Doctrine of Supremacy of European Union: Challenges in its Development

This essay discusses the challenges faced in the development of the Doctrine of Supremacy of European Union, which states that EU law takes precedence over national law. It explores the relationship between the Court of Justice and national courts concerning Supremacy, and the challenges posed by the monist and dualist approach of member states. The essay concludes that the biggest challenge faced by the Doctrine of Supremacy is the member states' consideration of the supremacy of their constitutional law over EU law.

aL w 1
Law

aL w 2
Introduction:
Doctrine of supremacy of European Union was advanced by the European Court of Justice, and
as per this doctrine, whenever there is any dispute between the European law and law of member
states, then law of EU will always dominant. As stated by the European community law, if any
conflict arises in the nationwide law of member states and law developed by European Union
then European law will supersede1.
This paper mainly discuss the statement “principle of Supremacy is firmly established in the
(now) EU legal order, it was a novel concept and has faced challenges in its development”. This
essay demonstrates the knowledge related to the application of the constitutional law of EU
which also includes the association between the Court of Justice and national courts concerning
Supremacy. At the end, brief conclusion is stated which concludes the important facts of this
essay.
Discussion:
While making and declaring the public law, The European Court of Justice (ECJ) shows very
important part. There are number of important doctrines established by EC law which are not
stated under the treaties or in any secondary legislation, but they are established by different case
laws decided by the European Courts2.
No regulations are defined under the Treaty on European Union (TEU) which defines the direct
provision in context of resolving the problem of the supremacy between the civic and the
different nationwide laws of the member states. Article 10 of TEU is the only provision which
addresses the issue related to the supremacy, and make member states obliged to accept the
relevant provisions in context of ensuring that the responsibilities of the treaty are pragmatic
together accompanied with extra obligations to restrict from all the acts which can raise any
conflict in the achievement of the objectives stated by treaty. It is clear that, doctrine of
supremacy states that EU labour law takes precedence over the domestic labour law.
The formation of the new lawful order of the EU law and its supremacy clearly reflects that EU
institutions can form the rules which directly influence the service and industrial relations, even
though these rules are opposed by some member states, but maximum member states votes in
favour of the rules. After the adaptation, these rules must be enforced by the member states in
their national courts, even though these rules override the provisions stated under the domestic
law of the member states. It must be noted that, national constitutional courts have also accepted
1 r e ro pB ug s g u , la a premac o er national la and attempt at re orm ill ne er cceedWhy EU w h s su y v w why s f w v su
(2016), < ttp r e ro p com ima e paper e la premeo ernationalla pdh s://www.b ug sg u . / g s/ s/ u wsu v w. f acce ed on>, ss 25th
may 2018.
2 A anISI Zh g, premac o a A omparati e Anal iSu y f EU L w: C v ys s (2014), < ttp nic ola nicoletti comh :// h s . /EU
on erence Paper mi ion an Ai i premac o a pd%20C f / %20Sub ss s/Zh g,%20 s %20-%20Su y%20 f%20EU%20L w. f acce ed on>, ss
25th may 2018.

