The United Kingdom was a Member State of the European Union and its predecessor, the European Communities, from 1 January 1973 to 31 January 2020. During this period, the question of the primacy of EU law over national law has been an important topic and a source of debate among both politicians and judges. [ref. needed] In other cases, state legislators enshrine the primacy of EU law in their constitutions. For example, the Irish Constitution contains this clause: “Nothing in this Constitution shall invalidate any law, act or measure promulgated by the State which is required by virtue of the obligations arising from membership of the European Union or the Communities.” The two circles depicted here can be seen from above, but seen from the side, they can take the form of a pyramid. The decisive factor is the extent of the scope of the EU and Member State subsystems. In some areas they are independent, but in others the overlap is obvious. This “common area” may be regulated by specially agreed rules on legal superiority. It should be remembered that the hierarchy of one centre does not guarantee similar powers within another. In addition to simply shifting the priorities of legal education in Europe, the concept of state sovereignty should be taken seriously and deeply questioned as a key concept. Of course, some will say that talking about “sovereignty” as a clear ideal is the result of a misunderstanding. Even if this is the case, it is worth examining a concept that has remained important to so many legal entities.
In any case, the closer we look at sovereignty, the clearer the boundaries of the term become. Neglect in the approach to this concept has led to the forgetting of alternative and potentially innovative conceptions in the legal debate. Gustav Radbruch said that sovereignty is nothing more than a subject of international law. In this sense, the EU seems sovereign. The principle of “primacy” is the cornerstone of EU law, just as the primacy of a constitution was the pillar of constitutionalism. In numerous judgments, the CJEU has confirmed that EU law takes precedence over national law in terms of enforcement and that Member States cannot override or repeal EU rules. In cases where national standards are incompatible with Union law, Member States should not apply conflicting provisions. Poland`s Constitutional Court has ruled that EU law can take precedence over member states` laws, but not over the Polish constitution. In the event of a conflict between EU law and the Constitution, Poland can decide sovereignly how the conflict is to be resolved (by amending the Constitution, leaving the EU or attempting to amend EU law). [21] The principle of primacy therefore aims to ensure that individuals are uniformly protected by EU law in all regions of the EU.
It should be noted that the EU`s rule of law only applies when member states have ceded their sovereignty to the EU – in areas such as the internal market, environment, transport, etc. However, it does not apply in areas such as education, culture or tourism. Arguably, this view does not add much to the debate, as it does not challenge the concept of hierarchy. It can be said that EU membership means that the rules of the organisation are incorporated into the national hierarchy. This reasoning proved crucial to the UK Supreme Court`s decision in the memorable “Brexit case” (R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exit the European Union 2017). If the Council does not accept these amendments, a Conciliation Committee composed of an equal number of Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the Council shall be set up. This committee is trying to agree on a text. If successful, the proposal will be referred back to Parliament and the Councils for a third reading. The primacy of European Union law (sometimes called the primacy or primacy of European law[1]) is a legal principle that establishes the primacy of European Union law over conflicting national laws of EU Member States. This principle stems from an interpretation by the European Court of Justice, which has ruled that European law takes precedence over any breach of national law, including the constitution of a Member State itself.
[2] [3] [4] The majority of national courts have generally recognised and accepted this principle, with the exception of the part where EU law takes precedence over the constitution of a Member State. Consequently, national constitutional courts have also reserved the right to review the compatibility of EU law with national constitutional law. [5] In an important 1964 judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that Member States had agreed to limit their sovereign rights in areas covered by the EU Treaties and could not adopt national laws incompatible with EU law. This principle of the “primacy” of EU law means that conflicting national laws cannot be applied in the areas covered by the EU Treaties. However, the Court does not have the power to abolish national law – this is a task for national courts. Like many other countries with a civil legal tradition, the French judicial system is divided into ordinary courts and administrative courts. The ordinary courts accepted the primacy of EU law in 1975, but the administrative courts did not accept this doctrine until 1990. The highest administrative court, the Council of State, had ruled that, since the administrative courts were not competent to review the legislation adopted by the French Parliament, they could not find the incompatibility of national legislation with Union law or give it authority of primacy over contrary national legislation. This contrasted with the ordinary supreme court, the Court of Cassation; in the case Administration des Douanes/Société “Cafés Jacques Vabre” and SARL Wiegel et Cie[15], it held that EU law should prevail over national law, in accordance with the requirements of Article 55 of the French Constitution, which gives primacy to the ratified international treaty over national law. The administrative courts finally changed their position in the Raoul Georges Nicolo case[16] by deciding to follow the reasoning of the Court of Cassation.
At the same time, the proposal will also be forwarded to the Council of the European Union for its first reading. The Council adopts its position (the Council`s position) after Parliament`s position is known. At this stage, the Council may: The CJEU also ruled that Mr Costa should be able to challenge the Italian government before the Italian courts on a question of EU law. In this situation, European law should take precedence over national law. The principle of primacy (also known as `primacy` or `primacy`) of EU law is based on the idea that in the event of a conflict between an aspect of EU law and a legal aspect in a Member State of the EU (national law), EU law prevails. If this were not the case, Member States could simply prioritise their national legislation over EU primary or secondary legislation, and the continuation of EU policies would be impracticable. The principle of the primacy of EU law has evolved over time thanks to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is not enshrined in the EU treaties, although a brief explanation is attached to the Lisbon Treaty. In Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (Case 26/62), the Court held that laws adopted by the EU institutions are capable of creating legal rights which may be relied on by both natural and legal persons before the courts of the Member States. EU law therefore has direct effect. Read this article, Where does Brexit leave British law? by Professor Catherine Barnard for further analysis on the subject.
In those cases, the Court has stated that the primacy of EU law applies to all national acts, whether adopted before or after the EU act concerned. Where Union law takes precedence over conflicting national legislation, the national provisions shall not automatically be annulled or declared invalid. However, national authorities and courts must refuse to apply these provisions as long as Union police rules are in force. Depending on the constitutional traditions of the Member States, different solutions have been developed to resolve the problems of incompatibility between national and Union law. EU law is recognised as taking precedence over member state law, but not all member states share the CJEU`s analysis of why EU law takes precedence over national law in case of conflict. Subsequently, the Court of Justice clarified the scope of the principle of primacy in its case-law*. What happens when an EU norm and national constitutional law come into conflict? The CJEU says EU standards cannot be questioned and should be fully effective in all countries.