Direct Effect And Limitation Of European Union Law

1405 Words 6 Pages
In this essay I will be examining the principle of direct effect and supremacy. I will be discussing how they were created and their development also the relationship between the two. I will start off by defining them first, then stating how they were created and developed and lastly discussing their relationship.
Direct effect is the principle that Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights on individuals which the courts of member states of the European Union are bound to recognise and enforce.
While the supremacy is an European Union law principle of when there is conflict between European law and domestic law of member states, European law prevails; the norms of national law have to be set aside.
The supremacy of EU law arose
…show more content…
The conflict in Costa v Enel had a more difficult problem for the Italian courts raising the issue of implied repeal. The CJ affirmed the supremacy of EU law. It was citied in Van gend en Loos that the member states had limited their sovereignty right. The article 288 clearly shows that there was a transfer of powers to the union institutions. After the case of Costa the supremacy of EU law was established, and applied from then on even though some member states felt threatened by the supremacy nonetheless is was established. However, the treaty of Lisbon incorporated the supremacy of EU law, the declaration 17 attached further clarified the supremacy of EU law, this was a significant step. Yet there are limitations to the supremacy of EU law because declarations are not binding to member states. The development of Supremacy of EU law has happened through member states working in accordance to EU law by bending and adapting their constitution to work with EU law. The Italian constitutional courts seen to accept supremacy in the case of Frontini . The British accepted the supremacy in factortame .these two examples show the development of supremacy throughout years as member …show more content…
On the contrary there are some exceptions to which directives can have direct effect. The case of Van Duyn v Home office the direct effect of a directive was established beyond doubt. CJ held that Mrs Van Duyn was entitled to invoke the directive directly before her national court. It suggested that even if the provision in question was not clear, the matter could be referred to CJ for interpretation under article 267 TFEU. This basically means that directives and decisions may have direct effect depending on the criteria of direct effect. The case of Grad although the directive was not unconditional in that it required action to be taken by state, and gave time limit for implementation, once that limit expired the obligation became

Related Documents