aL w 3
the values related to the supremacy of the EU law. At the similar time, these principles imagined
the boundary to the fundamental principles of the national constitution of the each member state3.
The first and most important case in which statement of the components of the EU law was made
by the Court was the case of Van Gend en Loos v. Netherlands (1963) Case 26/62 (1963) ECR
1, (1963) CMLR 1054. This case mainly deals with the principles of the straight result of the EC
Treaty provisions and the grade to which individual can depend on these terms in context of
challenge the provisions of the national law. In this case, it was clearly stated by the ECJ that
new legal order in international law was framed by the community for whose benefits the
independent rights of the states have been limited. Court further stated that, new legal process
was required by the new legal order in context of defensive the new legal advantage created by
the new legal order.
Doctrine of supremacy of the EU law had no formal ground in the European Community Treaty,
but the provisions of this doctrine is developed by the ECJ in context of its perception related to
the new legal order. Even in case important concept of the judgment deals with the concept of
the direct applicability and also the direct impact, but still it is meaningful to refer it as the new
legal order. ECJ stated that the EU was not only the normal international law authority, but this
authority holds the more independent status and also the great impact on the national law of the
member states.
In case law Costa v ENEL Case 6/64 (1964) ECR 585; (1964) CMLR 4255, the ECJ insistently
frame the doctrine related to the supremacy in EU law over the national law of the member
states. It must be noted that, there were almost two important assumptions in terms of the
association between the community law and national law in this case. Sovereign rights were
transferred by the member states to the community, and it was not possible to reverse this
process through the subsequent unilateral measures which were not suited to the concept of the
community. In other words, it can be said that independence of the member states to take action
as they wish has been restricted by the validity of their membership.
In case law Simmenthal SPA (1978) Case 106/77 (1978) ECR 629; (1978) 3 CMLR 2636, ECJ
stated that the supremacy of the European Union law affects the present as well as future laws. In
this case, Simmenthal was ordered to pay the fees for public health inspection while importing
some beef from France to Italy. Regulation was stated under the Italian law passed in 1970, and
at that time it was contrary to the European Community Treaty and two Community regulations
passed in 1968 respectively. In this case, two significant facts were introduced by the Italian
authorities at the time when case initiates. First observation states that, law of Italy must prevail
because it was approved after the two EU regulations. Second Italian law must be implemented
by the Italian courts until it had been professed unconstitutional by the constitutional court of
3 o nd premac o laEUROf u , Su y f EU w (4th May 2011), <
ttp e ro o nd e ropa e o er atorie e r or ind trial relation dictionar premac o e lah s://www. u f u . u . u/ bs v s/ u w k/ us - s- y/su y- f- u- w >,
acce ed onss 25th May 2018.
4 an end en oo et erland a e MV G L s v. N h s (1963) C s 26/62 (1963) ECR 1, (1963) C LR 105.
5 o ta a e MC s v ENEL C s 6/64 (1964) ECR 585; (1964) C LR 425.
6 imment al PA a e MS h S (1978) C s 106/77 (1978) ECR 629; (1978) 3 C LR 263.

aL w 4
Italy, even though it had been conflicted with the treaty obligations imposed on the Italy. ECJ in
this case stated that, national courts must comply with the community provisions and does not
implement any provision of the national law which fights with the EU law, even though such
provision practiced in the member state o continuous basis.
Obligation of member states to avoid the national law provisions which conflicted with the
community law more clearly sated under the Factortame litigation (No 2) Case C213/89 (1990)
ECR 2433; (1990)3 CMLR 8677. In this case, ECJ deals with the dispute which rise between the
regulations of the European Community Treaty which mainly restricts the discrimination on the
base of the nationality and domestic law of UK states that any fishing boats which were recorded
in the UK and which were fishing to the estimates allotted to the UK by the EC must be retained
and achieved by the citizens of UK only. It was stated that parts of the Merchant Shipping Act
1988 were not compatible with the applicable regulations of the European Community Treaty.
Inn this court stated that any provision of the law passed in the UK must be understood with
European law in mind.
There are number of states such as Belgium which complied with the understood with applicable
European law in mind in comparatively easy manner. However, some other states such as UK,
France, and Italy create issues in the acceptance and development of this doctrine. As they accept
this supremacy in slowly manner and after the lengthy process. All these things impose
challenges in context of development of the supremacy8.
This can be understood through the example of the UK. After the acceptance of the fact in
context of community supremacy in the UK, approach adopted by the judges creates conflict
between the European Community law and Parliamentary legislation in some specific manner.
They are pr oviding the considerable guidance in context of the European Community Act
19729. This Act was passed by the parliament for the purpose of establishing the law in terms of
Britain Membership in the community. Section 2(4) of this Act states that any law which is
passed or to be passed shall be interpreted and take effect in context of the preceding terms of
this section, such as those terms which enforce the community law in direct manner in the UK.
Judges of the UK further believed that absence of the written constitution which recognizes the
sovereignty of the people in UK and also the constitution sovereignty is occupied by the doctrine
of parliament supremacy. Provisions of the parliament supremacy stated that there is no more or
less than this. In other words, under the English constitution, parliament is defined as the body
which holds the right to make or remove any law. Further constitution stated that nobody or
authority holds the power to override the legislation framed by the parliament of UK.
This example of UK clearly stated that, member states consider the supremacy of their
constitutional law instead of the law framed by European community, and this is considered as
biggest challenge in the development of the doctrine of supremacy10.
7 actortame liti ation o a e MF g (N 2) C s C213/89 (1990) ECR 2433; (1990)3 C LR 867.
8 Martin tiern tormS s , T e elation ip et een omm nit a and ational a cto er eanh R sh B w C u y L w N L w (O b 2005), J
Monnet o ert c man Paper erie ol me/R b S hu S s V u 5(33).
9 ropean omm nit Act ectionEu C u y 1972- S 2
10 canan o nC sku , T e principle o premac o la t e impact o t e enlar ement and t e con tit tionalh f su y f EC w: h f h g h s u
treaty, (2006), ttp openacce il i ed tr ml i it tream andle T e Principle oh :// ss.b g . u. :8080/x u /b s /h /11411/194/ h %20 %20 f

