreed that the Union would take over some policy domains rather than the
Member States. As a result, some member states' power over specific legal
issues has been reduced. As a result, domestic legislation clashed with EU
regulations. Nonetheless, for the European Union to achieve its goals, these
issues needed to be settled quickly and with little opportunity for
interpretation. However, this problem raised constitutional concerns in each
member state to varied degrees. The Treaties, which form the basis of EU
law, do not specify any specific goals for the connection between EU and
state law. The Court of Justice of the European Union has determined that EU
law is supreme since it is fundamental to EU law. The relevant member
nations' constitutional laws, in accordance with international law, will
determine how to address this issue. The mechanism will specifically
establish how international law is incorporated into a member state's
domestic legislation. The monist and dualist schools of thought are the two
most frequent approaches to incorporating international law into domestic
legal systems. All laws are regarded equally in countries that value legal
principles, such as France. National courts have the authority to enforce
international agreements as long as the proper constitutional processes are
followed. When countries disagree with their own laws, they generally
recognize the Treaty provisions as paramount. However, in dualist
governments such as the United Kingdom, domestic courts can only enact
laws that are closely related to domestic law, and international treaties
cannot be instantly applied by national courts. As a result, the Ec Treaty must
be clearly written into domestic legislation. The European Communities Act
of 1972, specifically the measures listed in Sections 2 and 3, enabled its
implementation in the United Kingdom. The priority issue will not be
automatically resolved, regardless of the form of incorporation used by the
member state. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) considers it
a top priority to ensure that all member states consistently apply EU
legislation. The purpose is to prevent various persons from bringing the law
down on the Union. Given this, it is not surprise that the Court would develop
its own constitutional norms to ensure that EU law prevails over national law
in any disagreement between the two. In the Van Gend en Loos case, the
CJEU first delved in this field. The issue here was a preliminary referral from
Dutch courts under Article 288 of the TFEU. Its objective was to determine
the timeliness of the application of Article 30 of the TFEU. 'The Community
constitutes a novel legal framework under international law, in which States
have willingly abandoned certain aspects of their sovereign powers, but only
in particular areas.' The Court utilized this occasion to make its case. The
Italian court had a specific question about the relative weight of EU and
national law, and the CJEU provided additional explanation in Costa v. Enel.
Because their sovereign rights have been explicitly limited as a result of the
transfer of sovereignty articulated in Van Gend, any future unilateral rule
that violates the Union's goals will be ineffective. This is why the member
countries of what is now the European Union (EU) have banded together to
develop a set of rules that apply to everyone, not just their own population.
In the matter of Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH, the Court resolved
a conflict between an EU rule and sections of the German Constitution that
safeguard fundamental rights. In Germany's legal system, the Constitution
took precedence above statutes. Because of the country's mitigated dualist
legal system, the EU Treaty has to be incorporated into it. A statute was
passed to accomplish this. As a result, the company argued that the law
should be overturned since the Constitution did not allow EU legislation to
replace it. Which instrument, the Constitution or the regulation, should have
more weight? The Court took a firm stance, emphasizing that domestic laws
cannot challenge the validity of an EU statute. The German Constitutional
Court expressed concern about the lack of effective protection for basic
human rights within the Community. It declared that the German
Constitution's protection of fundamental rights would take precedence until
this issue was settled. This does not imply that they would rule on whether or
not a Union Act is legitimate; rather, they would conclude that Germany is
not the appropriate place to implement that policy. Neither this lawsuit, nor
any subsequent ones in Germany, involved the Internationale. However, in
some circumstances, it indicates a possible disagreement. A similar outcome
occurred in the Frontini case, but this time it involved the safeguarding of
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Italian Constitution. The CJEU's
aggressive stance was condemned by the constitutional courts of Italy and
Germany. The fundamental distinction is that, following the precedent
established in the Fragd case in 1990, the Italian Constitutional Court has
repeated the potential of deciding that a Union measure is inapplicable
outside of Italy.

The European Court has declared that all laws of the European Union (EU),
including those in the Treaties, EU Acts, and any agreements concluded with
non-EU nations, would always take precedence over future EU laws. What is
the reason for this conduct if the Treaty contains no such provision? The
Court's pragmatic and pro-Union stance is consistent with the Treaty's
objectives, general aims, and spirit. It believes that, in order to join the
Union, Member States must do everything necessary to conform with EU law.
According to Article 288 TFEU, the original Community's institutions have the
ability to create law that is universally applicable to all Member States.
Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union declares
that regulations have "binding force" and are immediately applicable in all
Member States. This clearly demonstrates that the Court places a great
weight on the legislative provisions granted to the Community (now the
Union). If a state can unilaterally nullify the consequences of EU law by its
domestic laws, the Union's legislation becomes completely useless. The
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) frequently cites Article 4(3) of
the Treaty on European Union (TEU) to emphasize that Member States must
carry out Union regulations in such a way that they are applied uniformly
throughout Europe. Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) says
that Member says must not undertake anything that jeopardizes the Treaty's
objectives. According to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU), the Commission has the competence to take
enforcement action when Member States fail to fulfill their obligations. The
Union could not continue if member states could act unilaterally and ignore
their commitments. It is important that all Member States consistently apply
EU law if the Union is to achieve its objectives. This is only feasible if all
states recognize the supremacy of EU law. Actually, the principle of acquit
communautaire specifies that all countries wanting to join the Union must
accept the Community's laws as well as the Union's own, including its
Treaties. Last but not least, a case provides direction to national judges in
situations where EU legislation clashes with domestic law. In the Simmenthal
case, Italian veterinary and public health rules contradicted a Council order
aimed at organizing the meat and vegetable markets. Any Italian statute that
contradicts EU regulations may be deemed unconstitutional under Italian law.
It should be stressed, however, that only the Constitutional Court, not the
normal courts, has the authority to make this ruling. Is it fair for an Italian
first instance court to disregard national laws that conflict with one another
until the Constitutional Court repeals or declares the laws unlawful?
According to the recommendations provided in response to the Art 288 TFEU
reference, a national court must completely apply Union legislation, even if it
contradicts a provision of national law; additionally, the situation does not
require resolution by a higher court. The precedent established by the
Factortame case in the House of Lords, which recognized that immediate and
effective Union law must overrule any subsequent domestic legislation that
clashes with it, applies here as well. As a result, any conflicting national
legislation will not be implemented. This is because consistent application of
EU law across the EU is impossible unless it is immediately prioritized over
competing state laws upon its effective date. Despite their differing
constitutional traditions and norms, the Member States' courts have quickly
adopted the concept of EU law supremacy. The weight that the CJEU's
decisions and those of member state courts have borne has played a role in
this. They agree that the Treaties are the sole source of Union law. It would
be unwise to dispute it in court using any home laws, no matter how
ambiguous, because doing so would undermine the EU's legitimacy and,
more significantly, its status as EU law. The Treaties make EU legislation
authoritative rather than relying on national constitutions. Because of its
unique and distinguishing characteristics, EU law must be regarded as
superior to national law. As Lord Bridge stated in the House of Lords' finding
in the Factortame (No 2) case: "If the European Community's authority over
the national laws of its member states was not always inherent in the EC
Treaty, it was certainly firmly established in the legal decisions of the Court
of Justice." This is how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
perceived it. The House of Lords' decision was upheld in R v Secretary of
State for Employment ex p EOC. Judicial review proceedings in UK courts
allow for the declaration of an Act of Parliament as incompatible with EU
legislation.

THE END.SD