aL w 5
It must be noted that, way through which community law is considers as the sui generis is
depend on the fact whether the member state adopts the approach of the monist or dualist in
terms of the international law. Monism is considers as the approach when both national and
community law form the single conceptual structure in whole or in part, and in which precedence
is taken by the international law. On the other hand, dualism is the approach which deals with the
system of international law and the national law in separate manner. There are number of
member states in which domestic law is enacted by the parliament for the purpose of entering the
international law into the national law. For example, this view is adopted by the UK and they
remain firm with the doctrine of the parliament sovereignty. Dualist approach adopted by the UK
in context of the international law reflects that international treaties ratified by the UK do not
become part of the domestic law of the UK. If UK wants to enforce these laws at the national
level, then they must be incorporated by the Act of parliament. After considering the facts, it is
clear that doctrine of parliament sovereignty makes difficult for the community law to precede
the national law. As it creates hurdle in the development and adaptability of the community law
over the national law.
Therefore, it can be said that there are number of challenges in context of the implementation
and development of the doctrine of supremacy as the new legal order, and the biggest challenge
faced by them is the monism and dualist approach of the member states.
Conclusion:
After considering the facts of this case, it is clear that ECJ as the treaty guardian established the
principle of the supremacy, and also reaffirmed the EC law development. This doctrine of
supremacy is included in the basic concepts of the TEU, but still its implementation and
development face number of challenges. The basic requirement in context of development of this
law requires the acknowledgement of supremacy by the member states. Member states consider
the supremacy of their constitutional law instead of the law framed by European community, and
this is considered as biggest challenge in the development of the doctrine of supremacy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Websites
Bruges group, Why EU law has supremacy over national law and why attempts at reform will
never succeed (2016), <
premac o a T e mpact o t e nlar ement and t e%20Su y%20 f%20EC%20L w%20 h %20I %20 f%20 h %20E g %20 %20 h
on tit tional Treat pd e ence i Allo ed%20C s u %20 y. f?s qu =1& s w =y acce ed on, ss 25th lJu y 2018.

aL w 6
https://www.brugesgroup.com/images/papers/eulawsupremeovernationallaw.pdf>, accessed on
25th may 2018.
AISI Zhang, Supremacy of EU Law: A Comparative Analysis (2014), <
http://nicholasnicoletti.com/EU%20Conference/Paper%20Submissions/Zhang,%20Aisi%20-
%20Supremacy%20of%20EU%20Law.pdf>, accessed on 25th may 2018.
EUROfound, Supremacy of EU law (4th May 2011), <
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/industrial-relations-dictionary/
supremacy-of-eu-law>, accessed on 25th May 2018.
Canan Coskun, The principle of supremacy of EC law: the impact of the enlargement and the
constitutional treaty, (2006),
http://openaccess.bilgi.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11411/194/The%20Principle%20of
%20Supremacy%20of%20EC%20Law%20The%20Impact%20of%20the%20Enlargement
%20and%20the%20Constitutional%20Treaty.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, accessed on 25th
July 2018.
Case Laws
Van Gend en Loos v. Netherlands (1963) Case 26/62 (1963) ECR 1, (1963) CMLR 105.
Costa v ENEL Case 6/64 (1964) ECR 585; (1964) CMLR 425.
Simmenthal SPA (1978) Case 106/77 (1978) ECR 629; (1978) 3 CMLR 263.
Factortame litigation (No 2) Case C213/89 (1990) ECR 2433; (1990)3 CMLR 867.
Journals
Martin Stiernstorm, The Relationship Between Community Law and National Law (October
2005), Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Volume 5(33).
Statute
European Community Act 1972- Section 2